Historical Jesus

[Swammerdami]

This thread attempts to summarize the historical evidence for supernatural miracle-working by Jesus and/or his disciples. Let me take a stab.

The alleged miracles might be divided into 5 types:

1. Healing miracles (curing of physical impairments and illnesses)
2. Exorcisms (casting out demons and unclean spirits)
3. Nature miracles (calming storms, feeding multitudes.)
4. Restoration miracles (raising the dead, restoring to life)
5. Alleged sightings of the Resurrected Jesus.

(The Resurrection and associated sightings will be discussed below.)

While the stories of healing and casting out demons are probably exaggerated, I do not think they are necessarily false. Psychosomatic illnesses were probably quite common in Judaea at that time, given the nature of their religion and the fact that it was failing them. Even today, many illnesses can be treated by a charismatic personality or hypnotist. With the strong emphasis on miracle types 1 and 2, many scholars assume they have some factual basis. However they do not qualify as supernatural.

Some of the early Christian writers lived long after Jesus. Hegesippus the Nazarene, for example, was born in 110 AD. Let's narrow the search by considering only documents probably written in the 1st century. Some of these are hypothesized works which survive only in other writings. I will list them in (very) approximate order of their writing.

• The Passion Narrative in Mark. (Some scholars claim that the qualification, 'James the less', when referring to Jesus' brother means the account predates the death of James bar Zebedee ca 44 AD.) That account has super-naturalities (e.g. "the veil of the temple was rent in twain") but it's hard for me to take them seriously.
• The hypothesized Q Source was also very early. But it was mostly a collection of Jesus' alleged sayings. Only two miracles are mentioned in Q, one each of types 1 and 2.
• The "Signs Source" for The Gospel of John. Although John itself is dated later than the synoptic Gospels, scholars believe it uses a source independent of and possibly predating the synoptics. Turning water into wine at Cana is the first of these miracles (and is mentioned nowhere outside John). The second miracle explicitly mentioned by John occurred on a return visit to Cana, where he healed a nobleman's sick son remotely. Other miracles mentioned only by John include a healing at the pool of Bethzatha, curing a blind man, and the raising of Lazarus. (Lazarus is mentioned in "the Secret Mark.")
• The Epistles of Paul the Evangelist. While Acts asserts that Paul was a healer, Paul barely mentions healing. One quote from Paul -- "Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" -- implies that healing was just a subsidiary talent some disciples had, like speaking in tongues.
• The Gospel of Mark. This is the ONLY source for many or most of the miracles.
• Alleged deletions from the Gospel of Mark. Clement of Alexandria writes about a Secret Gospel of Mark, with passages deleted from a canonical version. The Secret Gospel mentions the raising of Lazarus.
• Various other Gospels. Setting aside probably-fictitious stories of a child Jesus, these are mostly based on Mark, and have no independent value.
• Various early Christian writings that have little to do with Jesus himself. These include Eugnostos the Blessed, the Didache, etc.
• the writings of Flavius Josephus. No miracles are mentioned.
• the First Epistle of Clement of Rome. This gives nothing about Jesus' life or any miracles.

So: All the Gospels mention miracles of types 3 and 4, but altogether these constitute just two primary sources: The "Signs Source" for the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark. (Secret Mark mentions the raising of Lazarus, but this doesn't affect the summary since the synoptics mention at least one other "raising of the dead."

But Paul does NOT mention any such miracles. The Q source does NOT mention any such miracles. Neither of two early writers -- Clement of Rome, a Christian, and Josephus, a non-Christian -- mention any miracles. Various other writings mention no miracles.

Thus there are only TWO (2) sources for miracles types 3 or 4: Mark and John. If these miracles really happened, then independent accounts might be seen beyond the two sources, but NO. If the miracles were widely believed, wouldn't we expect Paul to mention at least one?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Almost all non-Christian scholars and many Christian scholars will concede that the supernatural miracles did NOT happen.

The Resurrection

It is worth emphasizing that Mark -- the primary source for miracle types 1, 2, 3 and 4 -- mentions an empty tomb, but almost nothing else about any Resurrection. The writer of Mark was familiar with the Resurrection myth, but couldn't be bothered to discuss it in his Gospel. Resurrection became a central tenet of the Church mainly due to Paul's influence.

But what did Paul think of the Resurrection? For Paul, his vision of the risen Jesus was just that: a VISION (dream or imagination) of a Jesus risen to join His Father in heaven. Paul emphasizes the difference between "flesh and blood" and immortal spirit. Later writings speak of a Resurrection followed by an Ascension but for Paul these two events were one and the same. Roman chapter 6 is one of many places where Paul makes his view of the Resurrection clear; nowhere does he imply a Resurrected flesh-and-blood Jesus.

The origin of the Resurrection myth, and Paul's interpretation probably deserve a rich and interesting discussion, but I've been working on this for almost 3 hours and will take a break.

 

[Jarhyn]

Here, have a shit post:

So, I would imagine that the preaching of John the Baptist was rather important to a number of Cults of Collectivist Knowledge, or CoCKs for short, arose in the middle east. These uprisen CoCKs all started to exchange information around the idea that people could be ideas and that ideas could be people, that by participating in someone else's story and claiming that idea you became it.

In that way, everyone touched by the CoCK became God, and God became part of the CoCK as they disseminated this strange meme. They gave up their individual identity to be "saved" as part of the identity of the CoCK-head, whether that happened to be Jesus or Paul or John the Baptist did not matter just that one had communion with the CoCK and chose to be one with it.

By joining their wills to the will of the CoCK, they would achieve a sort of immortality. In this way, all members of the church are Jesus, the ultimate face of the CoCKs.

Ok, I'll show myself out now.

 

[TomC]

Ok, I'll show myself out now.

My recommendation would be that you delete that horrible post while you still can.
Failing that, beg the staff to do it.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

Well as Freud said, all things come down to sex.

 

[Swammerdami]

No responses to my summary, pro or con?

This thread attempts to summarize the historical evidence for supernatural miracle-working by Jesus and/or his disciples. Let me take a stab.
...
So: All the Gospels mention miracles of types 3 and 4, but altogether these constitute just two primary sources: The "Signs Source" for the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark. (Secret Mark mentions the raising of Lazarus, but this doesn't affect the summary since the synoptics mention at least one other "raising of the dead."

But Paul does NOT mention any such miracles. The Q source does NOT mention any such miracles. Neither of two early writers -- Clement of Rome, a Christian, and Josephus, a non-Christian -- mention any miracles. Various other writings mention no miracles.

Thus there are only TWO (2) sources for miracles types 3 or 4: Mark and John. If these miracles really happened, then independent accounts might be seen beyond the two sources, but NO. If the miracles were widely believed, wouldn't we expect Paul to mention at least one?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Almost all non-Christian scholars and many Christian scholars will concede that the supernatural miracles did NOT happen.

The Resurrection

It is worth emphasizing that Mark -- the primary source for miracle types 1, 2, 3 and 4 -- mentions an empty tomb, but almost nothing else about any Resurrection. The writer of Mark was familiar with the Resurrection myth, but couldn't be bothered to discuss it in his Gospel. Resurrection became a central tenet of the Church mainly due to Paul's influence.

But what did Paul think of the Resurrection? For Paul, his vision of the risen Jesus was just that: a VISION (dream or imagination) of a Jesus risen to join His Father in heaven. Paul emphasizes the difference between "flesh and blood" and immortal spirit. Later writings speak of a Resurrection followed by an Ascension but for Paul these two events were one and the same. Roman chapter 6 is one of many places where Paul makes his view of the Resurrection clear; nowhere does he imply a Resurrected flesh-and-blood Jesus.

The origin of the Resurrection myth, and Paul's interpretation probably deserve a rich and interesting discussion, but I've been working on this for almost 3 hours and will take a break.

Let me amend my remarks slightly.

1. Whether Paul imagined a physical Resurrection or a spiritual Resurrection is disputed.
2. In my list of early writings I forgot The Epistle to the Hebrews. It sheds little light on miracle types 1-6 but argues for a Super-Miracle type 7: That Jesus was the Special Son of God, the Holy Creator Incarnate. While the "Son of God" may be more of a "myth" than a "miracle", it is certainly more grandiose than turning water into wine or even curing the comatose. This same Son-of-God myth is suggested by Paul, John, Luke etc.

I find miracle type 7 unlikely: If it is indeed ill-founded exaggeration, it just increases doubts about other alleged miracles mentioned by Mark and/or John.

 

[TomC]

No responses to my summary, pro or con?

I've been contemplating one, I just haven't gotten around to formulating and posting.

In addition to all the issues you described, there's a bigger more complex issue. Pervasive, but nearly invisible. How reliably does what now constitutes the Canon represent what was originally written?
In the modern world, documents like books and such can be mass produced. Hundreds, thousands, even millions of identical copies. With reasonably clear attribution.

Nothing remotely like that existed for over a thousand years after Jesus. Textual dating of something, like gMark, may have nothing to do with what we know as gMark. Because in a world where every individual letter in every individual copy of any document was done by hand, and every copy quite ephemeral, it would be easy to alter any text. Adding, subtracting, tweaking, it was easy. If someone had an agenda, as many Christian cultists did, they could just commission a copy of gMark that matched their agenda. Since nobody has an original copy of anything like a gospel there's no way to know how closely the current gMark resembles the first gMark. The modern Canon is the end result of a centuries long process, which ended when the Roman elite decided which versions of which documents sufficiently supported their Creed to make the cut. Everything else was marginalized into oblivion.
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

I may well be wrong, but I think the sheer QUANTITY of early copies -- even small fragments -- of the Gospels argues toward authenticity. Sure, through luck the early fragments might be from parts that did not undergo editing, but the Razor suggests that major tampering would be evident.

In the first centuries of the church, there was no single center of production, no controlled distribution or transmission, nor were there any scriptoriums available to Christians for mass production. Few of the early copyists were professional scribes, and those who were could not often have produced a copy of any Christian text openly.

Naturally, all this has resulted in a number of “Textual families”—unique readings common to certain lines of transmission—which can still be found in the manuscripts we possess. (For instance, the text of a third-century manuscript of the gospels, P75, is virtually identical to that in the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus.)

Fortunately, prior to the Constantinian period (4th century), there were no centralized mass-productions of manuscripts that might have allowed these new readings to effectively erase the originals. Additionally, New Testament manuscripts are noted for demonstrating a strong “tenacity,” which is to say, once a reading enters into the textual tradition, it remains there1.

This suggests that if innovative material tends to be preserved, so too will the original. Dr. James White describes determining the original reading of the New Testament books as putting together a 100-piece puzzle with 101 pieces; that is to say, we have little reason to fear the original words of the New Testament writers have been lost, rather we must determine what has been added into the text over the centuries by cross comparing the various textual families.

This is not to say that there are no unresolved, viable (early or potentially early) variants in the New Testament—as reflected in footnotes and texts of most modern translations. However, it is fortunate that none of these have any impact on the major doctrines of the Christian Church8.

There are fragments of John's Gospel dated to the early 2nd century. And at least one 1st-century fragment from another Gospel:

Gospel of Matthew, 1st century

Also kept at Oxford’s Sackler Library Papyrology Room, “Papyrus 104” dates to the 1st century and contains ancient Greek verses from Matthew 21:34-37 on one side and lines from verses 43 and 45 on the other side. A total of 110 legible letters can be spotted on the front side, making up the sentences: “he sent his servants to the vine-growers to collect the harvest that was his. And the vine-growers took his servants; indeed, they beat one and they killed another, and another they stoned. Again, he sent other servants, more than the first: and they did.”

 

[Swammerdami]

The argument quoted in the previous post is very interesting -- that because there were no central scriptorums, it would have been difficult to erase all evidence of alternate texts.

Josephus allegedly wrote "Jesus ... was the Messiah," a very unlikely thing for a non-Christian to write. It is widely agreed that this was an interpolation by a Christian copyist. Perhaps this was after Constantine, and the copyist updated the master copy in Rome. Papyrus is so fragile that only copies made after the pro-Christian interpolation have survived. Christian literature, on the other hand, was "subversive" and no central authority or scriptorum was possible. A major change, like the "was the Messiah" addition to Josephus, wouldn't be possible.

Papyrus is VERY fragile. Almost all the most ancient papyri (including afore-mentioned Gospel fragments) were found in arid desert, specifically in Egypt.

The quantity of early Christian literature which has turned up, despite papyrus' fragility, is testimony to how fast Christianity spread.

 

[steve_bank]

My favorite counter example to the argument that the stories of Jesus are true because so much was written early on is the myth of King Arthur.

There is no archeological evidence that supports the alleged conflicts. The evidence points to peaceful agrarian cultures and modern DNA studies indicate interbreeding.

It turns out the myth started when a monk wrote a history of Britain. He included thefictional tale based on folk tales. Th book was popular in teh day. Since then copius e;bortions and adptaions through today. The monk was probly embelhing hisotry.

The Jesus story took off nost likey for reaons unrelated to who an HJ may jhave been. The gospes are an embelhismemt at best.

I red somewhere that the gosples as fiction of the day were in the form of what today we would call action-adventure. The Acts would be the sequel that ties up the loose ends.

We can look at Trekies, Star Treh fans who dress in unfrms. Or Lord Of The Rings fans who wandered around New Zealand in cosstues dressd as characers.

Or all the Dacula and vampire variations based on the orgnal fictional book.

That Christianity became popular is easily expainable by geopolitics, social forces, and human magnation. Thngs we can see that played out over the last 200 years and are well doumented.

The rise of Scientolgy and Mormonisn as global pgenomena.

 

[steve_bank]

A better example may be George Armstrong

H slaughtered a defenseless Indian village of women, children, and old people. Then he made a hasty retreat to avoid retaliation. East coast media turned into a heroic battle, and the Custer 'Injun fighter
myth began.

The gloried myth of the heroic fighter served political, business-economic, and social interests. It justified genocide of native populations and western expansion.

I'd say no difference tan the Jesus myth. It served political and economic interests. Certainly in Europe as the RCC rose to power.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That Christianity became popular is easily expainable by geopolitics, social forces, and human magnation. Thngs we can see that played out over the last 200 years and are well doumented.

Agreed. Christianity is a super easy religion compared to what was already there. Nothing to ante up front but tremendous payoff. Economics matters. I'm in.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A better example may be George Armstrong

Photographs and accounts exist of pterodactyl like creatures in the American southwest as late as the 19th century. The jesus legend is the same thing, where a real person springs to life from obviously fictional accounts and fabrications.

 

[Rhea]

A better example may be George Armstrong

Photographs and accounts exist of pterodactyl like creatures in the American southwest as late as the 19th century. The jesus legend is the same thing, where a real person springs to life from obviously fictional accounts and fabrications.

This is exactly the thought direction that I cannot discard when someone tries to tell me that an “Historical Jesus is True!”

I cannot help but be certain that this tale is exactly as susceptible as all those other ones to embellishment and fabrication and mixing of multiple histporical figures into one mega-persona.

I can never agree with them when they claim that, “well other tales are embellished, but not this one.” And I must insist that if they was to claim they are not susceptible, they need extraordinary evidence. Evidence that they will never be able to supply with 30-80-year post-event story-telling.

The arguments I’ve ever heard for why “Jesus was an actual historical figure” all seem to rely on the assumption that if something happened, then this guy’s role in it must be true. Like “we found walls in Jericho, therefore the tale of Jericho is true.” No, it means the writer had a real setting for their tale. Or that if something was written down by one person, then it must be fact. No, if something so extraordinary were true and affected so many people,why would we not expect many multiple writers?

But every other tall tale puts the lie to those assumptions. It’s not a lens I can turn off when I listen to them. I can’t forget that Paul Bunyan stories exist and that they are not true.

 

[Swammerdami]

Obviously this doesn't apply to erudite posters at IIDB, but when I read comments of this type, I am almost tempted to wonder if the posters have devoted hours of study to relevant research. How do these scholars reconcile their conclusions with the fact that 99% of professional non-Christian historians believe Jesus did exist? (The percentage is even higher among Christian historians!)

Comparisons with the legendary warrior Arthur are especially laughable. Jesus is located in a specific time and place while speculations about Arthur range over several centuries, and legends locate him anywhere from Cornwall to Argyll. If Jesus were fictional, many of his earliest followers would have known this, while the earliest writings about Arthur already treat him more-or-less as mythical.

If someone wants to make a case that Jesus was fictional, can you show where 99% of historians go wrong? I hope you can do so without citing Toledot Yeshu or the Gibberish of Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD.

By mentioning the opinion of 99% of professional historians who have researched the question I am NOT deferring to authority. (No one familiar with my views would make that mistake.) I DO think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And -- let's keep our eye on the ball -- professional historians do NOT define "historical Jesus" as one who walked on water and turned water into wine. In fact (cf. midrash and Bishop John Shelby Spong) the Gospel accounts may be rather mixed up. But, simply put, there really WAS a Galilean named Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate who, for whatever reason, inspired a religion that grew rapidly.

 

[bilby]

simply put, there really WAS a Galilean named Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate who, for whatever reason, inspired a religion that grew rapidly.

And there really was a newspaper reporter in a major US city in the 1930s who was an orphan raised by adoptive midwestern farmers. It would be strange for anyone to deny it. Whether his actual name was Clark Kent, or some variant of it, we will probably never know.

It falls into the bracket of "so what" claims - why would anybody care specifically about these nobodies, Clark and Jesus?

Sure, they're both almost certainly real people, or at worst, are a collection of stereotypes about a real class of person (the naïve country boy who makes it in the big city despite his job fircing him to confront the seedy parts of urban life; Or the itinerant preacher who falls foul of the Imperial authority).

But to say that there was an historical Clark Kent is to say nothing of any real value (other than to historians who specialise in sociological minutiae). Unless, of course, it is in the context of an implication that there was also an historical Superman.

 

[steve_bank]

How myths arise and how they are taken a truth with substance is the same 4000 years ago as it is today and all points between.

That is the point. The Jesus myth is unique and speciall only to Christians who are ignorant of history and other cultural myths.

What is laughable is Christianity with its historical anti Jewish views that worships a 2000 year old dead Jew who is believed to be born of a human woman impregnated by a god, to have walked on water, and come back from the dead.

Today it wold be a B movie sorcery movie. The tale of Jason And The Atgonauts has had several movie versions, Greek gods and the supernatural intrusion into human affairs.

The Jesus gospel stories fit right into the Roman and Greek forms. Which makes sense, to Jews the gospel Jesus wold have been blasphemy of a high order. To a Pagan/Genial audience the gospels would be attractive.

Argonauts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Argonauts (/ˈɑːrɡənɔːt/; Ancient Greek: Ἀργοναῦται, Argonaũtai, 'Argo sailors') were a band of heroes in Greek mythology, who in the years before the Trojan War (around 1300 BC)[1] accompanied Jason to Colchis in his quest to find the Golden Fleece. Their name comes from their ship, Argo, named after its builder, Argus. They were sometimes called Minyans, after a prehistoric tribe in the area.

Golden Fleece - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Greek mythology, the Golden Fleece (Greek: Χρυσόμαλλον δέρας, Chrysómallon déras, literally, Golden-haired pelt) is the fleece of the golden-woolled,[a] winged ram, Chrysomallos, that rescued Phrixus and brought him to Colchis, where Phrixus then sacrificed it to Zeus. Phrixus gave the fleece to King Aeëtes who kept it in a sacred grove, whence Jason and the Argonauts stole it with the help of Medea, Aeëtes' daughter. The fleece is a symbol of authority and kingship.

In the historical account, the hero Jason and his crew of Argonauts set out on a quest for the fleece by order of King Pelias in order to place Jason rightfully on the throne of Iolcus in Thessaly. Through the help of Medea, they acquire the Golden Fleece. The story is of great antiquity and was current in the time of Homer (eighth century BC). It survives in various forms, among which the details vary.

Nowadays, the heraldic variations of the Golden Fleece are featured frequently in Georgia, especially for Coats of Arms and Flags associated with Western Georgian (Historical Colchis) municipalities and cities, including the Coats of Arms of City of Kutaisi, the ancient capital city of Colchis.

 

[Swammerdami]

simply put, there really WAS a Galilean named Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate who, for whatever reason, inspired a religion that grew rapidly.

And there really was a newspaper reporter in a major US city in the 1930s who was an orphan raised by adoptive midwestern farmers. It would be strange for anyone to deny it. Whether his actual name was Clark Kent, or some variant of it, we will probably never know.

It falls into the bracket of "so what" claims - why would anybody care specifically about these nobodies, Clark and Jesus?

It's rather ridiculous that you don't even read the post excerpt you present. I've added some size/color adjustments. Still confused?

 

[bilby]

simply put, there really WAS a Galilean named Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate who, for whatever reason, inspired a religion that grew rapidly.

And there really was a newspaper reporter in a major US city in the 1930s who was an orphan raised by adoptive midwestern farmers. It would be strange for anyone to deny it. Whether his actual name was Clark Kent, or some variant of it, we will probably never know.

It falls into the bracket of "so what" claims - why would anybody care specifically about these nobodies, Clark and Jesus?

It's rather ridiculous that you don't even read the post excerpt you present. I've added some size/color adjustments. Still confused?

Wasn't confused to begin with.

Both have inspired significant fandoms.

Again, so what?

 

[Swammerdami]

Comparisons with the legendary warrior Arthur are especially laughable. Jesus is located in a specific time and place while speculations about Arthur range over several centuries, and legends locate him anywhere from Cornwall to Argyll. If Jesus were fictional, many of his earliest followers would have known this, while the earliest writings about Arthur already treat him more-or-less as mythical.

The  Historicity of King Arthur is actually rather an interesting topic, which the Wikipedia covers rather thoroughly. I will call attention to just one aspect the Wiki article doesn't develop:

Wiki mentions "Artuir mac Áedán, a son of the 6th-century king of Dál Riata."

Riata was a province in Ireland; Scottish Dál Riata was an Irish colony; and spoke Gaelic. Northern Dál Riata was centered at Argyll. These Scots would have been adjacent to indigenous speakers of Pictish and Brythonic, and interbred especially with Brythonic speakers. The Brythonic languages of what is now Scotland went extinct. The loss of Brythonic presence in northern Britain is sometimes cited as the reason place-names (from Nennius?) are unrecognizable.

Argyll eventually became the domain of the Campbell Clan (Dukes of Argyll) whose traditional language was of course Highland Scots -- Gaelic. And Campbell lore claims a speculative descent from Arthur Org mac Duibh. I'll call this the Campbell myth. Campbells do NOT claim that this Arthur Org mac Duibh was the famous warrior. Rather the presumption is that "Arthur" was a name used in that family, one Arthur of whom -- perhaps mac Duibh's agnatic ancestor -- was the famous warrior.

The oldest mentions of Arthur imply that he was a Brythonic speaker (e.g. Welsh). But BOTH the Campbell Clan's mythical progenitor Arthur, and Artuir mac Áedán (prince of Scottish Dalriata) that Wikipedia mentions) spoke Gaelic. Coincidence?

In addition to being a Scottish hero, isn't Arthur also idolized in France? Curious that two venues where the Myth is adored are traditional enemies of England!

 

[Swammerdami]

Again, so what?

Let's digress and play a parlor game. Do something with the following list of a dozen men.
Rank them by historical importance; play odd-men-out; whatever. Are they all "nobodies"? Or is that a special designation just for Jesus?

• Lao Tzu (Li Er?)
• Confucius (Kong Qiu)
• Moses, the Deliverer and Lawgiver
• Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha
• Zarathustra
• Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth, the Christ
• Paul the Apostle
• Josiah (Yoshia ben Amon), King of Judah
• Martin Luther
• Muhammad ibn Abdullah the Prophet (pbuh)
• Akhenaten, Pharaoh (Amenhotep IV)
• Saint Peter the Apostle (Shimoun Bar Younah)

Anyone else want to play?