Bible Humper

ROFL, no kidding!

You know, it's a pretty underhanded thing to do but most fundies tend to be white yokels, often quite racist, and I can't help but wonder if the above approximation of the appearance of Jesus might cause a "crisis of faith" when they realise that Jesus wasn't the blond haired, blue eyed anglo they thought he was....

Aerik Von

Sadly, the fundies of America mighr be quite confused if they popped up in the rapture to see a less than imposing figure of Jesus eh?

Bartok

Oh, we all know Jesus looked like Jeremy Sisto!

Okay, I actually can't take credit for that one. My friend said that just yesterday, actually.

Carry on.

Gregg

There was no historical Jesus.

We know that the very earliest Christian creeds exalted a divine figure who was the equal of God, an emanation of God, in fact. Some, like Paul, believed that this divine figure had undergone a crucifixion and resurrection in a heavenly dimension (not on earth) and that believing this brought salvation, much like other dying/rising savior god cults of the day.

Not only does the early appearance of the creeds leave no time for a mythology to have built up around this supposed Jewish preacher, No Jew could possibly have accorded such status to a human being, much less convince thousands of Jews and Gentiles across the Empire to believe that a man they'd never seen, executed by the Romans as a rebel, was in fact the Logos (Word), preexistent with the Father for all eternity, through which all things came into being.

Besides which, even if we accept the Jesus Seminar's stripped-down Jesus who preached a social revolution, attracted a following, and perhaps caused a ruckus in the Temple precinct that led to his arrest and crucifixion, we run into a serious problem. The contemporary Jewish historian Josephus took a special interest in preachers like this, considering them responsible for the destruction of Israel, and chronicled their activities in detail. He could not have failed to mention Jesus in this context, and in a very negative light at that. Yet all we have are two highly suspect references that were almost certainly inserted by later Christian copyists.

The rest of the non-Biblical record is resoundingly silent until we finally find a reference by Tacitus in the early 100's. He, most likely, is simply repeating what he's heard from Christians. By that time the Gospels, which had been written as allegories, were circulating and many gentile Christians were beginning to regard them as history. With Palestine devastated and 2/3 of its people deported, there wasn't exactly anybody around who knew any better.

So, you can stop looking for a physical description of Jesus. There isn't any. Instead, check out lay scholar Earl Doherty's Web site at <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.org." target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.org.</a> It will be a much better use of your time.

Gregg

cartman

Bruce Chilton, in Rabbi Jesus, described him as short, balding, with a tendency to have a paunch. He talks about it in this <a href="http://www.jesusarchive.com/Epistle/01-07/QandA_july01.html" target="_blank">interview</a>:

Gregg

And I guess it isn't just the slightest bit odd that not until the 2nd century do we find anyone showing the least bit of interest in Jesus' physical appearance. Hint: it wasn't until the 2nd century that people started taking the Gospels literally and believing that Jesus had been actual flesh and blood and walked the earth. Prior to that they believed he had only taken on the "likeness" of flesh, and had carried out his saving act in the lowest dimension of heaven.

<a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.org" target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.org</a>
Piece together the truth!

Gregg

cartman

Sorry, Gregg, but I get a little skeptical when someone starts telling me what "the truth" is with such passion. The Jesus puzzle site is interesting and has offered some ideas which need to be explored, but pardon me if I don't swallow its conclusions hook, line, and sinker.
There are many scholars who disagree. I don't know that I agree with Chilton, but I did find his book to be an interesting take on the life of Jesus from a man who has a reputation as a knowledgeable scholar in the culture and languages (particularly, Aramaic) of the time.

Gregg

I don't blame you at all for being skeptical, and I'm certainly aware that there are many scholars who disagree. But I didn't "swallow" Doherty's conclusions overnight either...I spent a few months carefully reading every article on the site before being persuaded. Prior to this I'd been a subscriber to the historicist position.

Although it's wise to be skeptical when an outsider, particularly a largely self-trained scholar like Doherty, offers an argument that goes against the scholarly consensus, one also needs to be open-minded enough to give his argumenta a fair and unbiased hearing. Doherty is not a flake, he knows his material and he makes a strong and compelling case backed by evidence and logical argument. He's also been published in the Journal of Higher Criticism--at the request of the editors--so he's taken seriously, and he's not afraid to subject his thesis to scrutiny by other scholars.

I'm sorry if I seem over-eager and passionate--I don't want to give the impression of being a fanatical "true believer"-- but I DO find Doherty's case exciting, compelling, and enormously persuasive. I had always felt uncomfortable with the historicist position, but I wasn't sure why. Still, the first time I encountered the ahistoricist case (I think it was Robert M. Price' "Jesus: 100 Years Before Christ") I reacted about the same way I do to claims that the moon landings were faked. I was a bit more open to the idea by the time I encountered Doherty's site, but again, it took some time for his arguments and evidence to finally win me over.

I think what ultimately persuaded me was the internal consistency of the thesis, the way the individual elements not only agree with the evidence but agree with and support each other, resulting in a cohesive whole. The problem with historicism is that the pieces just don't fit together. One makes a case for Josephus being authentic but still hasn't explained why, if Jesus didn't even do anything important enough for Josephus to have mentioned him with the other agitators he blamed for provoking Rome, his Jewish followers (for whom any association of mere flesh and blood with God would be sheer blasphemy) thought enough of him to almost immediately make him a cosmic entity, essentially equal to God (because the earliest Christian creeds do just this, showing no sign of a gradual accretion of myth). The ahistoricist position neatly resolves problems like this.

But by all means, take your time. It took me over ten years to move from a semi-literal belief in the Gospel accounts, to a historicist position that eliminated the miracles and an actual resurrection but retained a ministry, a subversive act, and an execution, and finally to the ahistoricist position.

Gregg

Peter Kirby

Gregg writes: I think it was Robert M. Price' "Jesus: 100 Years Before Christ"

That would be Alvar Ellegård. Robert Price wrote Deconstructing Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Gregg

Thanks, Peter. I actually didn't buy the book, I looked through it at the bookstore, so I wasn't sure if I had the author/title right. I just remembered it was my first exposure to the ahistoricist argument.

Gregg