Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

[ruby sparks]

double post.

 

[ruby sparks]

One thing to remember. People who might come under the heading, ‘jewish messianic claimants’ were probably not doing cures purely for medical or health reasons, but to beef up their credentials. Ditto magic.

Their agendas, especially in the 1st century CE, seemed to heavily involve the sort of religio-socio-political issues I previously mentioned. They were radicals, from outside the mainstream, they represented the dispossessed average Jew and they wanted change, both in terms of getting rid of the Romans and the Jewish elite. In god’s name, of course.

Imo, if Jesus existed, he was likely quite a bit more militantly, nationalistically, radically Jewish than described. Don’t forget we get most of our biographical evidence about him from writers from outside Judea, from the Roman world, where that aspect might have been watered down. The message might have changed, especially if you were hoping to convert non-Jews, and not asking them to fully become Jewish, as was apparently the case. At that time (ie when the initial proselytising was apparently going on in the Roman provinces outside judea) being Jewish would have marked you out in the Roman world as being at least dodgy, given that that many Jews were known to be very anti-roman, and fomenting all-out rebellion in judea.

I’m not suggesting Jesus was an armed rebel himself. There are other options. I would just say more radical than presented.

That said, that one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, had a name that meant ‘sicarii’ (dagger-wielding assassin) is potentially telling, imo. As is Jesus supposedly getting crucified, and between two ‘bandits’ (not just ‘common thieves’) to use the word as Josephus used it to describe political rebels of the time. My understanding is that the Romans didn’t crucify for petty theft, but reserved it mainly for anti-roman ‘criminals’, or, when crucifying large numbers, to punish local populations for supposedly harbouring or supporting them.

Jesus might have at least been associated in some way with such things, or could have been seen as being so by the Romans. Even today, the Taliban, for instance, have their religious men. And to cite a modern, local example, the IRA, although secular, had a twin policy, ‘the bomb and the ballot box’.

I might consider thinking of Jesus as espousing something more peacenik, but he apparently didn’t go off into a remote part of the country to do his stuff with groups like that. He ended up coming to Jerusalem, apparently with a challenge.

 

[Politesse]

Ruby, for sake of argument let's assume you're spot-on. You mention the following:

Healings and other magic tricks would have been par for the course and my guess is he’d have been claiming to be able to do them. That sort of thing seemed to be a way of getting people’s attention and proving your credentials. Prophecies were popular too, I believe, including those that framed the current situation (ie prophecies that had supposedly already come to pass, or were just about to).

Do you know of actual historical evidence in support of this statement? I ask this because while I've always heard it I've never actually seen genuine hard evidence to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it was in fact common for garden-variety street preachers to prophecy, heal people and perform other miracles during the period in question.

Are we somehow projecting today's norm where there are more miracle-working preachers than you can shake a stick at to a time when they were rare (or as Stroebel tries to argue there was only one?)

At one point in history were revitalization movements rare? We have boatloads of examples from thousands of cultures around the world, all across the spectrum of time, and a charismatic, miracle-working prophet seems to be a part of the puzzle that make such movements tick. Rome certainly had no shortage of religious-political cults springing up throughout her tenure. There's abundant evidence that new religious movements form naturally over time, in all societies, even on something of a cycle.

 

[Politesse]

Imo, if Jesus existed, he was likely quite a bit more militantly, nationalistically, radically Jewish than described. Don’t forget we get most of our biographical evidence about him from writers from outside Judea, from the Roman world, where that aspect might have been watered down. The message might have changed, especially if you were hoping to convert non-Jews, and not asking them to fully become Jewish, as was apparently the case. At that time (ie when the initial proselytising was apparently going on in the Roman provinces outside judea) being Jewish would have marked you out in the Roman world as being at least dodgy, given that that many Jews were known to be very anti-roman, and fomenting all-out rebellion in judea.

I’m not suggesting Jesus was an armed rebel himself. There are other options. I would just say more radical than presented.

That said, that one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, had a name that meant ‘sicarii’ (dagger-wielding assassin) is potentially telling, imo. As is Jesus supposedly getting crucified, and between two ‘bandits’ (not just ‘common thieves’) to use the word as Josephus used it to describe political rebels of the time. My understanding is that the Romans didn’t crucify for petty theft, but reserved it mainly for anti-roman ‘criminals’, or, when crucifying large numbers, to punish local populations for supposedly harbouring or supporting them.

A much more recent and therefore better documented historical analogy might be made to the Paiute prophet Wovoka, aka Jack Wilson, who started a massive but short-lived religious movement in 1889, called the Ghost Dance. The premise was that the Ghost Dancers would win the favor of God and become impervious to bullets, gaining the ability to raise the dead and heal those expiring from western illnesses. The US would then return the American West to Indian people voluntarily when they realized they had no power over them. Wovoka himself never committed a single act of violence as far as anyone knows, nor was his movement military in focus, but the US government was terrified of the Ghost Dancers nevertheless, outlawing Native dances in response and brutally massacring an encampment of Dancers at Wounded Knee, ending the movement less than two years after it began. Like Jesus, tales of Wovoka's miraculous capabilities have been expanded and exaggerated upon in the time since his life, and the Ghost Dance has been renewed despite the brutal and seemingly effective total suppression of the original religion. Governments tend to see powerful religious movements as inherently dangerous whether or not they espouse explicitly political goals, and not without reason. An idea is a powerful thing, and so is the fictive sense of family that forms within such groups.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo, if Jesus existed, he was likely quite a bit more militantly, nationalistically, radically Jewish than described. Don’t forget we get most of our biographical evidence about him from writers from outside Judea, from the Roman world, where that aspect might have been watered down. The message might have changed, especially if you were hoping to convert non-Jews, and not asking them to fully become Jewish, as was apparently the case. At that time (ie when the initial proselytising was apparently going on in the Roman provinces outside judea) being Jewish would have marked you out in the Roman world as being at least dodgy, given that that many Jews were known to be very anti-roman, and fomenting all-out rebellion in judea.

I’m not suggesting Jesus was an armed rebel himself. There are other options. I would just say more radical than presented.

That said, that one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, had a name that meant ‘sicarii’ (dagger-wielding assassin) is potentially telling, imo. As is Jesus supposedly getting crucified, and between two ‘bandits’ (not just ‘common thieves’) to use the word as Josephus used it to describe political rebels of the time. My understanding is that the Romans didn’t crucify for petty theft, but reserved it mainly for anti-roman ‘criminals’, or, when crucifying large numbers, to punish local populations for supposedly harbouring or supporting them.

A much more recent and therefore better documented historical analogy might be made to the Paiute prophet Wovoka, aka Jack Wilson, who started a massive but short-lived religious movement in 1889, called the Ghost Dance. The premise was that the Ghost Dancers would win the favor of God and become impervious to bullets, gaining the ability to raise the dead and heal those expiring from western illnesses. The US would then return the American West to Indian people voluntarily when they realized they had no power over them. Wovoka himself never committed a single act of violence as far as anyone knows, nor was his movement military in focus, but the US government was terrified of the Ghost Dancers nevertheless, outlawing Native dances in response and brutally massacring an encampment of Dancers at Wounded Knee, ending the movement less than two years after it began. Like Jesus, tales of Wovoka's miraculous capabilities have been expanded and exaggerated upon in the time since his life, and the Ghost Dance has been renewed despite the brutal and seemingly effective total suppression of the original religion. Governments tend to see powerful religious movements as inherently dangerous whether or not they espouse explicitly political goals, and not without reason. An idea is a powerful thing, and so is the fictive sense of family that forms within such groups.

Thanks. I’ll google some more on that.

As for what I said about Jesus being militant, I do accept it’s possible he wasn’t, in the military sense. I think it’s definitely an option, but he might have (a) been on the fringes, (b) attracted people who were more militant than he was, (c) got labelled (wrongly) as such by the Romans or (d) another option, such as something along the lines you gave a more modern example of.

Point taken about violence not being needed in order for something to be seen as a threat.

Part of the reason I said what I said is that it would place Jesus in the right sort of zeitgeist. War against the Romans was brewing.

Obviously there might have been ‘wandering sages’ and even the equivalent of pacifists too. But they might not have attracted as many followers (not being the sort of figure that was going to be much use overthrowing the system). Which of course opens the door to saying that Jesus may not in fact have attracted that many followers, and offer a potential explanation.

Would you agree that Political Jesus has been a somewhat neglected model? Politics with a capital P I mean.

 

[Politesse]

Would you agree that Political Jesus has been a somewhat neglected model? Politics with a capital P I mean.

Well, it was quite the rage for a while in the early 00's as I recall. Right before my seminary years. John Dominic Crossan believes that Jesus was a non-violent but intentionally disruptive social revolutionary type, and that eschatological claims and so forth are all later interpolations; he wrote quite a few books on the subject which were popular with the Jesus Seminar crowd.

Actually if you go back a fair bit further, Hermann Reimarus, whose work was foundational to much of the modern scholarship on the historical Jesus, painted a heavily political view of the man, though only in private writings to be published posthumously.

 

[ruby sparks]

Would you agree that Political Jesus has been a somewhat neglected model? Politics with a capital P I mean.

Well, it was quite the rage for a while in the early 00's as I recall. Right before my seminary years. John Dominic Crossan believes that Jesus was a non-violent but intentionally disruptive social revolutionary type, and that eschatological claims and so forth are all later interpolations; he wrote quite a few books on the subject which were popular with the Jesus Seminar crowd.

Actually if you go back a fair bit further, Hermann Reimarus, whose work was foundational to much of the modern scholarship on the historical Jesus, painted a heavily political view of the man, though only in private writings to be published posthumously.

Ah yes, the Jesus Seminar. So many options to choose from. I thought Dominic Crossan opted for ‘wandering sage’ Jesus, but my memory must be faulty, or maybe he went for disruptive wandering sage.

As for Reimarus, I hadn’t heard of him until now, but I can half guess as to why he didn’t publish openly. It seems to me that Jesus has been politically neutered for most of Christian history.

If the eschatology was posthumously administered, that’d have pretty radical implications, imo. I think I’d struggle with that one.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ruby, for sake of argument let's assume you're spot-on. You mention the following:

Healings and other magic tricks would have been par for the course and my guess is he’d have been claiming to be able to do them. That sort of thing seemed to be a way of getting people’s attention and proving your credentials. Prophecies were popular too, I believe, including those that framed the current situation (ie prophecies that had supposedly already come to pass, or were just about to).

Do you know of actual historical evidence in support of this statement? I ask this because while I've always heard it I've never actually seen genuine hard evidence to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it was in fact common for garden-variety street preachers to prophecy, heal people and perform other miracles during the period in question.

Are we somehow projecting today's norm where there are more miracle-working preachers than you can shake a stick at to a time when they were rare (or as Stroebel tries to argue there was only one?)

At one point in history were revitalization movements rare? We have boatloads of examples from thousands of cultures around the world, all across the spectrum of time, and a charismatic, miracle-working prophet seems to be a part of the puzzle that make such movements tick. Rome certainly had no shortage of religious-political cults springing up throughout her tenure. There's abundant evidence that new religious movements form naturally over time, in all societies, even on something of a cycle.

I agree about there very usually being someone like a prophet at the centre of most new cults, worldwide and throughout history. It’s something to be taken into account when thinking about basic prior probabilities about the existence of this one, imo.

Of course there are exceptions, but not that many.

It’s true that some new cults adopted a figure from the ‘dim and distant mythological past’ (Mithras springs to mind, or Tammuz/Inanna/Ishtar, or Moses) but that does not seem to be the case here. Even the first gospels are apparently only referring back to events 35-40 years earlier, it seems. That’d be like us talking about events such as Jimmy Carter meeting Brezhnev in ‘79, or the Unabomber in ‘85.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

At one point in history were revitalization movements rare? We have boatloads of examples from thousands of cultures around the world, all across the spectrum of time, and a charismatic, miracle-working prophet seems to be a part of the puzzle that make such movements tick. Rome certainly had no shortage of religious-political cults springing up throughout her tenure. There's abundant evidence that new religious movements form naturally over time, in all societies, even on something of a cycle.

I agree about there very usually being someone like a prophet at the centre of most new cults, worldwide and throughout history. It’s something to be taken into account when thinking about basic prior probabilities about the existence of this one, imo.

Of course there are exceptions, but not that many.

It’s true that some new cults adopted a figure from the ‘dim and distant mythological past’ (Mithras springs to mind, or Tammuz/Inanna/Ishtar, or Moses) but that does not seem to be the case here. Even the first gospels are apparently only referring back to events 35-40 years earlier, it seems. That’d be like us talking about events such as Jimmy Carter meeting Brezhnev in ‘79, or the Unabomber in ‘85.

Ted Kaczynski is a tough sell. If there was a model for GJ is was certainly not a Ted. I don't see much hope in any similarity to Jimmy Carter either. Too mainstream. Wovonka is a goood candidate as is someone like David Koresh. Definitely not Waco Jesus.

Are any of these a historical" GJ? Need to ask the author.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ah. I should have made it clear I was only illustrating the timescale, not comparing the figures.

 

[Atheos]

The reason I brought the question up is because of those who bring warmed-over Stroebel arguments like the "Too quickly for legendary development to occur" argument.

Basically the argument is that it was "only" 30 years between when these things happened and when they were written down in GMark, and that's too quick for legendary development to occur. An appeal is made to the fact that this is the only written record of its period that references someone who performed miracles so recently ago.

By contrast the argument is made that it took centuries for legendary development to provide Asclepius with anecdotes of being a great healer. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. It is presented as an undeniable truth to bolster claims that Jesus actually did perform these miracles and that's the only reasonable explanation for the early writings about him.

When presented with numerous examples of legendary development taking only weeks or days in modern times they will argue that this is because of modern information infrastructure - that before the invention of the printing press legendary development took centuries.

I find it to be a specious argument at best, but discussing this with a Strobel-influenced apologist was the first time I'd ever been tasked with demonstrating any evidence of the commonly held belief that miracle-working street preacher/prophets were a dime-a-dozen in that time and place. Guess I got that impression from Life of Brian.

 

[Politesse]

That's a completely silly argument. These sorts of things usually develop in conversation, not by texting, even in our own time. And a year, let alone a decade, is a long time when it comes to elaboration on a story frequently retold. We had a shooting near the campus where I work two semesters back. The shooting arose from a domestic dispute and involved no one from the school. Yet, by the following afternoon I heard from a wide-eyed student that it was a student who had come on campus to mow everyone down, before getting shot to death themselves by a police officer. The story had developed rapidly beyond its original facts, in part by borrowing an existing narrative that was already common in our social conversation.

Consider that no one would have considered miracle-working to be especially surprising or unusual, to the original audience of the Jesus stories. In demonstrating "signs" of divine authority and spiritual instruction, he was acting very much like the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, uniformly believed by likely everyone around him. If anything about him was strange, it was his controversial moral teachings, not his reputed works of power.

 

[Wiploc]

Basically the argument is that it was "only" 30 years between when these things happened and when they were written down in GMark, and that's too quick for legendary development to occur. An appeal is made to the fact that this is the only written record of its period that references someone who performed miracles so recently ago.

By contrast the argument is made that it took centuries for legendary development to provide Asclepius with anecdotes of being a great healer.

Whenever it happens, it must happen all at once.

Or do they assume that future-legendary figures are thought to have performed 1/300th of a miracle after one year, and 7/300ths of a miracle after seven years, until finally, after three hundred years, they achieve full legendary status?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's a completely silly argument. These sorts of things usually develop in conversation, not by texting, even in our own time. And a year, let alone a decade, is a long time when it comes to elaboration on a story frequently retold. We had a shooting near the campus where I work two semesters back. The shooting arose from a domestic dispute and involved no one from the school. Yet, by the following afternoon I heard from a wide-eyed student that it was a student who had come on campus to mow everyone down, before getting shot to death themselves by a police officer. The story had developed rapidly beyond its original facts, in part by borrowing an existing narrative that was already common in our social conversation.

Consider that no one would have considered miracle-working to be especially surprising or unusual, to the original audience of the Jesus stories. In demonstrating "signs" of divine authority and spiritual instruction, he was acting very much like the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, uniformly believed by likely everyone around him. If anything about him was strange, it was his controversial moral teachings, not his reputed works of power.

It's an interesting social dynamic isn't it. These things called miracles certainly don't happen, except - that is - in the minds of believers, and that's quite a notable exception. That someone performs such acts is only to be expected to the degree that human credulity allows. There are no historical miracles, we know that. Rather, we know that people just love telling whoppers, and people just love believing in whoppers.

 

[ruby sparks]

The reason I brought the question up is because of those who bring warmed-over Stroebel arguments like the "Too quickly for legendary development to occur" argument.

Basically the argument is that it was "only" 30 years between when these things happened and when they were written down in GMark, and that's too quick for legendary development to occur. An appeal is made to the fact that this is the only written record of its period that references someone who performed miracles so recently ago.

By contrast the argument is made that it took centuries for legendary development to provide Asclepius with anecdotes of being a great healer. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. It is presented as an undeniable truth to bolster claims that Jesus actually did perform these miracles and that's the only reasonable explanation for the early writings about him.

When presented with numerous examples of legendary development taking only weeks or days in modern times they will argue that this is because of modern information infrastructure - that before the invention of the printing press legendary development took centuries.

I find it to be a specious argument at best, but discussing this with a Strobel-influenced apologist was the first time I'd ever been tasked with demonstrating any evidence of the commonly held belief that miracle-working street preacher/prophets were a dime-a-dozen in that time and place. Guess I got that impression from Life of Brian.

I don't know if they were a dime a dozen in Judea at that time, but having looked into it in the past I don't think they were unusual.

The idea that the miracles actually happened as described is pretty much a non-starter. There's too much fiction in the gospels. That some guy (the one we're talking about) performed at least some of them is plausible (as in did the performing, not as in the miracles worked). I myself think it's more plausible than that there was no guy, so it's not so much that I'm persuaded there was a guy by the evidence, so much as an explanation involving no guy seems less likely, imo.

Ditto that the (this) guy got crucified. That no 'this guy' got crucified is imo less likely.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Isn't it better to think of the exchange of miracle stories as nothing more than popular entertainment? Are these exchanged stories all that different than what we experience when we sit through a movie? And it doesn't have to be a fantastic movie like LOTR or Avatar or The Matrix, much of the cinema we experience today has episodes of unbelievability. We know that reality doesn't operate this way but we still enjoy the experience. Religious folk seem to enjoy the experience even more, to the point of believing it, such as in their religious writings.

Years ago the local airport experienced your typical horrendous accident. When I went to work that day I was immediately approached by a person who asked me if I'd been paying attention to the reports. He told me that the first responders on the scene found headless, limbless torsos hanging in the trees with their hearts still beating. Severed heads were still trying to speak. He was visibly affected and quite agitated. I did not attempt to give him a lesson in human biology, just acknowledged that it was indeed a terrible accident.

The point is that listening to and retelling these tall tales and stories is pretty mainstream, it's something people enjoy, even rational people. Anyone using miracle stories to support their claims can be dismissed as a crank. Understanding the human dynamic and then trying to figure out what likely happened, if anything, to give rise to the stories is obviously the proper approach.

 

[Atheos]

The reason I brought the question up is because of those who bring warmed-over Stroebel arguments like the "Too quickly for legendary development to occur" argument.

Basically the argument is that it was "only" 30 years between when these things happened and when they were written down in GMark, and that's too quick for legendary development to occur. An appeal is made to the fact that this is the only written record of its period that references someone who performed miracles so recently ago.

By contrast the argument is made that it took centuries for legendary development to provide Asclepius with anecdotes of being a great healer. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. It is presented as an undeniable truth to bolster claims that Jesus actually did perform these miracles and that's the only reasonable explanation for the early writings about him.

When presented with numerous examples of legendary development taking only weeks or days in modern times they will argue that this is because of modern information infrastructure - that before the invention of the printing press legendary development took centuries.

I find it to be a specious argument at best, but discussing this with a Strobel-influenced apologist was the first time I'd ever been tasked with demonstrating any evidence of the commonly held belief that miracle-working street preacher/prophets were a dime-a-dozen in that time and place. Guess I got that impression from Life of Brian.

I don't know if they were a dime a dozen in Judea at that time, but having looked into it in the past I don't think they were unusual.

The idea that the miracles actually happened as described is pretty much a non-starter. There's too much fiction in the gospels. That some guy (the one we're talking about) performed at least some of them is plausible (as in did the performing, not as in the miracles worked). I myself think it's more plausible than that there was no guy, so it's not so much that I'm persuaded there was a guy by the evidence, so much as an explanation involving no guy seems less likely, imo.

Ditto that the (this) guy got crucified. That no 'this guy' got crucified is imo less likely.

To me it makes slightly better sense that no crucifixion took place. To me the evidence we have makes it more plausible that the crucifixion was an explanation that made better sense after a few years elapsed and he didn't show up.

My thought is that the cleansing of the temple actually happened. That night Jesus got whacked by folks whom the merchants hired after a hard afternoon of picking up their valuables. They tossed his ass in a hole somewhere and he was never seen again.

But his more zealous disciples believed he was the Messiah and couldn't believe that he was really gone. They started comforting themselves with assurances that he would one day return.

Paul comes along claiming to be in mental contact with Jesus. Charismatic and creative, he could easily have invented the primitive crucifixion narrative to explain what happened to Jesus and assure them that he was still alive (as a spirit) and would lead his followers through Paul. As the group grew Paul began to see profits from his efforts (tithes) and decided to go out and put franchises in other cities.

This scenario is consistent with several things that really don't make a lot of sense otherwise. One of these is the crucifixion itself, which Jews did not have power to do. And it's unlikely they would have been able to cow Pilate into giving in and ordering a crucifixion for someone just because of religious differences.

It's consistent with the fact that the only things we hear about Jesus during the 3 decades separating the time he ostensibly lived and the time the first gospel appeared is in the writings of Paul.

It's consistent with the original ending of Mark where only the ladies visited the tomb where Jesus had been laid to rest, where they only saw a "young man," and the very important detail that they "told no one, for they were afraid."

The longer the story has opportunity to be embellished the more angels, miracles, earthquakes, eclipses, zombie apocalypses and pwning of the Jewish leaders Jesus gets to add to his narratives.

This is obviously a very boiled-down summary with absolutely no supporting references. That was not my intention. My intention was only to say "This is what I've come to think about this subject, having read, listened, studied and thought a lot about it for several decades."

 

[ruby sparks]

The reason I brought the question up is because of those who bring warmed-over Stroebel arguments like the "Too quickly for legendary development to occur" argument.

Basically the argument is that it was "only" 30 years between when these things happened and when they were written down in GMark, and that's too quick for legendary development to occur. An appeal is made to the fact that this is the only written record of its period that references someone who performed miracles so recently ago.

By contrast the argument is made that it took centuries for legendary development to provide Asclepius with anecdotes of being a great healer. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. It is presented as an undeniable truth to bolster claims that Jesus actually did perform these miracles and that's the only reasonable explanation for the early writings about him.

When presented with numerous examples of legendary development taking only weeks or days in modern times they will argue that this is because of modern information infrastructure - that before the invention of the printing press legendary development took centuries.

I find it to be a specious argument at best, but discussing this with a Strobel-influenced apologist was the first time I'd ever been tasked with demonstrating any evidence of the commonly held belief that miracle-working street preacher/prophets were a dime-a-dozen in that time and place. Guess I got that impression from Life of Brian.

I don't know if they were a dime a dozen in Judea at that time, but having looked into it in the past I don't think they were unusual.

The idea that the miracles actually happened as described is pretty much a non-starter. There's too much fiction in the gospels. That some guy (the one we're talking about) performed at least some of them is plausible (as in did the performing, not as in the miracles worked). I myself think it's more plausible than that there was no guy, so it's not so much that I'm persuaded there was a guy by the evidence, so much as an explanation involving no guy seems less likely, imo.

Ditto that the (this) guy got crucified. That no 'this guy' got crucified is imo less likely.

To me it makes slightly better sense that no crucifixion took place. To me the evidence we have makes it more plausible that the crucifixion was an explanation that made better sense after a few years elapsed and he didn't show up.

My thought is that the cleansing of the temple actually happened. That night Jesus got whacked by folks whom the merchants hired after a hard afternoon of picking up their valuables. They tossed his ass in a hole somewhere and he was never seen again.

But his more zealous disciples believed he was the Messiah and couldn't believe that he was really gone. They started comforting themselves with assurances that he would one day return.

Paul comes along claiming to be in mental contact with Jesus. Charismatic and creative, he could easily have invented the primitive crucifixion narrative to explain what happened to Jesus and assure them that he was still alive (as a spirit) and would lead his followers through Paul. As the group grew Paul began to see profits from his efforts (tithes) and decided to go out and put franchises in other cities.

This scenario is consistent with several things that really don't make a lot of sense otherwise. One of these is the crucifixion itself, which Jews did not have power to do. And it's unlikely they would have been able to cow Pilate into giving in and ordering a crucifixion for someone just because of religious differences.

It's consistent with the fact that the only things we hear about Jesus during the 3 decades separating the time he ostensibly lived and the time the first gospel appeared is in the writings of Paul.

It's consistent with the original ending of Mark where only the ladies visited the tomb where Jesus had been laid to rest, where they only saw a "young man," and the very important detail that they "told no one, for they were afraid."

The longer the story has opportunity to be embellished the more angels, miracles, earthquakes, eclipses, zombie apocalypses and pwning of the Jewish leaders Jesus gets to add to his narratives.

This is obviously a very boiled-down summary with absolutely no supporting references. That was not my intention. My intention was only to say "This is what I've come to think about this subject, having read, listened, studied and thought a lot about it for several decades."

That's not one I've heard before.

Personally, I would prefer to stick with probable crucifixion, on the basis that Jesus was one way or another (and it wouldn't have taken much) considered worthy of it by the Romans, possibly after some input from some in the Jewish religious establishment, whom the Romans recognised as the local leaders and who would not have been enamoured by an anti-establishment figure such as this. They could easily have ratted on him (either with lies or exaggerations or with true allegations) in order to avoid taking the blame for killing him themselves (which they could have done). They apparently had motive. And anything smelling of populist nationalism or supposed messianism could have alarmed the Romans, who knew that local rebellion was simmering in the air, and had indeed already broken out more than once.

I don't think it would necessarily have taken much for the Romans to crucify you, even purely on suspicion or by association, if you were a 1st century Jew in Judea. For example, at the start of the 1st C (4 CE) they apparently crucified 2000 people in Galilee, according to Josephus, in retaliation for an uprising there. By 70 CE, during the siege of Jerusalem, they were apparently crucifying 500 a day just to set an example to (and scare) the rebels holed up inside the city.

Also, under a reasonable reading of Paul, he had joined an already existing group for which the prior leaders were apparently in Jerusalem. You would seem to have it that they didn't know where the guy they had been following had gone and that Paul persuaded them there had been a public execution of him, in their city, that they hadn't heard about.

And it does strike me as slightly odd that if you were going to invent a death for a supposed divine hero, and could have selected from several, you would choose one associated with criminals, and in some ways especially demeaning to a Jew. From what we can tell, early christian writers had to work hard to get Jesus out from under the humiliation of that and to rebut allegations that he was a criminal. I myself don't buy the 'it was a creative masterstroke' thesis. That he just had it done to him seems a bit simpler.

ps Regarding the tomb, I read that several scholars suggest that he was more likely buried in the ground, given that tombs were only for the wealthy elite. But there might have been a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin who had opposed the execution who had a temporary space. It doesn't help that the town this arguably unlikely benefactor was supposed to have come from is hard to trace (Arimathea) though there was, by some accounts, a town called Ramatha about 5km northwest of Jerusalem. There was also a Ramathaim and a Ramah in Judea. Joseph of Arimathea could be fictional, imo. As could Jesus, obviously.

 

[Atheos]

There's a lot more behind the summary I posted than I included. First of all I don't think the historical Jesus and his band of disciples was quite as well organized as the gospels paint him out to be. But I do think there was a core group that looked to him for leadership and who were willing to transfer their loyalty to Paul when he began channeling Jesus. I also think Paul was involved a lot earlier than Acts gives him credit for being and that (much like Lee Stroebel) his big conversion story was entirely made up. I don't believe he was ever a persecutor and killer of Christians. The miraculous conversion story of Paul (involving a disembodied voice and a bright light, being struck down with blindness for awhile and having the blindness healed by one of Jesus's people) is no more credible than the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, magically transporting in and out of locked rooms and over vast distances, then levitating off into the sky.

I really feel like Paul "invented" Christianity by taking over the leadership role of the vestiges of a group whose leader had vanished without explanation. The claims of crucifixion didn't have to surface immediately, and it would have been possible for that to become an accepted explanation for his disappearance after a few years. The crucifixion wouldn't have had to have occurred on a particular day (and notably wouldn't have occurred on the day before Passover). It could easily have started off as some nebulous event that occurred elsewhere and slowly formed details that placed it in position to coincide with Passover.

 

[ruby sparks]

There's a lot more behind the summary I posted than I included. First of all I don't think the historical Jesus and his band of disciples was quite as well organized as the gospels paint him out to be. But I do think there was a core group that looked to him for leadership and who were willing to transfer their loyalty to Paul when he began channeling Jesus. I also think Paul was involved a lot earlier than Acts gives him credit for being and that (much like Lee Stroebel) his big conversion story was entirely made up. I don't believe he was ever a persecutor and killer of Christians. The miraculous conversion story of Paul (involving a disembodied voice and a bright light, being struck down with blindness for awhile and having the blindness healed by one of Jesus's people) is no more credible than the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, magically transporting in and out of locked rooms and over vast distances, then levitating off into the sky.

I really feel like Paul "invented" Christianity by taking over the leadership role of the vestiges of a group whose leader had vanished without explanation. The claims of crucifixion didn't have to surface immediately, and it would have been possible for that to become an accepted explanation for his disappearance after a few years. The crucifixion wouldn't have had to have occurred on a particular day (and notably wouldn't have occurred on the day before Passover). It could easily have started off as some nebulous event that occurred elsewhere and slowly formed details that placed it in position to coincide with Passover.

Ok. I gotta be honest. I'm not yet hearing anything I consider as likely as some of the alternatives.

His disciples not knowing what happened to him and then a few years later believing a false story about crucifixion that a new member tells them. That'd just be my first doubt. It sounds more convoluted. Wouldn't they remember what was happening on the day he disappeared? Wouldn't they say to each other, geez, how come none of us even noticed him being arrested, and no one else ever told us about it?

I think you might have the likely relationship between Paul and the original leaders wrong. The epistles pretty clearly suggest a rift between Paul and the originals rather than they they switched loyalty to him. As such, I'm always a bit unsure about theories that have Paul inventing the beliefs.

Regarding the disembodied voice, bright lights etc, that's from quite a bit later in Acts and is probably over-egged. Paul doesn't describe it that way. Did he actually experience it? Possibly, possibly not. Personally, I'm generally pretty suspicious of 'Paul'.