Historical Jesus

[No Robots]

^Jesus gradually realized that the Jews would not embrace him overnight, but that he was getting a hearing among non-Jews, so his preaching become more universalist. After the crucifixion, Paul completely rewrote the playbook specifically to recruit Gentiles. The Greco-Roman world was spiritually exhausted and willingly sought to adopt Judaism, but the strictures were too difficult. The loosening of these strictures in the new movement opened the door for mass adoption. Of course, this also opened the door to pagan contaminants, and the principle trajectory of history over the last two millennia has been to purge these contaminants and return to pure Judaism, albeit a Judaism that is less reliant on strictures and more reliant on spiritual commitment.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right, like Trump going down to Brownsville to welcome incoming Somalians. It could happen.

 

[Swammerdami]

So, I guess the biggest question to the whole discussion is the central arc:

Did a guy throw a tantrum at a temple over commercialization of religion and get executed for it because his friend turned him in? [Swammi's emphasis]

I think that's the real core here; the temple incident.

I think the real question here is whether there is a "historical kernel" and what it is.

Probably. Reasons:
(1) The Cleansing of the Temple shows a Jesus very different from that in most of the Gospels' fictional events.
(2) It's one of very few Jesus actions in the Gospels which is NOT accompanied by a miracle.
(3) The violence of the Cleansing might justify capital punishment, which would otherwise be unusual for a benign preacher.

Recall that the pacifist John the Baptist was executed shortly before Jesus was executed; but John's unjust execution was not well-received, as Josephus writing decades later tells us:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Dipper. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, ...

(The existence of John the Baptist is of course one of several clues pointing strongly toward Jesus' historicity. Why worship a FICTIONAL disciple of the Baptist, when the Baptist himself was available as a famous and highly esteemed martyr?)

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I guess the biggest question to the whole discussion is the central arc:

Did a guy throw a tantrum at a temple over commercialization of religion and get executed for it because his friend turned him in? [Swammi's emphasis]

I think that's the real core here; the temple incident.

I think the real question here is whether there is a "historical kernel" and what it is.

Probably. Reasons:
(1) The Cleansing of the Temple shows a Jesus very different from that in most of the Gospels' fictional events.
(2) It's one of very few Jesus actions in the Gospels which is NOT accompanied by a miracle.
(3) The violence of the Cleansing might justify capital punishment, which would otherwise be unusual for a benign preacher.

Recall that the pacifist John the Baptist was executed shortly before Jesus was executed; but John's unjust execution was not well-received, as Josephus writing decades later tells us:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Dipper. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, ...

(The existence of John the Baptist is of course one of several clues pointing strongly toward Jesus' historicity. Why worship a FICTIONAL disciple of the Baptist, when the Baptist himself was available as a famous and highly esteemed martyr?)

Well, the question is whether the temple tantrum was thrown by John or Jesus, then.

Also, John classically was written as overly self-important. If John threw the temple tantrum, it could actually be a case of misattributed glory.

I can definitely believe in the temple tantrum as having been a real event, and the subsequent execution.

 

[steve_bank]

^Jesus gradually realized that the Jews would not embrace him overnight, but that he was getting a hearing among non-Jews, so his preaching become more universalist. After the crucifixion, Paul completely rewrote the playbook specifically to recruit Gentiles. The Greco-Roman world was spiritually exhausted and willingly sought to adopt Judaism, but the strictures were too difficult. The loosening of these strictures in the new movement opened the door for mass adoption. Of course, this also opened the door to pagan contaminants, and the principle trajectory of history over the last two millennia has been to purge these contaminants and return to pure Judaism, albeit a Judaism that is less reliant on strictures and more reliant on spiritual commitment.

Where do you derive this from, other than your imagination?

Where in the gospels does JC put aside his Jewish faith? You are confuting the gospel Jesus with Paul.

Jesus reinforced Mosaic Law, Paul despised with it. Circumcise does not make a Jew Jewish....paraphrasing.

OMG!! Now ot is about purging consonants from 'pure Judaism'?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Right, like Trump going down to Brownsville to welcome incoming Somalians. It could happen.

And it should be common knowledge that Robert E Lee intentionally lost the battle of Gettysburg. In another two thousand years the truth will come out and the great mystery will be revealed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

^Jesus gradually realized that the Jews would not embrace him overnight, but that he was getting a hearing among non-Jews, so his preaching become more universalist. After the crucifixion, Paul completely rewrote the playbook specifically to recruit Gentiles. The Greco-Roman world was spiritually exhausted and willingly sought to adopt Judaism, but the strictures were too difficult. The loosening of these strictures in the new movement opened the door for mass adoption. Of course, this also opened the door to pagan contaminants, and the principle trajectory of history over the last two millennia has been to purge these contaminants and return to pure Judaism, albeit a Judaism that is less reliant on strictures and more reliant on spiritual commitment.

Where do you derive this from, other than your imagination?

Where in the gospels does JC put aside his Jewish faith? You are confuting the gospel Jesus with Paul.

Jesus reinforced Mosaic Law, Paul despised with it. Circumcise does not make a Jew Jewish....paraphrasing.

OMG!! Now ot is about purging consonants from 'pure Judaism'?

Well, exactly. Matthew 19, near the end of his ministry, has him telling the disciples they will sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (except that Judas...who knows...) In Matthew 20, en route to Jerusalem, he tells them that he will be 'delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified.' In Matthew 26, he spends his last night with them, celebrating Passover, like zero Christians today. In Matthew 28, the resurrected Jesus now tells them to 'make disciples of all nations.' So, a ministry full of teachings that his people are not like the Gentiles, but then a complete turnaround after the crucifixion. Bruce into Caitlyn is less jarring. And then all the stuff about he's coming back, except 20 centuries have come and gone, and wasn't that supposed to happen in his listeners' lifetimes? No wonder the theologians act like script doctors.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is Amy-Jill Levine:

[T]he Gospels tell us about women’s substantial rights: owning homes, having use of their own property, having freedom of travel, worshipping in synagogues and the Jerusalem Temple, and so on. Women did not join Jesus because Judaism oppressed them, and the Jewish women who followed him did not cease to be Jews.

Empty assertions. All she is doing is making the Gospels in her moral likeness. A certain Xenophanes of Colophon (~570 - ~478 BCE) would understand her very well.

(10) Since all at first have learnt according to Homer. . . .

(11) Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. 99.

(12) Since they have uttered many lawless deeds of the gods, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. ib.

(14) But mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form. R. P. 100.

(15) Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds. R. P. ib.

(16) The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. R. P. 100 b.

Jesus Christ himself has been made in the likeness of many of his worshippers, not only physical but also moral.

Black Jesus, Mediterranean Jesus, Nordic Jesus, Eastern Asian Jesus, ... Jesus the great social worker, Jesus the great entrepreneur, Jesus the great peacemaker, Jesus the great fighter, ...

But Jesus Christ wsan't known as a great strophium-burner. Yes, bra burning is an urban legend, but it's a funny one.

 

[No Robots]

^Weird how you just can't force yourself to say it: Jewish Jesus.

 

[lpetrich]

^Weird how you just can't force yourself to say it: Jewish Jesus.

What difference is that supposed to make? Seriously.

 

[No Robots]

^The one that you can't mention is the one that is generally agreed upon.

In fact, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.--William Arnal

 

[lpetrich]

^The one that you can't mention is the one that is generally agreed upon.

In fact, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.--William Arnal

So what? I didn't think that it was worth mentioning in the context of people depicting him in their likeness.

 

[No Robots]

Amy-Jill Levine is depicting the New Testament as a document that illuminates the history and essence of Judaism, and specifically the status of women within Judaism. Is it because she is a Jew that you say she is representing the New Testament in her own likeness? If so, then I'm sure she would agree. As Arnal points out, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that the New Testament is a document that illuminates the history and essence of Judaism.

 

[steve_bank]

I was just thinking there are only a handful of sayings attributed to Jesus.

What did he sa that we do not know?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This seems pretty Jewish to me. If we trust Matthew to correctly quote Jesus.

 

[TomC]

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This seems pretty Jewish to me. If we trust Matthew to correctly quote Jesus.

I read an interesting article many years ago.
Some scholars discussing the likely intended audience of the 4 Gospels (Acts was treated as part of Luke), the Epistles, and Revelation.
My vague recollection is that Matthew was written for the most traditional Jewish audience.
Tom

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Dishonesty among Scholars
about the Historical Jesus


There's plenty of dishonesty about the historical Jesus -- from believers and disbelievers alike. It would be good to consider some examples of this from all sides, and ask why there is this dishonesty. We need not recoil from using words like "lies" or "liars" etc., if there's good indication that the ones telling a falsehood really do know it's a falsehood.

One major falsehood among scholars, even some who are believers, is that there were many other reported miracle-workers in the ancient world, prior to Jesus, so that Jesus appears within a culture filled with miracle-worker legends, and that Jesus is just one of many other miracle legends, and is easily explained as just one more charlatan, or just one more holy man who impressed people and so was credited with being a "divine man" etc., like all the other wonder-worker prophets and legendary heroes.

Here's a scholar who pretends Jesus fits into a standard pattern of reported miracle-workers, with nothing unique distinguishing Jesus from the others, because these were common in the ancient world -- though there's virtually no evidence of it, i.e., no evidence of any other reported miracle-workers (other than the untypical Elijah/Elisha period). Much of his lecture series is high quality, educational. But like so many others, he finds it necessary to misrepresent the facts about ancient history miracle legends.


Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad
Mark W. Muesse, Great Courses Lecture series

Lecture 21: The Kingdom of God

Like the parables . . . , Jesus' healings and exorcisms serve to reveal the character of God's Kingdom. The New Testament Gospels relate the stories of dozens of such cures. His fame in Palestine . . . depended mainly on his reputation as a healer and exorcist. The masses seemed to flock to him to experience his healing power. . . . The texts report that, in addition to casting out demons, he cured a wide variety of ailments, including blindness, deafness, fever, leprosy, paralysis, seizures, and chronic hemorrhaging. The New Testament also mentions three occasions when Jesus brought individuals back to life after they had died. . . .

The real issue is what significance we attribute to Jesus' remarkable powers. Did they mean that Jesus was divine, that he was God Incarnate, as the later Christian tradition asserted? Personally, I find it difficult to draw such conclusions, for one simple reason: stories of healings, exorcisms, powerful acts, and miracles, are not unique to Jesus.

They are very rare prior to Jesus.

But what's unique to Jesus is that in this case there is evidence that the miracle acts did happen, based on normal historical evidence or written sources, the same as other facts of history which we take for granted because of written accounts which report that it happened. So the evidence of history is that Jesus did do the miracle acts, whereas we do not have any such evidence for the other reported cases of miracle acts in ancient history.

Even stories of resurrections were not so unusual.

Yes, they were very unusual and rare. But further, the few cases of alleged resurrections are never supported by any evidence. They are inevitably legends evolving out of centuries of mythologizing or story-telling, never from written accounts near the time the alleged resurrections happened -- unlike the resurrection of Jesus which is reported mainly in five 1st-century written accounts during a period of about 20-70 years from the time it reportedly happened. This is a relatively SHORT time span, and good evidence by any standard for ancient history events. Most recognized ancient history events are not reported to us until 100+ years after they happened. Some are reported by 50 years later, but that's the exception. Only a tiny minority are reported by direct witnesses or by contemporaries to the time of the reported events.

Scholar Bart Ehrman pokes fun at this 20-70 years time span as so long that it all gets distorted, by the "telephone game" where story-tellers keep changing the facts little by little. But he seems oblivious to the fact that ALL history knowledge is passed on this way, and so by the same standard he imposes onto the Gospel accounts he also has to dismiss most of our ancient history, which also relied on the "telephone game" to get transmitted and passed on down to us -- and thus distorted and not credible. So you can toss all your history books into the trash heap.

There are such accounts throughout the Bible, and . . .

No, there are virtually no other reported resurrections in the Bible. The closest would be 2 or 3 obscure events in I and II Kings, where a dead body supposedly revived. In one case a child's body had been "dead" for only a few minutes and then revived by Elijah, so it could easily be a typical case of someone who was not really dead but who had stopped breathing and could revive.

Further, there are dozens of goofy miracle legends in II Kings, and a couple could be interpreted as resurrections, like a dead body returning to life. But these are not serious cases of possible historical events for which there is any evidence (even though many Bible events are historical, based on legitimate evidence). There's only one source reporting it (II Kings), and this is dated about 300 years later, not from any time near to when the Elijah/Elisha events happened. Goofy tales which find their way into the Scriptures over the centuries are not serious or credible cases of possible historical events, such as the reported resurrection of Jesus is possible history for which there is legitimate evidence just as we have for mainline history, based on written sources from the time rather than centuries later.

For serious claims or cases of a miracle event (or any unusual/dubious event), we need multiple sources, written accounts, dating from near the time the event happened. Since it's about something improbable, we need more than only one source, in order for it to be credible. If there's extra evidence, extra written sources saying it happened, and no evidence contradicting it, then it's in the credible category and is not in the same category as the pagan legends or religious miracle traditions, for which there is no evidence.

. . . and in literature across the centuries and cultures.

There are many miracle legends in all cultures. But the few "resurrection" stories are not usually about a dead person who returns to life. Rather, some later poets and modern critics put the label "resurrection" on some stories about a martyred hero who later is remembered, becomes deified and commemorated. And even if there are a tiny few genuine "resurrection" stories, about someone dying and returning to life, there's never any serious evidence that it happened, such as written accounts near the time it happened and reporting it as a recent event near the time that the source is dated. Rather, all such legends are something appearing in later literature 500 or 1000 years later than the time of the original events -- e.g. resurrection stories about Asclepius or Hercules. There's no serious evidence of a person who died and returned back to life and was witnessed as being alive by those who had known that person earlier. Such as we have in the case of Jesus in 30 AD.

There were even miracle-workers in Galilee at the same time as Jesus.

No, there is none for whom there is any evidence.

Such as Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, who was credited with numerous healings and nature miracles.

No, there is no serious evidence for this legendary miracle-worker who is absent from any 1st- or 2nd-century literature. The only report of him is in later legends from the Talmud, 300-500 AD.

I can think of no principle by which to dismiss these other reports of powerful deeds as false, while accepting those about Jesus as true.

This is dishonest, to say there's no principle by which to judge some reports as true and others as false. Being a scholar, he knows there is no 1st- or 2nd-century evidence for miracles of Hanina ben Dosa, whereas there is 1st-century evidence reporting the miracles of Jesus. I.e., not only one source, but 5 sources for the Resurrection, and 4 for the healing miracles. This scholar cannot be so ignorant as to not know of the extra evidence we have for the miracles of Jesus compared to the total lack of serious evidence for the Hanina ben Dosa legend, as well as all other earlier Jewish and pagan miracle legends.

The question has to be: Why are there so many scholars who tell these falsehoods -- lies -- that there is no more evidence for the Jesus miracles than for the pagan and Jewish religious legends of miracle-workers? And why do they lie in saying there are so many cases of these other miracle-worker legends, when in reality there are so few? Outside the Elijah/Elisha miracle legends, and perhaps the Moses legends 500 years earlier, there are virtually no reported Jewish miracle-workers in the centuries prior to Jesus.


Why the dishonesty?

What is the need these scholars have to make up stories, pretending that Jesus in 30 AD was a product of a miracle-worker culture or series of miracle legends going back and leading up to the 1st century AD? What is the need these scholars have for making up their own "history" and telling these falsehoods and fictions? What is the good they imagine they are doing by inventing these falsehoods?

The truth, based on the known historical facts, is that Jesus in about 30 AD is the only serious reported miracle-worker case we have, in ancient history, and there are no others for whom there is any evidence such as there is in this one case. And someone needs to explain why there is this consistent pattern of inventing other miracle-workers (or propping up obviously fictional legends) and inserting them into history as though these are further documented examples of this which are comparable to the one Jesus case of 30 AD which stands alone as the only example. Why doesn't anyone explain why so many educated people have this psychological need to lie about the obviously fictional stories and pretend they are analogous to the historical Jesus? or a need to find another case of this, when there's obviously no other case?

These scholars are not just mistaken. They are highly educated scholars who know the facts, and they are lying when they say there were other reported miracle-workers similar to Jesus in 30 AD. They know the historical facts, and they disregard the facts when they make these false claims.

How is this dishonesty excused? Is it that it really doesn't matter that Jesus is the only documented case for which there is evidence? and so it's OK for scholars to dismiss the evidence, falsely claim there is no evidence, and dogmatically preach that there really were no miracle-workers at all, and that Jesus is just one more example in a long list of fictional miracle-workers. This lie is permissible for some reason?


What social purpose is served by this dishonesty?

I.e., they think in this kind of historical research it's OK to be dishonest -- maybe some social need is served by denying the fact that there is one example of a miracle-worker for whom there is real evidence based on the historical facts just like other historical figures are documented with facts/evidence. But in this case it's somehow best for the facts of history to be covered up, denied, "swept under the rug" as some kind of embarrassment (because a real miracle-worker is simply not supposed to exist anywhere in the historical record).

Why would it be such a disaster to have to admit that in this one case there is evidence that someone did miracle acts? Why not stick to the facts about this? Why should the facts be swept aside in this one case only? Or are there some other cases where the facts of history should be disregarded or suppressed? Why? for some social objective? to establish better thought control over the public?

Why not instead be honest and say: This is what the evidence shows, but still maybe we should not believe it because of our ideology (or for whatever reason). Or, in this exceptional case, the evidence must be wrong.

Or maybe: In this one case we're baffled. We're contradicted by the evidence, but we have to teach our ideology anyway, even contrary to the evidence.

 

[Swammerdami]

The task of professional or academic historians must be very difficult, especially when they study people who lived so long ago that written documents were very rare. The best biography of Apollonius of Tyana was written 130 years after Apollonius' death and is known to contain much fiction. James Francis' Truthful Fiction: New Questions to Old Answers on Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius" appears to be behind a paywall, but I did take a snapshot of its first page:


For our purpose the pertinent information comes near the very end of the excerpt: "Apollonius appears to have been a wandering ... wonderworker of a type common to the eastern part of the early empire."

Treating "wonderworker" and "miracle worker" as synonyms -- is that OK? -- we learn two things from this sentence: (1) A professional historian tells us that Apollonius was a miracle worker, and (2) that such people were common in the eastern part of the early empire."

The question is NOT whether Apollonius or Rabbi Hanina/Chanina ben Dosa really performed supernatural miracles. They didn't -- and neither did Jesus of Nazareth.

The question is whether "acceptable" contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous documents allege such miracles. Francis tells us "without fear of contamination" that Apollonius was "a wandering ... wonderworker."

Apollonius was very famous -- much more famous than Chanina ben Dosa -- but was written up in detail by Philostratus only because the EMPRESS of Rome was herself a fan of Apollonius! Chanina's fan club was much more limited.

Ancient documents are VERY hard to come by. The oldest complete Jewish Torah (Pentateuch) is a sheepskin scroll that dates to about 1200 AD. (Yes, that's Anno Domini. With an A.) There are many important ancient documents where zero copies (and zero copies of copies of copies) survive. Part of the document survives only because it was quoted by some other ancient document.

The great Roman historian Tacitus is frequently cited for his early attestation of the Christians. I'll quote a large fragment because it makes a mockery of the claim -- heard right here at IIDB -- that the "Chrestians" were a different cult from the "Christians."

... Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. . . .
[And] even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Tacitus was born about 25 years after Jesus' crucifixion; does that qualify him as "nearly contemporaneous"? Yet if one insists on physical documents, we find:

The first six books of [Tacitus'] Annals survived in a single manuscript written in Germany about 1000 AD, probably in the Benedictine Abbey of Fulda.

Yes, IIUC Tacitus' writings survive because of the diligence ten centuries ago of one single monk in Fulda.

The rarity of ancient documents must be a major issue for historians; perhaps one of our experts can comment on this problem. Stories like that of Chanina ben Dosa were passed down orally before the Destruction of Jerusalem. And even when written down in the Mishnah, the oldest complete copy of that (the Kaufmann manuscript) dates to about 1000 AD.

It is said that if the standards of proof sometimes applied to 1st-century Jewish "miracle workers" were applied to Alexander the Great, one would conclude that that great conqueror was fictional!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Something that really DOES make Jesus unique is the huge trove of ancient papyri that have turned up with Gospel fragments. Whether he "worked wonders" or not, the cult of the Nazarene spread like wildfire. THAT fact is where we should focus attention if we bother to refute the gibberish that Jesus of Nazareth was a "nobody." But even the oldest of these fragments date to at least a century after the crucifixion. Papyrus was expensive, and is very fragile.

 

[Person19960]

What social purpose is served by this dishonesty?

What educational purpose is served by a forum post that contains claims without evidence? I mean, someone else besides me might ask.

 

[Politesse]

The rarity of ancient documents must be a major issue for historians; perhaps one of our experts can comment on this problem. Stories like that of Chanina ben Dosa were passed down orally before the Destruction of Jerusalem. And even when written down in the Mishnah, the oldest complete copy of that (the Kaufmann manuscript) dates to about 1000 AD.

Oh, indeed! And complete, legible documents are even more rare. Autographs? One in a billion. That's why finds like those at Qumran and Nag Hammadi reshape entire fields of study. But who knows how many more windfalls like that there will ever be? Maybe twenty. Maybe none.

Other than that sort of shocking find, it's down to which documents Dark Age monks and earlh Muslim bibliophiles saw fit to preserve in copy after copy over many centuries. Over these there are always questions of authenticity.

The public often imagines that we possess a much more complete and authoritative written record of the Greco-Roman world than we actually do. And yes, we have several thousand full books from the ancient Mediterranean altogether. Tens of thousands of letters, receipts, inscriptions, fragmentary mss, and additional copies of popular works. A treasure trove to be sure, enough to keep Classicists and papyrologists busy till the end of our own civilization. But a tiny sample of what must once have been written. Think of how many books, letters, ledgers, and lawsuits a literate society produces in a year? When you start to really crunch the numbers, you realize just how much is now lost to us. Or if you still doubt the scope of it, reading a few works of history or philosophy will drill the reality of it home, for every one is full of offhand references to authors and works that no longer exist, or exist only as quotations in other works.