Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

There is absolutely zero proof that a person called Jesus, as described in the NT, actually existed. There are no contemporaneous writings that refer to him or any of the people around him, even though there are historical writings referring to other actors in the narrative, e.g. Herod & Pilate. Not only does everything written about Jesus come decades after his alleged death, most of those accounts conflict with each other anyway.

Also, it is worth noting that the "divinity" of the Jesus character wasn't even determined until long after his alleged death. The NT is written today in such a way as to infer his divinity was contemporaneously understood, but it was not. In fact, his divinity was decided some 300 years afterwards (at the First Council of Nicea) whereupon the biblical accounts were subjected to a bunch of historical revisionism. The Gnostic Gospels (among others) were removed because Gnosticism held and taught that the key to eternal life was through personal spirituality, not orthodoxy and the teachings of ecclesiastical authority - in other words, you didn't need the Church or the Bishops in order to reach everlasting bliss in the afterlife. From the Gnostic viewpoint, salvation came from direct knowledge of the supreme divinity, not through repentance of sin, but through enlightenment.

Of course the Church wasn't having any of this because if people could achieve salvation themselves, without the involvement of the Church, it would put serious dent in the Church's viability as a money-making exercise, and put a whole lot of clergymen out of a job. Any and all references showing that believers could attain salvation without the Church were excised from the bible, effectively giving the Church a monopoly on the afterlife and eternal salvation.

That isn't 100% accurate. We can trace the mainstream dogma to at least the time of Irenaeus, though it's probably even earlier than that, and some of it was there all the way back to the time of Papias. Very little was actually decided at the First Council Of Nicaea (and subsequent one of Constantinople), and most of it was deciding which of the existing ideas to go with, rather than inventing any new ones. (Contrary to what Dan Brown would have you believe.) And even then it mostly just reaffirmed what the cartel that would become the RCC had already long decided on.

Also, there is no indication that they actually removed anything from the bible. Or not from the parts that really mattered. There still was some debate around as to whether some obscure epistle should be included or not, but that was about it. The Gospels and main epistles were already pretty much set in stone for more than 150 years at that point. (Again, contrary to what Dan Brown would have you believe.)

What you CAN say is that there was no CONSENSUS, and you'd be right too. In fact there were a bewildering number of other interpretations around. Just Irenaeus gives us an endless list of such, and he's not the only one. In fact, compiling and arguing against all heresies one could find was a bit of a passtime of early Xians.

But what I'm saying is that the First Council Of Nicaea didn't really have almost anything to do with that. It's just that when Irenaeus managed to get 4 churches (each favouring one gospel) to unite, the resulting cartel pretty much bowled all the others over. Especially after it got imperial support. And yes, they had already long decided that Gnosticism isn't part of that canon. At Nicaea and Constantinople they didn't really decide much more than, basically, "yep, we're right, and everyone else sucks."

 

[Delvo]

the "divinity" of the Jesus character wasn't even determined until long after his alleged death. The NT is written today in such a way as to infer his divinity was contemporaneously understood, but it was not. In fact, his divinity was decided some 300 years afterwards (at the First Council of Nicea) whereupon the biblical accounts were subjected to a bunch of historical revisionism. The Gnostic Gospels (among others) were removed because Gnosticism held and taught that the key to eternal life was through personal spirituality, not orthodoxy and the teachings of ecclesiastical authority - in other words, you didn't need the Church or the Bishops in order to reach everlasting bliss in the afterlife. From the Gnostic viewpoint, salvation came from direct knowledge of the supreme divinity, not through repentance of sin, but through enlightenment.

We can trace the mainstream dogma to at least the time of Irenaeus, though it's probably even earlier than that, and some of it was there all the way back to the time of Papias. Very little was actually decided at the First Council Of Nicaea (and subsequent one of Constantinople), and most of it was deciding which of the existing ideas to go with, rather than inventing any new ones...

What you CAN say is that there was no CONSENSUS, and you'd be right too. In fact there were a bewildering number of other interpretations around. Just Irenaeus gives us an endless list of such, and he's not the only one. In fact, compiling and arguing against all heresies one could find was a bit of a passtime of early Xians.

And even at Nicea they really only decided for the mostly-European churches that would end up as Catholic and then Protestant. Christians of the various "orthodoxies" east & south of there weren't involved, and even as late as the 600s there were some kinds of Christianity, particularly in Arabia, that still had Jesus as a normal mortal human. They were still "Chrsitianties" because they followed Jesus as a teacher of Godly wisdom, the latest & greatest in the series of Hebrew prophets, but they just didn't see a need to call a prophet a demigod and claim that he died & then came back to life. We just don't still call them that today because during the 600s they got themselves one more even greater prophet (still just another human though) and changed their name.

 

[acbytesla]

Also, there is no indication that they actually removed anything from the bible. Or not from the parts that really mattered. There still was some debate around as to whether some obscure epistle should be included or not, but that was about it. The Gospels and main epistles were already pretty much set in stone for more than 150 years at that point. (Again, contrary to what Dan Brown would have you believe.)

Where do you get this nonsense?

No, in fact they weren't even close to being set in stone. Marcion of Sinope created the first Biblical canon which only included ten of the Pauline episteles and a shortened version of Luke. There were Christian churches throughout Greece, Turkey, Syria, Egypt etc each with very different versions of Christianity. What we see today is basically the Roman version.

The Trinity was made up by Athanasius and today's Bible is more a reflection of his ideas than anyone else.

 

[8enotto]

While the improbable Jesus is slowly pieced together from various sources here holy week roars forward in Mexico with all the old standard bible stories in movie form, and two semi historical telenovelas showing the faithful the way.

The scholarly POV doesn't stand a chance to getting a tiny % of the attention Mr Heston will with his old movie.
At least no one in my house is watching them.

 

[acbytesla]

While the improbable Jesus is slowly pieced together from various sources here holy week roars forward in Mexico with all the old standard bible stories in movie form, and two semi historical telenovelas showing the faithful the way.

The scholarly POV doesn't stand a chance to getting a tiny % of the attention Mr Heston will with his old movie.
At least no one in my house is watching them.

I think it's much easier and more fun to watch DeMille and Wyler too. Of course, neither was close to being accurate history.

 

[smartcooky]

..... even as late as the 600s there were some kinds of Christianity, particularly in Arabia, that still had Jesus as a normal mortal human. They were still "Chrsitianties" because they followed Jesus as a teacher of Godly wisdom, the latest & greatest in the series of Hebrew prophets, but they just didn't see a need to call a prophet a demigod and claim that he died & then came back to life....

While the improbable Jesus is slowly pieced together from various sources here holy week roars forward in Mexico with all the old standard bible stories in movie form, and two semi historical telenovelas showing the faithful the way.

So the question is not so much "Was there a Historical Jesus" as much as "If there was a Historical Jesus, which one?"

 

[dejudge]

If there was an historical Jesus when did he live , where did he live, what did he do, when did he die?? There is presently no historical evidence to answer any of those questions.

 

[HansMustermann]

Where do you get this nonsense?

No, in fact they weren't even close to being set in stone. Marcion of Sinope created the first Biblical canon which only included ten of the Pauline episteles and a shortened version of Luke. There were Christian churches throughout Greece, Turkey, Syria, Egypt etc each with very different versions of Christianity. What we see today is basically the Roman version.

Yes, well, if we're talking what the Council Of Nicaea decided or didn't decide, we ARE talking about the Roman version in the first place.

 

[pgwenthold]

So the question is not so much "Was there a Historical Jesus" as much as "If there was a Historical Jesus, which one?"

Oh for sure. That's always been the question for me. "What do you mean by 'Jesus'?"

My contention is that it's fairly disingenuous to relate "the radial rabbi who pissed off the Roman authorities and got killed as a result" to Jesus of the bible. Jesus of the bible was not just a wise rabbi who got in trouble with the authorities.

I mean, can you claim someone is the "historical Dorothy" from the Wizard of Oz if she doesn't go to see the wizard? I mean, without that all you have is a girl from Kansas who has an Aunt Em. Dorothy is much more than that.

 

[dejudge]

Oh for sure. That's always been the question for me. "What do you mean by 'Jesus'?"

My contention is that it's fairly disingenuous to relate "the radial rabbi who pissed off the Roman authorities and got killed as a result" to Jesus of the bible. Jesus of the bible was not just a wise rabbi who got in trouble with the authorities..........

There is simply no historical evidence anywhere to support the contention that the Jesus character in the NT was based on a " radial rabbi who pissed off the Roman authorities and got killed as a result".

The Jesus character in the fables called the NT pissed off the Jews and was found without fault by a Roman Procurator called Pilate during an implausible trial.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, well, if we're talking what the Council Of Nicaea decided or didn't decide, we ARE talking about the Roman version in the first place.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Today's canon evolved and the historicity of Jesus, his disciples, not to mention any divinity is highly questionable. I believe you said the Gospels had been written in stone for the previous 150 years. I dispute that. Which gospels? You do know that other Gospels besides Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written don't you? You do know that Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were either copied and rewritten from Mark or another source often referenced as "Q" What's clear is this is fan fiction. How can we really trust that copies of copies of copies about a man an his life that happened decades before is true? You do know that by the time of the council of Nicea, there were many 'so called' Gospels.

The fact is that early Christians in the period between 75 AD and 300AD held a far greater variety of beliefs about Christianity than the thousands of denominations today. The Trinity which today is foundational to the overwhelming majority of denominations was a late 3rd or 4th century invention. Marcion and some other sects believed there were two gods. The jealous Jewish god and the kind loving father that Jesus preached about.

By the time the Council of Nicea and Athanasius came along there were dozens maybe hundreds of different writings about Jesus and his teachings. Some which became part of the canon and others that were decided to be heretical.

Its absurd on a monumental level to believe that three hundred years later anyone could possibly know what was true and what was fiction.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Today's canon evolved and the historicity of Jesus, his disciples, not to mention any divinity is highly questionable. I believe you said the Gospels had been written in stone for the previous 150 years. I dispute that. Which gospels? You do know that other Gospels besides Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written don't you? You do know that Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were either copied and rewritten from Mark or another source often referenced as "Q" What's clear is this is fan fiction. How can we really trust that copies of copies of copies about a man an his life that happened decades before is true? You do know that by the time of the council of Nicea, there were many 'so called' Gospels.

Again, that was in the context of the flippin' First Council Of Nicaea. People got this idea from Dan Brown that that's where the canonical gospels were decided and other historically (and hysterically) wrong nonsense. They were actually decided by what would become the Catholics and Orthodox some 150 years before that.

You know, the gang that you called "the Roman version." I'd call them the Irenaeus version, more accurately, but anyway: they had already long decided what they want to believe, and didn't need to decide much more than "yep, we were right all along, everyone else is wrong and sucks" at Nicaea.

Pretty much THE only major thing that came out of the councils in 325AD, and THE thing that Constantine personally can be credited or blamed for, was deciding how to calculate Easter. That's it.

(Because these guys were calling Jews names all year long, and then in spring going to the same Jews to ask when is Easter. With the predictable result that a lot were told a wrong date, and a lot were just told to travel and copulate, just not in those exact words If you bully a group of people all year long and call them nasty names, yeah, turns out they're not very inclined to help you the one time you need their help. So THE thing Constantine came up with was basically, so we should come up with our own calculation for it.)

Everyone else, well, they had their own ideas, and pretty much continued to not give a crap about what was or wasn't decided at Nicaea.

The fact is that early Christians in the period between 75 AD and 300AD held a far greater variety of beliefs about Christianity than the thousands of denominations today. The Trinity which today is foundational to the overwhelming majority of denominations was a late 3rd or 4th century invention. Marcion and some other sects believed there were two gods. The jealous Jewish god and the kind loving father that Jesus preached about.

By the time the Council of Nicea and Athanasius came along there were dozens maybe hundreds of different writings about Jesus and his teachings. Some which became part of the canon and others that were decided to be heretical.

Its absurd on a monumental level to believe that three hundred years later anyone could possibly know what was true and what was fiction.

And I didn't say any of them were true, nor that said variety didn't exist.

But you just give the 4'th century councils too much credit, is all I'm saying. Marcion for example, since you mention him, came and was rejected by "the Roman version" some 200 years before Nicaea. At the time of Nicaea they had ALREADY long decided that nope, that Marcion guy was a heretic and generally sucked.

 

[HansMustermann]

Incidentally, ditto about the trinity. The start of the trinitarian view is at least as early as the Ascension of Isaiah apocrypha, and that one is dated to the end of the first century CE. The first actual church father to explicitly write about the Trinity as a God being a trio of persons is Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century.

And being that he was the leader of one of the 4 churches that Irenaeus managed to convince to unite into the cartel that would later become the RCC, it's safe to say that it was a pretty mainstream view from the get go within "the Roman version."

Yes, it doesn't apply to the other versions, but it's still NOT something that came up at Nicaea or right before it. The proto-RCC already had it long before that, and the ones that didn't, well, still didn't care about it after Nicaea either.

Pretending that it's something that only came up at Nicaea is Dan Brown level silliness. And I wish people stopped propagating that kind of nonsense, because it doesn't helpw with getting the MJ movement taken seriously.

Edit: but basically, look, Sabellius was excommunicated in Rome in 220AD and called a heresiarch for not being the right kind of Trinitarian. See, unlike other non-trinitarians who just maintained that Daddy, Junior and Spook aren't the same God, Sabellius ended up called a non-trinitarian for saying that actually all 3 are the same person. I.e., instead of Daddy, Junior and Spook being different persons but the same God, he maintained that no, they just were the same person. But anyway, that already tells you that a very well defined trinitarian doctrine was already in place in "the Roman version", more than 100 years before Nicaea. Not only they had already decided on trinitarianism, but even on which flavour of it was the right one.

 

[dejudge]

Incidentally, ditto about the trinity. The start of the trinitarian view is at least as early as the Ascension of Isaiah apocrypha, and that one is dated to the end of the first century CE. The first actual church father to explicitly write about the Trinity as a God being a trio of persons is Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century.

In "To Autolycus" attributed Theophilus of Antioch there is nothing about a character called Jesus who was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

In fact, in "To Autolycus" there is no mention of any character called Jesus, Jesus the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Galillee nothing at all.

Theophilus of Antioch does not even appear to be a Christian who believed the stories of Jesus but believed he was a Christian because he was anointed with the oil of his God.

The teaching of the Trinity that Jesus was God the Creator, the Son and the Holy Ghost appears to be from the end of the 2nd century or later as found in gJohn.

Manuscripts of gJohn have been dated by paleography to the mid 2nd century.

And being that he was the leader of one of the 4 churches that Irenaeus managed to convince to unite into the cartel that would later become the RCC, it's safe to say that it was a pretty mainstream view from the get go within "the Roman version."

"Against Heresies" is corrupted. The supposed author Irenaeusa Presbyter of the Church of Lyons argued that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old which contradicts all the fables in the NT called Gospels.

It would appear then that the Gospels were heretical since they did not conform with the teachings of the Church of Lyons


"Against Heresies" is evidence that there was no document known as the New Testament, and no universal teachings or creed of people who called themselves Christians.

 

[acbytesla]

Again, that was in the context of the flippin' First Council Of Nicaea. People got this idea from Dan Brown that that's where the canonical gospels were decided and other historically (and hysterically) wrong nonsense. They were actually decided by what would become the Catholics and Orthodox some 150 years before that.

You know, the gang that you called "the Roman version." I'd call them the Irenaeus version, more accurately, but anyway: they had already long decided what they want to believe, and didn't need to decide much more than "yep, we were right all along, everyone else is wrong and sucks" at Nicaea.

Pretty much THE only major thing that came out of the councils in 325AD, and THE thing that Constantine personally can be credited or blamed for, was deciding how to calculate Easter. That's it.

(Because these guys were calling Jews names all year long, and then in spring going to the same Jews to ask when is Easter. With the predictable result that a lot were told a wrong date, and a lot were just told to travel and copulate, just not in those exact words If you bully a group of people all year long and call them nasty names, yeah, turns out they're not very inclined to help you the one time you need their help. So THE thing Constantine came up with was basically, so we should come up with our own calculation for it.)

Everyone else, well, they had their own ideas, and pretty much continued to not give a crap about what was or wasn't decided at Nicaea.



And I didn't say any of them were true, nor that said variety didn't exist.

But you just give the 4'th century councils too much credit, is all I'm saying. Marcion for example, since you mention him, came and was rejected by "the Roman version" some 200 years before Nicaea. At the time of Nicaea they had ALREADY long decided that nope, that Marcion guy was a heretic and generally sucked.

One, I never said word one about Nicea or the 4th century councils. It was about this time the idea of the trinity became part of dogma. And who's "they"?

 

[maximara]

So the question is not so much "Was there a Historical Jesus" as much as "If there was a Historical Jesus, which one?"

Even that question has a Highlander (there can only be one) aspect to it.

As I said before the idea that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character (ie formed our of various would be messiahs) is the most Occam's Razor version of the Christ Myth theory.

The John Frum Connection

Carrier's use of the John Frum Cargo cult backs this up because you can't really say that John Frum didn't exist as there were three illiterate natives who took up the name John Frum - Manehevi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943, inspired people to build an airstrip) and Iokaeye (1947, preached a new color symbolism) who were exiled or thrown into jail for the trouble they stirred up

If that wasn't enough there were also three people saying they were the "sons" of John Frum in 1942.

Guiart's 1952 Oceania paper (link below) also shows the complexity involved regarding determining if Jesus was a man or a celestial being.

We are told that "A man named Manehevi had posed as a supernatural being by means of ingenious stage management." But later we are also told "From elsewhere rail the rumour that, in spite of the Administration statement, Manehevi was not John Frum, and that the latter was still at liberty."

Here we are told John Frum was a "supernatural being" while the believers are saying he is an actual man who "was still at liberty"

If that isn't enough we are also told "John Frum, alias Karaperamun, is always the god of Mount Tukosmoru, which will shelter the planes, then the soldiers."

Here we are told that John Frum is Karaperamun (who is a long existing volcano god) but we were also told that Manehevi was (or pretended to be) John Frum and that John Frum was another person who was still at liberty.

As you can see from Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously. If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war.

Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177

I might out that Carrier was unaware of this paper when he wrote his peer reviewed book and wished he had known about it when I pointed out its existence.

The Apologist Nightmare

Everything the Christian apologists claim couldn't have happened regarding Christianity appears to have happened with the John Frum cargo
cult – it evolved from the preexisting beliefs without a clear definitive founder. Moreover in a seven year period we see various believers taking up the mantel of "John Frum" despite being totally difference in terms of literacy, nationality, and race not even a decade later. There is a hint in Paul's own writings (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) that this had happened with Jesus as he warns against other Jesuses and other Gospels other then the ones he and his followers were preaching.

Furthermore, as seen with the Prince Philip Movement, there are variants of the cult that connect the mythical John Frum to real living people (Prince Philip is the brother of John Frum in this variant even though Prince Philip has no brothers), something the Christian apologists claim couldn't have happened with Jesus.

Conclusion

Is the John Frum cargo cult a smoking gun? No but it shows that even the part of the Christ Myth that says Jesus didn't exist as a human being first is not in the tin foil hat land that the apologists claim it is - as we have a very well documented example of exactly this sort of thing. It also throws the idea of a composite Jesus into the ring - and that so terrifies the apologists they they continue to misrepresent the late 19th - eary 20th century Christ Myth material as being exclusively Jesus didn't exist as a human being at all (in reality next to none of it says that).

 

[HansMustermann]

One, I never said word one about Nicea or the 4th century councils. It was about this time the idea of the trinity became part of dogma. And who's "they"?

No, you butted into a reply to someone else who had mentioned Nicaea. I mean, not only it was quoted at the time, but the quote is still at the top of the page. So at this point I'm not even sure what your point was, if you're not talking about that.

 

[HansMustermann]

Even that question has a Highlander (there can only be one) aspect to it.

As I said before the idea that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character (ie formed our of various would be messiahs) is the most Occam's Razor version of the Christ Myth theory.

Ironically, as I've said before, it's also pretty much what mainstream bible scholarship says, but for some reason they basically still call one of the guys in the mix (which may be real or not) the Historical Jesus. It's a really bizarro world, where at least parts of the opposing teams are more or less making the same claim, but they still call each other wrong

As I was saying before, even Ehrman will cheerfully tell you, and for that matter say it in lectures all over the place, that mainstream scholarship for more than a century at this point is that:
A) no more than 30% of the sayings and ideas attributed to Jesus could have reasonably been said by the same person, and
B) there is more than one set of those 30% -- i.e., more than one person -- that can be reconstructed, and scholars disagree as to which is the real Slim Shady

That's not fringe and not even new. It's bog standard bible scholarship at this point.

So basically at this point the only difference between mainstream scholarship and your Christ Myth version is basically just this:

MJ: well, then it's a composite that never existed in that form
HJ: yeah, but one of those parts of the composite -- more specifically the one _I_ cherrypicked -- is the Historical Jesus

Derp

 

[acbytesla]

No, you butted into a reply to someone else who had mentioned Nicaea. I mean, not only it was quoted at the time, but the quote is still at the top of the page. So at this point I'm not even sure what your point was, if you're not talking about that.

You said the Gospels had been written in stone for the 150 years leading into the Council of Nicea. This clearly wasn't true except in the RCC.

 

[smartcooky]

Pretending that it's something that only came up at Nicaea is Dan Brown level silliness. And I wish people stopped propagating that kind of nonsense, because it doesn't helpw with getting the MJ movement taken seriously.

Having been a reader of Michael Baigent's books, I already understood this to be true long before anyone ever heard of Dan Brown.

And the main point I was trying to make still has some truth to it, and that was, the First Council at Nicea, resulted in the Nicene Creed, which was intended to completely eliminate any theological diversity in Christianity.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.​

The first of the highlighted passages above is clearly a declaration of the divinity of Jesus Christ, from birth, and not from the resurrection, and the second higlighted passage is a clear and obvious warning to those who don't follow the first highlighted passage.

While they did not make any rulings about what books would be canonized to become the Bible, they certainly formalised the removal of any books that contradicted the idea that Jesus was always divine, from his birth, as well as those problematic Gnostic ideas that eternal salvation could be achieved without the church.