What counts as a historical Jesus?

[maximara]

Though this is only indirect evidence, we have the two conflicting Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. Both of them go through rather embarrassing story-telling acrobatics to explain why Jesus really came from Bethlehem, even though he actually came from Galilee. If you invent someone out of whole cloth, and he's supposed to come from Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy in Micah 5:2, then you simply have him come from Bethlehem. If, however, you're stuck with a real guy who came from Galilee, you then have to go through all these contortions to make him born in Bethlehem, so he can "fulfill" Micah 5:2.

Thus, I tend to see a historical Jesus around whom were wrapped myths of Jewish messianism and apocalypticism, as well as pagan hero myth motifs. The latter include Jesus turning water into wine - borrowed from the myth of Dionysus - and Luke's nativity, based on that of Hatshepsut and Egyptian pharaohs in general.

Uh, the city of Bethlehem was and still is in Galilee so your "explain why Jesus really came from Bethlehem, even though he actually came from Galilee" comment makes no blasted sense.

It is like saying you are going through story-telling acrobatics to say somebody was born in Gahanna, Ohio (a city) when they actually were born in Franklin Country, Ohio--you are ignoring the fact that Gahanna, Ohio (Bethlehem) is IN Franklin Country, Ohio (Galilee)

The real problem is Matthew is trying to claim fulfilled prophesies generally misunderstanding what the OT is really saying...when he bothers to even tell you where the supposed prophesy is coming from.

The problem with both "Bethlehem" and "Nazarene" in the OT is there is NOTHING to show they are places. Farrell Till points out in "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled" that the "Bethlehem" in Micah 5:2 could just as easily refer to a clan.

The term "Nazarene" is even worse as you have two possible root words: "ne·tzer" and "na·zir"- the first meaning branch and the second meaning one consecrated, devoted (to God).

In fact, Pliny the Elder in his Historia Naturalis (Book V,22) talks about the Nazerini group that given the references existed in the 1st century BCE.

So the whole story-telling acrobatics were unnecessary unless what you have are several stories of various would be messiahs being woven together into one narrative. In short the Gospel Jesus is a composite character and not historical by definition as no one man did all these things.

 

[Brainache]

Uh, the city of Bethlehem was and still is in Galilee so your "explain why Jesus really came from Bethlehem, even though he actually came from Galilee" comment makes no blasted sense.

Not according to this map:
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/judea.html
I tried to resize it to fit, but it didn't really work. In that map Galilee is a Northern province and Bethlehem is just outside Jerusalem in the Southern province of Judea.

What map are you using?

 

[maximara]

Not according to this map:
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/judea.html
I tried to resize it to fit, but it didn't really work. In that map Galilee is a Northern province and Bethlehem is just outside Jerusalem in the Southern province of Judea.

What map are you using?

A map that has some freaking boarders on it.

Also you need to remember there were TWO Bethlehems in the 1st century: Bethlehem of Zebulun (around 10 kilometres north-west of Nazareth and 30 kilometres east of Haifa ie in Galilee) and Bethlehem of Judea (8 kilometers south of Jerusalem)

Bethlehem of Zebulun is the one mentioned in Joshua 19:15 and wasn't abandoned until sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

If you closely look at Micah 5:2 you will see it is referring to Bethlehem being "small among the clans of Judah" ie Bethlehem is the name of a CLAN and not a place. Matthew in his effort to prove prophecies that in many times simply didn't exist grabs for the most common "Bethlehem" known in his time--Bethlehem of Judea.

Even if you want to go the born in Bethlehem (place) route rather than born to Bethlehem (clan) route you still have Bethlehem of Zebulun as a solution. In fact, by Occam's razor Bethlehem of Zebulun with its close proximity to Nazareth is a far more viable option.

See Aviram Oshri's "Where was Jesus Born?" in Volume 58 Number 6, November/December 2005 of Archaeology for more details on the Bethlehem of Zebulun idea.

 

[Brainache]

A map that has some freaking boarders on it.

Also you need to remember there were TWO Bethlehems in the 1st century: Bethlehem of Zebulun (around 10 kilometres north-west of Nazareth and 30 kilometres east of Haifa ie in Galilee) and Bethlehem of Judea (8 kilometers south of Jerusalem)

Bethlehem of Zebulun is the one mentioned in Joshua 19:15 and wasn't abandoned until sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

If you closely look at Micah 5:2 you will see it is referring to Bethlehem being "small among the clans of Judah" ie Bethlehem is the name of a CLAN and not a place. Matthew in his effort to prove prophecies that in many times simply didn't exist grabs for the most common "Bethlehem" known in his time--Bethlehem of Judea.

Even if you want to go the born in Bethlehem (place) route rather than born to Bethlehem (clan) route you still have Bethlehem of Zebulun as a solution. In fact, by Occam's razor Bethlehem of Zebulun with its close proximity to Nazareth is a far more viable option.

See Aviram Oshri's "Where was Jesus Born?" in Volume 58 Number 6, November/December 2005 of Archaeology for more details on the Bethlehem of Zebulun idea.

Ok,thanks for that. First time I've heard of that. But still Betlehem of Judah would imply somewhere in Judah, not Galilee, wouldn't it?

I only bring this up because I've heard the argument that Matthew and Luke go through such silly convolutions to have Jesus born there in fulfillment of prophecy, that Scholars infer that he was actually from somewhere else.

 

[Craig B]

Ok,thanks for that. First time I've heard of that. But still Betlehem of Judah would imply somewhere in Judah, not Galilee, wouldn't it?

I only bring this up because I've heard the argument that Matthew and Luke go through such silly convolutions to have Jesus born there in fulfillment of prophecy, that Scholars infer that he was actually from somewhere else.

it's a sound argument. If Matthew is right, Jesus was born before Herod died, ie in or before 4 BCE; but if Luke's right he was born at the time of the census held by the Romans, which they conducted when they annexed Judaea in 6 CE. They wanted to get him born in Bethlehem (of Judaea) but they got him there by different means, at different times. Mark, whose gospel was evidently used as a source by both Mark and Luke - it is earlier - contains no reference to any virgin birth in Bethlehem. The story was invented later, it seems.

 

[Brainache]

it's a sound argument. If Matthew is right, Jesus was born before Herod died, ie in or before 4 BCE; but if Luke's right he was born at the time of the census held by the Romans, which they conducted when they annexed Judaea in 6 CE. They wanted to get him born in Bethlehem (of Judaea) but they got him there by different means, at different times. Mark, whose gospel was evidently used as a source by both Mark and Luke - it is earlier - contains no reference to any virgin birth in Bethlehem. The story was invented later, it seems.

That's how I always understood the argument and it makes sense to me, but now Maximara is telling me about some other Bethlehem in Galilee which, if Matthew and Luke knew about it, wouldn't require such complications.

I hadn't heard about Bethlehem as a clan or surname either, although I have heard of the Messiah as a "branch of the seed of David".

 

[dlorde]

For those with a serious interest in the historical Jesus, the University of Cambridge, England, is doing a 5 week online course, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, starting 29th October 2012.

 

[Craig B]

That's how I always understood the argument and it makes sense to me, but now Maximara is telling me about some other Bethlehem in Galilee which, if Matthew and Luke knew about it, wouldn't require such complications.

I hadn't heard about Bethlehem as a clan or surname either, although I have heard of the Messiah as a "branch of the seed of David".

Whether clan or place, Micah 5:2 states

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel

so the existence of any other Bethlehem, not in Judah, is quite irrelevant. Matthew and Mark are referring to Judah, and nowhere else, and if he wasn't born there, then we have absolutely no scriptural indication of where he was born. As stated, Mark says nothing. And John appears to dismiss the story.

 

[snoops]

Suppose that the true story of Jesus was that of a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in 1st century Palestine who angered the religious establishment and eventually became crucified under the supervision of Pontius Pilate.

If it could be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that this was in fact what gave rise to the Jesus story and eventually Christianity, would it count as the "historical Jesus"? I think it would be most uncharitable not to, as it is essentially what the Gospels tell, except for there being no miracles and supernatural mumbo-jumbo. And it really wouldn't be a particularly odd series of events (except for the crucifixion part), because there were plenty of Jewish Messiah claimants during this time. The whole idea of a Messiah is really rather childish, as it is basically the idea that one guy will fix all your problems.

Suppose instead that the Jesus-as-rebel hypothesis is true. That is, the idea that Jesus was really a rebel/bandit/revolutionary (who could well have claimed to be the Messiah as such, like who was crucified by the Romans, and the legends then remade him into a Messiah who preached peace. Would this be a close enough fit to talk about a historical Jesus?

What if the Jesus story sprung from the lives of several individuals whose life stories eventually merged into one story (plus the mythological stuff)? If that is the case, would it then be reasonable to talk about a historical Jesus?

In other words, how close to the Bible story would a historical individual's life have to be to be considered a (or the) historical Jesus?

Hi Hume Fork.....good question...........there is alot of evidence that points to a historical figure...........that said there has been many misrepresentaions, people embossing their own 'beliefs' upon the man........

John P Meir."A Marginal Jew" really parses the 'facts' from the embellishments......a first century non credentialed Rabbi who spoke against the oppression of the Roman Colonists and the 5% of the Jewish elites who exploited the majority.....

Yeshuas teachings were grounded in the Old Testament meta messages of Tzelem Elokim...all humans as 'The Image of God' and Tikun Olam.....rectification of the world by we, ourselves accepting limits, seeking to improve ourselves by accepting limits and striving to be co-creators by bringing order to chaos..........

YHWH provides the wheat, we, humans make the bread..YHWH provides the cotton, we, huans make the linen..........

Treat all humans as the Image of God is that they all have inherent dignity and value are unique and irreplacable...........

an excellent book is by obery hendricks...The Politics of Jesus..........


personally, I think by having a clearer 'picture; of this man, we can put to rest a lot of the hatred and exploitation that takes place.

many of the teachers are false and use Yeshua foe self aggrandizement, and enrichment and do not accurately represent him...

Yesua taught Tzelim Elokim.....Image of God Consciousness,,,,,,,,,,,not 'Christ Consciousness'...... most everything he taught was about YHWH, not himself.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The problem I still have with this is that group in Jerusalem that had power over Paul. Those people who Peter was afraid of. If Paul just made it up, then who were they and why were they trying to tell him what he was supposed to preach about Jesus?

OK: This may be nothing more than a case of buck fever, "late to the party, early with an opinion"...

...but how do we know about "this group in Jerusalem..."? What sources do we have about them and their interactions with Paul Tarsi above and beyond, or outside of, stuff that was (theoretically) written by Tarsi, or by guys on his side?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well - I'm not surprised.

On the one hand - hugely impressive scholarship from Hans Mustermann.

Kudos and respect, sir...

On the other hand...

Nonsense...

Care to clarify?

 

[The Norseman]

Care to clarify?

Not that I'm answering for Rincewind, mind you, but my take on it is that Rincewind was comparing and contrasting HansMustermann's posts with DOC's posts. My personal observation is that Rincewind is correct in that DOC is all smoke and no fire when it comes to things like evidence and logic -- two things that DOC acts as if they're trifling inconsequentials.

 

[davefoc]

OK: This may be nothing more than a case of buck fever, "late to the party, early with an opinion"...

...but how do we know about "this group in Jerusalem..."? What sources do we have about them and their interactions with Paul Tarsi above and beyond, or outside of, stuff that was (theoretically) written by Tarsi, or by guys on his side?

We don't know they existed. If a Palestinian Jewish sect associated with Jesus existed in the first century no writings or artifacts exist today that can be reliably attributed to them. Some kind of Jewish Christians existed early in the history of Christianity but whether they were associated with a Jewish Jesus sect in the Palestinian area isn't known. The writings of Paul that refer to Peter, James etc are probably the best evidence for this group. There are various other pieces of evidence for this group including claims by various churches that they were founded by members of the group, claims that the early church fathers knew some of the members of the group, the famous Josephus references and of course references to the group in the NT besides Paul. It looks to me like this other evidence is very weak with the possible exception of Josephus. It's very easy to imagine that much of the evidence was created by the early Church to provide an historical basis for their authority and for their religion. So, for me this largely comes down to what to make of Paul's writings as to the existence of an HJ. I think the writings have a ring of truth about them that suggests that Paul probably existed, that the people he mentioned probably existed and that when he talks about Jesus he is referring to somebody that existed as a real human being. Josephus might provide a little support for that idea also but my view on that changes depending on which arguments I happen to have read most recently. I also think that whether an HJ existed or not is unknowable. There are plausible theories for the creation of Christianity that don't involve an HJ.

 

[Rincewind]

Not that I'm answering for Rincewind, mind you, but my take on it is that Rincewind was comparing and contrasting HansMustermann's posts with DOC's posts. My personal observation is that Rincewind is correct in that DOC is all smoke and no fire when it comes to things like evidence and logic -- two things that DOC acts as if they're trifling inconsequentials.

I'd like to thank you, Mr The Norseman (and your sceptical Cat) for saving me the need to respond. You've written pretty much what I'd have done.

I believe that in other threads this would call for a round of Dom?

 

[pakeha]

^
Alas, that thread jumped its last shark.

For those with a serious interest in the historical Jesus, the University of Cambridge, England, is doing a 5 week online course, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, starting 29th October 2012.

Bookmarked to look into.
Thanks for the heads-up!

YHWH provides the wheat, we, humans make the bread..YHWH provides the cotton, we, huans make the linen............... most everything he taught was about YHWH, not himself.

snoops, welcome to the forum.
That was an odd statement about the cotton and the linen. What did you mean by it?

 

[snoops]

^
Alas, that thread jumped its last shark.


Bookmarked to look into.
Thanks for the heads-up!



snoops, welcome to the forum.
That was an odd statement about the cotton and the linen. What did you mean by it?

Hi pakeha, thank you....yes, that is some sage Rabbinic wisdom asto how YHWH initiates the process, and we, as humans, made in 'Gods Image' are co-creators, to help complete the creation..

He has provided us with all we need. The potential is there.....isn't it marvelous that we humans figured out what to do with the various plants and substances on this planet?

 

[Craig B]

... It looks to me like this other evidence is very weak with the possible exception of Josephus ... Josephus might provide a little support for that idea also but my view on that changes depending on which arguments I happen to have read most recently.

There is a huge literature on this. Josephus wrote no reference to Jesus. No commentator prior to Eusebius notices the "evidence" of the Josephus reference. Origen denies it. It's nonsense.

 

[Brainache]

...

He has provided us with all we need. The potential is there.....isn't it marvelous that we humans figured out what to do with the various plants and substances on this planet?

We'd be pretty hard-pressed to do anything with the various plants and substances on any other planet...

 

[pakeha]

Hi pakeha, thank you....yes, that is some sage Rabbinic wisdom asto how YHWH initiates the process, and we, as humans, made in 'Gods Image' are co-creators, to help complete the creation..

He has provided us with all we need. The potential is there.....isn't it marvelous that we humans figured out what to do with the various plants and substances on this planet?

Actually, what puzzled me was your linking two different plants in this context:

View Post
YHWH provides the wheat, we, humans make the bread..YHWH provides the cotton, we, huans make the linen...............

In any case,

.isn't it marvelous that we humans figured out what to do with the various plants and substances on this planet?

Marvelous?
I think that depends on what you mean by marvelous, snoops.
I suspect trial and error had a lot to do with it.
Remember the Post-it!

 

[catsmate]

For those with a serious interest in the historical Jesus, the University of Cambridge, England, is doing a 5 week online course, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, starting 29th October 2012.

Thank you for that.

Hi Hume Fork.....good question...........there is alot of evidence that points to a historical figure

Such as?

YHWH provides the wheat, we, humans make the bread..YHWH provides the cotton, we, huans make the linen..........

Any evidence for this?

Hi pakeha, thank you....yes, that is some sage Rabbinic wisdom asto how YHWH initiates the process, and we, as humans, made in 'Gods Image' are co-creators, to help complete the creation.

Evidence?