Was there a historical Jesus at all?

[Simon39759]

Rasmus?

I thought I was the one who did "historical Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz"?

I even provide the basis: we know there was a girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas who had an Aunt "M" (Maude Gauge Baum). She was clearly the inspiration for the girl Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz books. Granted, none of the stuff in the books actually happened to her, but as you note, this isn't all that much different from what some people claim about Jesus and the bibles.

And people could make the point that Dorothy from the wizard of Oz did, in fact, exists.
After all a number of definitively historical characters get their names attached to fiction after the facts: Washington and the tree; Alexander and the Gordian knot and the like.

The question then become: "what is the ratio of made up BS before you can say the fictional character is the most important of the two, before it becomes a fictional character with some inspiration in a real one" (like Dorothy).
And, in our case, if we think that Jesus was a person around which a bunch of myths coalesced, can we decide the part of the myths from what he really said and did and can we decide, on this basis, if he was mostly historical or mostly mythic? I don't believe we have that much information...

 

[drkitten]

Most all the early-Christianity authorities, even the skeptical ones like Ehrman, seem to think that Jesus was a real person; likely an apocalyptic rabbi.

What the hell does "a real person" mean in this context?

The same Hebrew word that means "Jesus" is also used for "Joshua" elsewhere in the Bible -- the Bible documents something like five different people with that name.

It's like if I asked if "Samuel Smith" was a real person. (It's certainly a drinkable beer.) The Chicago Phone Book lists thirty people by that name, but I'm confident they have little or nothing to do with a 19th century English brewery. I'm also fairly sure that most people who drink the beer don't know jack about the actual history of the brewery or who the "Samuel Smith" that it's named after is.

Is "Caesar salad" named after a real person? Is it the same person who runs "Caesar's Palace" in Tijuana? How about Las Vegas? How about the same "Caesar" who ran the imperial palace in Rome?

 

[CurtC]

What the hell does "a real person" mean in this context?

If you had a time machine and could work your way back, starting around the year 65, going back to around 30 CE, you should be able to trace the legends as they evolved.

Given that there was a following building within 20 years or so of his death, I think it's very likely that those legends would trace back to a real person who actually existed.

Another intriguing argument is that both Matthew and Luke go to implausible lengths to place Jesus's birth in Bethlehem in order to show that he was a descendant of David. These two stories not only contradict each other, each is completely implausible on its own. They had to do this because everyone at the time knew that Jesus was from Nazareth. Had the legends been completely made-up, the storytellers would simply have told about him being from Bethlehem.

 

[bluskool]

Yes, it is a testimony we are fairly certain has been altered.
It is really out of place, suggesting it was entirely made up, but even then.
We can't know it was there. We don't know it was not there. We can't know either way, hence, we can't rely on it, either way.

To an extent I agree. We are talking about history, not an exact science. We have to go with what is most probable and that sometimes comes down to individual interpretation. I think it is most probable that there was something there about an actual person named Jesus and that this Jesus was the same person that the gospel myths are semi-based on. With that said, it is certainly possible that the passage is entirely made up and it is also possible, as Darat said, that the scribe interpreted a passage as being about Jesus when it really wasn't. But I don't think we should throw it out just because there are questions about it. If we applied that criteria to all historical sources, there would be little left to go on in many cases.

Go to the thread (mis)named: "evidences for why we know that the new testament writers told the truth", over in the History sub section.

Why would you do that, man? There was madness in any direction, at any hour. You could strike sparks anywhere.

What?
Yes there is a very good reason... Nobody but the Christians remembered (or cared) about Jesus at the time.
There might have been reference to him buried deep into the reports Pilatus was sending Rome regularly (and I am not convinced the execution of one trouble maker would stand out enough to be considered worthy of mention) but there is no reason for Tacitus to go on and look for himself unless he was familiar with the story of Jesus.
He, pretty much, HAD to have learned about it from Christians and there is no reason to think he checked any deeper than that. Really, if Tacitus had cared about the subject enough to go out of his way to conduct independent research about it, one would have expected more than a throwaway line out of the 16 books of Tacitus' annals, especially considering the 5th book focussed on the Jewish rebellion...

I suppose you are right

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

They had to make him be from Nazareth, because they had to fit it to Paul's "Jesus of Nazareth", which he had seen in that hallucination of his, and about whom he had already preached all over the place. So if afterwards you came with a BS made-up biography of the saviour, for the benefit of some of those churches started by Paul and his disciples, you _had_ to make it fit to what Paul had preached. You had to write it about the same saviour.

Basically the same as if now I proceeded to write a biography of Peter Parker before he became Spiderman, it would _have_ to be in the Forest Hills section of New York City. Because that place of origin is already a given for that character.

Does that make him a real person?

 

[bluskool]

They had to make him be from Nazareth, because they had to fit it to Paul's "Jesus of Nazareth", which he had seen in that hallucination of his, and about whom he had already preached all over the place. So if afterwards you came with a BS made-up biography of the saviour, for the benefit of some of those churches started by Paul and his disciples, you _had_ to make it fit to what Paul had preached. You had to write it about the same saviour.

Basically the same as if now I proceeded to write a biography of Peter Parker before he became Spiderman, it would _have_ to be in the Forest Hills section of New York City. Because that place of origin is already a given for that character.

Does that make him a real person?

When did Paul mention that Jesus was from Nazareth?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Check out for example the description of his vision in Acts Of The Apostles.

 

[kmortis]

They had to make him be from Nazareth, because they had to fit it to Paul's "Jesus of Nazareth", which he had seen in that hallucination of his, and about whom he had already preached all over the place. So if afterwards you came with a BS made-up biography of the saviour, for the benefit of some of those churches started by Paul and his disciples, you _had_ to make it fit to what Paul had preached. You had to write it about the same saviour.

Basically the same as if now I proceeded to write a biography of Peter Parker before he became Spiderman, it would _have_ to be in the Forest Hills section of New York City. Because that place of origin is already a given for that character.

Does that make him a real person?

Pfft! Never heard of "retcon", have you?

 

[bluskool]

Many, even most, I think, Scholars agree that there was a real person known as Jeshua ben Joseph who seems to have been an itinerant preacher in Galilee in the early first century C.E. Based on what little we have that scholars think might well be his own sayings (albeit likely paraphrased) he was probably a member of the Jewish apocalyptic movement. And given that the region was crawling with holy men, healers, prophets and even a one true messiah or two at the time that Jeshua ben Joseph is said to have been active, it seems likely the Jesus of legend may be based on stories about more that one person. At any rate, it seems likely that the historical Jesus would have been quite upset to learn that a blasphemous faith bearing his name would proclaim him god and become the religion of the Roman Empire.

Right, that is closest to what my view on the subject would be. But I think that jesus was one, real person who preached an apocalyptic message, had twelve disciples whom he took to Jerusalem during the passover to try to stir up a rebellion. I think he and his disciples really thought he was the messiah that came to lead them in a rebellion against Rome. I think Judas really did tell the authorities what the plot was so they killed Jesus. The legend begins growing from there.

 

[bluskool]

Check out for example the description of his vision in Acts Of The Apostles.

But Paul didn't write Acts. Also, Acts came after Mark which already had mentioned that Jesus was from Nazareth.

 

[kmortis]

Right, that is closest to what my view on the subject would be. But I think that jesus was one, real person who preached an apocalyptic message, had twelve disciples whom he took to Jerusalem during the passover to try to stir up a rebellion. I think he and his disciples really thought he was the messiah that came to lead them in a rebellion against Rome. I think Judas really did tell the authorities what the plot was so they killed Jesus. The legend begins growing from there.

I agree with this, in general. Some of the particulars need to be held in more vagueness. For example, he didn't need 12 followers. The text actually seems to indicate more (for example the women are refered to, but largely ignored*), but tradition leaves us with 12. Many schools of mysticism (Jewish and Greek) find various numbers sacred. I suspect that this is one of those cases...12 tribes of Israel, 12 Apolstles?

One of his followers could have betrayed him. By tradition, that man was named Judas. That doesn't mean that he was the one.


*Women made up a large portion of the early Christians. I find it hard to believe that if there was any basis in fact, that that would not be a carry over from Yeshua's(the historic Jesus, as opposed to the mythic one of Christianity) ministry.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If my personal credibility had anything to do with it, I'm sure I'd feel some way or another about it But the question is more like whether someone else's theory has some merit or not. Seeing as you still don't seem to have actually read it... what, your opinion of a theory is based on who posted the link? Doesn't seem particularly logical or relevant to the discussion, but maybe that's just me.

Comparing to what I've read from Ehrman, and the CT style speculation you are referring to, I don't see much point in comparing wine to piss.

DR

 

[Hokulele]

Right, that is closest to what my view on the subject would be. But I think that jesus was one, real person who preached an apocalyptic message, had twelve disciples whom he took to Jerusalem during the passover to try to stir up a rebellion. I think he and his disciples really thought he was the messiah that came to lead them in a rebellion against Rome. I think Judas really did tell the authorities what the plot was so they killed Jesus. The legend begins growing from there.

Personally, I feel that quite a bit of what is credited to Jesus probably came from John the Baptist. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turned out that Jesus had been one of John's disciples originally. So although I do believe there was at least one historical Jesus, most of what people consider to be his teachings probably came from other sources.

 

[bluskool]

I agree with this, in general. Some of the particulars need to be held in more vagueness. For example, he didn't need 12 followers. The text actually seems to indicate more (for example the women are refered to, but largely ignored*), but tradition leaves us with 12. Many schools of mysticism (Jewish and Greek) find various numbers sacred. I suspect that this is one of those cases...12 tribes of Israel, 12 Apolstles?

One of his followers could have betrayed him. By tradition, that man was named Judas. That doesn't mean that he was the one.

Right, there is certainly a lot of vagueness in there. The reason I think there were twelve close disciples is because of the twelve tribes of Israel thing. I think he had them convinced that they would each be the rulers of one of the tribes when God brought the kingdom of heaven to Earth.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Pfft! Never heard of "retcon", have you?

Point taken. Still, I think it's harder to retcon a religion than a fanboy group. Then again, seeing some of the reactions to the SW prequels...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Comparing to what I've read from Ehrman, and the CT style speculation you are referring to, I don't see much point in comparing wine to piss.

DR

Right. So you haven't read it, but somehow know it's piss. Have you won Randi's prize yet? I mean, surely a test could be devised to test your knowing what a hypothesis is without reading it

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But Paul didn't write Acts. Also, Acts came after Mark which already had mentioned that Jesus was from Nazareth.

I'm not taking Acts as gospel, but I was taking a wild guess that something as famous as Paul's vision he must have told _someone_ about. I.e., that it wouldn't be a retcon.

But if in effect that's a retcon from Mark, well, that's even more damning, because it replaces something from a honest hallucination with something from, basically, a liar.

 

[kmortis]

Point taken. Still, I think it's harder to retcon a religion than a fanboy group. Then again, seeing some of the reactions to the SW prequels...

In the days before a written record and a charismatic leader?

 

[kmortis]

I'm not taking Acts as gospel,

Good, cause those were the four preceding books.

but I was taking a wild guess that something as famous as Paul's vision he must have told _someone_ about. I.e., that it wouldn't be a retcon.

Paul was a public enough figure that his vision was a well told tale.

But if in effect that's a retcon from Mark, well, that's even more damning, because it replaces something from a honest hallucination with something from, basically, a liar.

Yeah, this is all speculation at this point. I don't think there's enough there to say that it's all made up, but one thing that reading The Illuminatus! Trilogy taught me is that an author can assemble a half-way decent story, basing it on real events, and come up with some really ****ed up ****.

 

[Simon39759]

My opinion on the whole question is this:

-What we know:
Around the beginning of the second century, records start appearing of Christians.
They claimed to be based on the teaching of a certain Jesus of Nazareth that lived, and died, in Palestine in the first half of the first century.
Many of their writings were rooted in ealier Jewish traditions but they also displayed quite a few differences, including what might be an influence of the Greek philosophy.

That's really about it.
But from that, it is logical to conclude that Christianity does indeed, have its root in the teachings of a Jewish person at some point before the end of the first century.

That this Jewish teacher was named Jesus is absolutely credible as it was a common name.
That he lived from around the beginning of the century and died in 33CE is consistent with our (very loose) chronology so there is no reason to doubt that point. Indeed, several of Jesus' alleged teachings to make better sense within the framework of the time (during the Roman occupation, but before the Jewish revolt and the destruction of the temple so between 6 and 66CE).

That'd be arrested around Passover is not supported by any evidence (outside of the Christian traditions) but is also not difficult to believe, one would expect the Romans to be particularly suspicious about Religious agitators during this tense religious period, and crucification would be the likely punishment for somebody convicted of sedition.


To cut it short.
The core of the Jesus myth does not seem difficult to believe and does make sense based on what we know.
Due to how little evidence is available, it is difficult to make any firm conclusion, but there is no particular reason to disbelieve that Jesus was historical (not accounting for the accretion of myths around his person, of course).