Was there ever an earthly Jesus?

[Geezer]

There are definite reasons to consider that a mythical Jesus is a plausible hypothesis

 

1.       As far as I can determine no evidence has yet to be found of any eyewitnesses to any of the events that are written in the Gospels.

2.       As far as I can determine there is no incontrovertible evidence that any of the disciples ever existed in the flesh either.

3.       Again, as far as I can determine, there are no records, outside the gospels, that anyone ever encountered, or even heard of, a human being known as Jesus of Nazareth at the time he supposedly lived and walked on this earth. His name, of course, would have been Joshua not Jesus. He didn’t become Jesus until the gospel story was translated into Greek because there was no Greek word for Joshua.

4.       According to the Apostle Paul’s writing, assuming he was a real person, he apparently never even heard of an earthly Jesus. Paul’s Jesus was a spiritual being.

5.       The gospel story has identifiable traits associated with Jewish mid-rash, the practice of creating new scripture by rewriting OT scripture. There is an obvious similarity between Moses and Jesus as saviors of their people. Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years Jesus wandered in the desert and was tested by the “Devil” for 40 days. The number 40 reoccurs numerous times in scripture.  An example of mid-rash can be found in the original Garden of Eden story found in Ezekiel 28: 13. That part of Ezekiel was rewritten into a new story and placed in Genesis. Scholars know Ezekiel was written before Genesis because Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity. The creation story found in Genesis is actually modified Babylonian theology and that is understandable because the Bible indicates the Hebrews were held captive or in exile in Babylon for approximately 70+ years. They became familiar with Babylonian culture & religion and apparently adopted some of it.

 

Even though social media was primitive how difficult would it be to manufacture another story about still another Jewish Messiah? Jewish Messiah’s were relatively plentiful at that time, but they were anarchists that started many rebellions against the Romans.

One of the theories floating around is that select Roman aristocrats conspired with some Jewish intellectuals & religious leaders to create a different kind of Messianic story as a way of preserving the Israeli nation and culture from extermination by the Romans. This new Messiah would be a pacifist, a peacekeeper instead of an anarchist. He would preach and teach loving your enemy and to respect their authority. The 13^th Chapter of Romans is all about respecting authority claiming God put them on the throne as Kings and only God can remove them.

 The story would almost certainly have to place this Messiah’s existence earlier in time, maybe a hundred years earlier. This Messiah had already lived, completed his mission, was crucified but rose again from the dead but his message of love and tolerance still lives on. This Messiah was believed to be the actual Son of the living Jewish God who was send by His Father to save his people from their sins & foreign invaders. This Messiah’s message told them to change their rebellious nature and become a people of tolerance, respect, and to submit to authority because God had put those foreign Kings on their throne and God would remove them when their time came.

Once the gospel story began being transmitted orally it was bound to spread. With time and increasing knowledge of this Messiah and his message it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to believe that people began to believe this Messiah lived, died, and came back to life in their life time.

Dying and rising demigods were common in many religions, so this would not have been an unbelievable possibility. A real live breathing Messiah simply wasn’t necessary and would probably hinder the message and intent of the mission.

It is either that, or the gospel story is essentially true and historically accurate. Which is the more plausible supposition?

[Joshpantera]

That topic is what originally brought me here. I was moderating for author DM Murdock's freethoughtnation forums and someone posted a link to ex-C. And was upset because some posters here were trashing her work and left an example. So I joined and took issue with the said posters. I really liked the site, however, so I've stuck around. For what ever the reason, the said posters no longer post here. I came in guns blazing with mythicist theory positions. At the time I was heavily involved in addressing apologists and atheist / agnostic historicity proponents. And it takes a clever way of looking at things when you're facing both theists and atheists at the same time. Especially when you're atheistic yourself and the squabble is in house in the respect. 

 

I'm going to quote you and then add my own perspective of experience with this debate:

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

There are definite reasons to consider that a mythical Jesus is a plausible hypothesis

 

 

1.       As far as I can determine no evidence has yet to be found of any eyewitnesses to any of the events that are written in the Gospels.

 

True, as far as I know. There are no contemporary eye witness accounts that exist today. The epistles and gospels are not eyewitness accounts as many academic theologians well know. 

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

2.       As far as I can determine there is no incontrovertible evidence that any of the disciples ever existed in the flesh either.

 

True, as far as I know. This is based on assumption. There's no contemporary evidence or witness preserved, nothing from the Romans, Greeks, or Jews about these men or there executions or what have you. No record of it outside of the bible. Josephus is riddled with forgery and problems as far as using him as a source. Plus, he wasn't contemporary so that's after the fact hearsay even if it isn't a complete forgery. 

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

3.       Again, as far as I can determine, there are no records, outside the gospels, that anyone ever encountered, or even heard of, a human being known as Jesus of Nazareth at the time he supposedly lived and walked on this earth. His name, of course, would have been Joshua not Jesus. He didn’t become Jesus until the gospel story was translated into Greek because there was no Greek word for Joshua.

 

True, again. Ehrman shows that some things don't add up unless the story was translated into Greek. Aside from that I'd assume that it was created in Greek from the outset and there was no Hebrew version previous. That doesn't prove anything other than the story could have been made up previous to a Greek translation.

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

4.       According to the Apostle Paul’s writing, assuming he was a real person, he apparently never even heard of an earthly Jesus. Paul’s Jesus was a spiritual being.

 

That's the major point of this. The Earl Doherty / Richard Carrier hypothesis starts with that fact. And that Paul's authentic letters are older than the gospels. The oldest version of the Jesus myth doesn't focus on historicity and earthly details. That was good cause for investigation.

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

5.       The gospel story has identifiable traits associated with Jewish mid-rash, the practice of creating new scripture by rewriting OT scripture. There is an obvious similarity between Moses and Jesus as saviors of their people. Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years Jesus wandered in the desert and was tested by the “Devil” for 40 days. The number 40 reoccurs numerous times in scripture.  An example of mid-rash can be found in the original Garden of Eden story found in Ezekiel 28: 13. That part of Ezekiel was rewritten into a new story and placed in Genesis. Scholars know Ezekiel was written before Genesis because Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity. The creation story found in Genesis is actually modified Babylonian theology and that is understandable because the Bible indicates the Hebrews were held captive or in exile in Babylon for approximately 70+ years. They became familiar with Babylonian culture & religion and apparently adopted some of it.

 

Yes, the midrash is a polite way of saying that they quote mined the Jewish scriptures and used quotes completely out of the original context. Ehrman thinks this is because a real Jesus died and not knowing what to do about it afterwards, his remaining followers took to the scriptures looking for clues about him in the scriptures to make sense of it all. So the midrash goes in two directions, pro-historicity and pro-mythological - depending on the perspective of the person interpreting the midrash. I tend to think that Ehrman's usage makes less sense. 

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

It is either that, or the gospel story is essentially true and historically accurate. Which is the more plausible supposition?

 

The details are foggy. Too foggy to figure out unless we found more evidence. As far as I'm concerned, after arguing about this for over a decade, is that Jesus is best viewed from an agnostic perspective, perhaps the same perspective that agnostic atheists have about god. We don't know if any gods exist and we'll lack in positive belief until such time as substantial evidence arises. Likewise, we have no idea if the Jesus of the Epistles and Gospels was one fixed person, or a combination of different personality types rolled into one. The conflict and contradiction tends to appeal to the latter. So at the end of the day I don't know, nor does anyone else, if the Gospel Jesus existed historically as one fixed person. And I'll lack in positive belief in the historical Jesus until something substantial arises. I don't see any reason to blindly accept the Bible at it's word, or forged and non-contemporary scraps like Josephus. That's what people are doing when they accept the historical story, whether religious or secular personalities. The secularists hate that, but it's true. They're essentially taking historicity on faith along side of the believers...

[Geezer]

JP have you read any of Robert Price books that theorize a mythical Christ? 

[Joshpantera]

I don't have any of his books. I have had private message conversations with Price though. I've watched a lot of his youtube videos and he had interaction with DM Murdock while she was alive. I had some ideas that I wanted to run by him so I wrote him a few times. These ideas had to do with John the Baptist. He agreed with me that the verse, "He who comes after me is greater than me, because he was before me," seems to be part of the celestial mythos.

 

In particular another reference to the precession of the equinoxes. The month of Pisces (Jesus) comes after the month of Aquarius (John) during the annual year. But during the precession of the equinoxes that role is reversed. Pisces comes before Aquarius in the world age / Aeon scheme, also known as the Great Year. 

 

So, "He (Pisces) who comes after me (Aquarius) is GREATER than me because he (Pisces) was before me (Aquarius).

 

Price agreed that this language is very obscure and probably is another trace of the celestial mythos that usually goes unnoticed. But this stuff is mainly intuitive. It's hard to hammer down in terms of factual or absolute. From my experience I feel that there's something to the celestial mythos and astrotheology, that's why I assisted DM Murdock for years trying to promote that aspect of the christian mythology. But at the end of the day it doesn't prove Jesus never existed. It just shows a means by which Jesus could have been mythological at first and historicized later. But because of it's usage in the claim that Jesus probably never existed, people resist the celestial mythos thinking that admitting or acknowledging that much about the NT automatically admits that Jesus never existed, when it isn't really that cut and dry. He could have existed and yet people could also have used him to create these celestial myths after the fact. 

 

These were the sort of conversations I had with Price years ago....

[♦ Fuego ♦]

From another posting, I saw something that made me think for the first time that he was a real guy in Nazareth. They had to invent a way for him to come from Bethlehem, so the whole census story was told. But no one makes people go back to their home towns to be counted, they want to know how many are there NOW for taxing and other bureaucratic stuff. So it sounds like they may have had a popular guru for a while who may have thought he was something special, but none of the miracle stories were reported by anyone but the cult. And as we've seen from the Mormons, we can't trust much about what cults write about their leaders.

[Joshpantera]

There wasn't much of anything in Nazareth during the early 1st century. That's what the myth proponents will argue. There's a whole study just on archaeology of early 1st century Nazareth that supports the argument. 

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

 

In the Greek New Testament no fewer than eleven variant spellings are used for Nazarene, Nazarean and Nazareth. In total the words occur thirty-one times. Though you would never guess from the English translations, on nineteen occasions Nazarene or Nazarean, not Nazareth, is intended. And in the Gospel of Mark, all four later occurences (1.24; 16.6; 10.47;14.67) the word used is Nazarene, not Nazareth.

Clearly, "Jesus the Nazarene" in the original tale became "Jesus, a resident of Nazareth" in the updated story of Matthew and Luke. Indeed, there are indications that an early layer in the development of Mark favoured Capernaum as the hometown of Jesus (home of the six most prominent disciples, venue for several key miracles, etc.).

 

The whole Nazareth thing appears to be part of the midrash. Samson was of the Nazorite religious sect. Making Jesus a Nazarene is midrash, misunderstood and then changed to read as a person from a town that existed later in time, but not so much during the time ascribed to the said person. 

[Storm]

Quote

Josephus is riddled with forgery and problems as far as using him as a source.

There is irony in this statement, because I believe Ehrman and Carrier both espouse that "Luke" actually used Josephus as a source in his Gospel. I understand that it was likely not as corrupted (if at all) when it was used as a source. But i couldn't help but point this out.

 

I am unsure as to whether or not I think a man Jesus actually existed. I am perplexed because so many scholars argue that there is so much evidence that he did exist, that its simply absurd to even question his existence. But, i have yet to see anything that conclusively shows that he did exist. I have seen people extrapolate information and deduce that he likely existed, but what I have seen from them is still subject to interpretation. Add to that fact is the notion that to eschew Jesus as a person goes against the academy of Scholarly consensus and will probably get you isolated from grants and desirable educational jobs.

 

It still seems to me, that a perfect storm of situations, beliefs and cultural influences came together at the right time in history for this to become more than it would typically have in other situations. Throw in to that mix the way humans think and behave in packs and how groupthink affects our lives in ways we don't realize, and we have the perfect mix of everything to allow this idea to continue to thrive and exist despite the issue of no, as I see it, conclusive evidence to support it.

[Geezer]

I'm sorry to learn that DM Murdock passed away. She will be missed as will her work. 

[Joshpantera]

She and Price had made friends and he wrote the forward in her book Christ In Egypt: the Horus-Jesus Connection. 

 

I mean to read through Prices actual work. Where should I start? I don't need anything introductory, just point me towards the meaty content. 

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, Storm said:

There is irony in this statement, because I believe Ehrman and Carrier both espouse that "Luke" actually used Josephus as a source in his Gospel. I understand that it was likely not as corrupted (if at all) when it was used as a source. But i couldn't help but point this out.

 

I am unsure as to whether or not I think a man Jesus actually existed. I am perplexed because so many scholars argue that there is so much evidence that he did exist, that its simply absurd to even question his existence. But, i have yet to see anything that conclusively shows that he did exist. I have seen people extrapolate information and deduce that he likely existed, but what I have seen from them is still subject to interpretation. Add to that fact is the notion that to eschew Jesus as a person goes against the academy of Scholarly consensus and will probably get you isolated from grants and desirable educational jobs.

 

It still seems to me, that a perfect storm of situations, beliefs and cultural influences came together at the right time in history for this to become more than it would typically have in other situations. Throw in to that mix the way humans think and behave in packs and how groupthink affects our lives in ways we don't realize, and we have the perfect mix of everything to allow this idea to continue to thrive and exist despite the issue of no, as I see it, conclusive evidence to support it.

 

Another dimension to Luke, I've read that Marcion's Gospel likely didn't copy Luke and exclude content, but more likely was the original and the gospel of Luke copies Marcion's gospel and then adds content. That makes it a second century writing, which, could easily have ties to using the late 1st century Josephus as a source. I don't know if Robert Price utilizes this info or not. 

[Geezer]

4 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

She and Price had made friends and he wrote the forward in her book Christ In Egypt: the Horus-Jesus Connection. 

 

I mean to read through Prices actual work. Where should I start? I don't need anything introductory, just point me towards the meaty content. 

 

Lots of books to chose from. The Incredable Shrinking Son of Man, The Human Bible NT, The Christ Myth & It's Problems

He has written about the Apostle Paul too, if that interest you.

 

Just go to Amazon Kindle Store & type Robert M.Price. I will note Price is not particularly easy to read, he tends to write to other scholars more so than the general public, but his books are definitely interesting.

[Storm]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Another dimension to Luke, I've read that Marcion's Gospel likely didn't copy Luke and exclude content, but more likely was the original and the gospel of Luke copies Marcion's gospel and then adds content. That makes it a second century writing, which, could easily have ties to using the late 1st century Josephus as a source. I don't know if Robert Price utilizes this info or not. 

It is my understanding that Richard Pervo believes that Luke-Acts were early to mid second century compositions, which lends credence to your statement.

[Geezer]

UPDATE: I just found the book that brought this subject to my attention, and I've order it. It's available on Amazon. I ordered the kindle addition $8.95

 

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus

By Joseph Atwill

Was Jesus the invention of a Roman emperor? The author of this ground-breaking book believes he was. "Caesar’s Messiah" reveals the key to a new and revolutionary understanding of Christian origins.

The clues leading to its startling conclusions are found in the writings of the first-century historian Flavius Josephus,whose "Wars of the Jews" is one of the only historical chronicles of this period. Closely comparing the work of Josephus with the New Testament Gospels, "Caesar’s Messiah" demonstrates that the Romans directed the writing of both. Their purpose: to offer a vision of a “peaceful Messiah” who would serve as an alternative to the revolutionary leaders who were rocking first-century Israel and threatening Rome.

Similarly, "Caesar’s Messiah" will rock our understanding of Christian history as it reveals that Jesus was a fictional character portrayed in four Gospels written not by Christians but Romans. This Flavian Signature edition adds Atwill’s latest discoveries of numerous parallel events in sequence which ultimately reveal the identity of the true authors of the Gospels

 

[Storm]

1 hour ago, Geezer said:

UPDATE: I just found the book that brought this subject to my attention, and I've order it. It's available on Amazon. I ordered the kindle addition $8.95

 

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus

By Joseph Atwill

Was Jesus the invention of a Roman emperor? The author of this ground-breaking book believes he was. "Caesar’s Messiah" reveals the key to a new and revolutionary understanding of Christian origins.

The clues leading to its startling conclusions are found in the writings of the first-century historian Flavius Josephus,whose "Wars of the Jews" is one of the only historical chronicles of this period. Closely comparing the work of Josephus with the New Testament Gospels, "Caesar’s Messiah" demonstrates that the Romans directed the writing of both. Their purpose: to offer a vision of a “peaceful Messiah” who would serve as an alternative to the revolutionary leaders who were rocking first-century Israel and threatening Rome.

Similarly, "Caesar’s Messiah" will rock our understanding of Christian history as it reveals that Jesus was a fictional character portrayed in four Gospels written not by Christians but Romans. This Flavian Signature edition adds Atwill’s latest discoveries of numerous parallel events in sequence which ultimately reveal the identity of the true authors of the Gospels

 

Robert Price has debunked this idea. If I remember correctly, Atwill isn't even a historian or anywhere near being qualified to be an expert in this subject. I think he is a patent lawyer or something. There's a "The Thinking Atheist" podcast with Dr. Price as the guest and they explore this and other Jesus myth theories and such. 

[Geezer]

1 hour ago, Storm said:

Robert Price has debunked this idea. If I remember correctly, Atwill isn't even a historian or anywhere near being qualified to be an expert in this subject. I think he is a patent lawyer or something. There's a "The Thinking Atheist" podcast with Dr. Price as the guest and they explore this and other Jesus myth theories and such. 

 

I'm no scholar but Atwill's supposition makes more sense than anything else I've read about the origins of the gospel. It's certainly logical, plausible, & the parallels are definitely there. Atwill has clearly researched this thoroughly so I'm reluctant to dismiss it until I read why Price & others have rejected it. 

 

Earl Doherty isn't a scholar either, but I respect his work. D.M. Murdock's suppositions were often questioned too. So far Atwill's version of the origins of the gospel pass the smell test, at least for me. I simply find his theory too believable to dismiss it out of hand. I admit my prejudice in that I'm convinced Jesus was a fictional character & Atwill's book offers a believable scenario for a fictional Jesus & well as how the gospels originated. 

 

But I follow the evidence so if someone presents evidence that Atwill is wrong then I will accept that & seek other alternatives.

[Storm]

11 hours ago, Geezer said:

 

I'm no scholar but Atwill's supposition makes more sense than anything else I've read about the origins of the gospel. It's certainly logical, plausible, & the parallels are definitely there. Atwill has clearly researched this thoroughly so I'm reluctant to dismiss it until I read why Price & others have rejected it. 

 

Earl Doherty isn't a scholar either, but I respect his work. D.M. Murdock's suppositions were often questioned too. So far Atwill's version of the origins of the gospel pass the smell test, at least for me. I simply find his theory too believable to dismiss it out of hand. I admit my prejudice in that I'm convinced Jesus was a fictional character & Atwill's book offers a believable scenario for a fictional Jesus & well as how the gospels originated. 

 

But I follow the evidence so if someone presents evidence that Atwill is wrong then I will accept that & seek other alternatives.

If you finish the book, let us know what you think.

[Geezer]

4 hours ago, Storm said:

If you finish the book, let us know what you think.

 

I will definitely finish the book.I read several chapters last night. One thing seems clear, Atwill has invested years of research into this book. This is not a frivolous work. It seems he has spent years examining the evidence & that has led him to sincerely & passionately believe this is how Christianity originated.

 

I suppose the thing that grabs me the most is that Atwill's interpretation of the evidence makes too much sense to simply dismiss it. My studies convinced me that it was more likely rather than less likely that Jesus was a fictional character & Atwill's research presents a plausible scenario for a fictional Jesus. 

[Jds22]

Here's an interview with Joseph Atwill.

I just found this and haven't listened to it yet so I can't comment.

 

http://skeptiko.com/241-joseph-atwill-repsonds-to-caesars-messiah-critics/

 

Should be interesting.

[Storm]

1 hour ago, Geezer said:

 

I will definitely finish the book.I read several chapters last night. One thing seems clear, Atwill has invested years of research into this book. This is not a frivolous work. It seems he has spent years examining the evidence & that has led him to sincerely & passionately believe this is how Christianity originated.

 

I suppose the thing that grabs me the most is that Atwill's interpretation of the evidence makes too much sense to simply dismiss it. My studies convinced me that it was more likely rather than less likely that Jesus was a fictional character & Atwill's research presents a plausible scenario for a fictional Jesus. 

If I remember correctly, Dr. Price raised some serious questions that really put big holes into Atwill's theory, as did Dr. Carrier as well. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember thinking that Atwill's theory was toast after hearing the counter-arguments to it.

 

Found this article on Patheos. Its worth the read.

[Geezer]

23 minutes ago, Storm said:

If I remember correctly, Dr. Price raised some serious questions that really put big holes into Atwill's theory, as did Dr. Carrier as well. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember thinking that Atwill's theory was toast after hearing the counter-arguments to it.

 

Found this article on Patheos. Its worth the read.

 

Damn! I really liked his theory. Well, like I said, Show me the evidence that Atwill is wrong & you did. Thanks for the link, even though it burst my balloon.  

[Jds22]

Very good read with quality rebuttals.

 

That's a rare thing these days.

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, Geezer said:

 

Damn! I really liked his theory. Well, like I said, Show me the evidence that Atwill is wrong & you did. Thanks for the link, even though it burst my balloon.  

 

Murdock found problems with Atwill as well. I remember going over that several years ago. But I do understand how at first glance it looks like a plausible theory. 

[Geezer]

On March 17, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Murdock found problems with Atwill as well. I remember going over that several years ago. But I do understand how at first glance it looks like a plausible theory. 

 

I am still reading Atwill's book and I gotta say he did his research, and his theory is damn convincing the way he's laying it out. I'm not saying he's right, but he is a good writer & he does a good job defending his theory. It would take a knowledge historian to point out the perceived flaws in his story.

 

His theory may be flawed but he still writes one hell of a good story. 

[Geezer]

I've developed my own theory about this book & author. I can see where Atwill's theory is partially right. The gospels are clearly anti Jewish. Why would Jews write an anti Jewish gospel? Obviously they wouldn't. 

 

Atwill may be wrong when he theorizes that Roman's were involved in creating Jesus as a way of controlling the Jews, but historians note, correctly, Rome had no problem controlling Judea or putting down any rebellion Jewish militants created. They just didn't need the Jews to cooperate with them they had sufficient military strength to force their will on the Jews. 

 

The author's other theory that the Roman's created Jesus as a way of making fun of the Jews & their religion makes a lot more sense. Atwill also theorizes that the gospels were written as satire combined with dark humor. That theory, IMO, is more likely & makes more sense. 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

The answer is that the anti-semetism in the gospels comes from the Greek writing people who wrote them. They seemed unfamiliar with the land in question. The Nazareth problem outlines that. And the possibility of second century composition furthers the issue. These are far removed from the claimed source of the belief system. These things were written down in other parts of the world. And during a time when people blamed the Jewish religious authorities for war. It was anti-semetic in that way. Those "Jews." If you read through the NT keeping in mind every instance where you find some description of "the Jews" as if other, this becomes more apparent. 

 

Atwill seems to have taken this grain of truth and attempted a possible explanation for why it's written that way. But the explanation has been torn up in peer review by other mythicists. 

 

So it seems the answers to these hard questions are still out there awaiting discovery....