Toto

This is one theory of a possible Jesus who could have been at the historical core that developed into the mythologized gospel Jesus. It's not implausible. It's not a bad theory at all.

The only think I don't get is any evidence to support it. Do you think that Jesus was part of the Zealot movement? Why was he crucified and not his followers? If he was important enough to be proclaimed King of Israel by the crowds and important enough to bother crucifying, why is there no other mention of him? And if that was the underlying story, how did the Sanhedrin and the Jews get added to the story as the bad guys? And when exactly did this all happen?

spin

This is bias: it start with the assumption that the "evidence" being referred to is relevant to a specific time, place or authorship, yet nothing has been evinced to support the assumption. There is therefore no setting aside this "evidence". It has not been shown to need dealing with let alone setting aside.

When you say "'mainstream' dates", you are selling conventional wisdom, an argument from authority. Fallacious. The dating has to be established, and, as you've seen, it can't.

This is not applicable to my thought, but it is sufficient to say that there is at least another functional explanation for the data that you want to read as reflective of a real past to require you to do your job and show that it actually does reflect a real past, instead of simply assuming the weight of past opinion.

Again, not a position that I hold, but it is another functional explanation which requires you to do more than state your and the past's opinions.

Another bald statement of opinion by you, Andrew. You seem to do this a lot. You can't expect to get very far on simple bias and status quo opinion!


spin

lee_merrill

Right, it's not a good idea. Now I think "nothing can be found" should be read as "nothing I regard as suitable can be found" here!

I'm only saying it's a bad idea to make such a claim about past events (in recorded literature or archaeology, etc.). No record of Troy doesn't mean it wasn't a real city (oops, they found it, actually), and no record of the census recorded by Luke doesn't mean there wasn't one (oops, they found that there were two Quirinius folks, and there could have be a census like he mentioned) and so on.

They have excavated the major portions of Jerusalem? This is news to me.

Regards,
Lee

Clivedurdle

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/psalm22.htm

My God why have you forsaken me is a bit rich as evidence of an HJ as it is a quote from a Psalm!

How many of these "realistic" incidents are also not original?

In fact, let's look at Psalm 22 and realise - oh that is where the crucifiction scene and the gospel story is from- it is a Psalm dressed up in Roman clothing!

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jeffevnz,

First, while most of the writing in the gospels does seem quite poor, there are some wonderfully written scenes here and there. It is what leads me to suspect that the gospels we now have are degenerated from a well-written original text.

Now, I think we can apply the Criterion of Embarassment to the Spiderman character. We may ask, What kind of superheroe has to sew his own costume? Again, what kind of superheroe has doubts about his self-worth and often threatens to quit being a superheroe? Also what kind of superheroe lives in a crummy apartment and has problems paying his rent? These type of things never happen to Superman or Batman. Why would someone write a superheroe story and make the character continue to be awkward even after he becomes a superheroe? By the Criterion of Embarassment we must declare that Spiderman is a real historical person.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Minimalist

Eilat Mazar has a dig going on right now at the Gihon Spring area.

Kathlenn Kenyon worked extensively there in the 1960's.

http://www.cbrl.org.uk/research/research_aj-kp.shtm

The "City of David Excavation Project" ran for 7 years under Yigal Shiloh.

The whining that goes on about not being able to dig on the Temple Mount is a red herring. Herod the Great built a massive extension with retaining walls and filled it in with dirt. There is not going to be much archaeological value from the site but still, Professor Gabriel Barkay is sifting through dirt removed by the Islamic authorities. He has found remains from all archaeological periods in the city's history but comparatively little from before the 7th century.

Finally, because I don't wish to bore you, Ze'ev Herzog wrote an article for Haaretz in 1999 in which he states:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

aa5874

All that the so-called Paul said about Jesus is clouded, or should I say contradicted by these passages found in 2 Corinthians 12:2-3, " I knew a man in Christ above fourtenn years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or out of the body,I cannot tell: God knoweth, such an one caught up in the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.

Paul is confused. He cannot resolved the historicity of Jesus, God knows.

But Nazareth is an embarrassment to the author called Matthew since this author claims Jesus was a Nazarene by prophecy, when in fact there is no such prophecy, perhaps a Nazarite.

The passages in Antiquities are non-specific and arbitrary and have similar problems to the passages in 2 Corinthians 12, the author could not determine if this character was a man.

Antiquities of the Jews XVIII 3.3, Not the things real people do. More like superstition to me.

The passage in Annals 15:44 descibes Christianity as mischief and a pernicious superstition. This does not reflect well for historicity.

As early as the 2nd century, many Christians refuted that Jesus was an historical figure. See Against Heresies by Irenaeus, it is written there that Christians such as Valentinus, Marcion, Marcus and others had a different version of Jesus compared to the NT.

diana

I don't subscribe to the notion that any of us could do this for anything in any work in the world, though, Roger. There are far, far stronger claims to historicity. I think you understand this...which makes me wonder why you argue it.

To a point, I agree that our own biases reflect our interpretation of the evidence. I've tried approaching the Tacitus passage from the aspect of a believer. This admittedly isn't the same as me being a believer, but it's the best I can do. As such, I'm bothered that Tacitus' gets a couple of things wrong. I'm bothered that he references the title and not the name of the founder of the sect, as this is what would be in any official execution records, if any, that he was referencing. Even if he consulted a record of religious sects of some sort, would not that still reflect the main claims of the believers, as opposed to objective facts? I mean, a non-Christian of the time would not assume "Christos" was a name, would they?

Overall, the reference is too doubtful, too late, and too lonely to satisfy. If I were a Christian, I think I would studiously avoid discussions of secular sources concerning Jesus' historicity.

d

spin

Ooops, Schliemann had to look not in his favored location, but miles away because he didn't find anything there. Then of course, we still don't know what it was that Schliemann actually found. Scratch that empty little piece of folk culture.

This is a lie, lee_merrill. You are spreading lies. Shame on you. This is why bias is a sad thing: people refuse to believe the obvious and fabricate. Probably you didn't create this lie, but you are perpetuating it. The people who created this lie are people not interested in Roman history. They are only interested in creating means to defend the faith and if that means is a lie, as long as it is not openly seen as a lie they can believe it.

If you really and truly and honestly don't believe it is a lie, I challenge you to a formal debate here going back to the original sources to defend the veracity of the claim that "there were two Quirinius" -- no, not just any two Quiriniuses, but two who performed enrolments (censuses) in Judea.

Face it, lee_merrill, you are almost certainly a victim of a christian deception.

jeffevnz

That's different. The writer of Spiderman intended his story to be seen as fiction. OTOH, someone fabricating an earthly biography for Jesus would presumably have for meant people to believe it.

Suppose the writer of Spiderman meant for the story to be believed. He's trying to write an account of Spiderman's adventures and wants to convince everyone that there really was a guy with these Spidey superpowers. It would be odd for the purported historian to add numerous tales of people not believing Spiderman about his powers, and it would be downright bizarre to add an account of Spiderman himself wondering whether he really had any powers. And how dumb would it be for the story to include a prophecy of the superhero's return that had already failed?

If you're trying to sell everyone on the idea that this guy really had these powers, why would you make those parts up? All they do is cast doubt on your claims. So how do you explain the author doing this? Several possibilities come to mind:

- He was an idiot, and invented those parts for some strange reason without realizing that they cast doubt on his story.
- He really did mean for the Gospel stories to be understood as fiction.
- He didn't totally fabricate them.

Of these, which are the most obvious ones I can think of, I find the last most likely. (Though I wouldn't be totally shocked by either of the other two.)

It's not proof, but we were only asked for the best evidence, and in my view, this is it.