So did Jesus live or what?

[Belz...]

Yet Luke and Matthew disagree by as much as 10 years as to the birth date of Jesus.

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the hazy timeframe to which the King Arthur legends date.

Uh uh. But no one really claims that this particular Arthur lived, or that anything in La morte d'Arthur happened.

Now, I don't know if there was a historical Jesus. I think that, considering we have ZERO reliable evidence on either side, and the fact that we know that myths can be formed without actual historical reference AND that myths can form around real events, it's just as likely that he existed than it is he didn't.

 

[jjramsey]

we know that myths can be formed without actual historical reference AND that myths can form around real events, it's just as likely that he existed than it is he didn't.

This doesn't follow. Whether one is more likely than the other depends on the circumstances. The circumstances in question are:

• The accounts about Jesus are set in a relatively restricted timeframe.
• Many of the accounts are linked to historical persons and places.
• Many of these historical places are not of great religious significance.
• Some of the accounts read like rationalizations for failure.
• Some of the accounts don't relate supernatural events and lack the "larger-than-life" feel of known legends.

These suggest that we are dealing with legends built on a historical core, not a whole cloth creation.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Argument from silence. Doherty writes a lot of rhetoric on how since some second-century writers mentioned Jesus, then Paul should have done likewise. His examples of where Paul should have mentioned items from Jesus' history are pretty lame:

Actually, none of the epistles mentions much that really indicates a historical personage represented in Jesus Christ. Remember that I've read this stuff (and that Mr. Doherty is degreed in Ancient History and Classical Languages and does appear to have done/be doing his homework). It reads as if no such person existed - all attributions are to God, Holy Spirit, scriptures, prophets in the scriptures. All teachings "of" Jesus are only by way of either revelation or scriptural interpretation - none are credited to a person, teacher, or recent prophet (as compared to the OT prophets).

I've just read through his 200 'silences'. If you can show the opposing view unambiguously and without preconceptions, please do so.

And where would Paul shoehorn this? Doherty never explains why Paul should have felt a need to do this.

He makes it quite clear (and I agree wholeheartedly). If someone is considered the founder and great teacher of a philosophy or religion (or more - god incarnate, for Christ's sake - hehe), why wouldn't Paul use every opportunity to cite and pay homage to such a person from examples of his life and teachings? Instead, all citing and homaging are toward 'the Word' and God itself or through Jesus Christ (as intermediary) and the Holy Spirit - more again through revelation.

The mention of them would have cluttered up the letters without any appreciable change in their impact.

Now that is lame. Obviously, these letters are something like 'dictums' (using this very loosely) to already established churches or groups of faith. They more than likely have a grasp of the fundamentals. But wait! Have you ever been to church services? When isn't there an opportunity used to quote Jesus on this or that or to exemplify his life for the congregation as a path to righteousness or heaven? WWJD? In Paul's world, he didn't do much on Earth. Everything was done at the right hand of his father or such. All references to quotations and actions are directed immediately to scriptural references without hesistation or stepwise acknowledgement of their correlation exemplified in any earthly life of Jesus Christ.

And this follows in Peter, James, John, Jude, and Revelations. That only leaves us with Acts of the Apostles (suspect) and the Synoptic Gospels (wholly suspect). Did Peter really deny Jesus, the person with whom he lived for three years, four times?

It would speak volumes if it weren't a distorted reading of the epistles. Even Paul refers to handing down tradition, as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

I will check this. Again and as always, I'm open to topical references. But Doherty provides 200 compelling (at differing degrees and relevancies, of course) references.

Evolving orthodoxy, yes, but probably not in the way that you described. For example, the crucifixion has been a central part of Christianity from the beginning, and it implied that there was a flesh-and-blood person being crucified. Doherty's contention that the crucifixion was a mythical event in a upper heaven doesn't hold water, but depends on speculation and a mangled translation of kata sarka as "in the sphere of the flesh."

How far back? I've read that the earliest symbology for Christians was the lamb or the dove (representing the sacrifice and Holy Spirit, respectively). And one must remember that if a deity is going to be sacrificed, it would be in some form reticent of the period, not something truly alien to the adherents. Crucifixion (or, disputably, hanging on a tree) were well known forms of execution. And these guys wanted to distinguish themselves from the 'old ways'. What better way than not to use the old methodology of sacrifice (on an altar, slitting the animal's throat) but associate it with a form more closer to home.

Again, to be fair, it would be nice to see how far back 'crucifixion' references go in an at least tenable way (source, dating, degree of separation).

Think carefully about this. A mythical Christ gets historicized in a way that his story becomes that of a peasant Galilean Jew from an obscure town who preaches doom to towns near the Sea of Galilee of no particular religious importance, such as Capernaum and Chorazin, fails to do miracles in Nazareth, and dies in a way that make Christianity look ridiculous to many pagans. And this is supposed to be more probable than the idea that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but was overlaid with legends like so many other historical figures have?

Either way. I'll plead ambiguity, interpolation, and changing rhetoric over time. The Gnostics (and Paul almost perfectly fits the mold) claimed the latter. The so-called 'Teacher of Righteousness' is a candidate historical figure on which the legend was built. But so little evidence. If evidence of some person who fit the bill as a possible historical antecedent was discovered (and validated), that would change things. Now, we are only relying on people writing things, most of them dependent on the topic at hand. People have and always have written about many things both real and not real, in degrees of mixture.

As one argument against the perposterosity of the story, let's consider that the 'historical' figure had to conform to certain pre-existent motifs. Jesus couldn't just be any old prophet. He had to say all of the things that were promulgated by the apostles as well as do his suffering and sacrificial things to follow the revelatory scriptural interpretations. Note that he had to emote the beliefs and tenets of those 'biographers' in their time and setting. Note that he had to be born of a virgin, but be a descendant of David. Note that he went from birth to the start of his ministry without any intervening information (except for a few spurious and doubtful additions). Just like the 'mythic' Son who was 'born', went to the lower heavens, was sacrificed, and returned succinctly to the side of God having established the 'conduit' to people on earth by which to secure the new convenant. Anomalous that is.

 

[Belz...]

The accounts about Jesus are set in a relatively restricted timeframe.
Many of the accounts are linked to historical persons and places.
Many of these historical places are not of great religious significance.
Some of the accounts read like rationalizations for failure.
Some of the accounts don't relate supernatural events and lack the "larger-than-life" feel of known legends

I don't see why those would point MORE to a historical Jesus than a completely mythical one. I think it's been said that historical settings and characters in a story do not speak about the historicity of OTHER elements of a story. I also don't see how making rationalisations is less likely in a mythical setting. Also, the story, as a whole, is very much larger-than-life.

 

[jjramsey]

Actually, none of the epistles mentions much that really indicates a historical personage represented in Jesus Christ. Remember that I've read this stuff (and that Mr. Doherty is degreed in Ancient History and Classical Languages and does appear to have done/be doing his homework).

Um, Doherty has been caught doing some screwy translations to make his point. His dealing with kata sarka is the biggie, and he also glosses over the Greek grammar differences in "brother in the Lord" (used to describe fellow Christians) and "brother of the Lord" (used to describe James).

It reads as if no such person existed - all attributions are to God, Holy Spirit, scriptures, prophets in the scriptures. All teachings "of" Jesus are only by way of either revelation or scriptural interpretation - none are credited to a person, teacher, or recent prophet (as compared to the OT prophets).

Referring to a tradition as being handed down, as he does in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, implies a person at the other end doing the handing down.

He makes it quite clear (and I agree wholeheartedly). If someone is considered the founder and great teacher of a philosophy or religion (or more - god incarnate, for Christ's sake - hehe), why wouldn't Paul use every opportunity to cite and pay homage to such a person from examples of his life and teachings?

Because it doesn't suit his purposes for writing the letters.

Obviously, these letters are something like 'dictums' (using this very loosely) to already established churches or groups of faith. They more than likely have a grasp of the fundamentals. But wait! Have you ever been to church services? When isn't there an opportunity used to quote Jesus on this or that or to exemplify his life for the congregation as a path to righteousness or heaven?

A church service is not a letter! In his letters, Paul is sending advice and orders to a church to address certain problems. The purpose of a church service is for reinforcement of beliefs and celebration of beliefs. That said, often the opportunity for quoting Jesus isn't taken, and it would be silly to suppose that the church disbelieved in a historical Jesus on that basis.

The big problem, though, is that Doherty's reasoning, is as follows:

• Premise 1: Paul makes no mention of historical details of Jesus.
• Premise 2: If Paul believed in a historical Jesus, then he would have made references to historical details of Jesus.
• Conclusion: Paul does not believe in a historical Jesus.

Premise 1 is dodgy. Doherty's attempted defense of Premise 2 consists of examples where Doherty thinks Paul could have mentioned details of Jesus, but didn't, and these examples don't take into account the rhetorical flow of the letters. One of them is particularly bad:

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is anxious to convince his readers that humans can be resurrected from the dead. Why then does he not point to any traditions that Jesus himself had raised several people from the dead? Where is Lazarus?

Um, because Paul is talking about the resurrection at the end of history where people end up with incorruptible bodies, while Lazarus is raised back to the ordinary fleshly life that he had before, and presumably will die again?

At best, what Doherty shows is that Paul could have taken a different approach than he did, and that is not what he wants to prove, which is that Paul's near-silence must be due to a lack of belief in a historical Jesus, and not other considerations.

WWJD? In Paul's world, he didn't do much on Earth. Everything was done at the right hand of his father or such.

Yet Paul refers to Jesus as having been "descended from David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), implying that he understood Jesus as having been a human being, and refers to James as a "brother of the Lord," implying that Jesus was flesh and blood enough to have brothers. (Note that James is referred to as the brother of the one called Christ, and in the Gospels, James is likewise referred to as a brother in the ordinary sense of the term.) He also refers to Jesus as having been crucified, and Doherty's attempts to construe this as not referring to an earthly event rest on elaborate speculation and his mistranslation of kata sarka as "in the sphere of the flesh".

And one must remember that if a deity is going to be sacrificed, it would be in some form reticent of the period, not something truly alien to the adherents. Crucifixion (or, disputably, hanging on a tree) were well known forms of execution. And these guys wanted to distinguish themselves from the 'old ways'. What better way than not to use the old methodology of sacrifice (on an altar, slitting the animal's throat) but associate it with a form more closer to home.

Crucifixion was a mode of execution intended to humiliate and degrade. Roman citizens were explicitly exempt from it. You are proposing that a shameful death unfit for Roman citizens would be fit for a god. As even Paul notes, most Gentiles thought this ridiculous.

As one argument against the perposterosity of the story, let's consider that the 'historical' figure had to conform to certain pre-existent motifs. Jesus couldn't just be any old prophet.

Why not? He was purportedly baptized by John the Baptist, and the records of Jesus' rhetoric that we have, dodgy as they are, show that he shared with John the Baptist an emphasis on a future judgment.

He had to say all of the things that were promulgated by the apostles.... Note that he had to emote the beliefs and tenets of those 'biographers' in their time and setting.

Yet he doesn't always do that. He says in the Sermon on the Mount that no jot or tittle of the law will fall away until "all is accomplished." This is sort of harmonizable with Paul's rejection of the Law, but not easily. We see Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of Man," which isn't in the epistles at all, and superficially implies a lower Christology than they do. There is material about Jesus that is at best an uneasy fit with church teaching.

Note that he had to be born of a virgin, but be a descendant of David.

He didn't have to be born of a virgin at all.

Note that he went from birth to the start of his ministry without any intervening information (except for a few spurious and doubtful additions).

Why is this surprising? Between birth and ministry, his life was probably unremarkable.

Just like the 'mythic' Son who was 'born', went to the lower heavens, was sacrificed, and returned succinctly to the side of God having established the 'conduit' to people on earth by which to secure the new convenant.

Except there is no such motif of a "mythic Son", or any indication of a tradition of sacrifices in the lower heavens.

 

[jjramsey]

I don't see why those would point MORE to a historical Jesus than a completely mythical one. I think it's been said that historical settings and characters in a story do not speak about the historicity of OTHER elements of a story.

Yes, but it is not the historical setting alone that implies historicity, but the historical setting plus other considerations.

I also don't see how making rationalisations is less likely in a mythical setting.

A historical person who is to be idealized can fail in a couple ways, one that fits with the idealized picture and one that doesn't. The failures that don't fit with the idealized picture may be forgotten, or they may be presented in a fashion that attempts to gloss over or rationalize the failure. A mythical person is the idealized picture, so the failures that such a person has are all part of that picture.

Also, the story, as a whole, is very much larger-than-life.

But some of the individual pieces aren't, and they don't necessarily segue into the parts that are.

 

[Belz...]

A historical person who is to be idealized can fail in a couple ways, one that fits with the idealized picture and one that doesn't. The failures that don't fit with the idealized picture may be forgotten, or they may be presented in a fashion that attempts to gloss over or rationalize the failure. A mythical person is the idealized picture, so the failures that such a person has are all part of that picture.

So, what are you getting at ?

But some of the individual pieces aren't, and they don't necessarily segue into the parts that are.

So the story is a mish-mash of several stories and added stuff. I don't see how this could prove the historicity of Jesus or otherwise.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

Why would any reasonable person interpret Matthew's Gospel as an exhortation to violence?

Um, because I read it. Jesus, as portrayed in Matthew and Mark was a dooms day prophet.

 

[Belz...]

Why would any reasonable person interpret Matthew's Gospel as an exhortation to violence?

Matthew 10:34-36 (King James Version)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 

[davefoc]

It seems that there are variou non-Paul sects that carry forth other non-Paul ideas.

Even if one excepts the idea that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus doesn't the existence of some of these other Sects, like the Ebionites provide some evidence for an historic Jesus?

 

[jjramsey]

So, what are you getting at?

The facts about a historical person don't always cooperate with the desires of those building the legends about them. When those inconvenient facts aren't ignored altogether, they are explained away or disguised. This is simply a non-issue for mythical figures. At least a few stories in the New Testament look like attempts to work around inconvenient facts. Jesus' rejection in Nazareth in Mark 6:1-6 is a good example of such an attempt.

So the story is a mish-mash of several stories and added stuff. I don't see how this could prove the historicity of Jesus or otherwise.

Because some of the elements in the mish-mash don't look like something one would want to make up, even if they aren't, strictly speaking, embarassing.

 

[Belz...]

Because some of the elements in the mish-mash don't look like something one would want to make up, even if they aren't, strictly speaking, embarassing.

Perhaps. The historical Jesus, however, could have lived well before the alledged time.

 

[davefoc]

Why, if there are seven letters in the NT that are generally believed to be genuine writings of Paul and those writings refer to a brother of Jesus isn't that considered strong evidence for a flesh and blood Jesus?

From Galations 1:18-20 New International Version

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

 

[davefoc]

Perhaps. The historical Jesus, however, could have lived well before the alledged time.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
This is an article that promotes the theory that the Jesus stories were based on a mix of indiividuals, but in particular a character named Yeishu ben Pandeira believed to have lived about 100bc. Interestingly, pieces of the article or even the whole article are quoted all over the web. There doesn't seem to be many independent scholarly articles promoting the same idea though.

I don't think there is much of a scholarly consensus behind the guy's theory but one thing that he does talk about that I think is part of the mystery around how the Christian Church got going is the existance of Christian like sects that predated the time of a possible Jesus. These early believers were called Notzrim according to the author of the article.

The idea of Notzrim predating the existence of Jesus seems like a good part of the explanation of how Christianity got going. The sects may have been made up of hellenized Jews and it is some of these sects that were morphed into more contemporary Christian like beliefs by Paul and others.

I still find it more likely than not that there was an historical Jesus living about the time of the supposed Jesus. My thought is that at some of the details of this individual's life were incorporated into the belief structures of the messiah sects that predated him.

ETA: A personal note: When I became interested in the nature of an historic Jesus a few years ago this is one of the first articles I read. Before this article I don't think it had ever occurred to me that there might not be a real individual that underlied the Christian Mythology. I was surprised at my own reaction to the article. Even though I had never had any religious belief that I can remember I still had a very negative feeling towards the author of this article that attacked one of the defining beliefs of my culture.

I could only imagine how somebody might have felt that had Christianity as a core belief.

 

[jjramsey]

Even though I had never had any religious belief that I can remember I still had a very negative feeling towards the author of this article that attacked one of the defining beliefs of my culture.

That may also be your BS detector going off.

It looks like this guy is basing his theory off of late texts that contain polemical legends against Jesus. Despite the author's protestations to the contrary, these are the same legends that Celsus echoed. Note the bit about Yeishu being a sorcerer. Celsus makes the same claim. This guy also gets other facts wrong:

Most Christian denominations claim that Jesus was born on 25 December. Originally the eastern Christains believed that he was born on 6 January. The Armenian Christians still follow this early belief while most Christians consider it to be the date of the visit of the Magi. As pointed out already, Jesus was probably confused with Tammuz born of the virgin Myrrha. We know that in Roman times, the gods Tammuz, Aion and Osiris were identified. Osiris-Aion was said to be born of the virgin Isis on the 6 January and this explains the earlier date for Christmas.

There are a few glaring problems. The guy makes a lot of Christmas being on the same day as a pagan holiday, but since the December 25 date for Christmas comes from about the fourth century, it hardly means much. Isis is Osiris' wife, not his mother, and she's hardly a virgin. The "Myrrha" mentioned above is probably the mother of Adonis, and she was not a virgin:

While Myrrha's mother, Cenchreis, was away at Ceres's festival, Myrrha had sex with her father, Cinyras. Cinyras was unaware of the girl's identity because these nightly encounters occurred in the dark while Cinyras was intoxicated. One night Cinyras brought in a lamp, discovered the girl was Myrrha, drew his sword, and chased her. Myrrha fled, and wandered for nine months until she came to rest at Sabo. After Myrrha prayed to the gods that she neither live nor die (since the severity of her crime would shock both the living and the dead), the gods turned her into the myrrh tree. The child Myrrha had conceived with Cinyras was ready to deliver, and Lucina enabled the birth from the tree. The child of this incestuous union, Adonis, was taken care of by Naiads and bathed in the myrrh which were Myrrha's tears. (source)

Tammuz has been identified with Adonis, which is probably how the author made the connection between Myrrha and Tammuz.

 

[Z]

Just a technical note: Isis is Osiris' sister, wife, and mother - depending on what time period we check the legends. Most commonly, she is referred to as his sister/wife; I think some of the 'mother' concepts come in from the tales that have Isis restoring Osiris' body after his death at the hands of Set (the resurrection).

 

[jjramsey]

Just a technical note: Isis is Osiris' sister, wife, and mother - depending on what time period we check the legends. Most commonly, she is referred to as his sister/wife; I think some of the 'mother' concepts come in from the tales that have Isis restoring Osiris' body after his death at the hands of Set (the resurrection).

Hmm, considering the hodge-podge nature of Egyptian myths, that shouldn't surprise me, but just to be cautious, do you have a source for that?

 

[Z]

Several sources, in fact - though several of these have dubious archaeological descent. Nevertheless, most seem to agree that, initially, Isis (along with Set, Nepthys, and possibly others) was sister to Osiris and child of Nut and Geb. In later years, as the cult of Isis spread, Isis absorbed the attributes of other goddesses, and several times is referred to as the Mother of Osiris - from what I can tell, these inscriptions occur most commonly away from Egypt, especially in Rome, where the entire geneological structure of the gods were altered to fit Greco-Roman belief. Eventually, Isis was even declared to be the mother of Re, who in turn was father of Nut and Geb... so she becomes her own great-grandmother?

Certainly, by the time Isis and Osiris had become associated with Tammuz and Aion, there was considerable muddling of relationships. Into the second and first century BC, we see numerous Isis- and Osiris- hybrid deities, associating them with numerous other mythologies. Osiris is even merged, briefly, with Horus the Younger to form a single deity, who is both brother and son to Isis.

I recommend finding out what sources Michael Jordan employed when he authored The Encyclopedia of Gods (Facts on File, Inc c. 1993), but do not advise the Farrar book The Witches' Goddess (Phoenix Publishing, c. 1987) as it is essentially a compendium of New Age beliefs. You could try Blatavasky (sp), though I'm not sure how accurate a 19th century writer is on issues of Egyptian/Greek hybrid myth.

I think it's also fairly important to note that Osiris-Aion and the early Egyptian Osiris are not quite the same deities, nor is this the same Isis of earlier Egyptian fame (Aset). The names were most likely transposed onto deity figures of other nations, and the relationships adjusted to fit in.

Unfortunately for those who support the view above, most resources on the Internet draw from only a few small, relatively questionable sources, and all seem to have a vested interest in promoting a Pagan origin for the Mary-Jesus story. There is almost nothing on the 'Net about Osiris-Aion that isn't tainted by the presence of one or more Pagan-Christian apologists, or that has excellent sources listed. And, again unfortunately, almost every archeological and anthropological resource book I have carefully delineates between cultures, so that the Isis mysteries of Egypt don't bleed over into Greece, Rome, etc. (Which always bothers me, because Isis is a Greek name - you'd think these guys would have more respect for the original names, since they're trying to divide between the cultures anyway...)

 

[jjramsey]

Thanks, zaayrdragon.

 

[ceo_esq]

Um, because I read it. Jesus, as portrayed in Matthew and Mark was a dooms day prophet.

Ossai, what kind of an answer is that? Of course we presume you have read the Gospel of Matthew (though many would cite your interpretation thereof as evidence to the contrary).

Of greater interest: (1) where in Matthew's Gospel are the supposed exhortations to violence, and (2) interpreting such passages, if any, in the light of the document as a whole, what are the arguments in favor of an overall conclusion that Jesus was really preaching violence?

Matthew 10:34-36 (King James Version)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

That's all? Nothing less ambiguous than that? It's pretty clear from the rest of the text of Matthew that Jesus didn't come bringing a literal sword. The Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew doesn't seem to have been a particularly violent fellow, and he offered so many lessons in nonviolence (5:39-44; 26:52; etc.) that it would require quite a bit of violent preaching or conduct elsewhere in the text to lend a violent overtone to Matthew's Gospel as a whole.

No offense, Belz - you gave probably the least worst possible answer. But l'd still like to see Ossai justify his statement with reference to Matthew.