So did Jesus live or what? [Archive]

kmortis

11th November 2005, 12:08 PM

c4ts

11th November 2005, 12:09 PM

There were lots of people named "Jesus" around that time. Doesn't mean a single one of them had to do with the NT Christ.

Tricky

11th November 2005, 12:15 PM

kmortis

11th November 2005, 12:27 PM

At least some aspects of the legend of Jesus are borrowed part and parcel from other religions, especially the birth story. It is quite likely that he is an amalgamation of several (or many) notable people of the day, borrowing the best parts from each.

Blackadder fan, kmortis?

Why do you ask, Baldrick?

Actually, my "adversion" to MacBeth come from the fact that I worked for about 8 years in semi-pro theatre. While it's no longer a taboo name to say, the legend lives on amongst Thespians. When I saw the bit on Blackadder, it was all the funnier because of my experience.

Upchurch

11th November 2005, 12:33 PM

So did Jesus live or what? Sure. Couple a' times. :duck:

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 12:38 PM

Why do you ask, Baldrick?

Actually, my "adversion" to MacBeth come from the fact that I worked for about 8 years in semi-pro theatre. While it's no longer a taboo name to say, the legend lives on amongst Thespians. When I saw the bit on Blackadder, it was all the funnier because of my experience.

Begging your pardon, my good sir! I will speak no more of 'he who should not be named'. :)

Hamlet, anyone...? (ducks and runs)

Huntster

11th November 2005, 12:51 PM

I've seen the claim from fundies several times lately that Jesus definitely existed and that all serious historians agree on this point...

... What do actual historians think and how strong is the evidence for Jesus compared to say Ceasar or other historical figures?

Flavius Josephus:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm#Jesus

Cornelius Tacitus:

(Roman, and not Christian):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

...The most famous passage in which Tacitus mentions Christianity is as follows (Annals 15.44):

"Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed"....

Justin Martyr:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/175.html

Seismosaurus

11th November 2005, 01:10 PM

geni

11th November 2005, 01:13 PM

kmortis

11th November 2005, 01:19 PM

We might as well debate over whether or not MacBeth was a historical figure!That's easy. Yes he was. Probably rightful king of Scotland. Managed to make the place pretty stable end the end got overthrown by duncans kids backed by the northumbrians.

GAMNIT...you Quoted the "Scottish play"
"Angels and ministers of grace defend us"

I hope I got here in time.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 01:52 PM

That's easy. Yes he was. Probably rightful king of Scotland. Managed to make the place pretty stable end the end got overthrown by duncans kids backed by the northumbrians.

I was afraid that some smarty-pants was going to have information like this! ;0) But you get my gist (or jest).

And no more naming 'he who should not be named'!

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 02:05 PM

Okay, obviously there would be a whole lot of guys called "Jesus" (or equivalent) then as now. Should have been clearer on that aspect!

I pretty much take it as a given that there wasn't a real "son of god" back then since it's pretty obvious that there isn't a god, then or now. (Yeah yeah, that's not proven, but it's pretty obvious.)

So the question really is how well proven is it that there was an actual individual who was the inspiration for the Christian religion. Most answers seem to be along the lines of "maybe"...

So the question is, how much of a maybe is that? How broad and how solid is that evidence for Jesus, as compared to other historical figures of the same era?

Despite Hunster's attempts (at humor maybe), there is no compelling evidence. Cornelius Tacitus is almost certainly a forgery or interpolation. Flavius Josephus also reeks of later interpolation. Tacitus never mentions a 'Jesus Christus', just plain ole' Christus. 'Christus' (latin) is from 'Christos' (greek) which is the interpretation of 'Messiah' (hebrew) for 'annointed one'. It is not a name, it is a title. Anyway, if it were a name, then what becomes of 'Jesus', heh?

There is not one shred of real physical evidence (plenty of 'splinters from the cross', shrouds, and other memorabilia - more like paraphenalia). So few references are available and many are either interpolations (enter Eusebius) or outright fabrications.

So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by. It is assured that any actual historical references in the gospels have been obliterated by the mythological and philosophical drapings. And this is the reason that the best answer is "Maybe".

My opinion is that it is a very small maybe for the 'founder' to have been actually named 'Yeshua' and have any resemblance to even the more historically accurate events attributed therein.

geni

11th November 2005, 02:18 PM

Despite Hunster's attempts (at humor maybe), there is no compelling evidence. Cornelius Tacitus is almost certainly a forgery or interpolation.

Evidence?

There is not one shred of real physical evidence (plenty of 'splinters from the cross', shrouds, and other memorabilia - more like paraphenalia).

Why should there be?

So few references are available and many are either interpolations (enter Eusebius) or outright fabrications.

So what? We are talking about a figure that never moved outside a minor roman provence and for the most part stayed away from cities. Outside egypt our records from the period are really pretty minimal.

So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by. It is assured that any actual historical references in the gospels have been obliterated by the mythological and philosophical drapings. And this is the reason that the best answer is "Maybe".

The relivant part of Paul's letter appears to be pretty solid

geni

11th November 2005, 02:29 PM

I was afraid that some smarty-pants was going to have information like this! ;0) But you get my gist (or jest).

Not really. Mac Bethad mac Findlàech was a real person there is no real question of that (apart from anything else you have a couple of battles and a gap in the scotish kingship if you remove it). He was king from 1040 untill 1054-1057 (the exact date of the end of his reighn is tricky because although he lost southern scotland in 1054 he wasn't killed for another 3 years). That said the amount of physical evidence we have of existance is aproximately zilch (I think the british museam has a total of one axe head from that period of scotish history). There are of course writen records but even then stuff from that period is pretty limited.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 02:38 PM

Evidence?

Why should there be?

So what? We are talking about a figure that never moved outside a minor roman provence and for the most part stayed away from cities. Outside egypt our records from the period are really pretty minimal.

The relivant part of Paul's letter appears to be pretty solid

Julius Gaius Caesar would have been well known just for his defeat of the Gauls even if he hadn't moved against Pompey and made himself emporer. But we have ample evidence for his existence - in statues, coins, witnesses, historical events, etc.

Not authoritative, but check here... (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html)

Well, yeah, Yeshua was a back-water hick. But he also spawned the largest religion in Europe for the past two millenia. Nothing was saved? Nothing was written? Despite the locale, there were plenty of literate Romans, Greeks, and Persians loafing about back then. Obviously much ado about nothing since no records that they may have kept (including Pontius Pilatus') exist today.

It took at least fifty years after the supposed death for 'the story' to be penned. Very suspicious.

Chinese kept copious records going back 5000 years! And the Romans and Greeks were very good at keeping records. Many were lost. Surprisingly, again, almost nothing that would provide evidence beyond a couple of unreliable sources and the NT itself.

I dismiss anything to do with Paul. You are trying to use the letters of Paul as extrabiblical? Anything after the gospels is at a time when the spreading Christianity was already established all along the Mediterranean (even if just small cultish pockets). And not even all of them could agree on whether there was a man, a spirit, a logos, or a god.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 02:42 PM

Not really. Mac Bethad mac Findlàech was a real person there is no real question of that (apart from anything else you have a couple of battles and a gap in the scotish kingship if you remove it). He was king from 1040 untill 1054-1057 (the exact date of the end of his reighn is tricky because although he lost southern scotland in 1054 he wasn't killed for another 3 years). That said the amount of physical evidence we have of existance is aproximately zilch (I think the british museam has a total of one axe head from that period of scotish history). There are of course writen records but even then stuff from that period is pretty limited.

But you missed my point, didn't you? Did this guy get future forecasts from three witches, kill the king with the help from his wife, see apparitions, and the forest move against (etc.)?

The link between the real person and the fictional character is spurious at best. Sort of like me writing a story about how George Washington, oh, chopped down a cherry tree. Real person, fictional account.

We don't even have this to work on for Jesus! There is an obvious fictional account (four of them, none completely agreeing, and almost assuredly adapted from a single source), but no real person. Show me the body (or anything)!

Huntster

11th November 2005, 02:53 PM

Julius Gaius Caesar would have been well known just for his defeat of the Gauls even if he hadn't moved against Pompeii and made himself emporer. But we have ample evidence for his existence - in statues, coins, witnesses, historical events, etc.....

Caesars are emporers. We expect them to be on coins and well written about by historians.

Pilate is mentioned in the gospels as well as Cornelius Tacitus' writings. Do you deny, too, that he even existed?

Will you accept only those historical figures who are etched in coin?

What level of evidence will suffice?

...So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by...

It's a foundation.

How about 20% of today's human population, nearly 2,000 years later, as "disciples" of that "back-water hick"?

How many disciples follow you?

geni

11th November 2005, 02:58 PM

Julius Gaius Caesar would have been well known just for his defeat of the Gauls even if he hadn't moved against Pompeii and made himself emporer. But we have ample evidence for his existence - in statues, coins, witnesses, historical events, etc.

Not authoritative, but check here... (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html)

You are talking about a person at the center of a massive imperial power. There could be no question that people at the time knew that this was a person makeing history. People tend to record leaders and generals. Relgious teachers tend to be less widely mentioned (look at how few references to john the baptist there are).

Well, yeah, Yeshua was a back-water hick. But he also spawned the largest religion in Europe for the past two millenia. Nothing was saved? Nothing was written? (Despite the locale, there were plenty of literate Romans, Greeks, and Persians loafing about back then. Obviously much ado about nothing since no records that they may have kept (including Pontius Pilatus') exist today.

Lets see what would have been writen. The gospels claim one significant contact with the authorities. That would have resulted in a record in some archive or other but over the fall of the roman empire and the like people had better things to do than copy archives. Letters? Do you have the letters your grandparents wrote?

It took at least fifty years after the supposed death for 'the story' to be penned. Very suspicious.

It's pretty clear that cristianty started out as an end of the world cult. No point in writeing things down under those conditions.

Chinese kept copious records going back 5000 years! And the Romans and Greeks were very good at keeping records. Many were lost. Surprisingly, again, almost nothing that would provide evidence beyond a couple of unreliable sources and the NT itself.

Many? Outside of egypt pretty much everything was lost.

I dismiss anything to do with Paul. You are trying to use the letters of Paul as extrabiblical? Anything after the gospels is at a time when the spreading Christianity was already established all along the Mediterranean (even if just small cultish pockets). And not even all of them could agree on whether there was a man, a spirit, a logos, or a god.

Paul thought that James was the brother of Jesus. He met James.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 03:01 PM

Caesars are emporers. We expect them to be on coins and well written about by historians.

Pilate is mentioned in the gospels as well as Cornelius Tacitus' writings. Do you deny, too, that he even existed?

Will you accept only those historical figures who are etched in coin?

What level of evidence will suffice?

Yah, and we remember all other sorts such as Roman Senators, philosophers, generals all from copious records and writings.

I'm sorry. Just because someone uses contemporary figures in a fiction doesn't make the fiction fact...

"It says so in the Bible" isn't nearly sufficient, even as a foundation.

Huntster

11th November 2005, 03:06 PM

Yah, and we remember all other sorts such as Roman Senators, philosophers, generals all from copious records and writings.

I'm sorry. Just because someone uses contemporary figures in a fiction doesn't make the fiction fact...

"It says so in the Bible" isn't nearly sufficient, even as a foundation.

So what do you need to come to believe?

geni

11th November 2005, 03:08 PM

But you missed my point, didn't you? Did this guy get future forecasts from three witches,

Not that we know of

kill the king with the help from his wife,

Yes

see apparitions,
Not that we know of

and the forest move against (etc.)?

Maybe. Certianly the battle was in the right place for it to happen

The link between the real person and the fictional character is spurious at best. Sort of like me writing a story about how George Washington, oh, chopped down a cherry tree. Real person, fictional account.

Shakespear was writeing 600 years later and it was clearly for the most part ment to be fiction

We don't even have this to work on for Jesus! There is an obvious fictional account (four of them, none completely agreeing, and almost assuredly adapted from a single source), but no real person. Show me the body (or anything)!

Show me the body of Mac Bethad mac Findlàech. If it's any help I can tell you where his grave is (of course certian groups claim to have found the grave of Arthur). The sources for his life are things such as Anglo-Saxon chronicle of which parts are clearly incorrect (one puts the roman invasion of britian at 60 BC although with the amount of time elapesed that is pretty good).

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 03:11 PM

You are talking about a person at the center of a massive imperial power. There could be no question that people at the time knew that this was a person makeing history. People tend to record leaders and generals. Relgious teachers tend to be less widely mentioned (look at how few references to john the baptist there are).

Well, yes I am. And the evidence parallels his power. Supposedly Jesus was changing the Mediterranean world even during his lifetime (last three years). And Christianity spread rather quickly from there. But what a dearth of evidence.

Look, I am not disagreeing that records like this would be absent. It is just that for this very reason, Christians have no place making assertions that such a person ever existed. I can't back it up and neither can they. They should leave it at that. But they don't! They keep asserting it because doctrine requires it and the Bible says it's so.

It's pretty clear that cristianty started out as an end of the world cult. No point in writeing things down under those conditions.

Too convenient. There were too many impartial parties who could have written without such motives.

Paul thought that James was the brother of Jesus. He met James.

Ambiguous. This has been discussed at great length by scholars. 'Brother of Jesus' could be taken literally (this is not the stance usually supported) or figuratively (as in anyone who is a member of the Christian belief was a 'brother') or even titlurly (as in someone who was considered an 'apostle' or 'disciple', directly or indirectly wrt Jesus, was considered a 'brother of Jesus').

geni

11th November 2005, 03:12 PM

Yah, and we remember all other sorts such as Roman Senators, philosophers, generals all from copious records and writings.

These people were at the centre of major civilisations. Lets consider egypt. It is a pretty solid civerlisation. It has a climate suited for preserving records and the egyptions wrote down everything. We don't know the dates and order in which all the pharos reighned.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 03:21 PM

These people were at the centre of major civilisations. Lets consider egypt. It is a pretty solid civerlisation. It has a climate suited for preserving records and the egyptions wrote down everything. We don't know the dates and order in which all the pharos reighned.

That's a little disingenuous. Egypt goes back 5000 years itself. Layer upon layer of new dynasties, invasions, religions with the new regimes sometimes obliterating records of the past or rewriting it. But by the time of JGC, the Ptolemy's were pretty much the final dynasty in Egyptian civilization. They were Greek descended and there were good records for them. I state this since the Ptolemys run concurrent with Rome.

There is more evidence for the existence of some Roman legionary grunts at that time than for Jesus. The main body of so-called evidence is in the NT (and the omitted non-canonical books), none of which has verifiable sources, datings, nor much of anything else that could be considered evidential.

Francois Tremblay

11th November 2005, 03:24 PM

I am definitely on the mythicist camp. Not only is there zero evidence that the Jesus of the Bible existed, but we would expect such evidence (even if he was just a crucified lunatic). Furthermore, the fact that early Christian fathers do not write about his earthly life is the clinching evidence that "Jesus" started as a myth.

geni

11th November 2005, 03:25 PM

Well, yes I am. And the evidence parallels his power. Supposedly Jesus was changing the Mediterranean world even during his lifetime (last three years).

Source? Jesus is meant never to have left Israel. He survived a mear few days in the capital before haveing a rather terminal contact with the authorities

And Christianity spread rather quickly from there. But what a dearth of evidence.

Not really. Sure Pauls travels gave it a fair geographical area but from the letter is appears that individual communities were pretty small.

Look, I am not disagreeing that records like this would be absent. It is just that for this very reason, Christians have no place making assertions that such a person ever existed. I can't back it up and neither can they. They should leave it at that. But they don't! They keep asserting it because doctrine requires it and the Bible says it's so.

Occams razor says someone existed. If you say he does no exist you have the problem of a relgion turning up very very fast with a very strong ceneralisation on one person.

Too convenient. There were too many impartial parties who could have written without such motives.

Name one. Why would anyone else care. Christians seem to have been pretty small comunities for quite a while.

(there is also speculation about Q but i've never really been convinced by that)

or figuratively (as in anyone who is a member of the Christian belief was a 'brother') or even titlurly (as in someone who was considered an 'apostle' or 'disciple', directly or indirectly wrt Jesus, was considered a 'brother of Jesus').

Doesn't really work since Paul didn't use the title for anyone else.

geni

11th November 2005, 03:28 PM

I am definitely on the mythicist camp. Not only is there zero evidence that the Jesus of the Bible existed, but we would expect such evidence (even if he was just a crucified lunatic).

What evidence would you expect? Can you name the other petty trouble makers who were crucified in that period?

Furthermore, the fact that early Christian fathers do not write about his earthly life is the clinching evidence that "Jesus" started as a myth.

Evidence? Remeber the letters are a large degree an argument amoung competeing theologens. To them it matters little what jesus had for dinner.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 03:30 PM

So what do you need to come to believe?

Nothing. I don't think there is any justiable evidence for gods, deities, god-men, religious faiths, ghosts, cults, new-age cults, UFOs, homeopathy, Kabbalah, the boogie man, Santa Claus, and so on.

Even if there is a historical figure at the base of Christianity, what does that offer in terms of 'believing'? Not a single miraculous event in the Bible is plausible (and some of the supposed historical events don't agree). So there goes the idea that Jesus was a god-man. We are left with a set of tenets to live by, but they aren't all very good. Hating your family, wearing sackcloth, and turning the other cheek are bad ideas.

What do you actually believe in?

geni

11th November 2005, 03:37 PM

That's a little disingenuous. Egypt goes back 5000 years itself. Layer upon layer of new dynasties, invasions, religions with the new regimes sometimes obliterating records of the past or rewriting it. But by the time of JGC, the Ptolemy's were pretty much the final dynasty in Egyptian civilization. They were Greek descended and there were good records for them. I state this since the Ptolemys run concurrent with Rome.

So? We are talking about kings here in a climate which presevers records.

There is more evidence for the existence of some Roman legionary grunts at that time than for Jesus.

So? Lots of people's names get remeber by accidents of history.
Samuel Pepys is an important person in english history in his own right but do you think we would know nearly as much about him if it wasn't for the those diaries?

The main body of so-called evidence is in the NT (and the omitted non-canonical books), none of which has verifiable sources, datings, nor much of anything else that could be considered evidential.

We can make pretty good guesses for many of those things. Again the egpytion kings a key bit of evidence for sorting the whole thing out comes from a list of names scribbled on the back of a tablet by an unknow scribe.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 03:43 PM

Source? Jesus is meant never to have left Israel. He survived a mear few days in the capital before haveing a rather terminal contact with the authorities.

I never said that Jesus spread it personally around the Mediterranean. It was alluded to that his word was spreading throughout the entire region and that tens of thousands were listening to his surmons. They all lived in that small region? None were visitors or travelers moving on to tell the tale elsewhere? Didn't he direct his disciples to go out and teach to everyone (although 'everyone' differs from 'only Jews' to 'only gentiles' to 'everyone')?

The region wasn't exactly so remote that noone knew about it. It was an obvious overland route from Europe to Egypt as well as settled by outsiders.

Occams razor says someone existed. If you say he does no exist you have the problem of a relgion turning up very very fast with a very strong ceneralisation on one person.

No, Occam's razor says that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the better. The simple explanation is that a cult sprang up somewhere (some think it may have started in Egypt or Greece) and it morphed as it spread. The problem here is that there isn't just the "Jesus was the real founder" cult. There are also Christian cults where Jesus was a spirit (dove), a symbolic sacrifice (dying god-man), a god only (Gnosticism), was never crucified and resurrected, and so forth. All of these taken together don't lead to 'someone existed as the founder represented by Jesus'.

geni

11th November 2005, 04:08 PM

I never said that Jesus spread it personally around the Mediterranean. It was alluded to that his word was spreading throughout the entire region and that tens of thousands were listening to his surmons. They all lived in that small region? None were visitors or travelers moving on to tell the tale elsewhere? Didn't he direct his disciples to go out and teach to everyone (although 'everyone' differs from 'only Jews' to 'only gentiles' to 'everyone')?

And thus we write off the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for that 60BC error.

The region wasn't exactly so remote that noone knew about it. It was an obvious overland route from Europe to Egypt as well as settled by outsiders.

So? Again name another petty trouble make who was crucfied who we have records of.

No, Occam's razor says that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the better. The simple explanation is that a cult sprang up somewhere (some think it may have started in Egypt or Greece) and it morphed as it spread.

Even fewer records and you are makeing things up on zero evidence.

The problem here is that there isn't just the "Jesus was the real founder" cult.
There are also Christian cults where Jesus was a spirit (dove), a symbolic sacrifice (dying god-man), a god only (Gnosticism), was never crucified and resurrected, and so forth. All of these taken together don't lead to 'someone existed as the founder represented by Jesus'.

The others don't appear to be as widespread or early. The Jesus was real cult appear to be based around Peter who would be very early

Consider. Someone wounders around the villages and towns of isreal preaching (we know that this was happening at the time). He gains a bit of a following (hardly unbeliverble). He goes to juruselem causes a disturbance at the temple. This upsets the jew elders who turn to the romans to neutalise him. This they do. The cult doesn't go away though. Decades latter the cult figures out the world is not going to end striaght away (they really thought it was going to. remeber the mentions in the letters of suprise that some memebes of the comunity had died before the return of jesus) and finaly starts writeing things down.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 04:27 PM

You are advocating that the lack of evidence is to be expected. And, again, I agree with this. But then you are advocating that because there is a religion and eventually a story, then it must be based on historical fact at some level. That does not make sense. Scientology is a religion and there is a book all about it. Does that make it historical fact? I certainly hope not!

There are direct ties to cynical doctrine, dying god-man and mystery religions of the time (mainly Greek in origin).

Can you justify the 'cult of Peter' as being the earliest (without references to Christian references)?

No, I can't consider all of that. Even then, it is speculation to support speculation. That is just one set of possible events. There is an entire other set of events conspicuously omitted from the canonical texts, some of which tell an altogether different story. And you are incorrect. The variations in Christianity existed at the earliest stages. That is what confounds the idea of an original doctrine being splintered afterwards by isolation and distance.

The Gnostics seem to be flourishing at the same times that the other Christianities were. We're talking 100 C.E. (Valentinus) and earlier (most definitely).

Huntster

11th November 2005, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
So what do you need to come to believe?

Nothing. I don't think there is any justiable evidence for gods, deities, god-men, religious faiths, ghosts, cults, new-age cults, UFOs, homeopathy, Kabbalah, the boogie man, Santa Claus, and so on...

Thus, your rejection is complete. No amount of evidence, study, or consideration will spur your faith.

...What do you actually believe in?...

Many things, but in terms of religion, I believe in God exactly as the Nicene Creed states.

Huntster

11th November 2005, 04:57 PM

...And the evidence parallels his power....

Considering the fact that 20% of today's human population consider themselves Christian, I'm in awe of His power.

When added to the world's Jewish and Moslem populations, the God of Abraham is worshipped by more than half of all humanity today (not to mention the past 3,000 years).

geni

11th November 2005, 05:03 PM

You are advocating that the lack of evidence is to be expected. And, again, I agree with this. But then you are advocating that because there is a religion and eventually a story, then it must be based on historical fact at some level. That does not make sense. Scientology is a religion and there is a book all about it. Does that make it historical fact? I certainly hope not!

It is a historical fact that it was founded in 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard

There are direct ties to cynical doctrine, dying god-man and mystery religions of the time (mainly Greek in origin).

Evidence?

Can you justify the 'cult of Peter' as being the earliest (without references to Christian references)?

Paul is an accepted historical figure. Peter's lot pretty clearly predate him.

No, I can't consider all of that. Even then, it is speculation to support speculation. That is just one set of possible events. There is an entire other set of events conspicuously omitted from the canonical texts, some of which tell an altogether different story.

Were any of these texts writen before the Gospel of Mark?

And you are incorrect. The variations in Christianity existed at the earliest stages. That is what confounds the idea of an original doctrine being splintered afterwards by isolation and distance.

Evidence?

The Gnostics seem to be flourishing at the same times that the other Christianities were. We're talking 100 C.E. (Valentinus) and earlier (most definitely).

So that would put them several decades latter than Peter's group.

Huntster

11th November 2005, 05:07 PM

I think it's time to recall the title of the thread:

...So did Jesus live or what?...

There have been several historians from the era cited. At least one was Roman, writing in Rome just 30 years or so after the crucifixion of Christ.

Multiple cults springing up during the era are cited.

Written manuscripts are still being found, as late as the 1940's (the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Gospel of Thomas) which support the earlier writings.

Skeptics offer only criticism of the writings.

That is all skeptics offer - doubt.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 05:18 PM

Thus, your rejection is complete. No amount of evidence, study, or consideration will spur your faith.

There is no evidence. Study and/or consideration have nothing to do with it. If that were the case, then have you studied and considered every other religion (and there are thousands and thousands that have existed and exist) to determine whether maybe you are mistaken in your current belief?

As it is said, the only difference between me and you is that I reject all beliefs base on (blind) faith whereas you reject all but one.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 05:42 PM

It is a historical fact that it was founded in 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard

Yes and he wrote the book. Jesus wasn't even near a paper mill when any of the texts were written. :) There is a difference. And yet would you conclude that anything in the LRH book is based on historical (let alone scientific) fact just because we know that it was written by a real person? Obviously, everything written is written by a real person. But that still doesn't make the figures written about factual.

Evidence?

Do you want me to waste my time providing voluminous sources or can you educate yourself? I have a shelf of books on the subject. I'm not going to spend my time rereading them to profer references (direct and indirect).

You mentioned the Q document, for instance. Although I agree that it probably never existed in solid form, the notion that much of what is stuffed into Jesus' mouth in the gospels comes directly from cynical doctrine is well supported.

Were any of these texts writen before the Gospel of Mark?

Honestly, I do not know. The reference suggest that, yes, they are at least as old as Mark or older.

Evidence?

I think that the diversity of beliefs within the general religion denoted Christianity, even as early as the mid-first century, points to the fact that it was not perceived in the form that it took by the mid-fourth century with the annealing of the canonical books and doctrine.

So that would put them several decades latter than Peter's group.

I don't know. You haven't provided any evidence yet that such a group really existed. I don't put much, er, 'faith' in anything Paul is attributed to have written. There are debates that some of the letters were not even Paul.

It is interesting to note that even Paul shows signs of Gnosticism. If attributions of his writings being 50-60 C.E. are correct, that means Gnostic influences were already prevalent before even that time. No references provide an earliest date for the Gnostic movement, but inferences suggest it went back to about this time or earlier.

Francois Tremblay

11th November 2005, 05:57 PM

Given all the evidence we do have, to say that "Jesus" existed is to break Occam<s Razor. It would demand the Christian to explain how "Jesus" could have such an influence and yet completely evade all historical records. It would demand the Christian to explain why none of the early Church fathers used historical facts about "Jesus"' life, even though doing so would have been advantageous. If the Gospels are used as part of the evidence, it would also demand the Christian to explain how the Gospels are dated so late, why they contradict each other, and why they look very, very much like they are all historical modifications of one source document.

To try to justify the "Jesus" belief would require so much explanation as to make it ridiculous.

Ausmerican

11th November 2005, 06:17 PM

Thus, your rejection is complete. No amount of evidence, study, or consideration will spur your faith.

Many things, but in terms of religion, I believe in God exactly as the Nicene Creed states.

The thread is about the evidence that Jesus existed, therefore the faith of the poster should not need to come into play.

geni

11th November 2005, 06:24 PM

Yes and he wrote the book. Jesus wasn't even near a paper mill when any of the texts were written. :) There is a difference. And yet would you conclude that anything in the LRH book is based on historical (let alone scientific) fact just because we know that it was written by a real person? Obviously, everything written is written by a real person. But that still doesn't make the figures written about factual.

We know that the person who wrote the book was in no position to have the knowlage they claim to have.

Do you want me to waste my time providing voluminous sources or can you educate yourself? I have a shelf of books on the subject. I'm not going to spend my time rereading them to profer references (direct and indirect).

Does any of the authors go by the name Acharya S?

You mentioned the Q document, for instance. Although I agree that it probably never existed in solid form, the notion that much of what is stuffed into Jesus' mouth in the gospels comes directly from cynical doctrine is well supported.

You are makeing a claim back it up.

Honestly, I do not know. The reference suggest that, yes, they are at least as old as Mark or older.

Which reference? Mark is probably as far back as 70-80 VE

I think that the diversity of beliefs within the general religion denoted Christianity, even as early as the mid-first century, points to the fact that it was not perceived in the form that it took by the mid-fourth century with the annealing of the canonical books and doctrine.

The Bahá'í have had their splits. We have photos of Bahá'u'lláh

I don't know. You haven't provided any evidence yet that such a group really existed. I don't put much, er, 'faith' in anything Paul is attributed to have written. There are debates that some of the letters were not even Paul.

Some. Not all. Wether you like it or not Paul did know the Peter group.

It is interesting to note that even Paul shows signs of Gnosticism. If attributions of his writings being 50-60 C.E. are correct, that means Gnostic influences were already prevalent before even that time. No references provide an earliest date for the Gnostic movement, but inferences suggest it went back to about this time or earlier.

You can only really make than claim if you take a decidedly nonstandard view of to authorship of the Pauline epistles. Sooner or latter you run into the issue of James and Paul's general acceptance that the Peter group had some legitimacy.

Peter S.

11th November 2005, 06:28 PM

I have yet to find any christian apologist who can refute this article:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

geni

11th November 2005, 06:31 PM

Given all the evidence we do have, to say that "Jesus" existed is to break Occam<s Razor. It would demand the Christian to explain how "Jesus" could have such an influence and yet completely evade all historical records.

His influence was pretty limited. Christianity didn't really get going untill after his death.

It would demand the Christian to explain why none of the early Church fathers used historical facts about "Jesus"' life, even though doing so would have been advantageous.

Peter used them as his claim to legitimacy.

If the Gospels are used as part of the evidence, it would also demand the Christian to explain how the Gospels are dated so late,

Mark is 40-50 years after the death of jesus. That fits with them figureing out the world was not going to end striaght away.

why they contradict each other, and why they look very, very much like they are all historical modifications of one source document.

That can be explained by the Mark\Q source hypothosis (john is tricky since it may have been writen in sections).

To try to justify the "Jesus" belief would require so much explanation as to make it ridiculous.

Not really.

jjramsey

11th November 2005, 06:35 PM

Cornelius Tacitus is almost certainly a forgery or interpolation.

It is almost certainly not. Christians are described as being criminals deserving of extreme punishment, and their beliefs described as superstition. Even in translation, it oozes with contempt. IIRC, it is also in typical Tacitian Latin.

Flavius Josephus also reeks of later interpolation.

The Testimonium Flavianum does, certainly, but there is another reference where Josephus briefly mentions James as the brother of Jesus called Christ, and this reference is generally regarded as authentic because it is neutral and closely tied to its context.

Tacitus never mentions a 'Jesus Christus', just plain ole' Christus. 'Christus' (latin) is from 'Christos' (greek) which is the interpretation of 'Messiah' (hebrew) for 'annointed one'. It is not a name, it is a title.

And how many would-be messiahs had followers who proclaimed him as savior after his death, let alone communicated that message to the outside world? That narrows the number of possible Christs under consideration to, oh, one.

So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by.

For establishing the mere existence of Jesus, that's enough.

The mythicist position does a terrible job of explaning the mundane and embarrassing bits of the New Testament. If one is going to make up a savior, why have him be a Galilean Jew from a no-account town who died in an embarrassing way that led many to mock the religion that proclaimed him? I've often seen it claimed that the story of Jesus was fashioned in the motif of a dying-rising god, but the evidence that there really was such a motif is pretty slim. As far as I've seen, Aliyan Baal is about it. The rest is reading Christian motifs into pagan myth.

davefoc

11th November 2005, 06:41 PM

There are too many variables.

Did a god-man named Jesus the Christ live exactly as it is written in the NT? - Almost certainly not.

Did a god-man ever exist? - Almost certainly not.

Did a man named Jesus exist? - Well, of course. Lots of men named Jesus lived during this time and in this region. Well, they weren't named 'Jesus', but the original Jewish of 'Yeshua'. We'll accept that for later references to 'Jesus', okay? :)

Did a man named Jesus exist who was the inspiration for the religion? - Maybe.

Did any man exist who was the inspiration for the religion? Very possibly. There is a lot of controversy about attributions, inconsistencies, evidence, and so forth.

The problem is that not even the so-called authors of the NT gospels are considered to be who they say they are. And the timing of the writings is far after the supposed death of this supposed Jesus. Add to that the interpolations of miraculous events, mixing of mythologies, and even the possible copy errors and various forms in which the original documents may have taken. Without any highly credible extra-biblical references (there are some somewhat credible references, but they are spurious at best), how can we know?

We might as well debate over whether or not MacBeth was a historical figure!

Accept for his last sentence, I think kuroyume0161 has summarized the situation very nicely. Personally, I find the question of how the Christian Church got going as a very interesting one and, of course, the historicity of Jesus is a major element of the answer to that question.

I have a few observations as a person that has read quite a bit about the issue of whether Jesus in some form was a real person.

1. Per force, a casual investigator into this question is forced to rely on the judgments of experts. When we do that it becomes necessary to pick experts based on our estimates of the degree that biases have clouded their views. And sorting through those biases requires a deep knowledge of the subject and if we had that we wouldn't need to rely on our ability to sort through the biases of the experts. So casual investigators are pretty much left with making guesses about the subject.

2. The information that would have answered questions about the early Christian Church and the historicity of Jesus appears to have been lost forever. Most of the guesses about the life of Jesus rely on some guesses about what in the New Testament is useful for that purpose. There is almost no extrabiblical evidence.

3. Even if a historical Jesus existed, almost certainly the biblical Jesus stories include elements from the lives of old testament characters and if the writers were willing to do that kind of thing it is also reasonable to guess that the NT writers were willing to bring elements from the lives of other real people into the Jesus stories. This kind of conflation of the lives of other characters with the life of a supposed Jesus will forever make the issue of a historical Jesus a fuzzy question open to endless theorizing about the various possibilities.

I personally believe that a Jesus character existed. There is the Occam's razor argument for this, however this is at best a weak argument as other possibilities aren't all that unlikely either. There is also the letters of Paul, some of which most experts seem to believe have been written by a real historical character and there is the Josephus writings on Jesus.

If at least some of the Josephus Jesus references are correct at least a minimalist historical Jesus existed. There seems to be a complete consensus amongst experts that some of the Josephus references to Jesus are fakes. There also seems to be a majoirty consensus that some of the Josephus Jesus references are real.

Just one of many internet discusions about the Josephus Jesus references:
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Note that it is very easy to find sites which argue that all the Josephus Jesus references were later interpolations. So if you are a casual investigator on this subject you can pick your view and find the expert that supports it or you can pick your expert and take his view. Either way, don't expect to know the answer to this question with much detail or certainty.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 06:58 PM

It is almost certainly not. Christians are described as being criminals deserving of extreme punishment, and their beliefs described as superstition. Even in translation, it oozes with contempt. IIRC, it is also in typical Tacitian Latin.

That is possible, but one does note that this is during the reign of Nero, circa 60 C.E. How is that more evidential than the gospels written about the same time? This isn't about 'Did Christians exist?' This is about, did 'Jesus' exist? Christus offers no name, just a title. And the title could be interpreted as a person or something else completely (especially by the Gnostics).

The Testimonium Flavianum does, certainly, but there is another reference where Josephus briefly mentions James as the brother of Jesus called Christ, and this reference is generally regarded as authentic because it is neutral and closely tied to its context.

And we're down to one...

And how many would-be messiahs had followers who proclaimed him as savior after his death, let alone communicated that message to the outside world? That narrows the number of possible Christs under consideration to, oh, one.

There were plenty of 'Christs' and Messiahs running around. Christus says nothing more than 'an annointed one'. You really think that Jesus Christ was a unique conception of the time?

For establishing the mere existence of Jesus, that's enough.

No, it isn't. Remove the biblical references (since they are completely and utterly suspect), and you have maybe two or three possible references, at best. Christus is not a reference worth noting for the existence of a person, especially one named Jesus who tromped around Palestine! Christus only confirms that Christians existed!!!

ETA: Look, again, I'm not saying that no historical person could have been the inspiration for Jesus (and I did state this - thank you, davefoc). I'm saying that to say that there is sufficient evidence that there was a historical person is boulderdash. There is not enough either way. Even if there is an Occam's Razor case here, you're talking about shaving fuzz off a peach. It is very complex and the data set is sparse (to be nice about it). If you say, "Maybe, but we can't know.", I will agree. If you say, "How can you not see that there must have been a real person there?", then you need to study up more on myths and legends.

geni

11th November 2005, 07:26 PM

I have yet to find any christian apologist who can refute this article:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Ok starts out with the compareing the evidence of existance to one of the most famious individuals in history argument wich I have aready delt with. It then moves onto mark which it tries to take potshots as. The problem is that it doesn't really make a dent in the gospels core claim. It throws up a claim that luke and mathew of up to 90% plagiarized from mark. I can't see any way of getting to that figure without usieng some king of Q/Mark compersite.

Ok moveing onto the Pauline stuff. It claims that compuete experts have shown that only four letters arre genuine. It then references a source dateing back to 1929. Now I'm not an expert but I seem to recall that number of computers in 1929 was somewhat limted. however this doesn't matter since the real source goes back far further 1840 and Ferdinand Christian Baur. His successor refiened his techniques and came up with 7:

* Romans
* First Corinthians
* Second Corinthians
* Galatians
* Philippians
* First Thessalonians
* Philemon

Remeber the early church leaders had no problem with declairing some of "Pauls letters" to be fake. The letter to the Hebrews for example. They did not question any of the above. Neither do most modern scolers.

Moveing onto Josephus Bk. 20, Ch. 9, §1

The authors say it could have been added. So what? There is no evidence it was and it certianly fits the flow of the text.

Belz...

11th November 2005, 07:52 PM

Belz...

11th November 2005, 07:56 PM

My opinion is that it is a very small maybe for the 'founder' to have been actually named 'Yeshua' and have any resemblance to even the more historically accurate events attributed therein.

I don't remember exactly where I read this, but there's also an earlier "messiah" from the first century BCE who could have been the foundation for the Jesus myth, assuming there was no "jesus" to speak of.

Belz...

11th November 2005, 07:58 PM

Why should there be?

Well, Josephus pretty much describe any and all figures that had just about any form of influence in Judea at that time. Aside from the Eusebius interpolation, he doesn't even mention Jesus. And even if that's NOT an interpolation, it's a ver yshort passage, considering the usual Josephus stuff.

Belz...

11th November 2005, 08:00 PM

I dismiss anything to do with Paul. You are trying to use the letters of Paul as extrabiblical? Anything after the gospels is at a time when the spreading Christianity was already established all along the Mediterranean (even if just small cultish pockets). And not even all of them could agree on whether there was a man, a spirit, a logos, or a god.

Just a note. The letters are dated PRIOR to the gospels.

Belz...

11th November 2005, 08:05 PM

Pilate is mentioned in the gospels as well as Cornelius Tacitus' writings. Do you deny, too, that he even existed?

Will you accept only those historical figures who are etched in coin?

What level of evidence will suffice?

The fact of the matter is that Pilate is mentionned by roman records. That's INDEPENDENT confirmation of the existence of Pilate. There is no such thing for Jesus.

In fact, even the Gospels disagree as to the date of Jesus' birth. Luke and Matthew are hopelessly discordant about it.

How about 20% of today's human population, nearly 2,000 years later, as "disciples" of that "back-water hick"?

How many disciples follow you?

Again an appeal to popularity. 1.3 billion muslims can't be wrong, can they ?

Belz...

11th November 2005, 08:06 PM

Lets see what would have been writen. The gospels claim one significant contact with the authorities. That would have resulted in a record in some archive or other but over the fall of the roman empire and the like people had better things to do than copy archives. Letters? Do you have the letters your grandparents wrote?

No, but I can prove they existed.

Belz...

11th November 2005, 08:09 PM

Occams razor says someone existed. If you say he does no exist you have the problem of a relgion turning up very very fast with a very strong ceneralisation on one person.

Occam's razor only says that if the fact that a real Jesus existed explains the evidence better than the opposite. This seems far from clear.

Belz...

11th November 2005, 08:13 PM

The Testimonium Flavianum does, certainly, but there is another reference where Josephus briefly mentions James as the brother of Jesus called Christ, and this reference is generally regarded as authentic because it is neutral and closely tied to its context.

And that seems like the only probable confirmation of the Gospel stories.

See a few of the links here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html

geni

11th November 2005, 08:39 PM

No, but I can prove they existed.

The letters or the people?

geni

11th November 2005, 08:41 PM

Occam's razor only says that if the fact that a real Jesus existed explains the evidence better than the opposite. This seems far from clear.

It is far less complex to bolt myths onto a person that existed (that happens all the time) that make someone up (I can't think of any modern relgion that did that without establishing a lead prothet as it were).

jjramsey

11th November 2005, 08:43 PM

There were plenty of 'Christs' and Messiahs running around.

Yes, and when they died, their followers either scattered or moved onto another would-be Messiah--if they weren't killed. No one still claimed that they were still a Messiah after their demises, but rather being stomped out by the Romans was taken as an indicator that one wasn't the Messiah.

Christus says nothing more than 'an annointed one'. You really think that Jesus Christ was a unique conception of the time?

A "unique conception of the time"? Not sure what that means, but I think the answer is no.

However, that doesn't mean that he wasn't uniquely different from all the other would-be messiahs. For whatever reason, he was the only messiah who was still proclaimed as a messiah after death and had a growing post-mortem Gentile following. If you talk about a "Christ" doing stuff in Judea, you could be talking about a dozen different persons. If you talk about someone proclaiming a "Christ" in Corinth or Rome, well, that pares down the number of suspects to one.

Remove the biblical references (since they are completely and utterly suspect)

This is tantamount to saying that since the New Testament is unreliable, it can be treated as if it did not exist. This makes no sense. Any theory about Jesus has to explain why the content of the New Testament is what it is. If one insists that Jesus was the Son of God, etc., then one has to account for the historical problems with the New Testament. If one claims that Jesus is a more mundane person, one has to deal with issues such as whether the empty tomb account was wholly legendary or partly factual. If one claims that Jesus was wholly mythical, then one has to account for the presence of embarrassing material in the Gospels and the references to Jesus having brothers. Pretending that the NT doesn't exist is ignoring evidence, period.

geni

11th November 2005, 08:48 PM

Well, Josephus pretty much describe any and all figures that had just about any form of influence in Judea at that time. Aside from the Eusebius interpolation, he doesn't even mention Jesus. And even if that's NOT an interpolation, it's a very short passage, considering the usual Josephus stuff.

But why should jesus have any influence. He survived in the capitial a few days before being neutalised.

John the Baptist who aprently put together enough infulence to worry herod racks up ~260 words.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 09:00 PM

Just a note. The letters are dated PRIOR to the gospels.

Yes, I knew that. :) The two statements shouldn't be taken as directly related one to the other.

ruach1

11th November 2005, 09:05 PM

Dr Adequate

11th November 2005, 09:19 PM

I have yet to find any christian apologist who can refute this article:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.htmlThat is so stupid. The word-twisting, the triumphant production of a straw man, the false conclusions from the theory being examined...

I was half-expecting him to tell me that it was unscientific to believe in the existence of Jesus because you can't replicate him in a test-tube.

If that's atheism, I'm going to convert to agnosticism as a protest.

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 09:35 PM

Yes, and when they died, their followers either scattered or moved onto another would-be Messiah--if they weren't killed. No one still claimed that they were still a Messiah after their demises, but rather being stomped out by the Romans was taken as an indicator that one wasn't the Messiah.

A "unique conception of the time"? Not sure what that means, but I think the answer is no.

However, that doesn't mean that he wasn't uniquely different from all the other would-be messiahs. For whatever reason, he was the only messiah who was still proclaimed as a messiah after death and had a growing post-mortem Gentile following. If you talk about a "Christ" doing stuff in Judea, you could be talking about a dozen different persons. If you talk about someone proclaiming a "Christ" in Corinth or Rome, well, that pares down the number of suspects to one.

You are confusing the fact that today (and at a time after the establishment of the religion) we 'recognized' there was a supposed person named Yeshua attributed to exist (mainly by way of the gospels interestingly) and that at that earlier time, there was not such a clear recognition (not one clearly documented). Many Christians at the time seem to have had the symbology of the fish, the lamb, the cross (a very generic symbol for Rome, well known for crucifixion), the dove. Not a single symbol of a man on a cross or a man (or a person, god, god-man, so on and so on). And Gnostics seem to speak of logos and spirit without recognition at all of a human counterpart. Tacitus never mentions 'a person'. Only the term 'Christus'. This could be a mistake in attributing the word as a proper name or using a generic term when no such knowledge of a person was known.

This is tantamount to saying that since the New Testament is unreliable, it can be treated as if it did not exist. This makes no sense. Any theory about Jesus has to explain why the content of the New Testament is what it is. If one insists that Jesus was the Son of God, etc., then one has to account for the historical problems with the New Testament. If one claims that Jesus is a more mundane person, one has to deal with issues such as whether the empty tomb account was wholly legendary or partly factual. If one claims that Jesus was wholly mythical, then one has to account for the presence of embarrassing material in the Gospels and the references to Jesus having brothers. Pretending that the NT doesn't exist is ignoring evidence, period.

Yes, the NT is totally unreliable. It was written by people with motives and good imaginations, some not very admirable. The gospels are not historical documentation. They are a fanciful elaboration sprinkled with historical (sometimes very inaccurate or unsubstantiated) places and people as a means to illustrate and affix the doctrine, beliefs, and other philosophies associated with the religion as it stood at the time of the writings.

Did you read the link given by Peter S.? I agree with a good part of it and that agrees with much of what I've read independently. Even if some of this is biased or using questionable resources, the logic and other resources paint a grim picture for authenticity in historic documentation.

Everything before the start of Jesus' ministry is so highly suspect as to be dismissed right out of hand, without further comment whatsoever at all (does that make sense?). Much of what is attributed to Jesus' ministry (the miracles and a good part of the sayings* and actions) can be considered fable. The trial and basic crucifixion may have validity. Any bull about resurrection and reappearance goes along the wayside with all that before the ministry.

I repeat: not much to go by. Jesus, stripped of fantasy, hyperbole, and nonsense, is a very vague, fuzzy figure to say the least.

*It has been quite effectively shown that many of the 'sayings' attributed to Jesus can be traced to various other religions and philosophies, some verbatim!

UrsulaV

11th November 2005, 09:40 PM

I've often seen it claimed that the story of Jesus was fashioned in the motif of a dying-rising god, but the evidence that there really was such a motif is pretty slim. As far as I've seen, Aliyan Baal is about it. The rest is reading Christian motifs into pagan myth.

Wow, you're definitely skipping some big ones there.

Let's see--Osiris died, was resurrected. Had women attending his death and crying over him and everything.

Dionysus died, was resurrected. Also attended by women. (And was a virgin birth, too!)

Persian Mithras was not only super popular in Rome at the time, he was buried in a tomb and rose from there.

Tammuz, Akkadian, and Damuzi, Sumerian, were two versions of a vegetation deity who dies during summer, and is rescued from the underworld by Ishtar, who brings him back to life.

Atys, Phrygian deity, (a religion well-known in Rome at the time, as Atys's lover, Cybele, was biiig in Rome) had a lot of the resurrection motifs going on, being a deity associated with grain, harvest, sowing, etc. Supposedly his priests used to castrate themselves. You can say whatever you like about your belief in Christianity, but man, THAT's an expression of faith right there. Or something.

A number of other gods also did the death and rebirth trick, in areas rather less likely to be conflated with Jesus, but enough that we can point out it's a pretty common motif--the twin heros of Mayan mythology are killed playing ball, and raise themselves from the dead five days later, according to the Popul Vuh, Odin dies on the tree but comes back to life having regained wisdom, Coyote gets himself killed so many times and in so many inventive ways, and bounces back with such verve that he bears a closer resemblance to the Coyote who chased the roadrunner than Jesus, etc, etc.

We can argue all you want about how much influence any of the local myths might have had on the myths of Jesus, but there were definitely a LOT of them in the area at the time, many of them well entrenched and establish long before Christianity.

And as a professor I had, in a class on the conflict between Romans and Christians, pointed out--in the climate at the time, this sort of myth was commonplace. You weren't wowed by rising from the dead, you said "Oh, yeah, that happened to a friend of a friend of my cousin's." These were miracles that you heard about people doing all the time. Any self-respecting god did a whole bunch of 'em--water in to wine, virgin births, healing the sick, raising from the dead, casting out demons, these were Standard Miracles. We live in a rather colder age, but at the time, people would have viewed these much differently--not as earth-shattering events, but as "Yeah, that happens..."

Dr Adequate

11th November 2005, 09:42 PM

They are a fanciful elaboration...Yes, but the question is: are they a fanciful elaboration of real events? (as "elaboration" would seem to suggest).

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 10:02 PM

Yes, but the question is, are they a fanciful eleboration of real events (as "elaboration" would seem to suggest).

Well, that's the problem. We don't know! :) Noone was cognizant enough to make and retain records of any sort as crossreference to validate any part of these 'stories', even the parts which seem plausible. What a joy, even as an atheist, it would be to find the precursors to the Mark gospel which might record something of the original person who may have morphed into Jesus Christ SuperStar!

And you have to realize that that Peter S. link is a synopsis, with bias spackled througout the dissertation, I'll agree. But a good part of it is based upon a large database of research. It would literally take several encyclopedic volumes of texts to consolidate all of the research into the historicity of Jesus, the reliability of the recounts and authors of the NT, and the damage done by apologetics and history rewriting thereafter (such as basically eradicating Gnosticism). I have seven books on the Apocrypha and other idiosyncracies of Christianity, several more on more general Judeo-Christian opposition, as well as a full resource on the Bible itself (QuickVerse) - which, as noted previously and often, I've read completely in a couple of English forms (KJV and NAV).

The problem is that the bible is a canonical representation of the RCC. There are other bibles, other interpretations, non-canonical inclusions, non-canonical exclusions (the Apocrypha) and so forth. Really, one could spend an entire life learning Latin, Greek, Hebrew, history, theology, and a slew of other studies and still not attain a definitive answer. Too much contamination, too little scientifically verifiable support.

One must remember that the 'church' had a free hand in molding the 'mythos', even urging forgery and interpolation (again, Eusebius) as a means to establish the doctrine that the 'church' supported.

*edited to clarify

Francois Tremblay

11th November 2005, 10:03 PM

kuroyume0161

11th November 2005, 10:40 PM

Here's a great page on the historical development of the OT and the NT :

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

I don't like the guy because he's a liberal idiot, but his research in this particular area is considerable.

Very interesting read, Francois. And it brings back some of what I had read previously with great clarity.

Very recommended as a preface to further 'argumentation'. :)

kuroyume0161

12th November 2005, 01:09 AM

Since I'm tired and 'relaxed', I'll part with a story of my own.

Jesus and his disciples had just recently partaken of a Passover feast (the Last Supper). He and a select group went into the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus wished to prepare for the inevitable (betrayal of Judas and the subsequent events). Once there, and as Jesus did his preparations, the other apostles fell fast asleep. (Matthew 26)

Jesus did his pleading and returned a couple of times to wake his select apostles from their slumber and remind them of their reason for being there (the number of times varies). Then Judas and Roman soldiers arrived, Judas well paid with 30 pieces of silver and waiting to drive home that kiss. Jesus was arrested and thereafter separated from his apostles (until his suspectly miraculous reappearance after resurrection).

When were the words/thoughts of Jesus said in private whilst the apostles slept, whilst alone, conveyed so as to be written?

I'm not using the usual contradictions which Christian apologetics have strived hard to make amiable. This is a situation of information presented to the reader as authoritative without any possible means of acquisition!

Between this time and that of the Jesus' death, the apostles not once met or spoke with Jesus. And there is no other party who could have been there (well, except for God himself). Far be it for me to dispute personally subjective revelation from an omnipotent god! ;)

Did Jesus quickly relate his conversation with daddy as he was being dragged off? Was one of the apostles only pretending to sleep, all the while eavesdropping on the transpiring personal conversation? Unconvincing both.

Put in this context, if you cannot see the 'narrative' of a story, then you are too emotionally involved to be objective about the problems (and there are many others with similar situational issues).

I was once 'emotionally involved' and believed this stuff 'hook, line, sinker'. Since then, I think that I've reached a state of knowledge, maturity, and skepticism to think otherwise.

kmortis

12th November 2005, 05:47 AM

<snip intro>
When were the words/thoughts of Jesus said in private whilst the apostles slept, whilst alone, conveyed so as to be written?
<snip middle>

Did Jesus quickly relate his conversation with daddy as he was being dragged off? Was one of the apostles only pretending to sleep, all the while eavesdropping on the transpiring personal conversation? Unconvincing both.

<snip outtro>

I was once "discussing" the Book of Acts with an Epsicapailian friend of mine. I brought up my issue with the authors of the various NT books putting in dialouge when it was bloody well obvious that they could NOT have witnessed the speaking. He responded by saying that it was rather commonplace at the time for chronichlers to fabricate monoluoges, discussions and other speeches inorder to advance the story.

Now, this friend is very lerned in many areas, and I was tired of debating the whole thing, so I didn't ask for a source that describes this; but I do trust him so...

Anyhoo, a) does anyone know this to be true?
b) If it is, it explains the issue that I highlighed here, and draws into question how much of what is reported to have been said, really was said.

ruach1

12th November 2005, 08:17 AM

[QUOTE]snip
Yes, the NT is totally unreliable. It was written by people with motives and good imaginations, some not very admirable. The gospels are not historical documentation. They are a fanciful elaboration sprinkled with historical (sometimes very inaccurate or unsubstantiated) places and people as a means to illustrate and affix the doctrine, beliefs, and other philosophies associated with the religion as it stood at the time of the writings.
The NT is totally unreliable? As what? For whom? An historical account? For 21st century videocentric non-believers looking for irrefutable proof? Probably so.
But there are more perspectives on the NT than this, and until one is able to see beyond oneself, one will never understand the NT to be the beacon of heavenly light guiding one to and with the Christ.

I repeat: not much to go by. Jesus, stripped of fantasy, hyperbole, and nonsense, is a very vague, fuzzy figure to say the least.
From your perspective, this is certainly a fair statement. For those of the faith whose spirits are interwoven with the dynamic of I Cor 1:18-25, Jesus is much more than that which your perspective can allow.

*It has been quite effectively shown that many of the 'sayings' attributed to Jesus can be traced to various other religions and philosophies, some verbatim!
Yes this is true. Kung Fu Tzu (Confucious) has a version of the Golden Rule. However, this hardly diminishes Jesus' authority as the Christ--at least for the faithful.

Simply put, membership has its privileges. Faith is like a light switch which, when turned on, "activates" the "light" and makes the faithful able to see what the faithless cannot--in this case the Christ as Emmanuel--God for us. I don't want to sound elitist and arrogantly exclusive, but this is just how I see the perspective on Christ dynamic at work.

Huntster

12th November 2005, 08:44 AM

...As it is said, the only difference between me and you is that I reject all beliefs base on (blind) faith whereas you reject all but one.

And, again, that is incorrect.

There appears to be a common reading comprehension problem around here.

I do not reject most of the other religious faiths I have studied. I have spent a good deal of time in comparative religious study. The result was that I stuck with the Roman Catholicism of my upbringing while gaining a new appreciation for so many more religions, including Native American shamanism and Taoism.

I am appreciative of how they are alike, not as much in how they differ.

What I am impressed with in skepticism (which I classify as a religion) is in it's utter gloomy penchant for doubt. It is the religion of depression. There is no hope whatsoever. There is no progression (unless it is a downward spiral). It is unlike almost all other major world religions in those aspects.

And, finally, all faith is not "blind". I accept the written historical accounts, then use "judgement" supplemented with faith to arrive at my beliefs. That is not enough evidence for you. In accordance with the basic tenets of skepticism, however, there can never be enough evidence for you.

How can one achieve substantial physical evidence regarding a non-physical phenomenon? It is an oxymoron. That is why the Nazarean so regularly stressed faith.

But a religion based on doubt cannot understand and will regularly reject faith. Doubt and faith are exact opposites.

Skeptics have cornered themselves in a physical world guaranteed to end. It is a dead end road.

Huntster

12th November 2005, 09:00 AM

...1.3 billion muslims can't be wrong, can they ?

Seems pretty unlikely to me.

Huntster

12th November 2005, 09:05 AM

The fact of the matter is that Pilate is mentionned by roman records. That's INDEPENDENT confirmation of the existence of Pilate. There is no such thing for Jesus....

...Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...

Annals 15.44

Fungrim

12th November 2005, 09:25 AM

I am appreciative of how they are alike, not as much in how they differ.
That sounds close to theosophy. Problem is of course on what grounds the differences between the religions should be ignored.

What I am impressed with in skepticism (which I classify as a religion) is in it's utter gloomy penchant for doubt. It is the religion of depression. There is no hope whatsoever. There is no progression (unless it is a downward spiral). It is unlike almost all other major world religions in those aspects.
Sorry to break it to you, but if you define scepticism as a religion, you've got a problem. Also, why do you think it is depressing? Do you mean sceptics are more depressed? Any evidence for that is such case?

Skeptics have cornered themselves in a physical world guaranteed to end. It is a dead end road.
While you dream of things that are not. Fair enough.

Fungrim

12th November 2005, 09:26 AM

Seems pretty unlikely to me.
So when the majority of humanity thought earth flat, you think it is pretty unlikely they where wrong?

Huntster

12th November 2005, 12:11 PM

So when the majority of humanity thought earth flat, you think it is pretty unlikely they where wrong?

They were wrong, but didn't know it until proof, or overwhelming evidence, was available.

So someone like yourself, not believing anything without proof, would have wandered throughout 5,000 years of human history propounding that the world wasn't flat, because nobody had provided you proof of that?

Please...........................

geni

12th November 2005, 01:02 PM

So when the majority of humanity thought earth flat, you think it is pretty unlikely they where wrong?

When was that? Pretty much every civerlisation has left records showing they know it was round.

jjramsey

12th November 2005, 01:42 PM

Wow, you're definitely skipping some big ones there.

No, just pointing out that what is lacking is a dying and rising motif that is being recycled, rather than a force-fitting of myth into a preconceived pattern inspired by Christianity.

Let's see--Osiris died, was resurrected. Had women attending his death and crying over him and everything.

In one legend of the conception of Horus, Osiris is briefly resurrected long enough to have sex with Isis, and then goes back to being dead and becomes lord of the underworld.

Dionysus died, was resurrected. Also attended by women. (And was a virgin birth, too!)

Dionysus was killed by the Titans as a baby by being stabbed to death, and then he was cooked and eaten. He never dies as an adult. His mother was Zeus' lover, so saying it was a virgin birth was a stretch. He did go to the underworld to rescue his dead mother, but he entered the underworld by way of the lake of Lerna, rather than by being killed, so he was as alive as Hades or Persephone in the underworld.

Persian Mithras was not only super popular in Rome at the time, he was buried in a tomb and rose from there.

This is actually simply wrong. Mithras never died.

(By the way, it is probably a mistake to assume continuity between the Persian Mithra and the Roman Mithras. Franz Cumont, who, IIRC, was a groundbreaker in Mithraic studies, had understandably thought that there was continuity, but later scholars found that it didn't pan out. See Manfred Clauss' book The Roman Cult of Mithras.)

Tammuz, Akkadian, and Damuzi, Sumerian, were two versions of a vegetation deity who dies during summer, and is rescued from the underworld by Ishtar, who brings him back to life.

Tammuz, though, still gets stuck in the underworld for half a year, and for the other half, he is replaced by Ishtar's (or Inanna's) sister, Geshtinanna. This is actually reminiscent of a real motif in pagan myth, bilocation, the most famous example of which is the story of Hades, Demeter, and Persephone.

Atys, Phrygian deity, (a religion well-known in Rome at the time, as Atys's lover, Cybele, was biiig in Rome) had a lot of the resurrection motifs going on, being a deity associated with grain, harvest, sowing, etc.

The evidence for this is actually pretty thin. Some of it comes from a questionable interpretation of the five-day festival of Cybele. Scholars thought that if there was mourning for Attis on the festival's Day of Blood, then the celebration on the subsequent day, the Day of Joy, must have been for Attis' resurrection. The connection of the Day of Joy, according to J. Z. Smith, is based on "a fifth-century biography of Isidore the Dialectician by the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius, who reports that Isidore once had a dream in which he was Attis and the Day of Joy was celebrated in his honor!" ("Dying and Rising Gods," Encyclopedia of Religion) Smith also notes a reference to the work De errore profanarum religionum, which dates from about the fourth century, by Firmicus Maternus (verse 22.3), but according to him the passage does not name Attis and is probably about a late Osirian ritual. BTW, I have not been able to track down copies of these works of Damascius and Firmicus Maternus.

We can argue all you want about how much influence any of the local myths might have had on the myths of Jesus, but there were definitely a LOT of them in the area at the time, many of them well entrenched and establish long before Christianity.

There are far fewer than are claimed, and of the real ones left, there aren't much in the way of commonalities except for the bare points of dying and rising, which is what you'd expect if one was not dealing with a true motif, but a pattern imposed on the text.

And as a professor I had, in a class on the conflict between Romans and Christians, pointed out--in the climate at the time, this sort of myth was commonplace.

That's not too surprising, since the "dying and rising god" category has been taken seriously for quite a while, even when it hasn't been used in anti-apologetics. It is starting, though, to show its problems (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-09-07.html).

davefoc

12th November 2005, 01:54 PM

It seems like this thread has been moving away from the topic for awhile. Although, it is completely hypocritical of me to ask this (given my own penchant for digression), could we stay a little closer to the topic. If we start a discussion of when and where ideas about the shape of the earth were developed I am afraid this thread is gone.

The discussions about the philosophical differences between atheists and believers also, IMHO, don't have much to do with the topic.

jjramsey

12th November 2005, 02:13 PM

It seems like this thread has been moving away from the topic for awhile. Although, it is completely hypocritical of me to ask this (given my own penchant for digression), could we stay a little closer to the topic.

Ok, davefoc, here you go. . . . :)

You are confusing the fact that today (and at a time after the establishment of the religion) we 'recognized' there was a supposed person named Yeshua attributed to exist (mainly by way of the gospels interestingly) and that at that earlier time, there was not such a clear recognition (not one clearly documented).

No, I'm pointing out that of all the possible persons that may have been referred to as "Christus," only one of them works as a possible candidate in the Tacitus passage:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (emphasis added)

How many of those called "Christus" were the purported namesake of a religious group called Christians that became known in the Gentile world? Answer: One.

This is tantamount to saying that since the New Testament is unreliable, it can be treated as if it did not exist.

Yes, the NT is totally unreliable. It was written by people with motives and good imaginations, some not very admirable. The gospels are not historical documentation. They are a fanciful elaboration sprinkled with historical (sometimes very inaccurate or unsubstantiated) places and people as a means to illustrate and affix the doctrine, beliefs, and other philosophies associated with the religion as it stood at the time of the writings.

No kidding. And you've just shown that you have missed the point, which is that any proposed explanation of what Jesus was about has to explain why the New Testament has the content that it has, warts and all.

UrsulaV

12th November 2005, 03:04 PM

No, just pointing out that what is lacking is a dying and rising motif that is being recycled, rather than a force-fitting of myth into a preconceived pattern inspired by Christianity.

I'm think I'm confused by your argument. We agree that at least a couple of those listed died, and returned to life in one form or another, then returned to the Underworld, right?

Jesus supposedly died, returned to life briefly in a somewhat altered form, and then returned to Heaven. He certainly didn't hang out, alive, bein' a normal guy for a lengthy period. Jesus post-resurrection has like a coupla encounters and vamooses from the scene.

So I guess I don't see why Osiris being briefly alive and then going to an afterlife is different from Jesus being briefly alive and going to an afterlife. I mean, that actually seems a lot more similiar to me than somebody like Odin who comes alive and STAYS alive.

How do you see it as different?

davefoc

12th November 2005, 03:10 PM

jjramsey has put forth this quote from Tacitus as evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus.

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (emphasis added)
This site claims that the term Christian was not used at the time of Nero and as such the validity of this quote from Tacitus is suspect:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also gotcaught up in general attacks upon the Jews.
ETA:
The writer of this site contests in more detail and somewhat differently the validity of the Tacitus quote:
http://courses.drew.edu/FA2001/bibst-720s-001/tacitus.html

Huntster

12th November 2005, 05:52 PM

jjramsey has put forth this quote from Tacitus as evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus.

This site claims that the term Christian was not used at the time of Nero and as such the validity of this quote from Tacitus is suspect:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

That appears to be an attempt to simply re-write the interpretation of history, or claim that somebody else actually re-wrote the very words of history.

The lengths some folks will go............................

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

...1.How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

Jesus was a Jew. He did not challenge the Jewish faith, he simplified it (challenged the "slick-tongued lawyers", like the author of this site). It was entirely possible at that time, and even likely, to remain an orthodox Jew and believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. Indeed, some of the Pharisees at the time of Christ's crucifixion were his followers:

...So some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he does not keep the sabbath." (But) others said, "How can a sinful man do such signs?" And there was a division among them....

...The passage is out of context. Book 18 starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on.
Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre.
Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues:
'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...'
Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be 'another terrible misfortune.' It is only a Christian who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy....

And this is the evidence offered to establish that later Christians inserted words into the Josephus historical account?

Oh, come now!

...The phrase 'to this day' confirms that this is a later interpolation. There was no 'tribe of Christians' during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century....

Huh? "Off the ground"?

How about "underground"? A "tribe", hiding out so that they, too, didn't get wiped out.

The murders started with Christ and went on from there.

Why does the word "tribe" (instead of a word more to the critic's liking?) in a 1900 year old historical account indicate falsehood?

Wow!

...Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness......

.....Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians.....

Evidence, please.

...They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief....

!

Weak. Desperate. Almost funny.

...This is the stuff of Christian propaganda....

Lots of propaganda out there, huh?

http://courses.drew.edu/FA2001/bibst...1/tacitus.html

...When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes!...

Agenda noted............

...he nevertheless makes no reference to the "multitude" of believers who supposedly suffered martyrdom under Nero at the time of the burning of Rome. The silence in early Christian sources concerning this event is deafening....

The writer is obviously accustommed to writing such propaganda in the good ole' U.S. of A.

Other places can be damned dangerous.

The silence can get very deafening.

jjramsey

12th November 2005, 06:30 PM

I'm think I'm confused by your argument. We agree that at least a couple of those listed died, and returned to life in one form or another, then returned to the Underworld, right?

No, just one, Osiris.

Jesus supposedly died, returned to life briefly in a somewhat altered form, and then returned to Heaven. He certainly didn't hang out, alive, bein' a normal guy for a lengthy period. Jesus post-resurrection has like a coupla encounters and vamooses from the scene.

So I guess I don't see why Osiris being briefly alive and then going to an afterlife is different from Jesus being briefly alive and going to an afterlife. I mean, that actually seems a lot more similiar to me than somebody like Odin who comes alive and STAYS alive.

How do you see it as different?

For one, saying that both Osiris and Jesus go into an afterlife is glossing over a lot of details. Osiris is a dead god. He has a pretty good life in the underworld but he's stuck there. His resurrection is basically a brief respite before he dies again. By contrast, there's no hint in the Gospels that Jesus ascending to heaven meant that he died again after his resurrection (as opposed to Osiris) or that he is trapped in either an underworld or heaven. He is taken to be alive, period.

Also, my point about the lack of a dying and rising motif is that we don't see a pattern arising organically from the myths. Contrast this with the motif of bilocation, seen in

the myth where Persephone spends half the year in the underworld with her husband and half in the realm of the living with her mother.
the myth where after Aphrodite and Persephone fight for the affections of the infant Adonis, a deal is struck where Adonis half the year in the underworld with Persephone and half in the realm of the living with Aphrodite
the myth where Tammuz/Dumuzi spends half the year in the underworld and half in the realm of the living

The bilocation motif is straightforward and specific: someone is shuttled to and from the underworld on a semiannual schedule. We are probably dealing here with an honest-to-goodness recycled motif.

The mere presense of a dying and rising pattern, by contrast, is too vague to imply a common relationship. Dying is very common in myths, and it doesn't take a genius to think up the idea of someone dying and then "un-dying". Your examples of Odin, the two Mayan gods playing ball, and the Coyote show that point. These myths can hardly be said to be historically related, yet they share these common elements of dying and rising. That suggests that it isn't too difficult for dying and rising myths to arise independently. Now if there were dying and rising myths all over the place, then it would be rather odd to attribute all or even most of them to independent invention. Yet they aren't all over the place. There are a few myths with substantial differences scattered sparsely over history, which is what we should expect if such myths arose independently, rather than borrowing from one another.

davefoc

12th November 2005, 06:59 PM

Hunster, is it your view that the Josephus passages referring to Jesus do not vary significantly from what Josepus wrote?

This is a quote from one of the sites I linked to previously:

In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed. It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

source:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Of course, this guy doesn't necessarily have any more authority on this question than anybody else, but the site does explain why he believes that there must be at least some Christian oriented changes to what Josephus wrote. Among that evidence is the existence of an Arabic translation by a tenth century Christian, Agapius, that doesn't contain the portion of the text which is rejected by all secular scholars that I have seen referenced on this question.

A brief discussion of the Josephus writings in Arabic that refer to Jesus from the site linked to above:
Some scholars, notably Charlesworth, have been quick to receive this passage as being an important textual witness, as much or even moreso than the earlier Greek quoted by Eusebius. Charlesworth declares: "What is immediately obvious -- when one compares the Arabic and the Greek recensions -- is that the blatantly Christian phrases are conspicuously absent in the Arabic version." (p. 95) Of course, it must be acknowledged by everyone there is some redaction in the Arabic recension: "The possibility that anyone, including Jesus, was the Messiah, was not a proposition that could be taken lightly by any Jew, especially one with the experiences and credentials of Josephus. But it is even more apparent that no Christian could have originated such words as 'he was perhaps the Messiah...' It is best to assume that what Josephus wrote is not accurately preserved in any extant recension (Greek, Slavic, or Arabic); it has been at least slightly altered by Christian scribes." (p. 95) Further, Charlesworth says:

UrsulaV

12th November 2005, 07:03 PM

The mere presense of a dying and rising pattern, by contrast, is too vague to imply a common relationship. Dying is very common in myths, and it doesn't take a genius to think up the idea of someone dying and then "un-dying".

Well, certainly if one is a comparative mythology student, one can say that there are substantial themative differences. And I will agree--there are substantial differences. No argument.

However, I'm guessing the average Roman on the street was NOT a comparative mythology student, and did not have Josephus Campbellus to tell him that Osiris and Jesus weren't the same thing at all.

So if the question is "are there differences in the motifs here?" then the answer is obviously "Yes." But we may be pursuing two different questions--I thought the question was "Did the myths shlumped onto the historical Jesus resemble others in the area at the time?" and I'd still say that yes, they would, to the average person who's in the area at the time--who are, after all, the ones the myths are meant to impress! I mean, if I was a Roman wandering around and somebody said "This Jesus guy the Christians worship came back from the dead. Y'know, sorta like Osiris," I suspect I'd say "Oh, right, yeah, I remember that," not "Actually, there are significant differences between the dying and rising god figure motifs as represented by Jesus and Osiris, such that I don't think they should be considered thematically similiar." I, Roman, am not an abstract analyzer of myths, all I know is god gets betrayed, god dies, god un-dies, god heads to afterlife. For me, that counts as "resemblance." You may have a significantly different understanding of what a myth resembling another myth entails.

Now, there are certainly substantial differences between all the stories of dying and rising gods, but I think in actual practice, for a person in a world full of stories about gods, who does not have a degree in analyzing and abstracting mythological motifs, a god who died and then isn't dead is pretty much a god who died and then isn't dead. So I still would say that for the average Roman on the street, Osiris and Jesus and a whole bunch of others would appear to have a lot in common on the whole "dead/not dead" bit.

jjramsey

12th November 2005, 07:14 PM

The writer of this site contests in more detail and somewhat differently the validity of the Tacitus quote:
http://courses.drew.edu/FA2001/bibst-720s-001/tacitus.html

There are a few problems with the writer's argument. First, his justification of why a Christian interpolator would use terms like "most mischievous superstition" or "hideous and shameful" to describe his own faith is very weak. Whoever interpolated Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum had no problem with describing Jesus in positive terms, even though it didn't quite fit with Josephus' text, yet the supposed interpolator of Tacitus is willing to disparage his own beliefs for the sake of "verisimiltude"? Second, he writes as if Tacitus was referring to "hatred for all humankind" as a formal charge against Christians as an excuse for their arrest. Third, his alternative scenario is strained. Nero distracts attention from reports of his own culpability in the fire of Rome, not by using an already hated minority as a scapegoat, but by ramping up the cruelty in the circuses? This is not a convincing argument for interpolation.

UrsulaV

12th November 2005, 07:16 PM

This is actually simply wrong. Mithras never died.

Say, do you have any on-line sources on this? I'm diggin' around the 'net, and while I grant you Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable source, I'm finding a number of places that list Mithras as indeed having died and been resurrected, and granted that, I'd like a coupla more sources before we just assume this about t'deity in question.

clarsct

12th November 2005, 07:17 PM

Pssssht!

Jesus TOTALLY copied RE...erm Osiris.

Huntster

12th November 2005, 07:48 PM

Hunster, is it your view that the Josephus passages referring to Jesus do not vary significantly from what Josepus wrote?...

In all honesty, I don't know. I am very suspect of interpretations from such a website, but I'm certainly willing to review it.

...In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed....

Clearly, there is controversy, but it appears that there is enough in the Testimonium without the questionable phrase to establish a Josephus statement regarding Christ.

There is more of Josephus that is applicable:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm

...Antiquities 20. 9.1 199-203
The younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judgment. Possessed of such a character, Ananus thought that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinas was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabits of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from any further such actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced by these words, Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus threatening to take vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus' action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months and replaced him with Jesus the son of Damnaeus....

Comment

The death of James does not appear in the New Testament. The events described by Josephus occurred about 62 CE, which is just about when the latest writing of the New Testament, the Book of Acts, comes to a close, with Paul waiting in Rome for two years after arriving there in 60 CE.
James is depicted in Acts as the leader, with Peter, of the Jerusalem Christians after the death of Jesus, and shows James as adhering to the full Jewish law while ruling that non-Jewish Christians do not need to do the same.
Josephus' account is interesting in that it shows the Sadducees as enemies of James and the Christians, to the extent of resorting to summary execution to dispose of them. The accusation against James is that he transgressed the law of Moses. But he is defended by those "strict in the observance of the law," which is a way Josephus often refers to the Pharisees. The dispute here thus seems to be another of the Sadducee-Pharisee arguments, with James the victim in the middle; Acts depicts Paul as being in the same spot three years earlier (Acts 23:6-10).
Thus there was some question in the minds of both Jews as well as Christians as to whether James completed supported adherence to the law of Moses. It is interesting to see Pharisees defending James, as some Pharisees are also shown, in the Acts passage cited above, to belong to James' group of Christians. And in Acts 5:34, Rabbi Gamaliel of the Pharisees similarly defends Peter and John.
Some scholars have questioned the authenticity of this reference to Jesus, just as they have the Testimonium Flavianum passage. But the current consensus is that there is no indication this is a late interpolation; if it is, it is an unusually subtle and skillful one. In addition, the implied Sadducee-Pharisee factional battle and the vague accusation of transgression of the law support the idea that whoever was the subject of this passage played a role in the city similar to that of James; thus the context supports the name identification.
It appears that Josephus was not in Jerusalem at this time to witness the events. From his autobiography, he was most likely on his way to Rome....

There are literally dozens of Josephus recordings that support the gospels in other ways. Picking at the ones that specifically mention Jesus, or "Christ", to me, indicates the exact opposite that the pickers are alleging.

12th November 2005, 08:20 PM

Well, here's my perspective on the whole matter:

The Jews had a long-standing prophecy of a 'messaiah' who would come and free them from Roman oppression, and presumably restore Israel as a major world power. Obviously, that messaiah failed to materialize on any known occasion.

Enter the historical figure who we would come to know as Mary. Here is a woman of society, among the Jews: educated, witty, strong-willed, and clever. Yet she's looking at the Jewish people as being largely in decline. The main factions of Hebrew priests are essentially giving in to materialism and selling out faith for food; the people are losing faith in the whole Jewish schtick; and the Pagan Gods of Rome are starting to look mighty attractive.

So Mary makes a power-play, and with the help of her husband, arranges to try to have their child in the most prophecy-fulfilling matter possible. The scam works, at least partially, and for a time Mary enjoys a certain social elevation as the mother of the possible liberator of the Jewish people.

Now Mary isn't going to want to lose out on this newfound political and social clout, so she tries raising her son to be as strong-willed and independent as she is - but there's a snag. Yeshua gets exposed to more than just the Hebrew and Roman faiths surrounding him, and pieces together some very humanist concepts, mingled with more traditional beliefs common to most people of faith: that the Priests should be serving the public, rather than vice-versa; that the leaders of a Nation ought to be mastered by their people, rather than the other way around, etc. So Jesus, with help from Mary, comes up with a new, human-centered faith, and tries to spread it about the area. His followers, of course, stir up trouble, by not obeying the local priesthood, for example, and by being general pains to the local authorities. Of course, both priest and politician alike decide to take care of this trouble-maker, and his new personality cult, and have him executed.

Well, this is a HUGE setback, of course, for Mary and her social and political standing, for the cult itself, and for the local Jews who were still hoping that he would turn out to be the liberator of Israel. Things die down for a bit, the Jews carry on as usual, the Romans snicker a lot and probably take a more pro-active stance against local cults, and that's that.

Skip ahead about a generation, and we see that the people who were enmeshed in this personality cult are still at odds with society, with their religious leaders, and with the local authorities; but the small cults that splintered from Yeshua's group are a vastly divergent set, with not one of them large enough to make a difference. Add to this some off-shoot Jews who believe that the Messaiah story refers to a spiritual salvation, rather than an actual one. This is the environment that we see just prior to the authorship of the earliest Gospels.

Along comes some very educated and intelligent members of one (or more) of these mini-cults, with a bright idea: unification. Of course, unification wouldn't work without a LOT of labor; so these gifted storytellers begin to retell the tale of Jesus, and each one embellishes a bit more, in an attempt to provide a central figure for these splinter groups to gather around. This process goes on for a rather long time, until finally most of these groups have united as the Christians, and a few caches (possibly dissenters?) are eradicated. Over the course of this time, the historical person who was meant to be a saviour and failed becomes the Son of God, who didn't fail after all, but was resurrected and freed Man from Original Sin. And now you have Christianity.

So in short: Yes, there probably was a personality-cult leader whose name was Jesus, and who was at one point being sold as the Saviour of Israel. This alone could explain why his story survived where other would-be messaiahs and cult leaders vanished in the dust of history. But the Gospels are creative embellishments, fantasy stories based on some factual person, and have no business being used to justify the mythic cult we see today.

Meadmaker

12th November 2005, 08:22 PM

I haven't read every single one of the posts, but I'll throw in two cents worth of opinion, and one cent worth of information.

I think it very likely that a Jewish guy named Jesus (of course, that's a Hellenized version, but no one calles the guy "Joshua") was active in the first century AD in Palestine.

First, there is a cult of people who were active very shortly thereafter that thought he existed and was pretty darned important. Some of those people, like Peter, insisted that they had actually met the fellow.

Now, it's possible that Peter got together with some buds and said, "I have an idea. We'll start a new religion that is a lot like the Osiris cult, but the central character will be a Jewish guy." And then, they start preaching it in places where some of the people would have been old enough to remember the events. Imagine them going to Jerusalem saying, "Remember when Jesus came into your city, and was crucified?" And everyone said, "I don't remember that. Hey, Fredicus, you worked in the courts, did you ever remember some guy named Jesus?"

It's much more likely they would say, "Wasn't Jesus that loudmouth who caused all the trouble at the temple that day when he turned over the moneychanger tables. Good riddance." And then his cult wouldn't catch on much in Judea, but over in Alexandria it made a much better story, and the cult was born.

So, the existence of a cult seems like strong evidence by itself. But, there is other evidence. I think the most powerful evidence of his existence is that there are documents from several traditions that attest to it. Specifically:

1. The Gospels. We all know what those are, and their flaws, but they are there.

2. Josephus. While some have said it looks like forgery, it seems to me that the whole inclusion was probably not made up out of whole cloth.

3. Lots of evidence for Christians, very early.

And finally, there are two bits of evidence that I find rather interesting, if not compelling.

4. The existence and writings of the Mandaeans. Who are they, you ask? They are the survivors of the cult of John the Baptist. They live mostly in Southern Iraq today, although their numbers were severely diminished during Saddam Hussein's tenure. The existence of this group gives independent evidence of the existence of John the Baptist. While it doesn't prove, or even mention, anything about Jesus, verification of one element of the Gospel story would be relevant to deciding whether or not the rest is.

5. The most dubious piece of evidence I can think of, but still interesting, is a document called "The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". Some time in the middle ages, a book, in Hebrew, was discovered that is very much like the Gospel of Matthew. It was found on a Jewish scroll, and had been preserved by Jews. It has been speculated that Matthew and Mark were both derivations of a work, dubbed Q by scholars. It has been further speculated that this work was Q. It is obviously related to the Gospels, but was preserved, independently, by Jews. The work itself is interesting, because it is like Matthew, but Jesus appears much less divine than he did in Matthew. Of course, because the only manuscript we have is from the middle ages, many insist that it is actually a Jewish document in which someone took the "real" Gospel of Matthew, and took away a lot of Jesus' divinity.

Google the phrase "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" for more info.

Dubious as it might be, it is a small bit of evidence that the existence of Jesus was preserved through Jewish tradition.

jjramsey

12th November 2005, 08:35 PM

However, I'm guessing the average Roman on the street was NOT a comparative mythology student, and did not have Josephus Campbellus to tell him that Osiris and Jesus weren't the same thing at all.
--snip--
mean, if I was a Roman wandering around and somebody said "This Jesus guy the Christians worship came back from the dead. Y'know, sorta like Osiris," I suspect I'd say "Oh, right, yeah, I remember that,"

It would have taken a Josephus Campbellus (or a Jamesus Frazierus) to make a connection between Osiris and Jesus in the first place. The vast differences in detail between the few stories involving the dying and rising of a god suggest that the ancients didn't think of "dying and rising gods" as a handy category to begin with, so there's no that they would make the snap association between Osiris and Jesus that you describe. It is our modern-day awareness of Christian beliefs that makes another god's resurrection, even a temporary one, jump out at us. Bear in mind that not all the myths of Horus' conception even involve this temporary resurrection. Another one has Isis and Osiris making love while still in the womb (!) and conceiving Horus there (source (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/A.html)). That suggests that resurrection was hardly a central element of Osiris' mythology.

Say, do you have any on-line sources on this? I'm diggin' around the 'net, and while I grant you Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable source, I'm finding a number of places that list Mithras as indeed having died and been resurrected, and granted that, I'd like a coupla more sources before we just assume this about t'deity in question.

The handiest one would be

http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/whatmithisnt.htm

I would disagree with him on the conclusion that Mithraism postdates Christianity, but he is right in saying that the earliest artifact is from 90 C.E. The author of the page is a neo-Wiccan, for what that's worth. Really though, you are better off looking through the library and skimming the Mithraic scholars directly, or consulting the Encyclopedia of Religion.

Pssssht!

Jesus TOTALLY copied RE...erm Osiris.

I thought he copied John the Baptist. :p

clarsct

12th November 2005, 08:40 PM

Well, I actually fall on neither side here. I mean, the rsearch into this is probably good from a historical context, but I don't think we'll ever really know if Jesus Christ, as per the New testament, ever existed or not.

I always wondered of he wasn't made up by some monk in about 2 CE....

Huntster

12th November 2005, 09:01 PM

...verification of one element of the Gospel story would be relevant to deciding whether or not the rest is.....

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm

There are lots of various parallels between Josephus and the Gospels.

davefoc

12th November 2005, 09:08 PM

Comment on zaayrdragon's theory.

Doubt it greatly. One thing most secular scholars seem to agree on is that the birth stories are made up. Problems abound, but amongst them is that somebody had to take notice that Jesus was born and decide that this was important enough to commit the details of to memory or to write down the details at the time of the birth. This hypothetical chronicler had to decide that for the next 30 years nothing was all that important in the life of Jesus so he didn't record anything or for some reason all of his writings are lost to history. There is also that little matter of all the children that Herod supposedly killed but nobody else noticed. Plus the biblical passages that indicate that Mary thought Jesus was strange not divine.

So I think stories about Mary, Joseph, three wise men, mangers, etc. are pretty much fiction and theories based on these characters are pretty much just fiction added on top of fiction.

davefoc

12th November 2005, 09:14 PM

Comments on Meadmakers theories:

I think Meadmaker fails to understand the main theories of the people who believe that Jesus was not an actual character. My simplified and perhaps not quite correct synopsis of the non historical Jesus view:

The basic idea is that there were various cults around the time of Jesus based on Judaism with perhaps some fusion of Greek ideas. These cults may have existed before the supposed time of Jesus or perhaps they developed roughly at the time of Jesus.

One of these cults was the one that Paul was active in and they had an idea of a messiah that was either coming or had come that was not an actual physical entity. Paul fired these guys up and at some point in time the idea that there had been a real messiah began to evolve. Thus the Gospels were written.

Perhaps in some kind of compromise move to incorporate members from a cult that had followed John the Baptist (who seems to have been a real character) the John the Baptist character was inserted into the Jesus narratives.

For a long time, various loosely Christian/Jewish cults continued belief structures that were different than what would become the Christian Church Orthodxy established as a result of Constantine's messing about. These non-Orthodox Christian views were pretty much wiped out together with their documentation after the council of Nicea in 325 AD.

So a mythicist might argue the following with regard to your points:

1. The Gospels. We all know what those are, and their flaws, but they are there.
Not much evidence, as stated above. Clearly mostly fiction, so just based on these there's very little solid evidence one way or another.

2. Josephus. While some have said it looks like forgery, it seems to me that the whole inclusion was probably not made up out of whole cloth.

A mythicist would probably argue that the Josephus quotes referring to Jesus are complete fakes. There are several internet sites that make the case for this. But for me, this is the best piece of evidence. I think it is what tips me in favor of the idea of an historical Jesus. But this Jesus is so poorly defined that it is very difficult to be sure of much.

3. Lots of evidence for Christians, very early. Not sure what this evidence is. Certainly some of the early evidence may refer to gnostics who may not have believed in a physical Jesus. Certainly they had very non-Orthodox Christian views.

4. ...John the Baptist... Really only evidence that John the Baptist was a real character. As I mentioned above, mythist theories suggest that John the Baptist followers melded into Christian groups at a time later than the supposed life of Christ.

5. ...Hebrew Gospel of Matthew... I looked into this once before, and I decided that there wasn't much here, but based on your reference I will take another look at this.

Meadmaker

12th November 2005, 11:32 PM

Comments on Meadmakers theories:

I think Meadmaker fails to understand the main theories of the people who believe that Jesus was not an actual character. My simplified and perhaps not quite correct synopsis of the non historical Jesus view:

I've read this, but frankly I don't put much stock in the theories. Yeah, it's possible, but it just seems ridiculous to me. The writings I have read seemed to come from people that just wouldn't want to accept anything at all as historical about the story of Jesus. They seemed quite biased.

The whole idea of a non-corporeal messiah is a bit far fetched to begin with, meaning it isn't very Jewish, and then the suggestion that these believers in a noncorporeal messiah decided they were wrong, but made up a corporeal messiah and then gave the messiah divinity. Well, I can't prove it's wrong.

So, go ahead and throw the theory into the pot of possible explanations, but that doesn't mean I have to take it seriously.

I looked into this once before, and I decided that there wasn't much here, but based on your reference I will take another look at this.

There isn't "much" there, but it is interesting, to me at least. To me, it looks like a bit of evidence that the story of Jesus did really originate with Jews, and was later embellished. Definitive? Hardly. Worth paying attention to? Somewhat. Cool? I think so.

Huntster

12th November 2005, 11:56 PM

...The basic idea is that there were various cults around the time of Jesus based on Judaism with perhaps some fusion of Greek ideas. These cults may have existed before the supposed time of Jesus or perhaps they developed roughly at the time of Jesus.

One of these cults was the one that Paul was active in and they had an idea of a messiah that was either coming or had come that was not an actual physical entity. Paul fired these guys up and at some point in time the idea that there had been a real messiah began to evolve.....

I think it's important to point out that the Pharisees and Sadducees were also cults, or sects, at the time. Josephus also lists the Essenes as the third major cult, or sect, of the period.

Also, there is more regarding the Testimonium:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum.
For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus.
It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance.
Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost.
For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator....

Fungrim

13th November 2005, 04:38 AM

When was that? Pretty much every civerlisation has left records showing they know it was round.
Certainly. However, I was under the impression must of the populace did not know it. However, I was trying to make a general point about the "ad populum" fallacy, I shall be clearer next time.

So someone like yourself, not believing anything without proof, would have wandered throughout 5,000 years of human history propounding that the world wasn't flat, because nobody had provided you proof of that?
I take that as a yes.

My sincere apologies to all. I enjoy this thread quite a bit and will try not to derail it again.

Iacchus

13th November 2005, 05:01 AM

And yet what was Jesus' purpose for being here, except to teach us how to have faith in God? So, if in fact God does exist, then clearly the existence of Jesus (whether He existed in actuality or not) is not the issue at hand. It would certainly make the case of His existence more plausible, however, if we were able to ascertain that God exists ... it (the New Testament) being the most descriptive account of God's existence so far.

jjramsey

13th November 2005, 05:32 AM

The basic idea is that there were various cults around the time of Jesus based on Judaism with perhaps some fusion of Greek ideas. These cults may have existed before the supposed time of Jesus or perhaps they developed roughly at the time of Jesus.

The thing is that if this were true, the New Testament would probably look radically different. We should not expect stories like in Mark 6:1-6, which looks like an attempt to rationalize the failure to induce a placebo effect. We should not expect the birth narratives to look like they are trying to work around Nazareth being Jesus' hometown. The mythicist do a terrible job of explaining why an embarrassment like the crucifixion is made up; it is here that they resort to distortions of history, like trying to say that it arose from a currently circulating dying-rising god motif, or worse, a motif of a crucified god-man.

3. Lots of evidence for Christians, very early.
Not sure what this evidence is.

Paul's letters, Tacitus, and Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan on how to deal with Christians. And, no, I do not find it convincing that the mention of "Christus" in Tacitus is an interpolation, for the reasons mentioned above.

Also, there is more regarding the Testimonium:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

This ends up being a comparison of very weak parallels between Josephus and Luke. Not very convincing.

UrsulaV

13th November 2005, 08:32 AM

It would have taken a Josephus Campbellus (or a Jamesus Frazierus) to make a connection between Osiris and Jesus in the first place.

Whaaaaat?

Dude, I think we've hit a wall here, because that's just patently absurd to me. Introduce a myth to people who don't know it, and they will compare it to other myths they know. Dead god. Live god. People would TOTALLY make that connection. It boggles my mind to think that because the motifs don't all line up, you think people would be incapable of saying "Oh, yeah, a dying god that then isn't dead, I know one of those." That flies in the face of human nature.

The Romans in particular were constantly casting other Gods in terms of their own. "The Golden Ass" is about the cult of Isis, but includes a hefty section about Cupid and Psyche, which are tied together--the trials of Psyche are compared to the trials of the main character as he comes to the worship of Isis, despite the fact that Isis and Cupid are definitely different on the motif front.

Hermanubis showed up as a combination of the gods Anubis and Hermes, since hey, guy who leads the dead around, guy who leads the dead around, ignored vastly dissimiliar histories and other incidentals. Set is conflated with Typhon, god of storms, despite the fact that Set gets a lot more air time than Typhon ever does, and has a whole slew of other motifs goin' on, but the Romans were obviously fully capable of going "storm god here, storm god there! These two things go together!"

So, no, I'm sorry, there is just no way that I buy that these people couldn't possibly figure out that a dead god that becomes not-dead isn't similiar to another dead god that becomes not-dead. If you're deeply convinced of that, then we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, because I can't imagine how a perfectly intelligent people constantly seeing connections between gods would just happen to miss that one.

jjramsey

13th November 2005, 09:34 AM

The Romans in particular were constantly casting other Gods in terms of their own.

And when we try to classify gods according to a dying and rising pattern, we are doing what the Romans did, trying to make the others' religion fit into the categories with which we are familiar. This is not a good way to get inside the heads of the people of the time.

So, no, I'm sorry, there is just no way that I buy that these people couldn't possibly figure out that a dead god that becomes not-dead isn't similiar to another dead god that becomes not-dead.

Because when thinking of Osiris, they likely think of him as god of the dead, and as a god who is dead. Just the overall flavor is wrong. Osiris is typically depicted as a mummy, or in some cases the bull Apis. The temporary resurrection is an interesting side story, but it isn't a central element nor even a consistent element in Osiris mythology.

If we look at how the pagans saw Jesus, we see him as likened to a magician (i.e. Celsus (http://duke.usask.ca/~niallm/252/Celstop.htm)), or as a failed divine man, contrasted unfavorably with Apollonius of Tyana (http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius08.html#Divine_men). We see graffiti making fun of what was to them an absurd idea, a crucified god, rendered as a donkey-headed man crucified with a scrawl "Alexmenos worships his god." We even see Christians derided as "atheists"! They indeed tried to fit Jesus into their motifs, but a dying and rising god wasn't one of them.

davefoc

13th November 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
3. Lots of evidence for Christians, very early.

Originally Posted by davefoc http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1270885#post1270885):
Not sure what this evidence is. Certainly some of the early evidence may refer to gnostics who may not have believed in a physical Jesus. Certainly they had very non-Orthodox Christian views.

Originally Posted by jjramsey:
Paul's letters, Tacitus, and Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan on how to deal with Christians. And, no, I do not find it convincing that the mention of "Christus" in Tacitus is an interpolation, for the reasons mentioned above.

Yes there is evidence of Christianity early on. Except for Josephus and the NT, none of it is believed to date earlier than 100AD.

There are four issues here I think with regard to their value as evidence of an historical Jesus.
1. Were Christian oriented statements added in at later dates?
2. When the writers refer to earlier events were they accurate?
3. What did the Christians that are referenced believe in?
4. Evidence of Christianity is not the same thing as evidence of Jesus.

The scholarly consensus (not unanimous) does seem to be that the Tacitus lines were not intepolated. But that does not mean that what he said was correct. Those lines are dated late in his life, more than fifty years after the events. Is there historical evidence that Nero persecuted a Christian sect as opposed to a general persecution of Jews? If there were Christian Sects for Nero to persecute what did they believe?

I think there is a tendency amongst most casual thinkers about the nature of the rise in Christianity to assume what the leaders of what would become the orthodox church wanted us to assume. That is that a common doctrine existed after the death of Jesus that is more or less consistent with current Church orthodoxy and that this common doctrine was the basis for Christian Church doctrine as we know it today.

I think this view is false. There were many different ideas about what church doctrine should be. Many of the leaders of these early sects are known together with their divergent views. If a historical Jesus played a significant role in the establishment of the church this is the opposite of what one would expect. One would have expected an early common doctrine that gradually diverged over time.

Early church leaders were aware of this problem and as they were able to concentrate power they also sought to eliminate alternative views to create the impression of Jesus as a single founding source.

So what has come down to us today is a collection of very problematic evidence filtered through centuries of Christian manipulation. The issue of whether there was or wasn't a real character that inspired the Jesus stories is almost a secondary issue to how the fictional character was developed and came to be the basis for the world's largest religion. Even if he existed he played only a small part in the development of the mythology surrounding him.

davefoc

13th November 2005, 11:41 AM

13th November 2005, 12:22 PM

another comment on zaaydragon's theories:

My apologies zaaydragon, I think I was too quick to be dismissive of your ideas. The notion of speculating about the nature of the mother of Jesus struck me as so weakly founded on what is known that I didn't really absorb the rest of your thoughts very well.

Except for the highly speculative portion of your theory dealing with Mary, I think your ideas are reasonably founded on what can be guessed at. I thought your speculations about the mother of Jesus interesting but also completely without any historical basis.

Well, to be honest, I don't remember where these ideas about the supposed Mary came from. I do seem to recall that this was a socially affluent woman who was known for her independence and strong-will. The rest was actually some theorizing I've seen others do, and it smacks more strongly of truth than the Gospel tales OR the idea that there just wasn't any Jesus figure at all.

I'll try (if I remember to) and see if I can't find where I got this portrait of Mary from.

ceo_esq

13th November 2005, 01:07 PM

The fact of the matter is that Pilate is mentionned by roman records. That's INDEPENDENT confirmation of the existence of Pilate.

IIRC, the only clear evidence for Pilate that is independent of the Gospels, Josephus and Tacitus is a single brief inscription that was discovered in the early 1960s. And of course, one might expect that owing to his position Pilate would figure more frequently and prominently than Jesus in contemporary Roman records and in later works by Roman historians. Yet the great majority (and until very recently, all) of the little we know about Pilate comes from the same sources that tell us of Jesus' existence.

Huntster

13th November 2005, 01:44 PM

...I think there is a tendency amongst most casual thinkers about the nature of the rise in Christianity to assume what the leaders of what would become the orthodox church wanted us to assume. That is that a common doctrine existed after the death of Jesus that is more or less consistent with current Church orthodoxy and that this common doctrine was the basis for Christian Church doctrine as we know it today.

I think this view is false.....

I would hope so. Acts is filled with the story of the struggles among the apostles, starting mere days after the crucifixion. The Peterine/Pauline sects are yet another example. The fact that the Jewish religion at the time had numerous sects, Christianity is divided by countless sects, ditto Islam, shamanism, and on down the line.

Let's face it: Man is not capable of completely unified thought/belief. That's what free will is all about. This forum is yet another example.

...The issue of whether there was or wasn't a real character that inspired the Jesus stories is almost a secondary issue to how the fictional character was developed and came to be the basis for the world's largest religion....

The issue is faith.

Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away...

Huntster

13th November 2005, 01:46 PM

Well, to be honest, I don't remember where these ideas about the supposed Mary came from. I do seem to recall that this was a socially affluent woman who was known for her independence and strong-will. The rest was actually some theorizing I've seen others do, and it smacks more strongly of truth than the Gospel tales OR the idea that there just wasn't any Jesus figure at all.

I'll try (if I remember to) and see if I can't find where I got this portrait of Mary from.

Please do.

Like is commonly asked;

Evidence, please.

jjramsey

13th November 2005, 02:33 PM

And of course, one might expect that owing to his position Pilate would figure more frequently and prominently than Jesus in contemporary Roman records and in later works by Roman historians.

I don't think Pilate was that important a person, just yet another governor of a province. He was mostly interesting because of his scrapes with the Jews, and those, IIRC, are in parts of Josephus' works that don't have a direct association with Jesus. Also, we simply don't have many records from the first century, period.

13th November 2005, 03:27 PM

Please do.

Like is commonly asked;

Evidence, please.

Well, it's time to consume a small quantity of raven, possibly.

The best I can tell is that I probably picked up the idea from some documentary on TV years past. Certainly, little internet evidence makes any claims such as this, and the books I have only make vague reference to some early Christian dissent - roughly seventh century or so - in which Mary was proposed to have slept with a Roman officer, and having conceived, concocted the whole 'immaculate conception' routine to keep from being stoned to death. If this were the case, we'd have to paint a picture of Mary as a conniving schemer, certainly. However, I don't think there's a lot of evidence other than hearsay to support the idea that Mary was a little ho.

Just to be stubborn, nothing specifically rules out this idea, either - that Mary arranged as much of this as possible to improve her social standing. In fact, she may have been pushed into doing so by her relatives - wasn't Elizabeth similarly 'blessed' by God with Mary, after all? The idea might simply have been passed from mother to daughter.

Likewise, she may have felt some social pressure anyway, as it seems that her parents were descended from royal and priestly lines. Granted, in the time of Pilate, that ancestry might not have amounted to a hill of beans, and may even have been fabricated; but assuming that it was at least publicly accepted by her contemporaries, there may have already been considerable opinion that a child of Mary's would be something special. And certainly the idea of a liberator was prevalent among the Jews of that time... it's not a far stretch to say that she did her best to try to fulfill prophecies, which were undoubtably handed down through her family and fed to her from most of her contemporaries.

However, the idea that Mary was this scheming, resourceful young lady seems to be based on half-remembered television reporting - hardly a reliable resource, at all. Certainly no more reliable than Biblical sources.

13th November 2005, 03:32 PM

I don't think Pilate was that important a person, just yet another governor of a province. He was mostly interesting because of his scrapes with the Jews, and those, IIRC, are in parts of Josephus' works that don't have a direct association with Jesus. Also, we simply don't have many records from the first century, period.

From what I can tell, this has been an important point in Christian apologetics. Pilate was no more important than, say, Mayor Bob Jackson of Wichita, Florida... with the exception that he crucified the Saviour. In other words, the only people he WOULD have been notable to were people who already believed in the Christ. Even the meticulous record keeping of public officials attributed to the early Romans might not have included the local leaders of every town, hamlet, and watering hole throughout the Roman occupancy. For example, do we know who was in charge of public works in the month that Nero allowed Rome to be burned to the ground, or who was in charge of the legion occupying, say, Saldea, in the tenth year of its occupancy? Not bloody likely.

After all, like any public record, I'm sure they purged records that were getting cumbersome and served no good purpose, once the involved people and their immediate families were dead and gone.

Now, I'm no expert on Roman record keeping, but I do seem to recall that some societies placed the burden of record keeping for lower-level authorities on that authority's family after their service was over - and if this was the case in Pilate's Rome, his family may simply have fallen down on the job. Maybe recording that Pilate was the boss when all this controversy happened was considered to be a bad idea at the time. The fact is, we just don't know.

davefoc

13th November 2005, 08:12 PM

a couple of more comments on this quote from tacitus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

1. A stone was discovered in Caesarium that bares a reference to Pilate with the title, Prefect. Tacitus refers to Pilate as a procurator. I am not sure how significant the error is. It seems that the tiltles were not used interchangeably at least based on limited internet research. If Tacitus based his paragraph on Roman records, presumably he would have gotten the title right.
http://www.usd.edu/erp/Palestine/administ.htm

2. Apparently Paul doesn't mention all this torture of Christians that Tacitus seems to know about. Theorectically Paul was there. Did he mention it and what he wrote on this got lost or is the whole Christian torture thing made up? It seems like there might be a general consensus amongst scholars that it was. But I'm not sure about this.

The two issues above together with the unlikely existence of a significantly large group differentiated as Christians at the time of Nero seem to suggest that even if Tacitus wrote this he was writing down information he received from Christians and not basing his view on information from Roman records or Roman memories.

If what I have written above is roughly correct it seems like it is reasonable to give very little credence to the Tacitus quote as evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus.

As an aside it is interesting to see how different sites present the information about the Pilate inscription. Believer sites see it as further proof of the historicity of the bible. Skeptic sites are quick to point out the prefect/procurator issue.

UrsulaV

13th November 2005, 09:21 PM

And when we try to classify gods according to a dying and rising pattern, we are doing what the Romans did, trying to make the others' religion fit into the categories with which we are familiar. This is not a good way to get inside the heads of the people of the time.

I thought the Romans were some of the people who's heads we were trying to get into! *flail*

I give up. I don't think the question you were originally asking is the one I was trying to answer, or possibly vice versa, and I suspect we're discussing at cross-purposes, since I've completely lost any sense of what you were trying to prove in the first place, and none of it seems to bear on whether there was a real Jesus or not.

I'm just gonna gibber quietly over here in the corner for a bit...

geni

13th November 2005, 09:33 PM

Certainly. However, I was under the impression must of the populace did not know it.

I suspect that most of the population didn't think about it.

Huntster

13th November 2005, 10:23 PM

...Even the meticulous record keeping of public officials attributed to the early Romans might not have included the local leaders of every town, hamlet, and watering hole throughout the Roman occupancy. For example, do we know who was in charge of public works in the month that Nero allowed Rome to be burned to the ground, or who was in charge of the legion occupying, say, Saldea, in the tenth year of its occupancy? Not bloody likely.....

This fact makes the survival of the Gospels that much more incredible.

A 30 - 33 year old carpenter from Nazareth, on a 3 year religious mission, turns the world upside down.

Records kept by a gang of nobodys amongst a colonized society in turmoil, which was virtually destroyed some 30 years after his passing.

The Jewish nation was dispersed, not to reassemble under a flag again until just recently, 1900 years later.

davefoc

13th November 2005, 11:14 PM

One thing I've been wondering about is how many more times Josephus refers to John the Baptist. One site said the number was 19 and another site said it was 20.

Why did JtB get so much more coverage than Jesus?

Huntster

14th November 2005, 12:33 AM

...Why did JtB get so much more coverage than Jesus?

Perhaps because the followers of Jesus were more underground, less numerous, and less regarded than the followers of the Baptist.

davefoc

14th November 2005, 04:29 AM

Perhaps because the followers of Jesus were more underground, less numerous, and less regarded than the followers of the Baptist.
That sounds exactly right to me.

While I was doing some reading inspired by this thread I came across this article in Wikepedia on Barabbas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

One of the ideas discussed in the article is that Barabbas and Jesus were one and the same and that Jesus was the leader of a non-violent protest against Pilate (described by Josepus but with an unnamed leader) and that is what got him in trouble. It seems that Barabbas was known as Jesus Barabbas in some of the earliest editions of the Gospels. Barabbas could be interpreted to mean son of the father in Aramaic and might therefore refer to Jesus himself.

The idea has the ring of plausibility to me. The story about the custom of releasing a prisoner every year and the crowd cheering for the release of Barrabas is questionable since the no place outside the bible is any such custom mentioned. The idea that Pilate, who was the Roman governor, would order the execution of Jesus for civil disobedience also strikes me as more reasonable than that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus because his activities had angered the Jewish establishment.

This story also fits with the idea of a Jesus that might have had a small but intensely loyal folllowing whose death may have led to the kind of emotional bond that a powerful cult could have been built on.

Belz...

14th November 2005, 08:10 AM

IIRC, the only clear evidence for Pilate that is independent of the Gospels, Josephus and Tacitus is a single brief inscription that was discovered in the early 1960s. And of course, one might expect that owing to his position Pilate would figure more frequently and prominently than Jesus in contemporary Roman records and in later works by Roman historians. Yet the great majority (and until very recently, all) of the little we know about Pilate comes from the same sources that tell us of Jesus' existence.

My point is, there is at least SOME corroboration.

jjramsey

14th November 2005, 08:59 AM

Apparently Paul doesn't mention all this torture of Christians that Tacitus seems to know about. Theorectically Paul was there. Did he mention it and what he wrote on this got lost or is the whole Christian torture thing made up? It seems like there might be a general consensus amongst scholars that it was. But I'm not sure about this.

IIRC, Paul does make occasional reference to persecution in the epistles. Why, though, should he make detailed references what Nero was doing to Christians? What occasion would spur him to write about it?

The two issues above together with the unlikely existence of a significantly large group differentiated as Christians at the time of Nero

Depends on what you mean by "large". All one needs is a minority big enough to be persecuted.

even if Tacitus wrote this he was writing down information he received from Christians

Yes, this is likely the case, or more to the point, he is repeating claims made by Christians that have been heard amongst the common populace.

If what I have written above is roughly correct it seems like it is reasonable to give very little credence to the Tacitus quote as evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus.

The quote is, however, evidence that

Christians existed well by the end of the first century.
"Christus" or "Christos" was a term that the pagan world would understand as referring to the central figure of this new-fangled religion called Christianity.

jjramsey

14th November 2005, 09:54 AM

I thought the Romans were some of the people who's heads we were trying to get into! *flail*

I give up. I don't think the question you were originally asking is the one I was trying to answer, or possibly vice versa, and I suspect we're discussing at cross-purposes, since I've completely lost any sense of what you were trying to prove in the first place

My point was that the "dying and rising god" category was not a category that the pagans naturally thought in. One giveaway that this is the case is that the "dying and rising god" pattern fits very few of the myths that it is said to fit, and of those that do fit, the differences in the myths are so substantial as to show that the myths aren't related. Another giveaway is that when we do see pagans fit Christianity into their categories, we see them pick categories other than that of a dying and rising god, such as that of a "divine man" or a magician. Even then, they have trouble fitting Christianity into their categories. As the graffiti I mentioned earlier shows, the idea of a crucified being being worthy of worship was absurd to them. That implies that when we describe Meditteranean myths in terms of dying and rising gods, we are reflecting our biases, not those of the Romans or other pagans.

This means that it is unlikely for them to think "Jesus is like Osiris," because they don't normally think of Osiris as a Dying and Rising God(TM). That's not to say that they have never heard of the myth of Osiris temporarily rising (though given the alternate version of Horus' birth, they may not have), but rather that when they think of Osiris, a whole host of other associations are far more at the forefront of their minds. For them to associate Jesus with Osiris would be to associate a central element of Jesus with a peripheral and often absent element of Osiris.

and none of it seems to bear on whether there was a real Jesus or not.

Often the argument runs that story of Jesus was derived altogether from the idea of dying and rising gods.

14th November 2005, 10:14 AM

IIRC, Paul does make occasional reference to persecution in the epistles. Why, though, should he make detailed references what Nero was doing to Christians? What occasion would spur him to write about it?

And there is the thing that tradition claims that Paul died in Nero's persecution. If this part of the tradition is true, then it would rather nicely explain the lack of references to it in his writing.

The quote is, however, evidence that

Christians existed well by the end of the first century.
"Christus" or "Christos" was a term that the pagan world would understand as referring to the central figure of this new-fangled religion called Christianity.

And a third one: The quote is evidence that there were Christians during Tacitus's time who believed that Jesus was a real historical figure.

davefoc

14th November 2005, 11:13 AM

LW wrote:
And a third one: The quote is evidence that there were Christians during Tacitus's time who believed that Jesus was a real historical figure.

That is one thing I think we can be sure of with or without the Tacitus quote. By then it seems that there is widespread agreement that most or all of the Gospels had been written.

davefoc

14th November 2005, 12:23 PM

jjramsey, LW et al motivated me to look a little bit more about the issue of whether Christians were around at the time of Nero in significant enough numbers to be used as scapegoats for the burning of Rome.

One of the things that I didn't understand was that most of what we know of Nero either came from Tacitus or Suetonius. So if one is going to dispute the idea that Christians weren't used as scapegoats by Nero it has to based on some theorizing that may not have much of a foundation. At any rate most of the sites I looked at on the internet don't question the idea that Nero used the Christians as scapegoats.

It also seems the fact that Paul was probably in a Roman jail at the time of the fire is proof positive that there were some Christians in Rome then. It is also not clear when Paul died perhaps in 64 right after the fire or perhaps in 67. I am not sure of the evidence behind the dates of his death but whatever it was he doesn't seem to have any writing definitely credited to him after the time of the fire so there isn't any Paul writing that covered a time when the Christians were made scapegoats.

Of course, there are still many questions left:

Tacitus was nine at the time of the fires. It seems that he might have had a personal knowledge of the use of Christians as scapegoats. But his passage seems more like an inclusion based on what a Christian has told him. Might not have he expanded on that if he had a personal relevant memory?

What is the nature of what those early Christians believed? The Gospels probably didn't exist in 64 and even if an early version did had it made its way to Rome by then?

And once again, proof of Christians is not proof of Jesus, but if there were really Christians in 64 that believed that Jesus had been a real person that seems like a piece of evidence that there was a real Jesus. Maybe something like the Jesus I talked about above who had a small following and led one or more non-violent protests and was executed by the Romans for his actions.

HeyLeroy

14th November 2005, 12:23 PM

JESUS' BLACK
ANCESTORS (http://www.godonthe.net/wasblack.htm)

Several years ago I worked with a Jehovah's Nitwit. He was constantly prosyletizing.

One day he started talking about how his daughter had a baby fathered out of wedlock by a Phillipino man. He then started on about the 'mud races'. I asked him how he could say things like this, as Jesus was a black man. Boy, did that wind him up! After a few minutes of arguing to me how this was impossible, he walked away. The next day I showed him this, and he never talked to me again.

SCORE!

Huntster

14th November 2005, 12:44 PM

JESUS' BLACK
ANCESTORS (http://www.godonthe.net/wasblack.htm)...Jesus was a black man....

If it mattered, there is no credible evidence of this. Jesus was clearly described as coming from the line of David.

...SCORE!...

What did you score?

kmortis

14th November 2005, 12:55 PM

If it mattered, there is no credible evidence of this. Jesus was clearly described as coming from the line of David.

What did you score?

And DAvid was a white man???:eek:

Huntster

14th November 2005, 01:15 PM

And DAvid was a white man???:eek:

Who said David was "white"?

Are Hebrews white, black, or somewhere in between?

I would say that one from the Hutu tribes in Central African were black, one from a Scandinavian background are white, and many folks fit somewhere in between.

Don't make me whip out the dictionary again, I don't have time for that right now.:D

14th November 2005, 01:53 PM

Tacitus was nine at the time of the fires. It seems that he might have had a personal knowledge of the use of Christians as scapegoats. But his passage seems more like an inclusion based on what a Christian has told him. Might not have he expanded on that if he had a personal relevant memory?

Tacitus was probably not born in Rome itself but in some province. The most likely candidate for his home region is Gallia Narbonensis around the modern Marseille but this is not certain. Pretty much all sources that I've read say that if Nero's persecutions happened, they were limited to the Rome proper, meaning that Tacitus would not have first-hand knowledge about the fire or the hunt for space goats.

What is the nature of what those early Christians believed?

Very difficult question, that one.

E.P. Sanders argues in The Historical Jesus that there are at least three teachings in NT that probably come from Jesus himself. His argument is basicly that the teachings in question were so incovenient for the early church (and Paul in particular) that had they originated by some less authoritive source, they would have been rejected. I don't remember what the third was (it's been several years since I read it), but two were:

the statement that John the Apostle would not die before the establishment of the Kingdom of God. (John 21:22-23 has some damage control on this)
the order to preach only to Jews. (Matt 10:5-7)

UrsulaV

14th November 2005, 02:56 PM

My point was that the "dying and rising god" category was not a category that the pagans naturally thought in.

I'm still not entirely convinced of this, but I suspect it's one of those things that's gonna be hard to prove either way, absent a time machine earmarked for anthropological research.

Then again, it's really neither here nor there, 'cos this gets us to another point which is maybe more important--according to you, there weren't dying and rising gods motifs, and even if there were, Jesus didn't get any. Pagans were just not terribly impressed with his whole hypothetical resurrection, because they appeared not to believe it. (I don't blame them, I don't believe it either.)

But Christians at the time DID believe it. For some teeny weeny minority, they bought it hook line and big rock. So where did they get a dying and rising god motif to believe? Given that it's no more likely Jesus rose from the dead than Osiris or anybody else, did somebody just come up with an idea out the blue? Did one person make the connection to dying and rising gods--which, if you claim they didn't exist, they'd have to invent from whole cloth?

It's well and good to say that there was never any connection between the motifs of dying and rising gods and Jesus, but obviously SOMEBODY came up with a myth where Jesus rose from the dead at some point, even if most of the world found it laughable and scrawled graffiti everywhere making fun of it. If we take the skeptical view that we're not buyin' a revenant messiah without a helluva lot of evidence,* then what's likely to have inspired our mythmakers?

Who, in other words, is most likely to have cooked the ending?

*Let's establish right now that no amount of written evidence will ever convince me that a guy rose from the dead--all it can prove is that people BELIEVED a guy rose from the dead, which is something else entirely.

HeyLeroy

14th November 2005, 03:13 PM

If it mattered, there is no credible evidence of this. Jesus was clearly described as coming from the line of David.

Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the "offspring of David." Mary was not descended from David, but Joseph was. Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the son of your god at all, but the (mortal and not divine) son of Joseph?

What did you score?

I 'scored' not having to deal with the frothy-mouthed rantings of a superstitious loonie who was preventing me from doing my job.

Just wondering, Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?

jjramsey

14th November 2005, 05:08 PM

So where did they get a dying and rising god motif to believe? Given that it's no more likely Jesus rose from the dead than Osiris or anybody else, did somebody just come up with an idea out the blue?

Ideas of resurrection would easily come out of second-temple Judaism. That's not so out of the blue at all.

Huntster

14th November 2005, 09:12 PM

Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the "offspring of David." Mary was not descended from David, but Joseph was. Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the son of your god at all, but the (mortal and not divine) son of Joseph?...

Joseph's lineage is outlined in Matthew, Chapter 1. Mary's is not outlined anywere, so we do not know if she is descended from David or not.

It should be no wonder why Joseph's lineage was the one outlined. We all know the role of women in the Middle East even today (outside of Israel, of course).

...I 'scored' not having to deal with the frothy-mouthed rantings of a superstitious loonie who was preventing me from doing my job....

Yeah, sometimes a juicy lie is very effective under such circumstances.

...Just wondering, Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?...

I don't know. Perhaps they did. Little of the household in Nazareth is outlined. And the New Testament is not comprehensive:

...There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written....

John 21:24-25

He is certainly called Immanuel today.

ceo_esq

14th November 2005, 09:13 PM

My point is, there is at least SOME corroboration.

The inscription corroborates, say, the New Testament, Josephus and Tacitus about the existence of Pontius Pilate; yet it is equally true that the New Testament, Josephus and Tacitus corroborate the inscription on this point, as well as one another.

If one compares the number of probably authentic and separately composed 1st and early 2nd century texts suggesting the existence of Pilate (of which the inscription is just one) to the number of them suggesting the existence of Jesus (in some cases, the very same texts as for Pilate), the historical Jesus doesn't fare badly at all.

Indeed, can you see how, in a probabilistic sense, the existence of the Pilate inscription actually slightly increases the odds that the New Testament refers to a historical Jesus?

David Swidler

15th November 2005, 04:40 AM

At what point did the Romans - whose perspective Tacitus, Suetonius and perhaps even Josephus would reflect - begin to distinguish between proto-Christians and Jews in general? Would the Romans take the time to discern the differences among various troublemaking groups of Jews? It's clear that the early Christians considered themselves Jews (at least until the focus became preaching to the pagans), so did anyone draw real distinctions that early on?

kmortis

15th November 2005, 05:22 AM

Yeah, sometimes a juicy lie is very effective under such circumstances.

Hunster,
Surely you are not arguing that Jesus was an Anglo-Saxon with dark hair? That is how he's generally portrayed in paintings. He was a total Semite. He probably hard dark hair and a really good tan. That's probably the bigger take away from that article than weather or not Jesus had negroid ancestery.

jjramsey

15th November 2005, 07:11 AM

Belz...

15th November 2005, 08:09 AM

Indeed, can you see how, in a probabilistic sense, the existence of the Pilate inscription actually slightly increases the odds that the New Testament refers to a historical Jesus?

Not necessarily. I can write a novel based in a historical setting, but whose characters are wholly fictionnal.

UrsulaV

15th November 2005, 08:22 AM

Ideas of resurrection would easily come out of second-temple Judaism. That's not so out of the blue at all.

I suppose I could ask "So where'd they get it?" but I don't actually care, since this has mostly just confirmed that we are asking two entirely different questions, and I've forgotten what mine was by now.

So at the end of the day, are we still at "Resurrection was a bloody easy motif to slap on mythological Jesus?" 'Cos I think that's what I'm takin' away from all this.

davefoc

15th November 2005, 09:05 AM

At what point did the Romans - whose perspective Tacitus, Suetonius and perhaps even Josephus would reflect - begin to distinguish between proto-Christians and Jews in general?
This goes to what I think is the more interesting question, what was the nature of the early church and how did it come to gain such widespread popularity? I suspect that something similar to the Christian Church would have been created whether Jesus had existed or not.

The idea I have is that there were various sects at around the time of Jesus, some of which had a focus on a messiah. One sect which I suspect might have been representative of this were the John the Baptist followers (the Mandaeans that exist even today mentioned by Meadmaker). Some of these sects had mixed followings of ethnic Jews and non-ethnic Jews. Greek seems to have been widely spoken at the time and there may have been a lot of religious mixing between Jews and non-Jews. I think some of these sects would be thought of as Christian by later Christian writers but in fact their beliefs would be barely recognizable as Christian by mondern standards.

One of these sects may have been one led by Jesus. This sect may have taken on greater promenance after Jesus was killed, perhaps the sect was led by the brother of Jesus after Jesus died.

For awhile these sects spread without much of a common thread other than they held a belief in a messiah and that the Jewish bible and Jewish customs to some degree played a role in their religion. I suspect right from the start some of these sects were partially or entirely gentile. At some point ideas promoted by the Jesus sect began to be integrated into the teachings of some of these messiah sects.

The author of Mark may have been the leader of one of these sects.

If one believes the current scholarly consensus, Mark was the first Gospel. Mark is credited with making a number of errors that a practicing Jew might not have. So my suspicion is that the sect that the author of Mark was involved in was paritially or entirely non-ethnically Jewish. The author of Mark was a skilled story teller of the highest order. He had probably honed his craft as a priest and he knew what kinds of stories had traction with his audience. The author of Mark was not constrained by the need for historical accuracy but he did work in some of the details of the Jesus fellow into his story.

So based on this idea the first sect to practice Christianity that is close to the Christianity that we know today may have been etnically non-Jewish.

It is Matthew, which uses a great deal of the words out of Mark that seems to be more Jewish. He changes certain parts of Mark to make Mark more consistent with Jewish practice. And of course it is believed that all the Gospels were originally written in Greek although there is references to a version of Matthew in Hebrew that may have existed.

So at some point in time the largely Gentile religion of Gospel based Christianity begins to fold elements of itself back into some of the messiah sects. Perhaps the author of Matthew initiated this process for some of the more ethnically Jewish Messiah sects.

davefoc

15th November 2005, 09:24 AM

So at the end of the day, are we still at "Resurrection was a bloody easy motif to slap on mythological Jesus?" 'Cos I think that's what I'm takin' away from all this.

And some of us were there before all that.

jjramsey

15th November 2005, 09:32 AM

Some of these sects had mixed followings of ethnic Jews and non-ethnic Jews. Greek seems to have been widely spoken at the time and there may have been a lot of religious mixing between Jews and non-Jews.

Um, if Gentiles and Jews had mixed that easily in that day, there wouldn't have been all those skirmishes with foreign occupiers in Palestine. The gist of what messiahship was about was that he would overthrow the foreign oppressors and put the righteous Jews back on top. This was true whether one is talking about a military Messiah actively bringing about a revolt, or a Messiah for whom a sect of Jews might quietly await.

The author of Mark was a skilled story teller of the highest order.

Um, actually Mark is not known for being that good a writer. Luke's the one with the polished Greek.

Huntster

15th November 2005, 10:40 AM

Hunster,
Surely you are not arguing that Jesus was an Anglo-Saxon with dark hair?....

Nope.

...He was a total Semite. He probably hard dark hair and a really good tan.

That would be the obvious assumption.

...That's probably the bigger take away from that article than weather or not Jesus had negroid ancestery.

What do you mean by that?

kmortis

15th November 2005, 11:04 AM

Nope.

That would be the obvious assumption.

What do you mean by that?

Well, you seemed to take offence to the idea that JC had negroid blood. Ok, fine, mebbe he did, mebbe he didn't. As long as you admit that he's not a white Anglo-Saxon, I see no real issue here. That's the real issue; that many people assume, incorrectly, that JC was A-S, that's all.

c4ts

15th November 2005, 11:13 AM

I'd always thought Jesus would have looked like an arab.

Ossai

15th November 2005, 11:48 AM

davefoc
One thing I've been wondering about is how many more times Josephus refers to John the Baptist. One site said the number was 19 and another site said it was 20.

Why did JtB get so much more coverage than Jesus?
Because Jesus was a latter forced addition.

One of the ideas discussed in the article is that Barabbas and Jesus were one and the same and that Jesus was the leader of a non-violent protest against Pilate (described by Josepus but with an unnamed leader) No, Jesus was executed for disrupting Jewish religious rites. Read the bible, and Jesus specifically only teaches to other Jews and is basically a dooms day prophet.

UrsulaV
Pagans were just not terribly impressed with his whole hypothetical resurrection, because they appeared not to believe it. (I don't blame them, I don't believe it either.) Why should they have believed them anyway?
Early Christian: Our god rose from the dead.
Non-christian: So he’s around and I can see and talk to him.
EC: No, um…er…

NC: But you just said he rose from the dead.
EC: Ya, but then he went to … heaven, ya, he went straight to heaven
[BS detector rings louder]
NC: But you said the founder of your church (Paul) talked to him.
EC: That was a special case
[BS detector clanging]
NC: walks off.

[b] HeyLeroy
Just wondering, Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?
Because Matthew is referring to a specific verse in Isaiah, however if you bother to check out the chapter in Isaiah it is clearly not a messianic prophecy. In essence the writer of Matthew was force fitting out of context bits of text to weave a prophecy after the fact.

Huntster
Joseph's lineage is outlined in Matthew, Chapter 1. Mary's is not outlined anywere, so we do not know if she is descended from David or not. What, have you never read Luke? Oh wait, that’s also Joseph’s genealogy, too bad it doesn’t match the one in Matthew.

He is certainly called Immanuel today. Nope, not unless your referring to some small sect that refers to him as such.

Ossai

kmortis

15th November 2005, 11:58 AM

EC: No, um…er…
[BS detector goes off]
NC: But you just said he rose from the dead.
EC: Ya, but then he went to … heaven, ya, he went straight to heaven
[BS detector rings louder]
NC: But you said the founder of your church (Paul) talked to him.
EC: That was a special case
[BS detector clanging]
NC: walks off.

It's Peter...not Paul. Peter met him. Paul never did.

UrsulaV

15th November 2005, 12:05 PM

davefoc
UrsulaV
Why should they have believed them anyway?

Hey, don't look at me, I can't think of a single good reason why anybody'd believe it, then or now.

davefoc

15th November 2005, 12:10 PM

Thanks for your respons jjramsey.

The author of Mark was a skilled story teller of the highest order.

Um, actually Mark is not known for being that good a writer. Luke's the one with the polished Greek.
jjramsey, while I think your comment is interesting it doesn't really go to what I was talking about. I think the author of Mark was a great story teller in the sense that George Lucas is. Not that George Lucas is a great director or a great author of dialog, but that he has the ability to devise stories that resonate with people, stories that people find compelling.

Um, if Gentiles and Jews had mixed that easily in that day, there wouldn't have been all those skirmishes with foreign occupiers in Palestine. The gist of what messiahship was about was that he would overthrow the foreign oppressors and put the righteous Jews back on top. This was true whether one is talking about a military Messiah actively bringing about a revolt, or a Messiah for whom a sect of Jews might quietly await.
I am going to respond to this based on my current understanding without going back to articles or sources. This is probably not the best way but the alternate way seems like work right now and I'm feeling lazy.

The facts that my scenario attempts to explain are these:
1. The Gospels are written in Greek. Although many Jews of the time spoke Greek, Judaic religious documentatin of the time comes down to us in either Aramaic or Hebrew. So there early on seems to be evidence of a fusion between Jew and Gentile with respect to the early Christian writings.

2. Apparently the Roman religons of the time were excluding women so Roman women may have been casting about for a religion that was more inclusive of them.

3. Yes, some of the Jewish messiah sects might have been looking for a leader to get rid of the Romans a la the situation hundreds of years earlier when the Jewish priests were putting together propaganda to energize the populace for a fight against the Assyrians but the thrust of Christianity is not that. The Gospels appear to be put together as propaganda against the Jews and in favor of the Romans.

4. Judaism at its biblical core is a tribal religion that needs to be modified for widespread acceptability in a non-ethnic Jewish world. My supposition is that this was a problem recognized by the priests that were trying to take advantage of the then current interest in Judasim by the Gentile crowd.

5. I think there is almost a universal appeal to many of the old testament stories and maybe some of the mysticism associated with Judaism. The Kabala fad of today is an example of how elements of Judaism can inspire even ethnically non-Jewish people to adopt aspects of Judaism. I find it plausible that this is exactly the kind of thing that was going on around the time of Christ. Maybe at this time the belief in an impending messiah was acting as a particularly inspirational notion to attract even non-Jewish converts.

ETA: I didn't add this initially because I had already referred to it, but I would like to expand on it a little.

6. The original Gospel (assuming it is Mark) seems to have been written by a person with a limited knowledge of Jewish customs. My thought here was that he very well might have been non-Jewish or at least associated wtih a sect that was moving away from Jewish traditions. The fact that Matthew, a later Gospel, seems to be more Jewish oriented implies to me that there is a cross pollination going on between sects that are not strongly associated with Judaism and those that are strongly associated with Judaism. As somebody mentioned above it is Matthew that the line about only preaching to Jews shows up.

Huntster

15th November 2005, 12:29 PM

He is certainly called Immanuel today.
Nope, not unless your referring to some small sect that refers to him as such.

I refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

Huntster

15th November 2005, 12:47 PM

Well, you seemed to take offence to the idea that JC had negroid blood....

Not at all. Since I come from a multi-racial family (I look "white", my brother looks "black", and our Dad looked "Hispanic"), it isn't an emotional issue to me at all. It just has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

...Ok, fine, mebbe he did, mebbe he didn't. As long as you admit that he's not a white Anglo-Saxon, I see no real issue here. That's the real issue; that many people assume, incorrectly, that JC was A-S, that's all....

Gee, "you seemed to take offence to the idea that JC had" Anglo blood.

Isn't this a ridiculous line of Bravo Sierra that has absolutely no value except to raise racist exceptions, and is usually only used to cloud the issue?

davefoc

15th November 2005, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by davefoc
One of the ideas discussed in the article is that Barabbas and Jesus were one and the same and that Jesus was the leader of a non-violent protest against Pilate (described by Josepus but with an unnamed leader)

Originally Posted by ossai :
No, Jesus was executed for disrupting Jewish religious rites. Read the bible, and Jesus specifically only teaches to other Jews and is basically a dooms day prophet.

---
I suppose your response is tongue in cheek, but a response anyway: I think a very large percentage of the Gospels are false. We know this because they are self contradictory, contain facts inconsistent with non-blblical recorded history, describe numerous implausible events and they describe speech by Jesus for which it is unclear how anybody could have been present to record it or speeches that are so long that no individual could have reliably recorded them especially after the passage of at least twenty years but probably more.

So what we are left with is a document that clearly contains a few real facts included wtih a lot of made up stuff. My own cut at it is, to make a guess at the truth, start by selecting the minimum set of facts that has some sort of corroboration and then more speculatively try to tease some parts of the gospels that remain into plausible events.

The barabbas idea I described has two parts:
Jesus was barrabas:
More plausible than the idea that the crowd sat around cheering to save barrabas when only a short time earlier Jesus had been a big hero. Especially more plausible given that that the once-a-year-get-out-of-crucifiction idea has no extra biblical corroboration.

Jesus was the non-violent protester referred to by Josephus:
Kind of makes sense. Jesus might have developed a following that resisted Roman restrictions on Judaism. Romans were pretty good at holding and occupying regions with a carrot and stick approach and the stick was massive swift brutality including crucifying people to scare the hell out of the rest of the rabble. So this idea seems more plausible than that Jesus pissed off local priests to the point that they and the populace wanted him crucified and they managed to talk the Romans into doing it. That Jesus was the leader of the non-violent protest referred to by Josephus seems exactly like the kind of fact that could have been expunged by an early Christian copyist since it clearly didn't fit with the overall Christian narrative.

One last thought on this:
I think the minimalist and the mythicist views are very similar with respect to the historocity of Jesus. Neither the mythicist nor the minimalist believes that Jesus set out to found a religion that is consistent with modern Christianity.

Neither the mythicist nor the minimalist believes that there is much real history in the Gospels.

Both the minimalist and the mythicist believe that the spread of Christianity was driven much more by the nature of the times, the charisma and the story telling skills of some key players than any particular direction received by a possibly real Jesus.

ceo_esq

15th November 2005, 04:03 PM

Not necessarily. I can write a novel based in a historical setting, but whose characters are wholly fictionnal.

Sure. That remains entirely possible. Nonetheless, it is true that the Pilate inscription's corroboration of Tacitus, Josephus, and the Gospels as to Pilate's existence ever-so-slightly enhances the statistical probability of other basic narrative/historical details from those sources (including the existence of Jesus) being accurate. This could probably be phrased in Bayesian terms.

Ossai

15th November 2005, 09:04 PM

kmortis
It's Peter...not Paul. Peter met him. Paul never did. Actually Paul of tarsus claims to have seen him (well after his death), his great revelation which prompted his name change from Saul to Paul.

If you’re referring to
But you said the founder of your church (Paul) talked to him. Paul is the founder of the modern Christian church. He made Christianity into a Hellenistic Christ cult, much more widespread than what Peter accomplished.

Huntster
I refer to the Roman Catholic Church. And I again refer back to Isaiah, where it is very clearly not a messianic prophecy.

davefoc
Jesus was the non-violent protester referred to by Josephus:
Jesus preached violence at least in the early gospels aimed strictly at the Jewish people.

So this idea seems more plausible than that Jesus pissed off local priests to the point that they and the populace wanted him crucified and they managed to talk the Romans into doing it. Jesus comes into town, disrupts temple affairs (merchants), the Romans execute him for the disruption and for preaching violence.

That Jesus was the leader of the non-violent protest referred to by Josephus seems exactly like the kind of fact that could have been expunged by an early Christian copyist since it clearly didn't fit with the overall Christian narrative. You’re right, the early Christian narrative, but not for the reason your assuming. Check out the higher criticisms and the history of early Christianity.

I think the minimalist and the mythicist views are very similar with respect to the historocity of Jesus. Neither the mythicist nor the minimalist believes that Jesus set out to found a religion that is consistent with modern Christianity. Here I agree with you. The reason why is that Jesus in the gospels teaches nothing original and basically spouts the party line for a popular Jewish sect (Essenes I believe) at the time.

Ossai

Huntster

15th November 2005, 09:29 PM

HeyLeroy:
...Just wondering, Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?...

Huntster:
...He is certainly called Immanuel today....

Ossai:
...Nope, not unless your referring to some small sect that refers to him as such....

Huntster:
...I refer to the Roman Catholic Church....

Ossai:
...And I again refer back to Isaiah, where it is very clearly not a messianic prophecy....

Isaiah, 7:14...Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel....

ceo_esq

15th November 2005, 09:40 PM

Jesus preached violence at least in the early gospels aimed strictly at the Jewish people.

To which early gospels are you referring, specifically?

kuroyume0161

15th November 2005, 10:39 PM

HeyLeroy:

Huntster:

Ossai:

Huntster:

Ossai:

Isaiah, 7:14

Response (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html)

Now you can pull your foot out of your mouth (again)...

Now that you may have read that terse rationalization. Read these:

Response 1 to the response (http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/isaiah7.htm)
Response 2 to the response (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/7.html)
Response 3 to the response (http://englishatheist.org/indexz37.shtml)

davefoc

15th November 2005, 11:01 PM

On the issue of whether Isaiah 7:14 was a prediction fulfillled with the birth of Jesus:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_proi.htm

I note that kuroyume0161 posted a link on this issue while I was making this post. I'll go ahead and post my link. It's specific to Isaiah 7:14 and it provides a believer and a skeptic view.

I won't let on which view I'm leaning towards on this issue. But I'm thinking one or two of my previous posts might provide some clues.http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ossai

16th November 2005, 06:55 AM

Huntster
...Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.... Gasp, gasp, oh no, let’s look at the chapter in question. (NRSV version)
Isaiah 7: 1-12 – basically there is a war going on. The prophecy is that a child will be born and the war will be over before he reaches maturity. No messianic prophecy here.

Isaiah 7:13-17
“Then Isaiah said: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah — the king of Assyria."

Still no messianic prophecy.

ceo_esq
Jesus preached violence at least in the early gospels aimed strictly at the Jewish people.
To which early gospels are you referring, specifically?
Matthew.

Ossai

ceo_esq

16th November 2005, 12:53 PM

Matthew.

Why would any reasonable person interpret Matthew's Gospel as an exhortation to violence?

Huntster

16th November 2005, 12:58 PM

Why would any reasonable person interpret Matthew's Gospel as an exhortation to violence?

You expect to find reasonable people around here?

kuroyume0161

16th November 2005, 01:34 PM

To respond in kind: Not while people like you stick around... ;)

I'd love to have the time to expend on getting indepth about the controversy, but today I'm only playing 'hooky' from work - as I did a rather arduous amount of that over the past week or so, nonstop.

Using the bible as a source to validate the existence of Jesus, especially spouting prophetic passages, does not seem reasonable at all. Show me one prophecy that has ever been scientifically validated to have been fulfilled.

The bible must be removed as a reliable source as long as there is no strong corroboration. One has no doubt that certain historic aspects in the NT are fact (Rome, Greece, Egypt, Judea, Jerusalem, Herod, Tiberius Caesar, etc.). These have existential evidence independent of the bible. Remove the obvious and you are left with the tentative - such as Pontius Pilate, Nazareth. And the rest is purely speculation, improbable, or impossible.

The extra-biblical evidence is therefore the only worth noting - and it is sparse and terse and tainted. If you still hold to your Cornellius Tacitus claim, read this (possibly again):

Historicity of Jesus FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)

And this for more confusion on the matter:

Hidden History in Acts of the Apostles (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/sid_green/hidden.shtml)

Solitaire

16th November 2005, 07:10 PM

I've seen the claim from fundies several times lately that Jesus definitely existed and that all serious historians agree on this point - the debate is purely about whether he was actually God incarnate or just a man.

My natural inclination is that this claim is probably akin to "Evolution has been disproved", but I know nothing of the subject so what gives? What do actual historians think and how strong is the evidence for Jesus compared to say Ceasar or other historical figures?

You ought to try Did A Historical Jesus Exist by Jim Walker (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm). The conclusion just rocks.

Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitness accounts we must tread carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean it represents reality. For example, consider some of the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness accounts of alien extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but present blurry photos to boot! If we can question these accounts, then why should we not question claims that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes from ancient and unknown people that no longer live.

Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least a few reliable eyewitness accounts.

Of course a historical Jesus may have existed, perhaps based loosely on a living human even though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to nothing but speculation. However we do have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every detail in the gospel stories occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.

So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask for the author's birth date. Anyone who's birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.

jjramsey

16th November 2005, 07:23 PM

Using the bible as a source to validate the existence of Jesus, especially spouting prophetic passages, does not seem reasonable at all. Show me one prophecy that has ever been scientifically validated to have been fulfilled.

This is irrelevant. We are not talking about showing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, etc., except perhaps for Huntster. We are talking about the existence of a person in history about whom many legends likely sprang.

The bible must be removed as a reliable source as long as there is no strong corroboration.

There is a vast difference between regarding the Bible as unreliable, which is good methodology, and treating it as if it did not exist. For example, it does not follow that Jesus grew up in Nazareth simply because the New Testament says he did. However, it is a fact that the New Testament makes such a claim, and any theory as to where Jesus grew up or whether he even existed has to cogently account for the existence of that claim, either by arguing why the claim is likely true, or by explaining why the claim is probably counterfactual. Ignoring that the New Testament even makes such a claim is to ignore pertinent data.

It also does no good to say that since the New Testament has falsehoods, it should be treated as if it were the testimony of a consistent liar. The New Testament is all over the map on this. On the one hand, there are clearly false stories in it. On the other hand, it relates material that appears to be neutral and even against its authors' interests. It is a mixed bag and should be treated as such.

If you still hold to your Cornellius Tacitus claim, read this (possibly again):

Historicity of Jesus FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)

Yes, the FAQ says pretty much what's been said already: Yes, it is unlikely to be a forgery, and no, it is unlikely that Tacitus is independently confirming Christian claims. If you are talking about the likelihood that "Christus" in Tacitus' Annals could be referring to some other would-be messiah besides Jesus of Nazareth, the FAQ does not deal with that at all.

kuroyume0161

16th November 2005, 10:00 PM

This is irrelevant. We are not talking about showing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, etc., except perhaps for Huntster. We are talking about the existence of a person in history about whom many legends likely sprang.

Yes, and all of the 'legends' exist in the NT (gospels) or ancillary thereto in the non-canonical books (apocrypha). Look, there is nothing of any possible real person to be gleaned about King Arthur from the legends in 'L'morte de Arthur' either. The best they can do with this relatively new legend is pin it on several of a dozen possible candidates - of whom they have historical records on which to pin. There are no corroborating historical personages onto which to pin the possible real person Jesus or Yeshua or the Teacher of Righteousness (and so on).

There is a vast difference between regarding the Bible as unreliable, which is good methodology, and treating it as if it did not exist. For example, it does not follow that Jesus grew up in Nazareth simply because the New Testament says he did. However, it is a fact that the New Testament makes such a claim, and any theory as to where Jesus grew up or whether he even existed has to cogently account for the existence of that claim, either by arguing why the claim is likely true, or by explaining why the claim is probably counterfactual. Ignoring that the New Testament even makes such a claim is to ignore pertinent data.

There was no Nazareth at the time of Jesus' supposed life. It was created by the wife of Constantine to best of our knowledge. As one strips away all of the legend and interpolation, the man Jesus shrinks into oblivion. Not that a person (Teacher of Righteousness) could not be embodied in the legend. But it starts to sound like most of the legend was concocted to fit the evolving story (or stories).

It also does no good to say that since the New Testament has falsehoods, it should be treated as if it were the testimony of a consistent liar. The New Testament is all over the map on this. On the one hand, there are clearly false stories in it. On the other hand, it relates material that appears to be neutral and even against its authors' interests. It is a mixed bag and should be treated as such.

I didn't say the NT authors were consistent liars. Some of them are assured to have taken prior writings into account as they wrote. And, as Tacitus did, they took the party line as to what had happened obviously without research.

Yes, the FAQ says pretty much what's been said already: Yes, it is unlikely to be a forgery, and no, it is unlikely that Tacitus is independently confirming Christian claims. If you are talking about the likelihood that "Christus" in Tacitus' Annals could be referring to some other would-be messiah besides Jesus of Nazareth, the FAQ does not deal with that at all.

Jesus the NAZAREAN. There was no Nazareth that has been found to exist in the time of Jesus' life.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene)
The Way of Jesus the Nazarean (http://www.essene.com/Church/nazirene.html)
Home towns (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-33709.html)
Did Jesus Christ exist? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm)
Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html)
Jesus Puzzle website (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm)

jjramsey

17th November 2005, 06:43 AM

Yes, and all of the 'legends' exist in the NT (gospels) or ancillary thereto in the non-canonical books (apocrypha). Look, there is nothing of any possible real person to be gleaned about King Arthur from the legends in 'L'morte de Arthur' either. The best they can do with this relatively new legend is pin it on several of a dozen possible candidates - of whom they have historical records on which to pin. There are no corroborating historical personages onto which to pin the possible real person Jesus or Yeshua or the Teacher of Righteousness (and so on).

False analogy. The King Arthur legends are very loosely tied to any historical time line. They are also fairly melodramatic; there is little about them that is mundane. The accounts in the Gospels occur over a much more clearly defined span of time. Various parts are surprisingly mundane, and some look like rationalizations of failure.

There was no Nazareth at the time of Jesus' supposed life.

From the site (http://virtualreligion.net/iho/) by scholar Mahlon H. Smith:

Tombs & agricultural evidence (silos, cisterns, olive & wine presses) provide concrete evidence that the site was inhabited from the early days of Israelite occupation of the land [12th c. BCE].

The tablet from Caesarea Maritima documents that some priestly families moved there after the Bar Kochba revolt (http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar07.html) in 135 C.E, making it unlikely that the site of Nazareth was really a large family farm, unless you want to make unsupported speculation that it turned from a family farm into a village.

Belz...

17th November 2005, 10:38 AM

False analogy. The King Arthur legends are very loosely tied to any historical time line. They are also fairly melodramatic; there is little about them that is mundane. The accounts in the Gospels occur over a much more clearly defined span of time.

Yet Luke and Matthew disagree by as much as 10 years as to the birth date of Jesus.

davefoc

17th November 2005, 11:31 AM

It seems what we have agreed on so far is that the Gospels are mostly fiction (with no disrespect intended here towards hunster, I realize he probably doesn't agree with this) with some correct historical details mixed in. The fact that there is some known non-fiction content supports the notion that there may be some truth in some of the details related to Jesus. The fact that there are some details that are inconsistent with some Christian notions adds some additional credibility to the idea that there might be some truth in the Gospels with respect to Jesus.

Further we have agreed that the extra biblical references are suspect because of the possibility of later Christian oriented additions but that in particular the Josephus references are likely to have been at least partly based on original Josephus writings. (based on an apparent scholarly consensus in that direction mostly).

It also appears that the Tacitus reference is probably real but of limited evidentiary value related to the issue of whether there was an historical Jesus.

The thing that hasn't been discussed much is the evidentiary value of Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles. The evidence cuts both ways from these sources but for some of the people that I have read and/or discussed this issue withl, the most important piece of evidence that moves them from a mythicist view to a minimalist view is Paul's letters and maybe the Acts of the Aposte book in the NT.

davefoc

17th November 2005, 11:42 AM

Yet Luke and Matthew disagree by as much as 10 years as to the birth date of Jesus.

This is the kind of thing that I was talking about with respect to the Gospels. There are many internal inconsitencies, together with lots of other problems. But none of this precludes the possibility that there is a kernel of truth about Jesus in them.

So the question is, is there enough ring of truth in the NT, coupled with the extra-biblcal sources to make a reasoned guess that an individual existed whose life had some minimum set of characteristics similar to the Biblical Jesus to be judged to have been the historical Jesus.

About half way down the page there is a nice table summarizing the inconsistencies between the Gospels in this site:
http://www.reluctantatheist.com/authenjesus.htm

pgwenthold

17th November 2005, 11:48 AM

This is irrelevant. We are not talking about showing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, etc., except perhaps for Huntster. We are talking about the existence of a person in history about whom many legends likely sprang.

But as I've noted before, if this is your standard, then the question is about as interesting (and substantial) as whether Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz lived or not.

I mean, there was a girl from Kansas named Dorothy (L. Frank Baum's niece) who had an Aunt "Em" (Maude Baum) and there were many stories written about her.

If that is what you mean by "historical Jesus" I think most people would probably acknowledge there was someone like that. Of course, such a character has only a trivial resemblence to that described in the NT, so it's not clear what it's worth. It's certainly not "historical" in any sense except the fact that he lived at a time that is history to us now.

kuroyume0161

17th November 2005, 11:58 AM

It seems what we have agreed on so far is that the Gospels are mostly fiction with some correct historical details mixed in. The fact that there is some known non-fiction content supports the notion that there may be some truth in some of the details related to Jesus. The fact that there are some details that are inconsistent with some Christian notions adds some additional credibility to the idea that there might be some truth in the Gospels with respect to Jesus.

Further we have agreed that the extra biblical references are suspect because of the possibility of later Christian oriented additions but that in particular the Josephus references are likely to have been at least partly based on original Josephus writings. (based on an apparent scholarly consensus in that direction mostly).

It also appears that the Tacitus reference is probably real but of limited evidentiary value related to the issue of whether there was an historical Jesus.

The thing that hasn't been discussed much is the evidentiary value of Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles. The evidence cuts both ways from these sources but for some of the people that I have read and/or discussed this issue withl, the most important piece of evidence that moves them from a mythicist view to a minimalist view is Paul's letters and maybe the Acts of the Aposte book in the NT.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell basically.

I know people claim this and that about certain authors, but I am reading auxilliary texts at this site (http://pages.ca.inter.net/%7Eoblio/home.htm) from the author of "The Jesus Puzzle": starting with the Main Articles. If Paul ever knew that there was a person at the heart of Christianity (other than himself and the 'twelve'), he sure was good at avoiding it. The structure of the religion is so well laid out (but, of course, this could be a forced structure without going more depth into scholarly details) that it is rather clear that this is a form of mystery religion that Paul is advocating and preaching. The fact that the Holy Spirit is given and all knowledge is 'revealed' from God through revelation in the scriptures using his intermediary, Jesus Christ, and none of it handed down from a great teacher or prophet (only the prophets of the OT) speaks volumes.

Acts 'acts' as an intermediary (sort of like Paul's Jesus Christ). From some of my readings, it is speculated that the Pauline epistles are some of the oldest Christian documents in the canon, followed by Acts of the Apostles, and then the Gospels. This sure sounds like an evolving orthodoxy - from Greco-Judeo mystery religion to one where there is a hinted real figure to one where the 'real' figure is enfleshed.

There may have been a town of Nazareth in the early first century. Yet there are many scholars who would agree that it is fully possible and more likely that this is a corruption of Nazarean (the cult) which can be traced to that time period. The fact that the interpretation seems to be able to go both ways must make one wonder which is more important: that Jesus was from Nazareth (almost inconsequential) or that he was a Nazarean (stating his belief system).

ETA: I should correct myself that it was purported to be Constantine's mother, not wife, who established 'Nazareth'.

davefoc

17th November 2005, 03:48 PM

But as I've noted before, if this is your standard, then the question is about as interesting (and substantial) as whether Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz lived or not.

I mean, there was a girl from Kansas named Dorothy (L. Frank Baum's niece) who had an Aunt "Em" (Maude Baum) and there were many stories written about her.

If that is what you mean by "historical Jesus" I think most people would probably acknowledge there was someone like that. Of course, such a character has only a trivial resemblence to that described in the NT, so it's not clear what it's worth. It's certainly not "historical" in any sense except the fact that he lived at a time that is history to us now.
pgwenthold, I think you have hit on the fundamental idea that unites the views of the mythicist and the minimalist: If an historic Jesus existed his life has been wildly fictionalized in the Gospel accounts and his story played only a small role in the development of Christianity..

I think that the more interesting question is how did Christianity get going rather than was there an historical Jesus given the limits on the part that individual is likely to have played in the formation of Christianity. Although, for me, the issue of Jesus's existence is interesting, albeit one which is very unlikely to ever be answered with any degree of certainty.

I think you also allude to what I think of as the semantic element inherent in the nature of the question about the existence of an historical Jesus. What exactly constitutes the minimum similarity between the life of a real Jesus and the life of the Christian Jesus?

I don't have a firm view on this, but most of the following would need to be true to meet my minimum requirements for an historical Jesus:

1. The individual played a signicant role in a religious (perhaps partially political) sect roughly in the time frame of the Christian Jesus.

2. He was killed or believed to have been killed by the Romans at roughly the same time as the Christian Jesus.

3. After his reported death, the sect he had been part of carried his memory forward and infused the developing Christian groups with some of their ideas especially concerning the life of Jesus.

I think you are right, if you meant by "most people" in your post I quoted above, that a scholarly consensus exists that an individual fitting those criteria existed. You are wrong if you think the case is clear cut or that there aren't a number of scholars that believe no such individual existed.

Belz...

17th November 2005, 04:00 PM

This is the kind of thing that I was talking about with respect to the Gospels. There are many internal inconsitencies, together with lots of other problems. But none of this precludes the possibility that there is a kernel of truth about Jesus in them.

I was merely responding to the assertion that there was a clear setting in time.

jjramsey

17th November 2005, 07:39 PM

If Paul ever knew that there was a person at the heart of Christianity (other than himself and the 'twelve'), he sure was good at avoiding it.

Argument from silence. Doherty writes a lot of rhetoric on how since some second-century writers mentioned Jesus, then Paul should have done likewise. His examples of where Paul should have mentioned items from Jesus' history are pretty lame:

No first century epistle mentions that Jesus performed miracles.

And where would Paul shoehorn this? Doherty never explains why Paul should have felt a need to do this.

Both Colossians and Ephesians view Jesus as the Savior whose death has rescued mankind from the demonic powers who were believed to pervade the world, causing sin, disease and misfortune. But not even in these letters is there any mention of the healing miracles that the Gospels are full of, those exorcisms which would have shown that Jesus had conquered such demons even while he was on earth.

The mention of them would have cluttered up the letters without any appreciable change in their impact.

The fact that the Holy Spirit is given and all knowledge is 'revealed' from God through revelation in the scriptures using his intermediary, Jesus Christ, and none of it handed down from a great teacher or prophet (only the prophets of the OT) speaks volumes.

It would speak volumes if it weren't a distorted reading of the epistles. Even Paul refers to handing down tradition, as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

This sure sounds like an evolving orthodoxy - from Greco-Judeo mystery religion to one where there is a hinted real figure to one where the 'real' figure is enfleshed.

Evolving orthodoxy, yes, but probably not in the way that you described. For example, the crucifixion has been a central part of Christianity from the beginning, and it implied that there was a flesh-and-blood person being crucified. Doherty's contention that the crucifixion was a mythical event in a upper heaven doesn't hold water, but depends on speculation and a mangled translation of kata sarka as "in the sphere of the flesh."

Think carefully about this. A mythical Christ gets historicized in a way that his story becomes that of a peasant Galilean Jew from an obscure town who preaches doom to towns near the Sea of Galilee of no particular religious importance, such as Capernaum and Chorazin, fails to do miracles in Nazareth, and dies in a way that make Christianity look ridiculous to many pagans. And this is supposed to be more probable than the idea that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but was overlaid with legends like so many other historical figures have?

There may have been a town of Nazareth in the early first century. Yet there are many scholars who would agree that it is fully possible and more likely that this is a corruption of Nazarean (the cult) which can be traced to that time period.

Actually, there are very few who would agree with that, and in any case, it's unfounded speculation meant to work around the references to "Nazarene" in the New Testament that, in context, clearly refer to a denizen of a place called Nazareth.

False analogy. The King Arthur legends are very loosely tied to any historical time line.

Yet Luke and Matthew disagree by as much as 10 years as to the birth date of Jesus.

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the hazy timeframe to which the King Arthur legends date.

Belz...

17th November 2005, 07:50 PM

Yet Luke and Matthew disagree by as much as 10 years as to the birth date of Jesus.

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the hazy timeframe to which the King Arthur legends date.

Uh uh. But no one really claims that this particular Arthur lived, or that anything in La morte d'Arthur happened.

Now, I don't know if there was a historical Jesus. I think that, considering we have ZERO reliable evidence on either side, and the fact that we know that myths can be formed without actual historical reference AND that myths can form around real events, it's just as likely that he existed than it is he didn't.

jjramsey

17th November 2005, 09:10 PM

we know that myths can be formed without actual historical reference AND that myths can form around real events, it's just as likely that he existed than it is he didn't.

This doesn't follow. Whether one is more likely than the other depends on the circumstances. The circumstances in question are:

The accounts about Jesus are set in a relatively restricted timeframe.
Many of the accounts are linked to historical persons and places.
Many of these historical places are not of great religious significance.
Some of the accounts read like rationalizations for failure.
Some of the accounts don't relate supernatural events and lack the "larger-than-life" feel of known legends.

These suggest that we are dealing with legends built on a historical core, not a whole cloth creation.

kuroyume0161

17th November 2005, 11:20 PM

Argument from silence. Doherty writes a lot of rhetoric on how since some second-century writers mentioned Jesus, then Paul should have done likewise. His examples of where Paul should have mentioned items from Jesus' history are pretty lame:

Actually, none of the epistles mentions much that really indicates a historical personage represented in Jesus Christ. Remember that I've read this stuff (and that Mr. Doherty is degreed in Ancient History and Classical Languages and does appear to have done/be doing his homework). It reads as if no such person existed - all attributions are to God, Holy Spirit, scriptures, prophets in the scriptures. All teachings "of" Jesus are only by way of either revelation or scriptural interpretation - none are credited to a person, teacher, or recent prophet (as compared to the OT prophets).

I've just read through his 200 'silences'. If you can show the opposing view unambiguously and without preconceptions, please do so.

And where would Paul shoehorn this? Doherty never explains why Paul should have felt a need to do this.

He makes it quite clear (and I agree wholeheartedly). If someone is considered the founder and great teacher of a philosophy or religion (or more - god incarnate, for Christ's sake - hehe), why wouldn't Paul use every opportunity to cite and pay homage to such a person from examples of his life and teachings? Instead, all citing and homaging are toward 'the Word' and God itself or through Jesus Christ (as intermediary) and the Holy Spirit - more again through revelation.

The mention of them would have cluttered up the letters without any appreciable change in their impact.

Now that is lame. Obviously, these letters are something like 'dictums' (using this very loosely) to already established churches or groups of faith. They more than likely have a grasp of the fundamentals. But wait! Have you ever been to church services? When isn't there an opportunity used to quote Jesus on this or that or to exemplify his life for the congregation as a path to righteousness or heaven? WWJD? In Paul's world, he didn't do much on Earth. Everything was done at the right hand of his father or such. All references to quotations and actions are directed immediately to scriptural references without hesistation or stepwise acknowledgement of their correlation exemplified in any earthly life of Jesus Christ.

And this follows in Peter, James, John, Jude, and Revelations. That only leaves us with Acts of the Apostles (suspect) and the Synoptic Gospels (wholly suspect). Did Peter really deny Jesus, the person with whom he lived for three years, four times?

It would speak volumes if it weren't a distorted reading of the epistles. Even Paul refers to handing down tradition, as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

I will check this. Again and as always, I'm open to topical references. :) But Doherty provides 200 compelling (at differing degrees and relevancies, of course) references.

Evolving orthodoxy, yes, but probably not in the way that you described. For example, the crucifixion has been a central part of Christianity from the beginning, and it implied that there was a flesh-and-blood person being crucified. Doherty's contention that the crucifixion was a mythical event in a upper heaven doesn't hold water, but depends on speculation and a mangled translation of kata sarka as "in the sphere of the flesh."

How far back? I've read that the earliest symbology for Christians was the lamb or the dove (representing the sacrifice and Holy Spirit, respectively). And one must remember that if a deity is going to be sacrificed, it would be in some form reticent of the period, not something truly alien to the adherents. Crucifixion (or, disputably, hanging on a tree) were well known forms of execution. And these guys wanted to distinguish themselves from the 'old ways'. What better way than not to use the old methodology of sacrifice (on an altar, slitting the animal's throat) but associate it with a form more closer to home.

Again, to be fair, it would be nice to see how far back 'crucifixion' references go in an at least tenable way (source, dating, degree of separation).

Think carefully about this. A mythical Christ gets historicized in a way that his story becomes that of a peasant Galilean Jew from an obscure town who preaches doom to towns near the Sea of Galilee of no particular religious importance, such as Capernaum and Chorazin, fails to do miracles in Nazareth, and dies in a way that make Christianity look ridiculous to many pagans. And this is supposed to be more probable than the idea that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but was overlaid with legends like so many other historical figures have?

Either way. I'll plead ambiguity, interpolation, and changing rhetoric over time. The Gnostics (and Paul almost perfectly fits the mold) claimed the latter. The so-called 'Teacher of Righteousness' is a candidate historical figure on which the legend was built. But so little evidence. If evidence of some person who fit the bill as a possible historical antecedent was discovered (and validated), that would change things. Now, we are only relying on people writing things, most of them dependent on the topic at hand. People have and always have written about many things both real and not real, in degrees of mixture.

As one argument against the perposterosity of the story, let's consider that the 'historical' figure had to conform to certain pre-existent motifs. Jesus couldn't just be any old prophet. He had to say all of the things that were promulgated by the apostles as well as do his suffering and sacrificial things to follow the revelatory scriptural interpretations. Note that he had to emote the beliefs and tenets of those 'biographers' in their time and setting. Note that he had to be born of a virgin, but be a descendant of David. Note that he went from birth to the start of his ministry without any intervening information (except for a few spurious and doubtful additions). Just like the 'mythic' Son who was 'born', went to the lower heavens, was sacrificed, and returned succinctly to the side of God having established the 'conduit' to people on earth by which to secure the new convenant. Anomalous that is.

Belz...

18th November 2005, 05:46 AM

The accounts about Jesus are set in a relatively restricted timeframe.
Many of the accounts are linked to historical persons and places.
Many of these historical places are not of great religious significance.
Some of the accounts read like rationalizations for failure.
Some of the accounts don't relate supernatural events and lack the "larger-than-life" feel of known legends

I don't see why those would point MORE to a historical Jesus than a completely mythical one. I think it's been said that historical settings and characters in a story do not speak about the historicity of OTHER elements of a story. I also don't see how making rationalisations is less likely in a mythical setting. Also, the story, as a whole, is very much larger-than-life.

jjramsey

18th November 2005, 07:29 AM

Actually, none of the epistles mentions much that really indicates a historical personage represented in Jesus Christ. Remember that I've read this stuff (and that Mr. Doherty is degreed in Ancient History and Classical Languages and does appear to have done/be doing his homework).

Um, Doherty has been caught doing some screwy translations to make his point. His dealing with kata sarka is the biggie, and he also glosses over the Greek grammar differences in "brother in the Lord" (used to describe fellow Christians) and "brother of the Lord" (used to describe James).

It reads as if no such person existed - all attributions are to God, Holy Spirit, scriptures, prophets in the scriptures. All teachings "of" Jesus are only by way of either revelation or scriptural interpretation - none are credited to a person, teacher, or recent prophet (as compared to the OT prophets).

Referring to a tradition as being handed down, as he does in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, implies a person at the other end doing the handing down.

He makes it quite clear (and I agree wholeheartedly). If someone is considered the founder and great teacher of a philosophy or religion (or more - god incarnate, for Christ's sake - hehe), why wouldn't Paul use every opportunity to cite and pay homage to such a person from examples of his life and teachings?

Because it doesn't suit his purposes for writing the letters.

Obviously, these letters are something like 'dictums' (using this very loosely) to already established churches or groups of faith. They more than likely have a grasp of the fundamentals. But wait! Have you ever been to church services? When isn't there an opportunity used to quote Jesus on this or that or to exemplify his life for the congregation as a path to righteousness or heaven?

A church service is not a letter! In his letters, Paul is sending advice and orders to a church to address certain problems. The purpose of a church service is for reinforcement of beliefs and celebration of beliefs. That said, often the opportunity for quoting Jesus isn't taken, and it would be silly to suppose that the church disbelieved in a historical Jesus on that basis.

The big problem, though, is that Doherty's reasoning, is as follows:

Premise 1: Paul makes no mention of historical details of Jesus.
Premise 2: If Paul believed in a historical Jesus, then he would have made references to historical details of Jesus.
Conclusion: Paul does not believe in a historical Jesus.

Premise 1 is dodgy. Doherty's attempted defense of Premise 2 consists of examples where Doherty thinks Paul could have mentioned details of Jesus, but didn't, and these examples don't take into account the rhetorical flow of the letters. One of them is particularly bad:

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is anxious to convince his readers that humans can be resurrected from the dead. Why then does he not point to any traditions that Jesus himself had raised several people from the dead? Where is Lazarus?

Um, because Paul is talking about the resurrection at the end of history where people end up with incorruptible bodies, while Lazarus is raised back to the ordinary fleshly life that he had before, and presumably will die again?

At best, what Doherty shows is that Paul could have taken a different approach than he did, and that is not what he wants to prove, which is that Paul's near-silence must be due to a lack of belief in a historical Jesus, and not other considerations.

WWJD? In Paul's world, he didn't do much on Earth. Everything was done at the right hand of his father or such.

Yet Paul refers to Jesus as having been "descended from David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), implying that he understood Jesus as having been a human being, and refers to James as a "brother of the Lord," implying that Jesus was flesh and blood enough to have brothers. (Note that James is referred to as the brother of the one called Christ, and in the Gospels, James is likewise referred to as a brother in the ordinary sense of the term.) He also refers to Jesus as having been crucified, and Doherty's attempts to construe this as not referring to an earthly event rest on elaborate speculation and his mistranslation of kata sarka as "in the sphere of the flesh".

And one must remember that if a deity is going to be sacrificed, it would be in some form reticent of the period, not something truly alien to the adherents. Crucifixion (or, disputably, hanging on a tree) were well known forms of execution. And these guys wanted to distinguish themselves from the 'old ways'. What better way than not to use the old methodology of sacrifice (on an altar, slitting the animal's throat) but associate it with a form more closer to home.

Crucifixion was a mode of execution intended to humiliate and degrade. Roman citizens were explicitly exempt from it. You are proposing that a shameful death unfit for Roman citizens would be fit for a god. As even Paul notes, most Gentiles thought this ridiculous.

As one argument against the perposterosity of the story, let's consider that the 'historical' figure had to conform to certain pre-existent motifs. Jesus couldn't just be any old prophet.

Why not? He was purportedly baptized by John the Baptist, and the records of Jesus' rhetoric that we have, dodgy as they are, show that he shared with John the Baptist an emphasis on a future judgment.

He had to say all of the things that were promulgated by the apostles.... Note that he had to emote the beliefs and tenets of those 'biographers' in their time and setting.

Yet he doesn't always do that. He says in the Sermon on the Mount that no jot or tittle of the law will fall away until "all is accomplished." This is sort of harmonizable with Paul's rejection of the Law, but not easily. We see Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of Man," which isn't in the epistles at all, and superficially implies a lower Christology than they do. There is material about Jesus that is at best an uneasy fit with church teaching.

Note that he had to be born of a virgin, but be a descendant of David.

He didn't have to be born of a virgin at all.

Note that he went from birth to the start of his ministry without any intervening information (except for a few spurious and doubtful additions).

Why is this surprising? Between birth and ministry, his life was probably unremarkable.

Just like the 'mythic' Son who was 'born', went to the lower heavens, was sacrificed, and returned succinctly to the side of God having established the 'conduit' to people on earth by which to secure the new convenant.

Except there is no such motif of a "mythic Son", or any indication of a tradition of sacrifices in the lower heavens.

jjramsey

18th November 2005, 07:50 AM

I don't see why those would point MORE to a historical Jesus than a completely mythical one. I think it's been said that historical settings and characters in a story do not speak about the historicity of OTHER elements of a story.

Yes, but it is not the historical setting alone that implies historicity, but the historical setting plus other considerations.

I also don't see how making rationalisations is less likely in a mythical setting.

A historical person who is to be idealized can fail in a couple ways, one that fits with the idealized picture and one that doesn't. The failures that don't fit with the idealized picture may be forgotten, or they may be presented in a fashion that attempts to gloss over or rationalize the failure. A mythical person is the idealized picture, so the failures that such a person has are all part of that picture.

Also, the story, as a whole, is very much larger-than-life.

But some of the individual pieces aren't, and they don't necessarily segue into the parts that are.

Belz...

18th November 2005, 08:07 AM

A historical person who is to be idealized can fail in a couple ways, one that fits with the idealized picture and one that doesn't. The failures that don't fit with the idealized picture may be forgotten, or they may be presented in a fashion that attempts to gloss over or rationalize the failure. A mythical person is the idealized picture, so the failures that such a person has are all part of that picture.

So, what are you getting at ?

But some of the individual pieces aren't, and they don't necessarily segue into the parts that are.

So the story is a mish-mash of several stories and added stuff. I don't see how this could prove the historicity of Jesus or otherwise.

Ossai

18th November 2005, 08:15 AM

ceo_esq
Why would any reasonable person interpret Matthew's Gospel as an exhortation to violence? Um, because I read it. Jesus, as portrayed in Matthew and Mark was a dooms day prophet.

Belz...

18th November 2005, 10:08 AM

Why would any reasonable person interpret Matthew's Gospel as an exhortation to violence?

Matthew 10:34-36 (King James Version)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

davefoc

18th November 2005, 10:37 AM

It seems that there are variou non-Paul sects that carry forth other non-Paul ideas.

Even if one excepts the idea that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus doesn't the existence of some of these other Sects, like the Ebionites provide some evidence for an historic Jesus?

jjramsey

18th November 2005, 03:55 PM

So, what are you getting at?

The facts about a historical person don't always cooperate with the desires of those building the legends about them. When those inconvenient facts aren't ignored altogether, they are explained away or disguised. This is simply a non-issue for mythical figures. At least a few stories in the New Testament look like attempts to work around inconvenient facts. Jesus' rejection in Nazareth in Mark 6:1-6 is a good example of such an attempt.

So the story is a mish-mash of several stories and added stuff. I don't see how this could prove the historicity of Jesus or otherwise.

Because some of the elements in the mish-mash don't look like something one would want to make up, even if they aren't, strictly speaking, embarassing.

Belz...

19th November 2005, 08:41 AM

Because some of the elements in the mish-mash don't look like something one would want to make up, even if they aren't, strictly speaking, embarassing.

Perhaps. The historical Jesus, however, could have lived well before the alledged time.

davefoc

19th November 2005, 11:31 AM

Why, if there are seven letters in the NT that are generally believed to be genuine writings of Paul and those writings refer to a brother of Jesus isn't that considered strong evidence for a flesh and blood Jesus?

From Galations 1:18-20 New International Version
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

davefoc

19th November 2005, 12:27 PM

Perhaps. The historical Jesus, however, could have lived well before the alledged time.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
This is an article that promotes the theory that the Jesus stories were based on a mix of indiividuals, but in particular a character named Yeishu ben Pandeira believed to have lived about 100bc. Interestingly, pieces of the article or even the whole article are quoted all over the web. There doesn't seem to be many independent scholarly articles promoting the same idea though.

I don't think there is much of a scholarly consensus behind the guy's theory but one thing that he does talk about that I think is part of the mystery around how the Christian Church got going is the existance of Christian like sects that predated the time of a possible Jesus. These early believers were called Notzrim according to the author of the article.

The idea of Notzrim predating the existence of Jesus seems like a good part of the explanation of how Christianity got going. The sects may have been made up of hellenized Jews and it is some of these sects that were morphed into more contemporary Christian like beliefs by Paul and others.

I still find it more likely than not that there was an historical Jesus living about the time of the supposed Jesus. My thought is that at some of the details of this individual's life were incorporated into the belief structures of the messiah sects that predated him.

ETA: A personal note: When I became interested in the nature of an historic Jesus a few years ago this is one of the first articles I read. Before this article I don't think it had ever occurred to me that there might not be a real individual that underlied the Christian Mythology. I was surprised at my own reaction to the article. Even though I had never had any religious belief that I can remember I still had a very negative feeling towards the author of this article that attacked one of the defining beliefs of my culture.

I could only imagine how somebody might have felt that had Christianity as a core belief.

jjramsey

19th November 2005, 02:39 PM

Even though I had never had any religious belief that I can remember I still had a very negative feeling towards the author of this article that attacked one of the defining beliefs of my culture.

That may also be your BS detector going off.

It looks like this guy is basing his theory off of late texts that contain polemical legends against Jesus. Despite the author's protestations to the contrary, these are the same legends that Celsus echoed. Note the bit about Yeishu being a sorcerer. Celsus makes the same claim. This guy also gets other facts wrong:

Most Christian denominations claim that Jesus was born on 25 December. Originally the eastern Christains believed that he was born on 6 January. The Armenian Christians still follow this early belief while most Christians consider it to be the date of the visit of the Magi. As pointed out already, Jesus was probably confused with Tammuz born of the virgin Myrrha. We know that in Roman times, the gods Tammuz, Aion and Osiris were identified. Osiris-Aion was said to be born of the virgin Isis on the 6 January and this explains the earlier date for Christmas.

There are a few glaring problems. The guy makes a lot of Christmas being on the same day as a pagan holiday, but since the December 25 date for Christmas comes from about the fourth century, it hardly means much. Isis is Osiris' wife, not his mother, and she's hardly a virgin. The "Myrrha" mentioned above is probably the mother of Adonis, and she was not a virgin:

While Myrrha's mother, Cenchreis, was away at Ceres's festival, Myrrha had sex with her father, Cinyras. Cinyras was unaware of the girl's identity because these nightly encounters occurred in the dark while Cinyras was intoxicated. One night Cinyras brought in a lamp, discovered the girl was Myrrha, drew his sword, and chased her. Myrrha fled, and wandered for nine months until she came to rest at Sabo. After Myrrha prayed to the gods that she neither live nor die (since the severity of her crime would shock both the living and the dead), the gods turned her into the myrrh tree. The child Myrrha had conceived with Cinyras was ready to deliver, and Lucina enabled the birth from the tree. The child of this incestuous union, Adonis, was taken care of by Naiads and bathed in the myrrh which were Myrrha's tears. (source (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/myrrha.html))

Tammuz has been identified with Adonis, which is probably how the author made the connection between Myrrha and Tammuz.

19th November 2005, 06:07 PM

jjramsey

19th November 2005, 08:27 PM

Just a technical note: Isis is Osiris' sister, wife, and mother - depending on what time period we check the legends. Most commonly, she is referred to as his sister/wife; I think some of the 'mother' concepts come in from the tales that have Isis restoring Osiris' body after his death at the hands of Set (the resurrection).

Hmm, considering the hodge-podge nature of Egyptian myths, that shouldn't surprise me, but just to be cautious, do you have a source for that?

20th November 2005, 07:11 AM

Several sources, in fact - though several of these have dubious archaeological descent. Nevertheless, most seem to agree that, initially, Isis (along with Set, Nepthys, and possibly others) was sister to Osiris and child of Nut and Geb. In later years, as the cult of Isis spread, Isis absorbed the attributes of other goddesses, and several times is referred to as the Mother of Osiris - from what I can tell, these inscriptions occur most commonly away from Egypt, especially in Rome, where the entire geneological structure of the gods were altered to fit Greco-Roman belief. Eventually, Isis was even declared to be the mother of Re, who in turn was father of Nut and Geb... so she becomes her own great-grandmother?

Certainly, by the time Isis and Osiris had become associated with Tammuz and Aion, there was considerable muddling of relationships. Into the second and first century BC, we see numerous Isis- and Osiris- hybrid deities, associating them with numerous other mythologies. Osiris is even merged, briefly, with Horus the Younger to form a single deity, who is both brother and son to Isis.

I recommend finding out what sources Michael Jordan employed when he authored The Encyclopedia of Gods (Facts on File, Inc c. 1993), but do not advise the Farrar book The Witches' Goddess (Phoenix Publishing, c. 1987) as it is essentially a compendium of New Age beliefs. You could try Blatavasky (sp), though I'm not sure how accurate a 19th century writer is on issues of Egyptian/Greek hybrid myth.

I think it's also fairly important to note that Osiris-Aion and the early Egyptian Osiris are not quite the same deities, nor is this the same Isis of earlier Egyptian fame (Aset). The names were most likely transposed onto deity figures of other nations, and the relationships adjusted to fit in.

Unfortunately for those who support the view above, most resources on the Internet draw from only a few small, relatively questionable sources, and all seem to have a vested interest in promoting a Pagan origin for the Mary-Jesus story. There is almost nothing on the 'Net about Osiris-Aion that isn't tainted by the presence of one or more Pagan-Christian apologists, or that has excellent sources listed. And, again unfortunately, almost every archeological and anthropological resource book I have carefully delineates between cultures, so that the Isis mysteries of Egypt don't bleed over into Greece, Rome, etc. (Which always bothers me, because Isis is a Greek name - you'd think these guys would have more respect for the original names, since they're trying to divide between the cultures anyway...)

jjramsey

20th November 2005, 07:54 AM

Thanks, zaayrdragon.

ceo_esq

23rd November 2005, 05:50 PM

Um, because I read it. Jesus, as portrayed in Matthew and Mark was a dooms day prophet.

Ossai, what kind of an answer is that? Of course we presume you have read the Gospel of Matthew (though many would cite your interpretation thereof as evidence to the contrary).

Of greater interest: (1) where in Matthew's Gospel are the supposed exhortations to violence, and (2) interpreting such passages, if any, in the light of the document as a whole, what are the arguments in favor of an overall conclusion that Jesus was really preaching violence?

Matthew 10:34-36 (King James Version)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

That's all? Nothing less ambiguous than that? It's pretty clear from the rest of the text of Matthew that Jesus didn't come bringing a literal sword. The Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew doesn't seem to have been a particularly violent fellow, and he offered so many lessons in nonviolence (5:39-44; 26:52; etc.) that it would require quite a bit of violent preaching or conduct elsewhere in the text to lend a violent overtone to Matthew's Gospel as a whole.

No offense, Belz - you gave probably the least worst possible answer. But l'd still like to see Ossai justify his statement with reference to Matthew.

davefoc

23rd November 2005, 06:34 PM

When this issue came up I was interested in it enough to go looking for how various believers might interpret this passage so as to be consistent with the overall peace and love message that is purported to be the primary point of Christ's ministery.

I frankly didn't understand what the heck they were talking about.

What was Matthew trying to accomplish by including this in his story?

Is this one of the Jesus quotes that might be original or at least trace back to an original tradition and Matthew threw it in because he was moved to include what he knew of the original traditions into his story even if it didn't quite fit with his overall theme.

Incidentally, I see this whole topic as a bit of digression, and I hesitated to comment on it because I thought it might be hypocritical of me to do so given my earlier request that the thread stay on topic. Then I realized that I had already admitted to my hypocrisy so now I'm just proving it.

And while I'm digressing, I find the issue of who wrote the gospels and when they did it interesting. Did these guys ever come into contact with each other? There can't have been that many copies of the gospels floating around after they were first written and maybe Mark loaned a copy to Luke and Matthew. Assuming that the current scholarly consensus is right, Mark wrote his and then Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark's work. Apparently Matthew and Luke didn't work together but they did each include some stuff that looks like it might have come from a document that they both had access to (the q document).

Ossai

23rd November 2005, 10:29 PM

ceo_esq
No offense, Belz - you gave probably the least worst possible answer. But l'd still like to see Ossai justify his statement with reference to Matthew.
I stated that “Jesus preached violence at least in the early gospels aimed strictly at the Jewish people.”

Ok, all references are to Matthew

Jesus tells his followers to only go to the lost children of the house of Israel.
10:5-7
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. “

Any city that doesn’t welcome Jesus’s followers will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrha – violent portent.
10:14-15
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

Jesus tells his followers (all TRUE Christians, BTW ;) ) that they will be persecuted and hated but not to worry; just continue spreading the word as fast as possible.
10:21-22
“And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

Jesus is addressing a specific audience and telling them that the world will end before they finish their mission of spreading the word.
10:23
“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

Jesus tells his followers not to be afraid of other people but to fear god. (Can’t you just feel the Christian love here?)
10:28
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

For completeness, the same quotes supplied by Belz....
Jesus says it’s not enough, I’m going to break families up as well.
10:34-37
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

An instances where Jesus is referred to as the Son of man.
16:13-17
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

Again Jesus says to a specific audience that at least some of them will be alive when god’s kid comes back all pissed and ready to lay waste to those cities and people that didn’t accept the earlier teachings.
16:28
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Another instance of Jesus = Son of man
20:18
“Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,”

Another generation reference.
23:34-36
“Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”

Jesus will gather all his followers.
23:37-39
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Throw all the above together and get:
The end is coming.
Anyone not saved will be punished worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.
Those that follow the Son of man will be saved.
Jesus declares himself and is declared by others to be the Son of man.
Jesus has been sent to rend apart and punish not just cities (peoples) but families.
Upon his return Jesus will gather his followers.
He will return within the lifetime of his listeners.

Sounds like Jesus will be handing out divine retribution upon his return, which will be soon and that anyone not with him will be mowed down. Doomsday and violent.

Ossai

Belz...

25th November 2005, 05:50 AM

No offense, Belz - you gave probably the least worst possible answer. But l'd still like to see Ossai justify his statement with reference to Matthew.

Oh, none taken. But I would think that someone telling me he's bringing a sword to the world and that he's going to set people against one another wouldn't be on my list of role-models for kids.

...I have a thousand posts!!

kmortis

25th November 2005, 06:43 AM

<snip>

Jesus tells his followers (all TRUE Christians, BTW ;) ) that they will be persecuted and hated but not to worry; just continue spreading the word as fast as possible.
10:21-22
“And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

<snip>

Ossai

When I read this, a thought popped into my head...it is just me, or doesn't this sound just like the meme of a virus? Continously attacked, but rapidly growing. :p

ceo_esq

25th November 2005, 02:37 PM

I stated that “Jesus preached violence at least in the early gospels aimed strictly at the Jewish people.”

To preach something, according to the OED, means "to exhort people (to some act or practice)"; to exhort means "to recommend earnestly" or "to urge by stimulating words to conduct regarded as laudable."

So, if the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel can fairly be said to have preached violence, we should by definition be able to identify instances where he recommends violence to his audience, or urges his audience to violence as laudable conduct. In none of the passages you cited can Jesus sanely be interpreted as doing any such thing. At the same time, we must consider the undeniable presence in Matthew's Gospel of passages (previously pointed out) in which Jesus unambiguously recommends nonviolence to his audience, or urges his audience to nonviolence as laudable conduct.

Accordingly, it is not clear how an unbiased observer could reach the conclusion that Matthew's Gospel is a text whose protagonist preaches violence.

Oh, none taken. But I would think that someone telling me he's bringing a sword to the world and that he's going to set people against one another wouldn't be on my list of role-models for kids.

Most readers understand Jesus there as suggesting that his coming would provoke a certain turmoil and divisiveness. I think we'd all agree that this certainly turned out to be the case! As a character in a famous Flannery O'Connor story laments, Jesus "thrown everything off balance". I suppose the same thing is true of every powerful idea or thinker, especially in the moral realm.

...I have a thousand posts!!

Keep it up!

kmortis

25th November 2005, 04:21 PM

To preach something, according to the OED, means "to exhort people (to some act or practice)"; to exhort means "to recommend earnestly" or "to urge by stimulating words to conduct regarded as laudable."

So, if the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel can fairly be said to have preached violence, we should by definition be able to identify instances where he recommends violence to his audience, or urges his audience to violence as laudable conduct. In none of the passages you cited can Jesus sanely be interpreted as doing any such thing. At the same time, we must consider the undeniable presence in Matthew's Gospel of passages (previously pointed out) in which Jesus unambiguously recommends nonviolence to his audience, or urges his audience to nonviolence as laudable conduct.

Accordingly, it is not clear how an unbiased observer could reach the conclusion that Matthew's Gospel is a text whose protagonist preaches violence.

Most readers understand Jesus there as suggesting that his coming would provoke a certain turmoil and divisiveness. I think we'd all agree that this certainly turned out to be the case! As a character in a famous Flannery O'Connor story laments, Jesus "thrown everything off balance". I suppose the same thing is true of every powerful idea or thinker, especially in the moral realm.

Keep it up!

To be fair, Jesus did preach violence...and non-violence. The "brother against brother" was refering to the turmoil that would come from believing in the Messiah in a Jewish household in 30AD. Later, in the Garden, he extorted Peter & Co. not not fight the Romans as they came to take him away.

Unfortunatly, the former has been subtlily emphasised over the last 1600 years, since Constantine (the emperor, not John...) converted.

Belz...

26th November 2005, 08:16 AM

Most readers understand Jesus there as suggesting that his coming would provoke a certain turmoil and divisiveness. I think we'd all agree that this certainly turned out to be the case! As a character in a famous Flannery O'Connor story laments, Jesus "thrown everything off balance". I suppose the same thing is true of every powerful idea or thinker, especially in the moral realm.

I'm just telling you what he alledgedly said, not the result of his religion. If someone told me he would bring a sword to the world, I'd be very concerned. Of course, matthew was pretty bent on making sure Jesus fit prophecy. It's possible he added that part because the messiah was supposedly going to be a general of some sort.

ceo_esq

26th November 2005, 12:49 PM

To be fair, Jesus did preach violence...and non-violence.

I'm trying to be fair, of course. And if we are to be fair, I think it must be conceded that if Jesus (in Matthew's Gospel, at least) did preach violence, he did so a very different, less conventional, less direct, and more ambiguous sense than the sense in which he preached nonviolence.

To return to my previous point, however, we still haven't identified with any passages where the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel earnestly recommends violence to his audience, or otherwise urges his audience to violence as laudable conduct. This would appear to rule out, as a simple matter of definition, the notion that Matthew's Jesus preached violence, period.

The "brother against brother" was refering to the turmoil that would come from believing in the Messiah in a Jewish household in 30AD. Later, in the Garden, he extorted Peter & Co. not not fight the Romans as they came to take him away.

Who knows what Jesus was really anticipating by "brother against brother", or saying that he would "bring a sword"? The only things we can say with reasonable assurance are that Jesus does not appear to have been advocating violence by his audience, and that - since he later rebuked his disciple for using a literal sword, and never literally took up a sword himself (doubtless against the expectations of many of his followers) - he was using the sword image in some other sense.

If someone told me he would bring a sword to the world, I'd be very concerned. Of course, matthew was pretty bent on making sure Jesus fit prophecy. It's possible he added that part because the messiah was supposedly going to be a general of some sort.

I know of no way of determining with any certitude whether Matthew (or a person responsible for the underlying source tradition) was "bent on making sure Jesus fit prophecy." On the other hand, I agree that the author and his audience might well have expected or hoped the Messiah to become some sort of military leader. It would not be the only respect in which the figure of Jesus contradicted or reversed the expectations and preconceived notions held by first-century Jews, rather than confirming them. I get the impression sometimes that the author of Matthew's Gospel found some of its content surprising even to him.

Ossai

28th November 2005, 07:02 AM

ceo_esq
To preach something, according to the OED, means "to exhort people (to some act or practice)"; to exhort means "to recommend earnestly" or "to urge by stimulating words to conduct regarded as laudable."

Jesus preached:
The end times are near.
During the end times people would rise up and follow him.
He would bring the wrath of god down.

Jesus was saying get ready for when the end times comes we’ll overthrow/decimate all those that don’t follow me. While I’ll admit that Jesus wasn’t saying grab a weapon and follow me; he was saying be ready to do so on a moments notice. Think of it more as getting the army ready instead of giving the order to march.

Ossai

ceo_esq

29th November 2005, 12:31 PM

Jesus was saying get ready for when the end times comes we’ll overthrow/decimate all those that don’t follow me. While I’ll admit that Jesus wasn’t saying grab a weapon and follow me; he was saying be ready to do so on a moments notice. Think of it more as getting the army ready instead of giving the order to march.

Where does Matthew's Jesus indicate that the wrath of God, which is to be visited on the unrighteous, is going to involve an army that includes his followers in the audience? This seems to be the sort of thing restricted to God himself. If he had intended to convey what you're saying, wouldn't it have been crucial to add some important qualifications to his teachings about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek (as in "N.B. This policy only applies until we've assembled the troops and are ready to launch the final assault")?

It just seems to me that you have to go looking pretty hard - almost "Bible Code" hard! - to come across anything in Matthew's Gospel that arguably constitutes preaching violence - and THEN you have to rationalize all of the explicitly nonviolent teachings. Let's be realistic; the most parsimonious interpretation is that Matthew's Jesus, while perhaps not a pacifist in the modern sense, is a lover not a fighter. Perhaps more importantly, he urges his audience to prefer nonviolence to violence.

Ossai

30th November 2005, 07:21 AM

ceo_esq
his seems to be the sort of thing restricted to God himself. If he had intended to convey what you're saying, wouldn't it have been crucial to add some important qualifications to his teachings about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek (as in "N.B. This policy only applies until we've assembled the troops and are ready to launch the final assault")?
Where in Matthew does he teach the above? Is it the same place he teaches his followers to castrate themselves (and maybe children)?

ceo_esq

30th November 2005, 12:06 PM

Where in Matthew does he teach the above?

If by "the above" you mean the parts about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek, then consult Mt 5:38-48 and 26:52.

Ossai

1st December 2005, 07:17 AM

ceo_esq
If by "the above" you mean the parts about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek, then consult Mt 5:38-48 and 26:52.

Yet that contradicts
Matthew 10:14-15
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

If Jesus’s followers aren’t the ones to extract vengeance who is?
This is in the same chapter of Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Ossai

Rufo

1st December 2005, 08:21 AM

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Ossai
Geez, you sure know how to interpret things the worst way possible, don't you?
I've always interpreted this more as a comment to his new teachings. Of course the young ones who are supposedly more interested in his teachings will get in conflict with their parents who sticks with the old ones. Jesus understood that he would cause conflict - and I'm not talking about divination here, but simple common sense, since he was indeed radical. "Not to send peace, but a sword." Also fits in. Of course there was going to be a mess, and Jesus knew that. Domestic violence? Aren't you making your conclusions a bit too fast here?

I'm not saying Jesus is all peace, love and understanding, though.

Ossai

1st December 2005, 12:44 PM

Rufo
Geez, you sure know how to interpret things the worst way possible, don't you? Not really. Jesus was basically building a dooms day cult. He told his followers that they should be more concerned with spreading the word than fighting back, but that the unbelievers would be punished worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.

If you want the worse way possible then look at Matthew 18:1-11.
People should be child like.
If a body part offends thee, cut it off.

Child like is open to interpretation, one of which is innocent, without sin or without temptations of the flesh (i.e. not sexually mature – or tempted by sex).

Throw in that interpretation and you get a clear message that men should be castrated to avoid temptation.

Ossai

kuroyume0161

1st December 2005, 01:19 PM

Rufo
Not really. Jesus was basically building a dooms day cult. He told his followers that they should be more concerned with spreading the word than fighting back, but that the unbelievers would be punished worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.

If you want the worse way possible then look at Matthew 18:1-11.
People should be child like.
If a body part offends thee, cut it off.

Child like is open to interpretation, one of which is innocent, without sin or without temptations of the flesh (i.e. not sexually mature – or tempted by sex).

Throw in that interpretation and you get a clear message that men should be castrated to avoid temptation.

Ossai

Where have I heard something about 'cult' and 'castration' before? And, no, not thinking about the more recent Heaven's Gate cult.

And also sorry for not continuing the conversation here, but am a little busy with the project on which I'm supposedly supposed to be working, the seasonal stuff, and passing a kidney stone (ouch!). I think that the more scholarly evidence speaks somewhat for itself. The existence of someone associated with the lengendary character depicted in the gospels is still up in the air, once the biases and seemingly endless supply of post hoc ergo propter hoc are removed for validation.

Although one must take TV documentaries at face value, I did find a recent one about Jesus' holiday in Jerusalem to be a very interesting interpretation of the events from his entry therein to crucifixion. That at least shows that there may be some factuality to a personage on which the final events were based. But then again, interpretation and fact are two different things ... or at least one is contingent upon the other.

If this documentary is to be given merit, it would point to a cult leader with possibly passive resistance motives - any violent acts were more for making a point rather than actively promoting outright rebellion or violence.

ceo_esq

1st December 2005, 02:09 PM

Yet that contradicts
Matthew 10:14-15
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

There's certainly no explicit contradiction. The only command Jesus gives in that verse is "when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet", and that's not incompatible with the other commands I cited.

If Jesus’s followers aren’t the ones to extract vengeance who is?

Well, both the Old and New Testament refer to the saying "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" - the lesson in each case being that it's Yahweh's job to exact retributive justice for wickedness. He didn't ask for any volunteers at Sodom, did he?

This is in the same chapter of Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Yes, we already accounted for that. Jesus never picked up a literal sword, and the next time one of his followers did so, Jesus rebuked the follower. Apparently, this statement (arguably ambiguous in isolation) was not a reference to armed violence. Other interpretations make far more sense, especially in light of all the nonviolent teachings in Matthew. In fact, in the very next verse, Jesus offers an explanation for his metaphor that suggests he's not calling anyone to take up arms.

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Hmm. I was often at variance against my father - sometimes seriously - but there was no domestic violence in our household. For that matter, the anti-slavery and pro-civil rights movements in the United States set men at variance against their fathers, and daughters against mothers, and daughters-in-law against mothers-in-law, but few people would characterize Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. as being a culpable party to domestic violence (unless they simply were biased against Lincoln or King).

Once more, no clear preaching of violence as far as I can tell.

Ossai

2nd December 2005, 06:29 AM

ceo_esq
Well, both the Old and New Testament refer to the saying "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" - the lesson in each case being that it's Yahweh's job to exact retributive justice for wickedness. He didn't ask for any volunteers at Sodom, did he? Did you forget the claim that Jesus was the son of or was god? Jesus/god is going to come back, gather his follower and strike all others down.

Jesus never picked up a literal sword, and the next time one of his followers did so, Jesus rebuked the follower. Jesus was a doomsday prophet, he was saying get ready. Or he may have just wanted to keep all the fun, murders, genocide, rape, and pillaging to himself.

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
Hmm. I was often at variance against my father - sometimes seriously - but there was no domestic violence in our household. For that matter, the anti-slavery and pro-civil rights movements in the United States set men at variance against their fathers, and daughters against mothers, and daughters-in-law against mothers-in-law, but few people would characterize Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. as being a culpable party to domestic violence (unless they simply were biased against Lincoln or King).
You’re playing semantic games. Let us look at a different translation.

Matthew 34-36
New International Version
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

New American Standard Bible
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
"For I came toSET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”

New Living Translation
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! No, I came to bring a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies will be right in your own household!

Sounds like domestic violence.

Ossai

davefoc

2nd December 2005, 10:56 AM

I was a person that was casually interested in this topic. What I don't understand is what are the remaining issues. Isn't there a consensus here?

The Jesus' (in Matthew) point with all of this is that stuff isn't necessarily going to go well for those people who decide to pitch for him. And stuff not going well includes domestic violence. The only line that isn't quite consistent with this is the bringing the sword quote. There's not a lot to be said about that line without additional information beyond that in Matthew. Maybe it was a line that Matthew felt was necessary to throw in because it was extent already as an oral tradition, or maybe Matthew meant it exactly like ceo_esq suggested, i.e. a furtherance of the notion that prosthletyzing for Jesus wouldn't necessarily go peacefully.

Ossai

2nd December 2005, 11:38 AM

davefoc
The Jesus' (in Matthew) point with all of this is that stuff isn't necessarily going to go well for those people who decide to pitch for him. And stuff not going well includes domestic violence. I took the whole passage as yet another example of biblical inconsistency. Jesus the one that is to save the world says that he’s here to break up families.

Is there any disagreement of what I’ve been repeating, that Jesus was a dooms day prophet?

Ossai

ceo_esq

2nd December 2005, 06:10 PM

You’re playing semantic games. Let us look at a different translation.

...

Sounds like domestic violence.

Each of those other translations lends itself equally well to the interpretation Rufo, davefoc and I offered, which is the most plausible interpretation in the light of the rest of Matthew's Gospel.

But even if these images sound like domestic violence to you, Matthew's Jesus obviously does not urge anyone to engage in domestic violence or to make any particular person their enemy (and again, remember what Jesus taught about how to treat your enemies if you have any).

Would Martin Luther King, Jr. be urging violence by noting that the values of the civil rights campaign would divide families and communities, and generate some enmity?

I took the whole passage as yet another example of biblical inconsistency. Jesus the one that is to save the world says that he’s here to break up families.

Nothing intrinsically inconsistent there. Abraham Lincoln saved the country, but on the way to doing it he was responsible for bitterly dividing many American families.

A teaching (whether a very good or a very bad one) that indirectly provokes discord and even violence is not the same thing as a violent teaching.

Is there any disagreement of what I’ve been repeating, that Jesus was a dooms day prophet?

I don't know what credentials are required to qualify as a "doomsday prophet". If it simply means a religious visionary at least some of whose teachings are eschatological, then the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel certainly fits the bill.

Ossai

7th December 2005, 01:32 PM

ceo_esq
But even if these images sound like domestic violence to you, Matthew's Jesus obviously does not urge anyone to engage in domestic violence or to make any particular person their enemy (and again, remember what Jesus taught about how to treat your enemies if you have any). Insult them.

Ossai

ceo_esq

11th December 2005, 01:37 PM

Insult them.

Heh heh. Seriously, though, I had in mind the following: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Mt 5:44).

CapelDodger

11th December 2005, 06:09 PM

... and the fact that we know that myths can be formed without actual historical reference ...
Can we know that? It involves proving a negative in most cases, certainly in those as distant in time as Jesus or, say, Mithras. Even modern nationalist myth-makers base their myths on real events.

The history of Palestine at the time is well-established, from Pompey's visit through the Herodians, the Maccabean reaction, Vespasian, and so on. Set in the wider context of Roman Empire replacing Republic, the decay of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, all that stuff. Could a core-character of Jesus have existed in that context, and subsequently accrued the stories of more-or-less contemporary characters? Most certainly. I think it very unlikely that the stories would accrue to an entirely imaginary character.

CapelDodger

11th December 2005, 06:30 PM

What was Matthew trying to accomplish by including this in his story?

Is this one of the Jesus quotes that might be original or at least trace back to an original tradition and Matthew threw it in because he was moved to include what he knew of the original traditions into his story even if it didn't quite fit with his overall theme.
I suspect he was obliged to include what was widely known (in his target audience) of the original traditions. Given the destruction of Jerusalem (home to the original, pre-Pauline cult) traditions about a Jesus must have been well-established before 71CE. IMO, that's strong evidence of a Jesus individual existing only thirty or forty years prior.

CapelDodger

11th December 2005, 06:56 PM

Geez, you sure know how to interpret things the worst way possible, don't you?
I've always interpreted this more as a comment to his new teachings. Of course the young ones who are supposedly more interested in his teachings will get in conflict with their parents who sticks with the old ones. Jesus understood that he would cause conflict - and I'm not talking about divination here, but simple common sense, since he was indeed radical. "Not to send peace, but a sword." Also fits in. Of course there was going to be a mess, and Jesus knew that. Domestic violence? Aren't you making your conclusions a bit too fast here?

I'm not saying Jesus is all peace, love and understanding, though.

"“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

These are the sayings of a cultist, such as Paul. If Jesus existed he would not have said these words. The religious climate he grew up in did not preach revolution and disruption, but rebellion and expulsion of the disruptive forces. The aim was to free the people of Yahweh to re-form their essential unity and purity. Violence was inherent in the whole Maccabean period, but not within families. Between nations and classes.

(The violence within the Maccabean family is inherent in dynasties. :) )

Complexity

11th December 2005, 07:30 PM

Whether this Jesus lived or not is of little consequence.

His followers will claim that he did live.
Some will claim that he did not live.

Nothing in the present will change, even if the facts were to be widely established.

I simply don't care.

CapelDodger

12th December 2005, 07:11 PM

Whether this Jesus lived or not is of little consequence.
No doubt, but I find it an interesting question. Intriguing even. On a larger scale, the existence of Christianity is of great consequence, and the reason for it is also intriguing. I doubt it has much to do with any actual Jesus's philosophy, it's far more to do with Graeco-Roman society in the relevant period, but how did this pseudo-Judaic element muscle its way onto the stage?

Apart from which, what actually happened in Palestine around that time? It's a mystery with many clues and false leads. That has to be intriguing.

Ossai

13th December 2005, 06:38 AM

ceo_esq
Heh heh. Seriously, though, I was serious.

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek).

Complexity
Whether this Jesus lived or not is of little consequence.

His followers will claim that he did live.
Some will claim that he did not live.

Nothing in the present will change, even if the facts were to be widely established.

I simply don't care.
If you were not interested, you would not be posting.

Ossai

ceo_esq

13th December 2005, 01:40 PM

I was serious.

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek).

Er... where in the article is that established?

davefoc

14th December 2005, 12:14 AM

Rough scenario for the formation of the development of the early Christian church assuming the existence of a real life Jesus:

Numerous Jewish cults exist at around the time of the supposed life of Jesus. At least some of these consist of people whose first or second language is Greek. The notion that a messiah is on the way is part of the theology of some of these cults.

Jesus is prominent in and perhaps the founder of one of these cults.

Jesus is killed by the Romans for reasons not known for sure. Perhaps because he pissed off the Jewish priestly hierarchy, but more likely because he pissed off the Romans.

James, the brother of Jesus, leads and develops a Jewish based cult after the death of Jesus. The James cult seems to still respect Jewish customs and Jewish religious laws. It is possible that some of the members of the John the Baptist cult fold into the Jewish Jesus cult at this time. The John the Baptist cult seems to have been a pretty big thing at this time given the 19 references to JtB by Josephus.

Paul, pitches a new religion to Hellenized Jews and probably gentiles with a fictionalized Jesus as a key component. Paul makes a variety of trips where he pitches his ideas to various congregations. The letters of Paul, at least four of which are judged to be absolutely authentic, provide some documentation of these trips. Acts provides some more documentation, unfortunately, Luke, the presumed author of Acts, does not have good credibility as an historical source. Paul may have been well placed to fulfill this role as the founder of a religion based on Judaism to non-Jews. It is believed that he was not born a Jew but rather was a Greek that converted to Judaism.

Paul and the leaders of the Jewish oriented Jesus cult have disputes about the nature of the new relgion that Paul is creating. Eventually Paul and the Jewish Jesus cult split completely.

Paul may have been killed in Rome. Different dates are estimated for this but apparently the death is around 64 ce.

It is possible that the Jewish Jesus cults are dealt a significant setback with the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 ce. At any rate there is no writing by the founders of this movement that have survived. However it is possible that some of their writings were preserved in the writing of some of the early Christian Church fathers. There are not contemporaneous descriptions of the movement. The closest are the few mentions by Josephus of Jesus. At least some of these Jewish Jesus sects existed into the second century ce. It is possible that these Jewish Jesus sects are referred to as Ebionites by early Christian writers.

Sometime around the death of Paul, people begin to write Gospel type stories of Jesus. These may capture oral traditions from earlier times, but their lack of historical consistency together with other problems suggest that they are of limited value as historical documents.

These Gospel type stories, have considerable traction with people and a variety of early Church leaders come forth to interpret them and to develop the theological details for a new religion.

OK, that's my cut at it, comments?

A few things I think are interesting, and seem to provide clues but I don't know quite what to make of them.

The Ebionites supposedly had as their one and only Gospel a truncated version of Matthew (no birth story). It makes sense that they would use Mathhew since that it is the Gospel that is most correct with respect to Judaism. But what to make of the fact that Matthew supposedly was written after Mark. Is the theory that the Ebionite religion was cross pollinated from the Gentile Gospel writers? Or did a truncated and perhaps quite different early Matthew serve as a source for the later Gospels?

Another area of interest to me is exactly who was Paul teaching to initially. Had Judaism in some form spread to non-Ethnic Jews in a significant way? Or are these early congregations that Paul is preaching to made of mostly Hellenized Jews?

The anti-semitic element in the Gospels indicates to me that the target audience for the Gospel writers was Gentiles. So exactly what is going on here? Somehow, even before the writing of the Gospels a some non-ethnic Jews have been recruited into a Jewish Jesus religion. Now the Gospel writers set the hook by coming up with the anti-semitic angle?

ceo_esq

14th December 2005, 12:45 AM

The anti-semitic element in the Gospels indicates to me that the target audience for the Gospel writers was Gentiles.

I see two related problems (at least) with that thesis: first, any anti-semitic element actually present in the Gospels is very restrained at most; and second, there's arguably a stronger anti-Gentile element in the Gospels.

davefoc

14th December 2005, 02:10 AM

I see the story about how the crowd chose Barrabas over Jesus as a story designed to shift the blame for the execution of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. It seems like the purpose here is to give a gentile audience a sense of superiority over the Jews who had the messiah in their midst and rather than recognize him for the devine being he was chose to have him killed.

That was what I meant be anti-Semitic, although perhaps that was not the right term.

The other reason I had for believing the target audience of the Gospels was Gentile is that Mark is said to have made a number of errors with respect to Jewish Law in his Gospel. So Mark appears not to have been a Jew. Matthew is said to have corrected these. So the Gospel believed to be the first written,Mark, seems to have been written by a non-Jew and so I inferred that his target audience was probably non-Jewish.

Ossai

14th December 2005, 05:55 AM

ceo_esq
I was serious.

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek).
Er... where in the article is that established?

The second interpretations: Historical, figurative interpretation – trying to get the other person to break the law.

ceo_esq

14th December 2005, 11:39 AM

The second interpretations: Historical, figurative interpretation – trying to get the other person to break the law.

That seems to relate to the other verses rather than cheek-turning. At any rate, even if that interpretation is accurate, it certainly doesn't seem to be an insult as such, particularly in comparison with, say, striking someone in the face. Part of the point of passive resistance is to place the aggressor in circumstances such that he must desist or be shamed.

CapelDodger

14th December 2005, 04:06 PM

I see the story about how the crowd chose Barrabas over Jesus as a story designed to shift the blame for the execution of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. It seems like the purpose here is to give a gentile audience a sense of superiority over the Jews who had the messiah in their midst and rather than recognize him for the devine being he was chose to have him killed.
It's widely thought that Mark was written in Rome not long after Titus's triumph in 71CE. This was not a good time and place for a cult to be associated with Jewish rebels, or Jews generally. Nor was it a good idea to be accusing the Roman state of killing the only true god and creator. So blame was transferred (via Pilate's reluctance) from Romans to corrupt Temple-huggers. Jesus is also distanced from the rebellion by the "Give unto Caesar" scene; Roman taxation of a god-given land was a religious as well as economic grievance. Mark portrays Jesus as being above such things.

The effect was, of course, to accuse Jews of killing the one true god and creator, and the result was Christian anti-semitism.

CapelDodger

14th December 2005, 04:26 PM

Another area of interest to me is exactly who was Paul teaching to initially. Had Judaism in some form spread to non-Ethnic Jews in a significant way? Or are these early congregations that Paul is preaching to made of mostly Hellenized Jews?
There was much interest in religion in the Graeco-Roman world at this time. Greeks (with Alexander) and Romans (with the Empire) had been exposed all these sophisticated mystical cults of the East, and to a world that was clearly too big for their old gods. Religion was all the rage for the fashionable and rich - think Madonna and such-like air-heads - and to the philosophically-minded.

Jews became widespread in the Western Med after the destruction of the Phoenician trade-system (somebody had to take up the slack and the Romans didn't have the expertise or the contacts) so Judaism attracted some attention. Greek and Jewish scholars found they had a lot in common, not so much in their answers as in their questions and the way they argued them. This led to a variety of efforts, mostly in Alexandria, to form a synthesis of Greek and Jewish thought. None succeeded, but to philosophers the journey is more important than the arrival. :)

Synagogues attracted a gentile "congregation" that didn't fully convert (live by the Torah) but accepted many of the precepts. They were known as "God-Fearers". This, I suspect, was the audience that Paul was playing to.

Marc L

15th December 2005, 04:59 PM

What level of evidence will suffice?

A real, verified mention by anyone living in Jerusalem or Galilee during that era.

It's [the New Testament-Marc] a foundation.
[/QUOTE]

And a very shaky one at that. Matthew puts him at the time of Herod, who commits a deed not referred to by anyone during that era. I find it odd that a king ordered the slaughter of a large group of one year old boys, and no one said anything. Luke puts him at the time of Quirinis (???), who, if I recall correctly, was governer about 10 years later. Both of them claim that he lived in a town that didn't even exist at the time!

Beyond that, there were well known people (Philo, Gamilel, Saul of Tarsus...) who lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus is said to have cleared the temple, entered the city on a donkey, been arrested, and then cruicified, and no one said anything!

The silence is especially odd considering what a travesty of Roman justice Jesus' "trial" was. A Roman governer finding a man innocent, but sentencing him to death anyways? Not likely.

Even Paul doesn't seem to be aware that Jesus was a real human. He never once mentions his life, his miracles, or his preachings. No Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, anything. In addition, there's at least one time that Jesus' words in the Gospels could have bolstered Paul's argument, and he doesn't say anything.

Marc

ceo_esq

15th December 2005, 05:18 PM

And a very shaky one at that. Matthew puts him at the time of Herod, who commits a deed not referred to by anyone during that era. I find it odd that a king ordered the slaughter of a large group of one year old boys, and no one said anything.

What makes you think the number of male children of the relevant age living in the relevant village was very large? It might have meant a dozen victims; it might have meant a half-dozen. Josephus indicates that Herod was responsible for putting a great many people to death during his reign, and at the time Herod's atrocity, if it occurred, might not have seemed that unusual. And of course, we don't know if the event was recorded or not; only that no record apart from the Gospels survives.

Even Paul doesn't seem to be aware that Jesus was a real human. He never once mentions his life, his miracles, or his preachings. No Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, anything."
Marc

Surely this is an exaggeration. Paul refers to the Incarnation, the Last Supper, and the Resurrection, for example. He also cites sayings attributed to Jesus.

Melendwyr

15th December 2005, 05:26 PM

ceo_esq

15th December 2005, 06:01 PM

Since the village didn't exist, the number of victims was probably even smaller.

Bethlehem didn't exist during Herod's reign? That's the first time I've heard that one. Evidence, please?

kuroyume0161

15th December 2005, 06:08 PM

Surely this is an exaggeration. Paul refers to the Incarnation, the Last Supper, and the Resurrection, for example. He also cites sayings attributed to Jesus.

All of which fit precisely with other religious cults of the general era which have dubious living 'gods' or humans that transcended (Mithra, Apollonius of Tyana, and so forth).

Paul never once mentions Jesus as a person (who did particular things as a living human being or was in certain places). God (OT and NT) was often spoke about in personified terms, but noone would claim that this refers to God (as distinct from Jesus here) walking about in human form.

The oft-quoted reference to "James, the brother of Jesus" can be countered by a dozen references to other 'brothers of Jesus' and 'brethren of Jesus'. Priests and congregations are regularly referred to as 'brothers' and 'brethren'. Does that mean they are all related? I'd have to see a clear distinction between usages in the epistles.

I think the jury is still out here since it is a quagmire, isn't it? There is so little independent corroboration, most of which is suspicious on its own. For every example that provides evidence for a historical figure, counter-examples can be provided.

And there is the sticking point of the so-called death of Jesus. Arguments seem to go three ways:

1. Jesus really was god, was crucified, and did resurrect. This is, of course, wholly specious and fictitious.

2. Jesus really was crucified but his body may (or may not) have been obsconded from from the tomb in order to, it seems once again, elevate the lowly religious cult leader above his station as it were (analogous to the entering Jerusalem on donkey and temple incident).

3. Jesus never died in this manner and went into hiding or some other circumstance.

Realize that I use the name Jesus loosely to refer to the supposed figure to whom we are trying to assign historicity. 2 & 3 present some interesting archaeological situations. It is assured that Jesus died at some point. Why did the 'Apostles' not make any attempt at marking or signifying such a significant death? Again, the evidence may have existed but time has obliterated it.

I don't know at this stage and work is calling very loudly. Maybe more scholarly research after a few projects are completed for my impatient followers... :)

Marc L

15th December 2005, 09:49 PM

What makes you think the number of male children of the relevant age living in the relevant village was very large? It might have meant a dozen victims; it might have meant a half-dozen. Josephus indicates that Herod was responsible for putting a great many people to death during his reign, and at the time Herod's atrocity, if it occurred, might not have seemed that unusual. And of course, we don't know if the event was recorded or not; only that no record apart from the Gospels survives.

Was Bethlehem a village? I'd heard it refered to as the City of David. That suggests something slightly larger. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that a group of soldiers marched into a village, stole even 12 newborns and killed them for no reason, without anyone saying anything. Given the uniqueness of the event (killing a group of babies in one village in one night), it would certainly warrant more mention than "Herod killed a lot of people."

Surely this is an exaggeration. Paul refers to the Incarnation, the Last Supper, and the Resurrection, for example. He also cites sayings attributed to Jesus.

Yes, Paul refers to the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I know of the reference to the Last Supper, but I don't have my research materials handy, so I can't say if that's one of the disputed letters or not (ie, one that scholars believe was written by someone else and only attributed to Paul). As for the sayings, however, you need to remember that the epistles were written before the Gospels. It wouldn't be hard for the writers to add them in (after all, Paul said that Jesus said it...)

The fact remains, however, that again, there is no reference to Jesus' miracles, his virgin birth, etc. These are big things. Further, there is the case of the 'is it lawful to eat non-kosher food'? (Actually, it may be food sacrificed to idols. If it is, feel free to correct me). Paul goes into a long discourse that basically says, 'It's ok to do it'. Rather than waste the ink and the paper, why didn't he just remind them of what Jesus said about how what goes into your body is clean?

As I mentioned before, Paul himself claims to have studied under Gamiliel in Jerusalem-which would have been around the time Jesus was there. Why didn't he see him? Or at least hear about him? The man had already walked on water, healed the sick, and caused two people to come back from the dead. Don't you think Paul would have heard about this? Even if at the time, he dismissed it, once he had his conversion experience, don't you think he might have put two and two together?

Marc

Marc L

15th December 2005, 09:52 PM

Bethlehem didn't exist during Herod's reign? That's the first time I've heard that one. Evidence, please?

That may be my fault. I mentioned that the place where Jesus supposedly lived didn't exist. I was refering to Nazereth, not Bethlehem. I apologize for the confusion.

Marc

ceo_esq

15th December 2005, 10:54 PM

All of which fit precisely with other religious cults of the general era which have dubious living 'gods' or humans that transcended (Mithra, Apollonius of Tyana, and so forth).

Even if true (and I don't see it with respect to the Last Supper), what does this have to do with the point in question, which is whether Paul refers to the life of Jesus?

Paul never once mentions Jesus as a person (who did particular things as a living human being or was in certain places). God (OT and NT) was often spoke about in personified terms, but noone would claim that this refers to God (as distinct from Jesus here) walking about in human form.

I suppose I don't grasp what is being claimed here. What qualifies as referring to Jesus as a person who actually lived on Earth? A cursory review of the surviving Pauline letters indicates that Paul believed at least the following of Jesus' life:

He was born, in the flesh, and of a woman
He lived a life of voluntary poverty
He instituted the Eucharistic rite at the Last Supper
He was betrayed on the same night
He died, specifically by crucifixion, at the behest of actual persons within the Jewish community
He miraculously rose from the dead
I find extraordinary the claim - if such is actually being claimed - that Paul believed all these things to be true of Jesus but only in some obscure, unusual way compatible with believing that Jesus was never an actual person and that such things were done by (or happened to) Jesus solely otherwise than in a temporally or spatially concrete (i.e. historical) sense. I daresay it would take a fair amount of positive (not negative) textual evidence for a reasonable reader to assent to such a thesis.

Was Bethlehem a village? I'd heard it refered to as the City of David. That suggests something slightly larger. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that a group of soldiers marched into a village, stole even 12 newborns and killed them for no reason, without anyone saying anything. Given the uniqueness of the event (killing a group of babies in one village in one night), it would certainly warrant more mention than "Herod killed a lot of people."

Possibly this merits further investigation.

Yes, Paul refers to the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I know of the reference to the Last Supper, but I don't have my research materials handy, so I can't say if that's one of the disputed letters or not (ie, one that scholars believe was written by someone else and only attributed to Paul).

It's in 1 Corinthians; so far as I know the scholarly community has never seriously entertained objections to the epistle's Pauline authorship.

As for the sayings, however, you need to remember that the epistles were written before the Gospels.

With regard to the four Gospels as we know them, this is undoubtedly true of most of the epistles, although if one takes an early date for Mark and a late date for Colossians (and assuming arguendo that Colossians is authentic), it might not be the case there.

If the Q-source existed as many suppose, however, it not only consisted primarily of Jesus' sayings that turn up in the Synoptics (I'd have to inquire which sayings exactly) but probably predated Paul's first surviving letter.

It wouldn't be hard for the writers to add them in (after all, Paul said that Jesus said it...)

Theoretically it wouldn't, but that thesis entails an additional set of suppositions of its own.

The fact remains, however, that again, there is no reference to Jesus' miracles, his virgin birth, etc. These are big things.

Big things if you are writing a Gospel, perhaps, but not necessarily (to my mind) if you are writing compositions of the nature of Paul's letters.

davefoc

15th December 2005, 11:30 PM

Mark L,
I think to some degree you are arguing things that most people have accepted as true in this thread already.

I think there is a general consensus that the Gospels are mostly fiction.

I think that nobody here (with the possible exception of Huntster if he is still around) thinks that Herod killed a lot of children.

I think there is no expectation here that Paul would have referred to certain elements of the Gospels because they are probably written after Paul and the general belief here is that they are largely works of fiction. So my guess is that Paul didn't know about things like the virgin birth, so I don't think it's surprising that he didn't mention it.

The main issue of this thread is whether an individual existed that resembles the biblical Jesus closely enough to be described as the historical Jesus. The general opinion here is that this man, assuming he existed, was vastly different that the biblical Jesus. So in putting forth sections of the Gospels that are probably false for various reasons you are mostly talking to the choir.

There is an issue as to whether Nazareth existed during the life of the supposed Jesus. This is a complicated issue since at least one school of thought is that Nazareth is some kind of corruption of a word that refers to members of a certain sect. My own cut at this controversy, is that the lack of evidence for an historical Nazareth isn't evidence against the possibility of an historical Jesus it just doesn't support it. One other thing to note about Nazareth perhaps, is that secular scholars posit that this was the actual birth city of Jesus and that Bethlehem as the birth city was just a fiction created as an attempt to create the impression of the fulfillment of biblical prophesy.

You seem to be in the camp that believes that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus. I have read this idea a number of times in various "Jesus is myth sites". It seems that the evidence is more against this idea than for it. ceo_esq put together a list that looks like strong evidence to me that the idea is wrong.

When I went off to look into this myself I came across this passage almost immediately from Galations 1:18-20 New International Version:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Is it possible that the evidence for Paul's belief in a non-flesh and blood Jesus has been exaggerated?

Marc L

16th December 2005, 06:09 AM

Mark L,
I think to some degree you are arguing things that most people have accepted as true in this thread already.

I think there is a general consensus that the Gospels are mostly fiction.

I think that nobody here (with the possible exception of Huntster if he is still around) thinks that Herod killed a lot of children.

Actually, Huntster was the one I had originally responded to.

The main issue of this thread is whether an individual existed that resembles the biblical Jesus closely enough to be described as the historical Jesus. The general opinion here is that this man, assuming he existed, was vastly different that the biblical Jesus. So in putting forth sections of the Gospels that are probably false for various reasons you are mostly talking to the choir.

Yeesh. :blush: My fault for not paying close enough attention. Thanks for the heads up. :blush:

You seem to be in the camp that believes that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus. I have read this idea a number of times in various "Jesus is myth sites". It seems that the evidence is more against this idea than for it. ceo_esq put together a list that looks like strong evidence to me that the idea is wrong.

This is going to sound really lame, but my research stuff is at home. I'm currently on a ship out at sea, so I can't look things up. I have a book called (I think) 'Who Wrote the New Testament' that talks about which letters are likely written by Paul and which aren't. I bring that up because I'd like to check ceo_esq's list against that book. I'd also appreciate it if you'd point me towards some resources that go against the idea that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus.

When I went off to look into this myself I came across this passage almost immediately from Galations 1:18-20 New International Version:

"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

Is it possible that the evidence for Paul's belief in a non-flesh and blood Jesus has been exaggerated?

Again, let me check my stuff at home. I should be back this evening, and hopefully will be able to post tomorrow.

Marc

davefoc

16th December 2005, 11:01 AM

Marc L,
It seems that I might have been a bit tactless. My apologies. I think I might have missed some of the interactions when I picked back up on the thread.

As to links to Jesus as Myth sites:
Here are two:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

I was am going to spend some more time reading the second one. When I was making sure of the link, I was attracted to several articles that looked interesting.

This is a link to my favorite site that takes the view that Jesus was real:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html

It has occurred to me that there is a kind of trap associated with articles with the point of view like the ones on the above site. It seems like the authors make an assumption that Jesus was real and once this assumption is made then there is a bias to interpretting the available sources in such a way as to support the idea of a real Jesus by carefully teasing plausible details of his life out of the sources.

Still, this thread, plus the reading I have been doing as a result of this thread makes it seem more likely than ever that an historical Jesus did exist.

At this point my list of evidence in order of how strong I think it is consists of the following:

The letters of Paul believed to be authentic
The Josephus passages (minus the obvious later inclusions)
The apparent existance of non-Pauline Jewish Jesus sects
The Gospels
External evidence that supports some of the details in the Gospels

I was reading through some of Paul's letters looking for passages to back up some of ceo_esq's list and one of the things that struck me was that I was hard pressed to read those letters as referring to anything other than a flesh and blood Jesus. I would quote them now but the need for gainful work is getting in the way of my desire to keep messing about with this right now.