Was there a Historical Jesus? The IIDB Poll

[Peter Kirby]

There was some issue with the statement that disbelief in a HJ is "common" in another thread. I would like to estimate roughly how common the various opinions are among those on this board. The question is:

Was there a "historical Jesus," as you define the phrase?

The options are:

1. Yes, and I am a Christian.

This option is for most Christians. If you are a Christian who doesn't believe in a HJ, pick one of the options 3-5 below.

2. Yes, and I am not a Christian.

This is for those who think that there was a man Jesus under the myth.

3. No.

This is for those who are of the opinion that there was no "historical Jesus," as they understand what that implies.

4. I think the question is probably undecidable.

This is for those who have given the subject some degree of study and think that there is no resolution in sight, barring a fantastic (and certainly authentic) new find.

5. I am looking for more information and argumentation.

This is for those who would like to withhold judgment until they read more.

This poll is just to get a general feel for the opinions of the people on this board. Feel free to state your opinion in a post in addition to making a choice in the poll.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Soul Invictus]

I guess I'm going to be the first to reply. I'd have thought that there would be commentary based on peoples voting. I picked option 5 because I am knowledgable in theology to a small extent. I have not done any exhaustive research to my liking.[ I]So far[/I] I'm finding it reasonably plausible that:

Jesus is mythical in nature, given similarites in pre-existing cultures' for saviors that served the same function as he would have served

as well as

Jesus being historical in nature, however much about him being fictional in nature...again to align with the influences caused by pre-existing cultures' and their preeminent God or gods.

I do feel that the lack of substantive extra-biblical evidence does make for a challenging case for someone who does believe he existed though..

Long story short - the jury is still out with me. In conclusion, for Christians, his existence or lack thereof should not be of materiality in determining the relationship one would have with their God though, which is something I've been arguing in another thread concerning his divinity.

[Family Man]

Frankly, the whole argument is confusing to me because it isn't clear to me what the HJ is. When someone like Bede tells me what he thinks he can say about the HJ, my response is so what? What is interesting about Jesus isn't that he was a faith healer who managed to get himself crucified, but that he was allegedly the Son of God who "sacrificed" himself so that we could live together, and "proven" by his appearances after his death. And that stuff is clearly mythical.

So who cares about the HJ? I see no reason to consider him at all.

[Shinobi]

I voted no.

The problem I have with the assertion that there was a radical reformer/preacher begind the myth is that it's so vague as to be meaningless. When we have no record at all of who this person might be, it seems to be no better an assertion than saying it's pure myth. Now there may be a flaw in this analogy, point it ouit if there is, but imagine 2000 years in the future theres a christ like mythical being some people believe in and is based on texts printed in the year 2000. Some in the future might say this future christ is based on a radical reformer, which one? There's tens of thousands of them. It's so waterd down a statment that I think it makes no real sense. If you have some real record of the person, that's different.

What do people think?

[Amos]

I voted yes and I am not a Christian.

I would say "yes" but not as an infant born in the flesh. Jesus was the name given to the reborn Joseph unto whom Christ was born and to this new creation (now with a dual identity) the name Jesus was given in the gospels for the purpose of creating a new religion only. This Joseph character could have been any Jew but since we are incarnate children of God it does not happen to 'just any Jew.' He was a carpenter only to show that Joseph was a big sinner which is based on the fact that carpenters make many things and since all is made in sin carpenters are big sinners. We can now also say that Joseph was industrious, courageous and upright.

I'd rather be called Catholic and not Christian because just as Jesus once was a Jew, he no longer was a Jew when he became Christian. Religion as a means to the end would indicate that Catholics are not Christian and Christians are not Catholic.

[Doctor X]

Well . . . I must admit I am not sure what Amos means.

However, based on arguments I made elsewhere, I voted "yes" but I am left with a "so what?" in the sense of what it all means--we cannot say anything about him.

I do find the research interesting--the development of a religion. However, the foundation for conclusions will always be very shaky.

--J.D.

[beastmaster]

#5.

I'm fairly convinced (based on an admittedly unscholarly and limited investigation) that Jesus is a composite figure of various historical, fictional, and mythical persons. I am unable at this point to rule out the possibility that there is some irreducible HJ (whatever that means) forming part of that composite, but I am extremely interested in learning more.

The HJ question has no impact on my atheism, whichever way the evidence leads me. However, it does inspire critical insights into the textual underpinnings of Xnty and my understanding of its theology and authority.

[Volker.Doormann]

I have voted: 3. No.

I think that that colored person, from whom the Gospels are telling, never has existed in history in this color. But that what really has a meaning is not a colored person in history, it is that, what is said, and what is preserved in several Gospels doubtless written by a person in history. As it is unimportant, whether Socrates has said something, or Plato has attached his own thinking on the figure Socrates, nothing would be changed, if the author of the primary Sayings of that figure relates not to a historic person.

It is very clear to me, that the background stories in the canonical Gospels only coloring the essential Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, and can be proved as well known myths from the Jewish culture (Golgotha is a remake of the classic Jewish Passover myth) and from the well known myth ‘Osiris’ of the Egyptian culture, from which the arising of a soul out of a very death body is taken (Lazarus = Alazar = El_Azar = God_Osiris). Because it can be shown for certain, that the several Lazarus stories (s. also Secret Gospel of Marc) and the death and resurrection attached additional to the figure Jesus himself in the Golgatha drama as well known myth from the Egyptian religion, it proves that at least this colored Lazarus/Resurrection material can be identified as fiction.

There may have lived another historic Jesus - as Celsus has reported, but this Jesus, son of Pandera, or Panthera, has lived about 100 years prior to this figure in question, and it seems, that also from this character something is implemented in the color of the canonical Gospels.

Volker

[Clarice O'C]

Howdy,

There is no evidence for or against an historical Jesus and so I'll wait until there is which may never happen, #5.

G'day,
Clarice

[CJD]

Since carpenters are very big sinners ('tween college and grad school I installed wood
floors ;) ), I chose with no hesitation number one. Honest. And all it took was about 27 letters and journal entries from the first century to convince me.

Regards,

CJD

[Gooch's dad]

I chose #2. Claims that are not extraordinary don't require extraordinary evidence, and it is just an ordinary claim to say that a Jewish preacher named Jesus had a cult following, and got himself crucified for insurrection. As Peter Kirby has pointed out in his wonderful essay on the Testimonium of Josephus, the reference in Antiquities 20.9.1 to James, the brother of Jesus, is sufficient evidence. It corresponds with the much earlier reference by Paul to James as the 'brother of the Lord'.

Josephus describes several other Jewish cult leaders of the time. The others simply didn't have Paul as their marketing manager. ;)

-Kelly

[CX]

I've been fascinated by HJ research for many years and have read much on the subject. Even so I would still consider myself a dilletante. That being said I think without further clarification of what we mean by "Historical Jesus" the question is insoluable. Certainly there is the trivial case of a messianic pretender or simple apocalyptic prophet named Yeshu'a (a very common name) existing in 1st century Palestine, but that case would be relatively uninteresting vis-a-vis the discussion at hand. On the other end of the spectrum is the possibility that the "Jesus" described in the New Testament existed exactly as portrayed which I consider remote enough to no longer consider seriously. The question then is where the "Historical Jesus" we are being polled on exists within that spectrum of possibilities.

[Rational BAC]

I voted for #1 (although will admit I considered #5 for a long time and I still think #5 is a valid answer)

Simply because all I wanted to know was if there was a good chance there was a historical Jesus--------and for this purpose I left out all the theistic part. Was there at least a "Joe Blow" Jesus?

I think so. Just as much reason to believe there was a historical Jesus in that sense as there is to believe in any historical figure from 2000 years ago.-------where records are lost, corrupted and added on to in most all cases.

--------------------------------------------------------------

PS---Nobody answered one of my earlier questions. Which is correct (or more correct)?

A historical Jesus ----------or-------An historical Jesus?

[conkermaniac]

I voted yes, and I am not a Christian. I believe that the purely mythical stories referred to in the Bible were written about a real person named Jesus. He may have performed one or two miracles, which led others to believe that he was the son of God and invent new miracles. This Jesus may also have been a significant preacher of the time. It's like if we were to write a story about Pope John Paul II. ;)

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
PS---Nobody answered one of my earlier questions. Which is correct (or more correct)?

A historical Jesus ----------or-------An historical Jesus? "A historical Jesus" is correct. The H is a consonant, so long as you aren't speaking with a cockney accent.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Stephen T-B]

My colleagues say "an."
I do, too..

[Artemus]

Originally posted by Shinobi
I voted no.

The problem I have with the assertion that there was a radical reformer/preacher begind the myth is that it's so vague as to be meaningless. When we have no record at all of who this person might be, it seems to be no better an assertion than saying it's pure myth.

I agree. The fact that there might have been some individual (or individuals) that originally inspired some of the fictional Jesus accounts in the gospels no more makes that Jesus a historical figure than the fact that the story of Citizen Kane might have been inspired by some of the events in William Randolph Herst's life makes Citizen Kane a historical figure.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. :D

[lugotorix]

I had to vote #4, that the question is ultimately undecidable, barring a discovery of a birth certificate from Bethlehem General Hospital for Yeshua, signed by Yosef and Miriam:) . The arguments for a purely mythical Jesus that I've seen are convincing enough that I can no longer just assume there was a flesh-and-blood person behind the myths; but proving the non-existence of a peasant 2000 years ago is an impossible task.

BTW, in the UK, I think it's generally "an historical". In the US, it's "a historical" (if the 'h' is voiced, it's treated as a consonant; otherwise as a vowel). Don't know about other English-speaking countries.

lugotorix

[Celsus]

Originally posted by lugotorix
I had to vote #4, that the question is ultimately undecidable, barring a discovery of a birth certificate from Bethlehem General Hospital for Yeshua, signed by Yosef and Miriam:).
Oh dear. I think we've had quite enough authenticity debates recently. :mad: ;) (I'm an HJ agnostic really, leaning to an actual figure--yes, yes, I still haven't managed to finish Eisenman's James)

Joel

[Arken]

I was originally going to simply vote 'no' because the Jesus described in the bible could not have existed since he committed all sorts of impossible feats, not the least of which was coming back from the dead.

Also, as others said, there's precious little in the way of extra-biblical historical evidence, evidence of deities before Jesus with similar biographies, etc.

However, I think the question of whether or not there was a revolutionary first century A.D. rabbi who headed a small Jewish offshoot sect whose name was Joshua, son of Joseph who had a mother named Mary and a brother named James, etc. is unanswerable so I guess in the end I'm sitting on the fence.

[AndresDeLaHoz]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Well . . . I must admit I am not sure what Amos means.



Join the club.

[Rational BAC]

Amos does seem to represent himself as representing accepted Catholic theology.

Is this true?

Half my extended family are Catholic and I have never heard of half the stuff Amos talks about----at least in such an incoherant way.

[AndresDeLaHoz]

My whole country's catholic and I haven't heard half the stuff Amos talks about.

[Amos]

Originally posted by CJD
Since carpenters are very big sinners ('tween college and grad school I installed wood
floors ;)
CJD

Yes, but laying floors is not exactly the same as "making things." To be a maker of things ousias are conceived and we need twelve of these to get a parousia.

These sins of Jesus' world were the sins of Joseph and those he carried to Calvary. These insights (or eidetic images) told Joseph that there was more to his world then what he first believed and his search for this unknown element is what prompted his journey to Bethlehem where parousia was found. After this he carried these same eidelon making qualities to Calvary because in his omniscience they had become redundant.

[CX]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
"A historical Jesus" is correct. The H is a consonant, so long as you aren't speaking with a cockney accent.

best,
Peter Kirby

I consulted one of our editors here and technically a word with an "aspirate 'H'" should be preceeded by "an".

[Amos]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Amos does seem to represent himself as representing accepted Catholic theology.

Is this true?

Half my extended family are Catholic and I have never heard of half the stuff Amos talks about----at least in such an incoherant way.

The Church can be be all things to all people and if this is new to you maybe you have been discussing Catholicism with people who think like you do.

What I write is really written all over the Church but requires just a little different interpretation.

[Tristan Scott]

I voted yes, but I would say that the Jesus that existed was not the same as the Jesus depicted in the Gospels. The Jesus of the Gospels was a modification of the historical Jesus, modified to fit the perameters of the religion that Paul had invented, yet still be somewhat compatible with the Jesus that the people knew through oral tradition.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Originally posted by CX
I consulted one of our editors here and technically a word with an "aspirate 'H'" should be preceeded by "an".
Well excuse me whilst I go throw an hissy fit.

[PopeInTheWoods]

By the way, I voted #5 with a strong leaning towards #4. I wonder how the situation would be different if HJ weren't presented as historical fact to the Western world for 1500+ years.

Andy

[Clutch]

Suppose there were four fellows hanging around ancient Athens once upon a time.

One was a stonemason, named Aristotle. He made a good living, and charitably donated money to found a school called the Lyceum.

One was a minor politician and friend of Plato's, named Iatrogenics. He fled Athens after some of Plato's enemies focussed on him, and went to live in Macedonia where he made a living tutoring for the royal family. The Macedonians mistakenly thought him the manager of Plato's Academy, and doubly confused the Academy with the Lyceum. As he left Athens, he flattered himself by comparison to Socrates, saying "I leave lest Athens sin against philosophy a second time."

Two were like-minded peripatetic lecturers, named Ouzo and Metaxa, who delivered lessons at the Lyceum. They began each lecture by thanking the founder of the institution, prefacing their lectures with, "Aristotle gives this lecture".

Now, over time a bunch of things got confused. Several times, before Iatrogenics fled, the four happened to be seen together; someone pointed at the group and said, "Now there's a real philosopher!" (meaning Metaxa), but giving some passers-by the impression that it was Iatrogenics, and others the impression that it was Aristotle.

And years later, when visitors from Macedonia later visited Athens, they said things like, "Did you know that our Alexander, Zeus rest his soul, was tutored by an Athenian? The fellow in charge of the Lyceum back then, I think".

And so forth. Make the story as complex a series of misunderstandings as you please; what matters for the sake of our thought experiment is the prospect that:

One person tutored Alexander and fled Athens with the famous quote.

One person founded the Lyceum and was called Aristotle.

Two people gave the lectures the class notes from which were saved and later attributed to Aristotle.

Now, however unlikely the scenario, the question is this: Were these facts to come to light, would we say that there was a historical Aristotle?

That is, would we say that Aristotle actually was not a philosopher, did not give any lectures, was not born in Stagira and never tutored Alexander? Or have these properties (or some weighted subset of them) become definitional of the name "Aristotle", so that we would say that the facts revealed that there was no Aristotle?

Notice the spurious weight carried by someone's bearing the name, in the story! My intuitions tell me to identify the stonemason as Aristotle because that's what he was called; probably we'd conclude that in this case Aristotle didn't do most of what we thought he'd done. But of course Aristotle was not strictly called "Aristotle", and the story could just as easily be told in a way having that name (and its Greek variants) part of a much later attachment to the confused history of the fictional individual to whom all of Aristotle's putative properties were attributed.

Imagine the stoneworker's name was Eugenia -- she was a rare female tradesperson in Athens! -- and "Aristotle" the name of the infant son of someone recounting the mistaken history decades later, but confused by his audience for the name of the person described. On this history, is it correct to say that there was a historical Aristotle? Does our name "Aristotle" really refer to the son of the much-later storyteller?

I contend that questions about historicity rest upon linguistic questions about the reference of names, which in the normal run of events (thankfully) never become relevant.

Now, the reason we'd have to tell such a weird story in the case of Aristotle in order to shake up our intuitions about historicity is because Aristotle was during his lifetime at the centre of hugely significant events politically, militarily and intellectually; Aristotle is "triangulated" by our knowledge of ancient treatments of these events. By contrast, the gap between the putative life of Jesus and the only depictions of him is large, the scope for misplaced attribution is considerable.

Suppose, for example, that there were two guys who crossed paths often, and who were at least on the same page vis a vis spiritual thought. One was John the Baptist, who spoke at length about various doctrines, some fairly original and some cribbed from Greek and oriental thought. Another was a guy named Jesus, who was intensely shy and led by example; he never lectured per se, but through his quiet and gentle example acquired a reputation as a holy man and a few followers, many of whom also revered John.

The absence of contemporary documentation, and the substantial passage of time, makes it eminently possible that something like this or fifty other scenarios explain the merging, decades later, of stories about various people's travels and miracles with other people's collected sayings, most of which had been added in the telling over the years, some of which trace back to various contemporaries, and none of which trace back to the guy named Jesus (Who, by the way, died of an aneurism when his follower Barabbas was stoned for practicing sleight-of-hand and being nicked as a sorcerous magician.) Given the complete opacity of the process whereby specific properties became predicated of some original putative referent of the name "Jesus", it is an open question whether our scepticism about a unique satisfier of those predicates amounts to a scepticism about the existence of a referent of the name.

Was there a historical Jesus? As a working hypothesis, I say Sure. But this is more a matter of convenience and convention than any evidence; the crucial thing is not to treat the convention as a warranted proposition that can be used to lever other claims in or out of acceptance.

[Clutch]

BTW, the use of "an" before "historical" is an artifact of obsolete British regional pronunciation. Pronunciation, not spelling or grammar, is the guide to usage of "a" and "an", as most language guides have now got round to acknowledging. (IIRC, Fowler's still ranks it permissible to use "an" when the first syllable of an aspirated "h" word is unstressed. Anybody want to write about offshore oil, an Hibernian resource? Sheesh.)

[Paul Baxter]

Originally posted by Arken
I was originally going to simply vote 'no' because the Jesus described in the bible could not have existed since he committed all sorts of impossible feats, not the least of which was coming back from the dead.

Also, as others said, there's precious little in the way of extra-biblical historical evidence, evidence of deities before Jesus with similar biographies, etc.

However, I think the question of whether or not there was a revolutionary first century A.D. rabbi who headed a small Jewish offshoot sect whose name was Joshua, son of Joseph who had a mother named Mary and a brother named James, etc. is unanswerable so I guess in the end I'm sitting on the fence.

Not to pick on you too much for your answer here, but does the fact that miracles were attributed to someone bear much on the fact of their existence? Do you apply this criterion to the various Romans? Or St Benedict? (Have you ever SEEN the "Life of St Benedict"? Miracle on every page.) Guess I'm just not sure how this is relevant.

FWIW, as a Christian, I'm rather concerned about the actual history/ministry of Jesus and believe that the term "gospel" as used in the NT referred to his actual life and work, as used in the first verse of Mark. A Jesus outside of history is of no value to me.

[Arken]

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
Not to pick on you too much for your answer here, but does the fact that miracles were attributed to someone bear much on the fact of their existence? Do you apply this criterion to the various Romans? Or St Benedict? (Have you ever SEEN the "Life of St Benedict"? Miracle on every page.) Guess I'm just not sure how this is relevant.

FWIW, as a Christian, I'm rather concerned about the actual history/ministry of Jesus and believe that the term "gospel" as used in the NT referred to his actual life and work, as used in the first verse of Mark. A Jesus outside of history is of no value to me.

Normally, I would say that no, it didn't... but in the case of Jesus, virtually all records of him involve him performing some sort of magical feat or another and so he is essentially described by his magical abilities.

[Rational BAC]

Even still---forgetting all the "magical stuff" there was a historical record of Jesus's words and movement during a specific period in time. And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

Now-----if this was a secular man (Jesus I mean) would there be any doubt as to his historical veracity?

I think not. I think many of you are "upping the ante" simply because of the theistic connotations.

Let us be real here. Leave out all the religious crap --and Jesus does become a historical person---at least by most standards defining a historical person.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Even still---forgetting all the "magical stuff" there was a historical record of Jesus's words and movement during a specific period in time. And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

Now-----if this was a secular man (Jesus I mean) would there be any doubt as to his historical veracity?

I think not. I think many of you are "upping the ante" simply because of the theistic connotations.

Let us be real here. Leave out all the religious crap --and Jesus does become a historical person---at least by most standards defining a historical person. The religious crap can't just be ignored. And I don't mean it in the sense that, "Oh no, if I believe that Jesus was a man, those nasty Christians might convert me!" I think that's what you are saying is wrong, and I would agree that it's wrong, but I don't think it describes many people. The relevant point is that the religious character of Jesus is essential to a possible explanation of his non-historicity. There is precedent for religious groups giving themselves an identity and etiological myth through a fictional founding figure.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Doctor X]

And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

They depart from one another quite radically--particularly in message--compare Jn's "requirements" to salvation to Mk's, for example. Mt and Lk use Mk as a source so obviously there is some comparison, but they have separate dates for the birth off only a smidge--ten years!

This does not really constitute historical evidence, if anything, it demonstrates the process of mythmaking responding to the needs of the author and his audience in their time period.

I think very few argue that "no way . . . uh huh!" there was a 'istorical figure. To paraphrase a mentor, all you need is a name and a place.

The uncertainlty and the process of mythmaking--the religious development may disturb those who are religious. People would like to have faith in "da real story" rather than a later interpretation. Demonstration that such developed over time--and, worse, that many sects of radically different opinions existed fairly early only adds to an uncomfortable uncertainty.

--J.D.

[Iasion]

Greetings Rational BAC.

there was a historical record of Jesus's words and movement during a specific period in time.

No,
there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' words,
nor his movements or actions.

The only "evidence" is decades after the alleged events, with the earliest evidence being meagre, vague or suspect.

The Gospels only appear in history in early-mid 2nd century.


And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

2 of them copy G.Mark in bulk while changing even Jesus' words when it suits then, and the other is totally different. That is not the sign of eye witnesses, but anonymous story writers.


Now-----if this was a secular man (Jesus I mean) would there be any doubt as to his historical veracity?

Your claim is without foundation.
The historicity of Jesus is doubted because of the nature of the evidence, not because he is a religious figure.

Consider :
* King Arthur
* Robin Hood
* William Tell

These are all secular figures whose existance is doubted.

Conversely, there are other religious figures whose existance is also doubted :
* Krishna
* Buddha
* Moses
* even Mohamed !

Iasion

[joedad]

Rational BAC:
Let us be real here. Leave out all the religious crap --and Jesus does become a historical person...But the only reason "historical" Jesus might exist is because "religious" Jesus came first, religious Jesus and all the miracles.

I voted "no." Gospel Jesus or any derivative thereof is fictional first. Show me the beef!

[lpetrich]

And:

Romulus and Remus
Hercules

Romulus and Remus were the legendary founders of Rome, and they were described as being the sons of a god and a virgin.

Which seems suspiciously familiar; where have we heard that before?

In the previous bboards, I had had several threads featuring Lord Raglan's mythic-hero criteria and how they apply to various historical and legendary figures.

And Jesus Christ scores very high on the Lord Raglan scale.

[Arken]

Originally posted by lpetrich
And:

Romulus and Remus
Hercules

Romulus and Remus were the legendary founders of Rome, and they were described as being the sons of a god and a virgin.

Which seems suspiciously familiar; where have we heard that before?

In the previous bboards, I had had several threads featuring Lord Raglan's mythic-hero criteria and how they apply to various historical and legendary figures.

And Jesus Christ scores very high on the Lord Raglan scale.

Romulus and Remus discussed by Livy is one of the first written accounts of skepticism. In his History of Rome, Volume I, he gives an alternate explanation for the Romulus and Remus tale:

The Vestal [Etruscan king Amulis' daughter Rea Silvia] was forcibly violated and gave birth to twins. She named Mars as their father, either because she really believed it, or because the fault might appear less heinous if a deity were the cause of it. But neither gods nor men sheltered her or her babes from the king's cruelty; the priestess was thrown into prison, the boys were ordered to be thrown into the river. By a heaven-sent chance it happened that the Tiber was then overflowing its banks, and stretches of standing water prevented any approach to the main channel. Those who were carrying the children expected that this stagnant water would be sufficient to drown them, so under the impression that they were carrying out the king's orders they exposed the boys at the nearest point of the overflow, where the Ficus Ruminalis (said to have been formerly called Romularis) now stands. The locality was then a wild solitude. The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and was so gentle towards them that the king's flock-master found her licking the boys with her tongue. According to the story, his name was Faustulus. He took the children to his hut and gave them to his wife Larentia to bring up. Some writers think that Larentia, from her unchaste life, had got the nickname of "She-wolf" amongst the shepherds, and that this was the origin of the marvellous story.

[SLD]

I voted yes and I am not a Christian. Like Dr. X, I think there are a few indications in New Testament that there was an historical figure on whom Paul loosely (very loosely) based his religion. Whether Paul was referring to physical brothers or "brothers in christ" there was undoubtedly a conflict between him and the nascent church in Jerusalem. That to me indicates that it is real - kind of like a statement against interest in a court of law. The fact that there was a church in Jerusalem and that it had serious differences with Paul points not just to an historical Jesus, but should make Christians pause. Wouldn't James and the Jerusalem crowd know more about Jesus than Paul, who never met Jesus until after the resurrection? Is it possible that this difference is much stronger than the impression given in the Epistles, and that it indeed is because the original disciples knew Paul was getting it all wrong and mixing in his understanding of various mystery cults and what not into his evangelism? Perhaps because they knew that Jesus did not resurrect from the grave? Maybe that's why Paul says little (or nothing) of Jesus's life in his Epistles - it could have easily been contradicted by the eyewitnesses of the time.

To me (and it's just conjecture), the historical Jesus was nothing more than one of a myriad of "messiahs" whose ambition was simply the destruction of Roman rule in Judea and the re-establishment of the Davidian line of Kings. Like others he failed and paid the penalty. His original followers never rejected Judaism and were later instrumental in the revolt against Rome later in the 1st Century. They were destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed and only then do we get the Gospels. Thus they were never able to counteract the Pauline version of the story.

SLD

[lugotorix]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
The religious crap can't just be ignored. .... The relevant point is that the religious character of Jesus is essential to a possible explanation of his non-historicity. There is precedent for religious groups giving themselves an identity and etiological myth through a fictional founding figure.

True, but there is also a precedent for historical figures having miraculous stories grow up around them. The Buddha is one example. Scholars are fairly sure he existed (thanks mostly to the efforts of the Indian Emperor Ashoka who, roughly 200 years after the Buddha's death put up large pillars marking the places of his birth, enlightenment, first sermon, and death). The later stories about the Buddha feature a virgin birth -- he appeared to his mother as a regal white elephant, touched her side with his trunk, and entered her womb. I don't think it happened that way. I and other modern Buddhists tend to discount the miraculous stuff as part of the baggage that accumulates around religious figures.

This still doesn't change my belief that an assumption of Jesus' historicity is unjustified. I just think that his miracles and healings can't be used as
evidence either way.

lugotorix

[Arken]

Originally posted by lugotorix
(thanks mostly to the efforts of the Indian Emperor Ashoka who, roughly 200 years after the Buddha's death put up large pillars marking the places of his birth, enlightenment, first sermon, and death).

Um... how do pillars placed TWO CENTURIES after his death prove he existed?

[Fr.Andrew]

#5

[lugotorix]

Originally posted by Arken
Um... how do pillars placed TWO CENTURIES after his death prove he existed?

They don't. Notice that I said that scholars were relatively sure, not that they had iron-clad proof. The Ashokan pillars, along with textual analysis of an early scripture, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta ( which gives details about the Buddha's death that seem to be later alluded to in the Analects of Confucius, from around 400 BC), are fairly convincing, though. The sutta also places the Buddha's death in Kushingara where one of the pillars is.

If there is ever some evidence for Jesus of a similar nature, I'll have to change my vote to #2.

lugotorix

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by lugotorix
They don't. Notice that I said that scholars were relatively sure, not that they had iron-clad proof. The Ashokan pillars, along with textual analysis of an early scripture, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta ( which gives details about the Buddha's death that seem to be later alluded to in the Analects of Confucius, from around 400 BC), are fairly convincing, though. The sutta also places the Buddha's death in Kushingara where one of the pillars is.

If there is ever some evidence for Jesus of a similar nature, I'll have to change my vote to #2.

lugotorix

What is the date of the earliest reference to the life of Buddha? How long is that after the death of Buddha?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Arken]

Originally posted by lugotorix
They don't. Notice that I said that scholars were relatively sure, not that they had iron-clad proof. The Ashokan pillars, along with textual analysis of an early scripture, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta ( which gives details about the Buddha's death that seem to be later alluded to in the Analects of Confucius, from around 400 BC), are fairly convincing, though. The sutta also places the Buddha's death in Kushingara where one of the pillars is.

If there is ever some evidence for Jesus of a similar nature, I'll have to change my vote to #2.

lugotorix

From what you're saying, it sounds like, just like Jesus, there are no contemporary accounts outside of religious documents.

[Doctor X]

Come on! Look at all of the statues!!

Seriously, it may be worth having separate "what is the evidence for your founder" thread--or we can just hijack it here. I think a "concensus" of such has been reached on Junior--those who want a historical basis for the man-the-myth will not be persuaded, nor will those who feel that no evidence whatsoever for "someone" at the beginning exists.

I think the majority are waiting for more information but concede: "Hey, some guy may have existed, but that does not mean he walked on water or preached anything that is attributed to him."

Anyways, I would find more information, pro and con, regarding the "real" Buddha's existence.

--J.D.

[lugotorix]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
What is the date of the earliest reference to the life of Buddha? How long is that after the death of Buddha?

The most widely accepted date for his death is around 480 BCE. If the reference in the Confucian analects is correct, that would be about 80 years later. The Pali scriptures, composed orally very early but only written down in the 1st C BCE, have some biographical info. The first full biography is 1st C CE, the Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha.

Originally posted by Arken
From what you're saying, it sounds like, just like Jesus, there are no contemporary accounts outside of religious documents.
I don't think the Ashokan edicts count as religious documents. There are over 30 of them in all (7 on pillars and the rest on rock), only a handful of which mention the Buddha. Most are messages to his subjects about what a swell guy the Emperor was and which expounded on his various policies, like prohibiting animal sacrifice and practicing religious tolerance.

Again, the pillars at the major places of the Buddha's life don't prove beyond a doubt he existed, but they do lend some weight to the idea. Think about this: if the Roman emperor Caracalla (211-217 CE) had converted to Christianity and erected markers around Jesus' birthplace, the Mount of Olives, and his place of crucifixion, wouldn't it make you more inclined to believe in a historical Jesus?

lugotorix

(ps -- sorry if it seems like I've hijacked the thread. I just thought it would be interesting to compare the two figures.)

[joedad]

Doctor X:
Seriously, it may be worth having separate "what is the evidence for your founder" thread--or we can just hijack it here.I think it would be revealing to include the Jesus in with a list of other figures, like the Buddha, and Hercules, to see who thinks who is "historical." I'm tempted to believe that a given person will not differentiate between the different personages but instead grant historicity, agnosticism or myth to all.

And if historicity is granted, is it weak or strong?

[Doctor X]

I just hope it does not become a "my guy existed and your's all did not PBBBBLLLLpppppssssttt!!!!" discussion!

However, just as we all "know" Junior existed, and Mary Magdellan was a prostitute . . . and various other "things" that are not known but we sort of pick up . . . I had thought I "knew" that a Siddarthra Gutam . . . Gutamy . . . Buddha-Guy existed from reading my Boy's Own Golden Book of Infidels.

Thus, I think it is good to review what we actually "know" as to oppose to what we "know we know."

--J.D.

[Peter Kirby]

To sum up: those who believe that there was no HJ command a slim majority over those non-Christians who believe that there was a HJ. But those who do not take a stand pro or con (either because it's undecidable or from lack of information) outnumber them both. From the closeness of the results, it is fair to say that every option taken above by non-Christians is a "common" one.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
To sum up: those who believe that there was no HJ command a slim majority over those non-Christians who believe that there was a HJ. But those who do not take a stand pro or con (either because it's undecidable or from lack of information) outnumber them both. From the closeness of the results, it is fair to say that every option taken above by non-Christians is a "common" one.

It looks like a draw to me :) Though I am a month and a half late.

To be fair, I am "looking for more argumentation," but "yes" is my working hypothesis.

Regards,
Rick

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
It looks like a draw to me :) Though I am a month and a half late.

To be fair, I am "looking for more argumentation," but "yes" is my working hypothesis.

Ah, someone cheated and voted after me:eek: . So much for the draw.

Regards,
Rick

[Dean Anderson]

I think that given the sample size it is statistically likely to be a draw.

To qualify my 'No' vote, I think that there were probably various prophets/mystics/rebels/holy men/philosophers around with stories circulating about them. Some of these stories were original, others were inspired by (or part of) other religions and beliefs.

Later, the stories and sayings (some of which may have been genuine, some exaggerated and some invented) got assigned to a single person. Whether this person actually existed or not is a moot point. I do not think that he existed in the way the bible tells us (i.e. Born about 6BC, lived in Galilee, visited Jerusalem, crucified in about 33CE) - hence my 'No'.

[Heathen Dawn]

I voted yes, and I am not a Christian.

Though the New Testament (on which I am no expert) has some carry-overs from the risen pagan Saviour-Godman myths (such as the supper of symbolic bread and wine), I rather think they are a result of fusion with a historical Jesus story. For a historical figure to be made a Resurrected Messiah, there are parallels even today (see this article (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=243)). It seems plausible that a historical Jesus was crucified for blasphemy (opposition to the rabbinical establishment), deified by his followers, and his story fused with the local Mithraic myths.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
It seems plausible that a historical Jesus was crucified for blasphemy (opposition to the rabbinical establishment), ...

Actually, crucifixion is not very plausable, if the crime was blasphemy. You either need to pick a slightly different crime, or a different mode of death.

[Bill]

The key to my "yes" vote was the fact that I get to personally decide what the phrase "historical Jesus" means. Even though I'm about as strong of an anti-Chrisitian as you will find on these forums, I still believe that there is a core of historical facts there which doesn't make sense to me as being of totally legendary origins. Again, the key to me would be to know, for certain, just who or what James the Brother of Jesus was thinking about when he talked about Jesus with Saul/Paul. Since the certainty of that knowledge is impossible, I'm still persuaded by everything I've read about James to believe that James himself had a very real, formerly live, person in mind when he discussed Jesus with Saul/Paul. That person, to me, would be the "historical Jesus," and, on balance and while recognizing the weaknesses of the various theories, I still strongly believe that person existed.

== Bill

[Bill]

Originally posted by Asha'man
Actually, crucifixion is not very plausable, if the crime was blasphemy. You either need to pick a slightly different crime, or a different mode of death. If the Romans did the deed, the crime would be Treason (or more accurately, fomenting rebellion against Rome).

Which means that, if the crucifixion were true, then Jesus must have said substantially more about rome than the infamous "render unto Caesar" bit. And, the fact that Saul/Paul was a citizen of Rome, and possibly a Roman agent provocatuer, then it becomes far easier to understand just why the preachings of Jesus might have been redacted as they went from James over to Saul/Paul.

== Bill

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Bill
Which means that, if the crucifixion were true, then Jesus must have said substantially more about rome than the infamous "render unto Caesar" bit. And, the fact that Saul/Paul was a citizen of Rome, and possibly a Roman agent provocatuer, then it becomes far easier to understand just why the preachings of Jesus might have been redacted as they went from James over to Saul/Paul.

Pilate in specific, and Rome in general, was apparently quite vicious. Need he have said quite a bit more? I don't think we can rightly know. What did Theudas or the Egyptian say that caused their annhilation?

A chief concern with this outlook--that Jesus was some sort of insurrectionist--is pointed out by Paula Fredriksen: Jesus was executed, his followers weren't. They seem to have continued unmolested for quite some time. It's tough to reconcile this with revolutionary activity.

Regards,
Rick

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
A chief concern with this outlook--that Jesus was some sort of insurrectionist--is pointed out by Paula Fredriksen: Jesus was executed, his followers weren't. They seem to have continued unmolested for quite some time. It's tough to reconcile this with revolutionary activity.

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons I lean towards Heathen Dawn's view that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, or some other form of rebelion against the Jewish religious authority.

[Secular Pinoy]

But Fredriksen's solution to the problem she identified is not that Jesus was a blasphemer, but rather that he was taken to be formenting apocalyptic beliefs among the great crowds of pilgrims that were in the Temple for Passover. In order to curtail the growing unrest caused by Jesus' firebrand sermons, the Roman authorities were compelled to act quickly and execute Jesus, and in a public manner such as a crucifixion, in oder to scare away the crowd from escalating their unrest into outright chaos.

[Amos]

Originally posted by lugotorix
True, but there is also a precedent for historical figures having miraculous stories grow up around them. The Buddha is one example. Scholars are fairly sure he existed (thanks mostly to the efforts of the Indian Emperor Ashoka who, roughly 200 years after the Buddha's death put up large pillars marking the places of his birth, enlightenment, first sermon, and death). The later stories about the Buddha feature a virgin birth -- he appeared to his mother as a regal white elephant, touched her side with his trunk, and entered her womb. I don't think it happened that way.

True, and the Buddha is just one man who achieved Nirvana and so attained "Buddhahood" (if that is word). His teachings are that "this is Buddha" just as Jesus was a Jew who went to heaven and showed how to get there as well.

The virgin birth must be placed opposite a non-virgin birth and makes reference to a rebirth because a physical virgin birth is not possible.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Bill
The key to my "yes" vote was the fact that I get to personally decide what the phrase "historical Jesus" means. == Bill

Right and the historical Jesus was the reborn Joseph who could have been any Jew that was convicted by his own religion and therefore gave birth to the child within-- which was his firstborn that long since had been neglected. The new creation now called Jesus worked out his own salvation in the Gospels and went to heaven in the end.

What makes the story confusing is that mythmakers used the story to start a new religion that went by example and not just a prophetic message.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Asha'man
Exactly. Which is one of the reasons I lean towards Heathen Dawn's view that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, or some other form of rebelion against the Jewish religious authority.

The Laws were given to Moses to convict man of sin and to be convicted of sin we must sin or there can be no conviction of sin. Joseph, the upright whily entrepreneur, was guilty of sin (because all is made in sin) and therefore gave an account of himself and that account (which was not just a verbal confession) was the real cause of his rebirth (Romans 10:10).

So now, it was Jewish Law that convicted him and that is exactly why the Laws were given to Moses.

[Bill]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
Pilate in specific, and Rome in general, was apparently quite vicious. Need he have said quite a bit more? I don't think we can rightly know. What did Theudas or the Egyptian say that caused their annhilation?

A chief concern with this outlook--that Jesus was some sort of insurrectionist--is pointed out by Paula Fredriksen: Jesus was executed, his followers weren't. They seem to have continued unmolested for quite some time. It's tough to reconcile this with revolutionary activity. These are points, but not convincing points. (In fact, at this juncture, there doesn't seem to even be the possibility of the existence of any convincing points.)

Have you ever studied the stories (generally in Josephus) of the other rebels against Rome and the movements that they led? It seems to me that it isn't entirely implausible that the Romans would simply execute a leader, or perhaps a leader and a couple of his immediate subordinates, and then be done with the punishments. (Thus, the "two thieves" might well have been henchmen of Jesus. Either theory is within the realm of possibility.)

And actually, the best argument against this whole business is the fact that Josephus doesn't mention the execution of Jesus, while he does seem to go on at length about other minor characters who ought to rate less of a mention than Jesus would, even in the eyes of Josephus. But of course, once you allege that we don't have a "pure copy" of the works of Josephus, the redaction of any mention of the execution of Jesus also remains a possibility.

Frankly, we need more evidence in order to be sure of any of this, but we aren't likely to get any such evidence without a great deal of luck. Still, on balance, I remain convinced that when Saul/Paul spoke with James, there was a real Jesus that was being discussed, and that is all that is necessary for me to decide the question of the existence of an historical Jesus.

== Bill

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
But Fredriksen's solution to the problem she identified is not that Jesus was a blasphemer, but rather that he was taken to be formenting apocalyptic beliefs among the great crowds of pilgrims that were in the Temple for Passover. In order to curtail the growing unrest caused by Jesus' firebrand sermons, the Roman authorities were compelled to act quickly and execute Jesus, and in a public manner such as a crucifixion, in oder to scare away the crowd from escalating their unrest into outright chaos.

I'm not saying that Jesus was a blasphemer--that doesn't hold up at the best of times. I'm saying he wasn't an insurrectionist.

Regards,
Rick

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Bill
Have you ever studied the stories (generally in Josephus) of the other rebels against Rome and the movements that they led? It seems to me that it isn't entirely implausible that the Romans would simply execute a leader, or perhaps a leader and a couple of his immediate subordinates, and then be done with the punishments. (Thus, the "two thieves" might well have been henchmen of Jesus. Either theory is within the realm of possibility.)

You'd need to cite individual examples for comparison.

And actually, the best argument against this whole business is the fact that Josephus doesn't mention the execution of Jesus, while he does seem to go on at length about other minor characters who ought to rate less of a mention than Jesus would, even in the eyes of Josephus. But of course, once you allege that we don't have a "pure copy" of the works of Josephus, the redaction of any mention of the execution of Jesus also remains a possibility.

This is only an argument at all if one accepts that Josephus mentions Jesus. I'm not persuaded that he does, except in the context of being James' brother.

Regards,
Rick

[Bill]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
This is only an argument at all if one accepts that Josephus mentions Jesus. I'm not persuaded that he does, except in the context of being James' brother. But Rick, the "except" is the entire crux of the argument! If you admit that Josephus does mention Jesus in the context of being the brother of James (i.e., that this notice of Jesus is real, and not an interpolation), then it only makes sense if Josephus has previously mentioned Jesus someplace else, and the most likely place for such a mention is when he discussed the death of Jesus. Where would such a mention have been? The best theory seems to be at exactly the spot where Testimonium now appears. Accordingly, admitting that the notice of Jesus in the context of being the brother of James virtually demands that there be some similar notice of Jesus at an earlier point, and the only other earlier point that has been reasonably suggested is the point at which the Testimonium now appears.

So, Rick, logically speaking, you really do have to deny that the mention of Jesus in conjunction with James is authentic (from the pen of Josephus) or else you must virtually necessarily admit that there was an historical Jesus, and that there was also some mention of that historical Jesus earlier in Josephus, most likely where the Testimonium now appears.

At least, that is how I view the whole argument over the authenticity of the notices of Jesus by Josephus.

(As for the examples from Josephus of notices of other "messiah-like" figures who were killed as insurrectionists, my copy of Josephus is packed away in storage, and I can't really comply any time soon. But I might be able to pull references from Eisenman's book, which I do have here with me. I'll have to get back to you on that point, though.)

== Bill

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Bill
But Rick, the "except" is the entire crux of the argument! If you admit that Josephus does mention Jesus in the context of being the brother of James (i.e., that this notice of Jesus is real, and not an interpolation), then it only makes sense if Josephus has previously mentioned Jesus someplace else, and the most likely place for such a mention is when he discussed the death of Jesus. Where would such a mention have been? The best theory seems to be at exactly the spot where Testimonium now appears. Accordingly, admitting that the notice of Jesus in the context of being the brother of James virtually demands that there be some similar notice of Jesus at an earlier point, and the only other earlier point that has been reasonably suggested is the point at which the Testimonium now appears.

I am not persuaded that it only makes sense if Jesus has been mentioned previously. The passage isn't about Jesus, Jesus is named only as an identifier to James. In fact, it's not even about James--as Peter, quoting Ed Tyler, notes in his essay, it's about Annus.

So, Rick, logically speaking, you really do have to deny that the mention of Jesus in conjunction with James is authentic (from the pen of Josephus) or else you must virtually necessarily admit that there was an historical Jesus, and that there was also some mention of that historical Jesus earlier in Josephus, most likely where the Testimonium now appears.

I beg to differ. Jesus "called the Christ" serves to distinguish that Jesus from Jesus, son of Damneus named later. It's not an allusion to an earlier mention of Jesus, it's an identification of *this* Jesus, not *that* Jesus. Which, in turn, was used to identify the James executed by Ananus. This doesn't depend on an earlier reference.

(As for the examples from Josephus of notices of other "messiah-like" figures who were killed as insurrectionists, my copy of Josephus is packed away in storage, and I can't really comply any time soon. But I might be able to pull references from Eisenman's book, which I do have here with me. I'll have to get back to you on that point, though.)

I look forward to it.

Regards,
Rick

[Bill]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
I beg to differ. Jesus "called the Christ" serves to distinguish that Jesus from Jesus, son of Damneus named later. It's not an allusion to an earlier mention of Jesus, it's an identification of *this* Jesus, not *that* Jesus. Which, in turn, was used to identify the James executed by Ananus. This doesn't depend on an earlier reference. I've never heard anybody defend this interpretation of that reference. Where (or who) do you draw it from? Or is it your own invention? If the latter, I'd like to have the full exposition of the problem to read.

== Bill

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
I'm not saying that Jesus was a blasphemer--that doesn't hold up at the best of times. I'm saying he wasn't an insurrectionist.

Regards,
Rick Well, I was directing my response to Asha'man's post directly before mine, wherein he/she quoted your post about Fredriksen. I merely pointed out that just because Fredriksen doubted the idea that Jesus was an insurrectionist does not mean that she believed that Jesus was a blasphemer. She, rather, believed that Jesus may have been identified by the crowd, and then by the Roman authorities, to be an apocalypticist, and had to be dealt with swiftly.

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Bill
I've never heard anybody defend this interpretation of that reference. Where (or who) do you draw it from? Or is it your own invention? If the latter, I'd like to have the full exposition of the problem to read.

== Bill

It's based largely on the culmination of this (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/13250) thread on XTalk a few months ago (that's the second time today I've mentioned that thread!).

Regards,
Rick

[Bill]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
I look forward to it. This doesn't really fit the model of a messiah-type figure directly, but on pp. 124-125 in Eisenman is the story of the crucifixion of the sons of Judas the Galilean (who led a rebellion circa 4 BCE, beginning shortly after the death of Herod the Great and shortly before the beginning of direct Roman rule). These two sons are named James and Simon. This coincidence of three names, each of whom is the name of a Brother of Jesus (James, Judas and Simon/Peter), is quite curious to me.

== Bill

[HelmetWB]

Frankly, we need more evidence in order to be sure of any of this, but we aren't likely to get any such evidence without a great deal of luck. Still, on balance, I remain convinced that when Saul/Paul spoke with James, there was a real Jesus that was being discussed, and that is all that is necessary for me to decide the question of the existence of an historical Jesus

I voted 'no' and remain unconvinced. However, my 'no' vote is tentative. I'm of the opinion that some of the stories concerning Jesus appear to reference a 'real' person. But is this person, only one person or more than one person? And what are we supposed to make of all those miracles? Since I'm of the rather firm opinion that miracles don't happen, I'm left with the following options (if Jesus existed):

1) Jesus was a charlatan, essentially ‘selling’ snake oil.
2) We should ignore the miracles, but accept everything else concerning Jesus.

I think that option one so changes the essence of the ‘historical’ Jesus that he becomes a different person than the New Testament Jesus, which justifies my ‘no’ vote.

And option 2 leaves me wondering -- Isn’t ‘Jesus -- the miracle worker’ -- also a major part of who Jesus was in life? Don’t the miracles make the man, so to speak?

Thus, I’m left with a very slippery ‘historical’ character, at best.
Truth is, if I was able to travel through time (and had the appropriate linguistic ability) I would be very surprised to find anyone that resembled the Biblical Jesus close enough to qualify as 'the' one. Thus, my 'no' vote.

[GakuseiDon]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
There is precedent for religious groups giving themselves an identity and etiological myth through a fictional founding figure.

best,
Peter Kirby Peter, I've always wondered about that. Which groups are they?

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Peter, I've always wondered about that. Which groups are they? There is usually a debate over whether there could be a mustard seed of historicity, but several figures come to mind. In each case, at best almost everything by way of biography is fictional.

Eleusinians and Demeter

Mithraists and Mithra

Greek Physicians and Asclepius

Hindus and Ram (and Krishna)

Jews and Moses

Some Jews and Enoch

Egyptians and Isis

Romans and Aeneas

Confucianists and Confucius

Zoroastrians and Zoroaster

I'm not all that interested in getting into an argument over whether a person possibly could have existed behind these legendary figures. (Or whether there is better evidence for a historical Jesus than the above figures, about which I haven't commented.) I would simply suggest that at least one of the above can show precedent for the existence of myth-making processes.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Bill]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I would simply suggest that at least one of the above can show precedent for the existence of myth-making processes. Well, if that is the only criteria you are interested in, then you could pick virtually any Roman Catholic saint in order to demonstrate "the existence of myth-making processes." In fact, I would assert, categorically, that the process of making a Roman Catholic saint is intrinsically a "myth-making process." It is just a very organized and predetermined sort of a "myth-making process."

And there are a number of Roman Catholic saints who are good candidates for being entirely legendary, including St. Patrick and the Mexican peasant that they recently made into a saint because he was supposed to have seen the Virgin of Guadalupe.

You don't have to get into the foundings of complete new religions in order to clearly understand "the existence of myth-making processes" with respect to religious persons.

== Bill

[Bill]

Originally posted by HelmetWB
I'm of the opinion that some of the stories concerning Jesus appear to reference a 'real' person. But is this person, only one person or more than one person? The answer to this question depends entirely upon exactly which layer of New Testament material you wish to deal with. If you restrict yourself to the admittedly genuine writings from the Pauline corpus, then the few references therein to Jesus would appear to refer to a single person. But once you move as far out as the gospels, then it is quite apparant that any number of stories have been inserted for theological reasons, and these stories generally began by referring to other people, both real and imagined.

As a "for instance," I've always been intrigued by the idea that the story of Jesus predicting the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem didn't have anything at all to do with the figure we would call the "historical Jesus," but was rather drawn from a story in Josephus (Eisenman asserts that many aspects of the gospels, and in particular Luke/Acts, display familiarity with the writings of Josephus). On page xxv of his Introduction, Eisenman writes these two paragraphs: These 'woes' also have relevance to another Messianic character, depicted in Josephus and a namesake of Jesus, whom Josephus calls 'Jesus ben Ananias'. This man, whom Josephus protrays as an oracle or quasi-prophet of some kind, went around Jerusalem directly following the death of James in 62 CE for seven straight years, proclaiming the coming destruction, until he was finally hit on the head by a Roman projectile during the siege of Jerusalem and killed just prior to the fulfilment of his prophecy.

The applicability of this story to the Historical Jesus (and in a very real way to the Historical James), the facts of whose existence and its relevance to mankind's everyday existence have been so confidently asserted for the last nineteen centuries or more, should be obvious. In fact 'Jesus ben Ananias' was set free at the end of Josephus' Jewish War after having originally been arrested. The release of such a Messianic double for Jesus is also echoed in the Scripture as it has come down to us in the release of another 'double'. One Gospel anyhow calls this double 'Jesus Barabbas' - the meaning of this name in Aramaic superficially would apper to be 'the Son of the Father' - a political 'bandit' who 'committed murder at the time of the Uprising' and is released by Pontius Pilate (Matt. 27:26 and pars.). Now, Eisenman doesn't really make clear whether there is just one or two different characters named 'Jesus ben Ananias.' (But see Jewish War 6.288-315 for the story of the oracle/prophet character, interwoven with other events.)

On page 357, Eisenman again refers to the oracle/prophet character and discusses when this character is brought before the Roman authorities in a scene clearly reminiscant of the gospel story of Jesus and Pilate. This happens about 62 CE, around the time of the death of James. Thus here, Eisenman finally makes clear that the arrest and release of this character happen long before the Jewish War itself. So, those two stories really do mesh together quite well out of Josephus.

And we can clearly see that the gospel material, if it is drawn from Josephus as Eisenman alleges, has adopted the story of this poor oracle/prophet character who lived after James into the story of Jesus, who must have died before James. So, if this is all true, the gospels clearly do mix together the stories of multiple people into the character of Jesus Christ. Thus, I’m left with a very slippery ‘historical’ character, at best.
Truth is, if I was able to travel through time (and had the appropriate linguistic ability) I would be very surprised to find anyone that resembled the Biblical Jesus close enough to qualify as 'the' one. Thus, my 'no' vote. Well, the question asked allowed you to make up your own definition for what the phrase "historical Jesus" means, so nobody can say you are wrong for adopting the analysis which you did.

However, since the book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html) came out, I think it is extremely difficult to claim the gospel stories as "early" in any real sense. The gospels are clearly a very-evolved legend, deliberately constructed in the form of an inverted Homeric epic. This necessarily required that the original author assemble a great deal of material in order to be able to draw out the many incidents that would become necessary to the story as it progresses along the lines demanded by this literary form. Thus, anybody who bases their decision about an historical Jesus based upon the gospel stories themselves would almost necessarily need to decide, as you did, that there was no historical Jesus because, as you say, you cannot expect to go back in a time machine and view any substantial part of the story described in the gospels as it actually happens in the first century.

Again, I follow Eisenman's thesis (from his Introduction) to the effect that modern Christianity is descended from Paul and his associates, while the followers of James left no recognizable legacy for us to compare with modern Christianity in order to discern the Jewish view. But it seems clear to me that James thought of this Messianic character as a real person (whose true identity is now unknown) who lived and died in James' own past (perhaps even a distant past; before James himself was born). James clearly discussed this person with Paul, and while Paul sets that person up as the founder of modern Christianity, Paul tells us virtually nothing about him! As Eisenman writes (on page xxiii): Only two historical points about Jesus emerge from Paul's letters: firstly, that he was crucified at some point - date unspecified (I Tim. 6:13, which is not considered authentic, adds by Pontius Pilate), and, secondly, that he had several brothers, one of whom was called James (Gal. 1:19). In fact, taking the brother relationship seriously may turn out to be one of the only confirmations that there ever was a historical Jesus. Of course, the word "brother" has at least two distinct possible meanings: 1) the usual family relationship; or 2) a relationship such as belonging to the same religious order (such as the modern day Franciscans or Dominicans). My personal theory is that it is in this second sense that we need to take the "brother" relationship between James and Jesus, as I expect that Jesus himself was long dead by the time that James was born. This places the historical Jesus even more remotely distant from Paul, and tends to explain even better why so little of that historical character manages to make it through the myth-building process and appear in the form of the modern-day legend.

== Bill

[premjan]

many many of the mythological stories of Jesus actually originate from the prechristian religion called Mithraism.

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by premjan
many many of the mythological stories of Jesus actually originate from the prechristian religion called Mithraism. Unless, of course, they didn't. See, for example Misconceptions about Mithraism (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34330&highlight=mithras).

[Doctor X]

Bill:

Damn! I always do this when I am away from my sources!

. . . including St. Patrick

I finished a book on early Irish history--scholarly . . . not "The Irish Saved the Klingons" crap! It was a bit painful--Sewtus Ma'Gwanthra was born by. . . . However, it did discuss the "mess" that is St. Patrick and I think it is an interesting paradigm.

According to the source--which I will come back and reference properly--there was a "Patrick" who left a diary with very little details. HOWEVER most of the "Saintly" things attributed to him were either done by other individuals--such as bringing Christianity to Ireland--or are well-known myths. Indeed, the historical Patrick serves as a great example of a "founding figure" in that people could subsequently attach whatever they want to him. It is the lack of verifiable historical data that allows this mythmaking.

--J.D.

[Tellurian]

From my studies I suspect that the Jesus character was developed from a compilation of stories about several different different guys.

The legend of Robin Hood was developed by combining the stories of several different outlaws and anti-establishment persons with some fictional characters such as Frier Tuck and Maid Marion added later.

I suspect that the story of Jesus was developed the same way.

However, that choice was not available for the poll.