For the No-Jesus Camp

[chrisjt]

Posted by Loki:

"Jesus was a fabrication"? - Probably not.
"Jesus was a fabricator"? - Certainly!

There's also a third possibility - Jesus was neither a fabrication or a fabricator. Maybe he was just a preacher who was misrepresented by others.
(BTW, shouldn't that be ""Jesus was a fabricator?" - Probably.")

Posted by Stamenflicker:

Whether or not Jesus is who he said he was is subject to doubt,

Who Jesus said he was is also subject to doubt, in my opinion.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

That really is one of the best peices of evidence for a real Jesus - it's the sort of thing a real person would say.

Psalm 22:1

Your "one of the best peices of evidence for a real Jesus" is nothing more than a poetic reference that would have been known to damn near any Jewish boy. Furthermore, given such verses as

• Psalm 22:18 - They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

it is clearly yet another attempt by some later interpolator to link "Jesus" to Hebrew scripture. If anything, it is evidence against a messianic Jesus.

By the way, you should be ashamed of yourself. A good Christian would have a much better grasp of the Bible.

 

[Gregor]

Summary

What have we learned from this thread.

1. Don't hold yourself out as an expert if you are not - you're liable to be proved a light-weight with access to a few reference books.

2. Don't throw out false premises (Jesus was historical because Paul believed) because we waste 75% of the discussion pointing out the errors in your argument.

3. People easily ignore arguments you can't refute (martyr points raised by Headscratcher, me, and others).

Conclusion by example:

Was the Teacher of Righteousness a historical person? We have roughly analygous evidence from the Qumram scrolls as we have of Jesus' existence through the gospels (I'll admit I'm no DSS expert). However, since the Essenes died out, we don't have many later letters from people professing to follow his teachings.

So, if we were to ask a Christian (say SF) whether the Teacher of Righteous existed (and assuming he's heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls), he'd probably say,

"While there are several writings about him, there is no other corroboration outside of the writings of the Essenes. But, since people usually at least base their statements on historical accuracy, I suspect that such a person (at least a model for such a person) existed in 175 BCE."

Now, how can Xians expect us to believe more than this about Jesus?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

stamenflicker wrote:
What can I say? We didn't study it in detail. A few facts about von Soden's approach:

What a shoddy and disingenuous little tap-dance that was.

The Names and Descriptions of the Various Text-Types

The following list shows the various names that different scholars have used for text-types. The first element in each list is what I consider the "proper" modern name; this is followed by a list of editors and the names they used.

Generally Acknowledged Text Types

ALEXANDRIAN

• Westcott-Hort -- Neutral+Alexandrian (also a)
• Von Soden -- Eta (Hesychian) (H)
• Kenyon -- B (b)
• Lagrange -- B

Characteristics of the type: Conservative. Relatively free of harmonzation and paraphrase. Short. Willing to accept difficult readings.
Primary witnesses: P75 (gospels), B (except in Paul), , Coptic versions. Also A, C, 33 in Paul; A 33 in the Catholics; A C in the Apocalypse.

BYZANTINE

• Westcott-Hort -- Syrian (also d)
• Von Soden -- Kappa (Koine) (K)
• Kenyon -- A (a)
• Lagrange -- A

Characteristics of the type: Widespread. Usually regarded as far-removed from the original documents, but worthy of detailed study because of the influence it has had on mixed manuscripts. Marked by smooth and easy readings and by harmonizations, but rarely indulges in paraphrase or the major expansions seemingly found in the "Western" text. Widely regarded as derived from other text-types; it usually preserves the easiest reading. It rarely creates readings.[*43]
Primary witnesses: A E F G H K M S U V Y G P S etc. (gospels); H L P 049 056 0142 (Acts); K L 049 056 0142 (Paul, Catholics); P 046 (Apocalypse). Also found in the mass of minuscules; over 80% of manuscripts are purely Byzantine, over 90% are primarily Byzantine, and not more than 2% can be considered entirely free of Byzantine mixture.

Cæsarean

• Von Soden -- Iota (Jerusalem) (I), in part (most strong "Cæsarean" witnesses are found in Soden's Ia group, with family 1 being his Ih and family 13 being Ii.)
• Kenyon -- Gamma (g)
• Lagrange -- C

Characteristics of the type: Mildly paraphrastic, so as to give an appearance of falling between the Alexandrian and "Western" texts. Since no pure manuscripts are known, most other descriptions of the type have been conjectural. To date found only in the gospels (unless family 1739 is Cæsarean, which is unlikely).
Primary witnesses: Q, family 1, family 13, 565, 700, arm, geo (P45 and parts of W claimed by some; however, P45 is a wild text, and W's relationship to the group is questionable)
Note: The existence of the "Cæsarean" text has been questioned by many; see the discussion above.

"WESTERN"

• Westcott-Hort -- Western (also b)
• Kenyon -- D (d)
• Von Soden -- Iota (Jerusalem) (I), in part
• Lagrange -- D

Characteristics of the type: Marked by paraphrase, occasional expansion, and possible additions from oral sources. Fond of striking and abrupt readings. Reaches its most extreme form in D/05 (Codex Bezae); the "Western" text of Paul (found in D/06, etc.) is a much more restrained text.
Primary witnesses: D/05 (Gospels, Acts), Old Latin, D/06 (Paul) F/010+G/012 (Paul); occasional readings in the versions. Connected by some with family 2138 and with certain fragmentary papyri.

- emphasis added; see Apendix I

By the way, your silly little laundry list is a joke and a diversion. Far better material can be found at Kirby's Compiled Allusions to the NT in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Why don't you, either, go back and attempt an intellectually honest response to the questions or, should that prove beyond you, simply go away and avoid further embarrassing yourself?

 

[headscratcher4]

Just a couple of thoughts:

Loki: with respect to Paul, you gave two possible motivations...you left out a third. Paul could have been either a deluded believer or an intentional fabricator. Paul could have been seriously mentally ill. The whole blinding on the road to Damascus speaks of a psychotic break and hysterical reaction. It is possible, knowing what we know today, that Paul was completely delusional and projected his delusions on either a real person, Jesus, or on a figment of his imagination. Anyway, schizophrenia is not a modern creation. It has existed for a long time, and it is sometimes difficult to know what role such madness might have played in history.

Indeed, as I write, it occurs that a real person Jesus could also be a sufferer and thus a believer in his own divinity and claimant for divinity. Think about the alleged history of the NT for a moment, Jesus lived most of his life in obscurity and than, as a relatively young adult -- mid to late 20s/early 30's becomes a volatile preacher and healer. The timing of this emergence from obscurity is not inconsistent with the onset of schizophrenia.


SF: somewhere above to make a point you challenged the existence of Julius Caesar. You noted that we have no letters from him, as evidence of the possibility that he didn't exist. I am not sure about letters, we do, however, have a book allegedly written by Julius Caesar -- his Commentaries. It isn't ascribed to people who knew Caesar, or alleged to be a translation, etc. It is stated as by Julius Caesar. My point is that it doesn't prove that Julius Caesar existed, rather that this writing is allegedly by his hand, and unlike Pauline letters it has not been fiddled with....

Just some thoughts...

 

[PotatoStew]

headscratcher:

Regarding the notion of schizophrenia applied to Paul or Jesus... both men were very "functional". Paul traveled widely and was instrumental in organizing many churches. Jesus regularly confounded the Jewish leadership with his grasp of the issues of his day and showed a great deal of wisdom. He was also very outward looking and concerned with those around him. Do we know of any examples of people who were definitely schizophrenic, yet attracted large groups of followers and functioned at a very high level in their day-to-day and overall lives? My understanding of schizophrenia is that it usually demolishes any possibility of that level of functioning.

 

[headscratcher4]

Stew: your points are well taken. A couple of thoughts:
First, we only have Jesus' followers word -- the Gospels (part of what is at dispute here regarding the historical person of Jesus) -- that he confounded the religious leadership and teachers he encountered. So, that may or may not have happened and have been a part of Jesus' personality...or it could have been second hand resume inflation (either from error, intentional, misunderstanding, etc.). In any event, there is no eyewitness relating those stories.

Having said that, and second, schizophrenia -- as well as all of the diagnosable forms of what we today consider mental illness -- are not linear. By this I mean, how they manifest themselves, how people function under their delusions, etc. varies from case to case. Indeed, with specific respect to Paul, because I believe -- at the very least -- that Paul existed, it need not be schizophrenia. It could be he was bi-polar, Manic, or any number of mental states where delusions -- consistent delusions -- are manifest.

Suppose he fell off that horse and hit his head? Temporary blindness could result and he could have otherwise damaged his brain -- a'la Oliver Sach's neurological patients, people who, for example can function completely normally in many respects, but are completely deluded in some key fashion as a result of a brain injury.

In other words, there are very high functioning people who are, by today's definition, mentally ill.

My point, actually, is not to denigrate either Jesus or Paul by stigmatizing them as mentally ill. I work on many issues related to mental health and hopefully have a healthy respect for the mentally ill, their challenges and capabilities. We don't understand mental illness very well or all of the ways that it manifests itself.

However, my point rather was that what we today call mental illness offers a logical, reasonable and rational explanation for the stories of Jesus, of Paul or both. I don't know that I even subscribe to that explanation, but it is one that is often overlooked when arguments of this sort are launched.


I come to this merely because I do not believe that what evidence that does exist and how it exists leads to any conclusion about the divinity of Jesus or the divine inspiration of Paul. Indeed, as an agnostic, I think I have to say that it may be possible. Rather, it is that the evidence is weak, and there are explanations, such as the manifestation of one form or another of mental illness that, among dozens of alternative interpretations of the history, could lend a reasonable, rational and logical explanation.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Jesus regularly confounded the Jewish leadership with his grasp of the issues of his day and showed a great deal of wisdom. He was also very outward looking and concerned with those around him. .

And we know this, of course, based on 2nd and 3rd century quotes and manuscript fragments of translated and transcribed stories first elaborated some 3-5 decades after the proposed events by folks heavily invested in doctrine.

Your evidence is as worthless as 2000 demon-infested, suicidal pigs.

 

[PotatoStew]

And we know this, of course, based on 2nd and 3rd century quotes and manuscript fragments of translated and transcribed stories first elaborated some 3-5 decades after the proposed events by folks heavily invested in doctrine.

Yes, the *exact same manuscripts that headscratcher was using to suggest that schizophrenia was a possibility!* So, it's ok to use those manuscripts and say, "oh, this, this and this suggest that X might be a good conclusion" as long as X is a non-traditional conclusion (mental illness), but as soon as we draw a traditional conclusion (Jesus confounded his critics -- is it really that unbelievable?!) from the same sources, those sources suddenly become worthless for drawing conclusions? Who has the agenda here?

 

[PotatoStew]

headscratcher:

First, we only have Jesus' followers word -- the Gospels (part of what is at dispute here regarding the historical person of Jesus) -- that he confounded the religious leadership and teachers he encountered.

As I just said to RD, we are working from the exact same sources here. Isn't it kind of disengenuous to even suggest possibilities like mental illness based on those sources and then turn around and question more mundane things that are clearly and repeatedly attested to in those sources? If you are claiming that the sources are extremely unreliable, then you have no evidence for mental illness either, or any other conclusions.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Yes, the *exact same manuscripts that headscratcher was using to suggest that schizophrenia was a possibility!* So, it's ok to use those manuscripts and say, ...

Your issues with headscratcher have absolutely nothing to do with me. In my opinion, headscratcher indulged in worthless, though benign, speculation. This differs significantly from your equally worthless and totally baseless assertion of fact. If you wish to defend such silliness, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity to leave headscratcher out of it.

 

[Guest]

Psalm 22:1

Your "one of the best peices of evidence for a real Jesus" is nothing more than a poetic reference that would have been known to damn near any Jewish boy. Furthermore, given such verses as

• Psalm 22:18 - They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

it is clearly yet another attempt by some later interpolator to link "Jesus" to Hebrew scripture. If anything, it is evidence against a messianic Jesus.

By the way, you should be ashamed of yourself. A good Christian would have a much better grasp of the Bible.

A+ for knowing the Psalm 22 connection. If you read the entire Psalm, you will see other parts that were fulfilled by the crucifixion. Particularly the line about how Christ should save himself from the cross if he really is divine.

I disagree it is any kind of evidence against a messianic Jesus. It could just as easily be interpreted as a prophecy fulfilled and noted down.

Headscratcher, your interpretation of Paul as a schizophrenic cracks me up. As some of you know, I had a very similar "road to Damascus" experience nine and a half years ago which converted me from atheism to a belief in God. I do not subscribe to any particular religion, though. As I like to say, "I didn't get the Jesus option."

The founder of Alcholics Anonymous had a "white light" experience as well which caused him to quit drinking for good and begin A.A. Look what happened from there. Hardly something a schizoid would be able to accomplish.

A chemical misfire in an alcohol soaked brain? Something more? If it was a misfire, it sure was powerful. Enough to cause the man to work his butt off for the rest of his life to help other people get sober. An amazing achievement for a momentary lapse of reason.

Many people have reported these white light experiences which changed their lives.

As for the bible, if you look at as written and cared for by people who believe every word of it, then it is easy to understand that they would take great pains to ensure it is copied and translated into modern language as accurately as possible. After all, it is the inspired Word of God. If a person believes in God, are they really going to risk eternal damnation by screwing with the text? Or are they going to do their best to translate it accurately?

And isn't it understandable that a believer would intuitively understand or believe that a falsehood does not survive for very long, whereas the Truth goes on. And since the Church has survived for thousands of years, it must be based on Truth?

To change or alter or deliberately fictionalize the bible would risk the end of their religion, as it would be based on lies.

I think some atheists are too quick to assign malevolent motives to those who wrote the bible, and to those who care for it.

Don't you see? These people believe it.

Interpretation of the text is a whole nother story and is why we have so many variations of Christianity.

And then there are those who use the bible to decieve and for personal gain.

For example, I think Sylvia Browne believes in God about as much as James Randi. But she says she believes in God and that He gave her the power to do what she does. And, in turn, people believe her.

I can't prove my opinion on Sylvia Browne. It's just a hunch.

The bible has a lot to say about people like her.

I think with the "forsaken me" passage, you can pretty much narrow the options down to two. Christ was either the real deal, or a charlatan.

It is more likely that one person could start a deception, than several people over thousands of years.

No one will ever be able to prove either option. We can slap each other around, but it won't change anything.

Do I sound schizo?

 

[PotatoStew]

Your issues with headscratcher have absolutely nothing to do with me. In my opinion, headscratcher indulged in worthless, though benign, speculation. This differs significantly from your equally worthless and totally baseless assertion of fact. If you wish to defend such silliness, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity to leave headscratcher out of it.

Since you responded specifically to me, and didn't mention headscratcher's speculation, I assumed you only had a problem with my use of the sources and not headscratcher's. I apologize, as I see now that you feel both of our speculations are worthless. I disagree however that the two "differ significantly" and obviously I don't hold that my interpretation is an absolute certainty. If you wish to get your knickers in a twist, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity not to claim that I am saying something that I'm not.

 

[wolfgirl]

Whether or not Jesus is who he said he was is subject to doubt, the idea that he existed at all is pretty much a mute point.

Boy, don't I wish it WAS a mute point...oh, you probably meant a moot point. Never mind.

 

[wolfgirl]

Jesus could have been the fabricator, we can't know. If he was, then he hardly had good reasons to be such, so then we are left with a question of his sanity.

Bingo.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I don't hold that my interpretation is an absolute certainty. If you wish to get your knickers in a twist, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity not to claim that I am saying something that I'm not.

I believe I accurately quoted you as saying:

Jesus regularly confounded the Jewish leadership with his grasp of the issues of his day and showed a great deal of wisdom. He was also very outward looking and concerned with those around him.

If you intended this comment to be viewed as mere speculation that you "don't hold [as] an absolute certainty", then I misunderstood you and clearly owe you an apology. If, however, it was intended as an assertion of fact, it differs qualitatively from headscratcher's speculation and my comments stand. So, were you speculating then, or are you dancing now?

 

[headscratcher4]

Stew/RD:

I think I should apologize and look for a different thread for the points I was making. In reviewing the thread, I think RD maybe correct...I keep sticking my marginal two cents in, while at the same time forgetting that the discussion is premised on proof, or lack of proof, for a historical Jesus.

While I have my doubts about the historical Jesus and whether he existed, it seems my posts are really off that point and I am sorry. My points had more to do with interpretaions, logic, historical merit etc. of the sources, rather than challenging whether the sources were relaying fiction or not.
So, to that end I'll back out with what little dignity I can muster and just watch unless I can add something useful and specific to the thread of this very interesting discussion.

(P.S. in any event, I thought my earlier comment that we have a book written by Ceasar as some kind of proof of his existence as being somewhat on point...I hope.... )

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

A+ for knowing the Psalm 22 connection. If you read the entire Psalm, you will see other parts that were fulfilled by the crucifixion.

Thanks for the nice grade. As for the rest, by far the most reasonable explanation is reverse engineering by interpolators far removed in both time and space.

 

[wolfgirl]

Yes, the *exact same manuscripts that headscratcher was using to suggest that schizophrenia was a possibility!* So, it's ok to use those manuscripts and say, "oh, this, this and this suggest that X might be a good conclusion" as long as X is a non-traditional conclusion (mental illness), but as soon as we draw a traditional conclusion (Jesus confounded his critics -- is it really that unbelievable?!) from the same sources, those sources suddenly become worthless for drawing conclusions? Who has the agenda here?

Since I happen to share the position that mental illness is a possible explanation for Jesus, I will jump in here and hope I don't misrepresent anyone else's position.

My first point in an argument of this type is that I don't particularly believe the stories in the Bible, for reasons which I have already discussed.

However, and that however is important, if you are going to say that they are accurate, then my response to you would be that even if they are accurate, then there is still this other possibility which the stories lend themself to, that being that either Jesus himself was mentally ill, or that one or more of the people who wrote about him was. This means that either way, I can say there is doubt about the authenticity of Jesus as the son of God. The Bible may be inaccurate in the first place, or it may be accurate, but written about a paranoid schizophrenic. (Religious delusions are fairly common among paranoid schizophrenics, by the way.)

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I think I should apologize and look for a different thread for the points I was making. ... I keep sticking my marginal two cents in, while at the same time forgetting that the discussion is premised on proof, or lack of proof, for a historical Jesus.

No. My comments were far too sharp with regard to you and I apologize for that. Rather than the phrase "worthless speculation" I would have been better served by the phrase "speculation with no probative value". I apologize again.