Historical Jesus

[David Mo]

I don't see that at all. If there was a person named Jesus who was baptised by John, went preaching, performed healing acts, such as are non miraculous and commonplace among charismatic preachers. In those days there was no medical science to refute that demons had been expelled from sick patients. And was arrested and executed following a disturbance in the Temple. A single person could have done these things, and if there was such a person called Jesus, that person is a historical Jesus regardless of the mythology that developed around his name in later times. King Arthur might have existed as a Celtic warrior even if the magic sword is mythology. The earliest notice of Arthur in literature makes no mention of that myth, even as Paul and then Mark know of no virgin birth in Bethlehem.

That presumed authentic core is what this discussion is about.

Everything you write in the first paragraph is hypothetical. It could be. Or it might not be.
The question is how can we know whether or not it is. That is to say, it is a question of method: which method allows us to differentiate the real from the fictitious through some mythified stories?

The truth is that I don't see a clear answer for what you say in the second paragraph. How do we know if that hypothetical prophet had the fame of a healer or fame was added by the first Christians thirty years later? What if he was simply a prophet?

 

[Craig B]

Everything you write in the first paragraph is hypothetical. It could be. Or it might not be.
The question is how can we know whether or not it is. That is to say, it is a question of method: which method allows us to differentiate the real from the fictitious through some mythified stories?

The truth is that I don't see a clear answer for what you say in the second paragraph. How do we know if that hypothetical prophet had the fame of a healer or fame was added by the first Christians thirty years later? What if he was simply a prophet?

If he was simply a prophet he must have existed. If he was also a healer that doesn't mean that he had super powers, but it does mean he was believed to have existed by people who wrote about his therapeutic acts.

"Thirty years later" than when, by the way, if Jesus never lived?

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't see that at all. If there was a person named Jesus who was baptised by John, went preaching, performed healing acts, such as are non miraculous and commonplace among charismatic preachers. In those days there was no medical science to refute that demons had been expelled from sick patients. And was arrested and executed following a disturbance in the Temple. A single person could have done these things, and if there was such a person called Jesus

And that's a big IF, as there are problems with even that.

1. For example a "disturbance in the temple", much less the attack in the synoptics, and much less the ARMED attack in John, would have been dealt with on the spot by the whole cohort of armed soldiers posted there as guards to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening. There would be no last supper or anything.

2. It would also be a noteworthy event. Josephus even writes about some random schmuck who was arrested and beaten up for prophecising against Jerusalem on the STREETS. Which was significant for Josephus since the point he repeatedly is trying to make is that the the destruction of the temple and the coming of Vespasian as the messiah were God's will and prophecized ahead of time. Also, because the Jews had altered the shape of the temple. So any crazy guy speaking cryptic prophecies against Jerusalem was been of GREAT interest to Josephus as supporting his point. A guy even speaking in the temple against what the temple had become, doubly so before passover, and doubly so one actually prophecising the destruction of the temple like in John, would have been of even greater interest to Josephus. Yet apparently he's never heard of that Jesus guy.

3. But let's even talk about WHAT would Jesus even say against the temple there. Having merchants right in front of the actual temple (it was only in the courtyard, mind you) was just how it had always worked, and because what God through Moses had demanded that the people sacrifice there. There were all sorts of animals required for various sacrifices for occasions as mundane as that the wife had her period, and a peasant couldn't be expected to haul his own goat or whatever from Bethlehem to Jerusalem each time. A Jesus who accused the Jews of not keeping the laws of Moses had no real reason to rail against people buying a fresh required sacrifice right in front of the temple, in order to stick to the Law.

And it's not a view we find represented or attributed historically to any of the Jewish groups that people try to fit Jesus in.

The view that the whole temple is a house of a god, and any public affairs had to be kept outside was in fact a Roman not a Jewish view. Mark is accepted as having written in Rome, so, yeah, we can take an educated guess that the whole thing came from Mark not from any Jew named Jesus.

4. "if there was such a person called Jesus" is actually another thing that's not clear at all. Paul for example seems to say that his messiah got the name Jesus AFTER his death and resurrection. In effect he BECAME Jesus because of his sacrifice. It's his apotheosis name. Which as I was saying, is the same name as Joshua, the guy whose return as a messiah a bunch of other guys were awaiting.

So for all we know, the guy who inspired it all could have even been called Alexander, and people only started to refer to him as the returned Jesus after his death.

 

[Craig B]

There are statements that Jesus was born of a virgin without a human father and was the creator from the beginning .

The earliest sources Paul and Mark know nothing about this. The fourth evangelist John, whose Jesus is by now nearly a god and who makes him a creator from the beginning, twice calls Jesus son of Joseph and mentions no virgin. In sum, we can see these dogmas developing before our eyes.

It is simply ridiculous to assume such a character existed and had the ability to walk, talk, hear and even see.

Won't do. Link me to a source that tells us Jesus was deaf mute. The virgin story in the later Synoptics can be explained as an attempted fulfilment of a misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. It needs to be explained because it's there; and it can be explained. Jesus as deaf mute isn't there as a source, so it doesn't need to be explained at all.

The NT provides zero historical evidence to show that character called Jesus of Nazareth was really human. There are statements that he walked on water for at least 3 miles.

No human being can walk on water.

Then he didn't walk on water, same as his mother wasn't a virgin.

The NT is about a non-historical character called Jesus of Nazareth invented after the fall of the Jewish Temple - after c 70 CE.

You reject the existence of Paul too? For Paul Jesus was in Paul's recent past, and in Paul's day the Temple still existed. Paul underwent purification there. So Paul lived after Jesus and before the destruction of the Temple. Therefore the Jesus story, authentic or not, predates the fall of the Temple.

 

[HansMustermann]

You reject the existence of Paul too? For Paul Jesus was in Paul's recent past, and in Paul's day the Temple still existed. Paul underwent purification there. So Paul lived after Jesus and before the destruction of the Temple. Therefore the Jesus story, authentic or not, predates the fall of the Temple.

Paul undergoing purification in the Temple is from Acts, which is generally taken to be a work of fiction, not from anywhere in Paul's own epistles.

Paul only references the "Temple Of God" a couple of times (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.) And it's pretty darned clear that he doesn't talk about the temple in Jerusalem at all. Let's go through them.

In 1 Corinthians he says, "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple."

In 2 Corinthians he says, "For we are the temple of the living God."

And in Ephesians he says, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

And in 2 Thessalonians he says, "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." Again, it's not clear why he would care about the temple in Jerusalem, since for him those following the Law only deserve death anyway, and only Jesus saves. Also since no leader of a Jewish rebellion would claim to BE God. It seems pretty clear he's talking about someone trying to present himself as god to his congregation and split it.

That's it. That's the only temple that Paul ever talks about. And if he ever felt a need to be purified before God -- which he never actually mentions -- I think it's pretty damn clear that THAT would be the only temple for him: the Xian church.

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, I'm not addicted to quoting the Bible, I can quit any time I want to

 

[Craig B]

Paul undergoing purification in the Temple is from Acts, which is generally taken to be a work of fiction, not from anywhere in Paul's own epistles.

Paul only references the "Temple Of God" a couple of times (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21.) And it's pretty darned clear that he doesn't talk about the temple in Jerusalem at all. Let's go through them.

In 1 Corinthians he says, "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple."

In 2 Corinthians he says, "For we are the temple of the living God."

And in Ephesians he says, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

That's it. That's the only temple that Paul ever talks about. And if he ever felt a need to be purified before God -- which he never actually mentions -- I think it's pretty damn clear that THAT would be the only temple for him: the Xian church.

So in your view Acts is fictional on this point. And Paul's epistles never refer to a Temple in Jerusalem, but are referring figuratively to the Christian Church. So when do you believe that the epistles were composed?

 

[HansMustermann]

I have no idea when he wrote them. I'm just saying that he doesn't say he ever underwent any purification in the Temple Of Jerusalem. In fact, that he doesn't even mention the Temple in Jerusalem at all. Ever.

And given his views on the Law (see, Romans for example) and Jesus, it would seem very strange indeed if he ever felt a need to undergo any kind of Jewish atonement rituals. Jesus was the only atonement he ever needed.

 

[Craig B]

I have no idea when he wrote them. I'm just saying that he doesn't say he ever underwent any purification in the Temple Of Jerusalem. In fact, that he doesn't even mention the Temple in Jerusalem at all. Ever.

And given his views on the Law (see, Romans for example) and Jesus, it would seem very strange indeed if he ever felt a need to undergo any kind of Jewish atonement rituals. Jesus was the only atonement he ever needed.

Let me be clear. You believe that Paul's visits to Jerusalem happened following the destruction of 70 CE, and that it was at that time that Paul met James and Peter, or do you believe that he never visited that city and never met these people?

 

[HansMustermann]

I believe his conversion at least must have been at some point before 40 CE, since in 2 Corinthians 11:32 he mentions that when he went to Damascus it was under king Aretas. Who died in 40 CE. And he went to Arabia first when he had his conversion.

That is IIRC really the only mention in Paul that can have any date put on it.

I'm just saying that his undergoing any purification at the temple is not a good argument.


That said, if you really want to discuss it, it's regarded as doubtful if Aretas ever actually controlled Damascus. Other than Paul and the novel that is Acts, nobody seems to have been told that he actually ever did. So that escape bit may be a later interpolation, or rather, retrofit from Acts. Or not.

Also note that cf Galatians 1 even Damascus is a whole 3 years before he actually goes to Jerusalem and stays with Peter for two weeks, and meets James (who apparently also had nothing to add to what Paul was preaching). So only God knows what he had been preaching while having all his information from a revelation and not getting ANY of it from any man. Whatever connection to an actual "historical Jesus" would be coincidental at best.

 

[dejudge]

The earliest sources Paul and Mark know nothing about this. The fourth evangelist John, whose Jesus is by now nearly a god and who makes him a creator from the beginning, twice calls Jesus son of Joseph and mentions no virgin. In sum, we can see these dogmas developing before our eyes.

The NT stories of Jesus represent what people believed - they are not historical accounts. The claim that writings [falsely] attributed to Mark do not mention the the miraculous birth of Jesus without a human father does absolutely nothing to support his historicity.

All the Gospels are riddled with non-human and implausible events with respect to the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Then he didn't walk on water, same as his mother wasn't a virgin.

The earliest gospel and gJohn claimed Jesus walked on water [ a non-human event] so you are contradicting yourself when you reject his virgin birth because it was not mentioned by gMark.

You reject the existence of Paul too? For Paul Jesus was in Paul's recent past, and in Paul's day the Temple still existed. Paul underwent purification there. So Paul lived after Jesus and before the destruction of the Temple. Therefore the Jesus story, authentic or not, predates the fall of the Temple.

Your claims about Paul are all without historical corroboration. The credibility of the Epistles cannot be substantiated at all. The Epistles are products of false attribution and known fiction.

The supposed writers called Paul were liars when they claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he was dead and buried for at least 3 days.

 

[Craig B]

The earliest gospel and gJohn claimed Jesus walked on water [ a non-human event] so you are contradicting yourself when you reject his virgin birth because it was not mentioned by gMark.

I reject the virgin birth story because it is impossible. Even if it was mentioned by Mark I would reject it. However it is one of the elaborations of the Jesus story that was inserted subsequently to Mark. To Paul as you have said, "Jesus" as a supernatural being. appeared at the resurrection. To Mark, at the baptism. They need no birth stories and have none. To the later Synoptics Jesus appeared at conception. Earlier and earlier. To John he was with God at the creation. We can see this increasing supernatural singularity, and its retrojection in time, appearing before our eyes as we read later and later texts. Finally in postscriptural times Pliny tells us that Christians were singing hymns to Jesus as to a god, so apotheosis had been completed. But it took time to develop.

The Epistles are products of false attribution and known fiction.

The supposed writers called Paul were liars when they claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he was dead and buried for at least 3 days.

So these sources are lies and fiction. That is clear. Thank you.

 

[HansMustermann]

But again, something being not impossible doesn't mean it's true. It's not impossible that I'm the last Japanese ninja. It's not impossible that some nice Nigerian general really wanted to transfer 80 million dollars to my account. But neither is actually true.

And especially when you're dealing with a source which provably made up some 90% of the material, provably duplicated events, provably lied about how real people act, and provably at the very least rearranged the story into a a more literary format... let's just say it's naive at best to essentially claim that everything you can't disprove must be true. A more sane heuristic would be that, yeah, no, I'd want some extra evidence before I trust THAT guy. Because judging by the sheer number of lies and fiction he wrote in that story, I have reason to suspect two lies if he even says "good morning"

 

[Craig B]

But again, something being not impossible doesn't mean it's true

That's not what I was saying. I stated that things that are impossible are not true, which is the converse of the silliness you ascribe to me.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, conversely nobody said that a historical guy who inspired the bible story is flat out impossible. Even Carrier only argues that it's less probable, but certainly doesn't claim it to be impossible. So keeping on arguing that it's not impossible is not really bringing anything to the table.

 

[Craig B]

Well, conversely nobody said that a historical guy who inspired the bible story is flat out impossible. Even Carrier only argues that it's less probable, but certainly doesn't claim it to be impossible. So keeping on arguing that it's not impossible is not really bringing anything to the table.

You're not grasping this, evidently. A crucified Jesus is not impossible, so maybe he's authentic. Maybe. A virgin born Jesus is impossible, so he's not authentic even if Mark says he is, which in fact Mark doesn't say. That's my position.

 

[Darat]

You're not grasping this, evidently. A crucified Jesus is not impossible, so maybe he's authentic. Maybe. A virgin born Jesus is impossible, so he's not authentic even if Mark says he is, which in fact Mark doesn't say. That's my position.

Who claims a crucified Jesus is impossible?

Set that to one side, have we a candidate for this Jesus? One that is evidenced not from the biblical sources and what evidence links this JCrux to the biblical Jesus?

 

[Craig B]

Who claims a crucified Jesus is impossible?

Darat says it

... My way is to look at the stories and when I do so I see stories about an impossible person. And we know impossible people can't exist apart from being characters in fiction. We also know this character lived in a fictional world, not our world, so everything about the character of Jesus is consistent with him being a fictional creation. There is absolutely no requirement and not a single piece of evidence that require an actual Jesus to have existed. Why then think there was one? ... Set that to one side, have we a candidate for this Jesus? One that is evidenced not from the biblical sources and what evidence links this JCrux to the biblical Jesus?

Of course we have no such information among the tiny amount of stuff left to us from ancient times. The evidence is from many sources, but they have all been canonised into Christian scripture or are embedded in scriptural texts, like the Synoptic Sayings Source. They have to be sorted out by critical undertakings applied to the text.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Darat says it

No, he doesn't. He say that the Jesus described in the bible is impossible. But it's not the crucifixion that makes him impossible. Obviously, lots of people were actually crucified.

The resurrection on the other hand...

 

[Steve]

No, he doesn't. He say that the Jesus described in the bible is impossible. But it's not the crucifixion that makes him impossible. Obviously, lots of people were actually crucified.

The resurrection on the other hand...

Interesting how Craig B has read into Darat’s words something that Darat did not say. I suspect he reads the words in the New Testament in a similar manner.