The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[Kapyong]

Gday,

The earliest NT manuscripts date from much later than 300 AD,

Nah, you must mean the earliest complete manuscripts.

But we have largely complete MSS, from around 200CE or so.

P46 contains much of Paul's writings from 200CE or so.

P75 contains much of Luke and John from 200 CE or so.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Also, there is Pliny the Younger who also briefly discussed Jesus (you may not be familiar with that source since you did not mention him).

Well, Pliny mentions Christians who worship a Christ as a god - he doesn't say 'Jesus'. It's hardly a reference to a historical Jesus.

Q.

 

[jhunter1163]

And the MOD sat in the midst of the posters and began to teach them, saying "Strive thou to be civil and polite, and bickereth not amongst thyselves; for that way lieth the cards of yellow, and beyond that Suspendatoria; and if thou persist in thy wickedness even beyond there, thou shalt be cast into Gebanna, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." And the posters were chastened, and turned from their bickery ways; and the MOD saw that it was good.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[smartcooky]

Gday,



Nah, you must mean the earliest complete manuscripts.

Sorry, I meant "not much later"

 

[Kapyong]

The alleged evidence for Jesus

Gday all,

Here is my (skeptical) and exhaustive list of the alleged evidence for Jesus :


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
•the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book, which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
•The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
•The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.
•Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
•The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
•The other tiny passage in Josephus aparrently refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus by Earl Doherty can be found here:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.

Kapyong

 

[smartcooky]

Kapyong

So my earlier suggestion for the Gospel dates as being "about" 80 - 200 CE seems to align roughly with the dates, where you have supplied them . 96 - 170 CE.

BTW, some Christians still claim that Mark was written as early as 30 CE which would place the life of the alleged HJ within "living memory" of the writer. I think we can safely rule that out as "Christian wishful thinking".

 

[Kapyong]

Gday smartcooky,

Thanks for your reply

Hard to say when the Gospels were WRITTEN (and 30CE for G.Mark is indeed ridiculously early,) but it seems a lot clearer when they finally became widely known to Christians - about mid 2nd C. :


Christian Books by Decade - Gospel mentions

<50s>
Paul - NO Gospel mentions

<60s>
Hebrews - NO Gospel mentions

<80s>
Colossians - NO Gospel mentions
1 John - NO Gospel mentions
James - NO Gospel mentions

<90s>
Ephesians - NO Gospel mentions
2 Thess. - NO Gospel mentions
1 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
1 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Revelation - NO Gospel mentions

<100s>
The Didakhe - NO Gospel mentions
Jude - NO Gospel mentions

<110s>
Barnabas - NO Gospel mentions

<120s>
2 John - NO Gospel mentions
3 John - NO Gospel mentions
G.Thomas - NO Gospel mentions

<130s>
Papias - mentions 2 writings, not called Gospels yet
2 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
The Pastorals - NO Gospel mentions
G.Peter - NO Gospel mentions

<140s>
to Diognetus - NO Gospel mentions
Ep.Apostles - NO Gospel mentions
2 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Aristides - calls the singular Gospel newly preached in 138-161CE

<150s>
Justin refers to "memoirs of the apostles" which are "also called Gospels". But he gives no names, and his quotes are not identical to modern Gospels.

After that, everyone know and quotes and mentions the Gospels endlessly.

It seems pretty clear the Gospels only became widely known in mid 2nd C. or so, before that, no-one seems to have heard of them.


Kapyong

 

[smartcooky]

but it seems a lot clearer when they finally became widely known to Christians - about mid 2nd C. :

It does seem somewhat suspicious that Christians claim there was this massive ground-swell support for "Jesus as Messiah" with Judaism to Christianity conversions taking place, and yet, there seems to be no historical evidence for this having taken place, and in fact it seems that Christians didn't "get it" for nearly 200 years?

 

[Bad vibe]

And the MOD sat in the midst of the posters and began to teach them, saying "Strive thou to be civil and polite, and bickereth not amongst thyselves; for that way lieth the cards of yellow, and beyond that Suspendatoria; and if thou persist in thy wickedness even beyond there, thou shalt be cast into Gebanna, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." And the posters were chastened, and turned from their bickery ways; and the MOD saw that it was good.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

Point accepted and understood,

@Crossbow, sorry reading back I was a little harsh but I was rushed for time. I should have said the things you stated as "simple facts", when looked into tend to be subjective opinion, wishful thinking etc they are anything but facts. Facts in this area are few and far between and most here are not only familiar with the material you presented but have discussed it numerous times.

It wasn't long ago I thought pretty much as you do but stick around, I'm sure you'll soon see just how complex and contradictory this is, most of the things you think you know turn out to be not only wrong but are basically pure fiction.

 

[eight bits]

It does seem somewhat suspicious that Christians claim there was this massive ground-swell support for "Jesus as Messiah" with Judaism to Christianity conversions taking place, and yet, there seems to be no historical evidence for this having taken place, and in fact it seems that Christians didn't "get it" for nearly 200 years?

Surely this can only be some Christians. All four Gospels, plus Acts, depict determined Jewish opposition to Jesus (my guess being that that level of concern is just as much a fantasy as any "groundswell" for Jesus might be). What few Jewish supporters he ever had dither among themsleves after he dies, until bit by bit, they discover that Gentiles are a softer target. Profit.

I think the Christian picture of rapid geographical dispersion may be OK factually, but to accomplish that doesn't require many adherents in any one place or even overall. Also, the "martyrdom" (not to be confused with tax avoidance or being obnoxious) narrative pretty much requires small numbers for a long time. Good cell-oriented organization is a reliable, intuitive way for a small group to survive indefinitely in the midst of efforts to eradicate them. Survive long enough, and eventually somebody is bound to see some way to use you politically.

Anyway, any details you have about apologists pushing a "big numbers early on" movement would be welcome. The well-attested spread of some kind of Jesus movement is the main reason to entertain the hypothesis that there actually was a non-mythical Jesus as patient zero.

 

[Navigator]

And the MOD sat in the midst of the posters and began to teach them, saying "Strive thou to be civil and polite, and bickereth not amongst thyselves; for that way lieth the cards of yellow, and beyond that Suspendatoria; and if thou persist in thy wickedness even beyond there, thou shalt be cast into Gebanna, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." And the posters were chastened, and turned from their bickery ways; and the MOD saw that it was good.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

Love it!

 

[pakeha]

... Also, there is Pliny the Younger who also briefly discussed Jesus (you may not be familiar with that source since you did not mention him). ...

Gday,



Well, Pliny mentions Christians who worship a Christ as a god - he doesn't say 'Jesus'. It's hardly a reference to a historical Jesus.

Q.

Yes, that exchange of letters between Pliny and his Emperor is a fascinating insight into the nature of Christianity as it was seen at the time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the confusion of Pliny as to just what Christians believed wasn't actually cleared up.

ETA
More on that letter exchange from http://web.archive.org/web/20050306...es.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/Plinynot.html.

Pliny's letter is problematic. We have already observed that the fact that we do not know where it was written or in what city the Christian problem surfaced is strange.

More problematic, however, is that, according to Pliny, there was a "great number" Christians, "of every age and class," not only "in the cities" [plural] "but in villages and rural districts as well" -- i.e., just about everywhere. This doesn't seem like a realistic scenario.

Another problem is that if Pliny has no direct knowledge of judicial proceedings against Christians, nor of the punishments usually meted out, why did he nevertheless proceed in the way he did-executing those persons who confess to being Christian. In spite of what he says to begin with, Pliny seems to know very well how to deal with persons who confess to being Christians, and the only uncertainty he seems to have concerns the special cases in which people retract their beliefs and renounce Christianity. But why did Pliny decide that Christians should be put to death simply because they were Christian? To put this another way, in spite of his questions, Pliny already knows the answer to the most important question: punishment of Christians has nothing to do with any specific crimes they commit.

I didn't know this exchange presented any problems as to its authenticity.
Live and learn!

We do not know, therefore, where the letter was written, nor do we know whether the problem Pliny encountered arose in Amisus, Amastris, or somewhere else. "The city where the trouble first arose cannot be determined" (S-White, 693; cf. Wilken, 15). Wilken tells us (15) that Pliny no doubt assumed "that Trajan would know where he was." But how would Trajan have known this? And even if he knew where the letter was written from, how would he have known in what city the problem arose? - which might not be unimportant, since Amisus was a self-governing city with significant freedom to determine its own way of life (Wilken, 14). In any case, it is strange that, particularly in a letter of such length and detail, dealing with such an important subject (as he emphasizes in his letter), Pliny makes no mention of where the trouble arose.

Are we back to using Paul, Josephus and Tacitus as earliest witnesses to Jesus' physical existence?

In any case, Keresztes states the problem very clearly: "Our problem, however, is serious, and it is this: What was the juridicial basis for Pliny's unhesitating decision to have the faithful confessors put to death?" (278).

This is the crucial question, since the real issue has to do with whether we are dealing here with Christian legend or with historical facts.

Just how much of what we know of the early church is based on fact and how much is fiction?
I'm left thinking it's a tangled web, indeed.

... The well-attested spread of some kind of Jesus movement is the main reason to entertain the hypothesis that there actually was a non-mythical Jesus as patient zero.

Yes, I had the impression Marcionites and/or Ebionites, movements which deny the physical nature of Jesus, make up the majority of that 'well-attested spread'.

 

[Crossbow]

I'm so glad you enjoyed your cave tour.
The last one I visted was here
http://www.spain.info/en/que-quieres/arte/monumentos/castellon/cueva_riosubterraneo_castellon.html

Of course you're right to say the tour guide information you received was probably top notch, as was the information you were given in the other venues you mentioned.

However, Nazareth is an entirely different kettle of fish for a number of reasons, starting with less than ideal archeological protocols, and yes, religious and economic pressures.

It's really quite an unpleasant saga, though in line with religious tourism all over the world.
Just as an example of just how the information can be twisted in a tour, my Catalan tour guide at Montserrat Monastery was unaware the buildings had been destroyed by Napoleon's army and completely rebuilt in the 19th century.

But let's back-back to Nazareth.
There's no doubt the archeological findings at Nazareth have been twisted beyond recognition. Many of the facts presented in that tourist site are unverifiable because the archeologists haven't published their findings, only presented them in press releases.
If you're interested in learning more about the archeology of Nazareth, I'll post up a number of links for you.

Thanks much for your kind thoughts and your data about Nazareth. The cave tour was really great, however I never did get to see 'Bat Boy'.

As for me, please do not post those links you referred to; after all, if you say that they contain valid information, then that is good enough for me. And besides, I am so busy at work now, I really do not have the time to properly process that data.

But I sure do appreciate the thought all the same, so thanks much and take care.

 

[Crossbow]

Gday all,

Here is my (skeptical) and exhaustive list of the alleged evidence for Jesus :

... snipped for brevity ...SUMMARY

In short,
•there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
•there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
•the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
•the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.


Kapyong

Wow!

Thanks so much for sharing your excellent research. It is a big help.

And the only reason why I snipped it was to save a bit of bandwith.

You are one of the people who really put the "E" in JREF.

 

[Kapyong]

Ancient Writers who could have mentioned Jesus

Gday Crossbow,

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it

Wow!
Thanks so much for sharing your excellent research. It is a big help.
And the only reason why I snipped it was to save a bit of bandwith.
You are one of the people who really put the "E" in JREF.

Here is another one you might like - the list of ancient writers who coulda, woulda, shoulda mentioned Jesus :


Ancient Writers who could have mentioned Jesus

A well-known list of early writers from Remsburg is much bandied about by sceptics. This list names a large number of early writers who lived about the time of Jesus, but who failed to mention him. Some of the names on the list do not belong, because they just could not be expected to have mentioned Jesus. The Remsburg list is also without dates and subjects and places, and is unclear in identifying some authors. So, I have updated and improved this list, taking it up to the mid 2nd century. Some of the writers listed need more details.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.

 

[Kapyong]

...
Writers who could have mentioned Jesus


DAMIS (mid 1st C. - early 2nd C.)

Damis apparently wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana who was a philosopher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus, and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.

If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2


...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.

 

[maximara]

Gday all,

Here is my (skeptical) and exhaustive list of the alleged evidence for Jesus :

(Snipped for space)

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
•Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but apparently not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
•Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
•This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.


This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

The oldest copy of Tacitus shows that Christianos was actually Chrestianos which creates other problems that I will address below.

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.

So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
•this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
•this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.

So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html

I have grouped these together because not only was "Chrestus" a familiar personal name meaning "good" or "useful", but it was also a name of the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis.

In fact, a letter from Hadrian to Servianus, 134 CE states:

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."

"Christians" and "Chrestians" are not that different in Latin so it is possible that Hadrian misheard. But if Roman officials couldn't keep "Christians" (followers of Christ) and "Chrestians" (followers of Chrestus aka Serapis) straight then any reference to "Christians" or Chrestians form this time period and before is suspect.

THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.

What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".

But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

More like desperation to find something anything to show Jesus existed.

 

[pakeha]

Alas, I've seen there are problems with that Hadrian correspondence.

http://benstanhope.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/ray-hagins-is-wrong-serapis-letter.html

...Hagins tries to show Christianity and Jesus evolved out of Egyptian religion by quoting the following correspondence “dated” to AD 134:

“Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis [here] are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis [I find], call themselves Bishops of Christ.”


So what’s the big deal? In short, this letter is a widely known forgery. It’s a fake.

Despite the obvious fact that the letter (if it were authentic) would be a century too old to demonstrate any meaningful Christian etiology, it is part of a late 4th century forgery entitled Historia Augusta. The Historia Augusta contains so many anachronisms that it is easily dated to AD 395. The “Serapis letter” itself is full of anachronisms demonstrating this point. Hadrian was only in Egypt in 130, and the letter mentions his adopted son Lucius Aelius, who Hadrian did not adopt until six years after. Hadrian also salutes Servianus as consul, but Servianus did receive position as consul until 134. The letter also mentions the “Patriarch of Jewry,” a position that did exist until he created it after the Jewish Revolt in 132.

 

[Crossbow]

Gday Crossbow,

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it

... snipped for brevity ...

Many thanks again!

You are a gentleman and a scholar (which is always a good combination).

 

[smartcooky]

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.

Just great!

I was wanting to print out that list and I was going to do it from those posts. Now I'll have to chase all around the web looking for it.

You don't always have to apply the "rules" so rigidly In this case, it was useful have " lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere", that come from different places, all in the one place so they can be read together!


Kapyong: could you please supply a link to the snipped content of your two posts.

Thanks