Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

[outhouse]

stuff like that would have been mentioned by a writer like Josephus

Not really true.

Remember he had a very biased view of it all. He was writing a Roman Hellenistic version of history, and was not going to highlight the plight of the Jews Romans were oppressing.

As an example, look at how little he wrote of John the Baptist, who was much more popular then Jesus before he was killed.

 

[outhouse]

. Even then the historical Jesus was less important than the living Christ.

True.

The theology and mythology developed in Hellenism from the beginning.


Think about it, where was Paul hunting his sect members down? in the diaspora, not Jerusalem.

Had there been one center, he would have went straight there.

after which his followers carried on his legacy

As far as we can tell, his real followers fled at arrest. Had his followers started the movement we would see the origins starting from Israel and working out.

We would also see Aramaic books. We don't even have many Aramaic transliterations that show any kind of Aramaic primacy of any kind.


What we do see is the movement growing from many centers all over the Diaspora, just as if the half million people at Passover took the mythology and theology home with them, and small communities developed from these teachings that grew every year at Passover.

We see the Divorce of Hellenistic Proselytes from cultural Israelites and Judaism, based on the martyrdom of an Aramaic Galilean who was crucified.

 

[outhouse]

Thank you mud.

Evidence without context, is meaningless.

 

[Vishvavajra]

None of the epistle writers including Paul mention Nazareth or Galilee, nor do any of them mention disciples. The gospel writers were the first to write of such things. The purpose of midrash is not to record history, in other words, midrashic content is not historical content.

Paul mentions the Twelve. He doesn't name them, but by that point there was already a notion that Jesus had 12 main disciples. Paul also mentions Cephas (Peter) and James the Brother of Jesus and claims to have met them when he visited their community of Christians around Jerusalem. In fact there was clearly some friction between Paul and Jesus's direct disciples, as Paul was fond of barging in, claiming personal gnosis, and telling everyone how it was supposed to be.

It's true that Paul doesn't mention Jesus's birthplace, but if the proto-Christians of Paul's day really were referred to as Nazarenes, as they are in Acts, then that would indicate a prior tradition. Later tradition certainly places him as a Galilean. The shift to Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke is an obvious midrashic reference to David, not a genuine fact of his birth.

 

[Bunyip]

Don't know. Also don't know that the term meant the same in antiquity that it does now. The idea of the rabbinate is one that evolved over time. If you take it to be the equivalent of guru, then the only real requirement is that some people think of you that way and choose to follow your teachings.

Why would you equate a guru with a rabbi?

 

[steeltoes]

Paul mentions the Twelve. He doesn't name them, but by that point there was already a notion that Jesus had 12 main disciples.

I have to disagree with you on a few points.

How do you know what he meant by the Twelve and how was there already a notion that there was 12 main disciples when none of the epistle writers mention anything about disciples?

Paul also mentions Cephas (Peter) and James the Brother of Jesus

No, Paul never mentions the brother of Jesus. The brother of the Lord could mean a lot of things.

and claims to have met them when he visited their community of Christians around Jerusalem. In fact there was clearly some friction between Paul and Jesus's direct disciples, as Paul was fond of barging in, claiming personal gnosis, and telling everyone how it was supposed to be.

No, Paul never met with any disciples, he met with apostles, there's a difference.

It's true that Paul doesn't mention Jesus's birthplace, but if the proto-Christians of Paul's day really were referred to as Nazarenes, as they are in Acts, then that would indicate a prior tradition. Later tradition certainly places him as a Galilean. The shift to Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke is an obvious midrashic reference to David, not a genuine fact of his birth.

Acts does not surface until late in the 2nd century and is unreliable as anything other than church propaganda, so no, it does not indicate a prior tradition.

 

[Vishvavajra]

As far as we can tell, his real followers fled at arrest. Had his followers started the movement we would see the origins starting from Israel and working out.

That's exactly what we see, with Peter & James still based in Judea and Paul being the big push outward.

We would also see Aramaic books. We don't even have many Aramaic transliterations that show any kind of Aramaic primacy of any kind.

There were Aramaic books, and they were known even into the 2nd century and after. The reason Greek books supplanted them is obvious: Greek had much broader appeal, whereas nobody west of Syria could be expected to read Aramaic. The Greek language of the NT is not evidence that there never were any Christians in Palestine. On the contrary, the painful divorce of the early Christians from communion with the rest of the Jewish world is a main concern of the Gospels, particularly John.

We see the Divorce of Hellenistic Proselytes from cultural Israelites and Judaism, based on the martyrdom of an Aramaic Galilean who was crucified.

This makes no sense. There is no such thing as Israelite nationality or culture in this period to begin with. Nor is Aramaic a culture in this period. If Josephus is to be believed, knowledge of languages other than Aramaic was poor in 1st-century Palestine. If "Aramaic" means "person who spoke Aramaic," then you're talking about the entire Jewish population of the Levant. Paul is the first example of a major Christian figure whose knowledge of Aramaic is questionable, and that's entirely because he grew up outside of that region. At any rate, it seems clear that his knowledge of Greek was superior, since he seems to draw on Greek editions of things and prefers to write in Greek (but of course he's also writing to communities in Greek-speaking places, whose knowledge of Aramaic would probably also be poor to nonexistent).

 

[Vishvavajra]

How do you know what he meant by the Twelve and how was there already a notion that there was 12 main disciples when none of the epistle writers mention anything about disciples?

Paul says that after his death Jesus appeared to Peter, to James, to the Twelve, to 500 other members of the community, and to all the apostles. "The Twelve" is stated in a way that assumes the audience will know who they are, and they are grouped together with those who were followers of Jesus. I'm all for questioning common assumptions, but who are these twelve supposed to be if not the Twelve that the Gospel authors will later try to identify (even though they give different rosters).

No, Paul never mentions the brother of Jesus. The brother of the Lord could mean a lot of things.

Only if you're not familiar with Paul. In his language that only means one thing. (E.g. "ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ."—1 Cor. 8.6.)

No, Paul never met with any disciples, he met with apostles, there's a difference.

Not so much. For one thing, Peter and James are supposed to have been direct students of Jesus. For another, Paul uses the term apostle to refer to a privileged subset of Jesus's direct disciples, those whom he sent out into the world to teach others in turn. The fact that Paul claims to be one of those despite never having known Jesus in person is extremely important to understanding his program, as well as the reason for his friction with Peter and James. In short, not all disciples are apostles, but all apostles in this context are disciples.

Acts does not surface until late in the 2nd century and is unreliable as anything other than church propaganda, so no, it does not indicate a prior tradition.

It gains that title in the late 2nd century. The mainstream scholarly view is that it was composed near the end of the 1st century, around the same time and by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. That means it's not an ideal historical source for the particulars of the time it's describing, and the author's knowledge of Paul is flawed enough for us to reject the tradition that he was actually the Luke who was Paul's disciple, but dismissing it as nothing more than propaganda is not something an actual historian would do. Like the Gospels, it's a complex work that partly reflects the author's understanding of the time and events in question, and partly represents an attempt to construct the narrative to reflect his contemporary concerns. It shouldn't be taken at face value as a record of events, but it's not without its uses.

 

[outhouse]

That's exactly what we see, with Peter & James still based in Judea and Paul being the big push outward.

No we do not.

Paul joined a movement in progress in the diaspora, with other Gospel in place. He also hunted in the Diaspora.


And we don't see any Aramaic primacy coming out of Israel. We don't see ANY writing coming out of Israel at all.


The movement had no center.

There were Aramaic books, and they were known even into the 2nd century and after

There were no Aramaic early gospels or any book with this movement.

Everything you speak of were later copies of Koine text, or text based on Koine text.

There is no such thing as Israelite nationality

Tell that to the oppressed Jews.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Why would you equate a guru with a rabbi?

Jesus gets called rabbi a number of times by his disciples in the various Gospel literature, both canonical and non-canonical, and it's always in the context of his relationship to them as guru. The word literally means "my master." Jews like to point out that Jesus didn't qualify as a rabbi in the strict sense, but I don't think that actually tells us anything except that the way his disciples are using the word is different from how rabbinic Jews use it. We don't know how, for example, the Essenes used the word, and the early Christians had a lot more in common with them than with rabbinic Jews today. All I'm saying is, I'm not sure the word was quite so fixed semantically at that time, and the way Jesus's followers us it, you could easily replace it with "guru" and it would make perfect sense.

 

[Bunyip]

Jesus gets called rabbi a number of times by his disciples in the various Gospel literature, both canonical and non-canonical, and it's always in the context of his relationship to them as guru. The word literally means "my master." Jews like to point out that Jesus didn't qualify as a rabbi in the strict sense, but I don't think that actually tells us anything except that the way his disciples are using the word is different from how rabbinic Jews use it. We don't know how, for example, the Essenes used the word, and the early Christians had a lot more in common with them than with rabbinic Jews today. All I'm saying is, I'm not sure the word was quite so fixed semantically at that time, and the way Jesus's followers us it, you could easily replace it with "guru" and it would make perfect sense.

Thanks for elaborating. Cheers.

 

[lovemuffin]

Only if you're not familiar with Paul. In his language that only means one thing. (E.g. "ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ."—1 Cor. 15.6.)

1 Cor. 8:6

 

[Awoon]

Jesus didn't replace John anyway, the Bible is constantly making distinctions between them.

Right. Jesus didn't baptize anyone.

 

[Awoon]

What I mean is that asking for a replacement hypothesis is rather absurd - the claim that Jesus was historical is a hypothesis, the alternate position - which is that the historicity of Jesus has not been established is already a better explanation of the available data. Essentially doubt is a better explanation than is certainty in Jesus historicity.

Pilate defended Jesus in the trial story. Now what Roman Governor would defend a Jew in the middle of the night after being woke up to have a trial?

 

[Bunyip]

Pilate defended Jesus in the trial story. Now what Roman Governor would defend a Jew in the middle of the night after being woke up to have a trial?

Pilate?

 

[Vishvavajra]

1 Cor. 8:6

Thanks. That's what I get for trying to have two separate scriptural arguments going at once, both from the same book. (For those who don't know, 1 Cor. 15:6 is the citation for the statement I made above that one.)

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The Annals (Tacitus)/book 15, # 44

That pretty much says it. Yeah Christus most likely did live, but only as some kind social revolutionary who must have said some pretty sharp things about imperial authority to get himself killed. Well, Socrates had some truck with status quo as well, and there were other thinkers too who rubbed the kings the wrong way. Only with the followers of Christ, it was that cruelty against them that propelled their story up. People had such great pity for the martyrs suffering under Nero for example that they didn't want any of them to be forgotten, so sainthood was born. I guess it goes to show their were some mighty cruel times in history, that's pretty much what really carried the Christian story to us.

 

[Awoon]

Pilate?

Yep Pilate. Read Matthew 27: 23,24.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul says that after his death Jesus appeared to Peter, to James, to the Twelve, to 500 other members of the community, and to all the apostles. "The Twelve" is stated in a way that assumes the audience will know who they are, and they are grouped together with those who were followers of Jesus. I'm all for questioning common assumptions, but who are these twelve supposed to be if not the Twelve that the Gospel authors will later try to identify (even though they give different rosters).


Only if you're not familiar with Paul. In his language that only means one thing. (E.g. "ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ."—1 Cor. 8.6.)


Not so much. For one thing, Peter and James are supposed to have been direct students of Jesus. For another, Paul uses the term apostle to refer to a privileged subset of Jesus's direct disciples, those whom he sent out into the world to teach others in turn. The fact that Paul claims to be one of those despite never having known Jesus in person is extremely important to understanding his program, as well as the reason for his friction with Peter and James. In short, not all disciples are apostles, but all apostles in this context are disciples.


It gains that title in the late 2nd century. The mainstream scholarly view is that it was composed near the end of the 1st century, around the same time and by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. That means it's not an ideal historical source for the particulars of the time it's describing, and the author's knowledge of Paul is flawed enough for us to reject the tradition that he was actually the Luke who was Paul's disciple, but dismissing it as nothing more than propaganda is not something an actual historian would do. Like the Gospels, it's a complex work that partly reflects the author's understanding of the time and events in question, and partly represents an attempt to construct the narrative to reflect his contemporary concerns. It shouldn't be taken at face value as a record of events, but it's not without its uses.

For one thing, James, the brother of the Lord interpreted to mean the brother of Jesus contradicts the entire gospel tradition. According to the gospels Jesus' family members were non-believers. According to the gospels, James, the son of Zebedee, is Peter's partner. There is some kind of bait and switch going on here for those that try to tell us that James, the brother of the Lord is the brother of Jesus. Luke/Acts does not even provide the names of Jesus' siblings.

 

[Vishvavajra]

For one thing, James, the brother of the Lord interpreted to mean the brother of Jesus contradicts the entire gospel tradition. According to the gospels Jesus' family members were non-believers. According to the gospels, James, the son of Zebedee, is Peter's partner. There is some kind of bait and switch going on here for those that try to tell us that James, the brother of the Lord is the brother of Jesus. Luke/Acts does not even provide the names of Jesus' siblings.

Now you're using the Gospels and Acts to contradict Paul, who is the earlier source? Is that only OK when it seems to support your position?

Of course, the later tradition is that Jesus didn't have biological brothers at all and that ἀδελφός is supposed to mean something else (never mind that the context doesn't really allow for it). The erasure of his earthly family is a process we can trace.