Historical Jesus

[Horatio Parker]

There may have been any number of weirdos running around the country side preaching. Some my even have been arrested by the Romans as nuisances.
Romans as meticulously keepers of records never mentioned a single weirdo by name. Surely they would've done had this particular weirdo had followers.

Big Brother didn't have enough people working for him, particularly in hostile or obscure colonies. The Imperial Civil Service was comparatively minute, the Roman's didn't give a twopenny about the lower orders except insofar as their doings might affect their own careers, and only a very few records survive anyway. You try finding out about Roman Britain sometime.

I believe there were only two Romans in Palestine: the governor and his secretary. They lived in Ceasaria, but would come to Jerusalem for important festivals.

There used to be a poster here who argued that the passion was inspired by the Romans execution of Antigonus in 37BCE.

Antigonus II Mattathias (Hebrew: מתתיהו אנטיגונוס השני‎‎, Matityahu), also known as Antigonus the Hasmonean (died 37 BCE) was the last Hasmonean king of Judea. He was the son of King Aristobulus II of Judea. In 37 BCE Herod handed him over to the Romans for execution, after Antigonus's three-year reign during which he led the Jews' fierce struggle for independence against the Romans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

 

[angelo]

There was another claimed miracle worker around, not much later than our Jesus. I speak of Apolinious of Tyna. He also was said to have been crucified. I don't recall if he resurrected as well.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, at least he got out in the open air.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, Christianity still took over the Roman Empire in an incredibly short time,

Nope, I still don't agree that 300 years is "an incredibly short time". I'd also dispute the claim that "Christianity still took over the Roman Empire", come to think of it. I'd say it was the other way round, i.e. that the Roman Empire took over Christianity, changing it from an obscure successor of the Greek Mystery Cults into a state-sponsored one-size-fits-all instrument of control.

This has always been my view as well.

At its core christianity is a religion about sinners and how those sinners are loved and saved despite their behavior so long as they accept the Jesus god. If christainity "took over" the roman empire it's safe to say it also took over lots of other empires and states. The Nazis who murdered millions were baptized Christians all, Catholics and Lutherans, same with Stalin and his followers.

The christian religion is a license to go about killing and murdering as usual and that you will be saved for doing so, so it's no wonder it was such a great fit for Rome.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The coopting by the Empire, the redacting and other machinations by Eusebius etc, have nothing to do with HJ. The gospel-bound tradition of an earthly man-God dominated before the end of the second century.

 

[DBT]

Well, at least he got out in the open air.

Looking down from his lonely wooden tower...according to the song (Suzanne, Cohen).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There was another claimed miracle worker around, not much later than our Jesus. I speak of Apolinious of Tyna. He also was said to have been crucified. I don't recall if he resurrected as well.

There was the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" who got himself executed. A century later, the Essenes, during the time of Jesus were still expecting his imminent resurrection.

 

[angelo]

There was another claimed miracle worker around, not much later than our Jesus. I speak of Apolinious of Tyna. He also was said to have been crucified. I don't recall if he resurrected as well.

There was the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" who got himself executed. A century later, the Essenes, during the time of Jesus were still expecting his imminent resurrection.

There are many who are still waiting for their messiah today in the 21st century.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is the fascination with inventing all these Jesus-like copy-cat miracle-workers/messiahs?

There was another claimed miracle worker around, not much later than our Jesus. I speak of Apollonius of Tyana. He also was said to have been crucified. I don't recall if he resurrected as well.

There was the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" who got himself executed. A century later, the Essenes, during the time of Jesus were still expecting his imminent resurrection.

There's nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls or other literature of the time saying that the "Teacher of Righteousness" was executed, nor anything about a resurrection.

Such narratives are Jesus copy-cat stories invented by modern scholars/critics/pundits projecting the Christian Jesus narrative back onto this earlier Essene figure. Though they swear that it's in the Scrolls, they never quote the actual text from the scrolls. You just have to trust them that it's there.

Why is there such an obsession to produce these copy-cat stories and claim there were other Jesus-type "messiahs" running around doing the same miracles and getting crucified and rising on the 3rd day etc.? Never do they provide the text accounts for any of this. What kind of orgasm are they gaining from making up these stories?

And the Apollonius of Tyana story, invented in the early 3rd century AD, is also a Jesus copy-cat story, showing that this obsession with producing copy-cat fictional Jesus-type "messiah" figures is not just a modern epidemic. These inventors of Jesus copies are desperately drooling at the mouth to find something PRIOR to Jesus which they can point to and say, "Oooh, lookie here, see this Jesus-like messiah just like the one in the gospels -- see? Jesus was only a copy of this earlier character!"

 

[angelo]

There was the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" who got himself executed. A century later, the Essenes, during the time of Jesus were still expecting his imminent resurrection.

There's nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls or other literature of the time saying that the "Teacher of Righteousness" was executed, nor anything about a resurrection.

Such narratives are Jesus copy-cat stories invented by modern scholars/critics/pundits projecting the Christian Jesus narrative back onto this earlier Essene figure. Though they swear that it's in the Scrolls, they never quote the actual text from the scrolls. You just have to trust them that it's there.

Why is there such an obsession to produce these copy-cat stories and claim there were other Jesus-type "messiahs" running around doing the same miracles and getting crucified and rising on the 3rd day etc.? Never do they provide the text accounts for any of this. What kind of orgasm are they gaining from making up these stories?

And the Apollonius of Tyana story, invented in the early 3rd century AD, is also a Jesus copy-cat story, showing that this obsession with producing copy-cat fictional Jesus-type "messiah" figures is not just a modern epidemic. These inventors of Jesus copies are desperately drooling at the mouth to find something PRIOR to Jesus which they can point to and say, "Oooh, lookie here, see this Jesus-like messiah just like the one in the gospels -- see? Jesus was only a copy of this earlier character!"

We really don't know that the Jesus tale is not aplagiarise from elsewhere. Had the emperor Constantine for political reasons not made xtianity the religion of the Empire, it would have died the same death as most other ancient religions.

 

[iolo]

There's nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls or other literature of the time saying that the "Teacher of Righteousness" was executed, nor anything about a resurrection.

Such narratives are Jesus copy-cat stories invented by modern scholars/critics/pundits projecting the Christian Jesus narrative back onto this earlier Essene figure. Though they swear that it's in the Scrolls, they never quote the actual text from the scrolls. You just have to trust them that it's there.

Why is there such an obsession to produce these copy-cat stories and claim there were other Jesus-type "messiahs" running around doing the same miracles and getting crucified and rising on the 3rd day etc.? Never do they provide the text accounts for any of this. What kind of orgasm are they gaining from making up these stories?

And the Apollonius of Tyana story, invented in the early 3rd century AD, is also a Jesus copy-cat story, showing that this obsession with producing copy-cat fictional Jesus-type "messiah" figures is not just a modern epidemic. These inventors of Jesus copies are desperately drooling at the mouth to find something PRIOR to Jesus which they can point to and say, "Oooh, lookie here, see this Jesus-like messiah just like the one in the gospels -- see? Jesus was only a copy of this earlier character!"

We really don't know that the Jesus tale is not aplagiarise from elsewhere. Had the emperor Constantine for political reasons not made xtianity the religion of the Empire, it would have died the same death as most other ancient religions.

We don't really know the Emperor Constantine was not in fact an extra-terrestrial plant, and I imagine some American conspiracy-theorists think he was, but most of us prefer to keep sane.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is the meaning of the REJECTION AT NAZARETH story? Jesus "could do no mighty work there"?

Who says A prophet is without honor in his own country ?
"Something stinks here!"
​

This is an episode from the gospels which is cited sometimes as reason to disbelieve in Christ as a miracle-worker. But a closer look at it, reading it with skepticism and doubt, leads to the opposite conclusion, i.e., to the greater likelihood that he did perform the miracle acts depicted in the gospel accounts. But one must have the patience to take the closer look, and also leave open some possibilities disturbing to a believer.

At this point I'll just present the overall problem posed by the Bible texts, and there are actually 4 related texts, even from the gospel of John, and also a 5th text, from the Gospel of Thomas.

Note the phrase, A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, which really makes no sense. Because it pretends to say something about prophets in general, and yet this rule does NOT apply to other famous prophets. This idea appears ONLY in the gospels, referring to the Jesus example, and never comes up in any of the other literature on the great teachers or prophets or sages of any religious tradition.

So, one major problem posed by this Bible episode is to explain why this negative comment is made about Jesus, saying he was rejected because this was normal for prophets to be rejected in their homeland, and yet this is not true about any other prophets. It's presented as if it were a classic traditional saying, and yet it appears only in the Christian literature and nowhere else.

Here is the Mark version, which was probably written first:

Mark 6:1-6
1 He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense[a] at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

Note the contradiction -- What mighty works are wrought by his hands! (vs. 2) compared with "he could do no mighty work there (vs. 5). The same contradiction is included in the Matthew version below. Did Jesus do "mighty works" there or not?

And what sense can we make of the phrase, "except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them."?

"EXCEPT"? Either he did miracles or he did not! If he did heal "a few sick people" then he DID do "mighty acts" or miracles there. This phrase is extremely awkward and meaningless here, trying to immediately contradict what had just been said. Obviously Mark is having a problem here trying to deal with the report he has in front of him. An explanation is needed.

In vs. 58 Matthew edits the Mark wording (vs. 5) to "did not do many mighty works there," which shows that Matthew sometimes edited Mark in order to present a more favorable picture of Jesus. It's a mistake to obsess on this as proof that the gospel writers "made up shit" instead of telling the straight facts. None of the accounts is a perfectly accurate report of what happened, and instead of getting hung up on the motive of the writer, we need to focus on determining the truth of what actually happened. If the gospel writers just "made up shit" instead of reporting what happened, they would not have presented this "rejection at Nazareth" episode at all, because it suggests something unfavorable about Jesus and his power to perform miracles.

Matthew 13: 53-58
53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Yes, Matthew did editing, which we cannot disregard. Nor can his motive be disregarded, but here's the point to keep in mind: He did not "make up shit" even if he did this editing. Rather, he tried to present what he really believed happened, and he thought Mark was off target suggesting that Jesus was UNABLE to do a miracle. We have to take that into consideration, but maybe Matthew was right to think this, and so we have to get beyond the question of his motivation and focus only on what actually happened. ALL the ancient documents have to be looked at skeptically.

Meanwhile, the Luke version adds something new, but includes the basic saying, "no prophet is acceptable in his own country," and shows the rejection of Jesus in stronger language, introducing a proverb "Physician, heal yourself" which is a blatant insult at Jesus, accusing him of being a phony of some kind. Though Luke puts these words into the mouth of Jesus, they make no sense other than as an insult someone present must have directed at him, and it's clear from the context, especially vss. 28-29, that people present reacted in a hostile or violent manner toward him.

Unlike the prophet-without-honor saying, the "Physician, heal yourself" is a previous ancient proverb not originating from this Jesus at Nazareth episode.

Luke 4:16-30
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country.’” 24 And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. 30 But passing through the midst of them he went away.

Note that Luke's version says explicitly that Jesus did perform miracles at Capernaum (vs. 23). The fact that he did perform miracles at other places, or was believed to have done so, is necessary for this rejection-at-Nazareth story to make any sense.

Isn't it obvious why the assembly present became angry at him? He gives an excuse for not performing a miracle there: He cites Elijah and Elisha who performed healings to some but not to others, which is a strange interpretation of those stories from I and II Kings. Notice how this is so uncharacteristic of anything else reported in the gospels about Jesus when victims are brought to him. Why, all of a sudden, does he change his attitude in this case and give excuses for not doing a miracle act? Did he change from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde when he came to Nazareth?

Everything in this Luke version certainly appears to be that of a charlatan only pretending to have some kind of special power, giving excuses why he won't do the same acts he reportedly did elsewhere, and the listeners present aren't buying it.


Why does the PROPHET-WITHOUT-HONOR saying keep rearing its ugly head?

The saying about a prophet having no honor in his own country is unique to Christianity and sticks out very conspicuously in this episode. It even occurs in John 4. We can disregard John's chronology for this and much of the travels of Jesus, which don't harmonize with the synoptic gospel accounts. (John has Jesus returning from Jerusalem and Samaria.) Whatever the chronology or context, here's the John version of the saying:

John 4:43-44
43 After the two days he departed to Galilee. 44 For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

The meaning might be that Jesus did not go directly to Nazareth, treating "Galilee" as a separate location than "Nazareth." It seems like an artificial insertion here, added by the author who must have thought that the prophet-without-honor saying was important enough that it must be included somewhere in his account.

Why was this saying so important? This suggests there was some idea or popular report in circulation that Jesus was unable to perform any miracle at Nazareth, and that he was rejected or discredited there, and was accused of something at that place but not anywhere else.

The whole episode makes no sense unless he was accepted everywhere else and recognized as a miracle-worker. This basic fact then gives meaning to the claim that he was a failure at Nazareth. Whereas if he was a normal weak human everywhere else and did no miracles anywhere, what sense does it make to single out this one location, Nazareth, and say he had no power only at that location?

Even the Gospel of Thomas makes reference to the prophet-without-honor saying:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas31.html (3 different versions of the saying)

(31) Jesus said: No prophet is accepted in his own village, no doctor heals those who know him.

(31) Jesus said, "A prophet is not acceptable in that prophet's own native town. A physician does not heal people who are acquainted with that physician."

36 [31]. Jesus says: "A prophet is not accepted in his <own> city, and a doctor does not heal those who know him."

What? Where else in all the historical literature or medical literature does it say that "a doctor does not heal those who know him"? The exact opposite is closer to the truth. Isn't it the "family doctor" and the doctor who knows you personally who understands you better and has that extra knack or 6th sense to be able to identify what's really wrong?

Why is it that when Jesus Christ is the prophet or the doctor, suddenly it's only the stranger or the one you don't know who has credibility, while the one you know is a phony? Where was this ever taught, except in this Christian literature, or in Christian theology based on these 1st-century Christ sources?

Any historical Jesus theory has to include an explanation of this prophet-without-honor saying. It pops up too much to be ignored. And it's obviously connected to the rejection-at-Nazareth episode.


SOME CONCLUSIONS TO DRAW:

Either Jesus did perform the miracle acts, generally, virtually everywhere he went, or at least it was widely believed that he did, in 30 AD.

The rejection-at-Nazareth story must have originated from the beginning, by 30 AD, at the original events, because it could not have been invented by later Christians, especially the gospel writers, saying something negative about him.

There was some popular report that he failed to perform a miracle at Nazareth, i.e., that he tried and failed. It makes no sense to say that he had the power but refused someone who appealed to him for help.

The gospel writers had before them this negative story, and they made some changes to it, to make it more compatible with the picture of Jesus as a miracle-worker who never failed or refused a victim seeking to be healed. In the actual original story before them, Jesus did no miracle at Nazareth even though he tried. But maybe this original story was false, and yet the gospel writers believed it and so felt they had to include it in their account, and adjusted it to fit better with all the other accounts.

But could this rejection story be totally false? considering that it's reported in 3 accounts? and is even given some attestation in John and the Gospel of Thomas?


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I was going to say that it's weird to see this thread resurrected, but it is about Jesus, so I guess that's OK.

 

[blastula]

Lumpen, the gospels only show that some people believed Jesus did miracles, not that he really did miracles. That some people believed it only raises the likelihood very slightly. The likelihood is still near zero.

 

[none]

Gish gallop never dies

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. But the refutation = "Miracle acts are impossible."

Lumpen, the gospels only show that some people believed Jesus did miracles, not that he really did miracles. That some people believed it only raises the likelihood very slightly. The likelihood is still near zero.

There's no way to calculate what the probability is.

It's noteworthy that when the particular details we have are examined carefully, that probability increases.

E.g., this rejection-at-Nazareth story is sometimes used as something to cast doubt on the miracle stories, like some kind of "smoking gun" evidence to debunk them. And yet -- typically -- when one takes a closer and more critical look at it, the case in favor of the miracle stories is made stronger.

It's interesting that there continues to be only one argument against the Jesus miracle stories -- and that is that such events are impossible, and so they could not have happened. That's the whole case in a nutshell.

There is never any evidence, or argument taken from the facts we can uncover, such as from the N.T. accounts or other writings, from anything of the historical record of the period, to add any evidence against these accounts, to cast further doubt upon them. All the evidence, or anything uncovered from the written record, is always something to add further to the credibility of these reports of the Jesus miracle acts.

I.e., the more one looks at the evidence, the stronger the case becomes.

But the debunker keeps falling back on the same-only argument in opposition: But such events just can't happen, and so despite all the evidence, we just know it cannot be.

It's interesting that this keeps happening, as we keep looking again and again at the available evidence. This one episode -- that he was rejected at Nazareth and "could do no mighty deed there" -- upon closer examination, is just one more piece of evidence to indicate that these miracle acts really did happen.

But you're right -- you can ignore the particular facts we have from the period, the record, all the evidence we have, and just fall back on the ideology that no such event can happen.

And the evidence, though it's all one-way, is not PROOF.

Another interesting point: This is the ONLY case (at least prior to modern times) for which there is any serious evidence of miracle acts actually having happened. It's interesting that we have only this one case, over a period of 2000-3000 years of recorded history, sticking out conspicuously.

And among the many written accounts, we have this odd report that the one doing these acts could perform no mighty deed at this one particular location. Isn't that a strange report? Why did Jesus have such a reputation for this that someone thought it necessary to report that he could NOT do a miracle act at this one particular occasion? like it's a surprising event?

Why is there no other figure in the recorded history about whom anything like this is said? Especially so close to the time when the alleged events happened, and in a period when the recorded events we do have, in the historical record, typically don't get recorded until generations, even 100 years, after the events happened.

 

[DBT]

The evidence = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. But the refutation = "Miracle acts are impossible."

Correction: The claim = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. The refutation = "Miraculous acts have not been proven to happen despite numerous claims of miracles throughout history."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Miracle" is just respectable religious code for bullshit. Good thing religion has its own language or more people would recognize it for what it is.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"PROVEN"? There's more evidence for the miracles of Jesus than for many accepted historical facts.

The evidence = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. But the refutation = "Miracle acts are impossible."

Correction: The claim = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. The refutation = "Miraculous acts have not been proven to happen despite numerous claims of miracles throughout history."

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Your phrase "not been proven to happen" is ambiguous.

Depending upon your standard for proof, it could be said that a vast amount of the historical record is unproven. If the standard of proof is low enough to allow 70% or 80% or so of our accepted historical facts, then by that standard there are some events in the category of "miracle" which are proved. I.e., there is evidence that they happened.

One example (there's probably more I'm not aware of): the healing of the child of the Russian Czar by Rasputin the mad monk.

Admittedly the list of "proven" miracle claims is a very short list. Probably far more have been DISproved than proved. But there is evidence in some cases, and it depends on what you mean by "not been proven" before you can insist that none is proved. A vast number of historical facts are accepted on much less evidence than we have for the Jesus miracles and for the Rasputin miracle.

And no historical events can be replayed for us for inspection to confirm that they really happened. So in that sense all historical facts have "not been proven" beyond any doubt. (especially if you go back 1000+ years)

What you can probably claim confidently is that the number of proven miracle claims is a small number, so they are rare. But if you set the standard so high as to exclude EVERY miracle claim (which you can do), then you're also eliminating a large percent of the standard historical record, i.e., of the historical facts commonly accepted. So do you want to toss out half our history books because they contain claims which have "not been proven"?

 

[DBT]

Correction: The claim = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. The refutation = "Miraculous acts have not been proven to happen despite numerous claims of miracles throughout history."

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

Your phrase "not been proven to happen" is ambiguous.

It just means that the available information does not provide evidence that sufficient to prove that the events and miracles being described by the gospel writers happened as described, and not embellished or just based on hearsay without any form of critical investigation.

Depending upon your standard for proof, it could be said that a vast amount of the historical record is unproven. If the standard of proof is low enough to allow 70% or 80% or so of our accepted historical facts, then by that standard there are some events in the category of "miracle" which are proved. I.e., there is evidence that they happened.

Doesn't it come down to corroboration and probability?

One example (there's probably more I'm not aware of): the healing of the child of the Russian Czar by Rasputin the mad monk.

Given the level of credulity and faith associated with the mad monk, the probability is that no miracle happened;
Quote;
''Some historians, such as Pierre Gilliard, have speculated that the bleeding likely stopped as a result of Rasputin’s insistence on disallowing the administration of aspirin (a known blood-thinning agent), and not any “mystical” powers he may have had. The Tsarina was amazed, and immediately enlisted the services of Rasputin as a close adviser.''