Radcliffe Emerson

Gospels writers are not proof of Jesus existing at all. Nothing was written about Jesus during the alleged years he lived. Paul's writings are the earliest, roughly 20 years later, and the "gospels" weren't written until anyone who would have been alive during that period was long dead.

There is no evidence of an historical Jesus from his time period.

Amaleq13

Absolutely not. In fact, there is no evidence that any Roman governor/procurator/whathaveyou ever engaged in such a practice. If we accept what Josephus says about Pilate, we wouldn't expect him to have allowed it for the Jews even if it had been a practice of some Romans. Based on Josephus, Pilate held little regard for the Jews and seemed to enjoy dominating them. I can't remember the name of the ancient source (I don't think it is Josephus) but the closest thing we can find to such a practice is a comment that the kindest of Roman rulers would postpone an execution if, say, the Emperor's birthday was taking place. That is the sort of "kindness" criminals could expect from the Romans.

Within the context of an historical Jesus, I think the most credible scenario involves the Jewish leadership, angry at J's threat to their power base, convincing Pilate that Jesus constituted a threat to Roman rule. That would certainly be consistent with how Josephus describes them dealing with even the appearance of rebellion and it would be consistent with the "title board" (i.e. King of the Jews) allegedly nailed to the cross.

Vinnie

""""""There is no evidence of an historical Jesus from his time period.""""""

WHy should there be?

Radcliffe Emerson

Why would there not be? If he was so flippin famous like the bible claims, surely someone other than just Christian writers would have mentioned him somewhere.
Not a word though.
Plus, the writer of Matthew doesn't even know much about the Galilee he's writing about, yet he's supposed to have been "inspired."

Well, of course he was.

Doctor X

Radcliff:

Which has made me wonder about the "Jewishness" of Mt--he does not get the area correct.

--J.D.

Vinnie

Thats the whole point, Jesus wasn't as famous as the evangelists portray him. Historians don't think he was. He was a nobody, rabble-rouser from Galilee. Rome would have been largely oblivious to his passing. WWJD would have gotten a response of "Jesus who?"

In fact, John the Baptist might have been more famous than Jesus initially.

Radcliffe Emerson

The NT itself says Jesus became known thoughout all of Galilee. If that's not famous, what is?
Yet, mysteriously, noone else even mentions him.

And I agree on one thing. If Jesus existed, he was indeed a rabble rouser. My friend who attended Christian seminaries, and myself believe (if he existed, which I still doubt), he went to Jerusalem to try to start a revolution, the masses didn't go along with him, he was arrested and killed. End of story.

Doctor X

That is a good example that the authors were not very concerned with consistency--they were writting polemic of sorts--a great deal of it aimed at the disciples.

Thus, "crowds" of "thousands" attest to Junior and follow him . . . but not one of them stands up to support him? Ah . . . yes . . . the nasty Jewish leaders paid off the crowd.

The contradiction--universal recognition versus utter lack of recognition serves a literary purpose. It reminds me of the Jews leaving captivity in the Exodus stories. They continually forsake YHWH. They "murmor." Let us see . . . they have witnesses YHWH through Moses squish the Egyptians numerous times--including killing all of the first born . . . so they get the bright idea to create a golden calf?

Similarly, where do all of these thousands upon thousands go? In some cases--especially in Mk--Junior admonishes people revealing what happened . . . yet they do. Jn has a "set up" debate between a cured blind man and that wandering band of Jews who have nothing better to do, presummably, than follow Junior and question healing on the Sabbath! As one Jewish scholar noted, this is a "set up"--no Jewish theologian would have questioned "healing on the Sabbath" at that time!

Even the "excuse" for the execution is problematic. It makes sense to shift the blame to the Jews--not "politically correct" to blame Romans and, given the date of the texts, one is hardly going to hear a complaint from the Jews!

We are left, once again, with the possibility that everything is possibly mythic. It is right back to the whole "was there a historical Junior" question. The best the "pro" can say is "probably" and that some of the traditions are scandelous enough that writers would not make them up--"denial," "execution as criminal," "he did not start a successful group initially." The "con" can then claim these as just so much story telling. Thus the impass.

--J.D.

rlogan

The more I study it, the less sense it all makes. Until you figure they're making a lot of it up.

You would want to blame the religious authority. (They killed the messiah - stop following them). They had to be careful not to blame the Romans, and yet recognize that only they could execute him. Hence the mythical role of the crowd.

You have Psalms 22 you can weave in there so that it is a fulfilled prophesy. Sort of. Martyrdom is a bonus. What else do we get?


Got a question for Vinnie. Why no annual pilgrimage to the site of crucifixion or the grave? There can be no more significant event in all Christianity. Returning to the crucufixion and resurrection scene would be about the most important symbolic thing you could do to keep the story alive.

Biff the unclean

I think that it is interesting that as often as this point is mentioned it is always dropped. The stories in the gospels chosen closely resemble stories of Mithra and Dionysus. The primary God of Constantine's troops and the primary God of Constantine's capitol respectively. All the many rejected gospels had stories where the Jesus character more closely resembled other Gods of other regions.
When Jesus first comes on the scene he is a war God--"In this sign (flaming Chi Rho in the sky) you shall conquer" Yet as soon as the war is won Jesus stops being a war God and becomes the God of peace and civil order. Obviously the Bible we have today is the result of political and not historical decisions.
The Bible-as a whole- that existed before Constantine has different stories and different miracles. None any more impossible historically than the ones passed down to us.
If you were looking for an historic base in the gospels why would you look only at the ones the Imperial Roman government chose? Why are you surprised that the stories of a Jewish Messiah all show the Romans as fair, stern and just; washing their hands of any guilt; while the Jewish authorities are a bunch of back-stabbing, money-grubbing badies?
This is Constantine's Bible. It may not have been written for him, but it was certainly edited to suit him. It doesn't tell us how God wants us to behave it tells us how Rome, or rather Constantinople, wants us to act.