Which of the NT characters do you take to be definitively historical?

[lsayre]

The title says it all.

[Secret Alias]

There was an author of the Pauline writings and the gospel. I take that person to be historical and to be the author of the gospel. I think Berenice/Veronica who appears in the Passion plays and early legendary material to be historical and identified with Queen Berenice sister of Marcus Agrippa and who was portrayed or represented in the statue in Caesarea Philippia mentioned by Eusebius and a host of witnesses - that statue sat on the lawn of her castle (as archaeology has recently demonstrated - I have a photo somewhere of the church where the statue was and the castle from an archaeologist). Why a historical person was ultimately erased from the gospel is one of the most intriguing questions. I think she must have been included in the gospel rather early in its development and then only preserved in memory. This same figure appears as the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman in the gospel and the pseudo-Clementines. As Berenice was about 40 or so in 70 CE its hard to reconcile her presence in a gospel set in 20 CE. Titus was born December 30, 39 CE. Hard to imagine him with a 50 year old woman. But my wife is hot so I guess anything is possible. Filiciano Lopez was hitting on her at Indian Wells so anything is possible I guess.





My wife just bought an Ellesse sweat shirt so maybe something happened when I wasn't looking. She was eating potato chips when he came up to her and tried to get her attention. She really enjoyed those potato chips. Didn't hear him until he gave up and started walking away. But even here could a 30 year old Titus have really fancied a 55 year old Berenice? Assuming a gospel set in 20 CE with a 5 year old 'Veronica' wiping Jesus's face. Was she just a cover or a 'beard' for a homosexual relationship between Titus and Agrippa (who might have been her younger brother)?

[Jax]

Aside from people that we know were historical like Pontius Pilate, I would say besides the Elder (whoever that is) and who he writes about and John of Patmos, just the people that Paulos writes about in his authentic letters (except perhaps Peter).

[Ben C. Smith]

I tend to regard Alexander, Rufus, and probably Simon their father as historical people, based on a number of considerations.

I think that the disciples Peter and Philip are probably historical. I think that Matthew/Matthias is probably historical, but not a disciple.

None of these are certain. They are just the result of my current estimate of the probabilities.

[Joseph D. L.]

It depends how you regard what "historical" means. Do you mean, as actually existing in how they are presented in the New Testament? or, historical as in they were real but allegorized and approximated by the New Testament authors?

If the former, then I would say none of these figures are historical, not even those like Herod the Great, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilate. The New Testament's treatment of this figures are to be utterly discounted. And if the latter then I would argue that everyone mentioned in the New Testament is historical, even Jesus, as they are as actors in a play who have undergone a wardrobe change.

The more important question to ask is if the names are historical to individuals, because when you think about it, all we have are names.

We have Lukuas for our Jesus/Simon of Cyrene/Yeshu ben Stada, Julian and Pappus for our brothers Zebedee, and Peregrinus/Marcion for our Paul. Cephas is a difficult figure, whom I have linked to Cerinthus, but then who is Cerinthus?

But 'Peter' is just a redirection of the Ebionites for James; 'Barnabas' for John/Mark/Peregrinus; and 'Andrew' and 'Philip' redirections of the Nazarenes for John and James. Whom ever compiled and edited the New Testament didn't realize these names were nothing but localized variations of the same people. Just as Zagreus was a local variant of Dionysus.