Historical Jesus

[lpetrich]

Pliny the Elder 23/24 CE - 79 CE was a military commander and researcher of just about everything who wrote a lot. But of his works, only his "Natural History" survives, and he makes absolutely zero mention of any of the miracles of Jesus Christ's crucifixion, like the sky becoming dark.

His nephew Pliny the Younger 61 CE - ~113 CE ran into some early Christians and he asked what to do about these deniers of the official gods of the Roman Empire.

Lucian of Samosata ~125 CE - >180 CE was another writer. He wrote "The Passing of Peregrinus" in which he slammed early Christians as almost hopelessly gullible. He also wrote on a self-styled prophet, Alexander of Abonutichus, and describes him as a fraud. AoA would demand the expulsion of both Epicureans and Xians from his gatherings, because the Epicureans were skeptical about self-styled prophets, and because the early Xians denied all gods but theirs.

Returning to the Gospels, gMatthew describes Jesus Christ as triumphantly entering Jerusalem as if he was some big celebrity. But Josephus doesn't mention that triumphant entry. gMatthew continues with the people turning against him and wanting him crucified. But they said "His blood is on us and on our children!" which is very out-of-character for lynch mobs.

 

[steve_bank]

The person I like to bring up is the Greek historian Herodotus. In his day he was known for turning stories he heard into first hand accounts as if he was a witness. In a country he never traveld to.

Not fraud as we would think of today, the way things were. Historians filled in the balnks often in support of a particular narrative.

Roman historians wrote in support of the reigning powers.

Even today you may have to read several histories by different authors to get a clear picture. Historians have always written from a viewpoint. If it were just about facts there would be little to write about.

The Arthurian legends started when a monk wrote a book History Of Britain in which he turned folk stories into King Arthur.

Likewise I believe that is how the Jesus legend evolved. Christianity today started with the long RCC history of evolving theolog all inventions not based in the bible.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Jesus as unique ignores the history of mythology.

All I can do is continue giving you specific facts in response to your non-facts.

It is a fact of history that there were no other reported miracle-workers at any time during this period. You cannot name any other reported miracle-workers, from 500 BC to about 100 AD.

Jesus pops into this period, in 30 AD, reportedly doing several miracle acts, mostly healing miracles. And there are no others whatsoever reported in any literature, Jewish or pagan. For at least 600 years there are no miracle-workers reported doing such things.

How is that not unique? There is this one case only -- and no others. What can "unique" mean if not that there's one only over a 600-year period?

No others reported in any written accounts. We have 4 (5) accounts in 1st-century sources reporting that Jesus did these acts -- at least 30 altogether, and there are no other similar cases. There are hundreds if not thousands of written accounts which should have reported something, if there was anything else like this to report, of someone believed to have performed new miracle acts. But there's none.

Nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nothing in all the intertestamental literature, the various apocryphal writings, the apocalyptic writings, etc. etc. Huge volume of literature far greater than the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments. Plus there's the Greek and Latin literature also which present no miracle-workers during this period.


Who are those other Jewish or pagan miracle-workers?

Now we could look at the 1 or 2 or 3 possible exceptions, examples you might find in a search for miracle stories of this period. Maybe Daniel in the Lion's Den could be called a "miracle act" by Daniel, though if we take it literally it's about a much earlier prophet of the 6th century BC. So, that's a dubious possible exception.

You could cite Honi the Circle-Drawer as a possible miracle-worker. But his only reputed talent was an ability to bring rain by praying, and there's no evidence for this miracle legend until Josephus at the earliest, which was 150+ years later than Honi lived, if he was real.

Even if we include a couple examples from Josephus, which are extremely dubious cases, these are written by Josephus at about 80-90 AD, which is rather late, AFTER the Jesus reported miracles. There is NOTHING in any literature to about 50 AD (no reported miracle-workers), and then possibly 2 or 3 reported cases might start to pop up at the end of the 1st century AD. So about 100 AD is a convenient dividing point (or 50 if you prefer), before which there are no reported miracle-workers anywhere (other than the single Jesus case). But after 100 AD the miracle-workers and miracle stories begin to flood into the literature.

So how is Jesus not unique? being the ONLY reported miracle-worker to be found in any literature over several centuries, from roughly 500 BC to 50 AD (or 100 AD)? How can you say this is not unique? if he's the ONLY one? Doesn't "unique" mean to be the only one? How does the "history of mythology" contradict this fact? You can't name any miracle-worker myth during any of this period -- other than this one only. Why isn't that UNIQUE?

Again, you might try to dig up something -- there was a slave-revolt leader named Eunus said to have an ability to blow fire from his mouth, in about 130 BC. Is that your example? How far deep in the barrel do you have to go to scrape up a goofy miracle-worker example to offer? (The historian-source for Eunus speculated that this character had devised some trick using chemicals to produce fire, and had practiced with it, being a very clever trickster.)

Anyway, since you're on a crusade to prove that Jesus was not unique but had many pagan miracle heroes competing with him, and you need "mythology history" evidence for this, i.e., other cases of reported miracle-workers, you have this Eunus the Fire-Blower, but then also, along with it there's another possible miracle-worker you could offer, King Pyrrhus and his Magic Toe -- although there's no source for this until Plutarch about 400 years after this miracle-worker did his Magic Toe miracles. But with so few facts to go on, you need whatever you can get, in your desperation to find something to make your case. So you have at least these two cases for your crusade to prove your "mythology history" slogan that there were several pagan miracle-workers in the period.

And since this isn't much "mythology history" evidence for you, how about taking along a little song for encouragement -- I came across this cute little tune which might give you strength to keep going as you present Eunus the Fire-Blower and King Pyrrhus and his Magic Toe as your "mythology history" evidence. Here's the YouTube recording of the cute song:



or also



It's called "Rots-o-Ruck" -- good theme to accompany your "mythology history" crusade to prove there were other reported miracle-workers -- you need something to boost your morale in this effort. And seriously it's a delightful funny tune to encourage anyone who's on a crusade to promote a lost cause and will likely fall flat on their face if they're asked for some facts -- the bounciness in it might give you something special to keep you going when someone wants some "mythology history" facts from you to make your case. Maybe the cute tune will help you to fake it somehow, to save face.

It's really ludicrous what you run into trying to find those other miracle-workers preceding Jesus. It's even possible God put 2 or 3 goofy ones there on purpose just to poke fun at today's scholars and debunkers who claim there was a culture of miracle-workers in the Jewish and pagan world leading up to Jesus in the 1st century.

A lineage to a god and doing superhuman feats and supernatural events were common in ancient mythology.

Yes, ancient pagan legends from many centuries earlier, based on oral tradition and folklore only, going back even thousands of years, but no reported miracle-workers in the age leading to the 1st century, no written sources reporting such a thing. Not in the period of Jesus in 30 AD. You cannot find a case, other than the Magic Toe and Eunus blowing fire from his mouth.

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

You're starting from the premise that no miracle acts could ever really happen, and so you're explaining the motivation of those who made up such stories while demanding that everyone must accept your dogmatic premise that all such stories have to be made up, and it's not permitted to question this dogmatic premise.

That explains nothing about actual reported miracle-workers, of which there are none, for hundreds of years, and then Jesus pops up suddenly in written 1st-century accounts, reportedly doing these acts on page after page. How is that not unique? And how does your "mythology history" dogma "explain reality" or "Gods interfering with human events" only beginning in 30 AD and later, but not before? Why was there suddenly a motive to make up such stories to "explain reality," out of nowhere, beginning some time from 30 AD, and yet there was no such motive prior to that point in time? Why didn't the earlier writers, before Jesus, also want to "explain reality" just as much as those who later gave us the Gospel accounts? How does your "mythology history" theory explain this?

My conclusion from reading and forum debate that the gospel Jesus with the supernatural events was pure Greek mythology.

Who is your example from Greek mythology of a human in history doing miracle acts and reported in some written source near the time it happened? Why is your version of "Greek mythology" nonexistent before 30 AD when Jesus suddenly appears?

Jesus is a Greek demigod.

The only one? Who is another? reported during the time it happened (not 1000+ years later)? If Jesus is the only such "demigod" you can name, doesn't that make him unique? Why is Jesus the ONLY "Greek demigod" you know of? Why won't you name another such "demigod"? What source is there? When is the source dated? When is the demigod dated? You never ask such questions? Have you ever asked when Hercules lived? or when we first have any written record of him? or any other Greek hero? Why do you draw conclusions about something you never ask such questions about?

The gospel Jesus would have been blasphemous to Jews.

To some Jews he was, yes, but not all. There were many different reactions to him. The negative reaction was very strong or aggressive, but this was probably a small minority of Jews, while most were not sure how to react to him.

To Greeks and Romans targets of proselytizing the gospel Jesus would have been obvious.

No, they had trouble believing the Resurrection. Greeks and Romans both scoffed at such claims, from anyone claiming to do miracles or knowing of someone doing them. But there were enough witnesses, direct and indirect, that some believed when Paul told them of the Resurrection. The general response to any such claims was to reject them as superstition.

Jesus with a human mother and god father. He has some but not all of the power of the god father.

There were no humans during this time about whom the Greeks and Romans believed such things. Except types like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc. Powerful famous warriors who conquered thousands in battle and subdued millions under their political power. Such power-wielding demagogues did gain reverence from their subjects, and some miracle myths created for them, descent from the gods, etc. That's true, but only cases of famous powerful celebrity figures, never anyone of common or low status. Anyone of low status credited with anything miraculous would be unique. Because there were no such cases.

Dies in an heroic 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.

All the miracle myths of him are a result of folklore which evolved over many centuries -- no written record or sources for him anytime near to when he actually lived, if he lived. The real historical Hercules himself, if he's historical, was probably a strong man who did some amazing deeds, but still normal for a physically strong human.

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 Medusa.)

You're giving no example of a miracle-worker human in history described in any source near the time he lived. Just that there were ancient legends passed on in folklore over many centuries has nothing to do with the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker described in writings of the period when he lived. Those who wrote of the 1st-century Jesus were themselves 1st-century writers describing a person in history they had information about, not an ancient legend handed down in oral tradition over many centuries.

 

[steve_bank]

Lumpy,

Based in scant information in the gospels written by unknown authors you are interpreting and raionalizng what you think happend and expressing it as if you were actually a witness.

That is what Christians do. Interpretations evolve to fit chm aging times.

Note that what became the Christian bible vs the Jewish scripture was mostly determined by religious politics and interests. Coeting ideas and wrings were suppressed from the strt in favor of the new orthody. The belief in the divinity of Jesus was not universal.

The Nicene Creed was in effect a political loyalty oath to the new Christian orthodoxy, which became the RCC. I learned it by heart in RCC schools.

So, Christins today do not realize what they see as Chriianity was crafed in the 2nd 3rd centuries with no connection to what Jesus may have been.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Ruh rho, those pesky historical facts are unsettling ain't they. In a while crocodile.

 

[TomC]

You're giving no example of a miracle-worker human in history described in any source near the time he lived. Just that there were ancient legends passed on in folklore over many centuries

It occurs to me why you and I are talking past each other. You are comparing unbelievable stories from the New Testament to other unbelievable stories from old literature. I'm comparing them to objective reality. All of them.

In reality, Gods don't make babies with human women, water doesn't turn into wine, and fully dead corpses don't come back to life. Ever. But people have told stories about such things for all of human history. It's called fiction.

has nothing to do with the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker described in writings of the period when he lived.

Most figures of legends were fairly to extremely famous at the time. Kings and warriors and people like that. Jesus, by contrast, lived and died causing less than a ripple in the stormy world of 1st century Judea. Other people could make up almost anything, add it to the Legend, and nobody important would notice. Especially, when that happens far from Judea. Out in the Greco-Roman world, the Legend developed along the lines of a Greek epic hero. Because people like Paul had transplanted it there, and then any more realistic versions of the Jesus story got trashed by the Romans(along with virtually everything else in Judea.

A few centuries later, the Roman elite hammered out The Creed. After that, anything that didn't match it was marginalized into oblivion.
So now we've got what we've got.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

All I can do is continue giving you specific facts in response to your non-facts.

An example of Christian 'evidence based' reasoning, the gospel stories are facts.

That the specific details of the supernatural , like walking on water, may have never been claimed before does not make the gospels true.

I grew up believing there was factual evidence for the King Arthur stories, hat there was an historical;Arthur. People still belive it true even though there is no historcal or archeological evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Jesus was unique? Doesn't he share a good number of similarities to Siddhartha Gautama . . .

So does Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King etc. share similarities to him. There are both similarities and dissimilarities.

The dissimilarity is: for Jesus we have written accounts, from the period, which all agree that he did the miracle acts and rose back to life after being killed. We do not have that for ANY other ancient history character. And also, in the case of Jesus no one can explain what was important about him historically if he did not do the miracle acts.

Those are 2 very unusual facts which distinguish Jesus from all the others.

We can explain the importance of Gautama and others, all of them, based on what we know of their lives, even though in some cases there is difficulty in establishing the facts. But we can establish some facts about all of them, and in every case we can explain why they became mythologized into something important, into a "god" or divine figure of some kind, or hero performing wondrous acts. But in the singular case of Jesus we cannot explain why he became mythologized into something important (unless it's that he did the miracle acts, which can explain it).

Don't kick around the "unique" word if you refuse to consider the facts pointed out which make Jesus different than all the others. It has been repeated again and again that in his case alone we have normal historical evidence -- multiple written accounts dating from the period -- which report that he did these unusual acts, whereas for all the others there are not such written accounts (saying they did such acts) dated near the time that they lived.

So even though he is similar to the Buddha and others -- they all had 2 arms and 2 legs, e.g. -- he is distinct from all of them in this important respect, that we have a written record from the time near his life which gives testimony to the miracle acts he did. And for all others throughout all the ancient history written record there is no other historical figure for whom we have such testimony to any of them having such power or performing such acts.

Even if you don't believe any such "miracles" are possible, still it's true that in this one case we have regular evidence, a written record such as we have for other history events, which report that he did perform such acts.

. . . similarities to Siddhartha Gautama (another legend who likely didn't exist), but . . .

No, he likely did exist, according to virtually all experts, all historians, scholars on the subject. Of course there are a few nutcases who deny that he and others existed. But there is plenty of evidence of their existence, regardless that there is also much legend-building which occurred later. You can say Alexander the Great never really existed, because there are also legends. But those do not cancel out all the real evidence, for any of them, that there was a real person originally who attracted attention and became an object for later mythologizing.

. . . but who, unlike Jesus was credited with a moral plan that was worth more than a damn?

Millions of humans have had a "moral plan," many of them probably superior to the famous ones which have been published.

In the case of Jesus, it's not true that there is no "moral plan" credited to him, but in his case there are so many different "plans" attributed to him, contradicting each other, that it's impossible to identify exactly which one was really his and which ones were really from others who put their words into his mouth.

And, yes, one possibility is that he really did not propound any "moral plan" at all, like the others all did. OK, maybe that's a flaw in him, or --

maybe it's to his credit that he did not burden the world with yet another "moral plan" which would go down in flames like all the rest -- Did you consider that possibility?

Who really needs all these hot-air holier-than-thou huffing-and-puffing "Moral Plans" anyway?

If we believe the evidence, the facts, he spent much of his time healing people from all kinds of physical afflictions. Maybe he chose to dedicate himself to that rather than preach long-winded "moral plans" to masses of people who would only fall asleep anyway (like the kid Eutychus was put to sleep by Paul preaching "on and on" and fell from a 3rd-story window (Acts 20:7-12)).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is it that happened 2000 years ago?
Didn't a noteworthy change take place? What caused it?

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 written accounts give the answer: He did the miracle acts and rose back to life after he was killed, and this was observed by many witnesses. This explains why they created religious cults to preach the "gospel" and try to convert people. And without this as the origin, there's no explanation why he became considered as important and was made into a god or savior or messiah etc., and why people wrote "Gospel" accounts and "epistles" telling of him and quoting from him or attributing teachings to him.

The Gospels don't really have plausible answers to those questions. And . . .

translation: The evidence, in the written accounts, has to be rejected because they contradict our dogmatic bias that miracle events can't ever happen even if the evidence says they did.

And they leave some big topics left undiscussed, much less answered. So big, I find it plausible that they're really fictional inventions to . . .

No, if they were fictional they'd be LESS likely to leave something undiscussed. Fictional accounts are more careful to fill in the gaps with something to make it more convincing. If you're making up stories, you have the luxury to "make up shit" to answer the questions. But if you're reporting the facts as best you can, you're likely to leave gaps or unanswered questions, because your knowledge of what happened is incomplete.

. . . they're really fictional inventions to provide a back story to the Legend of Christ.

What "Legend of Christ"? If the Gospel writings are "fictional inventions" for some purpose, doesn't that make them the source of the "Legend of Christ"? If the Gospels invented the "legend" in the first place, then became fictional inventions to provide a back story for the "legend" -- then they're going around in circles, first inventing a legend, then becoming a further legend to provide a back story to the legend they just invented, etc., so each new legend is invented to provide a back story to the earlier legend they invented. But why did they invent the very first legend way back there in the first place? You're explaining what each subsequent new legend was invented for, but you're ignoring why the very first legend was created.

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.

What does "the story" refer to? Wouldn't that be his miracle power demonstrated ultimately and especially in the Resurrection or final climax? All indications are that this was noticed at the time, i.e., about 30 (or 33) AD. The Apostle Paul was contemporary to this time and reports (about 20 years later) that the Resurrection did happen, including the appearances, and he names several of the witnesses. He became acquainted with some of these later, maybe a few years, but attests that these ones had witnessed Jesus after the Resurrection.

Also it's acknowledged by many scholars, e.g., Bart Ehrman, that the original disciples really did believe the Resurrection happened; and, though there were doubters, even that some were doubting it indicates that the event or claim about it was noticed at the time, and so it's false that nobody noticed it. Paul even says there were 500 who witnessed the risen Jesus, which indicates that there was much notice (even if that 500 number is an exaggeration by Paul).

Of course we can't calculate how many knew of it, so maybe the number was small, but all the accounts we have say it was a significant number, and there was surprise from those witnessing it. And these 5 accounts are a large number of sources, not small, for almost any particular historical event of ancient times. There are very few ancient history events for which we have 5 accounts saying the event happened. Even for a religious or superstitious kind of event people want to believe, happening at a particular time, there is probably not a single other case of one that is reported in 5 written accounts or sources near the time it happened. Probably not even 3 (or 2?).


True, the Resurrection of Jesus was not broadcast on the Nightly News

So it doesn't make sense to say this went virtually unnoticed, if you're comparing it to any other events of any kind in those times. Of course there was no Christianity or Christendom which inaugurated annual celebrations like Easter or Christmas at this time, in 33 AD, no Papal Decrees instituting new Holidays or Festivals for the millions of faithful to celebrate and attend Mass or make pilgrimages to some Holy Place, or to re-enact Passion Plays, to celebrate the grand historical event having just happened ---- of course this Resurrection event was nothing so well-known at the time such that great Celebrations broke out everywhere and grand fireworks displays were produced and Church Bells all across Europe were set clanging and Handel's Messiah was performed by Church Choirs or University Music Departments, etc. etc. You can't insist that the absence of such festivals or commemorations is evidence that nothing happened and no one noticed.

The evidence is that there was notice, by many, probably not thousands, but likely hundreds, or maybe only dozens, and they were not all unified in one massive body of celebration, but were in a state of confusion, and anxiety, definitely some hope, but also fear of the Authorities, both Jewish and Roman, and asking questions, seeking an explanation, trying to decide how to act now in response to what had happened.

They were not all in agreement about it, but divided, and soon they separated into many different camps, or cults, each deciding for itself what the proper response should be, and there was much conflict between the different groups, some accusing others of not being true to the risen Christ, who must somehow be in charge, somewhere. And also there was squabbling over who should lead the new community of believers, which quickly divided into communities plural.

This was not an environment for sending out "the Gospel" to the world in a united efficient program to get out the word of something special having happened, of something earth-shaking for everyone to pay attention to, to stop what they're doing and take notice. No, this disunity left many hearers perplexed, and probably suspicious at some of these new cults or factions coming up with goofy interpretations of the Jesus miracle-worker, shaping him into their visions of The Truth, as they each explained it, spiritualizing and mysticizing it their way.

So there was not likely an immediate wide response and recognition of the Resurrection claim, among new hearers of the Gospel, and nothing to shake the status quo or stir up any new excitement or New Awakening of any kind. Rather, it required decades for the new belief to spread, the facts of the miracle power Jesus had demonstrated.

All the evidence is that he did perform those acts, demonstrating the miracle power, and there's nothing in the facts, or evidence, to indicate that the miracle acts did not happen. There's only one reason to disbelieve it, which is that such a thing is not supposed to happen, in our ideology that miracle acts or miracle events are not supposed to happen, and so therefore we must assume a priori that they did not happen. That's the only evidence against the miracle acts of Jesus.

 

[bilby]

What is it that happened 2000 years ago?
Didn't a noteworthy change take place?

No, not really.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, it's not Israel vs. Rome
This does not explain who Jesus the Miracle-Worker was.

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.

Whoops! You blew it. You're ignoring that the "Legend of Christ" originated long before the 4th century -- it's from the 1st century, in the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel accounts. How could these writers have created this Legend as something to be deemed useful to the Greco-Roman elite in the 4th century, 300 years later?

Did you mean they created this "legend" as something useful for Nero and the Flavian Dynasty? in the 1st century? That's one theory. If it was the Roman Elite who wanted the Jesus "legend" to be produced, for some use it served, this could not have been the 4th century but rather the 1st-century Roman elite, beginning with Nero and then the Flavians following him. This is one plausible theory, though virtually all the scholars reject it. This theory has it that Paul was in contact either with Nero directly, or with Nero's agents. This is generally put into the Nutcase category by the mainline scholars. It's probably just as silly as the belief that Paul and the philosopher Seneca exchanged letters and that Seneca praised Paul for being so smart.

Does anyone want to argue that Paul and Nero (and maybe even Mark) carried on a secret Conspiracy to invent the Jesus miracle-worker, to serve as a tool useful to win some Jews over to being more sympathetic to Rome? and away from the militant anti-Romans? According to this theory, it's Nero (or at least his agents) who invented the "turn the other cheek" saying of Jesus, and also the "render unto Caesar . . ." etc. -- to give Jews a leader who'd be more pro-Roman. And maybe even Josephus was a member of this Conspiracy, or joined it in an effort to bring Jews more toward the pro-Roman viewpoint.

All the rest were marginalized into oblivion centuries ago. The ones that didn't die quietly were stamped out.

All the who? the various "heresies"? Those marginalized or stamped out were actually Christians or Christ-believers (non-Orthodox), such as the Arians, who also believed in Jesus the miracle-worker. What made them objects of suppression was not that they conflicted with the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker, but that they rejected the Orthodox doctrines or interpretations of Jesus. Many were "adoptionists" who believed Jesus became the Son of God at the time of being baptized, rather than being the Son of God already before birth, from all Eternity. These are the types who were "stamped out" by the later Nicene or Orthodox Christians -- who did not persecute "pagans" or other non-Christians, but Christ-believers whose belief was different than that agreed to at Nicaea.

And even if it were true that some non-Christian "version" of Jesus got eliminated by some 4th-century "Greco-Roman elite," this has nothing to do with where the "Legend of Christ" comes from and so fails to answer the question why Jesus is the only documented miracle-worker. Our "Legend of Christ" originates from the 1st century and not from the Catholic Church power of centuries later. Nothing the Empire or the Church did centuries later had any influence on what the Gospel writers and Apostle Paul wrote in the 1st century, which is our evidence for the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker.

This 1st-century "Legend of Christ" we have from the 1st-century writings is what the later Church used to formulate its Christian creed, so that this evidence, or these early Christian writings, are what caused the later Church beliefs -- not the reverse, i.e., not the later Church producing the "Legend of Christ" -- no, this "Legend" was earlier, i.e., from the 1st-century written accounts. This Jesus "legend" came before there was any "Church" having power to hold Councils and suppress heretics; and then later the Councils were convened by Emperors to establish Church Doctrine and suppress heresy.

Ironically, I believe Jesus died trying to save The Chosen People from pagan, Greco-Roman, power.

That's delusion.

That would put Jesus into a minority faction of Jews of the time. This minority militant anti-Roman faction possibly was the most aggressive faction, maybe as large as any other faction, but still a tiny minority. And there were at least two further significant factions, i.e., the pro-Greco-Roman Jews sympathetic to the foreign domination, and also the neutral Jews who were apathetic, not caring who held power, or hostile to both the pro-foreign faction as well as to the militant anti-Romans and anti-Hellenists. And all these combined were still a small minority of the total Jewish population.

So, why must we assume Jesus had to be another deluded member of any such group, on a Holy Crusade to save "The Chosen People" from the Greek-Roman Menace trying to enslave or exterminate them?

Probably the strongest most aggressive (not most numerous) were the anti-Roman and anti-Hellenist xenophobes, virtual bigots hating anything foreign and wishing to impose some strict Mosaic Law Fundamentalism onto Israel, preaching hate against any foreign influence. These particular Jews are the ones mainly who wrote the Hebrew Scriptures, having a strong pro-Jerusalem and anti-Samaritan bias, and making strong claims of descent from David and adherence to the Zadokite Priesthood, and rejecting the Hasmoneans who arrogantly departed from the ancient dynastic orders ordained from Above by Yahweh the All-Highest.

These aggressive exclusivist Jerusalem-based Jews exerted most of the nationalist influences toward the Temple Establishment and the centralizing and unifying force against the alien Canaanites and other tribes of the region. It's easy to imagine falsely that these were "the Jews" generally, i.e., a majority of them, because of their extreme influence and condemnation of anything outside their circle of power.

This Jerusalem-centered power base, which resided mostly in Babylon during the Captivity and wrote/compiled most of the Hebrew Scripture, showed the aggressive and hateful part of their mindset in the famous Psalm lamenting their separation from their Jewish Homeland. Psalm 137:

1 By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows there we hung up our lyres.
3 For there our captors . . . [etc.]

And the Psalm concludes

8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us!
9 Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

("little ones" = infants)

Needless to say this last verse, being politically incorrect, is usually omitted when this Psalm is recited. The point is that there was a faction here, a very anti-foreign faction, filled with xenophobic nationalistic hate against any sentiment not pro-Jerusalem-Temple, prepared to kill those not conforming to its demands for absolute loyalty to its exclusivist Yahweh-worship discipline.

And even this faction, a small percent of the Jewish population, was joined by still another adamant faction, not identical but similar, which were the Qumran Community, or "Essenes," and then by still another (somewhat later) directly militant group, the red-blooded Zealots, who hated anything foreign and would declare war on anyone, including other Jews, who didn't fall in line with their nationalistic program. These anti-foreign factions were not clearly separate groups from each other, but overlapped, possibly sharing some individual members in common.

It's not possible to precisely divide these and other factions into clear recognizable groups easily distinguished from each other. But we can see the differing factions generally, in broad outline, and note that the majority of the population did not identify with any faction officially, though some maybe sympathized partly with this or that faction. Certainly the vast majority were not members of any sect or faction and didn't participate in any directly. Even when the Romans invaded and there was war, the vast majority of Jews did not participate or support or cheer on either side. And, though the anti-Roman sentiment maybe had a plurality, there were many Essenes who cheered on the Roman invaders, and most of the Jews killed in the massacre were actually killed by other Jews allied to the Romans under General Pompey.

So the idea that this was all about
Israel vs. Rome is a distortion of the real picture. There were actually Jews on both sides.

The point of noting these different factions, including the pro-foreign (pro-Roman and pro-Hellenistic) factions, is that there is no reason to assume Jesus had to be part of the militant anti-Roman factions. These factions definitely were NOT a majority of the population, even if they were the largest single identifiable segment. They were much outnumbered by all the others -- other factions and non-factions and the apathetic and the neutral and those just wanting to be left alone or "stay out of politics" and so on.

This means we have no reason to arbitrarily assign Jesus to some kind of "freedom-fighter" category defending "Israel" against the Evil Empire Darth Vader Romans -- good guys vs. bad guys.

So, why must we assume Jesus was a militant aggressive member of the pro-nationalistic xenophobic factions in a grandiose Jews vs. Romans (or Jews vs. Hellenists) Holy War to save "God's Chosen People" from the evil "Greco-Roman" Pagan Menace? which was mostly delusional? To reduce it all down to "The Chosen People" vs. the "greco-Roman" power makes no sense in the 1st-century (BC or AD) context. The true picture was different and far more complicated.

It's true there were many apocalyptic militant preachers, fanatics, crusaders, acting aggressively, threatening anyone not in their camp, wanting to go to war with someone, maybe any scapegoat they could find, needing someone to hate, etc. ---- But still these were a small minority. Why must we assume Jesus had to be part of this potpourri of xenophobe hate-mongers and fire-breathing dogmatists?

There's plenty of indication that there were others, though not as aggressive and outspoken, who wanted to de-emphasize the dogmatic adherence to the Mosaic Law which demanded stoning to death anyone failing to observe the Sabbath and imposed the primitive animal-sacrifice superstitions inherited from prehistoric pagans. Must we believe that all 1st-century Jews were rigidly locked into such superstitions with no ability to ever ask questions or have doubts about it? Just because any questioning of it was suppressed doesn't mean everyone really believed it and thought they would be struck dead if they didn't perform all the rules exactly as prescribed. Surely most Jews today don't really believe God demanded these ritual animal carcass burnings so he could inhale the delightful "sweet savor" into his nostrils. (Or Nostrils, capital N in Yahweh's case.)

Since so many words were put into the mouth of Jesus, we can't be sure what he taught, what his program was, whether he was really the Mosaic-Law extremist that the Gospel of Matthew presents. If he was, then we have to ask --
What then was the "Good News"? with all the condemnation of everyone not being "perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect" and other impossible demands making it more difficult to enter Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? What's "good news" about that?

If Jesus was really this Mosaic-Law no-compromise extremist-dogmatist apocalypticist who divides everyone into the "sheep and the goats" with 99% of us going with the goats into the Eternal Hell fire, then where did they get the idea there's any
"Good News" to preach here? Instead of "Repent and believe the Gospel" Mark should have written "Lament and depart into the Hell Fire prepared for you and your Father the Devil!" After all, even THINKING about sinning is the same as doing the sin, meaning we're all TOAST anyway, so how can there be any "good news" with Matthew's Jesus?

What's much more reasonable, and probable, is that these words and many others were put into the mouth of Jesus, just as apocalyptic Jews had already been putting words into the mouths of others long before, like the mouths of Daniel and Enoch, and also just as they and later Christians continued to put words into Jesus' mouth, in the later Gnostic Gospels and many more Christian writings of later centuries.

And why did these writers use Jesus as their mouthpiece? Because he was recognized as a miracle-worker, with great power, and so they could have him preach their words and terrorize the listeners into obedience to whatever crusade they were caught up in. And then we must ask: Why was Jesus the only one they could use as this mouthpiece for their words? The only answer: Because he was the only recognized miracle-worker -- there were no others -- LONG BEFORE THERE WAS ANY CHURCH imposing anything. No one forced the listeners to believe Bible stories or miracles (There was no "the Bible" at this time.) The only explanation why they believed it is that it was a fact (shown by the evidence) that he did perform the miracle acts, and then the religionists made use of this, not to recruit believers, but to make Jesus their instrument, to be a mouthpiece for imposing their program. -- i.e., whether the program of the Apocalyptic Jews in the earlier period up to 50 or 60 AD -- or the program of the "Church" developing later and into the 2nd century.

That explains what happened.

But failed so completely that He wound up being used by them to . . .

But this doesn't explain how or why they were able to use him. How could the greco-Romans use Jesus but could not also use any of several other preachers and rabbis and hero-martyrs for the same purpose? Why couldn't they also use John the Baptizer the same way? or James the Just? or rabbis Hillel and Shammai? All these and many others were just as popular as Jesus. Or more popular, more recognized, and thus more appropriate to be used as a mouthpiece for implanting "the fear of God" into their audience, i.e., by putting their words into his mouth.

. . . used by them to further their own goals. Which . . .

But why could only Jesus alone be used by them to further their goals? Why not also John the Baptizer and the others? You so conveniently refuse to answer this question. You just assume that they used Jesus and no one else this way. Why? Why can't you ask what it was about only this one that he was "used by them" for this purpose, and yet no one else was also used by them for the same purpose.

And who's the "them" here? greco-Romans? No, not those 4th-century greco-Roman elitists, for reasons already stated above. The "them" has to be the 1st-century greco-Romans, i.e., first Nero and then the Flavians. And what "greco-Roman" goals are to be furthered? Greco-Romans were mostly tolerant toward Jewish practices, and did not envision making Jews into slaves, while the Hellenistic Jews were mostly sympathetic or at least accommodating toward the Greek culture, as well as to the Roman rule which was more permissive toward them than the previous Empires which dominated Israel. So there are some imaginary "greco-Roman goals" here being put in opposition to "the Chosen People" to create some delusional War between Good and Evil, which makes no sense, like a Grand Cosmic Star Wars or THE DARK SIDE vs. THE FORCE, or the SONS OF LIGHT vs. the SONS OF DARKNESS, etc. Where does such fantasy soap-opera fiction as this acquire a place in explaining real events happening in history 2000 years ago?

Are we talking about the real world here, or about comic-book heroes for the Kiddie Matinee show or Comicon Convention complete with costumes and Obi-Wan-Kenobi riding in on a White Horse to save the day?

Why do you find it necessary to concoct this grand Cosmic War going on between heroes and villains? It's not true that there was this Grand Conflict between Good and Evil going on 2000 years ago between the Darth Vader Romans vs. the Obi-Wan-Kenobi Israelites. This is Fantasy-World narrative and not the historical facts of this world.

. . . Which clearly did happen.

But you're unable to ask why it could happen only by using Jesus "to further their own goals" and not by using anyone else. And again the answer confirms the point that he must have uniquely shown this miracle power which no one else had.

To make Jesus into a Warrior Hero against the "pagan greco-Roman power" is to place him into the camp of the fire-breathing apocalyptic xenophobes condemning everyone to Hell, especially all the Pharisees and 99% of the later Christians who would be the "goats" and other accursed ones Matthew condemns as hypocrites for not being "perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

No, it's not necessary to believe Jesus had to be one of these apocalyptic nutcases preaching an end to the world when all Greco-Romans are to be wiped out and 99% of Christians are cast into Gehenna (for not being good enough) where the fire burns them forever and the worm never stops eating their guts out -- presumably their guts keep growing back again and again to be chewed on still more ad infinitum.

No, what "clearly did happen" is that those aggressive foaming-at-the-mouth nationalists seized upon the miracle-worker's reputation and put those words into his mouth, to promote their crusade. Just as they put words into the mouths of so many earlier prophets.

These apocalypticists were not a unified movement, but a motley gaggle of zealots each crusading against their targeted enemy, maybe foreign, or maybe the Jewish Establishment Sons of Darkness, or a neighboring idol-worshiping tribe, or false prophets or wicked priests performing their abominations at the wrong temple or the wrong altar or following the wrong calendar or not performing the exact Mosaic prescription on how to cut the animal carcasses or cleanse the utensils or splash the blood correctly, or sever the fatty membranes close enough to the spine, etc. The nonsense these fanatics would go to war over makes a comedy even the ancients must have laughed at. And, though there are indications here and there of some resistance to the dogmatist preachers, yet the aggressive dogmatic ones dominated throughout the writings and in the places of worship and the practices. And their voices are virtually exclusive in the scriptures or scrolls, etc. where their rage against whoever they hate always prevails, like the rage of the Psalmist wanting the infants of the Babylonians to be smashed against the rock.

So then, why must we assume Jesus was one of these dogmatic xenophobe fanatics? It's true that some apocalyptic sermons condemning the "Sons of Darkness" and other evils come from his mouth -- but who put those words there? Why should we believe this was really his rage rather than that of the fanatics who dominated among the prophets and other scripture writers and among the apocalypticists who routinely used past heroes for their mouthpieces?

Since these dogmatists were only a tiny minority of the population, why assume Jesus had to be one of them? Why must he have been an anti-Hellenist anti-Roman paranoid condemning Pharisees and others as traitors selling out the nation to Roman domination and enslavement? There's virtually no evidence that he was a campaigner for any such political crusade. Rather, the evidence is that he performed the miracle acts, and because of this some of the political militants, contemporary to him, envisioned him as a champion for their crusade, hoping he would lead an uprising, like there were some others who led armed rebels. But there's no evidence that he ever did lead rebels to an uprising to seize power. If that was any part of his plan, there'd be something in the writings to indicate it.


Jesus "cleansing the Temple"?

The attack on the Temple ("cleansing of the Temple"), which apparently led to a riot, is the one event where he is depicted as doing something violent. But there's plenty of reason to doubt that he really instigated this riot at all, because aside from this there is nothing violent attributed to him, and it's just as likely that this riot happened spontaneously and then he got blamed for it. This is probably the same riot in which Barabbas was arrested and charged with murder. But even if it's true that Jesus somehow suddenly went into a rage for no reason and started throwing people around and kicking over tables (which seems unlikely) -- even then it's not clear that this would have been an anti-Roman act. Rather it was an anti-Jewish-Establishment act, challenging the Jewish authorities and practices at the Temple.

An anti-Roman act should not have been targeted at the Jewish authorities, because many of the Pharisees were partly sympathetic to the anti-Roman dissidents, and these militant insurrectionists would have wanted to stir up resistance against the Romans, not the Jewish Establishment, if their sentiment was basically anti-Roman. So we see no real evidence that Jesus was an anti-Roman rabble-rouser. In the only riot he's accused of starting there's nothing anti-Roman that happened, and there's also not one saying attributed to him suggesting an uprising against Rome.

So we have no evidence that he crusaded for any anti-Roman resistance movement or insurrection. Whereas for some kind of anti-Jewish-Establishment resistance there is a small bit of evidence, though even for this the evidence is scarce, and it's much more likely that his vision was not of some political overturning.

So the theory that greco-Roman elitist dominators created the "Legend of Christ" doesn't explain anything. Why did they choose this particular person for their legend? Why wasn't anyone else ever chosen to be a miracle legend and documented in a written record, multiple sources, of the period when they lived? Why were so many ready to believe this Jesus legend figure only, writing and circulating or copying written accounts of him but of no others, who also were as believable and credible and recognized, or more recognized, as Jesus was, who had no status or recognition whatever? and who was a nobody far overshadowed by many others far more popular and more established in the culture than he was? (I.e., more established than he was at that time.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the history of the papacy podcast, episode 94, the host lists the top 4 people who influenced what Christianity became.

His list in order is:
Charlemagne, Muawiya, Constantine and Diocletian.

The interesting thing about this list is that two on it weren't Christian at all. But rather sworn enemies of Christianity. Them trying to destroy Christianity forced Christianity to adapt and change. I think this focus on Jesus is a bit silly. I think Jesus' overall influence on what Christianity became is tiny. If not non-existant.

 

[Learner]

In the history of the papacy podcast, episode 94, the host lists the top 4 people who influenced what Christianity became.

Christianity according to the Jesus narrative in the gospels hasn't changed because it was already written long before the 4 people in your list. Although... I do acknowledge they have been an influence to many Christian believers, to which this varies for each individual. Indeed there have been attempts to distort the scriptures, like with the gnostic version of theology.

His list in order is:
Charlemagne, Muawiya, Constantine and Diocletian.

The interesting thing about this list is that two on it weren't Christian at all. But rather sworn enemies of Christianity. Them trying to destroy Christianity forced Christianity to adapt and change. I think this focus on Jesus is a bit silly. I think Jesus' overall influence on what Christianity became is tiny. If not non-existant.

If their has been adaptations by the corruptors, I would wonder what was noticeably changed or added? If it is the case... how does one derive the idea from the "little influence of Jesus that is said to be tiny"? Surely if adding to the gospels to force a narrative, this influence, even when corrupted would be a little more than tiny.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner,

What makes you think the gospels represent what really happened? Your personal bible is a translation of a translation of a translation...certainly the translations were corrupted uy bias of the traslators.

King James Version - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[7] a faction of the Church of England.[8]

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology, and reflect the episcopal structure, of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by six panels of translators (47 men in all, most of whom were leading biblical scholars in England) who had the work divided up between them: the Old Testament was entrusted to three panels, the New Testament to two, and the Apocrypha to one.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible for Epistle and Gospel readings (but not for the Psalter, which substantially retained Coverdale's Great Bible version), and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11]

By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the only English translation used in Anglican and other English Protestant churches, except for the Psalms and some short passages in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars. With the development of stereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible had become the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford, and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualified title "King James Version" usually indicates this Oxford standard text.

Translations have always been influenced by politics.

The modern NSRV translation has bee criticized by conservative Xhrtians for softening te male misogyny.


A divine Jesus was not the only narrative.

 

[bilby]

Christianity according to the Jesus narrative in the gospels hasn't changed because it was already written long before the 4 people in your list.

Christianity according to the Jesus narrative in the gospels in the King James Version of the Bible wasn't written until the years 1604-1611.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the history of the papacy podcast, episode 94, the host lists the top 4 people who influenced what Christianity became.

Christianity according to the Jesus narrative in the gospels hasn't changed because it was already written long before the 4 people in your list. Although... I do acknowledge they have been an influence to many Christian believers, to which this varies for each individual. Indeed there have been attempts to distort the scriptures, like with the gnostic version of theology.

His list in order is:
Charlemagne, Muawiya, Constantine and Diocletian.

The interesting thing about this list is that two on it weren't Christian at all. But rather sworn enemies of Christianity. Them trying to destroy Christianity forced Christianity to adapt and change. I think this focus on Jesus is a bit silly. I think Jesus' overall influence on what Christianity became is tiny. If not non-existant.

If their has been adaptations by the corruptors, I would wonder what was noticeably changed or added? If it is the case... how does one derive the idea from the "little influence of Jesus that is said to be tiny"? Surely if adding to the gospels to force a narrative, this influence, even when corrupted would be a little more than tiny.

So what? Does it say in the Bible that the pope has to have a funny hat? It mentions nothing of hats, or popes. There's nothing at all about how the church should be organised. It says nothing about how churches should look. How mass should be done. Or how the Bible should be used in it. Nor the relationship between the priests and the layety. WTF are monastaries about? How's that even a thing? The core of early Christianity, and which shaped Christianity more than any other region was the East. Up until the rise of Islam that was what Christianity was and Catholicism was a side show. Charlemagne, a savage Germanic upstart tried to shed his barbarian skin and pass as a Roman. So he propped up a dying Catholic church and made it what it is today. All so he would be able to convince his Roman subjects that he too was a good Roman. Then the Muslims came and suddenly, the pope in Rome was the last patriarch standing, and Catholcism no longer was a side show struggling to get attention from the big boys.

And then Martin Luther came along, insisted that he respected only and nothing but the Bible, changing Christianity into something that surely was not, at all, intended by any of the early Christians. The idea of an original pure uncorrupted Christianity is just dumb. It doesn't exist. It never did. Not even in Jesus' own life. The fact that there exist gentile Christians is the biggest break of anything Jesus intended.

The Bible is a fetish for Christianity. It's not that important to what Christianity became. The cool thing about the Bible is that it tracks the changes over time. It shows an evolving and changing religious system. But Christians, of any denomination, doesn't care about that. They want a singular message with clear values, so they crowbar a diverse book into a neat little square box.

The Bible is a tiny part of what Christianity became. So small that it doesn't even make it onto the top 4 list of influencing factors.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's good to be reminded why the New Testament was written.


The early convert to Paul (and incredibly rich) Marcion soon broke (was excommunicated) with the church and had lots of his own ideas. He thought the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians were different Gods. So thought the new Christian God deserved his own bible.


Marcion being incredibly rich and having the ability to create and spread texts fast, meant the orthodox church needed to respond, or lose the ideological battle. So they started collecting what had been written that corresponded to their view and started spreading that.


That's why the New Testament was first created and compiled. Up until this point the only accepted text in Christianity was the Torah.

Fun fact. Christians didn't call themselves Christians back then. They called themselves Jews. Orthodox Jews called Christians Christians.


The adoption of the word Christian by Christians themselves as their primary identifier was very gradual and much later than what we today might think. Well after it became a mass religion in the 200's.

Not until Christians started identifying themselves as separate from Jews did the New Testament become important or the primary religious scripture.

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

It's so easy to look at the primacy of the New Testament in modern Christianity and assume it always was.

 

[Learner]

Hey snap ... (briefly until I get back to my pc).

"Not until Christians started identifying themselves as separate from Jews did the New Testament become important or the primary religious scripture"

Hebrews didn't call themselves Jews before there was a Judah. A good point to note .

 

[Learner]

Christianity according to the Jesus narrative in the gospels hasn't changed because it was already written long before the 4 people in your list.

Christianity according to the Jesus narrative in the gospels in the King James Version of the Bible wasn't written until the years 1604-1611.

I'm wondering the thinking in your post. In that case. What Christian narrative was portrayed before the KJV in the Geneva 1599? How do the 'narratives' differ from Tyndales and Coverdale's bible "translation"...direct from Greek and Hebrew 1522?

 

[Swammerdami]

... Hebrews didn't call themselves Jews before there was a Judah. A good point to note .

Hebrews didn't call themselves "Hebrews" at first either. This was an Akkadian word ( Habiru) often translated as mercenary or bandit.

Scholars are reluctant to cite this etymology for obvious reasons. Yet the Wiki article connects "Habiru" to ʿApiru, meaning "those who cross from the other side"; and Wiktionary gives the etymology of Hebrew /ivri/ as

Traditionally from עֵבֶר‎ ('éver, “Eber”), the ancestor of the Israelites. Probably related to עָבַר‎ ('avár, “to cross”), from the crossing of the river Euphrates or Jordan to Canaan.

 

[Learner]

Cheers Swammi for highlighting that. I'll exchange Hebrews with Israelites instead.