Who Was Jesus?Here are transcripts of a live conference with writer Jeff Sheler, hosted by U.S.News Online on CompuServe, December 19, 1993.
Moderator: Welcome to the US News & World Report conference with Jeff Sheler, Senior Writer at USN&WR, and an award-winning religion writer. Jeff is the author of last week's USN&WR cover story, "Who was Jesus?" He was also the story consultant on "The Life and Times of Jesus," which was produced by USN&WR Productions, and telecast in the last hour on The Learning Channel. My name is Vic Sussman. I'm a Senior Editor in USN&WR's Science and Society section. I'll be the moderator this evening. After Jeff makes some opening remarks, we will take audience questions--in the order in which they are submitted. Thank you for joining us this evening. A: (Sheler) Thanks, Vic. I want to add my welcome to you all. I look forward to your comments and here tonight, in fact. So let's get to it...uestions and I'm anxious to get to them. Beofre we begin, though, let me say jsut a couple of things about our magazine story and out TV series on The Life and Times of Jesus. Judging by the volume of questions and comments we've already received, it's clear that the question "Who was Jesus?" is one that continues to stir passionate debate. For some people it is an interesting academic question. For many others, it touches on a vital matter of personal faith. It should go without saying that our story was not intended to be a homily or a theological essay arguing either for or against the truth claims of Christianity. Nor was it an attempt to settle, once and for all, historical questions that have defied consensus for 2,000 years. Rather, it was intended as a journalistic report on the current state of academic inquiry into historical evidences regarding Jesus of Nazareth. We tried, and I think succeeded, to be balanced and fair in what we reported. Obviously, in amagazine piece of this length, we could only begin to scratch the surface on this subject. Much much more can be said... has been said... will continue to be said on this topic. That's why we are here tonight, in fact. Solet's get to it... Q: When groups such as the Jesus Symposium research the life of Jesus, do they include any of the information presented in the Book of Mo A: (Sheler) I didn't cath the end of your question, Q: What do theologians and historians predict will be the response if we do find the truth about Jesus? Will it have a profound effect? A: (Sheler) but assuming you were referring to the book of Mormon, and if you were referring specifically to the Jesus Seminar, the answer is that they do not consider the Book of Mormon in their studies. What would be the respose to finding the truth about Jesus? That seems to be a highly hypotethtical question, in that the likelihood that anything like a majority of scholars arriving at a consensus of having found that truth is extremely small...or so at least it seems to me. Q: Pursuit of the bible can be done on an academic, historic, or some other basis, but eventually one has to decide if it is the Inspired Word of God. Jeff, have you come to that point? A: (Sheler) I'm not sure that my personal theological views are pertinent to this discussion. I would prefer to reserve this dicussion to the historical pursuits described in the story and the TV program. Q: Regarding Jesus' miracles, I believe there is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that any of his other miracles, yet the US News article didn't mention it. Why was it not mentioned, and what has your research shown regarding this? A: (Sheler) My research, you understand, has been journalistic and not the kind of primary research which the scholars engage in. Hoever, I woudl agree with you that there has been much written by scholars of various th4eological persuasions that seems to point to a quantity and quality of eviodence that manyfind compelling. Yet, having said that, the question of the Resurrection remains a questions that has not been, and most theologians would say, cannot beproven by methods of historical research. For that reason, one does not find that question at theforfront of much current scholasrship. Obviously, it lies just beneath the surface of all of it, however. Q: Sir first of all I am gratified that even a professional journalist exhibits evidence of reliance on a spell checker... That being said how are Biblical scholars able to isolate themselves from the intense emotions surrounding the questions of Jesus as a historical figure? A: (Sheler) My spelling is okay. My fingers are dumb. Concerning the biblical scholars, frankly, there are many who cannot isolate themselves from such emotions. Many can and do, however. There are some thinly veiled theological agendas at work in a good share of biblical scholarship, andthis is true from many sides. However, there are also many many scholars who engage in their craft with the same detachment that other professionals employ in their work... lawyers spring to mind... I don't know why. Q: Did Jesus, during his ministry, speak as a Jew or did he , at some point, renounce his Jewish heritage? A: (Sheler) A tremendous amount of biblical scholarship in recent years has focused on the Jewishness of Jesus. There seems to be a strong sense that Jesus spoke as one who was born into a specific milieu...a Jewish one...and that he thought and spoke as a Jew. Whether and when he might have seen himself as having detahced himself from such roots is an interesting and provocative question. And I don't know the answer. Q: what do you think based on your journalistic research, about the claims in the "Holy blood and holy grail" that jesus staged his death? did you get this message? A: (Sheler) A fascinating theory. I dont' see much consensus lining up behind it, though. I'm inclined to think it's not very cre3dible. Q: As you report, many "scholars" doubt the reliability of the Gospels. As an implication of this, what value to the Gospels have as a spiritual guide if they are not reliable? A: (Sheler) To those who find the Gospels unreliable, I would venture to say it does not provide much value. There are many many scholars, however, who do not fit into that category. And even among those who do, some find valid spiritual guidance through the theological proclamation they see in the gospels, even if they don't see the gospels as historically valid. Q: Given the fact that scientifically, many things about
Jesus may never be proved.
What, specifically is known about the 'star' at Jesus
birth ?
A: (Sheler) There are numerous theories about the
star.
Some involve data regarding atronomical
events
such as comets or astrological
conjunctions.
Kepler (Rudolph?) had one
interesting theory that the Magi saw
an unsual conbjunction of Jupiter
Pisces and Saturn
ap[pearing in the sky during athe
approximate time
of Jesus' birth which wwould have been
interpreted by ancient astrologers
as signalling the co,ming of a king to
Palestine.
\But then there are still others who
think the entire star scenario is a
literary symbol drawing uipon
Old Testament motifs. Take your pick
Q: Did Jesus have brothers and sisters? If so
how many of each?
A: (Sheler) WEll, we could pull out our Bibles and
look it up. There are at least a couple of
passages that
mention brothers and sisters of Jesus.
But there
is also much dispute over whether these
were actually siblings or cousins, which
some scholars point out might have been
described with the same words that are
translated brothers and sisters. So,
your
guess is as good as mine.
Q: What did happen to Jesus after 12-29
year
of age, which many called his "silent
years."
A: (Sheler) Those years are called silent because
we have no historical texts, biblical or
otherwise,
which report credibly on details of
Jesus's
life during that period. There are some
writings from the gnostics of the 2nd
and
3rd centuries CE that purport to tell
stories
of Jesuss's childhood, complete with
miracles
such as turning clay birds into live
ones
and striking down playmates who vexed
him
These are fund to read. But are given
virtually
no credibility.
So, we don't know.
Q: I saw a recent discovery tape on the Dead Sea
Scrolls. The basic premise of the documentary was that the bible should be read
understandi
that it was written with parables (miracles,
etc.) and with political and historic fact. For example the strict jewish tribe
in
control at the time did not believe in
procreation other than to extend the sect. Those that procreated, did so in a
remote area
where after three years would finally marry.
During this time the woman
was considered a virgin. Joseph belonged to
this sect. Mary did as well.
Therefore Jesus was actually born of Joseph and
Mary. Gabriel and others were highly exalted members and referred to as
"angels"
Whatcha think?
did you get that?
A: (Sheler) This sounds much like Barbara Theiring's
book on Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. (I think that's the title.
I may
be confusing it.) At any rate, there has
been
nothing found in the scrolls to date, so
say the scroll,
scholars, that relates to Jesus in any
way.
I can't buy the theory you describe.
Q: In the writing of the Jewish man, an
historian of the first
century, Josephus in what he called "The
Antiquities of
Q: Dr. Sid Baxendale asks
is there any evidence of Jesus
having traveled to the Far East
during the period of his life
that is unaccounted for?
A: (Sheler) Not to my knowledge.
Q: what do we really know about Jesus other than
what we can infer from Q? Have you evaluated Thiering's work on its own merits?
A: (Sheler) The body of knowledge, such as it is,
regarding the historical Jesus that is
regarded as the best available to us
today
finds its source in the synoptic
gospels,
and by inference, to the Q source.
Theiring's work is largely viewed as
highly interpretive and based on some
very controversial assumptions about
the meaings of stories and words as
they appear insome scrolls documents.
I do not consider myself an expert on
Thiering's work, however. I defer on
this to other more qualified scholasrs
who find little in Theiring's work that
...with which they can agree.
Albert Schweitzer's work is still highly
regarded
for what it was: essentially a summary
of the
investigaivework that had gone on before
him.
He is credited for having analyzed and
synthesized
the material going back to Riemarus.
Some of his
final skepticism as to whether Jesus can
be known in history has been
subsequently
rebutted.... Even so, he remains one
of the key figures in the historical
quest.
Q: Is
it true that church leaders changed
the date of Christ's birth to make it
easier to convert Northern European
pagan worshippers? And is this also
true of Easter?
A: (Sheler) "Changed the date..." is not the way
I would describe it. It is my
understanding that the date of Jesus
birth
was not known to the earliest Christians
since the birth story was probably not a
part of the very earliest traditions. It
was
clear that Jesus was, in fact, born. And
eventually the church saw the importance
of
commemorating it. In choosing a date,
obvious
recognition was given to the pagan
celebration
Saturnalia. I'm not sure a cynical
interpreation
of this act is warranted.
Q: When were the gospels
included in theNew Testament assembled
as we know them today?
A: (Sheler) We don't know precisely when. However,
we know that early in the second
century, in
letters written by early church fathers,
reference
is made to the "memoirs of the apostles"
and
it is clear that these were being
circulated among the churchers at that
early date
as writings of sp[ecial significance.
Were
they viewed at that time, early second
century,
as holy scripture? Or,
moreinterestingly,
did the gospel writers know they were
writing
what would be considered holy scripture
by
the church in later years? The4se are
hotly debated questions even today.
Q: Major religions predict the arrival on the scene of a
new world teacher soon. Have you heard of one namend Maitreya?
A: (Sheler) Yes.
Q: Do you think that the "MAJI" could have been
composed of, or included jews that were in exile in babylon, or were sent by
the MAJI? Why else would they worship a jewish king?
A: (Sheler) That's an interesting question, and I
suppose
it is a possibility. I haven't heard of
it,
though. It is more likely that the Magi,
being
scholars of religions of the time, would
have known of the Jewish traditions and
scriptures and would have repsonded in
much
the same way students of world religions
might repsond to such an important event
today.
Q: Is it reasonable to say that without the horrible
violence
of the Romans and w/out the martyrdom of Jesus, Peter,
and
Paul - Christianity would've likely not spread and may
have bcome just a short lived cult? Also...
Isn't it cursious how similar the story of Jesus
is to Socrates.. A martyr, never left writings, had followers, etc.
How seriously can story etelling at the time be taked?
A: (Sheler) It's safe to say that without
the martyrdom of Jesus,
Christianity would not have gone
anywhere.
Jesus's teachings did not become
Christianity
until after his death Resurrection.
No one among his follwoers, according to
the gospels, at leqast, had any idea
that
they were doing anything other than
continuing, perhaps reforming, the
Judaism
that they were a part of.
Q: Your question to Scott Basham about the
resurrection says it cannot be proven brings this question... How can anyone be
a disciple of Jesus and doubt the
resurrection? Without the resurrection there is no Christian faith.
A: (Sheler) You make a good point.
What tends to divide people who
consider themselves Christians are
varying interpretations of the
Resurrection.
For many, if not most, the R3esurrection
entails the bodily reanimation of the
crucified
Christ. Others have faith in a more
petaphorical resurrection which is, for
them,
no less "real" than the traditional
view.
But you are right, as far as I am
concerned:
Without the Resurrection (in whatever
form)
there is no Christianity.
Q: Hello, Jeff, Vick, Petaphoric friends,
As a journalistic report,
why didn't you choose to quote
from some of the more
conservative theologians
from circles like Dallas,
(Dallas Theological)
or Moody Bible or from
people like Billy Graham,
or Josh McDowell?
Why just the liberals?
Do the others not have
credibility these days?
A: (Sheler) We relied quite heavily
on such consverative scholars
as Don A. Carson of Trinity Evenagelical
Divinity School and other highlky
regarded conservative scholars in Great
Britain who have done highly
regardedwork
in the biblical studies. The last I
heard, Billy Graham has not been
involved
in such historical invesitgation. And
Josh
McDowell, while a good wirter and
Christian
apologist, also has not engeged in
first-hand
historical research.
Q: Could you comment on the importaqnce of the
apocrypha to current hostorical Jesus reserach? Such as Gospel of Thomas and
Gospel of Peter
A: (Sheler) For many scholars, the writings to which yyou refer hold
much
promise in helping to understand at
least
the context of the times of Jesus, if
not
another window into the early traditions
regarding his words and deeds. Whether
these
writings, with their spotted history in
the early church, should be considered
better
or superceding sources in regards to
the canonical gospels... this is
a question that is very much in flux
right now and there is nothing like a
consensus in their favor.
Q: The quote from Tambasco
implies that the writers of the
New Testament engaged in\
"revisionist" history. What
evidence supports this view
A: (Sheler) According to Tambasco and others
what the gospel writers did was not
what we would call revisionist
history. Rather, it was to tell a
story that proclaimed a truth (or
truths)
about the Resurrected Jesus.
They were telling the story of Jesus
using the hindsight of the Resurrection.
For them, the important things to know
about Jesus was not what he said and did
during 30 years or so at the turnj of
the era, but
rather what the Resurrected Jesus was
doing
presently in the church and in the lives
of
believers. Thus, according to this view,
the gospel writers were reading backward
into their story the insights gained
from knowing the Resurrected Christ.
Q: don't know any a-sexual human being personally. What
was Jesus' sexuality?
A: (Sheler) Do you mean was he celibate?
We have nothing in the biblical
tradition to suggest he was sexually
Q: more of what he felt inside, or his experiences.
A: (Sheler) active, if that's what you mean. I'm
not sure that means he was a-sexual. If
one believbes
that Jesus was fully human, as the
gospels say,
as well as divine, as the gosp4el of
John says,
then one should probably assume that he
had sexual feelings. Are you sure you
don't know anyone who is a-sexual?
Q: Mr. Sheler, on page 64 of the much
appreciated article, I read:
The Jewish Talmud relates taht "on the eve of
passover, Yeshua was hanged .... because he has practiced sorcery
and led Israel astray Where precisely in Talmud ? and what are the words left out
A: (Sheler) This passage can be found in b.
Sanhedrin 43a. Rather than
repeat the paragraph here, I'll let you
look
it up on your own.
Q: Do you in your studies believe that Jesus is
the Son of God. What about the
Trinity? I s Jesus still alive today?
A: (Sheler) As I said earlier, I would prefer to
keep
my personal theological views out of
this
as much as I can. It doesn't add to the
discussion of historicity.
Q: The 69th Psalm tells us that the Messiah
was ridiculed as illegitimate as a boy
even the other son's of his mother denied
his place in there fathers house.
Was the maiden of the Jewish Messiah an
adulteress or did Isiah speak of maiden
in the more restrictive sense of virgin?
A: (Sheler) I don't understand whatyou are asking,
Q: The 69th Psalm tells us that the Messiah was
ridiculed
as illegitimate by his contemporaries.
A: (Sheler) but my reading of
Q: Was the maiden of the jewish Messiah an
adulteress or
did Isaiah speak of her as a virgin?
Q: Psalms 69 finds no mention of the
Messaih???
I believe some of these historical points of
view
have been around for a while but what is new
is theer mainstream acceptance.
Is there a culture split between the
historically oriented scholarly approach
and grass roots christianity?
Do you see substantial change on interpretation
of the gospels at the grass
roots level ??
A: (Sheler) There appears to be a wide chasm between
between the infomation that is routinely
shared and debated by scholars regarding
the historicity of the gospels and what
is preached and taught at the church
level.
This is so even though
many of the ministers learn these things
in
seminary. For whatever reason, they
choose not
to share this with their flocks. In some
casses
I suppose it may be so as not to confuse
the layman with what remain unsolved
muysteries, so, until one can arrive at
a widely accepted conclusion, why
stir the pot? But thenet result is
that many [people go thrughou much of
their lives with a very simplified, and
perhaps inaccurate, view of the
historical basis for their religious
doctrines. Hisotry and faith
must be linked at some point. But
few people come to fiath on the basis
solely of historical argument.
M: Thank you all, but we have run out of
time. Our thanks to
Senior Writer Jeff Sheler for appearing
on this live
U.S.News & World Report conference.
|
This site is engineered by AGTinteractiveCREDITS Send comments to webmaster@usnews.com
© Copyright U.S. News & World Report, Inc. All rights reserved.