Did Jesus Exist?

[qadeshet]

Blood, on 17 Jun 2016 - 5:35 PM, said:

 

 

It's entirely possible that Christianity began with one charismatic person. Since we observe new sects being constantly created in our time, the same social phenomenon was undoubtedly happening in ancient times.

 

Actually, this one of the main aspects of Christian Origins we should try to answer. I suspect that it might have been Paul, or perhaps even Simon Magus. It might even be some failed Apocalyptic Prophet, whose name may have been Yeshua. But I will not trust the authority of Bible Scholars, or their Guild.

[Blood]

So, if most biblical scholars acknowledge so much historical problems and contradictions, how do these scholars continue in their faith as Christians?

 

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that they are getting paid to teach the Bible. Their "faith" is intimately related to their paycheck. 

[qadeshet]

 

So, if most biblical scholars acknowledge so much historical problems and contradictions, how do these scholars continue in their faith as Christians?

 

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that they are getting paid to teach the Bible. Their "faith" is intimately related to their paycheck. 

 

 

That probably has a lot to do with why they keep their jobs.. By the time that they've figured out that their career is based on b.s. it would be a real pain to study hair dressing. But why do they continue in their faith as Christians?They could take a hint from Dr Ehrman, and just declare agnosticism.

[pantheory]

 

At the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, I've personally seen the swords, the helmets, the coins and most importantly, the busts of many Roman figures of the time. There is an entire floor, the size of a football field, dedicated to the Romans. It's my understanding that we have many of the Roman records too, including census records and legal documents. 

 

Of course a crazy street preacher, if he existed, wouldn't be found amongst any of these, but as they say, absence of evidence is not in fact evidence. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the pics. Very beautiful!

[Orbit]

This question has come up a lot lately, so here it is.

 

There is scant non Biblical evidence whatsoever for "Jesus of Nazareth". A person with this epitet is only found in Christian documents. I will give the non-Biblical evidence, and we can look at it.

 

Suetonius (69-140AD)

 

 

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

 

So, was Jesus really Chrestus, and was he in Rome at the time of Claudius? Not much help here.

 

Josephus (37-101AD)

 

Of course we must mention the Testimonium.

 

 

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

 

I don't care if the Testimonium is partly or completely a forgery. All copies opiginate from the copy opened by the Church Father Eusebius. Eusebius, called by some the father of Pious Fraud, is not the most trustworthy of sources. Origen flatly stated that Josephus was not a Christian.

 

Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

 

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

 

Even if the Testimonium were proved to be authentic, Josephus, born in 37 AD, was born too late to be called as a witness.

 

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

 

 

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

 

So Pliny "roughly interregated" two Christian women to find out what they believed. I don't think he just pushed them around a little. I wish that today's Christians took the same Oath. This 2nd Century mention does little to help with finding "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

Tacitus (56-120AD)

 

The Annals of Tacitus provide us with little help.

 

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

 

Again, not much help, even if authentic. Tacitus wrote his Annals ca. 116 AD.

 

How can Bible Scholars declare such certainty regarding the Historical Jesus? Maybe by resorting to various methods, like Criteria and Literary Criticism, while examining the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is almost the precise defination of Circular Reasoning. Anyone who has the inclination to support the contention that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed is welcome to do so.

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

My answer to this comes as a result of my anthropology degree, not from the usual religious/historical basis. In folklore, there is usually a basis in truth for widespread legends. Take Santa Claus, for example. He was based on the historical St. Nicholas and then heavily embellished. The city of Troy from Homer's epics was thought to be fiction/myth until Heinrich Schlemmer used textual cues to discover and excavate it in the 1800s.  I find it quite reasonable to assume Jesus is the product of the same process as Santa Claus. An obscure, failed messiah became mythologized into legend. It doesn't mean that what is attributed to him was ever objectively true.

[qadeshet]

 

This question has come up a lot lately, so here it is.

 

There is scant non Biblical evidence whatsoever for "Jesus of Nazareth". A person with this epitet is only found in Christian documents. I will give the non-Biblical evidence, and we can look at it.

 

Suetonius (69-140AD)

 

 

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

 

So, was Jesus really Chrestus, and was he in Rome at the time of Claudius? Not much help here.

 

Josephus (37-101AD)

 

Of course we must mention the Testimonium.

 

 

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

 

I don't care if the Testimonium is partly or completely a forgery. All copies opiginate from the copy opened by the Church Father Eusebius. Eusebius, called by some the father of Pious Fraud, is not the most trustworthy of sources. Origen flatly stated that Josephus was not a Christian.

 

Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

 

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

 

Even if the Testimonium were proved to be authentic, Josephus, born in 37 AD, was born too late to be called as a witness.

 

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

 

 

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

 

So Pliny "roughly interregated" two Christian women to find out what they believed. I don't think he just pushed them around a little. I wish that today's Christians took the same Oath. This 2nd Century mention does little to help with finding "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

Tacitus (56-120AD)

 

The Annals of Tacitus provide us with little help.

 

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

 

Again, not much help, even if authentic. Tacitus wrote his Annals ca. 116 AD.

 

How can Bible Scholars declare such certainty regarding the Historical Jesus? Maybe by resorting to various methods, like Criteria and Literary Criticism, while examining the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is almost the precise defination of Circular Reasoning. Anyone who has the inclination to support the contention that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed is welcome to do so.

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

My answer to this comes as a result of my anthropology degree, not from the usual religious/historical basis. In folklore, there is usually a basis in truth for widespread legends. Take Santa Claus, for example. He was based on the historical St. Nicholas and then heavily embellished. The city of Troy from Homer's epics was thought to be fiction/myth until Heinrich Schlemmer used textual cues to discover and excavate it in the 1800s.  I find it quite reasonable to assume Jesus is the product of the same process as Santa Claus. An obscure, failed messiah became mythologized into legend. It doesn't mean that what is attributed to him was ever objectively true.

 

 

I think we are all fine with this statement: "Some failed apocalyptic Prophet, maybe named Yeshua, had some followers, got himself killed, and stayed dead". What I have a problem with is the following: "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. Rather than "Some failed apocalyptic Prophet...", :"Jesus of Nazareth" is a specific character in an epic tale.

[Orbit]

 

 

This question has come up a lot lately, so here it is.

 

There is scant non Biblical evidence whatsoever for "Jesus of Nazareth". A person with this epitet is only found in Christian documents. I will give the non-Biblical evidence, and we can look at it.

 

Suetonius (69-140AD)

 

 

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

 

So, was Jesus really Chrestus, and was he in Rome at the time of Claudius? Not much help here.

 

Josephus (37-101AD)

 

Of course we must mention the Testimonium.

 

 

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

 

I don't care if the Testimonium is partly or completely a forgery. All copies opiginate from the copy opened by the Church Father Eusebius. Eusebius, called by some the father of Pious Fraud, is not the most trustworthy of sources. Origen flatly stated that Josephus was not a Christian.

 

Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

 

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

 

Even if the Testimonium were proved to be authentic, Josephus, born in 37 AD, was born too late to be called as a witness.

 

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

 

 

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

 

So Pliny "roughly interregated" two Christian women to find out what they believed. I don't think he just pushed them around a little. I wish that today's Christians took the same Oath. This 2nd Century mention does little to help with finding "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

Tacitus (56-120AD)

 

The Annals of Tacitus provide us with little help.

 

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

 

Again, not much help, even if authentic. Tacitus wrote his Annals ca. 116 AD.

 

How can Bible Scholars declare such certainty regarding the Historical Jesus? Maybe by resorting to various methods, like Criteria and Literary Criticism, while examining the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is almost the precise defination of Circular Reasoning. Anyone who has the inclination to support the contention that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed is welcome to do so.

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

My answer to this comes as a result of my anthropology degree, not from the usual religious/historical basis. In folklore, there is usually a basis in truth for widespread legends. Take Santa Claus, for example. He was based on the historical St. Nicholas and then heavily embellished. The city of Troy from Homer's epics was thought to be fiction/myth until Heinrich Schlemmer used textual cues to discover and excavate it in the 1800s.  I find it quite reasonable to assume Jesus is the product of the same process as Santa Claus. An obscure, failed messiah became mythologized into legend. It doesn't mean that what is attributed to him was ever objectively true.

 

 

I think we are all fine with this statement: "Some failed apocalyptic Prophet, maybe named Yeshua, had some followers, got himself killed, and stayed dead". What I have a problem with is the following: "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. Rather than "Some failed apocalyptic Prophet...", :"Jesus of Nazareth" is a specific character in an epic tale.

 

Jesus of Nazareth is the mythologized character. He existed in the same way Santa Claus does.

[qadeshet]

 

 

 

This question has come up a lot lately, so here it is.

 

There is scant non Biblical evidence whatsoever for "Jesus of Nazareth". A person with this epitet is only found in Christian documents. I will give the non-Biblical evidence, and we can look at it.

 

Suetonius (69-140AD)

 

 

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

 

So, was Jesus really Chrestus, and was he in Rome at the time of Claudius? Not much help here.

 

Josephus (37-101AD)

 

Of course we must mention the Testimonium.

 

 

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

 

I don't care if the Testimonium is partly or completely a forgery. All copies opiginate from the copy opened by the Church Father Eusebius. Eusebius, called by some the father of Pious Fraud, is not the most trustworthy of sources. Origen flatly stated that Josephus was not a Christian.

 

Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

 

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

 

Even if the Testimonium were proved to be authentic, Josephus, born in 37 AD, was born too late to be called as a witness.

 

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

 

 

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

 

So Pliny "roughly interregated" two Christian women to find out what they believed. I don't think he just pushed them around a little. I wish that today's Christians took the same Oath. This 2nd Century mention does little to help with finding "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

Tacitus (56-120AD)

 

The Annals of Tacitus provide us with little help.

 

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

 

Again, not much help, even if authentic. Tacitus wrote his Annals ca. 116 AD.

 

How can Bible Scholars declare such certainty regarding the Historical Jesus? Maybe by resorting to various methods, like Criteria and Literary Criticism, while examining the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is almost the precise defination of Circular Reasoning. Anyone who has the inclination to support the contention that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed is welcome to do so.

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

My answer to this comes as a result of my anthropology degree, not from the usual religious/historical basis. In folklore, there is usually a basis in truth for widespread legends. Take Santa Claus, for example. He was based on the historical St. Nicholas and then heavily embellished. The city of Troy from Homer's epics was thought to be fiction/myth until Heinrich Schlemmer used textual cues to discover and excavate it in the 1800s.  I find it quite reasonable to assume Jesus is the product of the same process as Santa Claus. An obscure, failed messiah became mythologized into legend. It doesn't mean that what is attributed to him was ever objectively true.

 

 

I think we are all fine with this statement: "Some failed apocalyptic Prophet, maybe named Yeshua, had some followers, got himself killed, and stayed dead". What I have a problem with is the following: "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. Rather than "Some failed apocalyptic Prophet...", :"Jesus of Nazareth" is a specific character in an epic tale.

 

Jesus of Nazareth is the mythologized character. He existed in the same way Santa Claus does.

 

 

Or Harry Potter.

[mwc]

Usually within discussions about the "historical Jesus," a minimal characterization is that we're investigating the existence of an itinerant Galilean Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua/Jesus who was crucified by the Romans - and presumably who lived around the time of Pilate's stint as governor.

 

Brother Jeff, this may be unrealistic, but can you summarize for us those arguments of Bart Ehrman that you find particularly cogent? How does Erhman get "behind the gospels" to what he may suppose was the "real guy"? If it turns out that the best Ehrman has are Criteria of Authenticity, those will not be much to go by.

     I have this book.  According to Ehrman, under the section "Methods for Establishing Authentic Tradition" he has three sub-sections titled "Contextual Credibility," "Multiple Attestation" and "The Criterion of Dissimilarity."

 

     Under the first of these sub-sections he mentions the criteria of authenticity but that's the only place I see it mentioned (I have the e-book and searched for it).  This is what he says: "I need to be clear that of the three criteria of authenticity I will be discussing here, this one alone is negative. It shows, not what Jesus probably did say or do, but what he almost certainly did not. If a tradition of Jesus passes this first criterion, it is possible. But it is not necessarily probable. To establish probability, we need recourse to the other two criteria. And a tradition is even more probable if it can pass not just one but both of them."

 

     I'm assuming these three sub-sections are the three criteria of authenticity.  That being the case then that appears to be what he bases his entire argument upon because he immediately launches into the early history of Jesus.

 

          mwc

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thanks, mwc. As I said before, I don't "work on" this stuff, but from what I've read, I understand that the Criteria have come under very heavy fire from other biblical scholars in the last decade or two. That's because the gospels are propaganda. So it is only assumptions on our part about what would or would not be taken as "embarrassing" to the propangandists. And so on.

 

Still, I can't make a strong alternative hypothesis. The "mythicist" case is made much better by others - our friend Blood, for example!

[qadeshet]

For those of your who interrested, Neil Godfrey, an interrested amateur like most of us, is much more well read than me. I'll give a few links if anyone wants to bone up. This stuff interrests me. if you want the short answer...It is possible that some failed apocalyptic Prophet, maybe named Yeshua, had some followers, got himself killed, and stayed dead...The End.

 

Historical Methodology

 

Evangelical Scholars and the Limits of Historical Criticism

 

The scholars in this volume believe that we should approach Scripture as a collection of historical texts. . . . As evangelicals, we believe that there needs to be space for an approach to Scripture that is historical critical.

That credal statement comes from Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism by Christopher M. Hayes and Christopher B. Ansberry.

 

If Scepticism Does Not Come Naturally. . . It’s Worth Fighting For

 

I like to think that “I don’t know” can very often be a very sound and sane place to be. If the choice is between believing in an unfounded idea and suspending all judgment until we have more evidence then surely the latter is the only sensible option. The words in the above header are Henige’s. He adds that it “merely begs the question of sufficient evidence” — which is my own point just stated.

 

What Biblical Scholars Say About Historical Jesus Studies

 

I have never been without theological motives or interests.

Until a few years ago, however, I had not attempted to pursue those interests with much diligence or to examine my motives with much care. Recent circumstances have pushed me out of my historical-critical pose. After accepting a teaching post at a Protestant theological seminary,

I soon discovered that future pastors are not interested in undertaking historical labor without the prospect of theological reward. In order, then, to keep my audience, I was compelled to complement my critical inquiries with theological deliberations.

Dale C. Allison Jr.. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Kindle Locations 20-23). Kindle Edition.

 

Getting Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Historical Evidence Backwards

 

What the Professor means by an ability to accept the ambiguity and uncertainty involved in historical inquiry is that when it comes to Jesus then the historian must acquire the ability to draw dogmatic conclusions from debatable evidence.

I think our Professor has misconstrued the truism about historical inquiry dealing with probabilities and uncertainties.

[qadeshet]

Since we are agreed that some failed apocalyptic Prophet, maybe, possibly, or probably named Yeshua, who had some followers, died and stayed dead. It's hard to even debate that position.

 

So, can we get this statement any more specific, without putting any faith in Bible Scholars?

 

Option 1:

 

From TrueScotsman

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2

 

This is a little less certain. Notice "most likely" in the statement. I would change "most likely" to possible. Still, not much room for debate. Notice that "Nazareth is not mentioned. Does anyone think that I'm nitpicking? Because the specific character "Jesus of Nazareth" is a literary character, not a general historical preacher, and, throughout the 1st Century, found only in the Bible. If Christianity possibly began with a visonary Christ figure, like from Paul's visions, then we have to weigh probabilities. Which explanation better fits the facts that we have? Right now I'm sitting at 50/50. Why is Carrier at 33%? Because his Jesus is more specific than the one above: For Prof Carrier, Jesus had to have 12 followers, and had to get in trouble with, and executed by, Pilate.

 

Option 2:

 

2. Christianity began with a visionary, maybe Paul, who wanted to tell everyone about his trip to the 3rd Heavon and his friend Christ Jesus. Many years later, his followers created some alegorical teaching stories which later became taken literally. According to the Gnostic Marcion, who created the first New Testament, Paul was the Founder of Gnosticism. To Marcion, the idea that Jesus ever lived a physical life on Earth was blasphemy. And the god in Eden was only the Demiurge, not the One True God.

 

So, can we increase the probability? We have the 1st four Centuries to explore. My next task will be to list the objections of Celcius. We'll see if Christians have found any new arguments.

[qadeshet]

"There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great!"-A Christian

 

Why don't we pesky Atheists just shut up? Really, why should we care? After all, Christianity isn't all that bad.

[Vigile]

"There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great!"-A Christian

 

 

 

Last I checked, there are no contemporary coins with Jesus on them, or any archaeological evidence whatsoever. 

 

[qadeshet]

 

"There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great!"-A Christian

 

 

 

Last I checked, there are no contemporary coins with Jesus on them, or any archaeological evidence whatsoever. 

 

 

 

This is why I put much greater weight on contemporary physical evidence. Don't forget the Babylonian Gate inscription welcoming Alexander to Babylon. What if we had such a gate inscription welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem? "Welcome Jesus, great hero!"

[qadeshet]

From Contra Selsum Ch 1:

 

gnossis.org

 

The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that "of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws." And his wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed the "love-feasts " of the Christians, as if they had their origin in the common danger, and were more binding than any oaths.

 

Feel free to read Origen's response, but isn't this pretty much what Early Christians did?

 

gnossis.org

 

Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz., Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. And with an appearance of fairness, he does not reproach Christianity because of its origin among barbarians, but gives the latter credit for their ability in discovering (such) doctrines. To this, however, he adds the statement, that the Greeks are more skilful than any others in judging, establishing, and reducing to practice the discoveries of barbarous nations

 

Once again, I have little argument with Celsus.

 

gnossis.org

 

After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching and practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do this to,some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is imminent, he compares their dangers with those which were encountered by such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and here he might have mentioned Pythagoras as well, and other philosophers.

 

Please read Pliny's account.

 

gnossis.org

 

Let us notice also how he thinks to cast discredit upon our system of morals, alleging that it is only common to us with other philosophers, and no venerable or new branch of instruction.

 

Plato tells us to treat others as we would like to be treated. There is nothing new in Christianity.

 

 

Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, On the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this effect: "That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to those who would enter into conversation with houses."

 

Celsus sounds like a pretty wise man to me.

[qadeshet]

Contra Celsus, Part 2:

 

Chap VI:

 

The Gnostic Society Library

 

After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown to me, Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of (miraculous) power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel evil spirits by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to malign the Gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him; for the repetition of these has frequently been the means of driving demons out of men, especially when those who repeated them did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit

 

Seems that, according to Origen, it's through the name of Jesus that Demons are expelled. Sounds more like clever fraud.

 

Chap VII:

 

The Gnostic Society Library

 

Moreover, since he frequently calls the Christian doctrine a secret system (of belief), we must confute him on this point also, since almost the entire world is better acquainted with what Christians preach than with the favourite opinions of philosophers. For who is ignorant of the statement that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He was crucified, and that His resurrection is an article of faith among many, and that a general judgment is announced to come, in which the wicked are to be punished according to their deserts, and the righteous to be duly rewarded? And yet the mystery of the resurrection, not being understood, is made a subject of ridicule among unbelievers.

 

I would think that the inner secrets of the cult were only revealed to insiders.

 

Chap VIII:

 

The Gnostic Society Library

 

It is with a certain eloquence, indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death, in the following words: "And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account, he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions." And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that "he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it."

 

Martyr's are stupid? Why would we think that?

 

Chap IX:

 

The Gnostic Society Library

 

He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should follow reason and a rational guide, since he who assents to opinions without following this course is very liable to be deceived. And he compares inconsiderate believers to Metragyrtae, and soothsayers, and Mithrae, and Sabbadians, and to anything else that one may fall in with, and to the phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or demons.

 

Sounds like a resonable man. I think I like him.

[Blood]

It's useful to look at what Bible scholars say about Old Testament books to possibly understand the mindset both of the authors of the New Testament, and the scholars of same. Was it necessary to be an "historian" to be a Biblical writer? Bible scholars certainly seem to think so, at least when it comes to gospel writers. The assumption that Mark et al. were attempting to preserve "oral history" of the anonymous "followers" of Jesus underpins all New Testament scholarship. Although it is now acceptable within the field -- at least at secular universities -- to question nearly everything about the gospels, this core assumption cannot be questioned without severe academic censure. There cannot be any possibility that Mark et al. were creative writers. It is not a permissible thought. 

 

Does the same hold true for the Old Testament? Surely the same general literary picture applied: great men (who are unquestionably historic) inspired followers who eventually attracted scribes to preserve the words and deeds of the great man. 

 

The Book of Daniel is a great test case. It tells the story of a Jewish man who lived in the Sixth Century in the court of Nebuchadrezzar II, an historic king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Daniel is a wise man who is portrayed as quite human, though able to perform apparent miracles because YHWH is watching over him. He later experiences visions and makes prophecies about the future, just like Jesus. 

 

Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible, 1994) by John J. Collins is one of the major commentaries about this book. John J. Collins is the Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism & Interpretation at Yale Divinity School. What does he have to say? 

 

According to the consensus of modern critical scholarship, the stories about Daniel and his friends are legendary in character, and the hero himself most probably never existed.

 

 

Legendary stories, and the hero himself "most probably" didn't exist. So, according to "the consensus of modern critical scholarship," it was possible for a Biblical author to simply invent not just the hero of the story, but all of the stories contained within the book. So the Book of Daniel is 100% fictional. No oral history, no followers, no scribes, no biographers, no "schools" were necessary. Just an author with an imagination. 

 

But surely if some ancient historian referred to Daniel as a person or author, that must be taken as evidence that Daniel existed, right? 

 

Josephus already distinguished between the stories about Daniel, which he treated as an historical source, and Daniel’s writings or “prophecy.”

 

 

 

So Josephus the historian thought Daniel was not only a real person, but actually wrote at least half the book attributed to him. And yet Josephus's testimony is completely discounted by critical Bible scholars. How strange. I thought that if an ancient historian mentioned somebody, and didn't attribute any miracles to the person, that was de facto "evidence" for the person's existence. 

 

After Porphyry, the authenticity of Daniel remained unchallenged down to the seventeenth century, when Uriel da Costa (Gabriel Acosta) ascribed the book to the Pharisees because of its belief in resurrection. In the eighteenth century, Porphyry’s line of argument was taken up by the English Deist Anthony Collinsand later by the German Corrodi, and it was incorporated into the early nineteenth-century commentaries of Bertholdt and von Lengerke. Heated polemic raged throughout the nineteenth century. The conservative view of the issue was epitomized in the famous utterance of E. B. Pusey: “The book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-ground between faith and unbelief. It admits of no half-way measures. It is either Divine or an imposture…. The writer, were he not Daniel, must have lied on a most frightful scale.”

 

According to this 19th century scholar, if the author was not Daniel, then he "must have lied on a frightful scale." 

 

This is a brief but, I hope, useful demonstration of the wild fluctuations of Biblical scholarship. It was quite possible for Biblical writers to completely invent heroes, authors, prophets, and stories -- but not New Testament authors. They have a golden halo around them, a force-field, because they cannot be allowed to "have lied on a most frightful scale."

[qadeshet]

Thanks Blood. Great post. What happened to OT Scholar Thomas L Thompson is also important. Thanks to his work, a paradigm shift has occured in OT studies. At the cost of his career.

 

This is from our usual defender of Historicity, Dr Mcgrath.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/07/an-odd-diatribe-from-thomas-l-thompson.html

 

He points out, as he does in his book, that Jesus in the Gospels is depicted using motifs and echoes from literature about earlier royal figures.

 

The Gospel writers created their NT characters by borrowing from the OT. For those who don't know, Joshua and Jesus are spelled the same in Hebrew, Yeshua(Yod Heh Shin Vah Heh). And what was the name of Moses' "god"? Yahveh(Yod Heh Vau Heh). Just put the letter Shin in the middle of Yahveh and you get Yeshua. Warning, according to Jews, pronouncing the Divine Name correctly will bring the Universe to an end. When a Rabbi is reading outloud from the Tanakh, and comes across the Divine Name, he replaces it with Adonai(Lord).

 

This one is really great. You can create your own Bible character.

 

Creating Biblical Characters-article by Thomas l Thompsom

 

The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel by Thomas l Thompson

 

Thanks again, Blood. It seems we both like this stuff.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I thought McGrath is an atheist. Is he a progressive Christian? I see his blog in your link, qadeshet, is on that part of Patheos.

 

Blood, I chime in, great post. In the spirit of pushing the ball further: you suggest Daniel is a test case. But surely we'd agree that it has more in common with Tobit and Judith and Esther than with supposedly "historical" parts of the OT like I and II Kings. Those books describe events that are also described in non-Hebrew sources: for example, the Tel Dan stele (if it's genuine). That inscription contradicts details in II Kings but does refer to the same complex of events.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

Can the methods that Collins uses on Daniel be transferred to analyze the depiction of, say, Elijah? Would critical OT scholars be prone to hypothesize that Elijah is a legendary, fictional character?

[qadeshet]

I thought McGrath is an atheist. Is he a progressive Christian? I see his blog in your link, qadeshet, is on that part of Patheos.

 

Blood, I chime in, great post. In the spirit of pushing the ball further: you suggest Daniel is a test case. But surely we'd agree that it has more in common with Tobit and Judith and Esther than with supposedly "historical" parts of the OT like I and II Kings. Those books describe events that are also described in non-Hebrew sources: for example, the Tel Dan stele (if it's genuine). That inscription contradicts details in II Kings but does refer to the same complex of events.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

Can the methods that Collins uses on Daniel be transferred to analyze the depiction of, say, Elijah? Would critical OT scholars be prone to hypothesize that Elijah is a legendary, fictional character?

 

Dr McGrath may well be an Atheist, but he, Dr Ehrman, and the guild of Bible Scholars will not allow the question of the Historicity of Jesus to even be asked. It is the line drawn in the sand. Dr Ehrman has gotten so close to this line that he is very unpopular among many Christians. I am skeptical about almost everything, but I have little problem with the Tel Dan stele. It never mentions David, only a particular King who was of the House of (maybe) Dood. The Book of Daniel was probably written in the 2nd Centure BCE, and I haven't given it much thought.

[Blood]

Blood, I chime in, great post. In the spirit of pushing the ball further: you suggest Daniel is a test case. But surely we'd agree that it has more in common with Tobit and Judith and Esther than with supposedly "historical" parts of the OT like I and II Kings. Those books describe events that are also described in non-Hebrew sources: for example, the Tel Dan stele (if it's genuine). That inscription contradicts details in II Kings but does refer to the same complex of events.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

Can the methods that Collins uses on Daniel be transferred to analyze the depiction of, say, Elijah? Would critical OT scholars be prone to hypothesize that Elijah is a legendary, fictional character?

 

 

Good questions, Ficino, which I'll explore in future posts. The main thing I wanted to establish with Daniel is that the "scholarly consensus" can show, in at least one example, that the "history"-like writing in the Bible can be completely ahistorical and fictional, despite appearing to be history writing.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Blood, I chime in, great post. In the spirit of pushing the ball further: you suggest Daniel is a test case. But surely we'd agree that it has more in common with Tobit and Judith and Esther than with supposedly "historical" parts of the OT like I and II Kings. Those books describe events that are also described in non-Hebrew sources: for example, the Tel Dan stele (if it's genuine). That inscription contradicts details in II Kings but does refer to the same complex of events.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

Can the methods that Collins uses on Daniel be transferred to analyze the depiction of, say, Elijah? Would critical OT scholars be prone to hypothesize that Elijah is a legendary, fictional character?

  

Good questions, Ficino, which I'll explore in future posts. The main thing I wanted to establish with Daniel is that the "scholarly consensus" can show, in at least one example, that the "history"-like writing in the Bible can be completely ahistorical and fictional, despite appearing to be history writing.

 

Yes, I agree with your point about Daniel. Do you remember the guy on Biblical forum/early writings, I think his name was Ged, who had colored charts of the prophecies of Daniel and how they are amazingly fulfilled? I never ceased to be amazed (at his falsity or gullibility, not sure which).

 

I'm all ears for what you may think about myth/legend in OT books that present the appearance of history. On the other hand, I would consider Esther a romance, not history genre at all. So no point in going there.

[qadeshet]

 

 

Blood, I chime in, great post. In the spirit of pushing the ball further: you suggest Daniel is a test case. But surely we'd agree that it has more in common with Tobit and Judith and Esther than with supposedly "historical" parts of the OT like I and II Kings. Those books describe events that are also described in non-Hebrew sources: for example, the Tel Dan stele (if it's genuine). That inscription contradicts details in II Kings but does refer to the same complex of events.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

Can the methods that Collins uses on Daniel be transferred to analyze the depiction of, say, Elijah? Would critical OT scholars be prone to hypothesize that Elijah is a legendary, fictional character?

  

Good questions, Ficino, which I'll explore in future posts. The main thing I wanted to establish with Daniel is that the "scholarly consensus" can show, in at least one example, that the "history"-like writing in the Bible can be completely ahistorical and fictional, despite appearing to be history writing.

 

Yes, I agree with your point about Daniel. Do you remember the guy on Biblical forum/early writings, I think his name was Ged, who had colored charts of the prophecies of Daniel and how they are amazingly fulfilled? I never ceased to be amazed (at his falsity or gullibility, not sure which).

 

I'm all ears for what you may think about myth/legend in OT books that present the appearance of history. On the other hand, I would consider Esther a romance, not history genre at all. So no point in going there.

 

 

I can answer the Esther question, ficino. Esther is, in the story, the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, and Mordecai is the god Marduk. This is why the name of "God" is nowhere to be found.

[qadeshet]

Esther = Ishtar: the Pagan Origins of Purim

 

Isis and Horus

 

Please view this image.

 

I not gonna say who Mary and baby Jesus really are.