How to indicate speculative relations?

You're right, Ulf. It wasn't a very good answer. But not for the reasons you think.

If you are a Christian, or if you grew up in a Christian world, you might know only about Christian sources. Maybe you've just read the Christian scriptures and you believe what they say.

But there are many more sources. Some of them too late to matter. Some of them discovered only in the last 100 years. And some of them known to other people for thousands of years but not well known to Christians.

Muslims, for example, believe that Jesus did not have a father. He was created in Mary's womb, and she is his mother but only in the sense she gave birth to him.

The Jews of Jesus' time and even many early Christians believed that Joseph was Jesus' physical father, but Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism (or his resurrection or his ascension). In Hebrews God says, "You are my son. Today I have begotten you" (Hebrew 1:5). This verse reflects a Jewish messianic view, where the messiah will be a man like King David but will be (like King David) called a Son of God. The idea is called Adoptionism. It was condemned as a heresy by the Greek church in the 2nd century, and there was a major effort to exterminate it.

Also in the 2nd century, Celsus, a Greek philosopher, wrote that Jews believed Jesus was the son of Pantera, a Roman soldier. There is evidence that some of them thought Mary was Pantera's mistress, and others thought she had been raped by him (then her reputation saved by Joseph marrying her). The idea that Jesus was the son of Pantera persisted as a common belief among Jews until fairly recently.

There is an academic book by Jane Schaberg called The illegitimacy of Jesus (1987) that explores all the different evidence, and even clues in the Bible, that Jesus was illegitimate and that different stories emerged either to whitewash the fact or to exploit it against him.

You see. We aren't talking about the opinions of modern people here, but rather a conflict in the sources, and a difference of belief among Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Magnus, I'm sorry that I've hijacked your thread with off-topic discussions.

Justin, I think it wasn't until the beginning of 1900's some few academics started to question the historical authenticity of Jesus, at least in the western world. (Sorry for the late reply).

Ulf, it's a fascinating question. I don't know what to think. I'm not afraid to have my beliefs challenged, but I grew up in a world where that was just a crackpot idea.

If you're interested, search for Richard Carrier on YouTube. He's an expert who has done a lot of research on this subject. It's not a crackpot idea any more. Still a minority opinion but now respectable.

He hasn't persuaded me. Not yet, anyway. But I have a very hard time trying to explain why I think he's wrong ;)

Well, I don't think the possibility that the biblical Jesus is a redacted trope - a literary creation, deliberately fulfilling 'Old Testament' messianic prophecies - is a "crackpot" idea at all. I'd say that says more about the world you grew up in, Justin, than about the intellectual facts available :-)
The historical data proving his authentic existence is nowhere near as solid as to make the alternative a cracked pot :-)

The most we can really say is that Paul appears to have believed that he did exist. To what extent Paul and his fellow exegesists believed, vs cynically manipulated, the life story to fulfill the OT messianic prophecies, is open to valid debate. And even if you fall on the side of true belief & actual events; you're left with a messiah who cynically manipulates his own movements to fullfill them.

Or a god - but the holes in the cracks in the pot are an existential, not an Historical debate; and genealogy is an historical, not a philosophical pursuit :-)

Science (knowledge-based) is based on what Scientists can prove/disprove.
Being affected by a spirit or The Spirit is often regarded as delusional by those who have never been affected thus. I look forward to the rest of this discussion :-)

Sharon,

Carrier himself often prefaces his lectures with an admission that his predecessors in the Jesus Myth field went too far. They accepted other crackpot ideas. They drew parallels that no academic historian accepts. And, they missed obvious points that should occur to anyone doing real research.

One good example is the lists of parallels between Jesus and other pagan gods. The point of these lists is to show that Jesus is an easily recognizable type. For example, they were all born of a virgin, born on December 25, had 12 disciples, died and was resurrected, etc. The lists typically include Mithras, Horus, Krishna, Dionysis, Buddha, etc.

The problem is that most of these lists are simply wrong about the details. For example, Mithras was not born of a virgin. He didn't have 12 disciples. He wasn't killed and resurrected.

There are similar problems with all the other parallels. It's easy to show that Jesus does not in fact fit an easily identifiable type. This is something missed by earlier "scholars".

The Jesus Myth argument is actually much more complicated and interesting than that. It's part of a larger debate about Gnosticism. The majority view is that Gnosticism started among the Christians, then spread. Carrier and others believe it was pre-Christian. It's one of his central arguments that there was a demi-god savior named Jesus in Jewish Gnosticism who pre-dates the human Jesus.

If he's right, that's huge because it means other Jesus Myth scholars have missed it.

As a medievalist, my world is shot through with Neoplatonism. That's my thing. Gnosticism has strong Neoplatonist roots, but I can't figure out whether Carrier is right about the dating. I go round in circles.

Back now from my board meeting and ready to offer a few thoughts about Historical Jesus.

I'm inclined to think Jesus was historical. Not because of the gospels or the epistles of Paul, but because of the many genealogical touches over a broad range of other literature.

First, and probably foremost, are the references to St. James as the "Lord's brother". James was a highly influential member of the early church. Later lists call him the first bishop of Jerusalem. Even Paul deferred to him.

Depending on who you read, James was either co-leader with Peter of the Jerusalem community, or he was Peter's successor. And, again depending on who you read, he either helped keep the early church Jewish, or he re-introduced Jewish ideas to the early church. He was so important that there was an early idea that James' death precipitated the Fall of Jerusalem.

James the Lord's brother was succeeded as "bishop of Jerusalem" by Simon, who was either the brother or cousin of Jesus (depending on the source).

Secondly, and almost as important, is the story that two grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude were brought before the emperor and interrogated because of a report that they were descendants of King David and might be rebel leaders. The emperor found them to be poor farmers and released them.

Third, there is the genealogy in Matthew, which many scholars think was probably the genealogy circulated by Jesus' family. In fact, probably the genealogy that led to the arrest of Judas' grandsons. The fact this genealogy is somewhat artificial and survives only in a compact, mnemonic format suggests it was a genuine genealogy of a family in this period that claimed descent from David. (Whether it was a true genealogy is something entirely different.)

Taking these and other clues together as a group, it seems to me most likely that there was a historical Jesus and a religious movement that formed around him. When I say that, I'm not dismissing the idea that some of the stories about Jesus' relatives might be inflated. And I'm not dismissing the idea that some elements of Gnosticism might have combined with the Jesus story at an early date.

One thing I am dismissing is the idea that the only choice is between Jesus as a myth and Jesus exactly as the gospels present him. Far too simplistic.

This is a book I've been meaning to order.

https://books.google.com/books?id=oCOdBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontco...

Still too pricey for me, but I've started seeing the price of use copies drop a bit lately.

I am following this discussion as well as the one about God Almighty.

I am certainly no theologian or scholar in this subject but have you heard of the writing of Flaveous Josephus and his account of Jesus Justin Durand ?

I am interested in learning more of your sources. Thanks

Fun Discussion- that book looks really interesting, Justin.
Jamey - many (most?) scholars think that the references to Jesus in Josephus are of questionable authenticity

Justin - on Carrier, I don't know him, so I'm not defending / criticising his position when I refer to events in Jesus' life story fulfilling the Old Testament messianic prophecies. I'm definitely not referring to the Platonic underpinnings of New Testament Christianity. (Which, as you know, I find fascinating. The Egyptian Coptics are the aspect I wish I'd spent more time researching when I was in Egypt.)

The trope I'm referencing is that created by the Judaic messianism of the Hebrew bible – especially of Isaiah – that anticipates an anointed messianic descendant of David - of the type that Bar Kokhbar was embodying in the revolt against Rome in c130 CE.

On the existence and significance of James - That is a very interesting Discussion I'm sure we started long ago. If we can find it, it would be great to continue it on his profile.

"One thing I am dismissing is the idea that the only choice is between Jesus as a myth and Jesus exactly as the gospels present him. Far too simplistic."

Yes, definitely. But the possibility that Jesus might be an expediently extrapolated trope is not even close to being a crackpot idea from an intellectual perspective. Until you can contemplate that as a possibilty, in my opinion, you're not engaging with the data in any way that can be considered objective.

Jamey,

Expanding a bit on Sharon's comment about Josephus, the short answer is that the material survives in several different manuscripts that have minor variations. It's clear that the variations came from later Christian editing of the text to make it look like Josephus said more than he really did.

One of the manuscripts was only discovered in the 19th century. This one contains a fairly long passage that is not in any of the others. That passage is now regarded as a complete fake.

The core text that was probably the only original part of Josephus is that there was a man named James, who was the brother of someone called Jesus who was called the Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Slavonic_Josephus

Sharon,

You said, "you're not engaging with the data in any way that can be considered objective."

That's a harsh accusation to be making. I can only think that one of us is misunderstanding what the other is saying.

If I understand your comments correctly, you are not making a necessary distinction between older and newer scholarship. And you are not allowing for a analysis of the evolution of the text. You are saying it's enough to show the text as an "expediently extrapolated trope" to disprove Historical Jesus.

But of course, that's not enough at all. The text itself gains relevance only within the context of a reason for creating it. You can easily place the kind of analysis you're talking about within the context of either Mythical Jesus or Historical Jesus. It would work either way.

That kind of analysis works well within Carrier's idea of a Mythical Jesus. The argument would be that he has established sufficient reason for believing there was a Greco-Jewish demi-god named Jesus who pre-dates Historical Jesus, so the gospels themselves can be understood as purely literary creations. Notice, though, that the strength of this argument depends on having good evidence for Mythical Jesus.

And, that kind of analysis also works for Historical Jesus. Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong does that. His book, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes (1996) makes the argument the gospels are a collection of Jewish midrashic stories. (For people who don't already know, a midrash is a kind of story that explores the deeper meaning rather than a literal reading.) He thinks they were used liturgically. sof analysis doesn't depend on Historical Jesus, but it doesn't exclude him either. The gaospels can still be purely literary creations.

Contrast these two approaches with the work, for example, of José Faur, The Gospel According to the Jews (2012). Now, I know Faur has many admirers on Geni but his work (in my opinion) is too simplistic. If the gospels show Jesus saying bad things about the Pharisees, then Jesus must have been a sectarian and heretic. If the gospels never show Jesus saying anything bad to drunks and prostitutes, then Jesus must have been a libertine. On and on.

Faur doesn't even consider the possibility the text has been altered or that he is misinterpreting it. This is what I mean when I say it's too simplistic to argue between Jesus as a myth and Jesus exactly as the gospels present him.

We are 100% certain differing versions of the gospels existed within a few hundred years of the time indicated as Jesus' death - because we have the varying manuscripts to show it (one of the more famous examples being the last two lines of the Lord's Prayer).
It would take a strong faith indeed to consider that evidence and conclude that the text we have now is the text as originally written.

There's also remarkable stretches of consistency between the manuscripts (more consistency than between, say, the Flateyarbok and Snorre versions of St. Olav's saga) - but for all we know, that may be because all the more bizarre alternations of the text were burned as heretical.

Sorry Justin - that wasn't meant to sound harsh. And the point wasn't that you aren't engaging objectively at all, but that, unless you are considering the possibility that the biblical Jesus might simply be a literary redaction - as one of the possibilities pointed to be the data or lack of it - I don't think you're examining the spectrum of possible conclusions to be drawn from the available data with a sufficiently objective eye.
My personal conclusion is, like yours, that a person Jesus most likely existed - but the idea that he didn't isn't a crackpot one, given his absence from contemporary historical accounts, and the significance attached to him by his proselytizing biographers.

On the consistency, Harald, that would only be remarkable if the accounts were contemporary with Jesus himself, and known to be independent. A hundred years later, not so much. The inconsistencies probably tell us more about historical veracity from a purely objective perspective, in my opinion.

Sharon, one of us is still not understanding the other.

A literary redaction of what? For what?

Again and again you are implying that I'm somehow not considering all the possibilities, but you aren't pointing to any possibilities I haven't considered -- except the possibility that a bunch of people wrote some stuff for the pure fun of it.

"Again & again" I'm pointing out that the possibility that Jesus was not a real person is not a "crackpot" idea.

"A literary redaction of what? For what?"

Jesus' biography as a literary redaction of the Hebrew Bible's messianic theme
eg, from a random google search:
http://www.biblestudy.org/prophecy/old-testament-prophecies-jesus-f...; http://www1.cbn.com/biblestudy/biblical-prophecies-fulfilled-by-jesus
ie The convulated; often contradictory; sometimes nonsensical biographical details offered by the closest contemporary sources (ie The gospels. Paul, not offering much in the way of biographical detail, & focusing , more on a very un-Judaic Platonic conception of Jesus' function) - 'fulfill' as many details as possible of the extended messianic trope in the sacred texts of the Jews at the time of the writing of the gospels. Too many to be credible.

"For what?"
Proselytizing.

Sharon, I was referring to consistency between the different papyrii of the gospels (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#cite_note-Luke22-12 for Wikipedia takes on the differences and similiarities) rather than the large-scale differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke and (especially) John.

Re harsh words: I hear Justin saying that he's carefully considered the idea of there not being a specific "historic Jesus" and saying he's not convinced; I don't hear you hearing the same thing.

Myself, I have a somewhat non-scholarly position ... I think that people inventing things out of whole cloth would write better drama; the fact that they didn't indicates to me that they were somewhat limited in how much they could embellish a story that was already known in general outline to their contemporaries.

So I tend to believe there's some basis for the stories of Olav Haraldsson (two versions, composed ~200 years after the event) and Jesus Christ (four somewhat consistent tales, tens of manuscripts, manuscripts dated to ~300 years after the event). But I do consider the alternatives, they just haven't convinced me.

If we consider that the writings about Jesus from Christian sources have reason to perpetuate the belief, then from a scholarly viewpoint one should remain cautious in taking anything the ''church'' claims as historically proven.

This argument is a good one, problematic as it is. Why 'problematic' you may ask? Because it is based on circular reasoning which goes something like this: The church created the story of Jesus and Jesus created the church..

A better argument would be to view the old testament (Septuagint text incorporating all the old testament books, as accepted by catholics & orthodox churches) that were written centuries before the books of the new testament were penned. In these books we find non-Christian accounts (as Jesus had not been born yet) of what the messiah would be like should he one day arrive.

These expectations, enshrined in the word 'prophecy' suggests that there was a BC story of the messiah and an AD story of Jesus. It was obviously important for the two stories to become one in order to have the old testament scriptures confirmed through 'prophecy'.

Interesting to note that most people struggle to related to the virgin birth from a historical perspective. Similarly, the genealogy of Jesus stemming from kind david also cannot be confirmed. What you will find is all the extraordinary claims of the life or ancestry of Jesus can be traced to the old testament. Whether directly or indirectly, the coincidence by which these extraordinary claims are connected to old testament prophecy suggests a motive.

The man who would become known as Jesus did exist. The extraordinary life Jesus lead is impossible to prove outside of Christian teaching except for a few vague yet telling accounts by a couple of non-Christians who use adjectives such as wise and intelligent. The long and short of it is that not enough exists outside of the Christian faith to substantiate claims of ancestry or the like. The church and all christians, I include myself in this category, are biased due to faith.

For history to be documented one needs records, not scripture. The Catholic and Orthodox church views scripture slightly differently to post-Reformation churches. Sola scripture or only scripture is the post-reformation view on authority within the church. This according to the early church is myopic. The Catholic and Orthodox churches know that scripture is authoritative by stop just short of saying that it is the truth, rather saying that it is ABOUT the Truth!

Historical consideration should only be given to

Historical consideration should only be given to the extraordinary (hard to prove) in terms of significance and be cautious in its confirmation or repudiation. History is not only about documented fact from archived documents, it also concerns transmitting the lived experience as accurately as possible. If we fail to record the context of lived experience then we fail to record history with any significance.

Sharon,

I think you are collapsing a two-part argument into one part.

You want to say: The gospels are a literary redaction.

I am pointing out that the argument has to be expanded to include a second element: The gospels (1) are a literary redaction (2) of material about a mythical Jesus.

The second part is crucial. Mythical Jesus has to exist as an idea in someone's mind before anything about him can be redacted.

If you don't start with evidence of a mythical Jesus, then your argument is that the existence of the gospels proves there was a mythical Jesus. It's an a priori argument, and it goes in circles.

That's why I say the credibility of the theory the gospels are literary redactions is necessarily linked to the quality of the other evidence.

If someone can show plausible evidence outside the gospels that Jesus was mythical, then the idea that the gospels are literary redactions is worth looking at.

But, if the only evidence of a mythical Jesus is a bunch of crackpots running around making claims that are highly inflated and demonstrably false, then that doesn't say much for the theory the gospels are a literary redaction. Literary redactions of what? Of something that no serious scholar believes??

There are now people like Richard Carrier who have put the Mythical Jesus theory on firmer ground. As that theory gains respectability, so does the theory that the gospels are literary redactions. But it doesn't change the crackpot nature of past "scholarship" and it doesn't dissolve the need to keep an eye on both components of the argument.

Sharon,

I"m going to go just a bit further with this. I know you know this stuff, probably as well as I do, but some of the reason for our disagreement probably isn't obvious to others.

The Greek philosopher Plato had the idea the universe was formed by energies flowing down from a perfect Absolute that was the highest reality. Those energies ultimately reach and form our imperfect material world. So, this world is just a reflection of a purer, more perfect world. Plato's model became very influential in the ancient world.

Plato called the "god" who created (really, constructed") the material world the Demiurge. For Plato, the Demiurge was benevolent. But, there was a group called the Gnostics who started much later, and who thought the Demiurge was evil.

The arguments and evidence are complicated, but the ideas are very simple. The world is either good but imperfect, or it's evil. Either way, all souls are struggling to get back to the source.

There is no doubt these ideas were swirling around the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus. It's clear that some Jews were influenced by them (such as Philo of Alexandria). It's seems that St. Paul had been influenced by them before he became a Christian. And it's clear that these ideas were swirling around among many early Christians.

But a lot of the details are controversial. It's not clear whether the Gnostics and their idea of an evil Demiurge started among the Christians, or whether it is an older idea. It's not clear whether there was an organized philosophy of Hellenistic Jews who combined Jewish monotheism with ideas about the Demiurge. And, it's not clear how much and in what way Greek ideas about the Demiurge might have influenced ideas about Jesus.

Personally, I think if Jesus were wholly a myth he has to have been (as Richard Carrier argues) a Hellenized Jewish Demiurge, drawn (as you say) from elements of Jewish Messianism. I think that's the old sensible way to get a Mythical Jesus out of the material without resorting to an a priori argument.

Harald, you said:

"Myself, I have a somewhat non-scholarly position ... I think that people inventing things out of whole cloth would write better drama; the fact that they didn't indicates to me that they were somewhat limited in how much they could embellish a story that was already known in general outline to their contemporaries."

In my opinion that's an eminently practical way to look at it.

I'm exposed to these old texts, such as those from the Nag Hammadi library, from my "day job" selling copies of them and books about them, and from listening to customers tell me about them. I suppose by now I've read all of them at one time or another.

Something that stands out for me is how well constructed these old texts are. Either they make a clear theological point, or they're straightforward narratives, or they're heavily obscured by an almost impenetrable symbolism.

But not the gospels. They just ramble. And try to throw in anything that might be relevant. And go out of their way to make points that seem forced. Like you, my impression of the gospels is that they are not literary creations. Instead, they are collections of stories where the point has to be shoved in whether it fits or not ;)

Thank you Sharon and Justin for your response to my question on Josephus.

I haven enjoyed reading this thread along with others on Geni.com about Jesus Yeshua if he really exsisted or not. I think that this question may never be resolved for those who want hard concrete evidence.

The opposite of those who want evidence in order to set records with historical figures are those who believe he exsisted through faith. Of course those who believe and take the gospels as their evidence that he exsisted could be looked at as crackpots by those who don't believe and need extra Biblical writing to convince them Jesus truely exsisted and need proof. So what my point is, that unless we can find some real concrete proof, not everyone will be convinced. Through the viewpoint of the Christian and Catholic Church, the gospels is proof enough.

I wonder what you all think of the Tenach and the exsistence of the Jewish Patriarchs and if there is actual evidence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exsisting since the first five books of the law we passed down orally until written down many generations later. Of course there is much genealogy in the Old Testament and I am definitely no expert in any of these areas so I will bow out now, but I do find all of your thoughts on this subject quite interesting.

I suppose I failed to remember there a many artifacts for the Jewish people.and graves of Joseph, King David, and the tribes.of Israel so comparing that to the exsistance of a Messiah figure from a sect that came out.of Judaism with the Jewish people as a whole may be a stretch in comparing Jesus as there seems to be few artifacts except varing vertions of texts in several language translations of Latin, Greek and so on of the New Testament.

there is mention the Shroud of Turin on the Jesus Yeshua discussion that may be of interest.