The Jesus myth theory on CNN Internet news

[crystalonyx]

Do you think Elvis was a normal, everyday man? If so, how do you explain the tales that have grown up around him following his death -- tales of sightings, miracles in his name, and such?

I have no doubts he was a man.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it reasonable to doubt his historicity? Of course it is.

It's a thoughtless and disingenuous question. At issue is whether it is reasonable to presume the mythicist narrative.

 

[Sunstone]

I have no doubts he was a man.

Is there any reason to suppose that if myths can grow up around Elvis following Elvis' death, myths could not have grown up around Jesus following his death?

 

[crystalonyx]

Like who and like what?

"No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!"

Jesus Did Not Exist

 

[fallingblood]

The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22. If the real man the gospels were written about was just a normal everyday guy, then it is illogical to think the stories in the NT are based upon such a man. since they are stories about a charismatic healer and miracle worker, who actually could raise people from the dead, had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial. It is much more likely these stories of a man-god were fiction.
If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note. But such is not the case.
A real historical Jesus would have had to have some of the traits of the NT Jesus to be considered to be a historical Jesus, or the relationship is totally inconsequential and irrelevant. But if he had these traits, he would have certainly been written about by historians of the day, several of whom wrote volumes about the most inconsequential things. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

When you copy and paste something, you should give credit where credit is due. Otherwise it is plagiarism, and is dishonest, as well as against forum rules.

 

[fallingblood]

the only Marvin Meyer in biblical studies

You seemed to miss my point. Marvin Meyer translates those books that supposedly were burned. As in, he has a number of books on such. So if those books were all burned, he wouldn't have been able to translate such.

More so, you still haven't given a source. You also haven't given any sources on serious scholars who think Paul is almost worthless, or wasn't a Jew.

 

[fallingblood]

This is where I have my greatest disagreement with you. Most historical figures are not validated largely by their mention in a body of religious scripture. They do not have a massive movement of people behind them that have a religious motive for belief in their existence. We do know that at least some of the scriptural and historical "evidence" has been tainted by this faith-based motive. For example, the Middle Ages had a veritable industry of fake relics designed to extract money from true believers. Just because we cannot prove that a body of text was so-manufactured, that does not mean that it wasn't. We are left with scraps of real data and enormous social pressure to give them more weight than intellectual generosity might otherwise warrant.

That is a very good point. There are problems with the sources, and I think they are given more problem today since Jesus is still seen as "God" by many.

Also, Jesus has continued to be seen as a divine, and thus has been written more and more as such over the years.

However, at the same time, I think we can look at the earliest writings regarding Jesus, those in the NT, and compare them to writings regarding other figures from that time, and see many similarities. I like pointing to Augustus, as there are many similarities there. Augustus was also seen as a religious figure, and had much of the same mythology appointed to him.

I do think that if the movement that Jesus started had died out, no one would doubt that Jesus was a historical figure who had later mythology attached to him. But since people continue to assume that the Biblical books are historical renditions of who Jesus was, there is a natural backlash against that. And it becomes an all or nothing.

The problem with relying on text is that it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish fiction from non-fiction. Good fiction writers can create an illusion of reality. The best fiction does it very convincingly. Even competent scholars who write history books get things wrong, and people like Josephus were not that sort of scholar. Tacitus was the best historical scholar in those times, and all his work does, assuming it contains no interpolations, is validate the existence of Christians in those times, not the historicity of Christ. Much of the rest of history contains more than just reliance on text for its validation. We can validate the existence of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, for example, not on just what their contemporaries wrote about them, but by archaeology and the historical shift of political borders. For lesser figures, we have no reason to suspect that their historicity might have been doctored by people who had ulterior motives for validating their existence.

The problem with the historicity of Jesus is not so much lack of evidence, but too much evidence. His historicity has been clouded by all of the falsehoods and social pressure created by his followers. Is it reasonable to doubt his historicity? Of course it is. Does it matter much in the end whether a real man lay at the heart of the narrative? Not to me, but I can understand why it matters to a great many others. In the end, that's the real problem with this debate that separates it from normal historical debates over what really happened in the past. Objective judgment is too easily clouded by the emotional stake that believers and non-believers bring to the debate.

I agree with this as well. There is a lot of emotional baggage thrown into the debate. For me, it doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not. The idea of Jesus, and the story, and movement are still here. But it is apparent some need Jesus to have existed, and even to be exactly as the Bible states.

I think on the other side, those who deny Jesus, also do so partially because of emotions. Partially it's because they have had such a problem with Christianity, that their emotions cloud their judgement and they just deny everything.

For me, I like the middle ground. I see him as just one more religious leader, who by sheer luck, became the catalyst for a movement that by sheer luck, lasted.

 

[fallingblood]

"No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!"

Jesus Did Not Exist

This is just bad research. The Testimonium Flavianum has not been shown to be a fraud. It has been shown to contain interpolations, but that is different than being a fraud. Really, only three recent books have suggested that the TF is a forgery, and they were not done by scholars.

If you look at what scholars have to say on it, ranging from Bible scholars, to historians, and even Josephus scholars, they agree that the TF was mostly authentic, with later interpolations.

As for the other mention of Jesus, it isn't just in reference to James. We are told that this Jesus was called Christ. As in, others called Jesus Christ, but Josephus himself was not saying he was Christ. So your source is really just doing poor research.

More so, we do have Paul, who was a contemporary of Jesus, who knew and related first hand accounts, and speak of this James, the brother of Jesus, as well. And Paul does talk about an earthly Jesus.

More so, your source seems to ignore the fact that most individuals were only written about after the fact. Even the majority of information we get about the Emperors were written after the fact, by people who never knew those Emperors. We are talking about a culture in which the literacy rate was maybe 3% and oral tradition was the norm.

Not to mention, no one else seems to mention John the Baptist as well, yet he is an accepted historical figure. And then there are the many other religious leaders from that time, who also were said to perform miracles and the like, that also were never mentioned until a long time later. In fact, we have very little information about Palestine at all, or really any Jews from that time. Case in point, out of all of the Pharisees that were living, we have writings from two. One being Paul (who switches to the Jesus movement), and Josephus, who some even debate whether or not he was a Pharisee. My point is that we really have very few writings from that time. And there were many who supposedly performed miracles. No one seems to care about some peasant Jews.

As for the Gospels not relying on first hand accounts. So? Most history is not. In fact, most historians realize that first hand accounts are not always the best. They may give specific insight, but they are also heavily biased, and only tell one side of the story. Not to mention, we are talking about an oral culture, as opposed to a written culture.

 

[Quagmire]

"No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not.

Suetonius didn't deal with Judea or Galilea at all except for one brief mention of the Messianic prophecy. He wrote about Christians and Christianity, but only in as far as their impact and involvement in Rome (and even that is debatable).

Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself.

Again: didn't deal with Judea.

Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud).

Wrong: Most scholars believe the TF is legitimate, although distorted by interpolations.

He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James.

Not exactly: he mentions James as the brother of "Jesus called the Christ". Obviously, Josephus considered this a viable identifier for James, which would mean that "Jesus called the Christ" would have been a recognizable figure to his audience.

Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles.

All we have are a few fragments of Justus' works. We don't know what he wrote.

It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus.

This is true of most historical figures.

What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!"

Not even sure what that's supposed to mean. The Gospels weren't written as history texts. Would you expect them to have a bibliography?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most scholars believe the TF is legitimate, although distorted by interpolations.

I would be interested in seeing this claim supported.

 

[Quagmire]

I would be interested in seeing this claim supported.

Well, until I can find something better there's wiki:

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[10][11][12][13] James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[14] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as "the aforementioned Christ" relates to the earlier reference in the Testimonium.[1][2][52]

 

[crystalonyx]

Suetonius didn't deal with Judea or Galilea at all except for one brief mention of the Messianic prophecy. He wrote about Christians and Christianity, but only in as far as their impact and involvement in Rome (and even that is debatable).



Again: didn't deal with Judea.



Wrong: Most scholars believe the TF is legitimate, although distorted by interpolations.



Not exactly: he mentions James as the brother of "Jesus called the Christ". Obviously, Josephus considered this a viable identifier for James, which would mean that "Jesus called the Christ" would have been a recognizable figure to his audience.



All we have are a few fragments of Justus' works. We don't know what he wrote.

We defintely know was a historian that lived nearby at the same time and didn't write anything about a Jesus.



This is true of most historical figures.



Not even sure what that's supposed to mean. The Gospels weren't written as history texts. Would you expect them to have a bibliography?

1.Again: didn't deal with Judea.

If Jesus was the miracle worker claimed, his notoriety would have gone far beyond Jerusalem.





2Wrong: Most scholars believe the TF is legitimate, although distorted by interpolations.

By "scholars" you mean Christian theologians





3.Not exactly: he mentions James as the brother of "Jesus called the Christ". Obviously, Josephus considered this a viable identifier for James, which would mean that "Jesus called the Christ" would have been a recognizable figure to his audience.

Thre are many interpreations of this quote whicih would not refer to any particular Jesus. Certainly it cannot be directly connected to any real man in historical terms.





4.All we have are a few fragments of Justus' works. We don't know what he wrote.





5.This is true of most historical figures.

Certainly not true, threre were many contemporary writings about Caesar, and he also has his own writings.

6.Not even sure what that's supposed to mean. The Gospels weren't written as history texts.

Agreed.

 

[Quagmire]

(This might be outdated)

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Louis Feldman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feldman is a scholar of Hellenistic civilization, specifically the works of Josephus Flavius. Feldman's work on Josephus is widely respected by other scholars.[1][2]

 

[Quagmire]

1.Again: didn't deal with Judea.

If Jesus was the miracle worker claimed, his notoriety would have gone far beyond Jerusalem.

Who's saying he was? We were discussing whether or not he existed, not whether or not the Gospel narratives are true.

2Wrong: Most scholars believe the TF is legitimate, although distorted by interpolations.

By "scholars" you mean Christian theologians

No. By scholars I mean scholars (see my last post).

Thre are many interpreations of this quote whicih would not refer to any particular Jesus. Certainly it cannot be directly connected to any real man in historical terms.

The fact that Josephus uses "brother of Jesus" as an identifier suggests that the audience would recognize which James he was talking about just by his connection to a Jesus.

In other words, this Jesus must have been well known, otherwise mentioning that James was "the brother of Jesus" wouldn't serve any purpose.

5.This is true of most historical figures.

Certainly not true, threre were many contemporary writings about Caesar, and he also has his own writings.

I said "most", not ALL. Would you really expect an itinerant Jewish teacher to have gained the same celebrity in his lifetime as someone who was the foremost figure of the dominant super-power of his day?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks. I have the 2006 Evans reference but not the earlier one. Nor do I own the others. I guess I'm left with wiki for now. (BTW, Dunn's argue strikes me as entirely underwhelming.)

As you probably know, I think the James reference is more than adequate and generally find TF to be a diversion.

 

[fallingblood]

I would be interested in seeing this claim supported.

I'll add this to what Quagmire has been posting: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks, but the signature work on Josephus is Whealey.

 

[fallingblood]

1.Again: didn't deal with Judea.

If Jesus was the miracle worker claimed, his notoriety would have gone far beyond Jerusalem.

Why would you think that? We have a variety of supposed miracle workers from that time who only get a very brief mention (and sometimes not even their names), in Josephus or other sources. Most miracle workers from that time have long been forgotten. And even those who were recorded, hardly ever made a large impact. So there is no reason to think that his notoriety would spread at all.

2Wrong: Most scholars believe the TF is legitimate, although distorted by interpolations.

By "scholars" you mean Christian theologians

Actually, all scholars. If you look at Josephus scholars, nearly all agree that the TF is partially legitimate. And this is regardless of religious affiliation.

3.Not exactly: he mentions James as the brother of "Jesus called the Christ". Obviously, Josephus considered this a viable identifier for James, which would mean that "Jesus called the Christ" would have been a recognizable figure to his audience.

Thre are many interpreations of this quote whicih would not refer to any particular Jesus. Certainly it cannot be directly connected to any real man in historical terms.

Actually, it is directly connected to the only person we know of who was ever called Christ. That is Jesus. There really are no other interpretations of that quote. It is nearly universally accepted as authentic, and as referring to Jesus. There simply is no other person who was called Christ.

5.This is true of most historical figures.

Certainly not true, threre were many contemporary writings about Caesar, and he also has his own writings.

You're talking about a very important Emperor. Emperor's and leaders such as that, are generally exceptions (but not always). Most other historical figures from that time are not really written about. Even relatively powerful people. If we look at Alexander the Great, all the writings about his life don't come until long after he was dead.

 

[Quagmire]

Thanks. I have the 2006 Evans reference but not the earlier one. Nor do I own the others. I guess I'm left with wiki for now. (BTW, Dunn's argue strikes me as entirely underwhelming.)

And thanks for that: now that I have access to a really good library (University of Cal. Santa Barbara) I want to update my reading at some point.

As you probably know, I think the James reference is more than adequate and generally find TF to be a diversion.

I think the TF is a fascinating topic in it's own right.

 

[fallingblood]

Thanks, but the signature work on Josephus is Whealey.

Alice Whealey? Here is one of her articles on this subject: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf