Jesus Christ?

[StevieB]

1. Obvisously, the devoted have a vested interest. I am talking about everyone else...

Conversely there seems to be a subset of atheists who have a vested interest in disproving the historicity of Jesus. Myself, I'm of the set of atheists who can accept that he did indeed live. That he has nothing written about him by his contemporaries makes perfect sense. At best he was a fringe player in the religious circles of the day.

His crucifixion makes perfect sense as well. A common punishment for enemies of the Roman state.

Does proof of his existence really help validate Christianity anymore than the existence of Joseph Smith validates Mormonism? But it's always a fun question.

I also read the book you mentioned, The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur. It was probably the first book that forced me to challenge my beliefs although, as you see, I don't completely agree with Harpur's assessment of Jesus as pure myth.

 

[maximara]

All in all, the evidence for the existence of Jesus in quite thin. While I think he was historical, the only thing we can say about any historical Jesus is that he was a messianic pretender who was put to death by the Romans. As a messianic pretender, he would have had an apocalyptic world view, which we do find reflected in the gospels and the Pauline epistles. He might also have been influenced by Greek Cynic philosophers, whose way of life would mesh well with an apocalyptic outlook.

Thanks to Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer., 29) we know in the 4th century that at least one sect of Christianity that held Jesus was born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE) so like Robin Hood (the oldest ballads have him combating "King Edward") you may have a time shift going on with biographical details made up to make the story fit.

This means that like Robin Hood there may have not been one Jesus but several that eventually were woven into a single overall myth with varying details.

 

[TimCallahan]

Thanks to Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer., 29) we know in the 4th century that at least one sect of Christianity that held Jesus was born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE) so like Robin Hood (the oldest ballads have him combating "King Edward") you may have a time shift going on with biographical details made up to make the story fit.

This means that like Robin Hood there may have not been one Jesus but several that eventually were woven into a single overall myth with varying details.

Good point. There are at least eight people in Josephus named Jesus. After all, Yeshua (or Yehoshua, essentially the same name as "Joshua"), meaning "Yahweh is salvation," would have been a very common name among the Jews of antiquity.

 

[Craig B]

Good point. There are at least eight people in Josephus named Jesus. After all, Yeshua (or Yehoshua, essentially the same name as "Joshua"), meaning "Yahweh is salvation," would have been a very common name among the Jews of antiquity.

Perhaps about twice as many as eight.

There are, in fact, "too many Jesuses" of renown, as Harold Leidner shows in his book The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. These Jesuses, as found in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus and in biblical texts, include the following:
1. Jesus son of Naue
2. Jesus son of Saul
3. Jesus, high priest, son of Phineas
4. Jesus son of the high priest Jozadak
5. Jesus son of Joiada
6. Jesus, high priest, son of Simon
7. Jesus, high priest, son of Phabes
8. Jesus, high priest, son of See
9. Jesus the Christ
10. Jesus son of Damnaeus, became high priest
11. Jesus son of Gamaliel, became high priest
12. Jesus son of Sapphas
13. Jesus, chief priest, probably to be identified with 10 or 11
14. Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest
15. Jesus, brigand chief on borderland of Ptolemais
16. Jesus son of Sapphias
17. Jesus brother of Chares
18. Jesus a Galilean, perhaps to be identified with 15

In addition to these, there seems to have been a Jesus b. Stada who lived in the reign of Alexander Janneus, and with whom Jesus of Nazareth was confused by some Talmudic writers who, of course had no independent knowledge of the "gospel Jesus".

 

[pakeha]

I have always thought the destruction of Jerusalem within about a generation of the crucifixion has helped to cloud the issue no end

Good point.

 

[HansMustermann]

Thanks to Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer., 29) we know in the 4th century that at least one sect of Christianity that held Jesus was born and crucified during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103 -76 BCE) so like Robin Hood (the oldest ballads have him combating "King Edward") you may have a time shift going on with biographical details made up to make the story fit.

Just to make it clear and avoid confusion, Epiphanius isn't saying that some heretical sect is claiming a Jesus in 76 BC. HE himself, a mainstream Christian writing against heresies, is saying that Jesus was born at that time. He's writing that against some heretics which didn't think so

 

[Delvo]

When I first read the Josephus stuff that was supposedly about Jesus Christ, after having heard references to it as alleged attestation by a non-Christian historian that JC was real, the main impression it made on me was that, even if taken at face value and not considered fake, it still doesn't actually say JC was real. It just says some stuff about what Christians say/believe, so all it establishes is that Christians were real.

Here's something that tips the balance to "unreal, made up" for me, but which I've never seen anybody else express. We know that the Jesus savior cult was one of several savior cults in that era. We also know who some of the other saviors were (usually borrowed mythological figures). One thing they had in common was that nobody alive had any expectation of ever being able to meet them; they were immeasurably far away, dead, or removed from this world. And the nature of a sacrifice cult requires that to be the case, because if you could just take a trip to the right town in your area and find the guy building a customer's wagon, then obviously that guy wasn't sacrificed, any more than you were. So a sacrifical savior cult's sacrificial savior has to be either a borrowed already-mythical figure (which Jesus couldn't have been yet back then), or someone entirely made-up for the purposes of the cult.

 

[OCaptain]

Is there enough true evidence that this person ever existed at all? If so, what is it?

Certain historical figures cast very little doubt of their existence (actions attributed to them notwithstanding). What are the odds that anything closely resembling the portrayal by the Jews in the New Testament actually lived?

Are you looking for a statistical analysis of the likelihood of his existence? Or are you looking for a presentation and discussion of documentary and other historical references to him? If it's the first, then that would be unique, as I don't think it's been done. If it's the latter, then that's been done to death, actually.

 

[eight bits]

Just to make it clear and avoid confusion, Epiphanius isn't saying that some heretical sect is claiming a Jesus in 76 BC. HE himself, a mainstream Christian writing against heresies, is saying that Jesus was born at that time. He's writing that against some heretics which didn't think so

First off, let's have a reality check. Most of Epiphanius' career was after the Council of Nicea. So, for him to be orthodox, he would necessarily have taught that Jesus suffered and died under Pontius Pilate. So, either he wasn't orthodox (which would rather gut the point of attributing this bit of woo to him), or he didn't know when Alexander Jannaeus lived relative to Pontius Pilate (which would also rather gut the point), or he didn't write that Jesus was born during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (which would gut the point of even bringing it up).

The right answer is behind door number 3. The basis for this web fantasy is a misreading of Epiphanius' Panarion 29: 3.3

For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock .

Epiphanius is explaining how a prophecy about David's descendants being forever on the Judean throne was supposedly fulfilled by the Christian church somehow. What is being addressed throughout 29: 3 is how to prolong the end of the Davidic succession as literal kings long enough to reach Jesus (almost).

Epiphanius does not write that Jesus was born during the reign of Alexander, but rather that a process began at the death of the last Davidic king, Alexander, which Jesus completed when he was born during the reign of the first non-Davidic king, Herod the Great.

Let's open up the cherry-picker a bit wider to scoop up some more Epiphanius, say 29: 3:3 - 3:7. You can read the whole thing here, if you like:

http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#29.

For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock

This position died out with this Alexander from the time of Salina also known as Alexandra, in the time of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus.

(Though this Alexander was crowned also, as one of the anointed priests and rulers. For when the two tribes, the kingly and priestly, were united—I mean the tribe of Judah with Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi—kings also became priests, for nothing hinted at in holy scripture can be wrong.)

But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

But with the transfer of the royal throne the rank of king passed, in Christ, from the physical house of David and Israel to the church.The throne is established in God's holy church forever, and has both the kingly and the high-priestly rank for two reasons.

So, Jesus was alive after Herod was crowned. What happened before that, in the time of Alexander, was that the office of king was separated from the office of priest. Alexander was the last successor of David to be both, and indeed was the last king before Herod (Alexander's widow, Salome aka Alexandra, was the last uncontested monarch before Herod, and her son, Hyrcanus II, the long-serving high priest, eventually became ethnarch, but not king).

You can parse 29: 3.3 to argue a birth for Jesus in the time of Alexander, but not if you include those succeeding verses, in which it is clear that a lengthy process is being described, a process which began with Alexander's death and ended with the reign of Herod the Great.

That is, in the opaque language of 29: 3.3, after Jesus was born the old order ended, an old order which was already altered in the time of the last king-priest (when the two offices split). This conceit allows Hyrcanus II to provide some continuity of Davidic leadership as high priest, almost until the time of Herod, who finally extinguishes the old order altogether, just in time for Jesus to hand off the new-order fulfillment of the prophecy to the Christian church.

 

[OCaptain]

I haven't been able to find any and the Shroud of Turin certainly doesn't count. What is more fascinating however is how the myth has taken on a life of its own. It's risen up out of the ashes of the fragmented Essene culture to become a personification of their beliefs. Concepts like spirit, immortality and omniscience equate to the various stories that survived across time in the minds of people in many places to create a focal point in the form of a character that cannot be killed.

Hang on, we don't even know that the Qumran community WERE the Essenes!

 

[Craig B]

First off, let's have a reality check. Most of Epiphanius' career was after the Council of Nicea. So, for him to be orthodox, he would necessarily have taught that Jesus suffered and died under Pontius Pilate. So, either he wasn't orthodox (which would rather gut the point of attributing this bit of woo to him), or he didn't know when Alexander Jannaeus lived relative to Pontius Pilate (which would also rather gut the point), or he didn't write that Jesus was born during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (which would gut the point of even bringing it up). The right answer is behind door number 3. The basis for this web fantasy is a misreading of Epiphanius' Panarion 29: 3.3

One old commentary (Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? An Enquiry into the Talmud Jesus Stories, the Toldoth Jeschu, and Some Curious Statements of Epiphanius -- Being a Contribution to the Study of Christian Origins. G. R. S. Mead. London, 1903.) renders the passage thus:

For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased. The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race; and after this Alexander this lot failed, from the times of himself and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, for the times of Herod the King and Augustus Emperor of the Romans ; and this Alexander, one of the anointed (or Christs) and ruling princes placed the crown on his own head. . . . After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown.

Mead duly concludes that Epiphanius did indeed mean that Jesus lived in the reign of Alexander Janneus. A casual reading of the words would suggest this interpretation: and Mead gives them a much more than casual reading! However, your

Most of Epiphanius' career was after the Council of Nicea. So, for him to be orthodox, he would necessarily have taught that Jesus suffered and died under Pontius Pilate

is extremely persuasive and convincing. I simply can't see any way round that objection to Mead's and others' interpretation of the passage.

 

[HansMustermann]

You seem to think that everyone suddenly believed the same thing after Nicaea. (In fact some people seem to think that even before, all Catholics believed the same thing and only a handful of cultists believed anything else.) The very fact that Epiphanius still found literally 80 heresies to write about, shows that this is not so.

In fact, for centuries afterwards, the theory was in flux, and people who wouldn't consider themselves as anything but orthodox came up with their own theories. And sometimes, in rare cases, even the other bishops couldn't decide if someone is a heretic or they should reinstate him. It was interesting times indeed.

Also, to illustrate how disunited and in flux things were, Epiphanius considered Origen a heretic, and calls him not particularly flattering stuff. Yeah, the same Origen who's now a Church Father.

Also, technically he couldn't have been 100% orthodox with views like that, but he was still a bishop of Salamis, and is a saint for both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. That's as mainstream as it gets.

 

[Craig B]

... Also, technically he couldn't have been 100% orthodox with views like that, but he was still a bishop of Salamis, and is a saint for both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. That's as mainstream as it gets.

Yes but that vitiates your earlier point that

HE himself, a mainstream Christian writing against heresies, is saying that Jesus was born at that time [in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus]. He's writing that against some heretics which didn't think so.

But that is misleading for the post-Nicene period, as you now admit by suggesting that belief in the earlier dating was "technically ... (not) 100% orthodox". And it is denied anyway that Epiphanius' words have the meaning attributed to them.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, I see no sound reason to deny that a fairly plain text says exactly what it reads like. Especially when anything else would make no sense in context.

Plus, what I'm trying to say is that Christianity wasn't an army of robots who all think the same. In fact there was a lot of different thinking that was brewing, and while you would get called a heretic for more major deviations, for minor dating problems (which most of the mass of rabidly anti-intellectual Christians wouldn't even understand) or even quoting the wrong parable, would maybe just get you called a moron.

So, yes, as a bishop I'd still say that on the whole he was as representative of mainstream Christianity as it gets, even if some of his exact views were not. (E.g., he also was a rabid iconoclast, while mainstream Christianity wasn't.)

My point wasn't that it was official dogma that Jesus came in 100 BC, but that they just based any dating on wishful thinking (i.e., that he HAD to fulfil whatever phrase out of context in the OT looks like a prophecy, or just that it would be awesome if it were so, and surely Jesus is all awesome) and even as late as the 4'th century there was plenty of room for an otherwise pretty mainstream Christian to interpret it differently.

The point isn't that the 100 BC Jesus was mainstream (I don't know exactly how mainstream that was), but that Epiphanius on the whole was. Basically that one didn't have to be some crazy cultist to see things differently.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I'm just guessing here, but since the people who go around telling most of the Jesus stories are generally Christians, it would be a bit self defeating of them to end their tales with "...maybe, we just don't have enough evidence to be sure either way..." That would kind of get in the way of the whole "you must have faith" deal.

As a person living in a country where christians are a minority, and was taught in a secular school where we had mandatory bible classes that mostly included why it's crap as a historical document, I can tell you flat out you are wrong.

Even most secular people will just tell you that Jesus existed as an uncontested fact regardless of evidence. Keep in mind that most people will tell you that Alexander the Great existed without any regards for evidence.

I'm not saying the evidence for both is equal (not even close) but most people don't know anything about either of them except what they learn in elementary school \ highschool. On that level, kids are being taught material as fact, evidence is very rarely introduced.

 

[eight bits]

Thank you for the kind words, Craig. That's a good point about the role of the Theosophists in bringing this misbegotten theory into the world.

Hans

You seem to think that everyone suddenly believed the same thing after Nicaea.

No. I think that both before and after Nicea, different Christians taught different things. Duh. There is also no issue between you and me whether Epiphanius was "mainstream."

The issue between us is whether he taught that his Jesus wasn't contemporary with Pilate. We know this claim is unlikely because of Epiphanius' orthodoxy, but we need not tilt about the mere unlikelihood of woo. We know this claim is untrue because Epiphanius did not write that Jesus was born before Herod, in the passage where this is alleged to have occurred.

Well, I see no sound reason to deny that a fairly plain text says exactly what it reads like.

Great, then we should now be in agreement about what section 29: 3 as a whole says, as opposed to what the conspicuously unplain paragraph 29: 3.3 might have been tenuously argued to suggest, by ignoring the rest of the section and by trying to spin the known contrary teachings of its author into a feature, rather than a bug.

There is no evidence whatsoever, none, that Epiphanius taught that the Christians' Jesus was contemporary with Alexander Jannaeus. What Epiphanius did write instead was that Jesus completed a political and religious transition that began when Alexander Jannaeus died. The Davidic Jesus supposedly accomplished this by receiving the "transfer" of some spiritual "royal throne" from the "crowned" but unannointed and unDavidic temporal king, Herod the Great.

that he HAD to fulfil whatever phrase out of context in the OT looks like a prophecy, or just that it would be awesome if it were so, and surely Jesus is all awesome)

Partly true, but the issue which Epiphanius was addressing is more fundamental. An Old Testament prophecy about David's successors had already been contradicted by events, and continued to be contradicted. David visibly had no reigning successors when Epiphanius wrote, hadn't for a very long time before that, and the predicted continuity had been broken by Herod.

Section 29: 3 artfully accounts for both the ascension of the unDavidic Herod and the lack of any later Davidic king by a single device. That was the invention of a second, untemporal "royal throne," first held by Jesus and now by the church. Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod, and not any earlier, is an integral part of this invention.

The argument is bull, which limits it cogency. Nevertheless, what little purchase on reality it has depends on an overlap between the lives of Herod and Jesus, with Jesus being the survivor.

 

[HansMustermann]

Dude, then read the whole of 29, if you're unclear about what 3:3 to 3:7 say, and whether it's about just a little overlap with Herod. (And not just because of that, but 4:2 clearly says he considered Jesus a Nazirite, something idiots explicitly deny about Jesus when the Nazirite vs Nazarene discussion comes around.)

But, heck, even without reading the whole chapter, 3:3 clearly says "but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander" It's a clear sentence, not some eldritch allegory. "In the time of Alexander" is clearly "after [Christ's] birth", i.e., Jesus HAD to be born before Alexander died. You can't make that make sense with a Jesus born towards the end of Herod's reign, because that reverses the order of events Epiphanius describes.

 

[eight bits]

Excellent plan, Hans. Cherry picking the paragraph didn't work, so you cherry pick a sentence fragment from within the paragraph instead.

I've cited the text. The whole text. People can read it as they please, but Epiphanius cannot be held responsible for what you think he taught.

 

[HansMustermann]

And I quoted the part of it that clearly states the order of the two events. There is nothing in the surrounding paragraph or even the whole page which would support taking a clear "after X, Z happened" as meaning the exact opposite, In fact, on the contrary, if you look at the rest of the paragraph, it clearly can be summarized as "before X, Y happened, while after X, Z happened." Taking it as meaning that X actually came after Z, is not justified by any context. It's just plain making up BS.

And generally, if you think the context makes any difference, show how. I'm sick and tired of "but you're taking it out of context" just being a meaningless generic apologist excuse. If any context makes a difference, show exactly what.

 

[maximara]

And I quoted the part of it that clearly states the order of the two events. There is nothing in the surrounding paragraph or even the whole page which would support taking a clear "after X, Z happened" as meaning the exact opposite, In fact, on the contrary, if you look at the rest of the paragraph, it clearly can be summarized as "before X, Y happened, while after X, Z happened." Taking it as meaning that X actually came after Z, is not justified by any context. It's just plain making up BS.

And generally, if you think the context makes any difference, show how. I'm sick and tired of "but you're taking it out of context" just being a meaningless generic apologist excuse. If any context makes a difference, show exactly what.

Here is a more complete quote:

"Now the throne and kingly seat of David is the priestly office in Holy Church; for the Lord combined the kingly and high-priestly dignities into one and the same office, and bestowed them upon His Holy Church, transferring to her the throne of David, which ceases not as long as the world endues. The throne of David continued by succession up to that time - namely, till Christ Himself - without any failure from the princes of Judah, until it came unto Him for whom were 'the things that are stored up,' who is Himself 'the expectation of the nations.' For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race; and after this Alexander this lot failed, from the times of himself and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, for the times of Herod the King and Augustus Emperor of the Romans ; and this Alexander, one of the anointed (or Christs) and ruling princes placed the crown on his own head. . . . After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown." Epiphanius (Haer., 29)

Read in context is is clear that Epiphanius is putting Jesus' birth "in the days of Alexander" and furthermore that Herod the Great came after Jesus.

Moreoverm Irenaeus, the first Church father to extensively quote from the Canonal Gospels also claimed that Jesus was a minimum of 46 years old when he was crucified (Against Heresies 2:22:4) and that this happened under "Herod the king of the Jews" and "Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar" (Demonstration (74))

Now "king of the Jews" is a specific title and only two Herods had it--Herod the Great (37-4 BCE) and Herod Agrippa I (42-44 CE). Herod Agrippa I agrees with the Claudius Caesar but not the Pontius Pilate reference.

"Herod Agrippa I was now, like Herod the Great before him, king of the Jews." Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story pg 94

We need to remember when Herod the Great died his kingdom was broken up between this three sons: Herod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judaea (4 BCE–6 CE), Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee 4 BC - 41 CE), and "Herod" Philip II (Tetrarch of Batanea 4 BCE – 34 CE)

Archelaus was removed 6 CE with Judea governed by Roman prefects until Herod Agrippa I came to power 41 CE.

Herod Agrippa II while sometimes called "King of the Jews" in reference books in fact never ruled over the Jews (Gelb, Norman , 2010 Kings of the Jews: The Origins of the Jewish Nation pg 205)

As a result no Herod between Herod Archelaus and Herod Agrippa I ruled over Judea and Archelaus NEVER had the title of king. Ergo Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I were the only Herods with the title "King of the Jews"

I don't know how accurate it is but wikipedia has a map of that Herod the Great's sons ruled over with actual boundaries. There is also a map without such boundaries. These two maps show something else off with Luke's account as Nazareth, Galilee and Bethlehem, Judea are in two different provenances under total different rulers; the reason presented by Luke for the trip totally falls apart as there was no reason for Herod Antipas' provenance of Galilee to be subject to the tax going on in Judea.

This shows that Church fathers (and one must assume the Gospel writers) didn't know history from the proverbial hole in the ground.