Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

I just had a thought. Uh oh.

Is the fact that this person (or both these people, if you prefer) are know by simply one name? I mean rather than "Theudas Son of..." or "Theudas From .." or "Theudas Of ..." that we normally see? (Especially when there is more than one)

Does it lend any weight one way or another to the idea that it is two names merged together?

Does Didymus-Thomas really mean "Twin-Twin"? One Greek word, one Hebrew word?

His death doesn't really match that of Judas in the Gospel, or Does It?

Um, no it doesn't you idiot. Settle down Brainache. Anyway, that wouldn't mean anything one way or the other, given the fairy-tale nature of the first half of Acts.

And if there is a pair of twins involved anywhere, I think there names are Judas Thomas(also a Zealot or Sicarii) and Simon Zealotes, and I have no real clear idea why, or any way to prove it, but both brothers of Jesus.

Ooh look what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot

Robert Eisenman has pointed out[3] contemporary talmudic references to Zealots as kanna'im "but not really as a group — rather as avenging priests in the Temple". Eisenman's broader conclusions, that the zealot element in the original apostle group was disguised and overwritten to make it support the assimilative Pauline Christianity of the Gentiles is more controversial. John P. Meier points out that the term "Zealot" is a mistranslation and in the context of the Gospels means "zealous" or "jealous" (in this case, for keeping the Law of Moses) as the Zealot movement did not exist until 30 to 40 years after the events of the Gospels.[4]
In the Gospels, Simon the Zealot is never identified with Simon the brother of Jesus mentioned in Gospel of Mark 6:3 :
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? — New International Version

Re the bold:
I don't know who John P. Meier is, but he is talking absolute poppycock. I say they were brothers of Jesus. Judas and Simon. I know no one will agree with me, because it is just too convenient for Eisenman's Hypothesis.

I really really don't feel comfortable saying this, and it is very difficult to do it with a straight face, but adding together all of the traces of where Jesus' family members have been removed, it looks like a cover-up.

It wasn't such a big issue for Mark, because that was before the war (but only just)...

For those of you following my silly "movie version", I'll get to it. Starting to look like a mini-series now. Maybe I should pitch it to HBO...

 

[maximara]

Ooh look what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot


Re the bold:
I don't know who John P. Meier is, but he is talking absolute poppycock.

According to wikipedia John P. Meier is "William K. Warren Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. His fields include biblical studies and Christianity and Judaism in antiquity"

I say they were brothers of Jesus. Judas and Simon. I know no one will agree with me, because it is just too convenient for Eisenman's Hypothesis.

I really really don't feel comfortable saying this, and it is very difficult to do it with a straight face, but adding together all of the traces of where Jesus' family members have been removed, it looks like a cover-up.

It wasn't such a big issue for Mark, because that was before the war (but only just)...

Its possible as Paul notes other Jesus, other spirits, other Gospels c55 CE. It is within reason that there was a more militant form of Christianity that was effectively eradicated in the war. The warlike passages in Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51 may be remnants.

 

[Brainache]

According to wikipedia John P. Meier is "William K. Warren Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. His fields include biblical studies and Christianity and Judaism in antiquity"

Well I guess that explains the poppycock. It certainly doesn't agree with Josephus' (and just about every other ancient source's) picture of events.

He is saying that none of the rebel leaders from the 0's to the 60's CE were Zealots.

Is this just a quibble over what they called themselves? Rather than their ideology?

Its possible as Paul notes other Jesus, other spirits, other Gospels c55 CE. It is within reason that there was a more militant form of Christianity that was effectively eradicated in the war. The warlike passages in Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51 may be remnants.

 

[IanS]

My belief that there was a historical Jesus is based on the admittedly thin evidence provided by Tacitus in the Annals and the possibility that what Josephus wrote of the execution of James did originally contain the words, "Jesus, who was called Christ." I accept that this may well not be the case, since the earliest copies of the Antiquities dates from ca. 1100.

.

Is Tacitus any better than Josephus as a source of information? Afaik, the earliest copies of Tacitus also date from around the 11th century. Apparently also copies written by Christians?

 

[TimCallahan]

Is Tacitus any better than Josephus as a source of information? Afaik, the earliest copies of Tacitus also date from around the 11th century. Apparently also copies written by Christians?

We can't throw out every document that came down to us by transmission, rather than through preserved copies. If we did, we'd also have to throw out Caesar's Gallic Wars, all the rest of the Annals by Tacitus, The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, all of what Josephus wrote, Homer, Hesiod, Plato, all the Greek plays etc.

What we find on Christians in the Annals isn't likely do be anything most Christians would want to insert. Its a very acerbic passage in which Tacitus refers to the Christians as "notoriously depraved" and "hateful to the human race." That said, it has been argued that when Tacitus says that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate, he was just writing down what Christians said about themselves. I suppose that's possible, though I wonder why they would make something like that up if it weren't true. It's not exactly great advertising.

 

[IanS]

We can't throw out every document that came down to us by transmission, rather than through preserved copies. If we did, we'd also have to throw out Caesar's Gallic Wars, all the rest of the Annals by Tacitus, The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, all of what Josephus wrote, Homer, Hesiod, Plato, all the Greek plays etc.

What we find on Christians in the Annals isn't likely do be anything most Christians would want to insert. Its a very acerbic passage in which Tacitus refers to the Christians as "notoriously depraved" and "hateful to the human race." That said, it has been argued that when Tacitus says that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate, he was just writing down what Christians said about themselves. I suppose that's possible, though I wonder why they would make something like that up if it weren't true. It's not exactly great advertising.

I don't think we have chuck out anything about Roman emperors. For a start no Roman emperors have even 0.0000...1% of the direct practical importance that Jesus and Christianity has in the lives of half the people on earth today. So Jesus requires much better evidence that any relatively irrelevant ancient Roman rulers.

But also, afaik, Tacitus has almost nothing to say about Jesus anyway. And what he does say can only be hearsay, for which the only known sources are Christian religious believers anyway ... none of whom ever met Jesus (apparently).

But the point is that if you doubt Josephus on the basis that all we have are 11th century Christian copies, then why is Tacitus any better as an 11th century Christian copy making very scant hearsay mention of what 1st century Christians thought about a messiah that none of them ever knew?

 

[Brainache]

Just dropping in to add another name to the list of "Theudas" suspects: Thaddeus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_the_Apostle

Jude was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He is generally identified with Thaddeus, and is also variously called Jude of James, Jude Thaddaeus, Judas Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus. He is sometimes identified with Jude, "brother of Jesus", but is clearly distinguished from Judas Iscariot, another apostle, the betrayer of Jesus.
The Armenian Apostolic Church honors Thaddeus along with Saint Bartholomew as its patron saints. In the Roman Catholic Church he is the patron saint of desperate cases and lost causes.
Saint Jude's attribute is a club. He is also often shown in icons with a flame around his head. This represents his presence at Pentecost, when he received the Holy Spirit with the other apostles. Another common attribute is Jude holding an image of Jesus Christ, in the image of Edessa. In some instances he may be shown with a scroll or a book (the Epistle of Jude) or holding a carpenter's rule.

OK, so maybe the Iscariot was someone else, but as for Theudas/Thaddaeus/Judas/Jude, Josephus says they chopped his head off.
...
Hey Jude
Don't make bad
The movement you need
is on your shoulders.
Na na na na, na na na na...

 

[maximara]

We can't throw out every document that came down to us by transmission, rather than through preserved copies. If we did, we'd also have to throw out Caesar's Gallic Wars, all the rest of the Annals by Tacitus, The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, all of what Josephus wrote, Homer, Hesiod, Plato, all the Greek plays etc.

What we find on Christians in the Annals isn't likely do be anything most Christians would want to insert. Its a very acerbic passage in which Tacitus refers to the Christians as "notoriously depraved" and "hateful to the human race." That said, it has been argued that when Tacitus says that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate, he was just writing down what Christians said about themselves. I suppose that's possible, though I wonder why they would make something like that up if it weren't true. It's not exactly great advertising.

However the earliest copy of Tacitus shows Chrestians was changed to Christians who if the letter of Hadrian to Servianus c134 CE in Historia Augusta (which admittedly has loads of issues) followers of the pagan god Chrestus (Serapis).

Compounding matters is the fact the Codex Sinaiticus (330-360 CE) uses the word Chrestians rather than Christians.

So you have a possible sound alike pagan group running around (as if things weren't complicated enough)

 

[IanS]

What we find on Christians in the Annals isn't likely do be anything most Christians would want to insert. Its a very acerbic passage in which Tacitus refers to the Christians as "notoriously depraved" and "hateful to the human race." .

I think that’s what biblical historians call an "argument from embarrassment". Meaning they can identify statements that are likely to be true because otherwise the words would be illogically self critical.

I don't know about you, but I find that sort of argument/evidence extremely weak to say the least. It's certainly not remotely scientific or objective.

However, that argument aside - the fact that Tacitus says the Chrsitians were depraved and hateful, is only his comment on the way some Chrsitian worshippers conducted themselves. It’s not a comment which provides any evidence of Jesus, is it?

That said, it has been argued that when Tacitus says that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate, he was just writing down what Christians said about themselves. I suppose that's possible, though I wonder why they would make something like that up if it weren't true. It's not exactly great advertising.

How would Tacitus know anything about the execution of Jesus, except by what other people had told him? Tacitus was supposedly born in 56AD, and Jesus was supposed to have died around 30AD. So who could have told Tacitus anything about Jesus? Afaik the only known source of anyone claiming Jesus was executed by Pilate, is the biblical writing itself.

In which case all of that information given by authors such as Tacitus and Josephus appears to have come from what 1st century Christians themselves were saying about the origin of their beliefs arising from the earliest gospel writing and the letters of Paul.

IOW - all of the Christian beliefs about Jesus seem to stem from the earliest NT biblical writing. And that gospel writing itself seems to have come from what was already written as messiah prophecy in the OT. Are there any other known earlier/original sources for the Jesus beliefs? (shrugs, ).

 

[maximara]

How would Tacitus know anything about the execution of Jesus, except by what other people had told him? Tacitus was supposedly born in 56AD, and Jesus was supposed to have died around 30AD. So who could have told Tacitus anything about Jesus?

I think the implication apologists are given is that since Tacitus had access to Roman imperial records that the information could have come from there.

Scott Oser points out the problems with this view:

"There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity."

In which case all of that information given by authors such as Tacitus and Josephus appears to have come from what 1st century Christians themselves were saying about the origin of their beliefs arising from the earliest gospel writing and the letters of Paul.

IOW - all of the Christian beliefs about Jesus seem to stem from the earliest NT biblical writing. And that gospel writing itself seems to have come from what was already written as messiah prophecy in the OT. Are there any other known earlier/original sources for the Jesus beliefs? (shrugs, ).

We should mention there are strange hiccups that you would not expect regarding a well known historical person as Jesus is supposed have been such as him being crucified c100 BCE during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (Epiphanius) or being crucified by Herod Agrippa I under the reign of Claudius ie no earlier then 42 CE (Irenaeus (c180 CE) Demonstration (74))!


As for the ideas themselves... nothing really new here. Take Luke 6:31 for example, it the Golden Rule which had appear many times in many culture centuries before Jesus.

 

[IanS]

I think the implication apologists are given is that since Tacitus had access to Roman imperial records that the information could have come from there.

Scott Oser points out the problems with this view:

"There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity."

Just on that point about apologists saying that Tacitus might have had access to Roman records saying that Pilate had executed Jesus, and rebuttals to that from critics like Scott Osser - I think the first point to make is that (afaik) we have no such Roman records talking about the execution of Jesus, in which case any suggestion of that sort is in any case nothing more that self-serving speculation with no evidence of the suggested Roman records anyway. So speculation of that sort is a non-starter anyway.


Though one thing I should have said above, is that I’m not really taking issue with Tim Callahan or disputing anything he has said in any of these threads. I appreciate that Tim has been very reasonable and sensible throughout. I’m just asking him why he thinks Tacitus is any better than Josephus as evidence of Jesus, given that all we have from either of those authors are copies written 1000 years later by Christians themselves?

There might be some reasonable objective evidential reason to think that Jesus was a real person. But I don’t think there is any such evidence in 11th century copies of works like Tacitus or Josephus.

 

[TimCallahan]

Just on that point about apologists saying that Tacitus might have had access to Roman records saying that Pilate had executed Jesus, and rebuttals to that from critics like Scott Osser - I think the first point to make is that (afaik) we have no such Roman records talking about the execution of Jesus, in which case any suggestion of that sort is in any case nothing more that self-serving speculation with no evidence of the suggested Roman records anyway. So speculation of that sort is a non-starter anyway.


Though one thing I should have said above, is that I’m not really taking issue with Tim Callahan or disputing anything he has said in any of these threads. I appreciate that Tim has been very reasonable and sensible throughout. I’m just asking him why he thinks Tacitus is any better than Josephus as evidence of Jesus, given that all we have from either of those authors are copies written 1000 years later by Christians themselves?

There might be some reasonable objective evidential reason to think that Jesus was a real person. But I don’t think there is any such evidence in 11th century copies of works like Tacitus or Josephus.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to think that the Romans kept some records of who was or wasn't put to death in their provinces or anything about how much tax money came in from this city or that or any number of mundane facts - all of which were lost in time. I also think that - with the exception of Suetonius - we can be reasonably sure these people, for the most part, knew the difference between Christians and Chrestians.

However, as I've said before, it is ultimately of little or no importance whether there was or wasn't a historical Jesus of Nazareth, for the following reasons:

1) As Paul makes clear in his epistle to the Romans, his Christ Jesus came through a personal revelation (what most of us would call a hallucination) and that he didn't bother greatly with the historical Jesus (Gal. 1:11, 12, emphasis added):

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul goes on to say (Gal. 1:16b), " . . . I did not confer with flesh and blood. . ."

He says that he eventually, after three years, went up to Jerusalem, but only talked to James and Cephas (Peter) and, as is further apparent from Galatians, he went his own way whenever he disagreed with them. Thus, Paul dispensed with any historical Jesus.

2) The narrative material of the gospels - the earliest of which, Mark, was written after CE 70 - was taken from four basic sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism and recent events seen through an apocalyptic lens, pagan myth, and Greek literature. About the only thing historical in them, assuming Jesus to be historical, was that he was crucified as a messianic pretender. He may have caused a disruption in the temple that was the proximate cause of his arrest; or he may simply have been arrested and summarily done away with by the Romans. Whatever happened to him, the gospels are useless as historical documents.

3) As a religion, Christianity was wildly syncretistic, borrowing the imagery of the Madonna and child from that of Isis and the infant Horus, as well as taking the Pieta from Isis mourning the slain Osiris; borrowing motifs from the worship of Dionysus, another man-god born of an erstwhile virgin impregnated by a god, and one who, according who The Bacchae, is rejected in his hometown; taking the Easter material both from the Jewish Passover and pagan vernal equinox celebrations; and, eventually, taking the winter solstice (then on December 25) as the birthday of Jesus, from that of Sol Invictus. It has become academic fashion for the last few decades to reject comparisons of Jesus to dying and rising gods. However, back in the first half of the second century, Christian apologist Justin Martyr did just that (First Apology, chapters 21 and 54).

The pageants of his birth and death were further mythologized by extra-biblical invention, givng us the three magi, as well as Saints Dismis, Lazarus and Longinus.

So, whatever historical Jesus who might have existed was essentially dispensed with by Paul, had a history manufactured for him by the author of Mark, which was elaborated on by Matthew and Luke, and further amended and altered in the Gospel of John; and was finally expanded by extra-biblical invention and syncretism into the Jesus of the Christian religion.

 

[maximara]

Just on that point about apologists saying that Tacitus might have had access to Roman records saying that Pilate had executed Jesus, and rebuttals to that from critics like Scott Osser - I think the first point to make is that (afaik) we have no such Roman records talking about the execution of Jesus, in which case any suggestion of that sort is in any case nothing more that self-serving speculation with no evidence of the suggested Roman records anyway. So speculation of that sort is a non-starter anyway.


Though one thing I should have said above, is that I’m not really taking issue with Tim Callahan or disputing anything he has said in any of these threads. I appreciate that Tim has been very reasonable and sensible throughout. I’m just asking him why he thinks Tacitus is any better than Josephus as evidence of Jesus, given that all we have from either of those authors are copies written 1000 years later by Christians themselves?
There might be some reasonable objective evidential reason to think that Jesus was a real person. But I don’t think there is any such evidence in 11th century copies of works like Tacitus or Josephus.

I agree with issue regarding the supposed existence of Roman records...its a non starter from the get go. But it is important to understand what the apologists are doing here.

While I agree in principal about using 11th century copies produced by Christians I prefer the tack of asking even if they were total genuine would they really tell us Jesus existed?

Using John Frum as our base example the answer is a resounding: no they don't. In fact, scholarly work on John Frum shows the speed with which any possible founder of a moment can be totally obliterated.

Reading Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 166-179 and Worsley, Peter (1957). The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia London: MacGibbon & Kee. pp. 153-9 gives you a snapshot of this process.

As early as 1947 where were claim that the movement had seeds going back thirty years to the 1910s.

Between 1952 and 1957 the native's idea of John Frum took a more definitive form and instead of just this vague being he became a literate white US serviceman.

By 1957 a splinter group had even given John Frum a flesh and blood brother (even through the man only has sisters): Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

As far as the oral tradition is concerned the three natives who took up the name 'John Frum' in the period 1940-1947 don't exist: the one and only John Frum is the literate white US serviceman who appeared to the village Elders in the late 1930s

If as some suspect the John Frum movement started in the late 1930s then in 20 years it had effectively memory holed its true history and replaced it with something else. And if that can happen in only 20 years then what does that mean for the 60 years from c36 for Josephus and the 10 move years of Tacitus in terms of telling us anything? The answer is obvious.

 

[IanS]

I don't think it would be unreasonable to think that the Romans kept some records of who was or wasn't put to death in their provinces or anything about how much tax money came in from this city or that or any number of mundane facts - all of which were lost in time. I also think that - with the exception of Suetonius - we can be reasonably sure these people, for the most part, knew the difference between Christians and Chrestians.

They might have kept all sort's of records, but that is not the suggestion being made by bible historians who are claiming evidence of Jesus. Their suggestion is that the records might have confirmed that Jesus was executed! But what is the value of any speculation like that? Ans = none!

There is no value in speculating that the Romans might have once kept a record which said Jesus was executed, unless there is some evidential reason to think that such as statement actually once existed in any records. And afaik, there is no such evidence of any such statement existing.

That sort of speculation is no different from me suggesting the complete opposite and saying that the records might have said that Christians falsely talked of an executed messiah who was not executed and not known to any Roman administration of the time as a real person.

Non-existent records might have said anything. There is no value or credibility at all in any "apologists" talking about non-existent statements in non-existent records, saying that if they had ever existed they might have said A, B, C (because they might just as easily have said X, Y, Z instead).

However, as I've said before, it is ultimately of little or no importance whether there was or wasn't a historical Jesus of Nazareth, for the following reasons:

1) As Paul makes clear in his epistle to the Romans, his Christ Jesus came through a personal revelation (what most of us would call a hallucination) and that he didn't bother greatly with the historical Jesus (Gal. 1:11, 12, emphasis added):

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul goes on to say (Gal. 1:16b), " . . . I did not confer with flesh and blood. . ."

He says that he eventually, after three years, went up to Jerusalem, but only talked to James and Cephas (Peter) and, as is further apparent from Galatians, he went his own way whenever he disagreed with them. Thus, Paul dispensed with any historical Jesus.

2) The narrative material of the gospels - the earliest of which, Mark, was written after CE 70 - was taken from four basic sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism and recent events seen through an apocalyptic lens, pagan myth, and Greek literature. About the only thing historical in them, assuming Jesus to be historical, was that he was crucified as a messianic pretender. He may have caused a disruption in the temple that was the proximate cause of his arrest; or he may simply have been arrested and summarily done away with by the Romans. Whatever happened to him, the gospels are useless as historical documents.

3) As a religion, Christianity was wildly syncretistic, borrowing the imagery of the Madonna and child from that of Isis and the infant Horus, as well as taking the Pieta from Isis mourning the slain Osiris; borrowing motifs from the worship of Dionysus, another man-god born of an erstwhile virgin impregnated by a god, and one who, according who The Bacchae, is rejected in his hometown; taking the Easter material both from the Jewish Passover and pagan vernal equinox celebrations; and, eventually, taking the winter solstice (then on December 25) as the birthday of Jesus, from that of Sol Invictus. It has become academic fashion for the last few decades to reject comparisons of Jesus to dying and rising gods. However, back in the first half of the second century, Christian apologist Justin Martyr did just that (First Apology, chapters 21 and 54).

The pageants of his birth and death were further mythologized by extra-biblical invention, givng us the three magi, as well as Saints Dismis, Lazarus and Longinus.

So, whatever historical Jesus who might have existed was essentially dispensed with by Paul, had a history manufactured for him by the author of Mark, which was elaborated on by Matthew and Luke, and further amended and altered in the Gospel of John; and was finally expanded by extra-biblical invention and syncretism into the Jesus of the Christian religion.

Frankly I think the entire thing is speculation without evidence. We do not even know what Paul really said, or what the earliest gospel writers actually said. Because we don't have any original material from any of those people. All we have is what was written centuries later by fanatical and highly unreliable Christian copyists. By which time all sorts of elaborations and embellishments may have been added to whatever was originally believed.

But just on the highlighted part above - what is the evidence for thinking Jesus was actually ever executed by anyone? Why is that more likely to be “historical”, when everything else about the Jesus story is so obviously not truly supported by evidence? Why do you think he might have been executed?

The story of his execution seems to derive from the theological beliefs of Paul, which appear to have been subsequently expanded in gospels such as Mark. But afaik, there is no evidence to show that Paul actually knew anything about any real earthly death of Jesus. And certainly nothing to show that Mark or any of the gospel writers had any such evidence either … they themselves were surely not writing as witnesses to any earthly execution.

IOW - I don’t see why the claimed execution is any more likely or any more credible than any of the other devotional stories of belief in a messiah?

 

[pakeha]

...They might have kept all sort's of records, but that is not the suggestion being made by bible historians who are claiming evidence of Jesus. Their suggestion is that the records might have confirmed that Jesus was executed! But what is the value of any speculation like that? Ans = none!

There is no value in speculating that the Romans might have once kept a record which said Jesus was executed, unless there is some evidential reason to think that such as statement actually once existed in any records. And afaik, there is no such evidence of any such statement existing. ...

In any case, even allowing the Romans kept such records, would they have survived the great fire during Nero's reign?

 

[JaysonR]

Personally, I see the background of Jesus more as one iteration of a myriad of early movements in the Judean area which were focused on a very deep political issue of fighting for the integrity of the Law and not just the Letter of the Law without the integrity of the Law, and held the current puppet leadership in the Temple/Judean ruling powers as examples of the Letter of the Law without the integrity of it.

What became "Jesus" could easily be a summary culminating from a general gist of the movement, but which radically altered into grander cosmic scale once viewed in Hellenistic eyes that wouldn't really understand all of the other stuff, but would easily sympathize with a demigod hero fighting on mankind's behalf in a cosmic war, rather than a Jewish political war headed by several small leaders of a variety of factions.

The Matthew account's opening of Jesus' birth clearly is only sensible under Hellenistic cultural values, for instance, and makes very, very little sense in the Judaic cultural understandings, yet the middle of Matthew regularly makes plenty of sense in Judaic cultural contexts and mirrors much of the same socio-political theocratic propoganda as several other early so called, "Jewish-Christian" sects (a terrible name for them as I don't think we can identify them as "Christian" so much as all focused on fighting for the integrity of their culture and not just the 'going through the motions' without a cultural 'soul' through puppets of Rome).

Was there a very early group whose leader was named Jesus that is the Jesus in the accounts which we received?
No idea; I don't think we can actually validate that claim.
We can only take it on faith about as much as taking other claims on faith similar; such as Hippocrates (although Hippocrates is actually even a bit easier to claim than Jesus as there is at least a single school and a single thread culturally following his alleged presence, where as Jesus following is scattered, conflicted, non-uniformed, multi-cultural in diversity [thanks Paul, Alexandria, Athens, Ephesus, and the Hellenistic fascination with secret magic cults and foreign religions]).

Any chance there could have been to help us work out the historicity of this figure in like fashion as is done with the likes of Hippocrates has been ran over by a herd of charging elephants.

 

[TimCallahan]

They might have kept all sort's of records, but that is not the suggestion being made by bible historians who are claiming evidence of Jesus. Their suggestion is that the records might have confirmed that Jesus was executed! But what is the value of any speculation like that? Ans = none!

There is no value in speculating that the Romans might have once kept a record which said Jesus was executed, unless there is some evidential reason to think that such as statement actually once existed in any records. And afaik, there is no such evidence of any such statement existing.

That sort of speculation is no different from me suggesting the complete opposite and saying that the records might have said that Christians falsely talked of an executed messiah who was not executed and not known to any Roman administration of the time as a real person.

Non-existent records might have said anything. There is no value or credibility at all in any "apologists" talking about non-existent statements in non-existent records, saying that if they had ever existed they might have said A, B, C (because they might just as easily have said X, Y, Z instead).







Frankly I think the entire thing is speculation without evidence. We do not even know what Paul really said, or what the earliest gospel writers actually said. Because we don't have any original material from any of those people. All we have is what was written centuries later by fanatical and highly unreliable Christian copyists. By which time all sorts of elaborations and embellishments may have been added to whatever was originally believed.

But just on the highlighted part above - what is the evidence for thinking Jesus was actually ever executed by anyone? Why is that more likely to be “historical”, when everything else about the Jesus story is so obviously not truly supported by evidence? Why do you think he might have been executed?

The story of his execution seems to derive from the theological beliefs of Paul, which appear to have been subsequently expanded in gospels such as Mark. But afaik, there is no evidence to show that Paul actually knew anything about any real earthly death of Jesus. And certainly nothing to show that Mark or any of the gospel writers had any such evidence either … they themselves were surely not writing as witnesses to any earthly execution.

IOW - I don’t see why the claimed execution is any more likely or any more credible than any of the other devotional stories of belief in a messiah?

Paul's letter to the Galatians paints a picture of division and discord in the early Christian religion, which has the ring of truth, particularly when compared to the Book of Acts, in which these conflicts were whitewashed.

I don't see anything that sounds false in Paul's letters. Of course, this says little about the actual historicity of Jesus. Of course, the gospel writers, beginning with Mark, writing either in CE 70 or some time later, had no reputable knowledge of Jesus.

As to the historicity of Jesus, that he might have been a messianic pretender summarily put to death by the Romans, seems reasonable enough to me. Yet, should it turn out that he was entirely invented, it wouldn't exactly rock my world.

 

[JaysonR]

...it wouldn't exactly rock my world.

It wouldn't rock anyone's world historically.

I've raised that point before; flipping Jesus' historicity in either direction impacts the historical record, essentially, none.

By comparison, if the diffusionist theory were to be proven accurate, that would ripple a shock wave through our historical record in massive levels and cause entire museum catalogs, text books, records, archaeological sites, artifacts, et. al. to be completely re-identified and accounted for over again.

 

[TimCallahan]

It wouldn't rock anyone's world historically.

I've raised that point before; flipping Jesus' historicity in either direction impacts the historical record, essentially, none.

By comparison, if the diffusionist theory were to be proven accurate, that would ripple a shock wave through our historical record in massive levels and cause entire museum catalogs, text books, records, archaeological sites, artifacts, et. al. to be completely re-identified and accounted for over again.

I must have missed something, either in the thread in general or in your posts. What "diffusionist theory" are you talking about?

 

[JaysonR]

It's not in the thread; it was s comparison of two contentious topics of history.
The diffusionist theory is a proposition regarding human migration in ancient times.