Historical Jesus

[steve_bank]

1. The supernatural Jesus existed because there are witnesses in the gospels, and the gospels are verbatim journalistic reporting

2. A lot of people believe the gospels are true, therefore they are true.

There is an historical Trump. 2000 years from now in another couture and langue with scant historical records somebody might say a lot of people think his election was stolen, so it must be true. 2000 years from now Christians might say he was sent by god to save them.

And so on and so forth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

If people today could freely write their own stories of Superman we'd know a lot more about Superman's life, maybe as much as we know about Santa or Frosty the snowman or Charlie Brown or Snoopy or...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Apollonius of Tyana and other alleged miracle workers
What's the evidence?

"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, . . .

No. This description of Apollonius does not tell us that he actually worked wonders, or that he was an actual wonderworker. This kind of description means that the character was a REPUTED wonder-worker, and the author puts this label on him not to say that the character really did work wonders, but only that he had this reputation.

But also, he says Apollonius APPEARS to have been a wonderworker. Not that he really was. The author is not really sure what Apollonius was. Except that we can read the same source he did, i.e., the Philostratus biography, and in that account there are a few "wonders" attributed to Apollonius. And that's the best we can conclude: an account at least 120 years later attributes a half dozen miracle acts to Apollonius. Of these miracles, the most impressive one turns out to be a raising-the-dead story lifted out from the Gospel of Luke, probably by the author Philostratus. We also see that among the "miracles" in the biography, at least 2 of them are bizarre acts, including one in which an old beggar is murdered by Apollonius, or by his disciples who are ordered by him to stone the old man to death. And when they obey and kill him, his body changes into that of a hound which is foaming at the mouth.

So this is what we learn when we investigate the alleged miracles of Apollonius. With miracle stories there are always some questions, or doubts. If we totally investigate all of them, including those of Jesus, there will be unanswered questions.

So, on a scale of 0-100 (100 = totally believable, makes total sense; and 0 = tall tales, fabrications from a sick mind, fiction only), the miracles of Jesus -- attested to in 4 (5) sources 20-70 years from when the events happened -- rank about 90-95, while the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana rank about 10-15.

Whatever the exact score you arrive at, anyone reasonable has to agree that the 3rd century Philostratus stories are greatly lacking in credibility, whereas the Jesus miracle acts are supported by good evidence which meets the normal standards for reporting events of ancient history, including that they have the extra attestation needed in the case of miracle claims or anything very unusual.

. . . and (2) that such people were common in the eastern part of the early empire."

No more common than in other places and at other times. Miracle claims do exist, but there is very little evidence that such claims were widely believed. Just that some crusader claimed to have such power doesn't mean that he had many followers/believers. The evidence usually is that the vast majority of the population dismissed such claims as false, and dismissed as charlatans those claiming to possess such power.

The question is NOT whether Apollonius or Rabbi Hanina/Chanina ben Dosa really performed supernatural miracles. They didn't -- and . . .

No, suppressing the question and rebuking someone for asking the question is not the right response. ALL questions are legitimate, and your proper response is not to dogmatically dictate what is the answer without any explanation or facts or reasons or evidence --- No, the proper response is to accept the question -- ANY question -- as deserving an answer based on the particular evidence in that case. Regardless of your own bias or prejudice -- you still have to give the reasons in each case, for each question, and demonstrate how your belief about it is correct and the contrary belief is wrong. You can't just dictate your prejudice as being the Absolute Truth which cannot be questioned. You have to give proper respect to every question -- rather than dictating "that's not the question" -- and then explain your answer rather than just dictating it on your own authority as if you're an automatic infallible source which cannot be questioned.

. . . NOT whether Apollonius or Rabbi Hanina/Chanina ben Dosa really performed supernatural miracles. They didn't -- and . . .

I.e., the evidence is that they did not. Or, there is virtually no evidence that they performed miracles.

They didn't -- and neither did Jesus of Nazareth.

The evidence is that Jesus did perform such acts. There is multiple attestation in sources near to the time. This is how we know what events did or did not happen, in ancient history.

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."

Francis, a modern author, is not a legitimate source. There's only one source, Philostratus, which every modern author relies on. Only one source 120 years later is not a legitimate source to rely on for claims of a miracle event.

It's difficult to separate fact from fiction, in ALL the ancient history writings. But still we have the writings and we draw some conclusions from them, and the accepted "ancient history" is based on drawing these conclusions, this guesswork. It's this same process of guesswork from which we can conclude that Jesus did miracle acts and Apollonius of Tyana did not.

We'd always like to have more documents than we have, more archaeological findings, more evidence to go on, like the more evidence we have for modern history. But even with the limited evidence we do have, just as for other ancient history facts, we can conclude that the miracle acts of Jesus are historical, factual, real events from the past, whereas virtually all the other reported miracles in the ancient world are fiction, for lack of evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

Lumpy,always good good to see you.

If you do no mind my asking do you have a day job?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Dishonesty among Scholars
about the Historical Jesus

Here is another pundit (albeit legitimate scholar, mostly reliable) who has the need to lie about miracle-worker legends in antiquity, claiming that there were many other reported miracle-workers similar and prior to Jesus, who therefore was not unique. What's dishonest is his failure to note that there is no legitimate historical evidence for any of the pre-Jesus miracle-worker examples he gives. All the sources for these are post-Jesus and are dated centuries later than when the alleged miracle-workers did their deeds. There is no indication of Jewish miracle-workers prior to Jesus, other than the ancient Moses and Elijah/Elisha legends.

And there was virtually no interest in any miracle-worker claims among Jews in the centuries leading up to Jesus in 30 AD. In that period Jews were oblivious to the ancient Elijah/Elisha miracle tradition. There is a huge volume of non-canonical Jewish literature, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, which totally ignores miracle-workers. Elijah is ignored by 1st-century Jews -- e.g. Philo the Alexandrian mentions a story about him but doesn't name Elijah, and the reference totally ignores anything miraculous about Elijah. Philo and other Jews of the early 1st century had a disdain for miracle-worker stories.

It's only after Jesus, or after 50 AD, that any Jews notice Elijah, and these were the early Christian Jews comparing Jesus to Elijah. Elijah would have been totally forgotten by Jews except for the appearance of Jesus in history, as a miracle-worker having some resemblance to Elijah.

I'll select some quotes from this video -- click the link for the entire presentation.


Jewish Galilean Miracle Workers in the Life & Times of Jesus -
The Mages of the Rabbinical World
YouTube Channel Esoterica

Part of Jesus of Nazareth's claim to fame are the many miracles associated with him, from turning water to wine, resurrecting the dead, including himself, . . . healing the sick and exorcising demons. These, among other supernatural feats, are taken to be evidence of Jesus' unique status. . . . Though several other Galilean miracle-workers are known to us, both from Jewish history and lore. . . .

. . . because of the glare cast by Jesus and early Christianity, it’s easy to forget that such miracle-workers abounded in the ancient world generally and in the Jewish context more specifically.

This is a falsehood. By comparison to other historical periods, the period of about 800 BC up to the time of Jesus is a period almost totally devoid of miracle-workers and miracle stories. Rather, it's after about 100 AD when miracle stories abound and increase. This later period and into the Middle Ages vastly surpasses classical antiquity in the volume of miracle stories, as even the modern time does. By comparison the classical Greek/Roman age and pre-Christian Judaism show a conspicuous disdain for the miraculous and for miracle-workers, especially for anything other than very ancient legends from 1000+ years earlier (e.g. ancient legends like Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, Asclepius, etc.). I.e., any alleged miracle-workers of recent time were scoffed at, not followed by anyone, and disbelieved as charlatans.

Several other specifically Galilean miracle-workers are known to us from both Jewish history and lore. In fact, they seem to have constituted a unique class of men capable of such miraculous feats, known as 'anshe ma’aseh' or “men of deeds.” In fact, Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries very likely would have understood him in something like this category.

Note the phrase "would have understood him" = they didn't really understand him that way at all, because there was no such "category" of 'anshe ma'aseh' miracle-workers in that time, because this is much later Jewish terminology, from the Talmud period, not the 1st century AD. This "men of deeds" language did not exist until after the time of Jesus, which inspired a renewed interest in Elijah and miracle-workers.

In collaboration with ‪@ReligionForBreakfast‬ I explore a few of these Galilean miracle-workers or anshe ma’aseh who lived just before and after the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth. From Honi the circle-maker who could compel G-d to make it rain, . . .

The earliest source for Honi the Circle-Drawer is Josephus, writing 150 years later than the reported miracle-worker. The only reported miracle is that he once caused it to rain. After this one brief reference in Josephus, about 90 AD, there developed further legends which appear in the Talmud centuries later. This is not legitimate evidence for a miracle event of 150 BC. We need multiple sources near to the time of the alleged event. We know that miracle tales can easily evolve in the culture over many generations and centuries of story-telling. In many cases the character in question may have attracted attention in his time, and then stories began to develop as he was remembered, but it always required centuries for miracle tales to be added to the legend.

The only exception to this pattern is the case of a powerful military hero, like Alexander the Great, to whom a miracle rumor might emerge even during his lifetime -- very rare, only in the case of a widely popular hero worshiped by millions of admirers during his lifetime. Other examples of this are Julius Caesar and Emperors Caesar Augustus and Vespasian, for whom there are a few miracle claims. They acquired this mythic hero status only because they were worshiped as gods by millions of devoted fanatics, even before their death. Obviously nothing like this can explain the reported Jesus miracle acts.

. . . to Hanina ben Dosa’s extreme piety accidentally inducing miracles and who forestalled the power of the Queen of Demons to Shimon bar Yochai, so pious that even the key commandments of the Torah didn’t apply to him and whose very gaze could incinerate those before him and from whom the secrets of the Kabbalah are said to flow, even an errant resurrection of the dead following fisticuffs at a Purim party.

These are ridiculous examples, silly tales which required centuries to evolve, based only on much later legends in the Talmud and even later Jewish sources, after many centuries. This is not serious history. It is dishonest to give an example like this, pretending that it has anything to do with actual history, based on legitimate evidence, such as we have in the case of the Jesus miracle-worker of 30 AD.

Our scholar here tries to give the impression that these legendary Jewish miracle-workers are part of a tradition which preceded Jesus, as part of a culture or tradition of miracle legends, to which then Jesus was added later, as though these earlier figures established the trend of legends earlier, and then this "context" of legends explains how Jesus became mythologized into another miracle-worker similar to them -- a total distortion. He was EARLIER, while they were later legends inspired by the Galilean Jesus of 30 AD.

Why does a scholar who knows better promote this totally false picture of the miracle legends? Such legends did not exist prior to Jesus, unless you go way back centuries to Elijah/Elisha, 900 years earlier, where there is an ancient legend of this kind, and then 500 years back to Moses.

He tells us that these were "Galilean miracle-workers or anshe ma’aseh who lived just before and after the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth" as though the tradition predates Jesus. He implies there were "multiple accounts" of such miracle-workers prior to Jesus. But this is dishonest because the stories are all post-Jesus, as there is no source earlier than Josephus, and the vast majority of it is many centuries later. All this tradition of Galilean miracle-workers was likely inspired by the earlier Jesus miracle legend of 30 AD (or about 50-90 AD), which was earlier. We have no evidence of any other such miracle tradition prior to the latter 1st century AD.

bottom line: There was no "context" or culture of miracle-worker legends prior to Jesus in 30 AD. Rather, he pops into history suddenly, unexpectedly out of nowhere, performing miracle acts for which there is no precedent in the ancient culture.

 

[Swammerdami]

...

Wow! Talk about selective reading!

I'm not going to fight the paywall, or attempt to pursue what seems to be another complex rabbit-hole of research but in the first page I quoted, Francis writes "So little remains of sources prior to VA". He does NOT write that there is ZERO information before VA, but there is LITTLE. His task as a professional historian is to glean what he can from minimal fragments.

Scholars who want to understand Jesus of Nazareth are in a similar situation. The only significant source for Jesus prior to the Gospels (written at least 4 decades after his death) is the writings of Paul. Scholars can read Paul to better guess which parts of the Gospels are fact, and which fiction.

And indeed from Paul we learn
(1) that there was apparently no physical Resurrection. Paul treats the "Resurrection" and Jesus' Ascension into Heaven as one and the same event.
(2) that if Paul was aware of any SPECIFIC wonder that the living Jesus had performed, he never wrote it down. Why not? (Paul's own "miracles" were described in Acts and NOT in Paul's own writing.)

 

[Tammuz]

This may or may not have been posted, but it gives an atheist Biblical scholar's point of view. She is basically arguing that Occam's razor makes a historical Jesus more likely than not. The video is just five minutes long.

Did Jesus Exist?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This may or may not have been posted, but it gives an atheist Biblical scholar's point of view. She is basically arguing that Occam's razor makes a historical Jesus more likely than not. The video is just five minutes long.

Did Jesus Exist?

She says there was probably a guy or a series of guys or leaders and one was executed. She says there is no gospel guy. She says there is no guy as described in later christian traditions and texts, no miracles, no resurrection, etc. She says JTB and Paul means there was something going on and this means there was probably some kind of guy.

I think she makes a great argument that there was no HJ, that HJ is just a fabrication, a composite figure. We should call it HJ Theory and she would be an HJ theorist.

 

[steve_bank]

She must have been reading my posts....I've been saying that for years.

From my 70s philosophy of religion class there were a number of people claiming to be the messiah of the prophesy. Some were bandits.

Clams of magic powers and faith heling was not unique, we see it today. Pseudo science abounds. Scientology has followers. Founded by a second rate hack science fiction writer, Hubbard.

Given communications the day primarily by hearsay I'd say the gospel Jesus is a conflation of multiple people and events.

On a history show I recently watched the narrator called the ancient trade caravans the Internet of the day when it came to communications.

My favorite example of ancient accounting is Herodotus the Greek historian, also known as Herodotus The Liar. He listened to talk about events in distant places he never went to, and fbvcated historical accounts as if he was there watching.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

crucified and buried and raised = Physical

And indeed from Paul we learn
(1) that there was apparently no physical Resurrection.

"apparently"? Where do we learn this in Paul?

What we learn is that the same one who was crucified was also buried and also raised. What body was ever crucified which was not "physical"? and then buried? This same body which was crucified and buried was also raised, according to Paul. If that raised body was not physical, then neither was the body which was crucified and buried.

When you attribute your theories to Paul, you need to cite the reference in his epistles where he said it.

In 1 Corinthians he says:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Paul says here that the same one who "died" (or was "crucified" in other texts) was also buried and raised, and also appeared to others who saw him. This one who was raised and appeared to others must have been in a body which was physical, so they could see it (him).

Paul treats the "Resurrection" and Jesus' Ascension into Heaven as one and the same event.

Where does Paul mention the Ascension? or Ascension into Heaven? I'm not saying he does not mention it. But I searched a little and could not find it. Maybe it's there somewhere.

Or maybe it's in Ephesians, though that's considered as pseudonymous. But even there the "ascension" is still physical, as well as the being "seated at the right hand of God" -- so there's no reason to say the "resurrection" and "ascension" aren't both physical.

You need to give us the citation when you tell us what Paul says. The "ascension" may be a more subtle concept than resurrection, and maybe more confused. Maybe different evangelists had different notions about "ascension" than about "resurrection" -- and so we ought not get hung up on these fine points. This might be similar to technicalities about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Maybe it's better to stick to the straightforward points about the death and raising-up of Jesus (or the body of Jesus) and not get bogged down in hair-splitting ideological fine points about "ascension" into Heaven.

(2) that if Paul was aware of any SPECIFIC wonder that the living Jesus had performed, he never wrote it down. Why not?

For the same reason he wrote nothing about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. Paul tells us nothing about Jesus in Galilee, about the Sermon on the Mount or parables, about being at the Sea of Galilee and meeting the fishermen, about going to Jerusalem or being at the Temple. This doesn't mean Paul had no knowledge of these.

(Paul's own "miracles" were described in Acts and NOT in Paul's own writing.)

Maybe Paul did not do those miracles. The miracles in Acts might be fiction. They could easily be reflections on the earlier miracles of Jesus, which really happened, and this then inspired later miracle stories. We have an explosion of new miracle stories beginning 90-100 AD and afterwards, on into the Dark Ages. Maybe those in Acts highlight the beginning of this explosive new interest in miracle-workers and miracle stories we see developing over the following centuries.

Prior to Jesus in 30 AD there was no such extreme interest in miracles and miracle-workers. Jesus in 30 AD is the beginning of a new miracle-worker phenomenon, appearing suddenly in history, unprecedented and virtually absent in the earlier culture (where the only interest is in ancient god-hero miracle legends, not about recent miracle-workers). No one can explain how this happened abruptly in history, with nothing in the earlier culture to inspire it. But the huge interest in miracle-worker stories later is easily explained by the Jesus miracle-worker of 30 AD.

("virtually absent" -- there is the glaring exception of Elijah/Elisha in II Kings -- this earlier Elijah/Elisha phenomenon had been all but forgotten in Judaism, by the 1st century AD, when Jews had no interest in it. And it would have been totally forgotten except for the new Jesus miracle-worker in 30 AD, which inspired a new interest in Elijah/Elisha. And even this ancient miracle legend was never about a recent miracle-worker but only about an ancient hero myth which evolved orally in the storytelling and finally got recorded centuries later.)

 

[Swammerdami]

First: I am NOT a Biblical scholar. Much of my writing just shows what I have gleaned about Bishop Spong's opinions after reading one of Bishop Spong's books. Spong knew approximately 7000 times as much about these matters as I do. If anyone needs clarification of his views, I suggest they read his books. Or just Google "reviews of Spong's books." Seriously. If Spong's arguments are flawed, reviewers would have noted that. A good overview of these reviews would be a very useful and important contribution to this and related threads. (Arguing with me instead almost resembles onanism.)


Is it not interesting that some early copies of the Gospel of Mark contain almost no mention whatsoever of any Resurrection? The other synoptic Gospels, or at least those portions which relate the biography of the adult Jesus, are very clearly based closely on Mark.

The omission of Resurrection mentions in Mark is NOT just an oversight in some of the earliest copies:

The earliest extant complete manuscripts of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two 4th-century manuscripts, do not contain the last twelve verses, 16:9–20

I have enlarged the font in this quote, and underlined "4th-century" to ensure it gets read. In other words, copies of Mark as late as the Fourth (4th) century end with 16:8.

Here are the final four verses in the 4th-century version of Mark:

And entering into the sepulchre, they [two Marys] saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

[As mentioned, the earliest complete manuscripts end here. A 3rd-century copy adds the following:]
But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself (appeared to them and) sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen

Curiously, Matthew mentions a "Resurrection" while Jesus is still on the cross:

... At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection

Much of the discussion in Matthew and Luke is about disbelief that there was a physical Resurrection. Spong doubts the Empty Tomb story because he thinks the whole Joseph of Arimathea story is invention -- crucifixees would have been dumped in a common grave.

Paul treats the "Resurrection" and Jesus' Ascension into Heaven as one and the same event.

Where does Paul mention the Ascension? or Ascension into Heaven? I'm not saying he does not mention it. But I searched a little and could not find it. Maybe it's there somewhere.

He does not mention any Ascension. That's the whole point. If there was an Ascension distinct from the "Resurrection", Paul might have mentioned it.

 

[Swammerdami]

He does not mention any Ascension. That's the whole point. If there was an Ascension distinct from the "Resurrection", Paul might have mentioned it.

In other words, Jesus did not rise from the Tomb to the Earth and then, 40 days later rise from the Earth to Heaven. Rising from the grave to Heaven was a single event.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammi, shall we talk about the historical Santiago again? If this alleged historical Jesus wasn't a religious figure representing the religious beliefs of billions of people do you think it would generate any mileage? People wouldn't give a rat's toucas and there wouldn't be a cottage industry of theorizers selling their wares.

 

[Swammerdami]

Swammi, shall we talk about the historical Santiago again? If this alleged historical Jesus wasn't a religious figure representing the religious beliefs of billions of people do you think it would generate any mileage? People wouldn't give a rat's toucas and there wouldn't be a cottage industry of theorizers selling their wares.

You keep harping on this and I remain baffled. Santiago was fiction. Jesus fact. I have argued this over and over and over, without any intelligible refutation, or even acknowledgment that it is a historical question where the methods of professional historians should be applied.

Now if Jesus' followers had NOT formed a cult which grew in numbers VERY rapidly, would Jesus have been forgotten? Sure. (Although his brother James was respected enough in his own right to be mentioned by Josephus.) But WHAT IS THE POINT? If Christopher Columbus' ships had all foundered on his first voyage, would his story "have generated any mileage?" People wouldn't give a rat's toucas and there wouldn't be a cottage industry of towns, rivers and countries with names like "Columbia." WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

 

[steve_bank]

What is meant by Jesus as fact?

Does that mean there was a singular historical flesh and blood human called Jesus, or does it mean the gospel supernatural son of a god Jesus is a fact?

As far as I know the Romans who were very good at record keeping left no mention of a Jesus.

Given the assumed deity of the ruling Roman Roman endorsers anyone in the realm claiming to be a son of a god working miracles would most certainly get the attention of Rome.

Not just Raman leadrship, I'd think it would draw a serious reaction from Jewish elites. A Jew claiming to be offsprng of the Jewish god would nr serious blasohemy. Image in Iran or Saudi Arabia a Muslim makingh such clams, and what the raection of Mulm leaders wouid be.

An HJ would have have been one of a number of Jews walking around prophesying and spouting words of wisdom, it is what Jewish prophets always did througout the OT.

As I see it the quetion is who the gospel writers were, the intended audience, and their motivation.

It cod nave been te profit incentive. A cult wot follwrs means money and power. No different than today. The gospels could well be close to complete fiction. For an anlogy we only have to look at the known facts of the origins of Mormonism. From a fctional or deusion account of vistaions with angels, within 150 tears it became a global religion.

It is no mystery how a fiction could have led to the early Christiansm the genties outside Isreal who had abslutly no comctact with what may have happened.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You keep harping on this and I remain baffled. Santiago was fiction. Jesus fact. I have argued this over and over and over, without any intelligible refutation, or even acknowledgment that it is a historical question where the methods of professional historians should be applied.

I think it's just flying over your head because you are applying a double standard, looking at the Jesus story differently because it is so popular due to it being religious.

Clearly the gospels are fiction. Clearly later "historical" writers were relating what they heard, some openly forging evidence like Eusebius. Clearly we have a bias among later writers and translators to render anything that sounds like or looks like it could be christian as christian. A Roman ring was recently unearthed with a motif of the Good Shepard and all who wrote about it said it was a christian ring when the Good Shepard is Roman. And the Chrestus thing being rendered as Christ. Chrestian as Christian with clear evidence of change in the record. There is a long list due to christian bias.

Old Man and the Sea is fiction but no one cares if Santiago is based on a real person or is a composite of Hemingway's experiences. And this is true for all fictional characters because that is precisely how writers write including religious writers. Hemingway did not invent Santiago ex nihilo and neither did Mark invent his Jesus.

We are constantly bombarded with the phrase "Historical Jesus" when in fact as discussed in the Tammuz video it's a toss up unless one has a bias. If you're going to sell lots of Jesus books today you're going to lean toward historicity or you won't sell many books and articles or even keep a job.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

fiction, fact, omissions, evidence

Is it not interesting that some early copies of the Gospel of Mark contain almost no mention whatsoever of any Resurrection? The other synoptic Gospels, or at least those portions which relate the biography of the adult Jesus, are very clearly based closely on Mark.

The omission of Resurrection mentions in Mark is NOT just an oversight in . . .

It's not omitted. The text says "He is risen" to explain the missing body, and what's omitted is any appearance narrative, though there is reference to appearances which would occur later. It is puzzling why Mark omits any appearances, but they are mentioned earlier by Paul, so we can assume they happened. All the sources say the Resurrection happened, all but one give some narration of appearances, while Mark refers to later appearances which had not yet happened. There is no reason to take this as contradicting the appearances or the Resurrection. All the evidence is that the Resurrection did happen and that the appearances happened. Regardless of the lack of appearance narrative in Mark.

It's recognized widely that the ending of Mark, after verse 8, is later addition, not in the original.

Curiously, Matthew mentions a "Resurrection" while Jesus is still on the cross:

... At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection.

This is an example of fiction -- one source only makes it less credible, plus it does not harmonize with the other accounts. All our sources, for this and for any history, contain both fact and fiction. You are making a good argument against the infallibility of Scripture. The miracle acts of Jesus are not based on the Infallibility of Scripture doctrine. They are based on the preponderance of the evidence. The sources agree that he did the miracle acts, including the Resurrection -- that he rose, as Paul says, and that he appeared to witnesses several times, who saw him in a group, not just individually in private visions.

All the sources agree with this -- though Mark omits any appearance narrative. There are discrepancies in the details, which is normal for any events reported by more than one source. All this is evidence that he did resurrect -- that's what the historical evidence shows.

Much of the discussion in Matthew and Luke is about disbelief that there . . .

It's to be expected that there'd be disbelief, if such an unusual event really happened.

. . . that there was a physical Resurrection.

The word "physical" does not occur. The claims that he rose, that he appeared, etc. always meant that it was physical or bodily. There is no discussion or debate over whether the Resurrection was really only spiritual rather than physical -- though there are some goofy accounts in the later Gnostic gospels suggesting something like that. But the physical vs. spiritual resurrection is a debate only centuries later, especially in the 19th & 20th centuries.

Spong doubts the Empty Tomb story because he thinks the whole Joseph of Arimathea story is invention --

We needn't believe the entire Joseph of Arimathea story. But there's no evidence undermining it, so we should assume there was some such person who took charge of the body. This story also indicates that there was some sympathy for Jesus among leading Jews, along with those who wanted Jesus dead. Of course you can make up your own story as much as you want, and toss out any of the evidence you don't like. But the rational approach is to accept the evidence generally, giving credibility to whatever is reported in more than one source and is not contradicted by evidence.

-- crucifixees would have been dumped in a common grave.

There's no evidence that this was standard and plenty of evidence that some such bodies were given normal burial. There's no evidence that it was normal to dump them in a common grave, though probably that did happen in some cases. We can speculate. But obviously in this one case the body was placed in a separate grave, as probably in many other cases also. And the claim of Dominic Crossan that the body was eaten by dogs is just cheap sensationalism, to sell his books and get his name in the news. What we should do is believe the reports we have in the accounts -- accept the evidence. There's nothing wrong with simply believing the evidence when this is not contradicted by other evidence. What is this obsession with making up stories, and pronouncing what "would have been" as though it's the truth when there's no evidence saying that's what happened?

Where does Paul mention the Ascension? or Ascension into Heaven? I'm not saying he does not mention it. But I searched a little and could not find it. Maybe it's there somewhere.

He does not mention any Ascension. That's the whole point. If there was an Ascension distinct from the "Resurrection", Paul might have mentioned it.

Whatever "ascension" means, it must have been something physical. What does a non-physical "ascension" mean? Maybe the bodily ascension did happen, as described in Luke-Acts. But it's not essential that this must have actually happened. Maybe it's fiction, in one source only. There is fiction about Jesus, mixed with fact. Like all our historical facts, the miracles/Resurrection of Jesus is also accompanied by some fiction. That's normal, for historical fact to be accompanied also by fiction, in the sources.

If our history had to come from infallible sources only, with no fiction mixed in, we'd probably have only a fraction of our ancient history -- you'd have to toss out probably 90% of everything in your history books.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't know about an historical Jesus, I am pretty sure there was an hysterical Jesus.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

claims that are unique

Claims of magic powers and faith healing was not unique, we see it today.

What's unique is the narrative accounts in multiple written sources, of Jesus doing miracle healings, attesting to more than 30 miracle acts, mostly healings, written during a period of 40-70 years after the events reportedly happened.

This is "unique" because there is nothing else in all the ancient literature telling of any such miracle-worker or healer, attracting large crowds, going from one town to another and receiving crowds of the sick brought to him. There's only one person in history described this way. No one can explain why we have only one such reported miracle healer, if there was a demand for such a person. There's no explanation why he would appear in history at this time and place rather than elsewhere. There have been many other times and places where this would have been more appropriate to the contemporary culture.

The closest to the Jesus miracle-healer historically would be the legendary Asclepius, about whom there is some report in writings 1000 years later than he lived (if he lived in history), but nothing written about it any time near to when he lived. And the number of healings reported about him is so few by comparison. The later religion worshiping him was widespread after about 500 BC.

Also unique to Jesus is the reported Resurrection, attested to in 5 written sources, 20-70 years after the event reportedly happened. There's no other case of someone reportedly resurrected after dying and attested to in multiple accounts of the time.

Something else unique is the saying, "Your faith has saved you" in the Synoptic gospels. It appears there 7 times, making it the most frequently-quoted Jesus saying (or alleged saying). There's no other philosophical or religious saying resembling this one -- except the frequent quotes in Paul and the John Gospel which say something similar.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's reasonable to believe what's reported in the written accounts.

The supernatural Jesus existed because there are witnesses in the gospels, and the gospels are verbatim journalistic reporting

No, they are writings like the other sources we use to determine what happened previously. ALL the written reports of what happened contain both fact and fiction. They are what we rely on for our history of those events, even though they contain some fiction mixed in with the fact.

A lot of people believe the gospels are true, therefore they are true.

No. But it's reasonable to believe whatever is reported in the written accounts from the time, as far as they agree on what happened and are not contradicted by other evidence. Like the evidence from the 1st century says the Jesus miracle acts happened, and none of them says these events did not happen. It's reasonable to believe what's reported in the written sources as long as they agree and are not contradicted by other evidence. Since there are discrepancies about the details, these are less credible, but we can believe the major points agreed on in the sources.

There is an historical Trump. 2000 years from now in another culture and langue with scant historical records somebody might say a lot of people think his election was stolen, so it must be true.

No -- false analogy. Because there will be more historical records saying the election was NOT stolen. People will tend to believe whatever is shown by the preponderance of evidence. The written accounts 2000 years ago say there were some charlatans, falsely claiming to do miracles, and we can believe these accounts which say those were false claims, just as people in the future will believe there were charlatans today, because this is reported in our documents today.