Historical Books About Jesus

[The Fourth Nephite]

I recently read the book Zealot and found it very interesting. Can anybody recomend any similar books that delve into the historical Jesus. Also, I am interested in learning more about the conflict Paul had with early church fathers (like James).

[ERCougar]

I heard an interview with the author. He has an pretty interesting story as well. It's definitely on my list to read.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[The Fourth Nephite]

I enjoyed the book but it was very different than the LDS centric stuff I normally read. It gives you a good background of the social and religeous environment Jesus lived in.

For me, a few of the highlights were:

There were many self appointed so-called messiahs/holy men roaming the Judean hills in the time of Jesus.

Some think Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist who branched out when John was imprisoned. They say Jesus went to John to be baptized and that the 40 days Jesus was in the wilderness, that he was with John and his followers (because they lived in the wilderness).

Some think Jesus' stepfather Joseph was made up by later authors. People sometimes referred to Jesus as the son of Mary (instead of the Son of Joseph) which would not have happened in such a patriarchal society if Joseph had been real (they argue).

He says Jesus must have been married. A requirement to preach was to be 30 years old and married. Jesus waited until 30 to begin his ministry and if he were not married the Jews would have criticized him for it.

All of the Gospels were written quite some time after Jesus' death. Mark was the first written and omits the details of his birth and his appearances as a ressurected being. The last several verses of Mark are considered an add-on by scribes to bring Mark more into line with the other Gospels.

According to some scholars, Peter was not the head of the Church after Christ died, but Christs' brother James was. Some say that the verse where Christ tells Peter that he will build the Church on Peter is a later add-on. On the other hand, several verses in the New Testament and historical records seem to indicate that James was the Head and that Peter took instructions from him.

Some view Paul as an apostate/renegade that was in constant conflict with James, Peter and John. James taught more a Gospel of doing and obedience (like the Law of Moses) and Paul taught you just need to believe. Paul's doctrine was more appealing to Greeks and Romans where James' was more Jewish centric. There seems to be a lot of squabbling between them.

Most of the early Jewish leaders of the Church (James, etc.) were martyred or killed when the Roman armies sacked Jerusalem, but Paul, because he was out preaching to the Gentiles and because he was a Roman citizen, outlived them by a decade or two and thus was able to spread his version of the Gospel with rebuttal.

At the Council of Nicea, Romans adhering to Paul's view outnumbered those with other opinions and thus Paul's more Roman-friendly views were adopted as official and those with contrary views were banished. In a similar council, the books that would become the New Testament were selected and they were overwhelmingly Pauline. About half of the New Testament was either written by Paul, or else are about Paul. Meanwhile, James, the brother of Jesus, who knew Jesus better than anybody and who was the head of the Church, only gets one small book in the New Testament.

[ERCougar]

Thanks for that--interesting stuff.

One thing I remember from the interview was him describing Jesus as a radical, but not in the sense Christianity says. There was a faction of Jews who were disgusted by their nation's submission and cooperation with the Romans--i think they were the origin of the term 'zealot'. Jesus was a member of this faction and the author used the episode in the temple as evidence of this, but I can't remember how. Or maybe I'm mixing that up?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[The Fourth Nephite]

Yes, he paints a picture of Jesus as being one of a long line of messianic radical/revolutionary type figures intent on freeing the Holy Land from Roman rule. According to him, the Romans reserved cruxificion for traitors and rebels, and people who posed a threat to their rule. The thieves executed with Jesus were really rebels and thieves is a mis-translation. Jesus getting all whup ass at the temple was a political act.

He says the Romans wouldn't crucify somebody for the Jewish leaders and that later scribes made changes and blamed the Jews to make Christianity more appealing to Greeks and Romans.

The sign above Jesus' head that read "King of Jews" was not meant to be mocking. It was traditional for Romans to post signs at such executions as a warning to others so they would know what the condemned man's crime was. In Jesus' case, he claimed to be the King of the Jews and the Romans were quick to eliminate threats to their rule.

[Solon]

Yes, he paints a picture of Jesus as being one of a long line of messianic radical/revolutionary type figures intent on freeing the Holy Land from Roman rule. According to him, the Romans reserved cruxificion for traitors and rebels, and people who posed a threat to their rule. The thieves executed with Jesus were really rebels and thieves is a mis-translation. Jesus getting all whup ass at the temple was a political act.

He says the Romans wouldn't crucify somebody for the Jewish leaders and that later scribes made changes and blamed the Jews to make Christianity more appealing to Greeks and Romans.

The sign above Jesus' head that read "King of Jews" was not meant to be mocking. It was traditional for Romans to post signs at such executions as a warning to others so they would know what the condemned man's crime was. In Jesus' case, he claimed to be the King of the Jews and the Romans were quick to eliminate threats to their rule.

The classic text is Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus (1906). Schweitzer suggests that scholars looking to explain the Historical Jesus are far too influenced by the theology and values of the present.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

Not that Schweitzer is an unbeliever. Rather, he recognizes that the figure of Jesus cannot be divorced from the textual problems of the New Testament accounts. Otherwise, we have no record, no documents, no tether to the fact of some carpenter from Nazareth.

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.

If you're looking for academic discussions on the NT and the early Christians, there is a lot of overlap, but still, I suggest

Frend, The Rise of Christianity.
Frend, The Early Church.
Rousseau, The Early Christian Centuries.
Meeks, The First Urban Christians.
Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind.
Chadwick, The Early Church and/or The Church in Ancient Society.

And anything by Bart Ehrman: http://www.bartdehrman.com/

[The Fourth Nephite]

Solon, thanks. I'm going to check some of those out. I'll think I'll start with Ehrman.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Solon, thanks. I'm going to check some of those out. I'll think I'll start with Ehrman.

Misquoting Jesus is excellent.

[The Fourth Nephite]

Misquoting Jesus is excellent.

I read that one a year ago and I agree.