Historical Jesus

[SLD]

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Who gives a shit?

What possible difference would it make to anything whether Jesus is purely fictional, or based on a real person or persons?

It's unlikely that any fictional character is pure fiction. Superman is based on real people, which is why he looks like a Homo Sapiens, despite being from another planet. But what important changes does that knowledge make to our understanding of the life of Clark Kent? Or to our understanding of ourselves?

The whole question is back door Christianity - You cannot prove that Jesus isn't real, therefore not only am I justified in my faith, but I am justified in claiming that you're a believer too, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to prohibit you from having an abortion. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. etc. etc.

Jesus is fictional. It's probably more important whether Superman is based on a real person than it is whether Jesus was. That is to say, neither question is even worth the effort of asking, unless in support of a hidden agenda.

My not so hidden agenda is to expose Christianity for what it is: a fraud that’s been perpetrated for two thousand years. I truly want to be atheistic evangelical at times and shout it from the rooftop. IT’S ALL BULLSHIT!

But I think the question is far more important than the reality of Superman. The impact of religion on our society is far more real. It impacts our laws as can be seen. Superman doesn’t. People aren’t killing each other over belief in Superman. They are over Jesus. I think though the best way to expose it as the fraud that it is, is to find the truth about its origins.

Plus given the history of the last 2000 years, it’s far more academically interesting question than the source material for Superman. Superman just hasn’t had the impact that Jesus has. Maybe one day that will change and then I’d be interested in the origin of that myth.

IAE, you really have just dodged the points I made. What is more likely? A completely fictional character of a historical kernel of a man?

 

[bilby]

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Who gives a shit?

What possible difference would it make to anything whether Jesus is purely fictional, or based on a real person or persons?

It's unlikely that any fictional character is pure fiction. Superman is based on real people, which is why he looks like a Homo Sapiens, despite being from another planet. But what important changes does that knowledge make to our understanding of the life of Clark Kent? Or to our understanding of ourselves?

The whole question is back door Christianity - You cannot prove that Jesus isn't real, therefore not only am I justified in my faith, but I am justified in claiming that you're a believer too, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to prohibit you from having an abortion. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. etc. etc.

Jesus is fictional. It's probably more important whether Superman is based on a real person than it is whether Jesus was. That is to say, neither question is even worth the effort of asking, unless in support of a hidden agenda.

My not so hidden agenda is to expose Christianity for what it is: a fraud that’s been perpetrated for two thousand years. I truly want to be atheistic evangelical at times and shout it from the rooftop. IT’S ALL BULLSHIT!

But I think the question is far more important than the reality of Superman. The impact of religion on our society is far more real. It impacts our laws as can be seen. Superman doesn’t. People aren’t killing each other over belief in Superman. They are over Jesus. I think though the best way to expose it as the fraud that it is, is to find the truth about its origins.

Plus given the history of the last 2000 years, it’s far more academically interesting question than the source material for Superman. Superman just hasn’t had the impact that Jesus has. Maybe one day that will change and then I’d be interested in the origin of that myth.

IAE, you really have just dodged the points I made. What is more likely? A completely fictional character of a historical kernel of a man?

All fictional characters are based on reality to some extent.

No reliable evidence exists either way for Jesus, so we will never know.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How was the historical Jesus important? (as a person in history) What was special about him? Why was he made into a god? Why didn't they make John the Baptist into a god? or James the Just? Both of these were arguably more popular than Jesus, having more followers, in 30 AD. Also the famous Rabbi Hillel was more recognized than Jesus, at that time. Why is it that only Jesus Christ was made into a miracle-working god, when there were many other popular rabbis and prophets who could have been chosen for this role? Why only this Galilean Jesus who appeared around 30 AD and traveled to Jerusalem where he was killed? Maybe his name was not "Jesus Christ" in 30 AD. But this individual person was there, near the town of Capernaum, described in the Gospel accounts -- what caused so many people to make him into a god? but not anyone else? Why did he stand out as the only one who could be "god" or "the Son of God" or "the Messiah" or "the Savior" who does miracles and can save the world or give eternal life? There were other outstanding characters in the ancient world who are known to us, made famous in the writings which tell us of their great deeds. Alexander the Great, Socrates, Hannibal, Gilgamesh, Moses, Mohammed -- we know what their great deeds were, which we can separate from the fictions/legends. Most of them were great military leaders who won victories in battle; which is why they became famous and were made into "gods" or great heroes or divine Prophets/teachers. We can identify what they did that was special, or what was noteworthy about them. Socrates had a long career teaching and introducing a new skepticism or questioning the traditional beliefs -- but he's not credited with being "god" or doing miracles or being divine. Gautama Buddha had a long career teaching some new ideas and impressing thousands of disciples with his charisma. But the only miracles attributed to him evolved over many centuries of storytelling and legend-building -- nothing sooner than 300 years after his time. How did Jesus get made into a god or divine Prophet or miracle-worker in less than 100 years? in only a generation or 2? as a result of such a short public career? 1-3 years? when for Buddha and Mohammed and others it required a long distinguished career of public teaching for them to gain their status? and military conquest (in the case of Mohammed)? Why is no one able to identify what the historical Jesus did to make him noteworthy so that he got turned into a miracle-working god (or "Son of God" or "Messiah" etc.)? We know why Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus and other rulers became recognized as gods. We know what they did to acquire this status, imposing their power onto millions of subjects. Why can't anyone identify what Jesus did to acquire his status as a divine miracle-worker? Why is it that only in this one case we get the angry retort -- "Aaaaaaaaaaa people make up shit!" or "The stories about him are bullshit." Why is it only in this one case that we get this kind of impulsive outburst? Why don't we get this response when we ask about the others? about Gautama Buddha and Alexander the Great and Caesar and Mohammed, etc.? In all those cases we can get a calm response about their great deeds or charismatic influence they had over many audiences in a long career and how they became deified or mythologized into divine heroes. What makes the historical Jesus so uniquely different? It's OK to say "we don't know" what makes Jesus so unique. Why not be honest and just say we don't have the answer? and so it's just a mystery, like some others? But still it could not be anything supernatural or miraculous, etc. Why is it that instead of this honest answer, we get only the angry outbursts that he's not special and there are many easy explanations? explanations which no one can offer? only the lies that there were many other reported miracle legends of resurrected heroes similar to this one, and so he's only one more of these?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Do you think those three bolded statements are in agreement? I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "A historical kernel of truth." Stories about ghosts and dragons contain historical kernels of truth. Does Jesus get a break because he's a man in the stories and not a dragon?

We have accounts of insurrectionists but nothing like the tales of Jesus.

 

[SLD]

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Do you think those three bolded statements are in agreement? I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "A historical kernel of truth." Stories about ghosts and dragons contain historical kernels of truth. Does Jesus get a break because he's a man in the stories and not a dragon?

We have accounts of insurrectionists but nothing like the tales of Jesus.

By historical kernel of truth I simply mean to say what is first in bold, and that later followers embellished the story with various miracles and added in the resurrection and still later turned him into a demigod, and then a full fledged god.

I think it’s more though than just plausible. We have a lot of circumstantial evidence that there was a band of followers in the decade or two after the crucifixion in Jerusalem. The Epistle of James, the debate between Paul and this band of followers, and even some Non biblical sources about the early movement.

The pure mythicist position rests on the argument from silence. But the historical record isn’t purely silent. While we don’t have contemporary records of Jesus, we have numerous writings about him and his movement in the decades following his death. Many are not canonical. And they can’t be ignored. What is undeniable is that there is a Jesus movement existing in Judea. Were these following a completely fictional character like James Bond? I don’t find that plausible. Many of those individuals would have known the historical Jesus. Jesus isn’t like James Bond or Superman, and yes to an extent they are modeled on human beings, even inspired by historical individuals (at least James Bond was inspired by Flemings experiences as a WWII intelligence officer). Clearly though none of the deeds of James Bond that form the basis of the novels have any historical grounding. There is no real Spectre organization. There was a real Roman Empire that controlled Judea in the 1st Century. They crucified lots of people who challenged their rule.

I just find a completely fictional version of Christ, on the order of a James Bond, as not plausible given the surfeit of writings about him and his movement in the decades following. while I realize it’s not proof of him, a completely mythical character seems to lack any explanatory power. How else did this movement arise as it did?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What about all those other completely mythical religious figures that had their devotees? How did they arise? Is it a Jesus movement or a Jesus religion?

And I don't know what you mean when you say a purely mythicist position. Are you equating mythicism with fiction? I would not equate historicized fiction with mythicism. Fiction has authors that wrote fictional accounts, and those authors certainly had their inspirations that are certainly real, certainly historical, certainly contemporaneous. If there's an historical jesus it's a story-telling author, it's not the gospel protagonist, same as all religions with gods and demigods. I just think that's the simpler and simplest explanation. If it works for Superman I don't see why it doesn't work for Jesus. If it works for Superman but doesn't work for jesus it can be ascribed to jesus being religious and Superman not being religious.

Historical Jesus speculation amounts to a Silver Bullet Theory. I understand the religious angle but popularity doesn't make something historical.

 

[SLD]

What about all those other completely mythical religious figures that had their devotees? How did they arise? Is it a Jesus movement or a Jesus religion?

And I don't know what you mean when you say a purely mythicist position. Are you equating mythicism with fiction? I would not equate historicized fiction with mythicism. Fiction has authors that wrote fictional accounts, and those authors certainly had their inspirations that are certainly real, certainly historical, certainly contemporaneous. If there's an historical jesus it's a story-telling author, it's not the gospel protagonist, same as all religions with gods and demigods. I just think that's the simpler and simplest explanation. If it works for Superman I don't see why it doesn't work for Jesus. If it works for Superman but doesn't work for jesus it can be ascribed to jesus being religious and Superman not being religious.

Historical Jesus speculation amounts to a Silver Bullet Theory. I understand the religious angle but popularity doesn't make something historical.

I don’t have enough material to ascertain all of the other gods of Egypt and Greece to ascertain their historical basis. They arose too deep in time for us to understand and there are no nearly contemporaneous writings about all,of them for us to analyze. It’s certainly plausible that they had historical origins too. But without the data it’s impossible to say. But this contrasts sharply with Jesus for whom we’ve got dozens of writings about within a few decades of his death. Thats the big difference. As to my understanding of what the mythicist position is, it is simply that there are was no historical kernel of truth to the story. it was made up out of whole cloth. The events in bold did not happen. I never took the mythicist position to accept that there was such an historical person but only discount the miracles and resurrection. so I would equate it to fiction writing. Someone had to start the story. Jesus is not like other mythical characters like Hercules because he is set in the contemporary. Just as James Bond is too. If he’d been a purely mythical man, I would think his creator would have found it far more convenient to put him in the distant past, like Daniel.

I think the problem with your view of him as just another story is that we don’t have just an account of him. We have numerous ones. We’ve got the early sayings gospels, such as Thomas, and then we have these letters circulating about him and his earliest of followers. These are before the canonical gospels. If the Gospels had come first, I could more clearly see that as a mythical creation. The entire story didn’t just spring up at once like James Bond did in a matter of weeks From the mind of Ian Fleming.

The sayings Gospels are also clues to a real figure. They don’t have any of the stories or miracles or even his death and resurrection. they’re just the sayings of Jesus. Most scholars say they preceded the canonical gospels.

But for me the real clue lies in the existence of an early entirely Jewish movement that is evidenced in several places, most interestingly in the epistle of James. This movement demands that it remain Jewish. You need to comply with the law to be a follower. This early Jesus movement is very key. It conflicts and contrasts with Paul’s movement to convert gentiles. I can see Paul’s Jesus to be entirely mythical. But he doesn't really talk about Jesus the character very much. I know some have speculated that for Paul, Jesus was not an earth bound individual, but fought his battles and was tortured and killed by demons who live above us. It makes sense. He co-opted an early Jewish movement and turned it into an entirely new religion.

What I think happened was that the real Jesus was an entirely secular movement to overturn Roman rule and James really was his brother and inherited the movement after his death. Jesus may have thought that god was going to perform a miracle and destroy the Romans. Maybe his followers thought he simply got the date wrong. We’ve seen similar such things in cults of our day. Ooops. i must have miscalculated that day! It’s gonna happen two years from now! They hung around Jerusalem but were still persecuted. Paul, being a Roman Jew, was an original persecutor as depicted, but later has an epiphany to use this character as a source to create a new religion where he borrows from other older mystery cults. At some point later, after the destruction of Jerusalem, where the original followers are wiped out, the movement begins to coalesce out of these various ideas and to put their thoughts down in writing.

Thus to some extent the mythicist view is correct in that the religion is based on a purely mythical version of an historical character. But I still argue that there was more likely than not a real historical character That started the movement.

 

[steve_bank]

Egyptian gods were about supporting political power of he pharaohs. Genghis Khan declared himself a god. Routine power plays.

Today god is still about supporting political power across all three Abrahamic faiths. Israeli conservative like Netanyahus, Saudi monarchy, Iran ayotolas, and American conservatives.

Buddhists have the same problem Chrustians do, there are no contemporaneous accounts of who Buddha was. There are several anecdotal accounts which evolved into a narrative.. That he existed is fairly certain, but who he really was is not known.

 

[Ephesians]

So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,

The Bible itself is a collection of historical documents and is recognized as such by most historians, which is why they use it as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Then you have Tacitus and Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, most contemporary historians believe Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) really did exist.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,

The Bible itself is a collection of historical documents and is recognized as such by most historians, which is why they use it as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Then you have Tacitus and Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, most contemporary historians believe Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) really did exist.

Why do you think that the bible is a collection of historical documents? What is historical about the flood (no one can find it, The Chinese didn't even notice); Jonah's whale, talking donkey's, and other crazy stories. Secondly, all the "books" of the bible contradict each other. If they were intended to be historical, I'd think that they'd be more careful. Finally, where is the reference of the crucifixion in Tactitus and Josephus? I don't see why Jesus couldn't have existed. But I'm not impressed with most of the stories in bible being grounded in history. It has no more historical credibility than does the Iliad.

 

[Ephesians]

Why do you think that the bible is a collection of historical documents?

Setting aside the fact that most contemporary historians treat the New Testament as reliable historical information, I have no reason to think that the Bible isn't historically reliable. In fact, the more we learn from archaeology, the more the reliability of the Bible is affirmed.

What is historical about the flood

Oh, you mean the global flood that every freaking ancient civilization talked about from every continent? I'm guessing it happened.

Jonah's whale

What about Jonah's whale? Some interpret that verse to mean that Jonah died in the whale but that God resurrected him. Others say Jonah survived in the whale with the help of God's divine intervention.

talking donkey's

The supernatural being/interdimensional being that talked through a donkey? What's the issue here?

Secondly, all the "books" of the bible contradict each other.

No they don't.

Finally, where is the reference of the crucifixion in Tactitus and Josephus?

Why don't you Google it? There's actually a Wikipedia article that specifically talks about what Tacitus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. It's crazy how lazy some of you are. A bunch of know-nothings who are too lazy to read anything.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Setting aside the fact that most contemporary historians treat the New Testament as reliable historical information, I have no reason to think that the Bible isn't historically reliable. In fact, the more we learn from archaeology, the more the reliability of the Bible is affirmed.

That's a good point. I remember when I was doubting the historicity of Santa Claus. My dad told me that NORAD was tracking his sleigh this very moment. So I made the call and talked to a person who told me that Santa was on his way to my house. And the proof was that the presents were there under the tree in the morning.

I love Santa and know he loves me.

 

[steve_bank]

Why do you think that the bible is a collection of historical documents?

Setting aside the fact that most contemporary historians treat the New Testament as reliable historical information, I have no reason to think that the Bible isn't historically reliable. In fact, the more we learn from archaeology, the more the reliability of the Bible is affirmed.

What is historical about the flood

Oh, you mean the global flood that every freaking ancient civilization talked about from every continent? I'm guessing it happened.

Jonah's whale

What about Jonah's whale? Some interpret that verse to mean that Jonah died in the whale but that God resurrected him. Others say Jonah survived in the whale with the help of God's divine intervention.

talking donkey's

The supernatural being/interdimensional being that talked through a donkey? What's the issue here?

Secondly, all the "books" of the bible contradict each other.

No they don't.

Finally, where is the reference of the crucifixion in Tactitus and Josephus?

Why don't you Google it? There's actually a Wikipedia article that specifically talks about what Tacitus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. It's crazy how lazy some of you are. A bunch of know-nothings who are too lazy to read anything.

I have holy water on sale. It will freshen the breath and cure the common cold. Interested?

 

[SLD]

So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,

The Bible itself is a collection of historical documents and is recognized as such by most historians, which is why they use it as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Then you have Tacitus and Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, most contemporary historians believe Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) really did exist.

Why do you think that the bible is a collection of historical documents? What is historical about the flood (no one can find it, The Chinese didn't even notice); Jonah's whale, talking donkey's, and other crazy stories. Secondly, all the "books" of the bible contradict each other. If they were intended to be historical, I'd think that they'd be more careful. Finally, where is the reference of the crucifixion in Tactitus and Josephus? I don't see why Jesus couldn't have existed. But I'm not impressed with most of the stories in bible being grounded in history. It has no more historical credibility than does the Iliad.

While I don’t entirely disagree, I do think the Bible does indeed contain a lot of historical truths, many of it surprisingly supported by archeological evidence that many historians in the past didn’t expect. It’s obviously a mixture of historical truths and myths. Obviously we cannot corroborate every detail, but if the account is not particularly unscientific is there any reason to doubt their historicity? With respect to the flood, there is evidence of such. It’s simply the creation of the Black Sea that is now pretty much scientifically accepted. And indeed there are supporting stories for it in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Obviously these are gross exaggerations of what happened.

With respect to Josephus, I do believe that part of what he wrote about Jesus is original, but obviously part of it is interpolation. What his basis for writing about him is unknown. It could have been the fledgling movement that he was familiar with, perhaps the early Jerusalem Church.

The question we should ask ourselves, about much of ancient history, is to what extent we require evidence to support the narratives that we do have. We rely on Plutarch’s histories extensively, but often don’t have corroborating evidence for a lot of it. We have no reason though to doubt much of it either. So we just accept it because we have little choice otherwise. The same can be said of numerous historical documents.

A good example is the battle of Gaugamela. How big was the Persian army that Alexander defeated? Ancient sources say 1,000,000. with Alexander having less than 50,000. Obviously that number is utter bullshit. 50,000 people did not defeat a 1 million man army. The ancients could never have fielded such a huge amount. But we don’t doubt that Alexander defeated the Persians despite being outnumbered. The story isn’t myth. Yet all of our sources come from writers who wrote centuries later. We have no first hand accounts of it. So what is it? Why do we believe it, but argue that all of the accounts of Jesus are completely made up?

I have no reason to reject a lot of the stories in the New Testament that don’t involve miracles. Much of it is historically plausible, and the philosophy that Jesus preaches would actually be standard first century Pharisaic. So why shouldn’t I believe those aspects of it? I do completely doubt the Gospel of John because it is so different from the others and it’s christology is just too well developed. It also appears to have been written in the 90’s, probably long after the eyewitnesses were dead. We have a lot of sources for the historicity of Jesus here, many part of the canon but many not. That they’re all made up whole cloth, like James Bond, is less plausible to me than the hypothesis that they’re based on a charismatic leader who really existed And was named Yeshua.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,

The Bible itself is a collection of historical documents and is recognized as such by most historians, which is why they use it as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Then you have Tacitus and Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, most contemporary historians believe Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) really did exist.

Why do you think that the bible is a collection of historical documents? What is historical about the flood (no one can find it, The Chinese didn't even notice); Jonah's whale, talking donkey's, and other crazy stories. Secondly, all the "books" of the bible contradict each other. If they were intended to be historical, I'd think that they'd be more careful. Finally, where is the reference of the crucifixion in Tactitus and Josephus? I don't see why Jesus couldn't have existed. But I'm not impressed with most of the stories in bible being grounded in history. It has no more historical credibility than does the Iliad.

While I don’t entirely disagree, I do think the Bible does indeed contain a lot of historical truths, many of it surprisingly supported by archeological evidence that many historians in the past didn’t expect. It’s obviously a mixture of historical truths and myths. Obviously we cannot corroborate every detail, but if the account is not particularly unscientific is there any reason to doubt their historicity? With respect to the flood, there is evidence of such. It’s simply the creation of the Black Sea that is now pretty much scientifically accepted. And indeed there are supporting stories for it in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Obviously these are gross exaggerations of what happened.

With respect to Josephus, I do believe that part of what he wrote about Jesus is original, but obviously part of it is interpolation. What his basis for writing about him is unknown. It could have been the fledgling movement that he was familiar with, perhaps the early Jerusalem Church.

The question we should ask ourselves, about much of ancient history, is to what extent we require evidence to support the narratives that we do have. We rely on Plutarch’s histories extensively, but often don’t have corroborating evidence for a lot of it. We have no reason though to doubt much of it either. So we just accept it because we have little choice otherwise. The same can be said of numerous historical documents.

A good example is the battle of Gaugamela. How big was the Persian army that Alexander defeated? Ancient sources say 1,000,000. with Alexander having less than 50,000. Obviously that number is utter bullshit. 50,000 people did not defeat a 1 million man army. The ancients could never have fielded such a huge amount. But we don’t doubt that Alexander defeated the Persians despite being outnumbered. The story isn’t myth. Yet all of our sources come from writers who wrote centuries later. We have no first hand accounts of it. So what is it? Why do we believe it, but argue that all of the accounts of Jesus are completely made up?

I have no reason to reject a lot of the stories in the New Testament that don’t involve miracles. Much of it is historically plausible, and the philosophy that Jesus preaches would actually be standard first century Pharisaic. So why shouldn’t I believe those aspects of it? I do completely doubt the Gospel of John because it is so different from the others and it’s christology is just too well developed. It also appears to have been written in the 90’s, probably long after the eyewitnesses were dead. We have a lot of sources for the historicity of Jesus here, many part of the canon but many not. That they’re all made up whole cloth, like James Bond, is less plausible to me than the hypothesis that they’re based on a charismatic leader who really existed And was named Yeshua.

Agreed. There are a lot of historical facts in the bible. Just as there are historical facts in the Iliad. I see no reason to consider one book as divinely inspired while the other is fantasy (I know that you agree with me.) Yes, there is very strong evidence of a flood in the black sea. There is also evidence of a flood along the Columbia River near Astoria Oregon about 1,000 years ago. Just about every area where people are located has evidence of floods at some point. But the point here is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But the point here is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

Is that the same as saying that a biblical global flood is 100% fiction?

 

[Harry Bosch]

But the point here is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

Is that the same as saying that a biblical global flood is 100% fiction?

Yes, it's fiction. Floods are very easy to spot. There is no evidence for a global flood. The Black Seas flood referenced above wasn't noticed by most of the world.

 

[steve_bank]

There was probbaly a real flood that was the source of an original myth.

In the news Tonga is flooded by a tsunami.

 

[SLD]

But the point here is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

Is that the same as saying that a biblical global flood is 100% fiction?

Yes, it's fiction. Floods are very easy to spot. There is no evidence for a global flood. The Black Seas flood referenced above wasn't noticed by most of the world.

Agreed. There was no global flood. The problem with the Noah story is that it is just too remote in time to verify. Same with the Iliad. I believe the flood was sometime around 7000 BC or so. We have no other supporting historical records from that time. We don’t know of anyone alive at that time. The new testament and other apocrypha though are full of undeniable historical characters and events that we have extensive documentation Of. Therefore the basics of the story can be correlated to such things as the Roman occupation of Judea and the cruelty of men like Pilate. We know Pilate was relieved because he was too cruel during his governorship of Judea. I doubt he would’ve let the Jews decide Jesus’s fate. He probably quickly questioned him and strung him up. I think later authors added the story about the jews to distance their movement from Judaism which was in revolt against the empire at the time of the writing.

An interesting aside is the two others crucified beside him. They’re usually classified as thieves but Maccoby argues that a better understanding of them is as “bandits” which would really make them fellow revolutionaries of Jesus. The Romans probably wouldn’t give a fig for some local thief and let the locals punish them without worrying about it. They crucified people who dared to challenge their rule - a slow and cruel death that served as a deterrent. Albeit not a good one in the end.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem with the Noah story is that it wasn't the original story, which can be found in the world's oldest recorded epic--the story of Gilgamesh (in Akkadian. "Bilgamesh" in the original Sumerian).

The problem with the historicity of Jesus is not only a lack of evidence, but the fact that none of the synoptic gospels tells exactly the same story. There are all sorts of discrepancies regarding the details of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The strongest historical evidence for a historical Jesus seems to be Paul's claim that he once had met James, the "brother" of Jesus. We have evidence that Pontius Pilate existed, but there is no evidence that Romans would even have crucified someone because he allegedly angered local Jewish authorities. It is quite possible that the legend of Jesus simply emerged as a regional tall tale, just as many other similar legends arose. Jesus was allegedly the Jewish "messiah", but a messiah figure was supposed to end up liberating the Jews, not getting himself executed.