Historical Jesus

[Lumpenproletariat]

Something unique must have happened 2000 years ago.
not the usual "making up shit"

Did only the Ancient World "make up shit"?

We should also add that in the ancient world, just making shit up to make someone look better was normal and acceptable.

Perhaps, but not anymore so than today. In fact it's even MORE acceptable today, or is practiced more, because we have so much better publishing technology to be able to reach a much wider audience for whatever shit we're trying to sell.

So saying Jesus was a product of "making shit up" in the ancient world explains nothing about how we got our ancient written record of Jesus the 1st-century miracle-worker. If "making shit up" explains it, then we should have dozens or even hundreds more Jesus-type miracle-workers in the "ancient world" written record. So, where are they?

Kind of like suggesting that the only popular restaurants that have ever existed are those that are open now. I mean, if there were other restaurants that existed and were popular, where are they now?

No, that's a false analogy. The Jesus reported miracle acts are something very unusual in history, possibly so unusual that it's unlikely to happen even once. But we do have evidence, written accounts reporting it, to indicate that it happened this once. Possibly other times, too, but we're entitled to assume it has not happened until someone gives evidence that it did happen at a certain time or place.

But that a popular restaurant existed is nothing unusual at all. There have been millions of popular restaurants. Maybe even a million today. So we don't need someone to give evidence that a popular restaurant exists, or existed yesterday or a year ago. We know they exist everywhere every day.

So for your analogy you must give an example of a very unusual event. How about the historical Joan of Arc event: a poor peasant girl leads her nation under siege from an enemy country, and she rallies the army to victory over the powerful invading country of millions who had suppressed her nation for several decades.

Not only can such an event not happen every day or every year, but it can't happen even every 100 or 500 years. Even a thousand years. So this is a very rare "miracle" event, sort of, and stands out as extremely unusual. Has it ever happened other than this one time we know of? Maybe not. This might be the ONLY time in history that such a thing ever happened. Or if not, it's only the 2nd or 3rd time -- very very unusual.


an unusual event vs. a normal event

So we're entitled to disbelieve that any other such event has ever happened, unless someone can cite the case, from the historical record. It's conceivable that some time in China or Africa or -- who knows where? or when, perhaps 1000 or 5000 years ago -- such a thing did happen elsewhere, at another time in history. Possibly, but probably not, and we should not believe it unless the one claiming it can provide the evidence from the historical record.

So it's about something unusual, not routine.

Of course there's no absolute certainty. E.g., maybe there was another "mass extinction" of animal life, 100 years ago, like that of the dinosaurs 60 billion years ago, and all record of it was wiped clean somehow, so no one knows that half of all animal life was wiped out 100 years ago, with all the evidence deleted. You can imagine all sorts of weird possibilities. But generally, massive disasters, massive revolutionary upheavals in a society etc. are learned by everyone and it's known that such a thing happened, because it gets recorded. So we can assume it has not happened if there's no evidence of it. Because such an event would be so unusual and we'd have to know. And a reputed miracle-worker like Jesus in the Gospel accounts, attested to in several sources, is something very unusual, not something that happens routinely. Or if it does, where is another example of it?

If it's routine, it happens generally, often, and so there has to be some evidence of it somewhere, i.e., evidence of cases more than only the one 2000 years ago. But since there are no other cases cited, then it's not routine, but an unusual case, and so we can assume it has not happened elsewhere unless someone gives evidence of it.

But if it's not routine, or something unusual, then we can assume it has not happened other than where there's evidence showing that it did happen. Such as we do have evidence of some unusual events in history, which happened maybe only once, or maybe happening rarely, like once every 5000 years or so. An Ice Age could be an example, of something rare, and we assume it's not happening unless there's evidence it's happening in a particular time or place.

So your analogy has to be about a possible event which would be something very unusual, not something routine like the existence of a popular restaurant.

I mean, there are ways to find out about older places that no longer existed, via media (tv/newspaper/magazines), photographs, property deeds, word of mouth, etc...

Not analogous. You must provide an example of something very unusual, not routine, to use it claiming it's the same as an example of a miracle claim, or claim that a miracle was performed.

It cannot be something normal, which we know happens every day anyway. Rather, it must be something very rare, like Joan of Arc, highly irregular, in which case we're entitled to doubt a claim that it happened a 2nd time, or disbelieve the claim, if you can't provide evidence that it did happen (other than the one known case).

Of course some places will evaporate into history, never to be thought of again. Doesn't mean they never existed.

Ordinary normal places and events, yes, we assume they existed without needing any evidence. But they never existed if they would have been highly unusual and there's no evidence that they happened, and such things never happened in all known history. If it's something unusual, which hardly ever happens, or maybe never, then we must assume it never happened if you have no evidence that it did happen. Or we can assume it never existed if you have no evidence that it did exist.

We can assume that miracle acts like those of Jesus in the Gospels have never happened, unless there is evidence that they did happen in some case. Like we have evidence for it in this one case, about 30 AD in the written accounts of the time, in which the acts are reported, like other historical events are reported, in written accounts from the time. Only in such a case as that can we assume it happened, where it's reported, or witnesses reportedly saw it, etc. With such empirical evidence, from witnesses who saw it, we can conclude that it did happen, or probably happened.

Similar to the other "prophets". The information is out there, you just need to dig harder to find it.

No, it's NOT out there, unless whoever claims it provides the evidence.

If it's something very unusual being claimed, then I should assume the facts about it are not out there and there's no information to find, nothing to dig for. UNLESS the one claiming it offers evidence for it.

You seem to be bragging that because you don't know it exists, it doesn't exist.

No, it's because no one is providing evidence for it that it doesn't exist. Or PROBABLY doesn't exist. And so NO ONE knows it exists -- not only I don't know it, but no one does. E.g., there's not another Joan of Arc war happening somewhere today, unless someone can cite a case, with evidence, of such a war, or such a warrior heroine. It's about something very unusual if it ever does happen, and so without the evidence we must assume it's not happening. Whereas a popular restaurant existing is normal, and so no evidence is needed in order to believe that's happening.

And of course, for others, it might not exist. Or it could have been destroyed by other cultists, like how monotheism was stamped out in Egypt.

"for others"? This isn't about what is true, or what exists "for this one or that one" or "for these" or "for others" or "for those" etc.

All we can have is probability. Which we do have in many cases, and for anything highly unusual it's probably not happening -- 99% probable or probably not -- if no one has evidence that it is happening. Obviously there are a million possibilities, so we always go by what's probable, meaning for anything highly unusual it's probably not happening unless someone offers evidence that it is happening.

So, there are no parallel Jesus-like miracle-workers, or have been none, probably, as long as no one has any evidence of it. Such a possibility is extremely unusual, so probably has not happened if no one has any evidence that it happened.

And then of course, there is the other angle. The whole, how does your argument not apply to Mormonism?

It does apply to that. The evidence that Joseph Smith did miracles is very poor. To consider that case it's necessary to dig out the written accounts which report it, and when we do that it becomes clear that it's bad evidence.

The first step is to get out that evidence, those written accounts, and go over them. If no one wants to do this, it shows that no one thinks it's good evidence. I've gone over those written accounts and find them very artificial. But you can't take my word for it. If you think those accounts might be just as convincing, then dig them out -- they're online -- and we can argue each one. But no one really wants to do it because the accounts are so silly.

I'll say that there is virtually only one real source for the Joseph Smith miracles. 90% from one writer only. And the other sources are pathetic. But you have to get out those stories and read them for yourself. And if they have any credibility, you will post them here. No one ever posts them because they are too ridiculous, and anyone wanting to make the case becomes frustrated and loses interest. Also, that someone saw some "gold tablets" means nothing. Gold tablets are not a miracle.

After all, they've grown into quite the religion (and probably much faster than Christianity).

The "miracle" -- or evidence of "miracle" -- is not the fast growth of a religion, or fast spread of a belief. What's unique in the Jesus case is the unusual volume of testimony, or reports of the improbable events or apparent miracle acts, like the healing miracles in the Gospel accounts, which are much more than normal, occurring in higher degree than any other reported cases known. And also the Resurrection of course, for which there is strong evidence.

This is not the same as the rapid growth of a religion, as if such growth is EVIDENCE of something important. Rapid spread of a belief system per se is not what's significant. (That could just be a result of a very talented guru who influences devotees.) But rapid spread of belief that a miracle act happened, based on testimony or reports that it happened and was witnessed, is significant, because large numbers do not claim such a thing if nothing unusual really happened. Because the norm is to reject miracle-worker claims if nothing really happened.

There seems to be no other example of this in all the historical record, or written accounts telling the past events.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Gospel accounts are legitimate sources for determining the events.

BTW, the four Gospels are *not* independent sources.

There are no "independent" sources for any historical events. (or maybe 99.99% of historical events)

Sure there is.

Alexander the Great left tons of hard evidence behind. It fills museums around the world.

OK, but in that sense the four Gospels are independent sources, or "hard evidence" for determining the historical events. They are 1st-century writings, and thousands of manuscripts of them are kept in museums around the world.

The point is: if the 4 Gospel accounts are disqualified as legitimate evidence, then there is no legitimate evidence for history. There is no legitimate standard for eliminating the Gospel accounts as evidence. Saying they are "not independent" sources is imposing a phony standard onto these writings which is not imposed onto any others.

You may not be willing to look at it, but it's still there.

Preach this sermon to those who want to ban the Gospel accounts to the "not independent" category and thus not legitimate sources.

We must look at ALL the sources, including the Gospel accounts, and not seek a pretense for excluding them.

 

[TomC]

OK, but in that sense the four Gospels are independent sources, or "hard evidence" for determining the historical events.

No, neither they nor any other ancient writing is hard evidence for history. Not evidence of anything other than someone wrote it down for some reason.
Hard evidence would be things like buildings or walls or pottery and such. Sometimes the hard evidence corroborates writing, sometimes not.
I believe I once read a story about Alexander being born with a sword in his hand. I don't believe that either. But he rearranged the world known to him and there's tons, literally, of hard evidence for that.

The point is: if the 4 Gospel accounts are disqualified as legitimate evidence, then there is no legitimate evidence for history.

We aren't just talking about history. We're talking about miracle stories, which there are lots of. I don't believe them either. I'm very sure that they were all invented for different reasons, and quite often added to through the course of centuries. They're generally called legends.

I'm fairly sure that historical Jesus was a real person. But the miracle working demigod who rose from the dead, then ascended to Heaven to form part of a previously unknown pantheon is another legendary figure. Christ is a Greek epic hero with a veneer of Judaism.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Something unique must have happened 2000 years ago.

Something unique happens every day.

It's a big planet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, miracles... and the recounting of them... differently... and different miracles, some mentioned in some gospels, some not in others. Think raising Lazarus would have been a bigger deal.

Ultimately, the recounting of his death and disappearance isn't even consistent! Putting all the weight on the four gospels... well, the four that would be decided to be the Gospels.

Something unique must have happened 2000 years ago.

Something unique happens every day.

It's a big planet.

Everything happens just once, but once a million times.

 

[Learner]

Then it seems, posters have unwittingly been in agreement with Lumpen after all...

..Jesus being unique from everyone else, even when they have their own individual uniquenesses.

 

[bilby]

Then it seems, posters have unwittingly been in agreement with Lumpen after all...

..Jesus being unique from everyone else, even when they have their own individual uniquenesses.

Sure, but it doesn't set Jesus apart; Uniqueness is banal, as everyone is unique.

Now if Jesus were not unique, then that would be remarkable.

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus as unique ignores the history of mythology. A lineage to a god and doing superhuman feats and supernatural events were common in ancient mythology.

Gods interfering with human events was a way to explain reality as people experience living. Random events having a meaning or purpose.

My conclusion from reading and forum debate that the gospel Jesus with the supernatural events was pure Greek mythology. Jesus is a Greek demigod. The gospel Jesus would have been blasphemous to Jews.

To Greeks and Romans targets of proselytizing the gospel Jesus would have been obvious. Jesus with a human mother and god father. He has some but not all of the power of the god father. Dies in an herpic act for the group and goes to be with god the father.

Hercules was not a god but was born a mortal, although, like many mythic heroes, he had a complicated family tree. According to legend, his father was Zeus, ruler of all the Greek gods on Mount Olympus and all the mortals on earth, and his mother was Alcmene, the granddaughter of the hero Perseus. (Perseus, who was also said to be one of Zeus’ sons, famously beheaded the snake-haired

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jesus was unique? Doesn't he share a good number of similarities to Siddhartha Gautama (another legend who likely didn't exist), but unlike Jesus was credited with a moral plan that was worth more than a damn?

 

[TomC]

Then it seems, posters have unwittingly been in agreement with Lumpen after all...

..Jesus being unique from everyone else, even when they have their own individual uniquenesses.

I don't think anyone questions that something happened almost 2000 years ago that resulted in Christianity. The big questions are "what", and how much (if anything) did historical Jesus have to do with it?
The Gospels don't really have plausible answers to those questions. And they leave some big topics left undiscussed, much less answered. So big, I find it plausible that they're really fictional inventions to provide a back story to the Legend of Christ.
That's not the most plausible (to me), but it's there. And far more plausible than that the story as told happened, but virtually nobody noticed at the time.
Tom

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Ancient Written Accounts =
99% of the "Ancient History" you claim to know

Alexander the Great left tons of hard evidence behind. It fills museums around the world.

OK, but in that sense the four Gospels are independent sources, or "hard evidence" for determining the historical events.

No, neither they nor any other ancient writing is hard evidence for history.

It's the best evidence -- "hard" or "soft" (is this jargon really necessary?) -- and virtually all our known ancient history is from the ancient writings only, without any other kind of evidence to confirm it. And most of the "hard evidence" you're jargonizing about would mean nothing and have no value as evidence without the writings which tell us what's important. One document alone tells us far more than a piece of "hard evidence" which means nothing by itself without a written account saying what might make that "hard evidence" important. And though we have more than one written source in some cases, often there's ONE SOURCE ONLY, and it's put into the history books anyway and taught as fact based on that one written source only.

That there is no "hard evidence" (whatever that means) for most of the ancient history facts does not mean those history events are less likely or that they're not important or believable. If we couldn't believe the facts because there's no "hard evidence," that would require eliminating 99% of all our known ancient history. So why should we make a religion out of "hard evidence" when 99% of our ancient history is independent of it because it's based on writings without any "hard evidence"?

Not evidence of anything other than someone wrote it down for some reason.

No, it's evidence of more than that, and this is why it's important and why we have "history" at all. If they wrote that something happened, this is evidence that the something DID happen. And this evidence is made stronger if it's confirmed by another writer also saying it, or saying something similar. If this is not good evidence for what happened, then we have to toss out all our ancient history knowledge, because 99% of it is based on simply believing the writers who recorded what happened, or claimed something happened. It's not that "someone wrote it down for some reason" we don't know. No, we do know the reason -- in some cases they say why they wrote it, and we ought to believe them, mostly, while also suspecting they have additional motives.

These writers, our sources, say it's true what they're writing, that it's what happened and that it's important for others to know what happened, because what happened in the past matters and should be made known to those later, who can learn it from those earlier like themselves, who witnessed some of it or who were closer to it and have more direct evidence of the earlier events. It's good for us to know of the earlier events, believing the writers reporting it to us as long as they're not contradicted by other writers, or contradicted by something else we know.

So it's wrong to say it's "Not evidence of anything other than . . ." etc. No, it is evidence for whatever they're claiming, unless we have some other evidence or knowledge contradicting them. Because they were much closer to the events and know better than we do what happened.

Hard evidence would be things like buildings or walls or pottery and such.

99% of our ancient history knowledge has no dependency on that kind of evidence, but is based on the writings, without which there'd be virtually no ancient history knowledge at all. The "hard evidence" can add to it, but the writings are basic and indispensable for virtually all our knowledge of what happened.

Sometimes the hard evidence corroborates writing, sometimes not.

And when it does not, which is 99% of the time, we should believe the writings anyway, and we do, and that's mainly what "history" is. E.g., we should believe the Caesar assassination and other reported events in the writings, as long as these don't contradict each other. Or, we should believe the writings when they agree, and be skeptical where they contradict each other. Even when they conflict, they might both be partly right, though also there is error along with the part that is correct.

99% of our ancient history facts are not "corroborated" by this "hard evidence" -- even 99.9% of it. Usually nothing in the monuments or other physically hard objects corroborates the claims in the writings -- we'd believe the writings anyway, without that extra evidence, and we do usually believe the writings = "history" without that extra evidence. Whereas without the writings we'd have virtually none of our ancient history facts, like the facts in your history book. And without the writings, the "hard evidence" would either not exist or would mean nothing, because there'd be nothing for those objects to be "evidence" of.

I believe I once read a story about Alexander being born with a sword in his hand. I don't believe that either. But he rearranged the world known to him and there's tons, literally, of hard evidence for that.

Of course those having fame and wielding vast power and butchering tens of thousands and enslaving or subjugating millions do leave behind more physical traces. But this doesn't mean there's no one else of importance or that no one else exists or does anything that matters. It's true that the mass murderers got more attention and inflicted more suffering and had more monuments built by slaves, and ordered statues of themselves, and coins with their image, and forced millions to worship them in temples built by their slaves -- of course those aggressive conquerors and slave-owners and demagogues left behind more "hard evidence" for us.

But 99% of ancient history does not come from that "hard evidence" but from the written accounts telling us what happened, and it's these which tell us the "history" rather than the "hard evidence" which usually means nothing outside the written accounts which tell us what's important. New "hard evidence" which is discovered usually just confirms what the writings already tell us, without contradicting them, or they confirm some of the writings while casting doubt onto others. Or they cause experts to change their interpretation of the writings, so the facts are still mostly from the writings, but the "hard evidence" corrects some of the earlier misinterpretations, without contradicting the writings overall.

The writings are fundamentally what we need in order to learn the history, while the "hard evidence" plays a subservient role of helping us learn more effectively from the writings. And without the writings to teach us what's important from the past, the "hard evidence" wouldn't really be "evidence" at all, but just a meaningless chunk of worthless clay -- something maybe to avoid tripping over, but otherwise not worthy of note, or mostly insignificant without some written sources to explain what the "hard evidence" is about.

The point is: if the 4 Gospel accounts are disqualified as legitimate evidence, then there is no legitimate evidence for history.

We aren't just talking about history. We're talking about miracle stories, which there are lots of.

Yes, and this requires an explanation, regardless whether you believe them or not. We do NOT have "lots of" such stories in other ancient writings, though an exception (probably the only exception) is a string of miracle stories in II Kings, through about 5 chapters, where Elisha does one miracle after another, and also makes predictions which come true. But these are known from one source only, and this source dates from about 300 years later than Elisha lived, so ordinary mythologizing easily explains this case.

We need an explanation why there are 4 written accounts or sources near the time of Jesus which all attribute a large number of miracle acts to him, at least 30 in number, and yet no such string of miracle stories occurs anywhere else. And for the Resurrection we have the additional Paul source, or 5 sources total.

I don't believe them either. I'm very sure that they were all invented for different reasons, and . . .

But you can't explain why such a string of miracle stories was "invented" only this once, in all the ancient literature. When multiple sources agree on a claimed event, and no sources contradict it, the event probably happened, or the claim is probably true. If it's not true, then we need an explanation why such a string of fictions occurs only this one time, and there is no other case of such a thing.

. . . all invented for different reasons, and quite often added to through the course of centuries.

All the reputed Jesus miracles, including Resurrection, are in the 1st-century accounts, not from anything added in later centuries. But then also there are many more miracle stories added in the later non-canonical "Gospel" accounts, Gnostic Gospels and Apocryphal Gospels and Epistles etc. This is normal, that an early miracle tradition gets expanded later, as fictions are added. Like an Alexander the Great warrior hero gets mythologized later into something bigger. But this means there had to be something real to start with, and something very unusual, to which the later fictions got added. So an explanation is needed: What was the unusual beginning point, for the Jesus hero, to whom later legend got added? No one has answered this question (unless it's that he actually did the miracle acts).

They're generally called legends.

But there has to be an explanation what caused the fictions/legends to get started in the first place. One or both of the following is necessary to explain how the fiction miracle legends got started:

⬤ There must have been a long time period, several generations or centuries, from the original character who later got mythologized; and/or

⬤ There had to originally be a real character, not fictional, who was very special in some way, so that he drew attention and became an object of mythologizing, or became the object to which the later fictions could be added.

No one yet has explained what was special about the original Jesus character to whom the miracle fictions got added, to explain why he became mythologized into a miracle legend while others did not. I.e., "others" like John the Baptizer and James the Just and many other popular rabbis and prophets who were more important and more recognized than Jesus in that period, from the 1st century BC and into the 1st century AD.

For Alexander the Great (and all the others) we don't have this problem, because we can easily identify what was singular about the original hero figure who later became a fiction legend.

I'm fairly sure that historical Jesus was a real person. But the miracle working demigod who rose from the dead, then ascended to Heaven to form part of a previously unknown pantheon is another legendary figure.

"another" in addition to whom? There's no other "legendary figure" for whom there is any string of reported miracle acts in any written source for the time that the "legendary figure" lived and reportedly did the acts.

We need an explanation why this one person in about 30 AD is the only reported miracle-worker for whom there is such conspicuous evidence. He can't be "another legendary figure" unless there was another earlier one about whom we have similar evidence. ("another" has to mean there were at least two.)

It would be nice if someone would finally just say, honestly: Yes, this is very unusual, and we don't know the explanation. Or we can't explain how this happened in this one case only.

And it's OK to add: But still we shouldn't believe it. This is one case where the evidence is misleading and must be wrong, though we don't know the explanation.

Christ is a Greek epic hero with a veneer of Judaism.

Even so, we still need an explanation why there is no other epic hero, Greek or otherwise, for whom there is evidence that he did miracle acts, documented in multiple sources near the time he reportedly did the acts.

 

[TomC]

We need an explanation why this one person in about 30 AD is the only reported miracle-worker for whom there is such conspicuous evidence.

That's easy.

This particular version of the Legend of Christ was deemed useful to the Greco-Roman elite in the 4th century. All the rest were marginalized into oblivion centuries ago. The ones that didn't die quietly were stamped out.

Ironically, I believe Jesus died trying to save The Chosen People from pagan, Greco-Roman, power. But failed so completely that He wound up being used by them to further their own goals.

Which clearly did happen.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

Does one automatically believe *everything* that is in some ancient document?

Like believe that the founder of Rome was the son of a god and a virgin, someone who escaped a rival's attempt to kill him in his infancy, someone who was found and raised by a wolf before being raised by a human couple. All in Livy's "History of Rome", a major source.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Uniqueness of Jesus, 1st-century Miracle-Worker

Something unique must have happened 2000 years ago.

Something unique happens every day.

"every day"? OK, I think we have that Wall of Text in stock. Yes Sir, here it is. Enjoy:

______________________________________________________​

Wall of Text begins:

How Jesus is Unique

What distinguishes Jesus from other ancient prophets, rabbis, sons of God
and reported miracle-worker heroes and gods ​

"Something unique" in this context means that the reported Jesus miracle-worker of about 30 AD cannot be explained as a product of any earlier cultural traditions about miracle-workers, even if much else of Christianity is derived from the earlier culture.


Christian traditions borrowed from the Jewish & Pagan culture

It's true that much of Christianity which evolved out of the original Christ cult(s) around 30 AD can be explained as derived from the earlier cultures, not only Jewish and Greek and Roman, but also Egyptian and Persian and Babylonian. Much of the Christian vocabulary and symbolism and religious ritual and traditions looks very similar to the earlier culture (or already-existing non-Christian culture). There could even be mystical elements borrowed from Buddhism and Hinduism, even the "speaking in tongues" phenomenon borrowed from different religious cultures, tribal customs, the charismatic practices, the "turn on, tune in, and drop out" psychology, etc. and intoxication-like behavior, sometimes drug-induced. These various elements appear both early and also later in the many different forms of Christianity which evolved and adapted to the already-existing customs.

And also some/most of the teachings can be traced back, arguably, to earlier wise men, sages, rabbis, prophets, etc., who said essentially the same things. The "Golden Rule" for example. Perhaps Christianity borrowed heavily from other cultures already doing or teaching similar things.

But the Jesus miracle-worker cannot be explained as something borrowed from the earlier culture. This one part of Christianity is unique, meaning it pops up suddenly in 30 AD without anything earlier preceding it, without any apparent religious demand for such a thing. Any earlier miracle-worker ideas in the culture existed only as traditions rooted in the ancient gods/heroes of centuries past, not fascination with new miracle-worker characters appearing abruptly in the current society.


Jewish Miracle-Workers Elijah and Elisha

There was virtually no miracle-worker belief among Jews from 500 BC to 50 or100 AD. The only miracle-worker ideas were about the ancient prophets Elijah/Elisha, in 6th-century BC writings, who became all but forgotten by Jews in the following centuries. The Qumran Community we hear so much about showed absolutely no interest in miracle-workers, or claims about miracles being performed by someone.


Greek Miracle-Worker Asclepius

In the pagan culture the closest to any miracle-working practices were that of the Asclepius cult, which traced its miracle god back 1000 years earlier to a legend of about 1400 or 1300 BC, when the original legendary hero might have existed as a real person, perhaps a healer practitioner who acquired a reputation and became mythologized over many centuries. But there is no source in the written accounts any time near to when this legendary hero actually lived, if he was a real historical figure (such as we have current or near-to-the-time sources for the Jesus miracle-worker).

Inscriptions and Testimonials: Centuries later, especially in the 4th century BC, the Asclepius cult had temples and widespread recognition, and the worshipers prayed to the ancient god-hero, while the priests at the temple performed the established rituals on them, and some worshipers left inscriptions about their experience on the wall of the temple or at a shrine or statue of Asclepius. And some of these claimed their prayers were answered, that the ancient god cured them, and, in rare cases, that even a miracle recovery happened. (The vast majority of the Asclepius inscriptions/testimonials are not about miracle cures but at most about therapies which might have been beneficial in some cases.) The cult lasted many centuries, actually declining from 200 BC to 100 AD, at which time it suddenly revived and continued on for another century or two.

This culture of healing practices, a few miracle claims over several centuries, is similar to religious worshipers today who pray, who receive a ritual of some kind from an evangelist or priest, and then claim their prayers were answered. Such religious worship continues on over many centuries, always in devotion to an ancient healing deity and passing its ritual practices on over many generations and centuries, in reverence toward the ancient gods in one form or another.

Asclepius vs. Jesus: (ancient hero legend vs. current historical person of the period) -- The Greek miracle claims are never about any current miracle-worker hero reportedly appearing in that historical period of the time, or a sort of freelancer uninitiated or non-ordained into the established priesthood or outside the regular temple practices, such as Jesus appeared in the 1st century not as an ordained priest performing the prescribed rites, but traveling on his own to villages without any official status, and performing healing acts to many who knew of him only through popular rumor, not through the established religion or temple. This is "unique" in the sense that there is nothing like this in all the ancient history culture, anywhere, where only the ancient gods are recognized and also their current established priesthood. And in the very few cases of cures reported in the written accounts (the Asclepius inscriptions), these are all from Asclepius worshipers attending the temple to have the ancient rituals performed for them by the established priesthood.

So this is what "unique" means, in the case of Jesus the 1st-century miracle-worker. He's narrated as doing instant cures, unofficial, often unanticipated, reported in the normal manner of regular historical events rather than as religious practices in the Jewish or pagan culture where religious incantations and rituals for the sick were performed but virtually no healing cures or victims reported as recovering due to the performed rituals. He's non-affiliated to any established cult or religious institution, not authorized or ordained to perform the ancient rites, like the Asclepius priests did rituals, but rather is reported in multiple written accounts on his own performing numerous cures to a degree unlike anything else described in any earlier literature or tradition. He's recorded in 1st-century writings near the time of the reported events like normal historical events are reported in the written record, not resembling the miracle legends or traditions we see in the ancient world, i.e., of that time or all the centuries preceding.

And the Jesus Resurrection also is uncharacteristic of anything in earlier reported miracle legends or heroes. There are no earlier accounts of an historical figure dying and bodily rising back to life soon after and being seen alive by multiple witnesses who had seen him killed earlier. The term "resurrection" is misused by modern pundits only (not by the early pre-Christian writers) to refer to some of the ancient hero legends, trying to draw parallels to the Jesus Resurrection. But there is no earlier language describing the ancient heroes as rising physically back to life such as the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. (One could argue that the term "resurrection" is ambiguous or has multiple meanings.)

The words describing the pagan gods/heroes do not say these rose bodily back to life and were seen alive again, by witnesses together. Rather, the actual ancient written accounts only express later visions of the earlier hero which are experienced subjectively and individually by this or that devotee expressing worship toward the ancient hero, rather than reporting the bodily reappearance of the earlier historical figure, such as Jesus the historical person is reported as seen alive again by several witnesses, seeing him together in a group rather than separately and individually in someone's vision here, another one's vision there.

So something uniquely different must have happened in the case of Jesus, as the only case of someone of no fame or status or recognition at the time described as performing miracle acts in written accounts of the time, rather than mythologized into a legend over several generations and centuries like all the other miracle gods and heroes and prophets.


Wall of Text concluded

_________________________________________________________​

Sir, here's another Wall of Text: Semantics Quibble over the Meaning of "Unique."

Shall I order that one for you also?

Sir? Sir?

I guess he fell asl . . .

 

[steve_bank]

Taoism predates JC by centuries and is filled with the supernatural. They beived in a kid of imartality and searched for it.

"Those who speak do not know, those who know do not speak", Lao Tzu The Tao Te Ching. Read it in the 70s.

Indian traditions have supernatural. Reincarnation. Buddhism with its suernatural lements predates Jesus by two or three centuries and had no connection to Judaism.

Jesus as the sacrificial lamb was predated in Jewish scripture.

Sorry brother Lumpy, Jesus was not unique. And as I said the gospel Jesus is more in line with a Greek demigod. Greek mythology is obviously filled with gods, spirits, and supernatural happenings.

Jason ad the Argonauts, a mythical supernatural Greek adventure. By the time the gospels were writen Greek ad Roman action/fiction/suernatural adventure fiction was well developed.

Not much different than fantasy advnture movies and books today.

Nobody knows when an HJ may have lived exactly in relation to when the gospels were written. The gosels were most likely an evolution of oral stories that were circulating, as all ancient fiction adventres evolved.

That the Jesus story became dominate is social and political prcoess we see today. My facorite is the Trump myth as an astue busnessman, even whn it is well knowm his busness ventres were genrally failures.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Facts/History vs. Poetry/Religion
We can figure out what probably happened.

So, miracles... and the recounting of them... differently... and different miracles, some mentioned in some gospels, some not in others.

That's what we should expect, for the same events, the same miracle-worker historical figure, being reported by different sources over many years later, not knowing each other, each having his own separate sources for what happened. They overlap on some of the events, but also each has separate examples not known to the others. Basically the same as with regular historical events.

And where they contradict each other on some detail, there's error in the accounts, as none had all of it accurately, and they had to do guesswork, and interpretation for what must have happened. The same as with much of normal history, where there are discrepancies between differing accounts, but we can assume the events generally did happen.

A good rule is: Where they agree on what happened, the accounts are credible and it probably did happen; but where they conflict with each other, it's less believable, or at least one account is in error.

Think raising Lazarus would have been a bigger deal.

This happened near Jerusalem, outside but near by. The Synoptic Gospels say little of miracle acts of Jesus outside Galilee, so the Lazarus case might not have been in their sources. None of these accounts ever claims to be comprehensive and inclusive of everything that happened. There were probably many other miracle healing acts which they all exclude, not being in the sources they relied on.

Ultimately, the recounting of his death and disappearance isn't even consistent!

Not on every detail, which is hardly ever the case for reports of normal historical events from different sources. It's a rare exception for multiple sources to all be consistent. Even within one source there are often discrepancies. Josephus contradicts even himself several times.

But all the sources agree on the main points. All 4 Gospels and the Apostle Paul agree that he was crucified and buried and raised again alive. All but Mark say he was seen alive again by many witnesses, and Mark says they were to find him again later alive, but then ends his account with nothing further. So the recounting of it is consistent on the main points, and the only inconsistency is in some minor details.

It's true that Bart Ehrman makes much fanfare over the contradiction between Mark and John on the exact date when it happened, disagreeing by one day. But this is just quibbling over a minor detail. It doesn't matter whether it was on Saturday or Sunday, whether 9 A.M. or 3 P.M. etc.

Putting all the weight on the four gospels... well, the four that would be decided to be the Gospels.

It's putting the weight on all the written sources (actually five) which tell of the event. There is no other 1st-century account of it (which survived) than Paul and the 4 Gospels. If there were others, they too would get equal weight. All we can choose is the written accounts near the time which report on the event. What else can anyone choose? How else do we decide what happened except to believe all the known written accounts which tell us what happened?

These were all written before there was any "New Testament" or "the Bible" or "the 4 Gospels" etc.

Something unique must have happened 2000 years ago.

Something unique happens every day.

It's a big planet.

Everything happens just once, but once a million times.

Is this that semantics quibble again, that "unique" doesn't mean anything? And therefore there should be no such word as "unique"?

Why do you need a theory which requires a normal word we use to be expelled from the language because it should not exist? or should be blotted out from the dictionary?

This is not about poetry and word games, anymore than other facts of history, or supposed facts, are about poetry and word games. We can look back, considering the evidence, and determine what happened. (Did you ever take a history class, or read a history book? Was it just semantics and poetry, or about something that happens "a million times"?) Facts do exist, and historical events did happen. If you can't deal with facts and past events or reported events, then you can't appreciate a topic about something "historical" and maybe the poetry page is where you belong.

 

[steve_bank]

Lumpy,

What are you arguing? That the supernatural stories are true?

There are no contemporaneous accounts of any of it, all there is the gospels which Chritrans see as journalist reporting which did not exist ten.

The Romans were good admistrors and good record keepers. There is nothing in Roman records of any of it.

What we do know is the general geopolitics and Jerusalem culture of the day. Jewish nationalism was high. There were militant Jewish resistance to Rome. There were multiple Jews claiming to be the Messiah.

To me the gospels are a conflation of multiple people and events embellished with fiction, which is what historians and writers of the day did. There was no communication system, writers filled in the blanks and embellished.

It happens today in main stream media. Media routinely takes hear say and spins it mto what may have happmed or who did what we hen. In the extreme 'fake news' which large numbers take as truth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Word Games vs. Truth-Seeking

There is "unique" and there is "unique"

Then it seems, posters have unwittingly been in agreement with Lumpen after all...

..Jesus being unique from everyone else, even when they have their own individual uniquenesses.

Sure, but it doesn't set Jesus apart; Uniqueness is banal, as everyone is unique.

Now if Jesus were not unique, then that would be remarkable.

You actually are proving the point that Jesus must have done the miracle acts/Resurrection, when your only way to deny this is to run off into playing word games and semantics quibbles over a certain word which you're demanding must be expelled from the language.

The "unique" has a meaning here, showing that you're wrong to demand that this word be expelled from the language. If clarification of it is necessary, refer to post

June 5, #1,174 -- "Uniqueness of Jesus, 1st-century Miracle-Worker"

This "uniqueness" has a normal meaning here, referring to the disconnectedness of Jesus to the earlier culture, which shows no precedent to explain how he appears abruptly in the 1st century AD, after a period in which there are no comparable examples of miracle-workers.

Even the opening of Mark (1:1), quoting earlier predictions of the One who is to come, quotes no mention of any miracle-worker:

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight--"

So a "Messiah" or "messenger" etc. is to come, but no miracle-worker being promised by the earlier prophets -- this miracle-worker idea is not to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the earlier culture. The Jesus person Mark and the Gospel writers present to us differs substantially from anything we see earlier, in the period Mark quotes from, of Isaiah etc., the Captivity period, in the centuries leading up to Jesus in the 1st century.

So he is alone, separated from the earlier beliefs and traditions which might have provided the context for such a miracle-worker to appear, but which contain nothing to pave the way for him to appear in history. This is a clear case of dissimilarity which separates Jesus from the earlier culture, traditions, etc., including the Greek/Roman culture which also produced no new miracle-workers in all those centuries, thus making Jesus "unique" and even out-of-place in that culture where he appears, in the 1st century.

So we should be done with the "unique" semantics quibbling and deal with the historical facts -- the topic "The Historical Jesus" -- about what happened in history, i.e., what probably happened, rather than the word games.

 

[steve_bank]

Lumpy wants the truth, but he can't handle the truth.

 

[lpetrich]

The Romans were good admistrors and good record keepers. There is nothing in Roman records of any of it.

Are there any surviving archives? I don't know of any.

What survives are the works of various historians, and none of Jesus Christ's contemporaries mentioned him, even when they might have done so.

Philo of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus: "Philo the Judean/Jew"): ~ 20 BCE - ~ 50 CE

He was interested in eccentric Jewish sects, and he would have been willing to write about JC if he had known about JC.

Flavius Josephus (Latiniized "Joseph"): ~ 37 CE -- ~100 CE

He wrote some books on Biblical and then-recent Jewish history, and he does not seem to have known about JC. The main evidence cited for his knowing about JC is the "Testimonium Flavianum" - something that seems very out of character for him, and something that some people have proposed to be some scribe's note that got misinterpreted as part of the text.

He mentions some self-styled prophets like Theudas and "the Egyptian", and he mentioned a riot in the Jerusalem Temple that was provoked by a Roman soldier exposing himself there.

He described King Herod I "The Great", the Herod of the New Testament, and outside the NT, that monarch was described as ordering the murder of three of his sons. The Gospel of Matthew describes Herod as ordering the murder of the baby boys of Bethlehem when he learned that a future King of the Jews will be among them. But only that document describes that atrocity, and no source outside the NT does so, despite it being fully in character for King Herod.

Both Philo and Josephus also describe Pontius Pilate, a Roman provincial governor, as being a rather ruthless administrator, even by Roman standards. That is very contrary to what we find in the Gospels, of PP being reluctant to condemn JC, and him sort of being pushed into doing so by the Jewish leadership. That seems out of character for a Roman provincial governor, and certainly him, because he would not want some self-styled king to challenge Rome's rule.