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.