How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[Rainbow Mage]

A Galilean Zealot martyred at passover who believed in the kingdom of god

Perhaps that I'll concede.

What do we really know about his life though?

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps that I'll concede.

What do we really know about his life though?

Almost nothing.

We know he lived in a poor village and taught in small villages to Jews.

Lived a poor life teaching and healing for food scraps with 3 or 4 followers. He did not charge for healing but did want a place at the table to preach.

preached the coming kingdom of god which is interpreted in different ways.

Was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Made atleast one trip to the temple where he caused trouble and was killed by Pilate.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You know I recently gave Crossan's The Cross that Spoke a read. Thought I'd mention since you said killed by Pilate.

Or as Crossan argues- Herod Antipas

 

[Copernicus]

Once you strip aeway the Moses, Elijah and David borrowing as well as OT passages used to build narrative around what's really left in the gospels?

A Galilean Zealot martyred at passover who believed in the kingdom of god

Maybe. The problem is that the need to strip away the first layer calls the second layer into question. Once you show tampering, it is very difficult to eliminate the possibility that it was all tampering. Matthew seems to have deliberately set out to draw parallels between Moses and Jesus. However, he may have been working with a story in which someone else had embellished it in a different way for a different reason. All we can really say here is that we are dealing with a medium that was prone to modifications. Had Matthew been the only source story that future generations had to go by, the Moses-inspired details would be part of the core. As things stand, we can compare Matthew to the other synoptics and strip away the obvious embellishment.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Maybe. The problem is that the need to strip away the first layer calls the second layer into question. Once you show tampering, it is very difficult to eliminate the possibility that it was all tampering. Matthew seems to have deliberately set out to draw parallels between Moses and Jesus. However, he may have been working with a story in which someone else had embellished it in a different way for a different reason. All we can really say here is that we are dealing with a medium that was prone to modifications. Had Matthew been the only source story that future generations had to go by, the Moses-inspired details would be part of the core. As things stand, we can compare Matthew to the other synoptics and strip away the obvious embellishment.

Agreed and this is why I simply place myself at- an obscure figure existed behind all this, but the Jesus of the gospels is 99% myth

Ellegard put forth a theory in Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ that could hold merit too.

Jesus could have been based on the Essene teacher of righteousness.

Another possible basis is Panthera and Celsus can help add to that case.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Agreed and this is why I simply place myself at- an obscure figure existed behind all this, but the Jesus of the gospels is 99% myth

Ellegard put forth a theory in Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ that could hold merit too.

Jesus could have been based on the Essene teacher of righteousness.

Another possible basis is Panthera and Celsus can help add to that case.

Jesus could have been based on the Essene teacher of righteousness.

Yes, that is a distinct possibility!

 

[fallingblood]

Why ?

I choose not to make definitive statements as you do. I don't think it is historically accurate to make such definitive statements, when it is possible that Moses in fact did exist. It may not be very probable, but I'm not going to make a definitive statement as that simply isn't historically sound.

A Galilean Zealot martyred at passover who believed in the kingdom of god

There is no evidence that Jesus was a Zealot. We have had this discussion, and as I have consistently showed, the Zealots did not operate out of Galilee. The only connection is that Judas was from Galilee. However, Josephus makes it clear that he was in Judea when he (along with Zadok the Pharisee) created the movement. When Josephus talks about the Zealots, it is in Judea.

We know he lived in a poor village and taught in small villages to Jews.

It wasn't just small villages. Capernaum was a decent size town, and it is said he operated out of there for awhile. Other towns that he taught at were also decent size. He just is not recorded as having gone to the larger cities, besides Jerusalem.

As for Nazareth, we know very little. It is possible that it was just a poor village. However, newer evidence is showing that it was better off than once thought.

Lived a poor life teaching and healing for food scraps with 3 or 4 followers. He did not charge for healing but did want a place at the table to preach.

All of our sources say that he had 12 followers. This makes very good sense as it resembled the 12 tribes, and Jesus makes it obvious that he wants them to rule with him in the Kingdom of God.

As for teaching for food scraps, that only shows a lack of understanding of Jewish hospitality. If he provided a service, a needed service such as healing and teaching, he wouldn't be just given food scraps. And seeing that he did seek out more of the wealthy, such as tax collectors, and was said to be a glutton, it is much more probable that he was well fed.

preached the coming kingdom of god which is interpreted in different ways.

But the basic idea is the same.


We can also know much more about Jesus based on archeological and anthropological studies. That is how we know about many other people.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

A Galilean Zealot martyred at passover who believed in the kingdom of god

Jesus Christ is inversely correlated with Judas the Galilean.

JC believed the kingdom of God was not of this world, in contrast to the real zealots who believed it was to be in this world. JC was a cop-out in that he yielded to the Romans. He did not wish to offend the earthly authorities and was therefore a false messiah figure.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You know while we're on the historical Jesus topic doesn't it seem many of his teachings come from other sources as well?

There's definitely parallels in rabbinic proverb and Hellenic literature.

How do we determine many of his sayings were even his?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

You know while we're on the historical Jesus topic doesn't it seem many of his teachings come from other sources as well?

There's definitely parallels in rabbinic proverb and Hellenic literature.

How do we determine many of his sayings were even his?

I don't think JC existed as he is described in the gospels.

But the fictional JC character appears to be derived from historical people of that era.

JC is correlated and inversely correlated with the Teacher of Righteousness and Judas the Galilean. Note the book on Judas the Galilean by Daniel Unterbrink.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

As for his teachings likely being partly derived from Judas of Gallilee, that I agree 110%

I actually have this theory about the names of the brothers of Jesus given in the gospels. He has a brother named Judas and also Simon- Simon Magus?

My theory is the gospel authors left us some clues to Jesus's ties to certain Gnostic teachers.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe. The problem is that the need to strip away the first layer calls the second layer into question. Once you show tampering, it is very difficult to eliminate the possibility that it was all tampering. Matthew seems to have deliberately set out to draw parallels between Moses and Jesus. However, he may have been working with a story in which someone else had embellished it in a different way for a different reason. All we can really say here is that we are dealing with a medium that was prone to modifications. Had Matthew been the only source story that future generations had to go by, the Moses-inspired details would be part of the core. As things stand, we can compare Matthew to the other synoptics and strip away the obvious embellishment.

I agree matthew is layered upon Gmark, and thus I stick with Mark over Matthew regarding possible historicity.

Using criterion of embarrassment one can find hints of the real man. Why would Hellenist build a deity out of Jewish peasant teacher from a hovel like Nazareth?

We see Gmark used Tekton which were displaced renters forced off their original land doing odd jobs, handwork if you will.

We see the other authors changing this as time went by to hide this embarrassing enty of Gmark.

Gaililee was known as a place of Zealots per wiki, and with Jesus talking to tax collectors trying to get them to quit stealing tithes, and the woes of the Pharisees who used Roman muscle to steal tithes, as well as Glukes charge of sedition and Jesus trying to pervert the nation, as well as fighting in the temple due to Hellenistic Roman corruption, as well as the character on the temple coin [what meltard/ hercules] anyway many cultural anthropologist claim it was the temples collaboration with Rome [Johnathon Reed]

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well as to why would Hellenists construct a deity out of a Jewish teacher outhouse-

What if Hellenists didn't? What if certain Jews did? It should be remembered Paul is the earliest writer we have ever speaking of Jesus.

The gospels do not predate Paul, and since he never references it, saying a kind of gospel tradition predated him is an assumption.

Paul always speaks of a Jesus who is a deity he communes with in visions. He never speaks of him as a human.

If a gospel tradition existed when Paul was writing it'd be easy for Paul to say for example- Peter told me Jesus said we should pay taxes.

Paul never does.

 

[outhouse]

but I'm not going to make a definitive statement as that simply isn't historically sound. .

Historically sound is too admitt he was a literary creation, anything else is dishonest.

While there may be a historical core to the legend, as written he is a literary creation, with Israelites factually evolving from displaced Canaanites [Finklestein and Dever]

There is no evidence that Jesus was a Zealot.

Sure there is, you just discount it.

and as I have consistently showed, the Zealots did not operate out of Galilee

Take it up with wiki, if you cannot change it it stands.

You alse factually false, they didnt call him Judas the Galilean for nothing.

Galilean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generically, a Galilean is an inhabitant of Galilee. Galileans (or Galilæans) were also the members of a fanatical sect (Zealots),

It wasn't just small villages. Capernaum was a decent size town, and it is said he operated out of there for awhile. Other towns that he taught at were also decent size. He just is not recorded as having gone to the larger cities, besides Jerusalem.

Capernaum in Jesus time was a small village. So was Nazareth.

And no recent work has shown anything about the wealth of Nazareth, the town has no real first century evidence. Less biblical statements.

All of our sources say that he had 12 followers.

12 would have starved running around with a teacher.

This very well could also be just to fill in prophecy as we know they added these OT aspects.

As for teaching for food scraps, that only shows a lack of understanding of Jewish hospitality. If he provided a service, a needed service such as healing and teaching, he wouldn't be just given food scraps.

I understand, you just dont like my wording.

And seeing that he did seek out more of the wealthy, such as tax collectors,

Yes he sought them out so he could try and change their perverse ways of over taxation and Roman collaboration, since most tax collectors or tax farmers were Jews hired out by bidders trying to get he best areas from Roman officials. As any Zealot would do.

We can also know much more about Jesus based on archeological and anthropological studies. That is how we know about many other people

I agree whole hearted.


Im not fighting you as much as saying there are different views all of which are as good as others, with such limited evidence.

Not only that different scholars trust the NT simular to minimalist and maximalist

 

[outhouse]

Well as to why would Hellenists construct a deity out of a Jewish teacher outhouse-

What if Hellenists didn't? What if certain Jews did? It should be remembered Paul is the earliest writer we have ever speaking of Jesus.

The gospels do not predate Paul, and since he never references it, saying a kind of gospel tradition predated him is an assumption.

Paul always speaks of a Jesus who is a deity he communes with in visions. He never speaks of him as a human.

If a gospel tradition existed when Paul was writing it'd be easy for Paul to say for example- Peter told me Jesus said we should pay taxes.

Paul never does.

Did you know that for a few hundred years traditional Jews believed Jesus was fully human. But we dount see that growing in the Hellensitic Gentile Proselyte movements. We see many different beliefs in Jesus divinity.

If im not mistaken I believe paul places Jesus getting his divinity during the resurrection.

Different gospeks like John claim birth.

Others claim at his baptism.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree matthew is layered upon Gmark, and thus I stick with Mark over Matthew regarding possible historicity.

But what corroborates Mark? Ehrman enumerates lots of different gospels and references to Jesus, and he calls them all "independent accounts", because they include details not found in Mark. And he makes the very solid point that embellishments do not prove that Jesus was a fictional character. He even cites examples of real people whom subsequent authors have attributed fictitious stories about. He repeatedly points out that embellishments are not disproof of a historical Jesus. The problem with his argument is that a core of details which cannot be shown to be false is not proof of historicity either. We need something more than stories, but stories is all we have, followed by records of people who spread those stories.

Using criterion of embarrassment one can find hints of the real man. Why would Hellenist build a deity out of Jewish peasant teacher from a hovel like Nazareth?

I remind you that this has been called "The Greatest Story Ever Told". Jews did not tend to think of their messiah as someone who would ultimately die at the hands of tormentors, but this was still a story of the triumph of love over hate, forgiveness over revenge, and good over evil. The humble beginnings of Jesus appealed to many of the people in the audience, who could relate to such a figure. Embarrassment and shame were common feelings, but the Jesus story preached a different method of coping with them. That was sort of the point. It might not have resonated as well with Jews, who did not think of their messiah as such a humble man. The Jewish messiah was supposed to restore Israel to its greatness. Maybe that is one reason why there was so much friction between more orthodox Jews and those who espoused this very different take on the messianic message.

 

[fallingblood]

You know while we're on the historical Jesus topic doesn't it seem many of his teachings come from other sources as well?

There's definitely parallels in rabbinic proverb and Hellenic literature.

How do we determine many of his sayings were even his?

Since Jesus is most likely part of a tradition, it is no wonder that he teachings were not all unique. In fact, we should never expect such.

As for how we determine which sayings were his? Multiple attestation, does it fit the criterion of dissimilarity, is it in our earliest and best sources, etc. It is all a part of textual criticism.

As for his teachings likely being partly derived from Judas of Gallilee, that I agree 110%

I actually have this theory about the names of the brothers of Jesus given in the gospels. He has a brother named Judas and also Simon- Simon Magus?

My theory is the gospel authors left us some clues to Jesus's ties to certain Gnostic teachers.

How do you get this? Judas of Galilee was a Zealot. Jesus does not show any signs of that. More so, Judas of Galilee, as Josephus tells us, operated primarily out of Judea.

Well as to why would Hellenists construct a deity out of a Jewish teacher outhouse-

What if Hellenists didn't? What if certain Jews did? It should be remembered Paul is the earliest writer we have ever speaking of Jesus.

The gospels do not predate Paul, and since he never references it, saying a kind of gospel tradition predated him is an assumption.[/quote] I agree until right here. Paul does mention a tradition. He in fact states, on a number of occasions, that he was handed down tradition. He also uses creeds, and other formulas that tell us that he was relying on some other tradition. 1 Corinthians 15:3 is pretty clear on this.

Paul always speaks of a Jesus who is a deity he communes with in visions. He never speaks of him as a human.

That is simply incorrect. In fact, Paul hardly speaks of Jesus at all, but doesn't describe him as someone he communes with in visions. There is only once that he says Jesus appeared to him, and it wasn't said to be a vision.

If a gospel tradition existed when Paul was writing it'd be easy for Paul to say for example- Peter told me Jesus said we should pay taxes.

Paul never does.

1 Corinthians 15:3 in fact has Paul basically saying that.

 

[outhouse]

But what corroborates Mark? .

Excellent question.

Sholars view Gmark as a compilation of pre written and oral sources. Some of which have older traditions then that of the time of composition.

Really you can get a btter idea of Gmark by looking at how later authors tried twisting the legend he placed. Which doesnt give historicity to it as much as the total picture. The total picture of all gospels and epistles combined with the details within. And man the devil is in the details.


If one was going to deify a poor peasant one would not need details such as a he was son of a tekton. One could create any character one wanted.

The thing is every aspect points perfectly to a man martyred at passover. The gospels really just deal with the last week of his life and death at passover. Then that legend is layered on top of. by Gluke and Gmatthew.

One would also not create a character that people living in their lives could say "hey I was there and that didnt happen"

Like Moses, the mythology was from 600 years previous going back before Israelites were even Israelites. All the way back to their real herritage of Canaanites


With Jesus the event and legends started within living memory, which would be more reasonable to a real martyr.

Paul believd in a living jesus, as did every other author. And we see later authors filling in the blanks the best they could even if embarrassing, as well as fixing what they didnt like about Gmarks version.

Ehrman enumerates lots of different gospels and references to Jesus, and he calls them all "independent accounts", because they include details not found in Mark. And he makes the very solid point that embellishments do not prove that Jesus was a fictional character. He even cites examples of real people whom subsequent authors have attributed fictitious stories about. He repeatedly points out that embellishments are not disproof of a historical Jesus. The problem with his argument is that a core of details which cannot be shown to be false is not proof of historicity either. We need something more than stories, but stories is all we have, followed by records of people who spread those stories.

Agreed

But you have to ask yourself, why is it alsmot unanimous within historians that he existed. Its the totality of evidence combined with details and plausibiliy.

but this was still a story of the triumph of love over hate, forgiveness over revenge, and good over evil. The humble beginnings of Jesus appealed to many of the people in the audience, who could relate to such a figure.

All the more reason to be able to place any character, from anywhere. But thats not the actions we see. We see Hellenism stealing the Jewish movement for their own needs.

This movement was only popular in Hellenism, if it was mythical they could have created a Hellenistic deity, not a srictly Jewish one and kept the same context. Weak I know. but its how I see it.

Jews did not tend to think of their messiah as someone who would ultimately die at the hands of tormentors,

Yes and the movement fell flat on its face in Judaism

Jesus was a failure in Judaism and a unknown teacher while alive. Only because of his martyrdom in death did legends grow afterwards in Hellenistic communities of people who didnt want to convert to Judaism but found the one god idea compelling. In this exact time there were many different communities of Hellensitic communities of proselytes to Judaism, that did not want to fully convert but found the religion to be something worth living.

. Maybe that is one reason why there was so much friction between more orthodox Jews and those who espoused this very different take on the messianic message

Friction was 100% the socioeconomic differences between Hellenistic Judaism and traditional Judaism.

Hellensitic Proselytes could remain Proselytes and enjoy the religion from that vantage point. But Real Jews were oppressed and under the Roman and Hellenistic Jews control. Most of the friction was one way.

There was a split in Judaism and Hellenism, and Jesus was the match that lit the fire.




Now lets follow KISS

A poor peasant teacher heals and teaches for dinner scraps and travels in small villages of Zealots, he is unknown and not a single scribe writes about him while alive he is so much of a nobody. He goes to the temple at passover for the first time. In the distance its nothing short of awe inspiring and beauty to behold the temple at a distance, gods very own house. This zealot goes into the temple with his zeal for Judaism and the laws with a hatred for Roman occupation and Hellenism perverting Judaism. He sees The Roman military has a station built into the temple and gaurding the crowds, he sees the Hellenistic temple authorities treating gods house like Disney land or a modern day rock concert. Up to 400,000 people flock to the temple for this holiday. Jesus illusion of beaty turns to aggression due to the perversion of gods house, the money tables even had coins with the the Greek Melqart deity as the only temple money that could be used the Tyrian shekel. A no no in Jewish law.

Our Zealot friend snaps and gest himself put on the cross, he is the talk of the event. After his death within a few days while the event is going strong resurrection stories begin being told. Much of the crowd either witnesses the man on the cross, or hears talk of the violence in the temple. remember when trouble breaks out as it had in the past, tens of thousand are murdered as the Romans come in quickly and furiously to stop any trouble. This was exactly what Caiaphas and Pilate did not want. Its why a goon squad was sent out at night. Keeps the money flowing and you dont lose your job, as that ment a death sentance in itself, one way or another. They made a great financial desicion.


So now you have who knows how many thousand if not hundreds of thousands of people who traveled all over Israel and all through the Roman empire to get there, who now know about this legend. This explains why Paul not only a decade or two later is traveling all ove the Diaspora and the legend is already in place with other teachers. Paul was not responsible for the spread of the good news. It did it under ts own merit.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Ah Falling Blood you pull 1 Corinthians 15 out of your arsenal. However take a closer look at what the chapter actually says.

It says that all of these things happened according to the scriptures- the Jewish bible.

He could say Peter or James told him this, but he says according to the scriptures.

We could as well say Paul is constructing a midrash and not referencing actual events. Just as the gospel authors often did later.

 

[fallingblood]

Historically sound is too admitt he was a literary creation, anything else is dishonest.

While there may be a historical core to the legend, as written he is a literary creation, with Israelites factually evolving from displaced Canaanites [Finklestein and Dever]

Can you prove that Moses was a literary creation? No, you can't. You may be able to provide evidence that portions of his story are mythical, but to prove that he is entirely a literary creation is something you simply can't do.

Also, Finklestein and Dever, both of which I have read, also suggests that it was not just Canaanites that composed the Hebrews. There is evidence that there were other groups as well, such as from Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, since that is not part of this discussion, I won't go further into it.

Sure there is, you just discount it.

I don't discount it. I have shown how there is no evidence. You have never provided actual evidence for your case. You have provided a lot of misinformation, which when I have shown that it was incorrect, you have not been able to actually argue that it was correct.

Your whole basis seems to be that all Galileans were Zealots, because Judas was from Galilee, and thus Jesus was a Zealot. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, Judas never formed the Zealots in Galilee, but in fact formed this movement (with Zadok the Pharisee) in Judea, and operated out of Judea. This is what Josephus tells us.

Take it up with wiki, if you cannot change it it stands.

You alse factually false, they didnt call him Judas the Galilean for nothing.

Wikipedia is not the end all source. It is not scripture, as you seem to present it. I'm not going to waste my time with Wiki, as I know just how poor of a source it is when dealing with religious ideas. The article you just linked is proof of this. The page itself says that it isn't up to quality standards. And the portion that you quoted doesn't even have a source that is cited with it. Why should I take it as credible when the author of the page can't even meet quality standards, and can't provide a source for his claim?

There is no reason to. The fact that the author can't provide a single source shows me that they really were not up to making an actual page on the subject. The only reason it stands is because no one cares. And you only cite it because it agrees with your bias.

Capernaum in Jesus time was a small village. So was Nazareth.

And no recent work has shown anything about the wealth of Nazareth, the town has no real first century evidence. Less biblical statements.

From Jesus to Christ, a PBS documentary actually discusses this evidence. From Jesus to Christianity, by L. Michael White, also discusses Nazareth, and how ideas are changing. So yes, there has been some relatively recent work on the issue.

Capernaum also was not just a small village. It was decent size, as were many other places Jesus visited. James Charlesworth actually has a book on the archeology of these sites (Jesus and Archaeology).

12 would have starved running around with a teacher.

This very well could also be just to fill in prophecy as we know they added these OT aspects.

What evidence do you have that they would have starved? We know that much larger groups were able to be sustained, as per Josephus. So why couldn't a band of 12, all healing and teaching, be able to support themselves?

And what prophecy would this have fulfilled? None.

I understand, you just dont like my wording.

No, I don't like what you are implying by what you're saying. That is why I explained why I believe your position is wrong.

Yes he sought them out so he could try and change their perverse ways of over taxation and Roman collaboration, since most tax collectors or tax farmers were Jews hired out by bidders trying to get he best areas from Roman officials. As any Zealot would do.

What evidence do you have that any Zealot would do this? When does anyone say this of Zealots? They don't. You're making things up.

And you completely missed the point that I was making. If Jesus searched out the more wealthy, there definitely would have been enough to provide for a larger band.