Tammuz

I wonder how proponents of Jesus' historicity explain the obvious mistakes in the Gospels.

How about Mark's apparent ignorance of the geography of Palestine? Certainly not written by an eye-wittnes, and doubtfully written from the information of an eye-witness.

Likewise, how can the weird name "Barabbas" be explained? And how could Pontius Pilate release a person just because the locals wanted it? There is no evidence outside of the Gospels that a prisoner was released around Easter, and Pilate was a harsh man who would not throw in to the demands of the people like the Gospels portray him doing.

If we think about the punishment of crucifixion, it was a punishment primarly sufferred by those who posed a threat to Roman authority. When the slaves of Spartacus' revolt had lost, 6000 slaves were crucified. These men clearly posed a threat to Roman authority, and the Romans wanted to make a stern warning to any potential rebels. In what way did Gospel-Jesus pose a threat to Roman authority? Sure, he posed a threat to the Jewish priests, but that didn't concern the Romans, did it? If anything, wouldn't the Romans be happy about division among the Jews, as it would make them weaker?

These events clearly can't have happened, given what we know about the period and region.

It seems like even the murkiest figures of antiquity have more evidence of existing than Jesus does. Leucippus is given credit by Aristotle and Theophrastus of inventing atomism, and his pupil Democritus is very much associated with atomism, so it is very likely that he existed. Although we know almost nothing about Antiphon the Sophist, there is a surviving text of him. And even though Socrates left no surviving writings himself, he is mentioned by both Plato and Xenophon. And even though it is likely that Plato's Socrates in cases (a few or many I don't know) is merely his mouthpiece (consider that the Cynic and Stoic schools are of Socratic heritage as well, yet very different - sometimes even contrary - from Platonism), it is clear that he did exist, though his true views may be hard to discern.

Further, the lives of these people contain no historical improbabilities.

How can a person roughly like Gospel-Jesus have existed, given these facts? It seems to me that Jesus is a legend. Certainly a historical person (or several) has influenced the Gospel-authors, but the Gospels don't even roughly depict the life of any historical person. At least that's what I think.

boneyard bill

Tammuz asks:

That's a good point, but it appears to me to be the only good point. And, given that Mark is ignorant of the geography of Palestine, what does it prove?

"Son of the father," does sound kind of weird doesn't it? So why would anyone make it up? It seems to me that the weirdness of the name is a least as good a testimony of its authenticity as of it's fabrication.

What does a lack of evidence prove?

Not hard to imagine that the Jewish establishment accused Jesus of being a zealot, and that the Gospel writers would omit that accusation as an embarrassment, especially if there was some truth to it.

The evidence of these people's existence seems to bear a stronger resemblance to the evidence for Jesus than it does a pronounced difference.

But the lives of many people well-known to have existed do contain many historical improbabilities. We don't deny their existence on the basis of improbable claims made about them.

aa5874

And that is exactly what you have done is to imagine that Jesus did exist instead of looking at the evidence.

It is not hard for you to imagine what you want to be true.

You seem not to understand that no one single piece of information can be so powerful as to destroy entire the claim of the HJ.

It is the sum of all the evidence that makes a case strong.

When all the evidence is taken together, it appears that the entire story of Jesus was compiled from fiction and error.

What do you think would happen if all the evidence in a criminal case was ignored because each piece of evidence on its own did not prove guilt.

The finger prints own their own proves nothing. Do even collect them.

The shoe print on its own does not prove anything. So do not bother to collect it.

The strand of hair on its own proves nothing. Put it in the garbage.

The blood stain on the shirt on its own proves nothing. You can burn the shirt.

It is must be evident that it is the sum of the information or evidence that will show conclusively that Jesus was not a figure of history but based fundamentally on belief, fiction and error.

ApostateAbe

Tammuz, the mainline historical theory on Jesus Christ was that he was a human leader of a Jewish sect that was turned into a legend, sort of like the Prophet Muhammad, Buddha, Santa Claus, and Haile Selassie I of Rastafari.

The gospels got things wrong, sort of like in the game of Telephone. The people who put the gospels into written words were Greek Christians who knew little about Palestine. What is equally significant is that they got many things right, like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Passover, Samaritans, Jewish laws, Pontius Pilate, the Dead Sea, the Valley of Hinnom, and the Temple of Jerusalem. And the existence of Nazareth, a small village not mentioned in any non-Christian historical document before the third century.

aa5874

Every one probably understands what it means by being human. But, you have not produced a single historical source external of the NT and Church writings that mention that Jesus of the NT was human.

That is all we are waiting for, External credible historical sources for your human Jesus. Where is it?


Are you claiming that only if Jesus was human that Greeks Christians could not have gotten anything right?

Your position is just absurd.

Now please tell us what did the Greek Christians get right about Jesus of the NT?

His birth?
His Temptation?
His miracles?
His resurrection?
His ascension?

What?

They got nothing right.

Loomis

They would make it up for entertainment value to amuse the reader. It’s a literary device. It’s an inside joke. It's midrash. It’s a play on words. It’s irony.

Here’s what Matthew 27:17 says:On one hand we have a Jewish savior called “Jesus - Son of God,” and on the other hand we have a common criminal called “Jesus - Son of the Father,” and they are both paraded in front of Pilate so he can decide who lives and who dies. It’s an allusion to the scapegoat stuff in Leviticus 16:7-10.
Once you understand what’s going on it becomes apparent that it was made up. The author named the criminal “Jesus - son of the Father” to emphasize the sameness of the two goats. It was worth a thousand laughs to those who recognized the joke.

Now that you see what's going on isn’t it true that you will nevertheless object - and remain confident (deep in your heart) that our universe is controlled by invisible spirits with supernatural powers?

ApostateAbe

You are getting more reasonable, aa5874, or at least calmer, so I take that as a step in the right direction. The Christian gospels got many things wrong, and there are is no external credible evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we are left with are the Christian sources, so we fit the most probable theory of Jesus to those Christian sources. Until recently, there was no external credible evidence for the existence of Nazareth in the first century CE, and I know you were one of those who denied Nazareth. And yet now we have evidence of a first century Nazareth. Skepticism has its place, but knowledge of the truth should be about fitting the most probable theory to the data we have. The Christian sources show a Jesus with failed apocalyptic prophecies, first-hand authentic neutral witness of James and Peter, a handful of accurate details of the social environment of first-century Palestine, and we have many analogies of actual cult leaders who were mythologized. I know that you will never believe in a historical Jesus, no matter what, aa5874, but it is Christmas.

spin

Christ, can't you do better than this greasy kid stuff? Your first paragraph simply assumes its conclusion and your second makes no actual case. You're hung up on the Nazareth stupidity with the rest of them and your claim about getting things right is no different from the Satyricon, which gets a lot of things right. Getting things right is no substantive response to getting things wrong. Your acceptance that texts were written by people who knew little about Palestine is an argument against the veracity of the content whose bulk is set in Palestine


spin.

ApostateAbe

My first paragraph was to make a statement of fact about what is mainline historical scholarship. It wasn't to make an argument about who Jesus really was. It was a reply to the arguments within the OP. Tammuz believed that the facts that he was presenting conflicted with the HJ model, and I explained that they do not.

spin

Rubbish.

You merely made a counterclaim.


spin