Historical Jesus

[triadboy]

I have to admit that I have very large difficulties in reading and understanding the English translations of both Origen and Josephus as they use so complicated language.

Just think how difficult it would be in Finnish!

 

[triadboy]

you can read Origen himself:

My point exactly - Origen lived 185 - 254 CE. We're talking about an author 200 years after an event (Jebus) commenting on writings 160 years old, which in turn are referring to an event 50 years older. That leaves a lot of time for xian mischief.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Not a believer here, but perhaps it has something to do with, "let he that is without sin cast the first stone..." (and did someone say Jehovah?)

I realize this incident was recorded in the bible, but it certainly would not have been considered an act of ' justice ' by his peers. According to the law at the time the woman should have been stoned..
Jesus' action may have been one of mercy ( albeit impractical... Why don't we just set all criminals free, since none of us are perfect ?), but not of mercy...



By ' distinguished ', I mean ' of note '.. Again, with regard to the historicity of Jesus...

But, LW, seems to think, and on second reading I tend to agree, the author is sayin in this case, that it is James who is " most distinguished for his justice '.. So my question may be moot in this context...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Before concurring in this analogy, let's consider how worthwhile it is.

...................... what you said...


To admit that, however, does not imply anything about the relative historical significance of Rhett and Jesus.

We might need to revisit this in a hundred years or so, after the " The Cult of Rhett ' has emerged.

Seriously though, if you try to present Jesus as an historical figure based on the Gospel narratives, you can't overlook the fact that they contain historical innacuracies.. ( what's good for the goose.. )


In this light, it is not so far off to compare the Bible to fictional works that are laced with a few facts, historical and otherwise...

 

[pgwenthold]

What aspects of the historical existence of the "real" Dorothy could have (words, deeds, names, places, etc.) might - at least potentially - have been bestowed on the literary Dorothy? Not many, I should think. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that we know that Baum's niece died at age 6, The Wizard of Oz took place in a radically unhistorical context; the plot, settings, situations and character responses are so entirely removed from reality that the book cannot viably be approached as a history of anything.

But this is all summed up in The Emerald City of Oz. Glinda enchanted the land of Oz to make it invisible to mortals. The historian gets his information from the wireless.

In the end, your argument that the difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Dorothy as a historical figure is that no one takes the WoO to be a historical document, whereas the New Testament refers to a historically viable place. It is interesting that the bible is considered "historical" whereas the WoO is not despite the fact that some of what is presented as history in the bible is verifiably false, which cannot be said about the WoO.

And as you note, even if the WoO fails, we can apply the standard to the Gone with the Wind, or Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer, or whatever.

 

[LW]

My point exactly - Origen lived 185 - 254 CE. We're talking about an author 200 years after an event (Jebus) commenting on writings 160 years old, which in turn are referring to an event 50 years older. That leaves a lot of time for xian mischief.

Let's be more precise. The death of James as told in Josephus happened in 62 CE. Josephus was born in 37 CE, so he was around 25 years old when it happened and he lived in Jerusalem where the execution most probably happened (though around that time Josephus visited Rome so he might not have been in the area at that precise time). Antiquities was published in 93-4 CE so the time difference is around 30 years, not 50. Contra Celsus was written while Origen lived in Cesarea, probably between 245-50, so 160 years is reasonably accurate while 155 would be closer.

But anyway, your argument here seems to be that since Christians could have forged the paragraph, they did forge it. I'm not convinced by that one, and I don't think I'm the only one. By what I've read, the current consensus among the vast majority of Bible scholars, Christian or not, is that the mention of James by Josephus is genuine. You haven't given me any compelling reason not to go with the majority of experts in this case.

 

[LW]

In the end, your argument that the difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Dorothy as a historical figure is that no one takes the WoO to be a historical document, whereas the New Testament refers to a historically viable place.

I would like to know whether there exists any person at all who you regard historical?

 

[ceo_esq]

But this is all summed up in The Emerald City of Oz. Glinda enchanted the land of Oz to make it invisible to mortals. The historian gets his information from the wireless.

Thanks for spoiling the ending for us.

In the end, your argument that the difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Dorothy as a historical figure is that no one takes the WoO to be a historical document, whereas the New Testament refers to a historically viable place. It is interesting that the bible is considered "historical" whereas the WoO is not despite the fact that some of what is presented as history in the bible is verifiably false, which cannot be said about the WoO.

It's a little more than this, I think. The nature of the WoO is such that, insofar as I am aware, nothing in the critical historian's bag of tools is sufficient to render feasible (or useful) the task of approaching the book as history (of either the good or the faulty sort). The same is not true of the NT.

And as you note, even if the WoO fails, we can apply the standard to the Gone with the Wind, or Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer, or whatever.

We can certainly apply the same standard, but no one's adduced any information suggesting how those works might actually fare against such standard.

As I intimated earlier, the historical works of Herodotus would probably come closer to being in the same ballpark.

 

[c4ts]

Prove that history actually happened! How do you know that it did? Stories? Unsubstantiated claims! Archeology? Falsely interpreted as evidence because of the literature (remember when they found "Troy?")! I do not believe in "history."

 

[LW]

As I intimated earlier, the historical works of Herodotus would probably come closer to being in the same ballpark.

Two rather fine examples are King Arthur and Merlin. It is perfectly certain that the tales of the Round Table as they are nowadays told are 100% nonfactual.

However, there exists few snippets of evidence that in late 5th - early 6th century there lived a war-band leader with a name similar to Arthur and who became quite famous in his time, and that the stories told about him slowly morphed over centuries to the King Arthur stories as we know them. [Edited to add: some snippets of the earlier forms have been preserved to the day.]

Similarly, there is a little bit of evidence that in late 6th century there lived a scottish bard/seer named Myrddin or Lailoken and that stories told about him morphed into stories about Merlin.

In both cases contemporary evidence about them is practically nil. Both are mentioned in one single sentence of different Easter Annals that may be contemporary or they may be later insertions.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Now we get to the point. Here's where the problem resides:

Are we attempting to show the existence of the "biblical" Jesus or are we attempting to show the existence of some person whose life influenced the Synoptic gospels, no matter how 'legendary' they had become by the time of their writing?

Let me be clear on this: the biblical Jesus is fictional. His life consists of a birth and the last three years of life with one allegory inserted when he was supposedly about 12. That's about 3.001 years of fragmented information, most concerning miracles which could not have happened or sermons and parables which could be just mouthed rhetoric of some group of cynics or other philosophies, concentrating on the last few weeks leading up to the last supper, betrayal, and eventual crucifixion (the important part of the story of the dying-godman). This person never existed. No one can walk on water, raise the dead, drive out demons in (talking) swine, change water to wine, be tempted by "the Devil", heal the sick by being touched, etc. and so on. That leaves very little reality left to extract from the Synoptic gospels (sermons (?), parables (?), Mary Magdalene, maybe the story from Gesthemane to the crucifixion). The "virgin birth" is pure fabrication (all of it). The allegory at 12 is an insertion, serving no historical purpose whatsoever.

With that removed - a few fragments of historical reference remaining from the Synoptics - we have only spurious reports, mentionings, and strained correlations (Chrestus, Christ [a generic term by all means], Yeshua). Some of these may in fact provide evidence for a real person from which the mythology grew. But (the BIG BUT), there is no physical evidence (very bad) and no incidental, contemporary correlation of information (not too great).

Someone mentioned how we know any history is factual. Here ya go:

1. There are overwhelming correlated recordings, eye-witness accounts.

2. There is correlative physical evidence.

3. There are consistencies with events, social structures, geographic structures and records, causality, astronomical data, and other forms of collaborative evidence that lends credence the factuality of a person, place, thing, or event - hard circumstantial evidence.

4. It does not contradict reality, reason, logic, or scientific inquiry.

Satisfaction of three of these points are lacking. There is no physical evidence. There are no contemporary correlated recordings - only recounts after the supposed fact. The biblical recount violates point 4. The third is the most suspect in any reconstruction of a possible historical event. Many stories use such things to weave them into a time period and place. Without the first two, it becomes difficult to achieve a consensus. There may be a consensus amoung biblical scholars. That's not enough. The consensus must cover more territory.

What I'd like is a collection of all the supporting evidence for a historical person named Jesus considered to be the Christ or at least a wandering sage/messiah/prophet who can be associated with the movement that eventually became Christianity. And a rating of its possible validity (against time, forgery, insertion, interpretation, and so forth). That must be weighed since that is all we have. The lack of points 1, 2, and 4 makes the position of historicity much less tenable.

Again, I must remind those favoring his historicity that neither he, nor his "direct" apostles (only some anonymous writers many decades after the fact claiming to be his 'direct' apostles), nor any other members of his group, nor any person who saw him or his group first-hand, nor any person involved in the story, nor any person in the region thought to immediately record any of the events or personages related. How convenient (or stupid, depending on your view). Nobody in all of Judea or Palestine, including immigrated Greeks and Romans, had the ability to read and write? None had writing implements at their disposal? None felt compelled to record any of these events, even if they were not as remarkable as recounted in the Synoptics? If there was a historical Jesus, his success was a fluke, a usurption, an indictment to avoid conspiracy - for he was long forgotten and only dredged up as the main player in the story for some unknown motive. The real Jesus, if he existed, was Barbaras. That's not a direct relation, it's a comparision. He was the guy that didn't concern the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Roman governorship. There is more historical evidence for Spartacus and other rebellious slave leaders who were crucified by the Romans than for this supposed founder of Christianity.

I'd like to see the strong evidence and make a decision based upon that rather than a culmination of possibilities and circumstances.

Kuroyume

 

[triadboy]

The real Jesus, if he existed, was Barbaras.

Luke 23:18
And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

Is it a coincidence the Barabbas means "Son of the Father"?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

But we agree on several things: ...

Yes, we do.

Sure, there could have been an insignificant sage whose name and sayings were used to create a church.

Then what is your basis for insisting that Antiquities 20.9.1 is a forgery?

But you seem to be overly eaten up with his existence.

I find it rather disingenuous that you would invent such a thing, since it was clearly you who were pedantically asserting a faith-based position.

For someone with a tag "ReasonableDoubt" - you seem rather unreasonable.

Unfortunately, I do not always live up to my username. If I have failed to present a reasoned position, you should feel free to correct me. Note, however, that there is a difference between reasonable doubt and unreasoned, reflexive denial.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Now we get to the point. Here's where the problem resides:

................................................................................


I'd like to see the strong evidence and make a decision based upon that rather than a culmination of possibilities and circumstances.

Kuroyume

Well said....

I look forward to your future contributions to these discussions..

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I guess I'll have to dig through my library and find the reference I was speaking of. If you were more literate, I wouldn't have to do this for your wrinkled ass. (sorry...I lost it there. )

I am fully confident in my literacy, and you've offered ample reason to question your own. I look forward to discussing your reference if and when it's presented.

 

[triadboy]

I am fully confident in my literacy, and you've offered ample reason to question your own. I look forward to discussing your reference if and when it's presented.

"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly amoung men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirits put forward many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvellous tales, like the things that were said by the poets" [Justin Martyr]

What we have here is Martyr (and Tertullian and Irenaeus) reacting to pagan critics of xianity. They were painfully aware that the Jesus story was eeriely similar to the pagan mystery god stories and they needed a reason. This is what they came up with Diabolical Mimicry. These church fathers alleged that Satan created the mystery religion dying god-men in advance of Jesus - so that the Jesus story would not carry as much weight!

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God." (Celsus On The True Doctrine, Hoffman)

Celsus is unveiling the idiocy of the early xians in believing their dying god-man is an historical person.

"It would have been better had you in your zest for a new teaching formed your religion around one of the men of old who died a hero's death and was honored for it - someone who at least was already subject of a myth. You could have chosen Heracles or Asclepius, or if these were too tame, there was always Orpheus, who as every one knows, was good and holy and yet died a violent death. Or had he already been taken? Well, then you had Anaxarchus, a man who looked death right in the eye when being beaten and said to his persecutors, "Beat away. Beat the pouch of Anaxarchus, for it is not him you are beating." But I recall that some philosophers have already claimed him as their master. Well, what of Epictetus? When his leg was being twisted he smiled and said with complete composure, "You are breaking it". And when it was broken, he smiled and said, "I told you so". Your God should have uttered such a saying when he was being punished!" (Celsus On The True Doctine, Hoffman)

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Thank you for sharing, but I'd prefer it if you were more honest. At your convenience, please supply evidence of a 2nd century debate on historicity.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I'd like to see the strong evidence and make a decision based upon that rather than a culmination of possibilities and circumstances.

Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you are no doubt agnostic with regards to much.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you are no doubt agnostic with regards to much.

I agree. The problem when it comes to history (paleontology, archaeology, etc.) is that absence of evidence is absence of anything. We wouldn't know dinosaurs ever existed without the evidence left behind by fossilization. We could have postulated about what existed 65 to 250 million years ago, but the postulations would be the end of the discussion.

It is very difficult, if not nearly impossible, to reconstruct a history without evidence. In this case, we have a story and some written accounts, but nothing substantial. This is sort of like having a couple of bones, slightly in the wrong strata and a tale of the beast in might have been. The facts remain shrouded by the absences.

So, yes, I may be agnostic about whether or not there was a real person attached to the mythos written into the Synoptics. And worse, I think that all of the poor handling of artifacts and records (shortly after the event - within the first millenium), the confusing doctrine and data, and the insertion of tons of fraudulent artifacts has muddied any possibility of a truly scientific search for that person.

As is probably obvious from my previous messages, I think that the written evidence is inconclusive and circumstantial, when it isn't dubious. As Christianity grew in popularity and control, there was much backpeddling to fill in the gaps and complete the doctrine (or fit it to whichever sect was backpeddling at the time). The power and control reached by the Roman Catholic church allowed for unchecked rewriting of history, omissions, substitutions, personal bias, among many other unscrupulous behaviors whether for the greater good or personal gain.

We are left with the task of trying to discern what is unadulterated and what not. Unlike searching for a city or civilization, which leaves a substantial footprint in the geologic record, a single person can easily be lost to history forever. Worst of all, is that the most extensive "record" of Jesus' existence is an unbelievable tale which may have hints and clues, but they are vague and general at best in most cases.

If Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, and Pilate kept rigorous records for, if anything, accounting and historical reference, they would be the most bejeweled to find. They were the most influential, highest-ranking figures directly associated with the story in the Synoptics. Kings and procurators would not keep records of myths intermingled with their daily and yearly records (one hopes, any how). Authenticating them if found would be another topic completely.

Kuroyume

 

[triadboy]

Thank you for sharing, but I'd prefer it if you were more honest. At your convenience, please supply evidence of a 2nd century debate on historicity.

Does the fact that the early church fathers had to invent a reason why the Jesus story was so similar to mystery religion stories pique your interest? And the ONLY thing they could come up with was Satan pre-planted the mystery religion stories? Why didn't Martyr simply provide the Jesus reference from Josephus? Because it didn't exist at that time?

I don't understand what you want - you have Martyr writing his weird-ass xian defense in ~150 AD and you have Celsus in 175 AD laughing at the xians for their idiotic belief in an ACTUAL historic dying god man.


Here is what Celsus believed to be the Jesus story:

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god." (Celsus)