mike_decock

I have been thinking about this perspective recently. Assuming there was a historical Jesus, at what point did his followers "deify" him?

-Mike...

Vinnie

""""""lacks evidence, particularly with regards to "accused of being bad by Jews" """""""

Lets see, we have Paul (contra interpolation arguments), all four Gospels, Josephus and a theological argument for Jewish involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. All that is needed would be Paul and the Gospels though.


"""""and, given the unreliable Synoptic passion stories, "crucified by Pontius Pilate.""""""""

That Jesus was crucified ca 30 ad is extremely well attested (mutliple attestation and embarrassment) to the point of non-contention. Pilate's involvement is not a far leap at all from there and only requires a little evidence. Mark would be enough but we also have the other Gospels which follow him (one possibly independently), Josephus and 1 Timothy (contra Doherty's argument for interpolation).

Vinnie

rlogan

Safe to say there was more than one historical Jesus. Toto provided this nifty reference:

21 Jesus'

Josephus mentions 21 Jesus'. Six were discussed in the above work that have paralells to "our" Jesus. A composite from these and from OT/Ancinet myths seems reasonable.

Of course, there were other pseudo-prophets not by the name Jesus that also could fit the bill. Anyway - I'm of the composite "faith".

It sure seems to this ignorant peasant that ultimately the unifying force behind the disparate "Christ" movements was the development and assertion of the one "true" Jesus Christ - the one with all the superpowers.

The gospels are the key dating documents, then. Seems like most here favor post 80 A.D. for Mark. I'm leaning towards some decades after that, as far as the version we know.

rlogan

Vinnie - not one of the "attestations" gives a date. Dates were noted according to the year of the pertinent ruler. The only reference we have is Pilate's name. But no year.

As Pilate served from A.D. 26 to A.D. 36, we can propose those years.

We can possibly narrow it down some with Luke's "guestimate" of Jesus' age of 30 when his ministry begins. But there is still too the problem of what year to start counting his age. No later than 4 B.C. or else in 6 A.D. depending on whether you follow Matthew or Luke.

Maybe A.D. 30, maybe A.D. 33 - but who knows? These are shakey inferences, not extremely well "attested" dates.

The most important date in the entire Bible for Christianity is the crucifixion. But we don't know when it happened. Because there is not one attestation to the date.

Were this the only troubling thing in the New Testament, I would not call foul. But it isn't. So I am.

Vorkosigan

If only that we true. But alas, the oldest data, Paul's authentic letters, contains no hint of the Gospel fantasies. Embarrassment just won't cut it, if Mark invented the whole thing out of the OT as he did everything else -- embarrassment only works if you know what the writer thought, which we do not. For all you know, Mark was proud and happy that Jesus was killed and found nothing embarrassing in the Crucifixion. Further, we have other versions of the event, which do not involve the Romans at all. Thus, there is no good reason to assume that ca. 30 is true, or that Pilate was involved. All we know is that the early Christians had a tradition of Crucifixion of Jesus. Perhaps it is a historical fact, perhaps it is not. But the quality of evidence does not allow assertion with the kind of obsessive certainty that you evince here.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Yes, I can easily see the nutty eschatological preacher. What I can't see is why anyone bothered to have him killed.

Yes, that is what I expect. He generated a small group of followers -- if he really lived. Christianity is also explainable as one of history's more successful savior movements. I also like the view that James was the originator of Christianity through claiming to get revelations from Jesus.

Yes. But for me the evidence doesn't permit claims-making about the death of Jesus.

Yes, me too.

I wasn't clear. I don't think the visions were fabricated. Somebody obviously got them, and I think that was the Jerusalem church of the first century, led by James and Peter, and opposed by Paul.

Vorkosigan

Asha'man

Except that there are also Jewish writings that state Jesus was stoned to death, and possibly locate that event 100 years earlier.

Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?

Amaleq13

You might be interested, then, to know that my ultimate goal is to consider the Galatian reference to "brother of the Lord". I'm not convinced it makes sense even if we assume an historical Jesus.

Amaleq13

Good thing for you because Josephus is not a credible source for support, IMHO.

We can't ignore, however, that the passage from Paul does not merely assert "involvement" but "responsibility". The Gospels, on the other hand, clearly identify the Romans as directly responsible but acting at the instigation of the Sanhedrin.

The evidence that Jesus was crucified starts with Paul. Within the context of an assumed historical Jesus, the idea of Paul generating the mode of death seems to lack credibility. At the very least, I would expect the Pillars at Jerusalem to take issue with such a claim.

Vinnie, do you agree that:

1) The living ministry of Jesus was not successful in terms of gaining acceptance and converts.

2) The living ministry of Jesus was primarily centered in the rural towns and villages of Galilee. The audience primarily consisted of low social status individuals.

3.1) The followers of the living Jesus understood him as more of a divinely inspired teacher (i.e. God's Wisdom) than the Messiah.

or

3.2) The followers of the living Jesus understood him as a divinely inspired teacher but also thought he might be the Messiah in the traditional sense (i.e. Priest/King physically freeing the Jews).

Amaleq13

I agree but it seems necessary for us to assume that he decided to take the show to the big city (i.e. Jerusalem) and something he either said, did, or both got him in trouble with the Romans. Again relying on Q, the Pharisees are criticized for adhering to strictly to the Law to the detriment of social justice. They were "the man" keeping "the people" down with their strict interpretations of the Purity codes, etc.

Would stating such things in Jerusalem be sufficient to anger the Sanhedrin enough to motivate them to convince the Romans he was a threat?

Speaking of James, can we agree that he rejected the preaching/teaching of the living Jesus and only converted after his "resurrection experience"?

Can we agree that, during Jesus' living ministry, James had obtained a good reputation among his fellow Jews in Jerusalem?

Can we assume that the Ebionites accurately reflect the beliefs of this group?

Quote:

...for me the evidence doesn't permit claims-making about the death of Jesus.

I tend to agree but I also think, if we start out with the assumption of an historical Jesus, it is difficult to understand how Paul could have introduced such a "fact" without obtaining significant objections.

Regarding the "resurrection experiences", Vorkosigan wrote:

Quote:

Somebody obviously got them, and I think that was the Jerusalem church of the first century, led by James and Peter, and opposed by Paul.

Isn't "opposed" a bit strong? I get the sense that the Pillars weren't terribly concerned about Paul's preaching as long as it was restricted to Gentiles. If he insisted that even Jews were not longer required to adhere to the Law, I would imagine serious conflict would result.