How did the historical Jesus become famous?

[Paul of Tarsus]

As you should know some non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a "small time" Jewish preacher. He never rose from the dead. Nevertheless, Jesus and his life inspired the world's largest religion. If Ehrman and Crossan are right about Jesus, then we must ask how Jesus became the lasting focal point of his followers. Why did the disciples preach that he was God's right-hand man and savior of the world if they knew he had suffered an ignominious death at the hands of the Romans never to be seen again?

The pieces of this puzzle don't fit together very well. It seems likely to me that Jesus would have been very famous in his day to inspire people the way he did. On the other hand, a very famous Jesus would have probably been noticed by the historians of the early first century, yet they say nothing about him.

Any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.

[TRANSPONDER]

I must first apologise for any slips in the way I respond; I'm still getting used to the forum.

Next, I have read your (many) posts with interest. While it seems that you come down on the Christian side, you seem open -minded and willing to entertain doubts and questions.

That said, your two options are essentially it's all a tall tale or it's true. There are other options of course. That it's true but with some made - up elements. Like obviously Jesus was executed by crucifixion, was dead and stayed dead. The tall tale being that he rose again. That of course means that you can't use the 'true' elements of the story to validate the 'mythical' elements.

Let me set out my stall in toto, as I do like to be up front and transparent.

I know there are arguments for the Jesus story being entirely fictitious. Despite the claims, there is really No historical support for any such person. The fame (aka popularity of the story) does not make it true. The lack of any mention of Jesus in Philo is particularly bothersome.

However, I'm inclined to credit a real Jesus as, if Christians were going to make him up, would they have had him a Galilean rather than a Judean? Would they have had him executed by Romans, rather than condemned and stoned by the Sanhedrin? I think there was a Real Jesus story that the early Christians were stuck with and they had to do a complete re -write to make him the sort of person they wanted. And they did it separately, without seeing what the others were doing. Thus, contradictions.

And contradictions is what does for the Resurrection - story. Sure, I am pretty confident that there was a Jesus who as crucified by the Romans. give or take a seamless robe or a penitent thief or two, the gospels are obviously relating the same event. It may look like the resurrection is relating the same event, too, but it really isn't. There are some common elements - a solid body Jesus, some angels appearing the disciples hearing about it, but they are more supplying what the doctrine - story required than reporting a common story.

The fact is that the women finding the tomb empty is the last thing they all four agree on. Even the explanatory message from the angel isn't in John. The original story (in Mark) seems to be that the women ran away and told nobody. And that (despite claims of a lost ending or Mark not bothering to write the story that everyone knew anyway) is where the original story ended, and you can know that because if there was an original resurrection - story, they would all have told it, but instead, they tell four totally different ones.

I already said that John has no angelic explanation. In John, the Marys run to the disciples and say that someone has removed the body and they don't know where. Well, that scuppers the angelic explanation, right away. Quite apart from which, Matthew has the women run into Jesus on the way and even Luke contradicts that as Cleophas on the road to Emmaeus says the women claimed to have seen angels, but they did not see Jesus. On top of that there is no evening appearance of Jesus (which both Luke and John have) but the disciples travel to Galilee to meet Jesus. Can we discard Matthew (and his descending angel and tomb -guard -story) as a filling out of Mark's non -ending, but which is debunked by John and Luke? What do you think?

So John has the disciples run to see the grave -clothes lying in the tomb. Luke...let me check me Bible...yeah. They did not believe the women and though we can suppose that they would go and look, the did not believe the tale of angels.

But in John no angels have appeared, not until the disciples have left the tomb, shaking their heads in doubt. Then when the angels finally appear and ask their pointless question before Jesus appears to Mary (never mind that Matthew says they' had already run into him) Cleophas sets off on his unexplained mission to Emmaus and he tuns into Jesus on the way.

Jesus must have a Transporter mechanism as he appears to Mary outside the tomb, then appears 'First' to Simon according to Luke 24.34 (an appearance that nobody describes, not even Luke) and then appears on the way to Emmaeus to have lunch with Cleophas.

Isn't it clear that the gospels are telling terminally contradictory stories here? And that means that there was no original resurrection - story, which is what Mark clearly shows us. the added -on ending (Freer Logion) was cobbled together later on to fill out this omission.

Would anybody like to make a case for gospel reliability as regards the resurrection appearances, in light of these contradictions? If not, we might look at the endings of Luke and John and this odd business of Jesus supposedly appearing ("First") to Simon. Because that is the clue to just how the resurrection story appeared even if it never happened.

[JehovahsWitness]

Would anybody like to make a case for gospel reliability as regards the resurrection appearances, in light of these contradictions?

I can't see that you have actually presented any contradictions. Perhaps I should remind you, an omission does not a contradiction make. Nobody is obliged defend scripture against your imagination.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POST

Are some statements wrongly classified as "contradictions"?
viewtopic.php?p=999252#p999252

Does the bible contain "numerical contradictions"?
viewtopic.php?p=1016246#p1016246

To read more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[JehovahsWitness]

Did the women report seeing Jesus or angels (Cleopas)?

Accordent to the bible narrative they saw both an angelic apparition and the resurrected Christ. Whether they reported one, both or neither episodes to the men, the fact that Cleopas only spoke of them having seen some kind of angelic apparition does not constitute a contradiction in the narrative. If anything it testifies to his partiel knowledge of events or his own summary of what he believed had taken place

JW

To learn more please fo to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

[TRANSPONDER]

Sorry, I must disagree. Cleophas said specifically that the women did not see 'Him' (Jesus) This Totally contradicts Matthew who has them see Jesus.

Now you may argue that they babbled to the disciples about the angel but not about seeing Jesus, but can you really credit that?

Further, John has no mention of an angelic message. Here again, can you really expect us to believe that John would not bother to mention that? On top of which, she runs back and says the body has gone and she doesn't know where. How could se say that if she's run into Jesus? Both John and Luke contradict Matthew totally. You still claim there is no contradiction?

I haven't even got onto why nobody -at all- mention Jesus appearing 'First -to Simon'.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I must first apologise for any slips in the way I respond; I'm still getting used to the forum.

Next, I have read your (many) posts with interest. While it seems that you come down on the Christian side, you seem open -minded and willing to entertain doubts and questions.

That said, your two options are essentially it's all a tall tale or it's true. There are other options of course. That it's true but with some made - up elements. Like obviously Jesus was executed by crucifixion, was dead and stayed dead. The tall tale being that he rose again. That of course means that you can't use the 'true' elements of the story to validate the 'mythical' elements.

Let me set out my stall in toto, as I do like to be up front and transparent.

I know there are arguments for the Jesus story being entirely fictitious. Despite the claims, there is really No historical support for any such person. The fame (aka popularity of the story) does not make it true. The lack of any mention of Jesus in Philo is particularly bothersome.

However, I'm inclined to credit a real Jesus as, if Christians were going to make him up, would they have had him a Galilean rather than a Judean? Would they have had him executed by Romans, rather than condemned and stoned by the Sanhedrin? I think there was a Real Jesus story that the early Christians were stuck with and they had to do a complete re -write to make him the sort of person they wanted. And they did it separately, without seeing what the others were doing. Thus, contradictions.

And contradictions is what does for the Resurrection - story. Sure, I am pretty confident that there was a Jesus who as crucified by the Romans. give or take a seamless robe or a penitent thief or two, the gospels are obviously relating the same event. It may look like the resurrection is relating the same event, too, but it really isn't. There are some common elements - a solid body Jesus, some angels appearing the disciples hearing about it, but they are more supplying what the doctrine - story required than reporting a common story.

The fact is that the women finding the tomb empty is the last thing they all four agree on. Even the explanatory message from the angel isn't in John. The original story (in Mark) seems to be that the women ran away and told nobody. And that (despite claims of a lost ending or Mark not bothering to write the story that everyone knew anyway) is where the original story ended, and you can know that because if there was an original resurrection - story, they would all have told it, but instead, they tell four totally different ones.

I already said that John has no angelic explanation. In John, the Marys run to the disciples and say that someone has removed the body and they don't know where. Well, that scuppers the angelic explanation, right away. Quite apart from which, Matthew has the women run into Jesus on the way and even Luke contradicts that as Cleophas on the road to Emmaeus says the women claimed to have seen angels, but they did not see Jesus. On top of that there is no evening appearance of Jesus (which both Luke and John have) but the disciples travel to Galilee to meet Jesus. Can we discard Matthew (and his descending angel and tomb -guard -story) as a filling out of Mark's non -ending, but which is debunked by John and Luke? What do you think?

So John has the disciples run to see the grave -clothes lying in the tomb. Luke...let me check me Bible...yeah. They did not believe the women and though we can suppose that they would go and look, the did not believe the tale of angels.

But in John no angels have appeared, not until the disciples have left the tomb, shaking their heads in doubt. Then when the angels finally appear and ask their pointless question before Jesus appears to Mary (never mind that Matthew says they' had already run into him) Cleophas sets off on his unexplained mission to Emmaus and he tuns into Jesus on the way.

Jesus must have a Transporter mechanism as he appears to Mary outside the tomb, then appears 'First' to Simon according to Luke 24.34 (an appearance that nobody describes, not even Luke) and then appears on the way to Emmaeus to have lunch with Cleophas.

Isn't it clear that the gospels are telling terminally contradictory stories here? And that means that there was no original resurrection - story, which is what Mark clearly shows us. the added -on ending (Freer Logion) was cobbled together later on to fill out this omission.

Would anybody like to make a case for gospel reliability as regards the resurrection appearances, in light of these contradictions? If not, we might look at the endings of Luke and John and this odd business of Jesus supposedly appearing ("First") to Simon. Because that is the clue to just how the resurrection story appeared even if it never happened.

Why did the disciples preach that he was God's right-hand man and savior of the world if they knew he had suffered an ignominious death at the hands of the Romans never to be seen again?

[historia]

The fact that Jesus' followers continued to think he was the messiah after his death is really only explicable on the grounds that they thought he had risen from the dead, and thus God had vindicated his messianic claim.

This hypothesis has the advantage over what most secular historians tell us happened in that it establishes a motive for the rise of Christianity. If Jesus just died and was gone, then it seems odd to me that anybody would think he was anything more than a loser.

Again, secular scholars think Jesus' followers came to believe he had been raised from the dead, too, so I'm not sure I understand your concerns here.

My concern is that there is an atheistic bias among some scholars that keeps them from openly considering the resurrection of Christ as a historical event.

I would approach this issue quite differently.

Historians use the historical method to write about the past. And the historical method, like any method, has certain epistemological limitations. In particular, the historical method only allows historians to infer what probably or most likely happened in the past.

Since miracles are, by definition, improbable, the historian qua historian cannot infer them as the most likely explanation. The Resurrection may well be true, but it simply lies beyond the methods of historians to establish it as an historical event. And so secular historians writing about the historical Jesus tend to just bracket it out.

[Paul of Tarsus]

My concern is that there is an atheistic bias among some scholars that keeps them from openly considering the resurrection of Christ as a historical event.

I would approach this issue quite differently.

Historians use the historical method to write about the past. And the historical method, like any method, has certain epistemological limitations. In particular, the historical method only allows historians to infer what probably or most likely happened in the past.

Since miracles are, by definition, improbable, the historian qua historian cannot infer them as the most likely explanation. The Resurrection may well be true, but it simply lies beyond the methods of historians to establish it as an historical event. And so secular historians writing about the historical Jesus tend to just bracket it out.

I see you've been influenced by Bart Ehrman. In his debate with William Lane Craig regarding the evidence for the resurrection, Bart Ehrman made essentially the same arguments you are making here:

1. Miracles are by definition the most improbable past events.
2. Historians seek to establish the historicity of past events that probably happened.
3. Historians, then, must eschew miracles as past events because any non-miraculous event is more likely what happened.

William Lane Craig countered Ehrman arguing that the presumed probabilities of past events are not the only factor that should be considered when assessing history. Historians should also take into consideration the evidence for recorded events. If that evidence is good enough, then events, including miraculous events, can be considered historical.

I must side with Craig on this issue. Historical knowledge should include the knowledge of anything that has happened. So if miracles have taken place, and the evidence for them is good enough, then those miracles should be recorded in the history books.

[William]

I must first apologise for any slips in the way I respond; I'm still getting used to the forum.

Next, I have read your (many) posts with interest. While it seems that you come down on the Christian side, you seem open -minded and willing to entertain doubts and questions.

That said, your two options are essentially it's all a tall tale or it's true. There are other options of course. That it's true but with some made - up elements. Like obviously Jesus was executed by crucifixion, was dead and stayed dead. The tall tale being that he rose again. That of course means that you can't use the 'true' elements of the story to validate the 'mythical' elements.

Let me set out my stall in toto, as I do like to be up front and transparent.

I know there are arguments for the Jesus story being entirely fictitious. Despite the claims, there is really No historical support for any such person. The fame (aka popularity of the story) does not make it true. The lack of any mention of Jesus in Philo is particularly bothersome.

However, I'm inclined to credit a real Jesus as, if Christians were going to make him up, would they have had him a Galilean rather than a Judean? Would they have had him executed by Romans, rather than condemned and stoned by the Sanhedrin? I think there was a Real Jesus story that the early Christians were stuck with and they had to do a complete re -write to make him the sort of person they wanted. And they did it separately, without seeing what the others were doing. Thus, contradictions.

And contradictions is what does for the Resurrection - story. Sure, I am pretty confident that there was a Jesus who as crucified by the Romans. give or take a seamless robe or a penitent thief or two, the gospels are obviously relating the same event. It may look like the resurrection is relating the same event, too, but it really isn't. There are some common elements - a solid body Jesus, some angels appearing the disciples hearing about it, but they are more supplying what the doctrine - story required than reporting a common story.

The fact is that the women finding the tomb empty is the last thing they all four agree on. Even the explanatory message from the angel isn't in John. The original story (in Mark) seems to be that the women ran away and told nobody. And that (despite claims of a lost ending or Mark not bothering to write the story that everyone knew anyway) is where the original story ended, and you can know that because if there was an original resurrection - story, they would all have told it, but instead, they tell four totally different ones.

I already said that John has no angelic explanation. In John, the Marys run to the disciples and say that someone has removed the body and they don't know where. Well, that scuppers the angelic explanation, right away. Quite apart from which, Matthew has the women run into Jesus on the way and even Luke contradicts that as Cleophas on the road to Emmaeus says the women claimed to have seen angels, but they did not see Jesus. On top of that there is no evening appearance of Jesus (which both Luke and John have) but the disciples travel to Galilee to meet Jesus. Can we discard Matthew (and his descending angel and tomb -guard -story) as a filling out of Mark's non -ending, but which is debunked by John and Luke? What do you think?

So John has the disciples run to see the grave -clothes lying in the tomb. Luke...let me check me Bible...yeah. They did not believe the women and though we can suppose that they would go and look, the did not believe the tale of angels.

But in John no angels have appeared, not until the disciples have left the tomb, shaking their heads in doubt. Then when the angels finally appear and ask their pointless question before Jesus appears to Mary (never mind that Matthew says they' had already run into him) Cleophas sets off on his unexplained mission to Emmaus and he tuns into Jesus on the way.

Jesus must have a Transporter mechanism as he appears to Mary outside the tomb, then appears 'First' to Simon according to Luke 24.34 (an appearance that nobody describes, not even Luke) and then appears on the way to Emmaeus to have lunch with Cleophas.

Isn't it clear that the gospels are telling terminally contradictory stories here? And that means that there was no original resurrection - story, which is what Mark clearly shows us. the added -on ending (Freer Logion) was cobbled together later on to fill out this omission.

Would anybody like to make a case for gospel reliability as regards the resurrection appearances, in light of these contradictions? If not, we might look at the endings of Luke and John and this odd business of Jesus supposedly appearing ("First") to Simon. Because that is the clue to just how the resurrection story appeared even if it never happened.

Why did the disciples preach that he was God's right-hand man and savior of the world if they knew he had suffered an ignominious death at the hands of the Romans never to be seen again?

Perhaps to create this;
Today's Excellent Church.

[TRANSPONDER]

How do we know...really....that the disciples preached any such things? The assumption is that Acts tells us about the disciples' actions after the crucifixion, but can we really trust it? It is evidently the work of Luke and you couldn't trust him any further than you could kick him. I will be only too glad to give the many examples of his fabrication and alteration. But I'll just mention one - the angelic message at the tomb (and I'll remind you that John has no such thing) is that Jesus has gone to Galilee as he has told them (after the Last Supper Mark 14. 28). But Luke alters that to 'remember how he told you when he was still in Galilee..?' (24.4).

He alters the message because he doesn't want the disciples being told to go to Galilee. He wants them to stay in Jerusalem and found the Church in Jerusalem, not to go and preach to all nations. Why? Because he had become aware of Paul's letters and that made it clear that Paul was the one to do the mission to the gentiles and not the disciples at all. Acts is a sequel to Luke's gospel to show that Paul had the mission, admittedly being rubber stamped at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which is also based on a huge rewrite of Paul doing a deal with Peter and James (Galatians 2.7-10) and we only hear what Paul has to say about that, too.

Without going too deep, the way I'd argue it is that the Church doctrine that Jesus taught that he would be resurrected and would save everyone is recorded in the Gospels, the disciples becoming Apostles but really it being Paul's mission to set up the Gentile church as in Acts, and Paul's letters pass on the teachings of the apostles.

And of course Church Traditions about how the apostles died for their faith proves the resurrection.

No. The order of events is Crucifixion, yes, I have reason to believe it. Jesus dead and stayed dead and the disciples knew it. But being Pharisee Jews (oh yes), they believed in an eventual resurrection and it was evidently Peter who first had a vision of Jesus in heaven and telling the others who also believed that Jesus was in heaven (in the spirit) and would soon return to 'accomplish all things' as he had failed to do. As you know, they are long dead and still no Jesus. Their belief was delusional.

It was also not to the liking of the Romans or their colleagues, the Sadducee -run Sanhedrin and their paid informers, of whom we may suppose Saul was one. Because though a Jew he was also a Roman, and the Apostolic movement was seen as subversive. I won't go into just how and why Paul changed his mind (but the vision on the road to Damascus is Luke's invention - Paul says nothing at all about that) but he tells us that there were a succession of appearances of Jesus to the apostles and finally to him (1.Cor. 15.5) and that was visionary, as it was to First Peter, then the others, 500 at once, finally James and (belatedly) to Paul.

This isn't the (Gospel) appearances of Jesus first to Mary (according the Matthew, though Luke contradicts that) then to Simon (only in Luke - because he read that Paul says so) then to the '11' (according to Luke but only ten according to John as supposedly Thomas wasn't there. And of course only 9 because James wasn't there if (as Paul's letter says) he only 'finally' saw Jesus.

It's clear that these are visions after the events sometime after crucifixion and burial and no support for the resurrection -accounts, which are invented and contradictory. Yet the disciples did believe that Jesus (in the spirit) had gone back to heaven and would come in their lifetimes and Paul came to believe (or at least teach) this, too and we get the sense of urgency; this could happen at any time. We still get the urgent warnings, 2000 years after he should have returned.
I also won't go into Paul's teaching that Jesus was a man and not a god and that the subsequent Christian teaching turned Jesus from God's chosen Messiah into God being present in a man over the evolution of 4 gospels, but rather point out that it was Christian thought that built on Paul and in what we see Jesus teaching and is not what Paul taught, much less what the Jewish apostles taught, and nothing to do with what Jesus taught, whatever that was as I can promise you that not a word of the Gospels is actually anything that Jesus said..

And the sticky end sof Paul and James and indeed the other apostles are traditions, which is to say made up stories or guesswork at best. Acts ends around AD 60 because that is all that Luke could glean from Paul's letters. The tradition that Peter went to Rome is handy for the Vatican, but is dubious, despite their efforts to prove that Peter was the first Pope.

So in the end, we don't know how any of the disciples died (you cannot trust Acts on this) and if they died for their Faith that Jesus had resurrected, it was not a faith that he had appeared in the resurrected body on the Sunday, because those stories are demonstrably concocted and Paul's list of Apostles who had visions of Jesus is nothing to do with resurrection -night.

[TRANSPONDER]

My concern is that there is an atheistic bias among some scholars that keeps them from openly considering the resurrection of Christ as a historical event.

I would approach this issue quite differently.

Historians use the historical method to write about the past. And the historical method, like any method, has certain epistemological limitations. In particular, the historical method only allows historians to infer what probably or most likely happened in the past.

Since miracles are, by definition, improbable, the historian qua historian cannot infer them as the most likely explanation. The Resurrection may well be true, but it simply lies beyond the methods of historians to establish it as an historical event. And so secular historians writing about the historical Jesus tend to just bracket it out.

I see you've been influenced by Bart Ehrman. In his debate with William Lane Craig regarding the evidence for the resurrection, Bart Ehrman made essentially the same arguments you are making here:

1. Miracles are by definition the most improbable past events.
2. Historians seek to establish the historicity of past events that probably happened.
3. Historians, then, must eschew miracles as past events because any non-miraculous event is more likely what happened.

William Lane Craig countered Ehrman arguing that the presumed probabilities of past events are not the only factor that should be considered when assessing history. Historians should also take into consideration the evidence for recorded events. If that evidence is good enough, then events, including miraculous events, can be considered historical.

I must side with Craig on this issue. Historical knowledge should include the knowledge of anything that has happened. So if miracles have taken place, and the evidence for them is good enough, then those miracles should be recorded in the history books.

Miracles are always tricky. Especially when they crop up in history that historians want to trust because it is all they have. The Test Case I use is Sallust's Jugurthine war' which is a pretty much unquestioned record of the Roman war in Numidia. And yet we get an account of a Roman legion dehydrating in the Numidian desert and a local water - carrier says 'Captain:, why don't you pray to Father BoBo?' So the legionaries all prance about shouting: 'Father BioBo, don't let your children die of thirst' and damn' my caligae if it doesn't rain buckets, sawing the legion. A miracle, and recorded in as reputable a history as antiquity can provide.

Do you believe it? Do I? Does Ehrmann or any other historian? No, I can bet not, and it is surely dismissed as a tall story added onto an otherwise reputable history. Just as the accounts of Alexander are taken as reliable, but the Gordian knot is regarded as legendary. Just as the death of a prophetic looney called Jesus who prophesied (according the Josephus) getting his head knocked off by a Roman ballista at the Siege, minutes before it happened.

No, miracles in the ancient histories are not thereby validated.

And yet, I don't actually endorse or use the 'Miracles don't happen' argument to debunk Jesus. That they don't usually happen in why the divine miracles of Jesus are special - if they really did happen.