Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

Slight correction, Josephus's "The Jewish War" was written around 75CE in Aramaic, and the Greek translation is slightly later. The Jesus Ben Ananias event is said to have started some 4 years before the war which started in 6 6CE. And apparently he kept at it until the actual siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, some 7 years and 5 months later, which actually lets us pinpoint the start of the Jesus Ben Ananias incident to somewhere between December 62CE and March 63 CE. (Source: "The Jewish War", Book 6, Chapter 5.)

I'm not sure where the 68 CE year comes from, it's certainly nowhere to be found in "The Jewish War". Which itself couldn't possibly be published in 68 CE and describe a siege that happened in 70 CE. (Unless, I guess Vespasian was right about Josephus being a prophet )

 

[HansMustermann]

Well that sounds pretty convincing, what’s that from exactly? Is it/why isn’t it commonly accepted as a possible or likely inspiration?

Well, it just illustrates the problem I have with identifying any one person as "the historical Jesus."

Jesus Ben Ananias had no disciples, no ministry, no message of salvation, no wisdom to impart, etc. For about seven and a half years he literally just said these words over and over and over again: "Woe to Jerusalem!" Even when they beat him up or whatever, that's the only words he said over and over again. Which is why the governor Albinus concluded that the poor guy is just crazy. (Which he probably was.)

Seven and a half years later, on the walls of the besieged Jerusalem, he was still going around the walls going "Woe to Jerusalem!" over and over.

Until he finally said something different by adding, "And woe to me!" as a big ass catapult rock was coming at him.

The only thing he is recorded as saying BEFORE he got into that loop, was shouting "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people!" Until they rounded him up and started beating him, at which point he just got into the "Woe to Jerusalem!" loop.

(Though even there I have a slight correction: he never shouted either in the temple. He was shouting his "a voice..." stuff in the street. So scratch one commonality with our Jesus.)

Is that the same Jesus that the Gospels describe? Really?

That's like saying that Bruce Banner and Bruce Wayne are the same Bruce because they both fought for justice and stuff

 

[Craig B]

Well that sounds pretty convincing, what’s that from exactly? Is it/why isn’t it commonly accepted as a possible or likely inspiration?

He has been suggested in that context, but it's not very convincing.

He was killed during the siege by a catapult shot coming over the wall into the city. So he doesn't look like Jesus the Nazarene in the manner of his career or death. He was flogged and dismissed as an inconsequential madman, and then killed in crossfire during a war, not executed. So he doesn't fit the role of messianic preacher very well.

 

[Lithrael]

Ah, ok, I see. So it sounds like you guys aren’t kidding when you say there were kind of a lot of Jesus-ish figures around that chunk of history. To the point where there’s some that surface-read like OH HEY! And then you’re like ‘oh, no, not really.’

Does anyone have a book or a blog or something where they talk about what kind of evidence we have for various early historical figures or events, maybe discussion of when history gets more ‘nailed down’ in various places? “We’re pretty sure this guy/event was real and really did thing x y and z because of this evidence here, but this other guy/event just shows up in references from stuff written later, but it makes sense, and this third guy/event could have been made up from whole cloth as far as anyone can tell” type stuff? Meta-historical discussion?

Maybe with a side of when consensus changed because of new discoveries, like how IIRC most people decided Troy was more or less made up until they found ruins that would fit Troy really well? Or like, if very early historians like very early naturalists just Went With Stuff instead of trying to actually verify anything, and how the field of historical study itself changed over the centuries?

 

[Brainache]

Ah, ok, I see. So it sounds like you guys aren’t kidding when you say there were kind of a lot of Jesus-ish figures around that chunk of history. To the point where there’s some that surface-read like OH HEY! And then you’re like ‘oh, no, not really.’

Does anyone have a book or a blog or something where they talk about what kind of evidence we have for various early historical figures or events, maybe discussion of when history gets more ‘nailed down’ in various places? “We’re pretty sure this guy/event was real and really did thing x y and z because of this evidence here, but this other guy/event just shows up in references from stuff written later, but it makes sense, and this third guy/event could have been made up from whole cloth as far as anyone can tell” type stuff? Meta-historical discussion?

Maybe with a side of when consensus changed because of new discoveries, like how IIRC most people decided Troy was more or less made up until they found ruins that would fit Troy really well? Or like, if very early historians like very early naturalists just Went With Stuff instead of trying to actually verify anything, and how the field of historical study itself changed over the centuries?

You could start with wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...cal method,history is known as historiography.

 

[HansMustermann]

Ah, ok, I see. So it sounds like you guys aren’t kidding when you say there were kind of a lot of Jesus-ish figures around that chunk of history. To the point where there’s some that surface-read like OH HEY! And then you’re like ‘oh, no, not really.’

Oh, let me illustrate how far down THAT rabbit hole goes.

So have a seat and let me tell you the story of a man. A handsome and educated man, and, as some believed, a holy man. Many expected him to be (in a valid sense at the time) the mashiach (messiah), i.e., an anointed king by divine right from the line of David.

For, you see, the divinely-sanctioned line of David had failed when Herod was put on the throne, but our hero was of the seed of David through his mother, Mary. (Mariamne in Aramaic, a form of the biblical Miriam in Hebrew.) And thus pretty much the last hope at a fulfilment of God's promise to put someone from David's line at the top until the end times.

His mom's partner, btw, was called Joseph.

He had a younger brother too, who was held in similarly high regard by the people.

But some were against him, and accused him of plotting to overthrow the king. (Which most definitely would have been one way to fulfil that prophecy.)

When he was somewhere around 30 years old (rounded to the nearest 1 significant digit), the Jewish authorities brought his case before the highest Roman authorities (the Emperor, in fact, not just some local procurator) who, if I'm allowed to use a figure of speech, washed their hands of it all and sent it back to the Jewish king.

He was tried by a collusion of the Jewish and local Roman authorities, where they bore false witness against him, and they sentenced him to death although he was innocent.

And even after his death many did not forsake him, and were persecuted for it. They executed about 300 people who were not very happy with it, in fact.

Oh, and Herod The Great was dead set to kill him.

And, oh, he's mentioned in Josephus too.​

And if you thought I'm talking about the gospel Jesus, you'd be wrong. I'm talking about Alexander, the son of Herod The Great. (And yeah, funny coincidence, the guy his mom was accused of boning was called Joseph.)

The lesser problem with it is that he was executed in 7 BC, and not by crucifixion, but by strangling.

The bigger problem is that as far as we know, he never was a wandering rabbi (though he sure travelled a bit), and never preached turning the other cheek. In fact, he was a vain and vindictive ass hole.

But you can see why I'm wondering if that story is one of the many mashed up into what became the gospel Jesus. Basically when the gospel authors were collecting oral rumours about the messiah, some decades afterwards, different people might have been actually telling them about entirely different messiahs.

 

[Lithrael]

Interesting! Thanks for the examples, and thanks Brainache for the link. It’s one of those things that’s difficult to google if you don’t know the word.

 

[Puppycow]

Hysterical Jesus

I believe in Hysterical Jesus.


As for Historical Jesus, I think there was an actual guy who started it all, because why not. Of course I don't believe the lies about all the miracles he supposedly performed. He was just another preacher man with a few followers like millions of others who came before and after him and most of whom are completely forgotten and lost to history.

 

[Craig B]

I believe in Hysterical Jesus.


As for Historical Jesus, I think there was an actual guy who started it all, because why not. Of course I don't believe the lies about all the miracles he supposedly performed. He was just another preacher man with a few followers like millions of others who came before and after him and most of whom are completely forgotten and lost to history.

I agree that is the most probable background to the later biographical or pseudobiographical accounts in the record, but even the earliest of these accounts is already contaminated by the lies about miracles that you refer to. That there was a wandering preacher who incited some disturbance in the Temple during Passover and was then crucified is, however, entirely plausible. That he subsequently rose from his tomb is not.

 

[Darat]

I believe in Hysterical Jesus.





As for Historical Jesus, I think there was an actual guy who started it all, because why not. Of course I don't believe the lies about all the miracles he supposedly performed. He was just another preacher man with a few followers like millions of others who came before and after him and most of whom are completely forgotten and lost to history.

I think there probably was a guy that was at the heart of what grew to be christianity as we recognise it, that person was probably Paul.

 

[HansMustermann]

I believe in Hysterical Jesus.


As for Historical Jesus, I think there was an actual guy who started it all, because why not. Of course I don't believe the lies about all the miracles he supposedly performed. He was just another preacher man with a few followers like millions of others who came before and after him and most of whom are completely forgotten and lost to history.

Just to make it clear, I allow the possibility that at some point there was one guy (or more guys) that some other guys thought was all holy, and some guy told some tall tales about him to some other guy, who told his own version to some other guy, who told Paul.

Who then proceeded to be a completely opaque door between us and that guy, because for all his long letters, he says nothing about Jesus except the last supper. And in fact makes it a thing of pride that all he's preaching about Jesus doesn't come from any man, but from his own revelations. Even when he literally stayed at Peter's place for a while, apparently Peter has nothing to add to what Paul already knew from his revelations. (Or quite possibly Paul refused to listen to anything Peter had to say.)

What I vehemently contest is the possibility of reconstructing that guy from the gospels.

Essentially if you take everything that defines a guy -- what he said, what he believed, what he did, etc -- and replace it with allegoric fiction, is it still the same guy? If you were in the year 4000 or so, and all you had about Abraham Lincoln was a supernatural movie in which he kills zombies with an axe, would you really believe that you can reconstruct the historical Abraham Lincoln from there?

 

[HansMustermann]

I believe in Hysterical Jesus.


As for Historical Jesus, I think there was an actual guy who started it all, because why not. Of course I don't believe the lies about all the miracles he supposedly performed. He was just another preacher man with a few followers like millions of others who came before and after him and most of whom are completely forgotten and lost to history.

Also, can you reconstruct even that? There are plenty of examples of people who did not in fact claim to be a messiah, and even denied it, but around whom such legends grew anyway.

My canonical example is David Reubeni, who really wasn't a rabi, didn't preach anything, etc, but who was taken for a messiah anyway. He was a high stakes con-man who scammed even the Holy Roman Emperor. But then some crazy girl had a dream in which Reubeni was the messiah, and soon a whole cult of Reubeni was sweeping Europe. And I mean really fast, not like the Jesus cult which grew at glacier pace.

Reubeni, who probably didn't fancy being burned at the stake in the 16'th century, actually actively denied his being the messiah or anything of the sort. It literally made people believe even more that he's the messiah. (Yeah, Life Of Brian was a documentary) At least one guy who came to greet the messiah, and was told quite bluntly by Reubeni that he's nothing of the sort, is documented to have just concluded that it means he's not worth the messiah's attention, and proceeded to be even more pious a worshipper of Reubeni.

Hell, even in BC times, I gave the example of prince Alexander. He was anything BUT a pious man. He was a spoiled crown prince, with all that you'd expect that to mean. He was vain, he was vindictive, and generally he was an all around ass hole. Yet he had literally hundreds of devouted followers who believed him to be the messiah sent by God to save Israel. Some 300 even went to their deaths for that belief. Like, right after he was executed, not some slow growing cult.

So why does our Jesus have to have been a rabbi? He COULD have been one, but then he could have been literally anything else, and could have gotten a following just the same.

 

[dejudge]

I believe in Hysterical Jesus.


As for Historical Jesus, I think there was an actual guy who started it all, because why not. Of course I don't believe the lies about all the miracles he supposedly performed. He was just another preacher man with a few followers like millions of others who came before and after him and most of whom are completely forgotten and lost to history.

You have invented your Hysterical/Historical Jesus. You have no historical evidence whatsoever that your Jesus did live and was "just another preacher man".

 

[dejudge]

I agree that is the most probable background to the later biographical or pseudobiographical accounts in the record, but even the earliest of these accounts is already contaminated by the lies about miracles that you refer to. That there was a wandering preacher who incited some disturbance in the Temple during Passover and was then crucified is, however, entirely plausible. That he subsequently rose from his tomb is not.

It is entirely plausible that the character called Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

There is no historical evidence to support the argument for an historical Jesus.

 

[ehhz]

Who then proceeded to be a completely opaque door between us and that guy, because for all his long letters, he says nothing about Jesus except the last supper.

That is because "Jesus" was nothing more than an instrument. Christ was conceived as some sort of alter-ego.

And in fact makes it a thing of pride that all he's preaching about Jesus doesn't come from any man, but from his own revelations.

That's the safest conclusion to draw, superficially considered. It's terribly convenient to represent Paul as an eager opportunist.

Even when he literally stayed at Peter's place for a while, apparently Peter has nothing to add to what Paul already knew from his revelations. (Or quite possibly Paul refused to listen to anything Peter had to say.)

Or that was made to conform to the silly Acts of the Apostles narrative. Paul is likely a historic figure. Peter seems symbolic.

What I vehemently contest is the possibility of reconstructing that guy from the gospels.

Undoubtedly, the gospel narratives are historically unreliable for reconstructing the life of a person.

The ethics should be extracted from the narrative. Regrettably, Thomas Jefferson did not go further than that, despite his great exercise of common sense.

The narrative should have also been adjusted. "Jesus wept" is easily the worst offender. He would have looked like an idiot standing there doing nothing as time passed by. He already knew he would "raise" Lazarus or that Lazarus was only "asleep". He would not have wept out of compassion for the plight of his female associates. The frequent depiction of women as prone to tears and weeping in the gospels is an unjust caricature. In antiquity, women were respected for their divining capacity.

What's obvious is that Jesus at the present time is either an amalgam of various revolutionary agitators (i.e. Barabbas, John the Baptist) or the concept of a matchless teacher of ethics was mingled with their lives. The revolutionary side of Jesus can easily be gleamed from his denunciations of the rich, in his wishes for the prevailing state of affairs to collapse, and his emphasis on the divide between poor/rich.

 

[HansMustermann]

That is because "Jesus" was nothing more than an instrument. Christ was conceived as some sort of alter-ego.

That is also possible, as is the possibility that Christ was some figure they constructed out of pieces out of context from the OT. If you can take a real guy, remove everything about him, and replace it with "fulfilled" prophecies from the OT, you can do the same without the real guy just as well. There are lots of possibilities, really.

That's the safest conclusion to draw, superficially considered. It's terribly convenient to represent Paul as an eager opportunist.

"Opportunist" is actually more charitable than some of the stuff I've said about Paul.

Nevertheless, what I was saying isn't my conclusion. Paul actually boasts just that in Galatians 1:12.

Or that was made to conform to the silly Acts of the Apostles narrative. Paul is likely a historic figure. Peter seems symbolic.

Err, no, that's not from Acts. If it were Acts, I would have dismissed it myself. That's Galatians 1:18-19. He stays two weeks with Cephas (which is the same Aramaic name as Petros in Greek), also meets "James the brother of the Lord" in that time, yet he still insists that his message comes only from personal revelations. I.e., whatever those two may or may not have said about Jesus, Paul is not conveying.

What's obvious is that Jesus at the present time is either an amalgam of various revolutionary agitators (i.e. Barabbas, John the Baptist) or the concept of a matchless teacher of ethics was mingled with their lives. The revolutionary side of Jesus can easily be gleamed from his denunciations of the rich, in his wishes for the prevailing state of affairs to collapse, and his emphasis on the divide between poor/rich.

Or both. It's not a dichotomy, really.

 

[Puppycow]

You have invented your Hysterical/Historical Jesus. You have no historical evidence whatsoever that your Jesus did live and was "just another preacher man".

Your evidence that he didn't?

 

[HansMustermann]

By that logic, do you have evidence that it wasn't an early X-man?

 

[ehhz]

Paul actually boasts just that in Galatians 1:12.

Err, no, that's not from Acts.

My mistake, it's been a while since I read his epistles.

If it were Acts, I would have dismissed it myself.

Glad to hear.

Or both. It's not a dichotomy, really.

It must necessarily be a dichotomy. The greatest individuals exercise restraint, are always realistic, without fanaticism, aggression, or provocation beyond what is required. Rousseau was not responsible for the indulgences of the French revolution.

On the other hand, there are exceptional cases where a great man is not only responsible for propagating the idea, but also for it's practical implementation as well. Mohammed was one such fella.

 

[Puppycow]

By that logic, do you have evidence that it wasn't an early X-man?

Me? I'm only considering possibilities that seem like realistic possibilities to me.

No, I also don't have evidence that he wasn't from the planet Krypton, but I don't think I need any to rule that out.

Whereas a normal bog-average human man with no supernatural superpowers and with a few followers willing to make up tall tales seems like a very mundane and plausible possibility.