Doubting Jesus' existence?

[historia]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

[ThatGirlAgain]

I think it's worth noting that as far as I've gathered, myself, Historia, ThatGirlAgain and Student would all probably agree on upwards of 70% of views about Jesus.

For the record, I find the idea of an historical Jesus more believable than the conglomeration of myths Jesus. The Pauline epistles and the Gospels seem to me to be attempts to explain away why a messianic figure got killed instead of bringing in the messianic age. Making up a story like that from scratch seems very unlikely – too many holes in it. And having what clearly started as an exclusively Jewish movement derived from pagan mythology? No way.

I imagine Jesus as a self-styled prophet seeking to restore true righteousness – moral living and charitable works – to justify God sending a judge to resurrect the dead, rewarding the good and punishing the bad. His disagreements with the letter of the law Shammai Pharisees of that timeframe and the Temple owning Sadducees got him in trouble with the Jewish powers that be. This was aggravated by his obvious popularity with the lower classes. His talk of a new kingdom coupled with his ‘rabble rousing’ was the perfect excuse to get the Romans to deal with him, thereby getting him out of the picture with less chance of strong recriminations from the ‘rabble’.

That sounds a whole lot more likely to me than either a divine plan or a totally made up story.

[EduChris]

...The ONLY writer...is Dan Barker's: Losing Faith in Faith...maybe you see HIM as a "non-expert" on such matters?

Dan Barker is certainly not an expert on the historical Jesus. Moreover, I'm sure he would say the same thing.

Agreed. No one with any graduate-level familiarity with scholarship could ever mistake Dan Barker (who has only an undergraduate degree) as an "expert" on such matters.

[theopoesis]

Hello Catalyst:

I'm unsatisfied with many of the historical claims that you are making in this thread and would like to point out their weaknessess and ask for some additional evidence. I'd like to be clear up front though that I'm not wanting to weigh in on the whole "motives" discussion between you and historia. I see no need to analyze your motives as I don't know you at all. I just want to weigh in on the data.

A little ironic don't you think that the words in John 8:32 ...were KEY to my personal exodus from christianity. "seek ye the truth and it shall set you free"... too funny...lol... it was good to know that those sentences are in the DSS 4Q163 too.... - dated to circa 150BCE.

I don't doubt that you sought truth in your quest. What I do doubt is that you arrived at truth. For example, your claim about DSS 4Q163. I was unfamiliar with the connection between John 8:32 and 4Q163, so I decided to look it up to learn a little. I checked three different translations of 4Q163, which is a series of fragments on a commentary of Isaiah. All three of the translations I checked, Geza Vermes, as well as Wise, Abegg, and Cook, and Florintino Garcia Martinez, have nothing remotely resembling "seek ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free." The conversation in 4Q163 isn't even on the topic of truth. Perhaps you meant another manuscript, or perhaps you'd better check your sources more closely in looking for truth.

A high percentage of information in the "Gospels" are nothing more than dodgy copy from many of the 927 Dead Sea Scrolls, and unfortunately for whomever wrote the "Gospels", they obviously didn't take into account future events; that this info would be dug up 1500 + years later, for people to SEE where this "character" and the supposedly unique things he is claimed to have said, have an entirely different beginnings and they had nothing to do with some god/man hybrid figure supposedly born around 2012 odd years ago.

I'd like to see some proof of this statement. The last time I noticed you making such a blanket statement was in the thread "The Miraculous Spread of First Century Christianity" when you claimed that Justin Martyr never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. My response (post 178) demonstrated that Martyr not only knew the details of Jesus, but outlined the story of his life. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't trust this blanket statement without a bit of proof. I suspect it's about as accurate as the claim about Martyr, but am quite willing to be proven wrong.

I also appreciate that at the time of "Jesus of Nazareth's" purported life, also prior to that and after, there are references to MULTIPLE blokes who had jesus as their Moniker, in fact from the research I have done, it seems that "Jesus" (Yeshua) was more a title than a name; a title given to high priests or religious cult leaders; sort of like Caesar was a title and not a name, first name or surname.. Even the NT itself refers to a "rival jesus", one obviously capable of doing the same sort of stuff the "jesus of nazareth" character, or there would be no reason to bring in the concept OF rivalry into it regarding the "other jesus". This is shown in both 2 Corinthians and also in Mark 9, so said moniker is hardly UNIQUE. As such, there could have been a multitude of "religious healers" running around the traps, Jesus as their name or NOT, that resulted in the fanciful melding that became the fictitious character known as "jesus of nazareth"....the one that unfortunately so many people are completely convinced (why I don't understand anymore) was a real person and even see as a "LIVING" god NOW...

I assume what you are referring to in Mark 9 is 9:38 - "John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him.'"

First, it would seem that "in your name" is an idiom for "by your authority" and not "someone with your name." I suppose a pretty strained translation would make the latter possible, but we'd run into some major problems. For example, the exact same phrase is used in Matthew 7:22 for example - "Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform miracles?" Does Jesus mean that many people will come up to him and say "Jesus we were named Jesus too and we did miracles!" Or is he referring to those who used his authority but whom he never new? How about Luke 10:17 - "The seventy-two returned with joy and said, 'Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.'" Does Luke mean to imply that there are really 72 Jesuses running around? If so, why doesn't he ever call a single member of the twelve, or of the seventy two, "Jesus"? What about John 17:11, where Jesus prays to the Father for the believers and says "Father, keep them in your name." Does he mean that we should now call each of the twelve "YHWH"? Or does he mean keep them filled with the authority of God? How about an Old Testament example: Jeremiah 29:24-25 - "To Shemaiah of Nehelam you shall say, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: you have sent letters in your name to all the people who are in Jerusalem." Does Jeremiah mean to say that Shemaiah sent letters to Jerusalem and that he named these letters after himself, so they were also named Shemaiah? I think not. It seems to me that your translation of Mark 9:38 would be contrary to common use, and would create a lot of silly claims about the use of the phrase elsewhere. There's pretty much no way that Mark 9:38 claims the miracle worker was named Jesus.

Second, and more importantly, I wonder how it is that you accept the historical existence of someone mentioned once in Mark 9:38 who may have been named Jesus (but almost certainly this isn't what the text means), but you deny the historical existence of someone who is the main character of the Gospel of Mark, and for whom we have much more thorough textual evidence. Why believe that there were many "Jesuses" running around based solely on 1 verse? Wouldn't it be more likely, based on your view of Mark, that this man mentioned in 9:38 didn't exist either?

Third, your suggestion that "Yeshua" was simply a title and not a name seems quite implausible. Take, for example the genealogy in Matthew 1. Verse 16 lists Jesus as the final name in a genealogy full of names of people considered to be historical people. Then verses 16 notes that Jesus was "called" the Christ. "Christ" is clearly indicated here as a title, "Jesus" as a name. What evidence is there that "Jesus" was actually a title and not a name?

[catalyst]

Hello Mithrae,

Nice to "see" you again.

A lot of atheists making the assertion that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth never existed, are former Ministers, Pastors, Priests etc. Dan Barker is one such example and I mention him only because he is probably better known than other examples I could give. Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity? Whether people like to believe it or not, removing ones-self from a religion that has consumed a good part of your life, is NOT easy peasy, in fact it is one of the most difficult things psychologically, one can do. Sometimes, even when looking into information to cement ones "faith", it can cause ones faith to come crashing down around them. At that point, one can choose to keep the blinkers on, or acknowledge the new information for exactly what it is....and that what it is.. is not necessarily what you wanted. If one is honest with themselves though, the blinkers come off.

I agree that loss of life-long committed faith is an extremely difficult and ultimately emotional thing. I don't agree that this is a credential in favour of the validity of those people's subsequent views - some would say it suggests quite the opposite, of semi-emotional reactionary views rather than minimal-bias study and analysis.

I suppose that is what you aren't understanding. When I refer to the blinkers being off, one is capable of seeing the information for what it is, rather than what you WANT it to be. The emotional attachment to the data is gone, where as a christian apologist for example, clings to anything, no matter if it makes sense or not, to "prove" they are still right and "just" in having their faith. Craig Blomberg is one such example. He is an alleged "expert" on such matters. "Expert" of course based on Historia's definition: Experts typically posess a Ph.D. (or other terminal degree) in that specific (or closley related) field of study. They have published articles on the topic in peer reviewed journals, and have likely written several books. They are highly cited by other scholars, and widely regarded as influencial within their field. He is a christian apologist and historian. His doctorate is the NT; he was a senior research fellow at Cambridge U....the list goes on. I think currently he is working at the Denver Seminary. Mr Blomberg has made claims (through his "open-minded" and unbiased research into the matter - [sarcasm]), that Matthew, Mark and Luke's gospels were physically penned by be-sandalled personal friends/followers OF a man named Jesus of Nazareth. He also concludes through his study and "expertise" in such matters, that this Jesus of Nazareth fellow DID do ALL the things the NT claims he did... He states he "knows" this and cites Papias as being the reason (and Papias through Eusebuis, btw). Now, from out prior interactions, I know you have at least read up on Papias as I recall you bringing him into the equation in our discussion. As such, you will know that Papias NEVER refers to any bloke with the name "JESUS OF NAZARETH", for starters. This is just a peek into this "noted expert's" drivel, where it is apparent that honest investigation has been LOST and replaced with emotional bias related directly to his "faith".



I wrote:

I don't believe the jesus of nazareth character existed, not only due to the "supernatural" elements as mentioned by Flail, but also from some long hard research into the matter; 15+ years of it, so it wasn't fleeting for me not to believe in "jesus" or his actual existence any more. The most difficult aspect of it all was to take the blinkers off. It was far easier to "choose" to believe, until my own conscience got the better of me and at that point, I could not continue living with what was, a "comfy" lie. A little ironic don't you think that the words in John 8:32 ...were KEY to my personal exodus from christianity. "seek ye the truth and it shall set you free"... too funny...lol... it was good to know that those sentences are in the DSS 4Q163 too.... - dated to circa 150BCE.

It's obvious that before the time of Jesus of Nazareth's purported life, there were MANY a messianic style figure running around the traps. Much of the NT - the claimed words of wisdom of the character were done PRIOR and a lot better. The "Sermon on the Mount" is one such example. A high percentage of information in the "Gospels" are nothing more than dodgy copy from many of the 927 Dead Sea Scrolls, and unfortunately for whomever wrote the "Gospels", they obviously didn't take into account future events; that this info would be dug up 1500 + years later, for people to SEE where this "character" and the supposedly unique things he is claimed to have said, have an entirely different beginnings and they had nothing to do with some god/man hybrid figure supposedly born around 2012 odd years ago.

You wrote:

It looks like you're saying that even the gospel of John has various elements which would have been very much at home in 1st century Palestine.

What I am saying is there is extant evidence to support that what the "gospel" writers attributed to this Jesus of Nazareth character, purported to have lived IN 1st century Palestine, as being unique and a "proof" of Jesus of Nazareth actually being "GOD" - on earth, existed at least 100 years PRIOR to his claimed birth, and were not written to determine what would happen IN the future (the future being 1st century), but rather a commentary of what was happening at the time: that 100 odd years PRIOR. I am not saying this real person though, was born of a virgin, nor was resurrected, nor did he or she walk on water. There are elements OF people prior that I see in the "gospels", yes.

What is interesting is, the prototype of what would become the "sermon on the mount" (the post resurrection hoo-ha), was originaly related to a SHE, as being wise, SHE as being the bringer of peace. These particular DSS writings actually coincide with the life and time of a QUEEN - that queen being Salome - a Jewish queen and her reign between 78BCE- 69BCE. (she was also born 139BCE... so you do the math there too). In her reign, SHE actually brought peace and stability into the equation due to her "ways", her reign. There WAS PEACE in the region for that 9 years. A tiny block admittedly but it was a peaceful time.

The thing is, there is an abundance of information relating to this woman and her own "religious" advisors. Obviously the religious advisors information is purely contained in the DSS, but there is also MUCH contemporary information about her as well. Again, it seems to me that the lack of desire in some to really and truly get to the bottom of things rears its ugly head again.


Odd how few if any of these "noted experts" even bring this stuff into the equation. I know for a fact from our previous interactions Mithrae, you have no clue about this woman and you admitted as much. Not that I reckon you call yourself an "expert in any way, but it's clear that you DO reply on what some "experts" say and take their opinions on board as FACT....and don't bother to look any further yourself. That doesn't apply just to you Mithrae but to all those quite obviously not understanding MY position. I looked past my own comfort zone. I did not want to find what I did, but when it came down to honest appraisal of the information, I had no choice but TO acknowledge it. I don't like dishonesty and lies and frankly, I refuse to be a part of it. It is that simple. It is apparent though that many on this thread, whether christian or not, still like or even want to cling for their own reasons, the "idea" that there was some SINGLE, SOLE bloke...with these "disciples" running around for a couple of years in 1st century Palestine, on which to base the christian perceived "messianic" star on. It is evident by even this thread being titled and refering to THE "historical jesus". Now if they want to go that way, then perhaps they should study up on Appalonius of Tyana. (again, probably like Salome a vast majority of you have never heard of). At least reading up on this "proven" (MUCH evidence to support) historical figure, can at least guage where some of the writings of Paul perhaps could have derived and would also explain where Marcion got HIS info, which from my research, shows that Marcion wrote tha majority of the Pauline Epistles in the 2nd century (circa 140ish CE) rather than the "assumed" dates of the works of "PAUL" around circa 50CE. Cool thing is Appalonius DID leave writings of his own in his lifetime, which spanned around 100 years and he WAS born circa 4BCE and his life spanned through to close to 100CE. Interestingly in his personal writings, there is not a mention, pip or squeak about some "Jesus of Nazareth" nor his claimed cohorts or even any subsequent (to the alleged miraculous events) and this dude DID live throughout ALL their (alleged) lifetimes. From these personal memoirs of Apollonius, Flavius Philostratus wrote a biography and both the original writings of Apollonius exist as well as the biography done by Flavius, from the autobiographic information.Flavius also incorporated resounding contemporary evidence to support Apollonius' autobiography.

Again, from the interactions I have read on this forum, when people cite these alleged "expert" opinions, does ANY of this ACTUAL historical information, enter the equation.

It also looks like you're disagreeing with the most common mythicist views, that Jesus was fundamentally a syncretic pagan figure.

I stated clearly that I have never read their offerings, Mithrae. In fact the only thing I know about these people's writings is stuff that people such as yourself, Historia, etc cite on here. I cannot comment on things that "Student"(a name brought up in dialogue on this thread) has brought forth, as I have not read their comments obviously taken from their own thoughts on the matter. TGA..well, I realise she has said much and has commented on much, but her take on this particular issue, I have not read. I suppose if she wants to give me her personal educated take on it, then I am happy to look at it. Until that time. I cannot comment on what she actually DOES or does not "know".

I disagree with what I have seen referred to on here, whether that is the authors ACTUAL take or not, or merely the posters interpretation of what was written though, is another thing. The fact is, it seems that NONE of you tend to go the extra mile to even see for yourself if what these "experts" ARE claiming is actually viable or not. It seems you either agree with their face value hypotheses or you don't. Case closed. That has ZERO to do with ALL the facts out there, but moreso to do with what you "want" to believe.

Let me clarify something so it is patently clear to all and sundry who care to read this.

I DO NOT believe that a bloke by the name of Jesus of Nazareth ACTUALLY lived, during the period 4BCE - 30CE. It is not because I don't want to believe it, but the evidence to support such a character's existence is JUST NOT THERE. I do not consider religious propaganda to be historical "proof" of anything other than certain people throughout time HAVE believed UNSUPPORTED by ACTUAL EVIDENCE hooplah.

I do believe that the Jesus of Nazareth character is nothing more than a melding of MANY different people who did exist, and only in regard to his less than "miraculous" supposed achievements. I do not believe that at any point in ACTUAL history that any human being was born from "immaculate conception" nor did anyone defy death and in said defiance OF death, cause others to rise from their graves in a "zombie frenzie". I do not believe that even as a child (from reading the non-biblical writings) that this "jesus of nazareth", picked up clay, formed them into balls and they miraculously became birds and flew away.

So in that regard, I suppose that it can be established that there are certain elements of this "jesus of nazareth" FICTICIOUS character, gleaned from a multitude of people who actually lived at one point or MANY historical points. Some of the elements as to Jesus of Nazareth though, ARE mythical.

Unfortunately, it IS basically the mythical stuff that is CORE to the christian belief system. Virgin birth, resurrection. It is THESE things that many a christian claim is "proof" that their "jesus" IS THE MESSIAH. It IS these things about the character that are celebrated and exploited. WOW, "Christmas"...".Easter". So even IF (which I doubt) it is based on one guy and one guy alone, that guy did NOT do, nor was part of these KEY THINGS the "faith" rests on. Without that guff... there is NO "christ".

That is why I decided to post on this thread as the writer of the OP has a predisposition (tautological no doubt) to TRY to show that there was "ONE GUY" all the guff was based on.

If however anyone on this thread has information to counter my position, bring it! I am always open to new information...no matter where it will take me.

Unless we assume (as I agree, some Christians seem to) that an historical Jesus must have been completely uninfluenced by prior Jewish culture, what you're saying seems to almost be claims that the gospels give a pretty good portrayal of a genuine 1st century Jewish teacher.

See, again you reckon it comes down to one, sole human being as being THE.....AN... "historical jesus" and you can't or don't want to get past that. This thread is not about psych analysis so I won't even read "into", but perhaps that is something if you choose to, should contemplate why.

That said, of course in the melding of the Jesus of Nazareth character at least, had/has elements that related to Jewish culture of the time come into the equation at some point or on some level, as the Judaic G-d is the CRUX TO the christian belief too, - he IS the "creator god of which this god/man hybrid was sporn, but what many a christian fail to understand is, the messianic view in judaism has ZERO to do with a sole, "beamed down from god's supernatural loins into a waiting virgin vessel" bloke running around doing supernatural stuff. When Jews say that their book is a DIFFERENT book to the Christian OT, they say it with good reason.

Even more evidence to support that NO sole guy...an individual...an "historical jesus" "fit" ANY actual "expectation".

Thank you for your comments and if you wish to reply, I look forward to it.

For others whose posts I have seen this morning, I will not be replying further today as there are family issues I have to deal with.

Catalyst.

[kayky]

Spiritually speaking, I don't really think it matters if Jesus actually existed or not. As a Christian I believe he did exist. But much of what was written about him is mythic in nature. I am a person, however, that places great stock in the power of Myth.

[historia]

I find your example of John and John Adams to be boardering on the absurd.

It's not bordering on the absurd, it is absurd. That's the point. The analogy was meant to show the absurdness of catalysts' argument.

E.P. Sanders approached the subject by taking as an given that Jesus existed, and then made a case for a specific type of Jesus.. looking at the culture of the time... and ignoring any information that didn't fit into his thesis.

Let's back up here a second. As I pointed out before, history (the dicipline) works like any other field of human inquiry: You begin with an observation, you proceeed to form a hypothesis, and then attempt to verify that hypothesis.

So now let's rephrase what you just said above in that light: Sanders observes the available data (the fact Christianity even exists, extant early Christian writings, and sources that inform our understanding of Second Temple Judaism), he then forms a hypothesis (Jesus was a Jewish eschatological prophet), and finally, through critical analysis of the available texts, attempts to verify that hypothesis.

The question before you, then, is this: Does that hypothesis explain the available data better than the mythicist hypothesis?

Other than acknowledging the evidence was scant, he approached it by ignoring the issue.

Sanders approaches Jesus in the same way historians approach any other historical figure. You're not going to pick-up a scholarly work on Plato or Hannibal or Nero and expect them to first argue if he even existed, right?

That being said, I think you would benefit from a book that delves into methodology more. The Historical Figure of Jesus is an introductory text, so Sanders doesn't go into his methodology too deeply. He does in greater depth in Jesus and Judaism. Meier's first volume of A Marginal Jew covers sources and methodology in great depth.

Or maybe just read Ehrman's new popular-level book Did Jesus Exist? It approaches the question from the angle you are expecting, rather than these scholarly works, which ultimately address that issue, just not as directly as you would maybe like.

OF course, the issue isn't made any clearer because of the historical record being fudged by some of the early Christians

I find it quite funny that you refer to Josephus as "the historical record" (you've done this in other threads too) as if we can simply, and un-critically, accept what he says as factual. But when it comes to Luke, and other early Christian sources, we must treat anything and everything they say with hyper-skepticism.

Why the double standard?

[Mithrae]

Hello Mithrae,

Nice to "see" you again.

Likewise

I agree that loss of life-long committed faith is an extremely difficult and ultimately emotional thing. I don't agree that this is a credential in favour of the validity of those people's subsequent views - some would say it suggests quite the opposite, of semi-emotional reactionary views rather than minimal-bias study and analysis.

I suppose that is what you aren't understanding. When I refer to the blinkers being off, one is capable of seeing the information for what it is, rather than what you WANT it to be. The emotional attachment to the data is gone, where as a christian apologist for example, clings to anything, no matter if it makes sense or not, to "prove" they are still right and "just" in having their faith. Craig Blomberg is one such example. He is an alleged "expert" on such matters. "Expert" of course based on Historia's definition: Experts typically posess a Ph.D. (or other terminal degree) in that specific (or closley related) field of study. They have published articles on the topic in peer reviewed journals, and have likely written several books. They are highly cited by other scholars, and widely regarded as influencial within their field. He is a christian apologist and historian. His doctorate is the NT; he was a senior research fellow at Cambridge U....the list goes on. I think currently he is working at the Denver Seminary. Mr Blomberg has made claims (through his "open-minded" and unbiased research into the matter - [sarcasm]), that Matthew, Mark and Luke's gospels were physically penned by be-sandalled personal friends/followers OF a man named Jesus of Nazareth. He also concludes through his study and "expertise" in such matters, that this Jesus of Nazareth fellow DID do ALL the things the NT claims he did... He states he "knows" this and cites Papias as being the reason (and Papias through Eusebuis, btw). Now, from out prior interactions, I know you have at least read up on Papias as I recall you bringing him into the equation in our discussion. As such, you will know that Papias NEVER refers to any bloke with the name "JESUS OF NAZARETH", for starters. This is just a peek into this "noted expert's" drivel, where it is apparent that honest investigation has been LOST and replaced with emotional bias related directly to his "faith".

I agree that religious people, however much education they have undertaken, can view the information with a strong bias towards their tradtional roots. It's also true that non-religious people, however much or little education they have undertaken, can view the information with a strong bias against the traditional roots they've left behind.

Your comments seem to illustrate a more or less black-and-white scenario between religious zealots and some alleged people who are "seeing the information for what it is." But that doesn't account for Christian scholars who reject even many 'core doctrines' of traditional Christianity (I believe J. D. Crossan for one falls in this group) or ex-Christian scholars who still affirm Jesus' historicity (Bart Erhman, I believe). As far as I'm aware your alleged people who "see the information for what it is" constitute a tiny minority, and often don't even agree with each other!

You wrote:

It looks like you're saying that even the gospel of John has various elements which would have been very much at home in 1st century Palestine.

What I am saying is there is extant evidence to support that what the "gospel" writers attributed to this Jesus of Nazareth character, purported to have lived IN 1st century Palestine, as being unique and a "proof" of Jesus of Nazareth actually being "GOD"

Could you show where the gospels say that Jesus' teachings were unique?

Odd how few if any of these "noted experts" even bring this stuff into the equation. I know for a fact from our previous interactions Mithrae, you have no clue about this woman and you admitted as much. Not that I reckon you call yourself an "expert in any way, but it's clear that you DO reply on what some "experts" say and take their opinions on board as FACT....and don't bother to look any further yourself. That doesn't apply just to you Mithrae but to all those quite obviously not understanding MY position.

What you have said is that Queen Salome was wise and brought nine years of peace. You have also claimed that the Sermon on the Mount is based on Dead Sea Scrolls information related to Queen Salome's reign.

You have not given the text of these DSS manuscripts for comparison. You have not given any brief examples from these DSS manuscripts for comparison. You have not even given any reference for these DSS manuscripts for those with the inclination and ability to look them up!

In short, you are apparently expecting me to take your opinions on board as FACT. Certainly you haven't given any reasons to think my current views are wrong.

It also looks like you're disagreeing with the most common mythicist views, that Jesus was fundamentally a syncretic pagan figure.

I stated clearly that I have never read their offerings, Mithrae. In fact the only thing I know about these people's writings is stuff that people such as yourself, Historia, etc cite on here. I cannot comment on things that "Student"(a name brought up in dialogue on this thread) has brought forth, as I have not read their comments obviously taken from their own thoughts on the matter. TGA..well, I realise she has said much and has commented on much, but her take on this particular issue, I have not read. I suppose if she wants to give me her personal educated take on it, then I am happy to look at it. Until that time. I cannot comment on what she actually DOES or does not "know".

I disagree with what I have seen referred to on here, whether that is the authors ACTUAL take or not, or merely the posters interpretation of what was written though, is another thing. The fact is, it seems that NONE of you tend to go the extra mile to even see for yourself if what these "experts" ARE claiming is actually viable or not. It seems you either agree with their face value hypotheses or you don't. Case closed. That has ZERO to do with ALL the facts out there, but moreso to do with what you "want" to believe.

You seem to be suggesting that you have accessed ALL the facts out there, whereas others on this forum believe what they want to believe without seeing for themselves whether or not it's viable.

Unless we assume (as I agree, some Christians seem to) that an historical Jesus must have been completely uninfluenced by prior Jewish culture, what you're saying seems to almost be claims that the gospels give a pretty good portrayal of a genuine 1st century Jewish teacher.

See, again you reckon it comes down to one, sole human being as being THE.....AN... "historical jesus" and you can't or don't want to get past that. This thread is not about psych analysis so I won't even read "into", but perhaps that is something if you choose to, should contemplate why.

Why what? I'm still not sure how or why you managed to "get past" an historical Jesus; from what you've said so far, it basically looks like "different, earlier people taught things similar to the gospels' Jesus, therefore Jesus didn't exist."

That is not valid reasoning.

---

I think it's worth noting that as far as I've gathered, myself, Historia, ThatGirlAgain and Student would all probably agree on upwards of 70% of views about Jesus.

For the record, I find the idea of an historical Jesus more believable than the conglomeration of myths Jesus. The Pauline epistles and the Gospels seem to me to be attempts to explain away why a messianic figure got killed instead of bringing in the messianic age. Making up a story like that from scratch seems very unlikely – too many holes in it. And having what clearly started as an exclusively Jewish movement derived from pagan mythology? No way.

I imagine Jesus as a self-styled prophet seeking to restore true righteousness – moral living and charitable works – to justify God sending a judge to resurrect the dead, rewarding the good and punishing the bad. His disagreements with the letter of the law Shammai Pharisees of that timeframe and the Temple owning Sadducees got him in trouble with the Jewish powers that be. This was aggravated by his obvious popularity with the lower classes. His talk of a new kingdom coupled with his ‘rabble rousing’ was the perfect excuse to get the Romans to deal with him, thereby getting him out of the picture with less chance of strong recriminations from the ‘rabble’.

That sounds a whole lot more likely to me than either a divine plan or a totally made up story.

I agree with all this, with two main caveats:
- His disturbance in the temple courtyard was probably historical and probably the final straw, the final catalyst which resulted in his death.
- As a prophet proclaiming an immanent 'kingdom of God' and true righteousness rather than a ritual shell, I think it's very possible that he was largely motivated by concern that the Roman government might bring about Daniel's predicted destruction of the temple. One of the more noteworthy revolutionary messiahs was active in his region while Jesus was a child, if memory serves (Judas the Galilean?)

[Goat]

I find your example of John and John Adams to be boardering on the absurd.

It's not bordering on the absurd, it is absurd. That's the point. The analogy was meant to show the absurdness of catalysts' argument.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't address her argument at all. It is a total and utter diversion, rather than dealing with it. If anything, it shows at the lengths of the people who are trying to Promote the evidence of Jesus' historical existence to deflect that the actual evidence we have is virtually non-existent and with bad sources and full of sources that are selling something.

E.P. Sanders approached the subject by taking as an given that Jesus existed, and then made a case for a specific type of Jesus.. looking at the culture of the time... and ignoring any information that didn't fit into his thesis.

Let's back up here a second. As I pointed out before, history (the dicipline) works like any other field of human inquiry: You begin with an observation, you proceeed to form a hypothesis, and then attempt to verify that hypothesis.

Nonsense.. absolutely and utter nonsense. E.P Sanders is selling an eschological Jesus, and ignoring anything that disagrees with the understanding of Jesus he is promoting. While very learned and well written, it does NOT address the subject of actual evidence that Jesus existed, taking it as a given, while admitting the evidence is scant. That ISN'T what you advertised it to be. While an interesting examination of the social forces that were in Jerusalem at the time, as for providing new evidence for Jesus.. nope.. not at all.

So now let's rephrase what you just said above in that light: Sanders observes the available data (the fact Christianity even exists, extant early Christian writings, and sources that inform our understanding of Second Temple Judaism), he then forms a hypothesis (Jesus was a Jewish eschatological prophet), and finally, through critical analysis of the available texts, attempts to verify that hypothesis.

That is a hypothesis, and all we can say is that some of the believers in Jesus constructed a eschatlogical prophet.. .. others constructed a Jesus that was a rebel against Rome..... he did that through critical analysis of the available text, and ignore those texts that did not agree with his hypothesis.

The question before you, then, is this: Does that hypothesis explain the available data better than the mythicist hypothesis?

It is neither better or worse. The factors that went into having some followers be eschatlogical would be there if Jesus was a myth, or a man. His work did not resolve that issue one way or the other. It provides NO new information on that subject.

Other than acknowledging the evidence was scant, he approached it by ignoring the issue.

Sanders approaches Jesus in the same way historians approach any other historical figure. You're not going to pick-up a scholarly work on Plato or Hannibal or Nero and expect them to first argue if he even existed, right?

Uh.. no.. not at all. I might argue about Plato.. since the actual evidence for him is extremely scant, but we have far far more information about Hannibal and Nero.

That being said, I think you would benefit from a book that delves into methodology more. The Historical Figure of Jesus is an introductory text, so Sanders doesn't go into his methodology too deeply. He does in greater depth in Jesus and Judaism. Meier's first volume of A Marginal Jew covers sources and methodology in great depth.

And, when it comes to determinging the actual existence of Jesus, it falls far short. It makes an assumption... The purpose was not to show that a Jesus existed, but to provide a picture of what he thought that Jesus is. As for showing that person actually existed.. well, no.. it falls short. It even falls short when it comes to building the Jesus that E.P Sanders wanted, since it cherry picked the details it wanted so carefully, while ignoring anything that did not fit into the pattern he wanted. While very well written for what it was trying to promote, it was not new evidence that Jesus existed, or even a scholarly article, but rather a popular layman's book that was selling a specific KIND of Jesus.

Or maybe just read Ehrman's new popular-level book Did Jesus Exist? It approaches the question from the angle you are expecting, rather than these scholarly works, which ultimately address that issue, just not as directly as you would maybe like.

I found that too.. it was BADLY written,... extremely bad... I had not read any of his previous books, but on the sample of this one, I am not going too..

OF course, the issue isn't made any clearer because of the historical record being fudged by some of the early Christians

I find it quite funny that you refer to Josephus as "the historical record" (you've done this in other threads too) as if we can simply, and un-critically, accept what he says as factual. But when it comes to Luke, and other early Christian sources, we must treat anything and everything they say with hyper-skepticism.

Why the double standard?

Well Josephus , when we look at it.. had modifications made to it., that is almost universally acknowledged.

There is very good reasons to suspect any references to the 'Messiah' in Josephus was added later. In the 'Jewish Wars 6:12-13' Joesph's proclaimed that Vespasian
was the promised "king of the Jews', and he treated all other claimants very harshly in his writings. Adding any reference to the messiah in even a neutral manner would be going against Josephus' promotion of the current roman emperor as the Messiah. With that, and the evidence of modification, it puts all the references to Jesus the messiah in question.

[theopoesis]

Hi Catalyst:

Just doing a few more fact checks on your most recent post. I look forward to your reponses (the reader should know that Catalyst and I have chatted through PM and I am aware of her business the next little while keeping her from responding. Hopefully she can respond to this and the prior post in this thread in due time. Until then happy reading).

Papias NEVER refers to any bloke with the name "JESUS OF NAZARETH", for starters.

First, we should note that we do not have any copies of Papias' works. All we have is where he is cited or summarized by other authors. No, we don't have anyone citing Papias using the name "Jesus", but even the 9 potentially authentic fragments we have (one is likely medieval), we do get some basic details that correspond to the life of Jesus.

Papias is recorded by Eusebius as saying that "the Lord" had disciples, some of whom were named Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39)

Oecumenius discusses how Papias describes Judas as in a sad state, so his body swelled and he was run down by a chariot and his guts spewed out.

Irenaeus tells how Papias again depicts "the Lord" teaching, and calls Judas "the traitor." (Irenæus, Hær., v. 32) Papias also echoes John 14:22, where Jesus said "In my Father’s house are many mansions" (Irenæus, Hær., v. 36)

Thus, from just the tiny fragments we have, Papias seems to describe an individual who taught many things and who was considered a Lord, who had many disciples, and who was betrayed by Judas, who later died. All of these details correspond with other accounts of the life of a man called Jesus of Nazareth, so it is not unreasonable to believe that Papias was referring to this man. You are arguing from silence that Papias did not know who Jesus was, but given these details it is more likely to fill in the gaps of silence by assuming that Papias' full book had more information about Jesus and likely at some point would have used his name.

What I am saying is there is extant evidence to support that what the "gospel" writers attributed to this Jesus of Nazareth character, purported to have lived IN 1st century Palestine, as being unique and a "proof" of Jesus of Nazareth actually being "GOD" - on earth, existed at least 100 years PRIOR to his claimed birth, and were not written to determine what would happen IN the future (the future being 1st century), but rather a commentary of what was happening at the time: that 100 odd years PRIOR. I am not saying this real person though, was born of a virgin, nor was resurrected, nor did he or she walk on water. There are elements OF people prior that I see in the "gospels", yes.

What is interesting is, the prototype of what would become the "sermon on the mount" (the post resurrection hoo-ha), was originaly related to a SHE, as being wise, SHE as being the bringer of peace. These particular DSS writings actually coincide with the life and time of a QUEEN - that queen being Salome - a Jewish queen and her reign between 78BCE- 69BCE. (she was also born 139BCE... so you do the math there too). In her reign, SHE actually brought peace and stability into the equation due to her "ways", her reign. There WAS PEACE in the region for that 9 years. A tiny block admittedly but it was a peaceful time.

The thing is, there is an abundance of information relating to this woman and her own "religious" advisors. Obviously the religious advisors information is purely contained in the DSS, but there is also MUCH contemporary information about her as well. Again, it seems to me that the lack of desire in some to really and truly get to the bottom of things rears its ugly head again.

Could you please provide a source? I certainly am aware of Salome Alexandra, part of the Hasmonean lineage. I am unaware of where she preaches the sermon on the mount in the DSS. I also believe that the "peace" you refer to is a result of the rosy glasses of later admirers. My Judaism textbook claims that she maintained power by giving up most of her control to the Pharisaic party, who used the opportunity to go about murdering their opponents. Not quite the peace as you depict it.

perhaps they should study up on Appalonius of Tyana. (again, probably like Salome a vast majority of you have never heard of). At least reading up on this "proven" (MUCH evidence to support) historical figure... Cool thing is Appalonius DID leave writings of his own in his lifetime, which spanned around 100 years and he WAS born circa 4BCE and his life spanned through to close to 100CE... From these personal memoirs of Apollonius, Flavius Philostratus wrote a biography and both the original writings of Apollonius exist as well as the biography done by Flavius, from the autobiographic information.

I, for one, have heard of Apollonius of Tyana. It's fairly standard stuff really, if you study this academically. I heard about him freshmen year in undergrad in my first intro to new testament which was, ironically, taught by Bart Ehrman.

The thing about Apollonius is that the historical sources are hardly as you paint them. The only book we have about Apollonius was written in the mid third century by Philostratus. It cites older books, which we no longer have any copies of. Among these older books are the purported writings of Apollonius. As far as I'm aware, we don't actually have a copy of these writings themselves, nor any way to really date them. We just have them cited in the much later Eusebius of Caesarea and in Philostratus. What's fascinating is that by the same time people were claiming that Jesus had written letters, too. So Eusebius of Caesarea in his church history records the supposed letters written between King Abgar V of Syria and Jesus Christ. Of course, historians don't believe them to be authentic because after such a long time it is much more likely for pseudonymous writings to emerge. Now roughly the same timespan passes between Apollonius and the first actual source we have of his "original writings". Why do you accept Apollonius as authentic, and not the writings of Jesus?

So there's really no way to tell whether Jesus was based on Apollonius, or Apollonius on Jesus. In fact, as the sources we have for Jesus are much older in terms of composition date (by 150 years!), we can actually lean towards Jesus being the original.

Interestingly in (Apollonius') personal writings, there is not a mention, pip or squeak about some "Jesus of Nazareth" nor his claimed cohorts or even any subsequent (to the alleged miraculous events) and this dude DID live throughout ALL their (alleged) lifetimes.Flavius also incorporated resounding contemporary evidence to support Apollonius' autobiography.

And also interesting that the four authors who wrote the gospels do not mention Apollonius either, nor any of the records of his lifetime. What's the point? Every author will not mention every historical person who exists contemporary to them.

my research, shows that Marcion wrote the majority of the Pauline Epistles in the 2nd century (circa 140ish CE) rather than the "assumed" dates of the works of "PAUL" around circa 50CE.

Your research is quite mistaken. Paul's epistles are mentioned already in 1 Clement, which is written c. 96 CE. 1 Clement 47:1-6 mentions 1 Corinthians. The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians c. 110-140 CE also mentions the letter of Paul to the Philippians (Ch. 3), and quotes Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians and possibly the 2nd letter to the Corinthians. They are also mentioned in 2 Peter 3, which is contemporaneous with Marcion at the latest.

Further, some historical scholars (for example Henry Gamble) suggest that Marcion's use of Pauline letters demonstrates that he is basing his canon on an earlier source. In Patristic tradition, there was a frequent claim that Paul had written epistles to 7 churches, and that this number signified their completeness and universality. The letters are always mentioned from largest to smallest, taking two letters to a single church as a single unit. Thus: Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, and Colossians. Now, Marcion's canon began with Galatians, and switches Ephesians (which Marcion calls Laodiceans) with Thessalonians. Otherwise, the order remains ordered by descending length, which suggests that he modified the earlier corpus for theological reasons. The descending length pattern seems to have no significance for Marcion, but is vestigial from an earlier version. Contextually, a collection of seven letters fits with the first century, when the book of Revelation addressed seven letters to the seven churches, and Polycarp collected letters of Ignatius of Antioch to seven churches. Scholars suggest both of these might be in mimicry of the ten Pauline letters to seven churches. The length of papyrus required to circulate these seven Pauline letters together explains the use of a codex instead of a papyrus scroll, which was a distinctive development of early Christianity.

Of course above and beyond this are the internal claims of the Pauline Epistles themselves, the historical situation which can be derived from them, etc. Typically scholars suggest these point to an early date.

Why do you think Marcion wrote these letters?

I DO NOT believe that a bloke by the name of Jesus of Nazareth ACTUALLY lived, during the period 4BCE - 30CE. It is not because I don't want to believe it, but the evidence to support such a character's existence is JUST NOT THERE. I do not consider religious propaganda to be historical "proof" of anything other than certain people throughout time HAVE believed UNSUPPORTED by ACTUAL EVIDENCE hooplah.

It is interesting that you claim to not believe "religious propaganda to be historical 'proof' of anything." Yet, you claim that Apollonius of Tyana existed. Philostratus was a man who followed Apollonius as a religious leader. He wrote a book filled with religious content about Apollonius, commissioned by a Roman Empress who was also a religious follower of Apollonius. The "resounding contemporary evidence" that you point to within this book is nothing other than historical apologetics, much like Craig Blomberg offers.

For some reason, you accept the book by Philostratus, but not the book by Blomberg. Why?

[Flail]

Spiritually speaking, I don't really think it matters if Jesus actually existed or not. As a Christian I believe he did exist. But much of what was written about him is mythic in nature. I am a person, however, that places great stock in the power of Myth.

Whether Jesus existed is absolutely irrelevant IMO. His messaqge and teaching is available regardless if from reality or fiction. However, the claims that he was at all supernatural are too preposterous and unsubstntiated to justify rational belief.