Historical Jesus

[Politesse]

.isn't that the issue here?

It really isn't. Scholars who believe in that Jesus never call him "the historical Jesus"; the question from the time that the term originated in the 18th century, has always been what was or wasn't true about the historical figure at the care of the Christian mythos. That's what "historical" means: what could be discovered about him by the historian, as opposed to the monk?

 

[bilby]

(1) 99% of sensible people agree that a (minimal) Jesus DID exist

99% of sensible people agreed that nature abhors a vacuum.

, and
(2) "Who cares, anyway? If he didn't walk on water, he was just another nobody."

^This. Seriously. Why the fuck should we care about this one (perhaps mythical) individual, who if he ever lived, died two thousand years ago?

The chap who invented fire is far more interesting. Yet we don't waste time debating whether there was an "historical Ugh".

 

[Elixir]

we don't waste time debating whether there was an "historical Ugh".

Because his name was Zog, duh.

(per the scribe Gary Larson)

 

[bilby]

we don't waste time debating whether there was an "historical Ugh".

Because his name was Zog, duh.

(per the scribe Gary Larson)

Perhaps we need a thread on the historicity of Thag Simmons...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So the Christ/Jesus story is the same as the Marion Robert Morrison/John Wayne story.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Masochism?

Yes. I'm afraid so.

When I first came to this board, it was for a discussion of the meaning, significance and utility of Jesus and the Bible for atheists. I quickly found out that discussion here on this subject is dominated by the proponents of the position that Jesus is a myth. I did start a few threads, but there was little interest in the discussion I had in mind. I would very much enjoy a discussion on Constantin Brunner's approach, summarized here. Brunner wrote a lengthy essay criticizing the mythicist position, available here.

I started reading that lengthy essay. Don't really know the guy but it's very worshipful in its delivery. I think gospel Jesus is fictional which is not exactly the same as mythical. The gospels we have are mythical works so the two words kinda get twisted around in their meaning which is why I prefer the word fictional.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

About 98% or 99% of professional non-Christian historians agree that he DID exist. Inquiring minds might be interested in reviewing their expert opinions.

The evidence is non-conclusive. The industry demands that you will need to have a real guy if you are going to be widely read and not dismissed as a loon.

 

[Learner]

About 98% or 99% of professional non-Christian historians agree that he DID exist. Inquiring minds might be interested in reviewing their expert opinions.

The evidence is non-conclusive. The industry demands that you will need to have a real guy if you are going to be widely read and not dismissed as a loon..

So, the notion I get from this then, is that in this case for non-Christian historians "in the industry' who believe Jesus existed... fortunately DO have a real guy?

Makes sense.

 

[steve_bank]

Teleological. Jesus-god must exist, therefor they do. Or the universe can not possibly exist without a god therefor there is a god.

Who knows, 2000 years from now there may be a belief Jerry Garcia cured cancer and cast out demons by playing a guitar.

 

[DBT]

.isn't that the issue here?

It really isn't. Scholars who believe in that Jesus never call him "the historical Jesus"; the question from the time that the term originated in the 18th century, has always been what was or wasn't true about the historical figure at the care of the Christian mythos. That's what "historical" means: what could be discovered about him by the historian, as opposed to the monk?

The only thing that was meant by my use of 'historical Jesus' is that there may in fact be a man behind the stories. As it happens that the supernatural stories are the foundation of Christianity as a worldwide religion, I'd say the stories are essential.

If not, that Jesus the man existed is moot. Nobody would care, Jesus would be forgotten.

 

[Learner]

From Matthew 27:25, "May his blood be on us and on our children" If they were like any well-documented lynch mob, they would say "Death to Jesus!" "Death to the false prophet!" "Death to the blasphemer!" and consider killing JC to be totally justified and not something grossly negative for them and for their children.

Not sure why you chose that verse for the point you're making (probably one of Carrier's ideas). Just before Mathew 27:25 we see in Mathew 27:22-23, the crowd is crying for Jesus to be crucified.

Matt 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. 23.And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

* If we see the verses below, we can see the context of Matthew 27:25 is different from the context you give in the quoted above. in bold*

Matt 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. 26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

That's also grossly unhistorical. The Roman authorities would look at some self-styled King of the Jews with a lot of followers and they would see a big fat vexillum rubrum (red flag). Here was someone preparing a rebellion against Rome's rule.

As far as the Romans could see. Jews were fighting amongst each other. Jesus was a rebel and blasphemer to the Sanhedrin.

Having said that... Jesus did cause a 'soft' rebellion,in a manner of speaking, without the need of violence whereby the Romans
we're themselves converting into Christianity - such is, that those in the army were becoming 'conscientious objectors' causing a few problems and concerns.
(by this, I think we can easily dispel the absurd idea that "Jesus was a Roman invention").

It's like the crowd is saying" if you don't feel you wanna crucify Jesus, then, we'll do it, we'll be responsible for the crucifixion...

That's a nonsensical way of saying that. "Let us do it!" and "We want to do it!" would be much more straightforward, and that way would not have the implication of a blot on one's record and on one's children's records.

I could use that saying too, no disagreement with what you suggest. Although, with 'implication' the blot on ones record and children...

...they weren't bothered or worried 'at all' about having 'blood on their hands', since it was their answer to what Pilate said 'when he said he washes his hands of it' - and we also see the crowd consistently demanding that Barabas be released to live and Jesus stay imprisoned to die.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The only thing that was meant by my use of 'historical Jesus' is that there may in fact be a man behind the stories. As it happens that the supernatural stories are the foundation of Christianity as a worldwide religion, I'd say the stories are essential.

If not, that Jesus the man existed is moot. Nobody would care, Jesus would be forgotten.

Absolutely spot on. Without all the woo there is no Jesus. First comes the wonderful Jesus of woo then we look for the man behind the curtain who in the end isn't such a bad guy after all. The real Jesus could never be just another religious salesman like Joseph Smith or the Pope.

 

[ideologyhunter]

But how do I know if the emails I get from Jesus are really from him, or God forbid, phishing from Satan? Are there telltale signs? The sender address is sonogod.kjv, so that looks right. Every so often there's a misspelled word, like 'Bethlahem'. But that could happen. And there's usually a pitch for donations, but, hey, this is religion. Anyone else getting these?

 

[DBT]

It's in the bible, if a donation or tithe is required, it comes from God.

 

[Learner]

But how do I know if the emails I get from Jesus are really from him, or God forbid, phishing from Satan? Are there telltale signs? The sender address is sonogod.kjv, so that looks right. Every so often there's a misspelled word, like 'Bethlahem'. But that could happen. And there's usually a pitch for donations, but, hey, this is religion. Anyone else getting these?

Did you not get email warnings from your internet provider - how to spot phishing scams and frauds?

Matthew 7:15-20;

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Luke 6:45
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”

* As this unknown author of the well-known phrase of our modern times (although short) reminds us through these articulated words of wisdom:

Follow da money!
(see where it leads to...)

 

[Swammerdami]

There's been some speculation among scholars that Peter's supposed renaming as Cephas is an intentional bid to allude to or associate him with Josef ben Caiaphas, high priest in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's death. The names are quite similar in Greek, came to us through Aramaic, and are otherwise unheard of historically, so it is not so off the wall.

A site purporting to be the original NT text shows
Κηφᾶς
Καϊάφα or Καϊάφας
for Cephas and Caiaphas respectively. (Caiaphas sometimes has the final 's' omitted: Is this a matter of declension?

Present Κηφᾶς alone to Google Translate and see the English rendering as "You're crazy." Explanation? (Could this be why the earliest Gospels, prepared by speakers of Central Semitic rendered the name Πέτρος "Petros"; a sole exception being John 1:42?) It was Paul, fluent in Greek, who insisted on 'Cephas.' Some sort of snark?

 

[Politesse]

There's been some speculation among scholars that Peter's supposed renaming as Cephas is an intentional bid to allude to or associate him with Josef ben Caiaphas, high priest in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's death. The names are quite similar in Greek, came to us through Aramaic, and are otherwise unheard of historically, so it is not so off the wall.

A site purporting to be the original NT text shows
Κηφᾶς
Καϊάφα or Καϊάφας
for Cephas and Caiaphas respectively. (Caiaphas sometimes has the final 's' omitted: Is this a matter of declension?

Present Κηφᾶς alone to Google Translate and see the English rendering as "You're crazy." Explanation? (Could this be why the earliest Gospels, prepared by speakers of Central Semitic rendered the name Πέτρος "Petros"; a sole exception being John 1:42?) It was Paul, fluent in Greek, who insisted on 'Cephas.' Some sort of snark?

Do you mean you ran it through Google Translate into modern Greek? A coincidence, I think. "Cephas" as a name would have been an Aramaic name (Aramaic being a historical Jesus' mother tongue and the language in which these stories would have first circulated, presuming they originated in Judea), "Peter" is the Greek translation. Cephas and Caiaphas are definitely not the same name exactly, though if we interpret Caiaphas as a Hebrew name (though this is also unclear) transliterated into Greek, than they might just be the Aramaic and Hebrew variants on the same Semitic name. Or not even a name. It's obviously a nickname in Simon Peter's case, and Josef Caiaphas may also be a cognomen of some kind rather than a family name. In any case, they are both odd names/nicknames, not otherwise found in the historical record, so their similarity has struck some as maybe more than a coincidence. Josef ben Caiaphas was a widely despised high priest of Jerusalem, named to that post by their Roman oppressors. Peter is being named effectively the high priest of Jesus' Way, destined to replace the Temple of Jerusalem in the coming end times. So there would be some literary meaning there, perhaps. These kinds of arguments descend quickly into the speculative, there is no way to satisfactorily resolve what may or may not have been in autographs we no longer possess written for an audience whose culture is largely alien to us.

And yes, names are declined in Koine.

There is no "original Greek text" as such. If you look up a given passage in a Greek translation of the NT, it will provide handy little footnotes listing the sources for any variations.

Another fun fact about poor Josef Caiaphas' name: the Jews of a later generation who wrote the Mishnah evidentally did not like him either, as they nicknamed him "Kaiafas Hakkof" = "Caiaphas the Monkey".

 

[Swammerdami]

There's been some speculation among scholars that Peter's supposed renaming as Cephas is an intentional bid to allude to or associate him with Josef ben Caiaphas, high priest in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's death. The names are quite similar in Greek, came to us through Aramaic, and are otherwise unheard of historically, so it is not so off the wall.

A site purporting to be the original NT text shows
Κηφᾶς
Καϊάφα or Καϊάφας
for Cephas and Caiaphas respectively. (Caiaphas sometimes has the final 's' omitted: Is this a matter of declension?

Present Κηφᾶς alone to Google Translate and see the English rendering as "You're crazy." Explanation? (Could this be why the earliest Gospels, prepared by speakers of Central Semitic rendered the name Πέτρος "Petros"; a sole exception being John 1:42?) It was Paul, fluent in Greek, who insisted on 'Cephas.' Some sort of snark?

Do you mean you ran it through Google Translate into modern Greek? A coincidence, I think. "Cephas" as a name would have been an Aramaic name

You missed the whole point. OF COURSE Cephas is Aramaic. Duuuuh. My question is WHY does the Modern Greek word (spelled as the long-ago NT spelled it) translate as "You're Crazy." AND did the Koine word 2000 years ago have a similar meaning?

IF there was a similar "meaning" 2000 years ago it might explain why Peter's name became Peter rather than Cephas.
.... AND, -- WARNING: this is more of a joke than sincere speculation! -- since Paul felt some enmity toward Peter MIGHT, just MIGHT, offer a clue why Paul -- who renders most names in Greek IIUC -- kept the Aramaic Cephas to refer to the man almost all other writers called Peter/Petros.


ETA: And no, I don't know how to get "Google" to translate Koine into Modern English. Nor do I know the status of websites pirporting to offer original NT text. Those are your functions.