Diogenes the Cynic

Jesus had a posse too, supposedly, and several brothers. My point is that it was not historically implausible for a peasant to lead revolts. What was the Maccabean revolt?

It wasn't necessary to have one, though. Josephus talks about one guy the Romans killed just for saying he would part the River Jordan. A crowd was following him down to the river and the Romans tracked him down and killed him before he even got there. According to Josephus, John the Baptist had no army or military designs at all, but that he was killed simply for being popular.

Promising miracles seems to have been enough to attract crowds. People believed in bullshit.

SLD

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

I think that you are interpreting the New Testament the way modern churches want you to, evenif you don't believe it. It is better understood as a story meant for First Century readers. They would understand the story in the context of what was happening in Judea around this time. Context is everything. To go around proclaiming the Kingdom of God at that time was a direct Military challenge to Roman rule. It was an incitement to fight the Romans. It got you crucified.

SLD

SLD

No good reason at all? I agree that the point is debatable, but to sweep so broadly is a bit much. Many non Christian apologetic scholars believe in a historical figure of Jesus. We have numerous references to this figure within a century of his death, some within as much as a decade after his death. Granted these references are hagiographic, but they can't all be swept away as completely and entirely unhostorical for that reason. Lots of ancient figures whose historicity have sinilar stories surrounding them, but we don't obviously dismiss that therefore these people didn't exist. Alexander the Great and Augustus were conceived by Gods. But they were real people nonethless. There are of course many other arguments. Make the arguments against them by all means but sinplistically saying there are no good ones, i say is a bit much.

SLD

Toto

Note that I said there is no reason to think that the story in the gospels is historical. I'm not tackling the idea that there was a historical Jesus, although the more you look for him, the less you find.
You idea of numerous is? We really only have a handful of references, and most of them have some problems of authenticity.

But we have lots of other evidence for Alexander. Our evidence for Jesus is more like the evidence for the historical Hercules.

I have yet to hear a good argument. I think that people want the historical Jesus to exist, and they assume that because Christianity exists, there must have been a Jesus or someone like him to start it. Neither seems like a good argument.

But I'm open to what you think is a good argument.

outhouse

Context is key. I do agree with you there.


I see the Zealot influences, with the table tipping due to Melqart's image on the temple coins required by all who attended Passover.

The entry on a female donkey itself as mocking Pilates entry, as a demonstration, if it wasn't just OT mythology filling in fictional prophecy.


What was happening in Judea was one thing, Galilee itself had its own socioeconomic differences between Sepphoris and a hovel like Nazareth. I think what was at hand that got the man killed was the Hellenistic Roman corruption in the temple, and one man who had enough and gave up his life for the cause.


The temple demonstrations got him killed more so then any preaching of the Kingdom of God in my opinion. There were up to 400,000 ish people there. There would have been thousands of teachers and healers, and the Kingdom of God being preached would have been invisible is a sea of people. What made him stand out in such large crowds were his demonstrations that caught the attention of authorities who decided enough was enough. Caiaphas and Pilate only wanted peace to keep the money flowing, but more important, to keep their jobs and their lives. Last thing they wanted was for his demonstrations to get out of hand and have a full blown riot on their hands.

Demonstrations were enough for sedition charges.

Grog

What source within a decade of the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth refers to this figure as one who recently lived and died challenging the Roman Empire?


The analogy between historical figures like Alexander the Great and Augustus, compared to Jesus of Nazareth is weak. Let's compare the quality of one of the later sources for Alexander the Great to one for Jesus of Nazareth:

I took this excerpt from here: Alexander the Great, the "good" sources


Let's compare that to the work often categorized as the work of an historian (true, mostly by apologists):

I took that from here: The Gospel of Luke

So let's compare.

First, what do we know about the authors themselves? Well, in the case of Alexander the Great's biography, we know quite a bit. His name was Lucius Flavius Arrianus . We know when he lived. We know what he did for a living. Importantly, we have other works by Arrian by which we can get an idea of his trustworthiness. Also, knowing who he was makes it possible to evaluate his work and the degree to which we accept what he says.

On the other hand, we don't even know the true name of the author of the Gospel of Luke. We don't know who Luke was. We don't know who he wrote for (who is Theophilus?) or what his purpose was. The only other work purported to be by this author is Acts of the Apostles, itself a work of questionable veracity. We know almost nothing about the identity of the author of the Gospel of Luke.

Second, both authors cite their sources. Arrian cites Ptolemy and Aristobulus. We know those sources as well and can further evaluate claims that are based on their reports. One thing we know, they were contemporaries and eyewitnesses. Whether reliable or not, they are at least that. All three of these figures are independently attested in the historical record.

On the other hand, Luke cites "the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning." We don't know who these eyewitnesses are. So compounding the problem that we don't know who "Luke" is, we don't know who his sources are. We have no way to independently assess the reliability of Luke or his sources. Further, Luke says these are accounts are by eyewitnesses and servants of "the word." What exactly does that mean?

I think even right there, we can see that the analogy fails. I could go on...

Grog

It is interesting to note, though, that this view of Jesus as Davidian heir and revolutionary finds no support in the ancient sources. One potential source, Josephus, would, if we were to accept it, appear to rule that out:

source: Early Christian Writings

It does not seem to be consistent with Josephus' writings about other zealots such as Judas the Galilean:

Some interesting contrasts. In the TF, Josephus blames the "principle men among us" for the crucifixion of Jesus, a "doer of wonderful works." In the passage about Judas, the zealots are madmen who "murder" "our principle men."

It is hard to conceive of Josephus reporting the movement of a zealot in favorable terms. There are other examples in Josephus of seditious zealots. In no case, does Josephus speak favorably of these "madmen." [Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.259]. With the single exception of Jesus the Zealot.

However...

if the TF is an interpolation, then we have to wonder how Josephus missed this nascent movement, which by the 60's is supposed to have been well-established in Jerusalem. Yet in none of his investigations of the different sects of Judaism, does Josephus mention Jesus from Nazareth. He records the incident of Jesus ben Ananias, eerily mirroring the passion of the Gospels.

I used to be attracted to this theory, being an ex-Catholic, ex-neo-Marxist. The idea of an ancient Palestinian Emiliano Zapata rebelling against Rome was particularly enticing. I would even accept a Gandhi. However, the more I looked, the more this figure seemed to evade detection.

SLD

Some date the Gospel of Thomas to as early as the late thirties. Debatable, but possibly. My point wasn't that the sources were in any way equivalent. My point was that just because there are miracle stories associated with a figure does not necessarily make him mythical. The miracles may be myth, but there can still be a historical figure associated.

It seems to me that we atheists want to take a default of Jesus as completely fictional character. We don't believe in Christianity and therefore Christ is a myth. But I think that's too simplistic. We have to explain what we do know with what is the most plausible - understanding that we don't have hard core proof either way. It's not just that we have all of these writings referencing the character, but what the stories say as well. Why are they set in Judea? Why does the main character make references to revolutionary movements that would be interpreted as threats to the romans? Why does it contain these obvious historical figure like Pilate, John the Baptist, Herod? Why would a person, or group of persons set up a religion in this manner if it is a complete fabrication?

And getting back to my OP (sort of): Why would the story include this Paul dude who is only sort of Jewish and why does he seem to have these problems with the original followers? It seems to me that the story of Paul provides a lot of clues as to how Christianity got started.

Granted we'll probably never figure it out one way or the other, but if I had to bet, I'd say there is a historical aspect to the stories.

SLD

Grog

So that is one source, not "some," and, as you say the dating is not secure.

"According to John P. Meier, c 1990, scholars predominately conclude that Thomas depends on or harmonizes the Synoptics." Source: Wikipedia






Isn't that a strawman argument, then? I do not think anyone is making the argument that "just because there are miracle stories associated with a figure" that makes said figure mythical. I think the argument goes much deeper than that, starting here: Our only ancient sources of this figure portray an entirely mythical character. The point of the stories themselves is that this character was supernatural, the Son of God.

I've met quite a few atheists who hold on to the notion of a Jesus, a man from Nazareth who taught some good things, was an ancient Gandhi/Zapata/Che/[fill in the blank with favorite martyr figure]. It is an appealing story. It appeals to me. I have nothing against the notion of Jesus, or for that matter, liberal Christian denominations. I have no axe to grind and no reason for wanting to "take a default of Jesus as...fictional."



That seems to me what people are doing. On this board, there is a wealth of information about the origins of Christianity. Some of the members of this board have studied every shred of evidence. I am often amazed at the depth of knowledge here, even when I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation of evidence. Not having "hard core proof" either way should lead to agnostism, right? I happen to think there is enough evidence of a heavenly Jesus derived from the Old Testament and Hellenistic Judaism at the turn of the millennium to tip the scales in that direction. That and the fact that there is no direct evidence to make a positive statement regarding the existence of Jesus causes me to lean toward "mythicism."

What are "all these stories?" It seems plausible that the stories are all sourced to the author of the "short" GMark. There are lots of King Arthur stories. There are lots of different kinds of Old Man Coyote stories. there are variations of Hercules stories.


I think certainly the stories pertain to people with a connection to the area.



Could you cite what you mean? I am not aware of what you are referring to. Couldn't the author of the Jesus story have simply made the connection? It's my position that even the author of gMark had access to the works of Josephus. So the author can have the "main character" reference anything he wants.

I don't believe anyone "set up a religion in this manner," nor do I believe it is a complete fabrication. I believe that early Christians did not believe in an earthly Jesus, but a heavenly revealer Jesus, derived from thoughts such as Philo's Logos, Isaiah 53, the Wisdom of Solomon , Sethian literature such as the Apocalypse of Adam. I am not saying that any one of these is a direct precursor. I am saying that the belief systems support the idea that we know as "Jesus Christ" without resorting to a human intermediary.

Is there a single "fact" about this historical figure that you can point to that isn't derivative from some precursor source?


I agree, but I probably don't interpret that evidence in the same way.

Ok, and right now, I am betting against.

I will be back to finish editing this.

SLD

Well do come back Grog! But a few more points to ponder why you take care of ither business. First, that ancient sources don't take Jesus to be in line for the thrown is irrelevant. O course not! Jesus failed therefore he could never have been the Messiah. The point is that Jesus did see himself as such, but that doesn't mean he saw himself as a deity. Messiahship, even "son of god" didn't mean what it meant to Greek audiences - hence one of the reasons for the OP. for a first century Judean, such claims would be purely political not necessarily religious. (although for some they are religious implications too).

Second I don't see Jesus as the equivalent of some modern day Che or Ghandi. I see him as more of a fool who thought God would provide some miracle if he managed to do the right thing. Oops, guess he found out that there was no god.

I think your stronger argument is the lack of a clear reference to him in Josephus. Of course a lot of the TF is interpolation, but whether all of it is, is open to debate. The discovery of an earlier copy of Josephus would really make a difference in helping to settle the debate. That could happen.

OK. COme back and post soon.

SLD