aa5874

The belief in Jesus was a disater until Constantine. Jesus believers were living in hell on earth until Constantine SAVED them.

spamandham

There is also a Jesus as metaphor for the Jewish nation that shines through. Others see a mythical Jesus shining through, and some see a fictional character shining through. Some see a Jesus as satire shining through, and some see a Jesus as Titus in disguise shining through. Others have seen Jesus the son of the high priest shining through, and some have seen Jesus as composite myth shining through. While still others see Jesus as midrash shining through.***

I am unaware of a valid historical technique that involves taking a highly legendary (at best) character, stripping away the nonsense, and declaring whatever is left over as historical. That approach is proven *not* to work by applying it to known legendary figures.


*** and let us not forget the mountainman hypothesis as well

Ben C Smith

Are you saying that Jesus really did rise from the dead, but at the wrong time??

I think if someone predicted he would rise from the dead after three full days, but he really ended up rising from the dead after only a day and a half, I would probably say close enough! Still an impressive feat.

Ben.

youngalexander

Yes indeed Ben, it has that old time Newtonian billiad ball deterministic precision about it, that we and the Robots so love!:frown:

gurugeorge

Over the past few years I've veered between low and slightly higher probability. I don't discount the historical Jesus idea altogether, but I have a sort of background general awareness of religious experience and the development of religions worldwide and throughout history that tells me he's not necessary for the religion to have started. (i.e. that the central cult figure of a religion isn't always an encrustation around a real historical figure who necessarily started off the movement). With that in mind, the alternative explanation that he's myth all the way down just makes more sense of the contemporary silence, and also makes sense of the other early Christian material (e.g. how he appears rather celestial early on).

I think the kind of myth he was at first, was, specifically, a Jewish adaptation of the Mysteries idea of a personal saviour, seen in visionary experience and in Scripture, by some Jewish (or possibly mixed Jewish/Samaritan) proto-Gnostics in Jerusalem ca 30-40 CE. I think Judaism was probably more diverse at that time than we have the image of, and that this new religion was one among many variants of Judaism, a strain of disappointed apocalypticism mixed with an infusion of Platonism (similar to Philo). Originally, for these people, Jesus was the "intermediary" between an all-too-impersonal One and this Earth ruled by the increasingly impotent-seeming Jewish God, who came to be viewed more as merely the Demiurge. This "intermediary" was cleverly based on the Jewish Messiah myth, only put in the past instead of expected in the future.

The thing is, this time-inversion of the Jewish Messiah naturally left a gap for historical "filling in". At first the idea was sketchy - the historical details were merely sufficient to prop up the theology - but as time went on, people naturally wondered about the details of the saviour's life and deeds. "But Daddy, what did the Messiah do?"

Eventually some stable stories arose, either invented at first as literary artefacts then taken up by believers, or gradually coalescing out of mutual speculations, priestly concoctions based on satisfying importunate curiosity, or making theological points, etc., etc.

i.e. - the "history" gets fleshed-in as time goes on. This seems to me to fit what we've got better than the somewhat more strained idea that a real historical figure was big enough to gather a following, yet not big enough to make a contemporary splash even as a minor Messiah claimant; important and dear to his followers, yet seemingly not dear enough for them to remember tidbits about his life; important to earliest followers, in fact, exclusively as a deified spiritual figure.

So I put it at 20-40%. On the basis of my reasoning I really don't expect the Jesus myth to turn out to have been based on a historical figure, but I don't discount the possibility altogether.

The only hope for believers in a historical Jesus is, I think, to identify one of the Messiah claimants actually mentioned by Philo or Josephus as the man behind the myth. I don't know to what extent anybody has seriously undertaken an investigation as to whether any of the other Jesuses mentioned may actually have been the Jesus behind what became the Jesus myth we all know and love.

show_no_mercy

How you get from am ha aretz to the Platonic/Hellenistic Logos found in John is beyond me.

eheffa

Although the hard skeptic might balk at this sort of speculation, your hypothesis makes a lot of sense & provides a plausible way in which the Mythical Jesus movement could have arisen. Thank you for articulating this so clearly.

-evan

patcleaver

No, there are lots of other possibilities, for example:

Mark was originally a fictional story about an incompetent messiah want-to-be. He says lots of stuff that his audience would have known was from previous Jewish sages, he also says lots of stuff that his audience would have known was from pagan Greek philosophers, and other stuff that is probably meant to be funny or that does not make any sense at all. Jesus was a clown.

This is like the joke where an incompetent politician makes a speech that incorporates lots of famous quotes from former presidents as though they were originally his own.

I think his original audience would have understood that all his magic tricks were just fake tricks. These were all well known magic tricks that pagan magicians were doing and Jewish Rabbis were probably debunking. The gospels contain evidence that his magic tricks were fake.

The rising from the dead magic trick was supposed to be completed after 3 days and 3 nights, but that was messed up when the women found the tomb open and empty, and the guards on break, LOL and all Jesus' assistant could do was tell them to meet Jesus in Galilee.

patcleaver

There is also:
The story of Jesus as a Jewish version of the Odyssey.
The story of Jesus as a Jewish version of Appolinus Of Tyana.
The story of Jesus as a Jewish version of the story of Julius Caesar.
The story of Jesus as apologetics of some pagan cult.
The story of Jesus as a Jewish version of the mythology of some unknown pagan cult.
The story of Jesus as Roman anti-messiah propaganda. To end the messianic uprisings because he came already.
The story of Jesus as Jewish anti-Roman propaganda. The Romans killed the son of God.

Ben C Smith

You say you are talking about Mark, but you wind up talking about Matthew.

Ben.