spamandham

Ok, let's play the game.

Jesus is referred to as a Naz{X}(multiple references). Let's suppose that that the only thing all these multiple references have in common is the Naz prefix, and suppose further this is derived from Nasi. Ok, so Jesus is the head of the Sanhedrin. He is both a political and religious leader. Since this position was also known as the patriarch of the Jews, the well known epitaph "king of the Jews" is pretty close.

Although typically dated to the first century, there really is no reason the earliest books of the New Testament could not date to the 2nd century, and there are allusions in Paul that suggest a post temple time frame, as well as descriptions in Mark that suggest not just post 70, but a period where the temple is completely razed - post Bar Kochba.

So we have a rough time period, and a position. The gospels depict Jesus as crucified. But Paul describes himself as being crucified too, and we know he is not referring to death on a cross since he is quite alive at the time of description. Paul uses the term loosely to refer to humiliation. So we're looking for a political and religious leader of the Jews in the 2nd century, who was humiliated.

Ok, we also know this crucifixion/humiliation is associated with resurrection. But when Paul refers to this, he is in my mind clearly referring to a spiritual rebirth, which is why baptism is the rite that reflects this. The rebirth follows the humiliation of the Jewish spiritual/political leader, so this rebirth is also symbolic of a new way of looking at Judaism....which is to reject all the temple related crap (hell, there is no temple anymore anyway) and reinterpret the sum of the Jewish scriptures as a formula for an ascetic life of peace.

Adding all this up, the best candidate for the euhemeristically derived Jesus is Bar Kochba.

aa5874

There is really NO mention of Jesus in the OLD Testament. Zero.

All the so-called predictions about Jesus turned out to be passages taken out of context.

For example, Isaiah 7.14 has nothing whatsoever to do with the conception of a child of the Holy Ghost. And the book of Jonah has no bearing at all on the resurrection of a God/man Messiah.

It was the Jews who believed that a physical human Jewish Messiah was expected based on Hebrew Scripture.

And further, it must be noted at around 135 CE Simon barCocheba was called the Jewish Messiah and his name was not JESUS.

maryhelena

This is an important point that somehow mythicists seem eager to sidestep......The whole Jesus storyline did not just come out of 'Paul's' head, ie it is not divorced from historical realities. After all how could it be so and yet claim to be from a Jewish source? Jewish theology has a base, a starting point, within 'salvation' history. Historical events are viewed through a prophetic or theological lens.

When I first, 25 plus years ago, decided for a mythological Jesus, ie not a historical Jesus, my first task was to reach for a history book. Debating over what exactly 'Paul' means re this that and the other, while of interest, will not answer the questions re early Christian origins. For that we need as clear a historical record as possible. And, of course, unfortunately, 'Josephus' has been busy with tall tales re the relevant Herodian history....

Yes, the arguments of the historicists fall down here. They cannot produce their historical Jesus, ie a historical Jesus without the mythological baggage. All they have is a nobody, an everyman - impossibly to find and of no relevance for any theological or 'salvation' theories....Jesus is the Jesus of the gospel story...

The mythicists are falling down because they don't seem to want to consider that a 'pure' myth, a myth without any relevance to historical realities, would be a myth that could easily be dismissed by some new fangled one....Ideas come and they go...But when ideas are tied to some historical reality they then become more difficult to dislodge.

So - what we have with the Jesus mythology is a storyline which is an interpretation, an evaluation, of a specific period of Hasmonean/Herodian history. Events within that history have been used to flesh out, to color, the Jesus character. From the crucifixion in 37 bc of Antigonus (yes he was also beheaded but first put on a stake and flogged) to the long peaceful reign of Philip the Tetrarch in Caesarea Philippi (the place where the gospel Jesus asked his discipes who he was) - and so on. By looking upon historical figures as the baseline, so to speak, then the eventual Jesus storyline can be viewed as the overall prophetic or theological interpretation of the relevant gospel time frame. In other words - another case of 'salvation' history. A gospel time frame running from the time of Herod the Great to the end of the rule by Pilate in 36/37 ce.

SLD

I like this thread and agree a lot with what Gakusei and GuruGeorge are saying. It seems obvious to me that it is a Euhemerist Myth, but of course we can never have full proof. Like Steve, I'm a trial lawyer, and trials aren't about proof like science, but are about a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. in civil cases).

It seems to me that we have two theories of the origins of the myth. A historical figure who is another in the long line of Jewish revolutionaries who is executed by the Romans and about whom later stories arise. Or a completely fictional character that was created completely out of the minds of several different sources.

Which one is more likely? I think the Euhermist origin is more likely than the purely fictional one for several reasons - but I've posted them before on these boards and don't wish to rehash all of them.

I would add though something from Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted. Ehrman of course is not a Christian (classifies himself as agnostic), and is probably the most respected biblical scholar in the U.S. today. He makes a good point that there are several stories in the gospels that are not exactly flattering of Jesus - and these we can trust probably the most. If Jesus was purely mythical, then there wouldn't be these flaws in the story. As I'm presently overseas for a while I don't have access to my copy of the book, but perhaps someone here who has the book can share his actual examples.

Overall the story though has too many flaws to be purely mythical. I don't just mean in Jesus's character, although that's important. But there's also an obvious tension between Paul and the Jerusalem church. I find it hard to believe that this would make it into the overall story if it were fictional. Furthermore, there's too much going on. If Jesus were purely fictional, why are there so many different sources for him? There's not just the four gospels. There's Paul's letters (albeit he does seem not to view him as a historical figure), and then perhaps more importantly there are several other early gospels that never make it into the canon. There's Peter and Thomas (which predates John), and later others.

Some commentators have noted that these difference reflect different early churches - all competing against each other rather than one church with different views of Jesus. How could we have all these differences come about so quickly after the alleged events? How could numerous fictional stories of Jesus come about like this? It's like numerous groups decided to come up with the same basic fictional character all at once. That seems unlikely. There at least must have been a core myth around which these all evolved (and I don't think the Q gospel would fit that bill as it was not a source for all of the gospel writers).

I would also add, as a trial lawyer, that all we have on either side of this debate is opinion. We have precious little facts on which to base any assertion. But we can use basic reasoning to determine which is more likely than the other hypothesis. Going around claiming that the other side has only opinion on its side is pointless. Trying to claim that one side has the burden of proof is pointless too. This isn't a court of law question, but it most resembles a civil trial where the burden is merely a preponderance of the evidence, IOW, 50.0000001%. I also think we have to apply Occam's razor to the question. Which hypothesis (myth or fiction) is simply a most likely source for the origin of all the evidence that we do have: Paul's and others letters, the gospels, the non-canonical writings, the documented rise of Christianity in the late 1st Century, and the evidence of early persecutions? It seems to me that the Euhermist view is most likely correct.

Finally one last point. A possible candidate for a historical Jesus is Jesus Ben Pandera who was killed by either the Jews or the Romans about 100 years before the gospel Jesus. But while there are some similarities, I haven't seen enough to accept him as the source.

SLD

aa5874

But, you have ZERO historical evidence to make any claims about "historical realities" with respect to Jesus the Messiah and the Pauline writers.

There is SIMPLY no external historical corroborative source for any Messiah called Jesus. There is SIMPLY no external corroborative source for the Pauline writers.

The books under the name of Paul are believed to be COOKED. You believe the books under the name of Josephus are COOKED.

Your "historical realities" are based on COOKED books.

Doug Shaver

I've seen that analysis, too, but not all ahistoricists use it. Please do not tar us all with the same brush.

I believe the gospels are fiction because I believe Jesus never existed. I did not infer Jesus' nonexistence from any prior belief that the gospels are fiction.

I have no problem with that, but doesn't testimony have to be ruled admissible before it can be evaluated?


Maybe some on this board just don't happen to agree with you as to what they are worth.

I think they are worth a great deal as evidence. I just disagree with you over what they are evidence for.

Funny. I prefer the same thing, exactly.

As a philosopher, I consider it possible for two people having that preference to reach contrary conclusions from the same evidence. Perhaps that concept doesn't work so well for trial lawyers?

maryhelena

And I have not done so - aa5874 - you know my posts well enough by now to know that I view the gospel Jesus character as mythological - so I really don't know what your point is here...:huh:

I believe one of the hats that 'Josephus' wears is that of a 'prophetic historian' - ie that 'Josephus' is interpreting historical events as much as he is relating historical events...And you know that too from other of my posts....:huh: "My historical realities" - come now - check out a history book....:wave:

aa5874

Well if that is the case please explain why you are claiming that "the whole Jesus storyline did not just come out of 'Paul's' head, ie it is not divorced fromp historical realities?

Please state the" historical realities" for the whole Jesus storyline.

You believe you can interpret "the tall tales of Josephus"?

Did not Josephus COOK your Herodian history?

Your "historical realities" are "tall tales" from Josephus.

mountainman

The worship of Hercules was also apparently sponsored
by the Severan Dynasty and by Diocletian.

Cambridge Ancient History Volume 12
OFFICIAL RELIGION
p.412

Religion in the Roman Empire was governed by the princeps, as "Pontifex Maximus" a member of all priestly colleges and responsible for all public morals and well being.

The following is evidenced by coins and temple foundations:

Claudius: magnified the cult of Cybele.
Gauis: in Rome introduced Osiris (and other Egyptian deities accepted in Italy)
Vespasian: favored Isis and Sarapis.
Domitian: was a benefactor of Isis, Minerva and Jupiter
Hadrian: built the temple of Venus and restored many temples in Rome.
Severan Dynasty: sponsored Bacchus, Hercules and Sarapis.
Illyrian Dynasty: were devoted to Vesta.
Aurelian: built the temple of Sol Invictus, celebrated 25th December and established priestly colleges.
Diocletian: supported Sol Invictus, Isis, Sarapis, Jupiter and Hercules.

What if your real ancient historical candidate is Greek?
For example see the Forward to Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene (Bernard 1964).

Also, seeing you mentioned Hercules, it might be interesting to note that in Apollonius of Tyana and His Historicity, Maria Dzielska writes that .....

The cult of Apollonius under the name of Hercules Apotropaios
was mentioned even in the early fourth century by the well-known Christian author Lactantus.

Sajara

Perhaps someone else mentioned this (trying to run for work), but isn't it entirely plausible too that Jesus was created from other pagan & Judean legends?

Also, would it be considered a historical Jesus if he turned out to be four people or ten people or however many are needed to make the gospels make sense since they all appear to be talking about a different Jesus?

Let's not forget that Sherlock Holmes was based on a real person, but the character itself was pure fiction.