Historical Jesus

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"[H]e goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." THAT'S IT!! That's the entirety of what Mark writes about the Resurrection. Serious question: What do the Non-historicity fans say about this? The cabal forgot to clue Mark in that he was writing a fiction?

If I understand your question I would say that it's pretty easy to write prophecy generations after the alleged fact. Considering the destruction of the Temple it also makes sense.

 

[Swammerdami]

Your argument here appears to be that badly written fiction must be true, because people don't write truly awful, even embarrassingly awful, fiction, without realising how embarrassingly bad it is and at least editing it somewhat.

I can think of a dozen modern works off the top of my head that refute this hypothesis.

And the idea that Mark's failure to explicitly expound upon a critical plot point makes the whole set of tales more plausible (or even just less awful), is hilarious.

"It's shit, therefore it must be true!"

I am confused by your comments, which seem to completely miss the point. You DO understand that I do NOT believe the historic Jesus was really resurrected, right?

 

[steve_bank]

Trump pamdered to Christians on the right, and a group of them clamed Trump was an agnet of god sent to help them.

This in our rime of so called education and enlightenment.

A thousand years from now Trump will likely be part of Christian lore for some Christians. He may even become a Chrtian martyr who suffered for the faith.

In a book I read on Islam it was said it was not unheard of for someone or group to spread a prophesy and then have someone show up to fulfill it.

There were multiple Jews claiming to be the messiah.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There were multiple Jews claiming to be the messiah.

Considering the religious milieu of the times it's beyond understandable how Mark's story could become historicized. The story is about a man that lived a couple generations ago. The story gets appended with more religious woo in the midst of religious and political calamity. The story becomes more and more popular to the point that it achieves political favor and dominance for centuries and millennia afterwards owing to its stark differences from Pagan ritual. Game theory alone predicts its ascendancy.

It's advocates gain control of political institutions and are able to suppress competing versions at pain of death. It's a no brainer.

 

[Swammerdami]

Your argument here appears to be that badly written fiction must be true, because people don't write truly awful, even embarrassingly awful, fiction, without realising how embarrassingly bad it is and at least editing it somewhat.

I can think of a dozen modern works off the top of my head that refute this hypothesis.

And the idea that Mark's failure to explicitly expound upon a critical plot point makes the whole set of tales more plausible (or even just less awful), is hilarious.

"It's shit, therefore it must be true!"

I am confused by your comments, which seem to completely miss the point. You DO understand that I do NOT believe the historic Jesus was really resurrected, right?

Just to be clear:

IF some cabal concocted a fiction, it would likely have been a thoughtfully constructed fiction; and we know resurrection was a key part of that fiction. For the primary fictional account of that character to barely mention a resurrection (and to mention ZERO post-death sightings of the resurrected man) would be quite unusual. (Bilby suggests, I think, that the author of Mark was too incompetent to mention the sightings, even though his account was edited several decades after the alleged resurrection. Given the success of early Christianity it would be odd for the primary biographer to be that incompetent).

But IF Jesus was a real inspirational person, biographies might have been written with little mention of the resurrection fiction. That fiction would have been embellished later.

 

[steve_bank]

Without the resurrection there is no Christianity.

The kids game. Line up a bunch of kids, whisper a story in the first kid's ear and it gets passed along. Invincibly it gets changed.

In the time there was no objective reporting and history, people freely interpreted and invented a narrative from hearsay.

Herodotus the Greek historian was known for turning what he heard into alleged first hand observations of places he never visited.

In the media today we see different interpretations of of events. I watched CNN commentators turning hearsay from the Trump White House into fabricated narratives and interpreting details without first hand knowledge. Not that there wasn't things going on in the WH, but CNN put out an endless stream of hearsay as fact.

Look at a wall map of the refion. today. Israel is a tiny spot. The area where it all would have happened is small. Gossip would be rampant.

The small area and lack of corobortion of the events indicates Jesus whoever he was was not very well known when alive. There are no Roman records.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just to be clear:

IF some cabal concocted a fiction, it would likely have been a thoughtfully constructed fiction;

There is no need for a cabal and a conspiracy, just an attractive story. Remember that we're talking religion here. Is there a cabal and a carefully constructed fiction behind Mormonism? These additions come well after the story. Bigfoot, Cain, you get the idea.

I should add that the original story was no doubt an embellishment of common talk and experience so it was already concocted. But that's precisely what an author does when he writes stories that are fictional.

 

[Swammerdami]

Are we all debating the same question here? My position is that a man called Jesus of Nazareth probably DID exist who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. I am NOT claiming that that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, or was resurrected from the dead.

For those judging historicity by the number of early documents which mention the person, note that Pontius Pilate — the most powerful man in Judea during the time of Jesus — is hardly mentioned at all, except in documents which connect him to the Jesus story.

Just to be clear:

IF some cabal concocted a fiction, it would likely have been a thoughtfully constructed fiction;

There is no need for a cabal and a conspiracy, just an attractive story. Remember that we're talking religion here. Is there a cabal and a carefully constructed fiction behind Mormonism? These additions come well after the story. Bigfoot, Cain, you get the idea.

I should add that the original story was no doubt an embellishment of common talk and experience so it was already concocted. But that's precisely what an author does when he writes stories that are fictional.

Mormonism was an odd choice of example for your point.

PREFACE. To the Reader --

As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again -- and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and if I should bring forth the same words again, or, in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up the hearts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as a record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will shew unto them that my wisdom is greater then the cunning of the Devil. Wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, I have, through his grace and mercy, accomplished that which he hath commanded me respecting this thing. I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken, were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York. The Author.

THE FIRST BOOK OF NEPHI. HIS REIGN AND MINISTRY.

CHAPTER I. An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah, and his four Sons, being called, (beginning at the eldest,) Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi. The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity; and they seek to destroy his life. He taketh three days journey into the wilderness with his family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returns to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings. They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife. They take their families and depart into the wilderness. Their sufferings and afflictions in the wilderness. The course of their travels. They come to the large waters. Nephi's brethren rebelled against him. He confounded them, and buildeth a Ship. They call the place Bountiful. They cross the large waters into the promised land, &c. This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I Nephi wrote this record.

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days -- nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days; yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. And I know that the record which I make, to be true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father Lehi having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days) and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people, that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed. ...

 

[Copernicus]

Are we all debating the same question here? My position is that a man called Jesus of Nazareth probably DID exist who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. I am NOT claiming that that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, or was resurrected from the dead.

For those judging historicity by the number of early documents which mention the person, note that Pontius Pilate — the most powerful man in Judea during the time of Jesus — is hardly mentioned at all, except in documents which connect him to the Jesus story.

That's not true. The first record we have of Pilate was by Philon of Alexandria, who characterized him as a very cruel, corrupt governor who had lots of people executed. Josephus later wrote some things about him, very little of which said anything about Jesus. Given Pilate's reputation as a long-serving, cruel Roman governor of Judea, he would have been the ideal candidate for someone who would have ordered the crucifixion of Jesus in a story that someone made up out of whole cloth. It would have lent plausibility to the tale. OTOH, maybe Jesus did exist and the tale was true. How are we to know? Of course, we can ignore the obvious lies that are also contained in those stories.

And TGG Moogly's reference to Mormonism was right on point. Joseph Smith was a known fraudster before he suddenly got visited by the angel Mormoni, who gave him his true calling. Mormonism is a perfect example of how utter bullshit can turn into a major religion in relatively recent times. If you are going to argue for the plausibility of Jesus on the basis of nothing other than popular stories, Josephus Smith has some revelations to sell you. We know this is true, because he was able to translate sacred text into the Book of Mormon with nothing more than a stone in a hat. Now it might seem that his followers were just being gullible, but here is a good explanation of why the stone and the hat actually make the story MORE plausible.

Joseph, the stone and the hat: Why it all matters​

...
Now consider Joseph Smith. According to those familiar with the process, he dictated the Book of Mormon from words that somehow appeared in a “seer stone” or (much the same thing) in the Urim and Thummim. He rarely if ever actually had the plates with him; he couldn’t read what was on them except through revelation anyway, and he could receive revelation (via the “interpreters”) just as easily without the plates as with them. (So why were the plates necessary? Perhaps, among other things, to reassure him and the witnesses who saw and testified of them — and, thus also, us — that he was dealing with something objectively real and external to himself.)

Evidence indicates that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon over the course of three months (or perhaps somewhat less). His scribes needed light in order to work, but it’s quite understandable that Joseph sought to reduce the fatigue of his eyes by using a hat to exclude the ambient light.

The implications of this, however, are intriguing. A manuscript hidden in the bottom of a hat would be difficult if not impossible to read. Yet Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon — roughly 270,000 words — in somewhere between 60 and 90 days. That’s approximately 3,000 to 4,500 words each and every day, without rewrites or significant revisions. (Practiced writers will instantly recognize this as a stunning pace.) Or, to put it another way, this young man, with only about two months of schooling, dictated roughly six to nine pages of today’s printed English edition every single day for two or three months.

etc., etc...

It is not at all implausible that the Jesus story attracted a wide cult following in the early years of the Roman Empire, especially if the fantastic tales of miracles contained references to real people and places to lend them credibility. That's just sugar coating to help the bullshit go down.

 

[steve_bank]

Look at Scientology.

Hubbard was a third rate scifi writer who crated a mythology and Dianetics. He borrowed the skin galvanic response meter from lie detectors and called the E-Meter. In a lie detector it measures changes in skin resistance when somebody starts to sweat. Believers think it has some mystical power.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Are we all debating the same question here? My position is that a man called Jesus of Nazareth probably DID exist who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. I am NOT claiming that that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, or was resurrected from the dead.

I'm just using the literature we have. I used the Mormon example because it is exactly the same thing happening at a later time and which has received embellishments since its inception.

I think the reason people like to extract a living Jesus from the Jesus tales is because of social pressure and necessity owing to two thousand years of intense and grave selection pressure. After all, Jesus is presented as a real person albeit with godly powers. Joseph Smith gave us Moroni and Moroni magic while James gave us Jesus and Jesus magic, but they're both from the same author's cloth. Should we try to extract the historical Moroni from the Book of Mormon Too? We don't because Moroni isn't invented as a person. That's the difference. That and two thousand years of selection pressure.

"The Historical Jesus" is a modern phenomenon. Up until the age of scientific thinking we were content to have Jesus just as he was. Scientific observation and the scientific method came along and all of a sudden gospel Jesus looks kinda dopey, kinda like believing in Santa. Okay, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real person from which the tales were spun and embellished. Right? Right? Right? It's still all about Jesus. Right?

Why not just admit that Jesus was the last of a long line of Mediterranean demigods? That makes the most sense. Even though Jesus is a demigod his name doesn't come up as such anywhere. Why is that? Could it be bias? Do a search for famous demigods and you never see Jesus even though he is clearly a demigod. Maybe we shouldn't look for the historical person behind demigods. or maybe we should recognize selection pressure and cultural bias when it's as obvious as our noses.

 

[bilby]

Your argument here appears to be that badly written fiction must be true, because people don't write truly awful, even embarrassingly awful, fiction, without realising how embarrassingly bad it is and at least editing it somewhat.

I can think of a dozen modern works off the top of my head that refute this hypothesis.

And the idea that Mark's failure to explicitly expound upon a critical plot point makes the whole set of tales more plausible (or even just less awful), is hilarious.

"It's shit, therefore it must be true!"

I am confused by your comments, which seem to completely miss the point. You DO understand that I do NOT believe the historic Jesus was really resurrected, right?

I understand that. But your "evidence" for an historical Jesus is no better than the evidence you (rightly) reject for his resurrection. There's exactly the same evidence for Jesus's existence as there is for his resurrection: Nothing except bad (but hugely and inexplicably popular) fiction. Including a massive amount of fanfic, and squabbling sects of diehard fans who will fight to the death over which minutiae are or are not canon.

You might as well be arguing for the existence of the historical Harry Potter, who wasn't a wizard, but must have been a real person, because there are books.

J K Rowling wouldn't have written anything so awful if Harry wasn't a real person, because that would be terribly embarrassing for her.

 

[Tharmas]

I had promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this perennial topic again, but somehow I can't stop myself.

It seems to me that judging the historicity of Jesus should not be seen as a binary proposition, that is, either the character is totally fiction or on the other hand he existed largely as he is depicted in the Gospels, saving perhaps the miracles, resurrection, etc.

My approach is first to examine our sources, which are primarily the Gospels, but before the Gospels there are the genuine epistles of Paul, perhaps the Revelation of John, and perhaps some other early Christian documents of uncertain provenance. Paul says surprisingly little about the life of Jesus, other than that he was crucified. He does claim to have met the apostles John and Peter. What we learn from Paul and some of the other early documents is that in its early days Christianity consisted of a loose federation of disparate communities which often differed considerably in doctrine.

That leaves the Gospels, and naturally the first question is, what is the nature of the Gospels?. They are narratives, written for the most part in “3rd person omniscient” (as opposed to 1st person or “eyewitness”) in scope. They are in part hagiography. They can be said to be “Lives of Jesus,” but only in the ancient, not the modern, sense. That is, rigorously accurate reporting is not valued as much as conveying an impression. In addition, frequently the author’s purpose in writing is to express his own personal philosophy.

The Gospels display all of those characteristics. In terms of the last mentioned characteristic, expressing the author’s own opinion, it is widely accepted by modern scholars that each of the Gospels displays a particular spin on the story. For instance, Matthew has been said to shape the story to lessen some of the anti-Semitism of earlier versions, and be friendlier to the Jews somewhat.

It should also be noted that the Gospels were somewhat plastic documents, subject to re-writes, additions and subtractions over the course of decades before they were canonized in official versions. For instance, Marcion in the 2nd century heavily edited Luke and Acts to conform to his vision of Christianity. How much of his editing was accurately redacted later is not entirely certain. Or the famous story of the woman taken in adultery was added to John much later that the original version; early Church fathers did not know the story.

But even before the extant gospels was Q, a hypothesized “sayings” Gospel (similar in many ways to the Gospel of Thomas) that leant much of its material to the later Matthew and Luke. This would be the first “layer” of information about the Jesus figure, and he comes across as a wise rabbi and teacher.

This picture forms one part of a mosaic. Other pieces of the mosaic include Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher, Jesus as a miracle worker, Jesus as Messiah, Jesus as a God, and others.

Burton Mack, author of Who Wrote the New Testament, sees these mosaic pieces as expressions of different nascent Christian communities with different “takes” and different reactions to current events.

Enter the author of The Gospel of Mark. He takes many of these elements and combines them into a new kind of narrative, a “life” in the classical sense. Mack says:

Thus Mark’s story is best understood as a studied combination of Jesus traditions with the Christ myth. The combination enhanced Jesus’ importance as a historical figure by casting him as the son of God or the Christ and by working out an elaborate plot to link his fate to the history of Mark’s community. We may therefore call Mark’s gospel a myth of origin for the Markan community. It was imagined in order to understand how history could have gone the way it had and the Jesus movement still be right about its loyalties and views.

Mack, Burton L.. Who Wrote the New Testament? (p. 152). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

Even the Passion story was a complete fabrication.

The conclusion must be that the identity of the man, or men, whatever their name(s), who inspired the Jesus stories, is lost to history.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The conclusion must be that the identity of the man, or men, whatever their name(s), who inspired the Jesus stories, is lost to history.

As someone who composed fiction I would not go so far as to say "man or men." Rather I would leave it at "events" because that's how authors write. They collect their experiences into a tale they deem to be attractive. Mark is a piece of art, not history. And like any piece of art it appeals to some people more than others.

Thank-you for the great addition to the thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It seems to me that judging the historicity of Jesus should not be seen as a binary proposition, that is, either the character is totally fiction or on the other hand he existed largely as he is depicted in the Gospels, saving perhaps the miracles, resurrection, etc.

This is a point I've tried to make repeatedly. But looking for the real jesus is a bit of a personal treasure hunt, not unlike looking for the Lost Dutchman mine or the real explanation behind the Bermuda Triangle or finding Atlantis on the Bimini Road. The real historical Jesus is the treasure. Problem is it isn't there and never has been. It's an author's creation that piques human desire, aka fantasy. There isn't anything about a dragon that isn't real except the dragon.

The same is true for the Historical Jesus but that's not enough to stop some from believing in the treasure. All those facets of the Jesus Story may in fact be real, and we know that most of them are, just like all those aspects of the dragon. Roman occupation, crucifixion, lots of people named Jesus, cults, Jews, messianic prophecy, rebellion, healers, etc. All this was followed by centuries of selection pressure for orthodox belief in the Jesus Story. So welcome to today.

 

[steve_bank]

I watched a show on a search for possible locations of Atalanta based on the story. A sea going culture destroyed by a cataclysmic event. One can objectively fit several actual volcanic locations to the story , but it is obviously not proof That is what theists do with Jesus. Any number of narratives are plausible historically.

 

[bilby]

I watched a show on a search for possible locations of Atalanta based on the story

I am pretty sure that Atlanta is in Georgia (the US state, not the nation that was formerly a Soviet Republic).

 

[steve_bank]

When I see the thread title I keep seing Hysterical Jesus.

 

[steve_bank]

When taking power in history there are two main themes.

1. Establish legitimacy through blood lines.
2. Establish authority from a deity.

If the gospels were about creating a movement it follows the pattern.

1. Jesus is said to be in the line of King David.
2. His father was a deity.

If the historical Jesus was actually more militant and making a power play the narrative makes sense. The Romans crowned him with thorns and put King Of The Jews on his cross.

Yet another possible narrative.

Jesus, King of the Jews - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the King of the Jews (or King of the Judeans), both at the beginning of his life and at the end. In the Koine Greek of the New Testament, e.g., in John 19:3, this is written as Basileus ton Ioudaion (βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων).[1]

Both uses of the title lead to dramatic results in the New Testament accounts. In the account of the nativity of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, the Biblical Magi who come from the east call Jesus the "King of the Jews", causing Herod the Great to order the Massacre of the Innocents. Towards the end of the accounts of all four canonical Gospels, in the narrative of the Passion of Jesus, the title "King of the Jews" leads to charges against Jesus that result in his crucifixion.[2][3]

The initialism INRI (Latin: Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum) represents the Latin inscription (in John 19:19), which in English translates to "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews", and John 19:20 states that this was written in three languages—Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—during the crucifixion of Jesus.

The title "King of the Jews" is only used in the New Testament by gentiles, namely by the Magi, Pontius Pilate, and the Roman soldiers. In contrast, the Jewish leaders use the designation "Christ", which means "Messiah"[4] Although the phrase "King of the Jews" is used in most English translations,[a] it has also been translated "King of the Judeans" (see Ioudaioi).[5]

 

[Tharmas]

These are interesting observations, Steve. Thanks.

One can wonder where the author of Mark got the idea of having Jesus executed as “King of the Jews,” and the answer isn’t really hard to find.

In the chaos surrounding the Jewish wars in the late 60s, there were apparently a number of warring factions supporting candidates for High Priest. When Titus entered Jerusalem in 70, he found one of last surviving pretenders, Simon bar Giora, dressed in purple robes and standing in the Temple. Titus laid waste to Jerusalem and the temple, and took Simon back to Rome to be displayed as "King of the Jews" in a triumphal march, and then executed.”

The author of Mark who, as tradition has it, lived and wrote in Rome, would have been very familiar with this episode.