Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on March 19, 2011 at 8:08pm

When you talked about the old testament allusions and allegorical fiction it reminded me of this:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on September 10, 2010 at 11:47am

for sure. all the historical analysis has ever shown is that Jesus was probably a real person, probably said this, and probably did that. this is partly because history is a probabilistic endeavor to begin with and partly because historians can never apply their methodology to the question of miracles and other supernatural claims. this is because of the probabilistic nature of history. consider that if a miracle or other supernatural claim were to be true it would be extraordinarily improbable. indeed, we could imagine several other only slightly less improbable scenarios that would account for the evidence and because they are slightly less improbable than that a miracle or other supernatural claim is true we must prefer the slightly less improbable scenario. therein lies the problem with applying historical methodology to supernatural claims, the methodology will always prefer the slightly less improbable naturalistic scenario over the supernatural claim.
all of the historical Jesus scholars who argue that Jesus existed end up finding that the man Jesus was starkly different than the Christ of the Christian faith, certainly he wasn't divine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on March 19, 2011 at 8:13pm

The real question, Nelson, is WHO WAS the "historical Jesus?" Can he be separated from all the woo-woo that surrounds him in the few documents that mention him in an early enough time frame to be AT ALL credible? Can we know this historical Jesus? Or is he lost to time? 

In "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" Zindler makes the ironic observation that the Christians may have destroyed the historical Jesus in their quest to solidify the mythical one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on September 24, 2010 at 8:08am

@Salsola Tragus

While your dates are common, must wider date ranges are possible. For example, many NT scholars believe that Mark was written after 70 CE, not before it, for the obvious reason that the author was aware that the temple was destroyed in that year. Moreover, and this is not often mentioned when discussing the Gospel, but Mark refers to the Pharisees who came up to Galilee from Jerusalem, but this migration occurred after the war. A date from the late 1st c. would be more consistent with this evidence.

Matthew was written sometime after Mark, but the terminus ante quem is around 150, when Justin Matyr's Apology was written. The earliest version of Luke must've been written before the time of Marcion in the 140s (unless Marcion actually wrote the earliest version of Luke, which I personally don't believe). OTOH, if the author of Luke was the same person as Acts, as is commonly believed, then it was probably written around the same time, but Acts is a 2nd-c. document, using Josephus' Antiquities (published in 93 CE) as a source. In fact, the Gospel of Luke also seems to be using the Antiquities, but this is less certain.

It is often supposed, based upon the well-developed Christology and lack of apocalyptic expectations, as well as the fact that no one mentions it before the year 175 CE, that John was the last of the 4 Gospels to be written. The main reason why more critical scholars don't date it well into the 2nd .c is probably the John Rylands papyrus, which is commonly dated to around 125 CE +/- 25 years. But paleography is not a particularly exact science, especially for that time period since there so few surviving specimens for comparison. It could easily date from the second half of the 2nd c.

As for the date of last of Paul's authentic letters (generally taken to be Romans), this would've had to have been written before his arrest and trial in Rome, hence before the year 60.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mwanzo mpya on September 10, 2010 at 9:06am

I think Jesus as a man existed but the story that was written about him was changed over the years and he became an god like figure.I tend to think jesus was a rebel political leader who wanted to overthrow Roman occupation.The so called desciples were members of that organized party.Desciple Peter was a bodyguard and thats why at the time of jesus arrest he was currying a sword(swords were weapons)which he used.Why would Jesus think of freeing people spiritually and leave them in conditions that create disharmony?why would Romans excute a man who was asking people not to resist their occupation!it does not make sence.Think of a modern situation where lets say Nelson Mandela was asking south Africans to liberate themselves emotionally without dismantling the Infrastructure of Apartheid???It does not make sence at all

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on September 10, 2010 at 9:07am

Other than the New Testament, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. Some believe Jesus is a myth: a "wisdom cult" created from prior myths.

There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING written about Jesus during his lifetime. Those who question whether he was real or myth cite the following reasons:

* no eyewitness accounts
* no direct archaeological evidence
* no contemporaneous works mentioning Jesus
* the similarities early Christianity shares with prior religions and mythologies

Combining liberal and conservative estimates, the books of the New Testament were written between 45 A.D. and 150 A.D. Biblical scholars tend to date the books of the Gospel as follows:

Mark: between 65 A.D. and 75 A.D.
Matthew: between 70 A.D. and 85 A.D.
Luke: between 80 A.D. to 95 A.D.
John: between 90 A.D. to 100 A.D.

Of the New Testament as a whole, First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, is considered to be the first book written (most scholars say around 51 A.D.) and Second Peter is considered the last written (as late as 150 A.D.)

The traditional view that the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is a misconception. The Gospels were written in Greek but Jesus' disciples spoke Aramaic. The Gospels were also written 3.5 to 7 decades after the life of Jesus. The gospels began being attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John long after they were written. For certain, the first books of the New Testament were written by Paul -- who converted to Christianity well after Jesus was dead. Paul never knew or saw Jesus.

Other than the New Testament, the only historical references to Jesus were brief mentions by 4 early authors of the Roman Empire:

* Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.)
* Tacitus (56 - 117 A.D.)
* Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (69 - 140 A.D.)
* Pliny the Younger (61 - 113 A.D.)

Except for Pliny the Younger, these authors were repeating second-hand information. In some cases, many historians doubt the authenticity of the passages cited. At any rate, all 4 authors were born long after Jesus was dead.

In the case of Josephus' mention of Jesus, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. The overwhelming majority of biblical scholars question its authenticity, in part or in whole.

Pliny the Younger's passage described (to Emperor Trajan) how he dealt with unruly Christians who worshiped Christ instead of the emperor. He mentioned the Christians and "Christus" but said nothing about the person of Jesus.

Like Pliny the Younger, Tacitus wrote a short passage about Christians and mentions "Christus" -- but only as the subject of Christian worship. Tacitus doesn't discuss the person of Jesus.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, mentioned riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius. He wrote, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome". "Chrestus", here, is thought to be a misspelling of "Christus" or Christ. However, Chrestus was also a common name in the Roman Empire. Like Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, he makes no mention of Jesus the person.

So how do we KNOW Jesus existed? It's an article of faith backed up by the New Testament. There are NO accounts of Jesus' life other than the New Testament. Outside of the New Testament, there is only 1 mention (by Josephus) of Jesus' deeds (healing), and that account is thoroughly discredited, even by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Those who claim Josephus was reliable may be right. That's not the issue. The issue is later interpolations (inserting one's own words into somebody else's text). Overzealous scribes have been known to interpolate in the name of Jesus. As I said, in the case of Josephus, even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges the interpolations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on September 10, 2010 at 9:55am

Obviously, one is not going to be written about unless one DOES something to garner attention. The amazing stories of Jesus' life certainly warrant a shout-out . . . not just by Roman commentators but by government documents and by Jewish commentators.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on September 10, 2010 at 10:15am

Yes, why stop at miracles? Miracles will certainly get you noticed. But so will throngs of followers sitting on a hill listening to his sermon. We can also expect government records of Jesus' arrest and appearance before Pontius Pilate (who was the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36) -- and of his crucifixion.

If Jesus was such a historically prominent figure, then why no documentation . . . as you would expect with ANY historically prominent figure?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on March 23, 2011 at 12:19pm

The problem is that not all of the early writers about Jesus thought he was executed under Pilot. Some thought that he was executed under Herod I [associated in the bible with the "Slaughter of the innocents."]. Others think he was executed a century earlier under Alexander Janeaius [spelling?]. Anyway, what I've found by digging into early christian history is that the deeper you go, the murkier and more uncertain things become. 

When was Jesus Crucified? Was he crucified [the Toldoth has him stoned]?, When did he live? Where did he live? [Jerusalem? Alexandria? Rome? Greece?], where are the supposed Roman records?, Why is it that the evidence of the census taken in Bethlehem at his birth time seems not to exist? Did Christianity start from Jewish mystic cults? Was Jesus a "savior god" who existed [originally] only in a celestial realm [like many other savior gods of the time?, Why does Jesus' story appear so similar to the other savior god figures?. The list goes on and on.

 

For me, I have concluded I am agnostic about Jesus' existence. I'm skeptical that the historical jesus can ever be recovered from the murky past.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on September 10, 2010 at 11:56am

only if the amazing stories in the gospels are true. they're not. and so we haven't any reason to think that he would have been on the radar of people who were writing during his life.
if there was a historical person Jesus who was then mythologized and aggrandized after his life it would be then that we would see mention of him. that's precisely what we see.
not only that but we can see the mythologizing and aggrandizing in the sources as we move from sources that were written closer to his life to sources that were written further away.
Paul's letters say very little about the fantastical details of Jesus' life, Mark says a bit more, while John, the oldest gospel, says all sorts of wild things about Jesus' life.
again, just what we'd expect if there was a historical person who was mythologized over time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on September 11, 2010 at 8:56am

If Jesus' miracles are not true (and they certainly are not); if the Sermon on the Mount never happened; if Pontius Pilate never washed his hands of him; if he was never crucified . . . then, of course, there was nothing to notice and write about.

The idealized person of Jesus, including his history from birth to death, might well be fabricated from whole cloth. I'm not saying this is the truth: only that there's precious little difference between fabricating deity stories about a real person or a mythical one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Obie Holmen on September 12, 2010 at 10:00am

Thanks for mentioning the Gospel of the Hebrews.

For me, the interesting historical question is not whether a human Yeshua of Nazareth existed, but how the early generations of his followers interpreted his teachings, life, and death. I believe his early Jewish followers saw him as a political Messiah, but the Pauline, Gentile churches interpreted him as a god-man. As the emerging church became increasingly Gentile, in large measure due to the Jewish civil war and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans circa 70, the Jewish branch lost influence and by 180, their views of Yeshua as a human were declared heretical.

The Gospel of the Hebrews is one of the early documents that evidences this early split in the emergent church.

With apologies for blatant self-promotion, my work of historical fiction addresses these issues. Indeed, the primary plot line is the running conflict between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. James was the leader of the Jerusalem, Jewish faction and Paul the leader and innovator of the Gentile faction. Entitled A Wretched Man, a novel of Paul the apostle, the work was released earlier this year to critical acclaim and flattering reader response.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page