The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[eight bits]

Do you mean to say you do have a different more original version of g-Mark or not?

No, Ian. Nobody else has an original version of Mark, either. This could not possibly be news to you. That there are different versions of Mark in existence is well-known. If that is news to you, then googlebing Freer Logion for an example of a bit of a Mark that is neither canonical nor plausibly "Mark's."

If you are interested in a fuller citation for something that appeared in a specific post of mine, then I'll be happy to provide it. Generally, however, chapter and verse are the usual citations for Biblical material, unless the issue being discussed depends on the specific translation(s) used.

... whether that is significantly different from what anyone else here is relying on as the words of g-Mark.

When it is, and I am aware of a difference, then I say so. For example, I recently had a discussion with another poster whether the first appearance of the name "Jesus" in Mark is at 1:1. It is in canonical Mark, but 1:1 seems likely to be a scribal addition. The earliest appearance of the name in what may survive from the original is 1:9. Could 1:9 be an interpolation, too? Yes, it could. Nobody has the original.

I have nothing else to tell you about what versions of Mark other people use. All I know about that is what they say in their posts.

I hope that helps clarify matters for you.

 

[Crossbow]

Fictional works or mythological works always have some real details as part of the stories. As, I believe you would agree, finding facts in a narrative doesn't prove that other things in the narrative are true or false. Fictional works contain facts and non-fiction works contain facts. You listed the following things in the Gospels which can be corroborated:

... snipped for brevity ...

Thanks much for the very thoughtful reply, and my apologies for abridging it; but I do have a good reason for doing so.

My point all has been that while the Gospels have fictional elements, however one can still collect useful material from them. And when I answered your question, I used the same approach.

In my limited experience with period writings, one usually finds fictional elements in supposed works of non-fiction. Therefore, one has to carefully separate the fictional elements from the non-fictional.

In those days, the writers were normally not personally connected with the events they were discussing and may have only heard the details some months, even years later. Consequently, period sources are difficult to work with.

 

[tsig]

Fictional works or mythological works always have some real details as part of the stories. As, I believe you would agree, finding facts in a narrative doesn't prove that other things in the narrative are true or false. Fictional works contain facts and non-fiction works contain facts. You listed the following things in the Gospels which can be corroborated:

... snipped for brevity ...

Thanks much for the very thoughtful reply, and my apologies for abridging it; but I do have a good reason for doing so.

My point all has been that while the Gospels have fictional elements, however one can still collect useful material from them. And when I answered your question, I used the same approach.

In my limited experience with period writings, one usually finds fictional elements in supposed works of non-fiction. Therefore, one has to carefully separate the fictional elements from the non-fictional.

In those days, the writers were normally not personally connected with the events they were discussing and may have only heard the details some months, even years later. Consequently, period sources are difficult to work with.

How do you do that?

 

[Crossbow]

The fact that people may have first written the gospels 50 to 100 years after the death of Jesus, is not in itself a reason to say they must be wrong. That length of time is not what forced them to write fictional nonsense about miracles and the supernatural. The reason the gospels cannot be trusted in what they say about Jesus is because what they say about him is so often physically impossible and certainly untrue.

Well, I have to somewhat disagree with that statement.

The time delay is one of the valid reasons for distrusting the Gospels. After all, during those intervening years, there was the terrible Roman supression of Judea and therefore the subsequent authors had to write the story in such a way that it would not rasie the ire of the Roman authorities.

We are only concerned with what the gospels say about Jesus. Nobody is disputing that 1st century gospel writers knew that places like Jerusalem and Galilee existed, or that there were Roman rulers (or that there were stars in the sky). The issue is whether or not the gospels are in any way true in what they claim about Jesus. It's the parts about Jesus that concern us.

Well, I think that your use of the term "We" is rather presumptious.

After all, while the main focus of the Gospels is Jesus, however there are some events which the Gospels discuss which are not related to Jesus, but still bear scrunity. Such as when King Herod had all new born male babies killed because he thought one of them may be a future threat to his rule. Or that bit about how EVERYONE in the Roman Empire had to return to the place of their fathers birth for the purposes of getting an accurate census.

And so on.

I crossed out the parts that are nothing to do with Jesus (because we are not disputing the existence of Romans etc.). That only leaves you with the bald and baseless statement saying "there was a person named Jesus"!

That's no progress at all. It's a just another statement of un-evidenced belief in Jesus.

Well, actually there is a bit of non-Gospel evidence for a person named Jesus. And there is considerable evidence that there were a number of people at the time of Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah, who did faith healing, magic tricks, and had a following.

Note: I will try to collect some of this non-Gospel data on Jesus for you later today.

 

[Crossbow]

How do you do that?

Please read Post #282 and you will have your answer.

Thanks.

 

[davefoc]

davefoc


I disagree that the Gospels resemble "fiction" more than any other broad genre of "personal narrative literature."

...

I don't know what you mean by this. The phrase personal narrative literature sounds like literature written in the first person describing the experiences of the author. This kind of writing is very often non-fiction. It can be fictional but there is often nothing in this kind of writing which gives immediate clues that they are fictional accounts. It is plausible that the person that seems to be the author had the personal experiences described.

The Gospels are nothing like this. The Gospels are in the form of fictional stories. No attempt is made to explain how the author might have been a witness to any of the events. In the case of the Gospels, the incidents described are often implausible, the main character exhibits both super hero and supernatural characteristics. Without the context of the Gospels in western culture, they read exactly as if they are fictional works. The above observations are just my own and as such it might be reasonable to reject them since I have no academic credentials on this subject and I am just one more guy pontificating away on the internet.

However, Richard Carrier is a respected historian who has spoken and written in far more detail as to why the nature of the Gospels is fiction or to use his term mythological. If you want to make a claim that the Gospels are other than mythological in nature or that they resemble non-fictional works more than fictional works it is Richard Carrier's research and analysis that you might best direct your claim to.

This is a link to Carrier's talk on this subject that I linked to earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e7uhaed594

This is a link to a site which has broken out some of the slides from the talk for easier reference:
[The link below doesn't work, apparently because of the JREF bad language filter. If you want to see the site you will need to copy the URL into your browser]
http://tinyurl.com/mbw9ca8

One of the points Carrier makes is that many of the attributes the Gospels attribute to Jesus are the same attributes that have been attributed to many real and mythological characters in the past. However every character that meets more than half the criteria in the list is fictional with the possible exception of Jesus. With Mark alone Carrier claims that Jesus meets 14 or the criteria and using all the Gospels. This is a copy of the Rank-Raglin mythotype from the above site and from a site focused on the subject (http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/):

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but
7. he is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster -parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. And becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill,
20. His children, if any do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchers.

This is a list that Carrier supplies that shows how many criteria various fictional and non-fictional characters meet:
1. Oedipus score 21
2. Theseus score 20
3. Moses score 20
4. Jesus[based on all the Gospels] score 20
5. Dionysus score 19
6. Romulus score 18
7. Perseus score 18
8. Hercules score 17
9. Bellerophon score 16
10. Jason score 15
11. Zeus score 15
12. Osiris score 14
13. Pelops score 13
14. Aselephas score 12
15 Joseph so of Jacob score 12

Carrier makes numerous other observations about the Gospels and how the writing style is similar to other mythological writings. I think his rigor with this exercise is to be commended, but I also think any secular objective reader of the Gospels would make a similar observation. The Gospels are written in the style of fiction and it is obvious enough that it doesn't take a lot of research to see that this is the case.

That is also why I reject Crossbow's notion that common sense can let one determine what is factual in the Gospel's. I think, that per force, this is impossible. One might be able to read a fictional account and extract that which is plausible. But without external corroboration one can't prove that any aspect of that which is plausible is also true.

 

[pakeha]

..That there are different versions of Mark in existence is well-known. If that is news to you, then googlebing Freer Logion for an example of a bit of a Mark that is neither canonical nor plausibly "Mark's." ...

That was news to me, eight bits and thanks for mentioning the Freer Logion.
Off to read up on this version of Mark.

 

[IanS]

The fact that people may have first written the gospels 50 to 100 years after the death of Jesus, is not in itself a reason to say they must be wrong. That length of time is not what forced them to write fictional nonsense about miracles and the supernatural. The reason the gospels cannot be trusted in what they say about Jesus is because what they say about him is so often physically impossible and certainly untrue.

Well, I have to somewhat disagree with that statement.

The time delay is one of the valid reasons for distrusting the Gospels. After all, during those intervening years, there was the terrible Roman supression of Judea and therefore the subsequent authors had to write the story in such a way that it would not rasie the ire of the Roman authorities.

I think you are disagreeing with something I did not say. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I specifically did not say that the time lag in writing the gospels was no reason to distrust the accuracy of the gospels. The time lag certainly is a problem, as I have pointed out repeatedly in all these threads. But that is not the main reason why sceptics say they distrust the accuracy and credibility of the gospels.

The main reason is because the gospels are filled with so many obviously fictional and mythical claims of the supernatural. That’s the main & most direct reason for saying that the gospels are simply not credible as reliable evidence of Jesus

We are only concerned with what the gospels say about Jesus. Nobody is disputing that 1st century gospel writers knew that places like Jerusalem and Galilee existed, or that there were Roman rulers (or that there were stars in the sky). The issue is whether or not the gospels are in any way true in what they claim about Jesus. It's the parts about Jesus that concern us.

Well, I think that your use of the term "We" is rather presumptious.

After all, while the main focus of the Gospels is Jesus, however there are some events which the Gospels discuss which are not related to Jesus, but still bear scrunity. Such as when King Herod had all new born male babies killed because he thought one of them may be a future threat to his rule. Or that bit about how EVERYONE in the Roman Empire had to return to the place of their fathers birth for the purposes of getting an accurate census.

And so on.

Again there appears to be some misunderstanding here. When I said WE are only concerned with what the gospels say about Jesus, I was pointing out that the concern in these various HJ threads is whether or not Jesus existed ... not whether the gospels writers knew that places like Jerusalem existed or whether they knew the names of 1st century governors like Pilate.

The point is - it's not evidence of Jesus merely for the gospels to talk about Jesus being in Jerusalem or Jesus meeting Pilate etc. That's not evidence of Jesus at all. That's only evidence of the gospel writers telling their stories of Jesus in a local setting of their time.

I crossed out the parts that are nothing to do with Jesus (because we are not disputing the existence of Romans etc.). That only leaves you with the bald and baseless statement saying "there was a person named Jesus"!

That's no progress at all. It's a just another statement of un-evidenced belief in Jesus.

Well, actually there is a bit of non-Gospel evidence for a person named Jesus. And there is considerable evidence that there were a number of people at the time of Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah, who did faith healing, magic tricks, and had a following.

Note: I will try to collect some of this non-Gospel data on Jesus for you later today.

Actually I don't believe there is any independent non-biblical evidence of Jesus. All non-biblical mention of Jesus appears to have come from the biblical writing as it's source. Or at least, the biblical writing is afaik the only known source from which later hearsay reporters such as Josephus and Tacitus could have got their brief mention of Jesus.

 

[tsig]

Well, by using common sense, one can determine what parts of the Gospels are fabrications.
Then, one by corroborating other things in Gospels with other data sources, then one may be able to determine what parts of the Gospels are true.

And for the things that do not fit into either case, then one will have to be satisfied that one cannot know if it is fabrication or true.

Please read Post #282 and you will have your answer.

Thanks.

Common sense? I don't think that's a recognized historical discipline.

There really are no other data sources outside the gospels.

 

[Crossbow]

Common sense? I don't think that's a recognized historical discipline.

Umm, ...

Using common sense is a very highly recognized discipline in history as well as other sciences.

There really are no other data sources outside the gospels.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong about that! While the amount of non-Gospel data at the time Jesus in Judea is by no means complete, however there is still a good bit on non-Gospel data at the time Jesus in Judea.

 

[IanS]

No, Ian. Nobody else has an original version of Mark, either. This could not possibly be news to you. That there are different versions of Mark in existence is well-known. If that is news to you, then googlebing Freer Logion for an example of a bit of a Mark that is neither canonical nor plausibly "Mark's."

If you are interested in a fuller citation for something that appeared in a specific post of mine, then I'll be happy to provide it. Generally, however, chapter and verse are the usual citations for Biblical material, unless the issue being discussed depends on the specific translation(s) used.


When it is, and I am aware of a difference, then I say so. For example, I recently had a discussion with another poster whether the first appearance of the name "Jesus" in Mark is at 1:1. It is in canonical Mark, but 1:1 seems likely to be a scribal addition. The earliest appearance of the name in what may survive from the original is 1:9. Could 1:9 be an interpolation, too? Yes, it could. Nobody has the original.

I have nothing else to tell you about what versions of Mark other people use. All I know about that is what they say in their posts.

I hope that helps clarify matters for you.

OK, well thanks for your last few replies. They do help to clarify your position for me. Although they seem to confirm what I thought in the first place.

Namely that when you were disagreeing above with Davefoc about the fictional nature (or otherwise) of the gospel writing, and earlier when you disagreed with me after I quoted to you from Wikipedia a long list of miracles in g-Mark, your disagreement was not in fact coming to you from what you had earlier called an “original” writing of g-Mark which you have, and which was/is in any substantial way different from what I, or Dave, or anyone else here is using as a source of g-Mark, but rather it is the case that these disagreements are simply your opinion (drawn from the same copies of g-Mark that we all have available to us).


IOW, like myself, Dave and other sceptics here, you are offering a personal opinion on whether gospel accounts of miracles are in fact "gospel accounts of miracles", and whether the gospels appear to be presenting fictional accounts of Jesus. You are not offering any special knowledge available to you from what you had earlier called an “original writing” of g-Mark.

 

[smartcooky]

Why does the subject of the (non)existence of Nazareth interest me?
I think it may provide a clue to how and why and when the figure of Jesus accrued the label Jesus of Nazareth.

I have always understood that the description of the (fictional Jesus) character "Jesus of Nazareth", came from a mistranslation of Hebrew, that in fact what the Hebrew text says is "Jesus a Nazarean"

This would describe him, not as having come from Nazareth (which he clearly did not), but instead, as a member of the Essene, a group that lived in the 2nd century BC to the 1st century CE in various places in the middle east, They were adherents of asceticism, voluntary poverty, and they shunned pleasures, including sex.

If the Jesus narrative was written when we think it was, then attributing such characteristics to him would be understandable.

 

[eight bits]

IamS

IOW, like myself, Dave and other sceptics here, you are offering a personal opinion on whether gospel accounts of miracles are in fact "gospel accounts of miracles"

We disagreed about many things.

Whether the Feeding of the Five Thousand, as told in Mark, depicted a miracle, made a claim contrary to nature, is a question of fact, not opinion. There is no such miracle on the page in Mark. We also disagreed about whether there are any miracles in Mark where Jesus' role is causal, or different in kind from a role that could be played by his students, or by others. Judgements of causation and relative capability in literary works are matters of opinion.

We did not disagree that there are miracles depicted in Mark. My thesis is that Mark and Paul teach that magic was possible during the times when they lived, because God was once again intervening in history. Later Gospels, especially John, are written with the knowledge that God didn't intervene in history as anticipated. That author depicts a more nearly causal magical role for Jesus than Mark does, personal to Jesus and unavailable to others.

The only factor different versions of Mark played was for the post-death appearances and ascension. They occur in canonical Mark, but are later additions, seemingly after Luke. Regardless, Jesus is not depicted as causing his resurrection, nor is being raised (or flight) peculiar to Jesus. Paul teaches that all people were going to have the same capabilities, because the God who caused Jesus to rise would also cause Paul's correspondents to rise.


davefoc

The Gospels are in the form of fictional stories.

That's where we disagree, that "fictional" stories take any form that non-fictoonal stories do not or cannot. If the author is at liberty to choose, then a novel may "read" as if it were a collection of police reports; a reporter's summary of real police reports may read like a detective novel.

No attempt is made to explain how the author might have been a witness to any of the events.

None of the Gospel authors claim to be witnesses (although that is sometimes alleged for "John.") Mark and Matthew don't make any explanation about their purpose in writing.

the main character exhibits both super hero and supernatural characteristics.

We've been through that. It depends on which Gospel. Early: magic is a teachable and learnable skill, available even to the motley crew that Jesus haphazardly assembles, Late: magic is only for special people. John's Jesus is a a supernatural being incarnate, nearly God in meat. Mark's Jesus is more like Gautama: a man steeped in his culture who, in adulthood after performing religious acts typical of many people, figured out "how things are," and tells others.

I have no academic credentials

We've been through that, too. This is a domain where academic credentials don't necessarily help. But if you do make a claim for anyone else based on their academic credentials,

If you want to make a claim that the Gospels are other than mythological in nature or that they resemble non-fictional works more than fictional works it is Richard Carrier's research and analysis that you might best direct your claim to.

On information and belief, Dr Carrier is trained as a historian. I am unaware of any special scholarly attainments of his in literary criticism, comparative religion or mythology.

OK, it's time for 22 Questions:

Which of the following describe Mark's Jesus?

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
Not in Mark

2. His father is a king, and
Not in Mark

3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
Not in Mark

4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
Not in Mark or John

5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
For variety, I'll give you that that is one translation of the possible translation of a remark attributed to a Roman soldier in Mark, 1 for 5

6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather to kill him, but
Not in Mark

7. he is spirited away, and
Not in Mark

8. Reared by foster -parents in a far country.
Not in Mark

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
Yes, finally, something in Mark!, 2 for 9

10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
Not in Mark

11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
Not in Mark

12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
Not in Mark

13. And becomes king.
Not in Mark

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
Not in Mark

15. Prescribes laws, but
Not in Mark (a rabbi interprets, oh hell, you need the points, you are 3 for 15)

16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
Not in Mark

17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
Not in Mark

18. He meets with a mysterious death,
Not in Mark (The Romans killed him.)

19. Often at the top of a hill,
OK. You are 4 for 19.

20. His children, if any do not succeed him.
Wow. That has a broad target cross-section, Since he never was king, he has no successors, nor children either; so you win 5 for 20.

21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless 22. He has one or more holy sepulchers.
You can have one or the other, but not both, for what's in Mark

Liberal grading of Mark: 6

The disjunction of all the Gospels (not what they agree on, but what any one of them says): 10
(1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20, 21 or 22 - 67% increase in a score that cannot be decreasing, over a generation or two)

Carrier: 20
(There must be some room for subjectivity in scoring. There may also be some inclusion of later writers' remarks. Epiphanius, for example, would give Jesus number 13.)

Let's take the numerical results at face value. What do we see? A story that improves in the retelling, and progressively comes to resemble mythological stories as the storytellers become ever farther removed from the (alleged) events in time and space.

I find that trend predictable, especially given that I have selected this case for study not randomly, but becuase two thousand years later there are two incompatible world religious groupings whose three billion adherents professs thousands of variations on these stories and their meaning. That there was diversity and development in the tale within decades of the earliest surviving written form of the story is uninformative about historicity and unsurprising.

 

[pakeha]

I have always understood that the description of the (fictional Jesus) character "Jesus of Nazareth", came from a mistranslation of Hebrew, that in fact what the Hebrew text says is "Jesus a Nazarean"

This would describe him, not as having come from Nazareth (which he clearly did not), but instead, as a member of the Essene, a group that lived in the 2nd century BC to the 1st century CE in various places in the middle east, They were adherents of asceticism, voluntary poverty, and they shunned pleasures, including sex.

If the Jesus narrative was written when we think it was, then attributing such characteristics to him would be understandable.

Thanks so much for your take on the source of the Nazarene label given to Jesus.
I have a great deal to learn about the Essenes before I have any opinion of my own as to how this misnomer arose.
You've given me leads as to where to start looking in my search and I appreciate that.

Just to make sure I understand you, when do you consider the Jesus narrative was written?

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks so much for your take on the source of the Nazarene label given to Jesus.
I have a great deal to learn about the Essenes before I have any opinion of my own as to how this misnomer arose.
You've given me leads as to where to start looking in my search and I appreciate that.

http://essene.com/

Just to make sure I understand you, when do you consider the Jesus narrative was written?

Between about 80 AD and about 200 AD. Importantly, no matter what any Christian tries to tell you, NONE of the Gospels were written contemporaneously with the times to which they refer.

 

[pakeha]

http://essene.com/

Thanks!
I'm more familiar with the identification of Nazarene with Nazirite^WP, so I'm off to explore the world of the Essenes and learn more.

Between about 80 AD and about 200 AD. Importantly, no matter what any Christian tries to tell you, NONE of the Gospels were written contemporaneously with the times to which they refer.

Between 80 and 200?
I'd read the Epistula Apostolorum^WP more or less provided a mid second century upper limit for the writing of the canonical gospels, but in any case, I'm still simply reading and trying to make sense of the ocean of data out there and am far from even formulating my own ideas.

ETA
There's a name for those who'd send a defenseless albino kiwi to that site.
After the initial shock of the wallpaper and that tasteful little graphic, I soldiered on nonetheless til I read

...The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel in North America stands alone, separate and autonomous, or rather, autocephalous.

Praps I have a filthy mind, but I couldn't go on after that.

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks!
I'm more familiar with the identification of Nazarene with Nazirite^WP, so I'm off to explore the world of the Essenes and learn more.

AIUI, the name of the town "Nazarath" came from the fact that a number of Nazoreans (or Nazarites or what ever you like to call them) lived there, and not the other way around. Nazareth, as a town, did not really exist at that time as anything more than a collection of a few families living in the same general area. Most Judeans would have had no idea where it was.

You're a New Zealander (I presume from your username) so answer me this, (without Googling it). Where in New Zealand is "Stepneyville"?

Between 80 and 200?
I'd read the Epistula Apostolorum^WP more or less provided a mid second century upper limit for the writing of the canonical gospels, but in any case, I'm still simply reading and trying to make sense of the ocean of data out there and am far from even formulating my own ideas.

Ball park figures really

The earliest NT manuscripts date from much later than 300 AD, so it is very difficult to determine the actual time of writing. Many scholars suggest that because some of the gospels contain descriptions of the impending destruction of the Jewish Temple (allegedly prophesied by Jesus) during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem (68 AD) then that means those gospels were written then.

IMO, this is muddy thinking. There is nothing to prevent a writer writing about earlier events. If I wrote a book about the early life and times of, say, Albert Einstein, it would be easy for me to "predict" that he would formulate Special and General Relativity and that his work would lead to nuclear bombs and power stations. If someone found my original manuscripts in 500 years time, they cannot then conclude that I lived in Einstein's time (he died the year I was born).

The earliest mention of these gospels outside of the biblical account is by Irernaeus around 180 AD, so at least some of them must have been written by then.

Most researchers agree that some gospels are based on the content of other gospels. First to be written was probably Mark (around 70 to 80 AD), then Matthew and Luke (around 90-100 AD) using Mark and other writings as sources, and and lastly John, around 100 to 120 AD but perhaps as late as 150 AD.

John is quite different from the others, and some actually believe that it was written first on the basis that it does not mention the impending destruction of the Jewish Temple at all. I doubt this. Absence of mention is not evidence of anything, other than the writer not considering it relevant to what he is writing about. I could quite easily write a story set during the 1939-45 war in Europe without ever mentioning some of the main characters, places or events if they simply weren't germane to my story.

ETA
There's a name for those who'd send a defenseless albino kiwi to that site.
After the initial shock of the wallpaper and that tasteful little graphic, I soldiered on nonetheless til I read
Praps I have a filthy mind, but I couldn't go on after that.

Sorry. I was a bit short of time whe I made the post, so I only skimmed the page.

It was this bit halfway down that was relevant..
Essene - An ancient term of the sect of Judaism which birthed, raised and then followed the Master - Yeshua (Essene Jesus). Noted for their vegetarianism, communal living and healing art practices.

Nazorean - Denotes those under a special vow of holiness wherein one's whole life is consecrated upward toward purity and perfection. Nazorean were also noted for their abstinence from social drinking. Essene villages near Mount Carmel were filled with Nazorean, hence the village name of Nazareth.

I'll be more careful next time before I drop you in at the deep end.

 

[Crossbow]

Wow! Thanks so much for your very thoughtful reply and please allow me to respond.

I think you are disagreeing with something I did not say. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I specifically did not say that the time lag in writing the gospels was no reason to distrust the accuracy of the gospels. The time lag certainly is a problem, as I have pointed out repeatedly in all these threads. But that is not the main reason why sceptics say they distrust the accuracy and credibility of the gospels.

The main reason is because the gospels are filled with so many obviously fictional and mythical claims of the supernatural. That’s the main & most direct reason for saying that the gospels are simply not credible as reliable evidence of Jesus

Great! Thanks much for the clarificiation.

While I do agree that there is fabrication in the Gospels, however I still do think that they can provide some very useful data about Jesus.

Therefore, I am not quite so quick to dismiss the Gospels just because they have some weird stuff in them.

Again there appears to be some misunderstanding here. When I said WE are only concerned with what the gospels say about Jesus, I was pointing out that the concern in these various HJ threads is whether or not Jesus existed ... not whether the gospels writers knew that places like Jerusalem existed or whether they knew the names of 1st century governors like Pilate.

The point is - it's not evidence of Jesus merely for the gospels to talk about Jesus being in Jerusalem or Jesus meeting Pilate etc. That's not evidence of Jesus at all. That's only evidence of the gospel writers telling their stories of Jesus in a local setting of their time.

Again, I appreciate the clarification.

As for me, my opinion is that Jesus was a real person, and that opinion is based on the Gospels as well as other non-Gospel data from that time and place.

Actually I don't believe there is any independent non-biblical evidence of Jesus. All non-biblical mention of Jesus appears to have come from the biblical writing as it's source. Or at least, the biblical writing is afaik the only known source from which later hearsay reporters such as Josephus and Tacitus could have got their brief mention of Jesus.

I was going to mention Flavius Josephus and Tacitus as well. Granted, they do not discuss Jesus in much detail, but they do discuss him all the same. Also, there is Pliny the Younger who also briefly discussed Jesus (you may not be familiar with that source since you did not mention him).

Therefore, one has at least three non-Gospels corroborations of a person named Jesus in the time and place which in question.

Accordingly, in my opinion, I say that Jesus did exist at the time and place in question but Jesus did not have any supernatural powers.

However, as you have so wisely pointed out, this data is far from conclusive and as such should be looked at critically.

Thanks again! I really do appreciate your excellent replies.

 

[Crossbow]

Tourist brochures aren't basic facts.

Oh really?

Then I guess when I went on that cave tour I took a few days ago where the tourist brochure explained when the cave was discovered, how it was first explored, how it was formed, when it was formed, and so on, then all that information was not a basic fact.

Or when I visited at least 100 different museums and historical places over the years (such as the Smithsonian Museums, the Alamo, Harpers Ferry, the Washington Monument, etc.) then the tourist brochures that I used to get an idea of why the places were so important, what the major artifacts were, when in history were the places so important, who was there, and on, and on, and on, were not of any value either. Because, according to your fine wisdom anyway, none of this information was a basic fact since it was published in a tourist brochure.

Well, thank you so very much for your keen insight! I will make sure to remember your exceptional advice well into the future.

 

[pakeha]

Oh really?

Then I guess when I went on that cave tour I took a few days ago where the tourist brochure explained when the cave was discovered, how it was first explored, how it was formed, when it was formed, and so on, then all that information was not a basic fact.

Or when I visited at least 100 different museums and historical places over the years (such as the Smithsonian Museums, the Alamo, Harpers Ferry, the Washington Monument, etc.) then the tourist brochures that I used to get an idea of why the places were so important, what the major artifacts were, when in history were the places so important, who was there, and on, and on, and on, were not of any value either. Because, according to your fine wisdom anyway, none of this information was a basic fact since it was published in a tourist brochure.

Well, thank you so very much for your keen insight! I will make sure to remember your exceptional advice well into the future.

I'm so glad you enjoyed your cave tour.
The last one I visted was here
http://www.spain.info/en/que-quieres/arte/monumentos/castellon/cueva_riosubterraneo_castellon.html

Of course you're right to say the tour guide information you received was probably top notch, as was the information you were given in the other venues you mentioned.

However, Nazareth is an entirely different kettle of fish for a number of reasons, starting with less than ideal archeological protocols, and yes, religious and economic pressures.

It's really quite an unpleasant saga, though in line with religious tourism all over the world.
Just as an example of just how the information can be twisted in a tour, my Catalan tour guide at Montserrat Monastery was unaware the buildings had been destroyed by Napoleon's army and completely rebuilt in the 19th century.

But let's back-back to Nazareth.
There's no doubt the archeological findings at Nazareth have been twisted beyond recognition. Many of the facts presented in that tourist site are unverifiable because the archeologists haven't published their findings, only presented them in press releases.
If you're interested in learning more about the archeology of Nazareth, I'll post up a number of links for you.