Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[logician]

Essentially, Oberon dismsses writers that portary a different point of view than he is pusihng, like Freke and Gandy, as "crackpots", while those that he agrees with he portrays as "experts".

This has been the standard Christian modus operendi for any attacks against the traditional view of the existence of the supposed Jesus for the the last 2k years, anybody that dares to do so has to be "whacko". The consequences used to be quite severe to suggest this heresy(death), but the tactics remain the same.

 

[Bawb]

I think that if jesus wuz born in modern days, he'd be named josh, becuz jesus iz the romanization of the name joshua

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Essentially, Oberon dismsses writers that portary a different point of view than he is pusihng, like Freke and Gandy, as "crackpots", while those that he agrees with he portrays as "experts".

You are so far down the learning curve it's pathetic. I would be interested in having you list 5 relevant books on the subject (i.e., books that you've actually taken the time to read). As for your carefully selected heros:

• Timothy Freke
  "Timothy Freke is an British writer and spiritualist who has written several books on world mysticism."​
• Peter Gandy
  "Peter Gandy has written extensively on world Mysticism and classical civilization, and in particular the mystery religions. He holds an M.A. in classical civilization. He is known mainly for his books co-authored with Timothy Freke."​

To promote these apologists for mythicism as exemplars of historical research is laughable.

 

[Oberon]

All experts in the field agree Jesus was historical? Of course they do, only a non-expert would question that.

Wrong. It was scholars who first started to doubt the historicity of the gospels. It was the experts who first pointed out historical inconsistencies. However, over the 19th century the question over whether or not Jesus existed at all was settled.

1. For the vast majority of ancient persons, all we have to go on are a few references, or inconsistent accounts, or accounts written over a century after the time of the people in question.

2. Despite the effort of people like Freke and Gandy, for those of us who actually read the primary sources, there is a clear difference between the mythic cycles and the gospels. The gospels are a type of ancient biography. This does not mean they are "historical" by today's standards, but it does mean the authors were attempting to write about a historical Jesus.

3. There two or three references to Jesus outside of the gospels, within around a hundred years of his life. This in itself provides more evidence for the person of Jesus than for, say, Pythogoras or Homer.

4. Those like Freke and Gandy who question the historical Jesus do not apply the same skeptisism when examining other ancient histories, even though these are also full of miracles, inaccuracies, biases, etc.


5. The letters of Paul, a man roughly contemporary with Jesus, who was alive and around the places where Jesus' mission took place, wrote letters to insiders which reference the historical Jesus. These letters were written less than a generation after Jesus' death.

6. The gospels relied on an oral tradition which, at the very least, took care to accurately transmit the sayings, teachings, and parables of Jesus

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The gospels are a type of ancient biography. This does not mean they are "historical" by today's standards, but it does mean the authors were attempting to write about a historical Jesus.

Why do you insist on contaminating an otherwise sound perspective with such rubbish? Anyone who claims Matthew to be "a type of ancient biography" is, either, disingenuously pursuing an agenda or suffering from a rather grotesque cognitive disconnect. Mark is not much better while John is, if anything, far worse. As for Paul and the Deutero-Pauline letters, they offer less biography than your average candy wrapper.

You're really doing yourself no favors here ...

 

[logician]

Wrong. It was scholars who first started to doubt the historicity of the gospels. It was the experts who first pointed out historical inconsistencies. However, over the 19th century the question over whether or not Jesus existed at all was settled.

1. For the vast majority of ancient persons, all we have to go on are a few references, or inconsistent accounts, or accounts written over a century after the time of the people in question.

2. Despite the effort of people like Freke and Gandy, for those of us who actually read the primary sources, there is a clear difference between the mythic cycles and the gospels. The gospels are a type of ancient biography. This does not mean they are "historical" by today's standards, but it does mean the authors were attempting to write about a historical Jesus.

3. There two or three references to Jesus outside of the gospels, within around a hundred years of his life. This in itself provides more evidence for the person of Jesus than for, say, Pythogoras or Homer.

4. Those like Freke and Gandy who question the historical Jesus do not apply the same skeptisism when examining other ancient histories, even though these are also full of miracles, inaccuracies, biases, etc.


5. The letters of Paul, a man roughly contemporary with Jesus, who was alive and around the places where Jesus' mission took place, wrote letters to insiders which reference the historical Jesus. These letters were written less than a generation after Jesus' death.

6. The gospels relied on an oral tradition which, at the very least, took care to accurately transmit the sayings, teachings, and parables of Jesus

Except in the writiings actualy attributed to Paul (whoever he was), he acted like he never heard of a physical Jesus, only a spiritual one, he was very much of a gnostic believer.

 

[Oberon]

Why do you insist on contaminating an otherwise sound perspective with such rubbish? Anyone who claims Matthew to be "a type of ancient biography" is, either, disingenuously pursuing an agenda or suffering from a rather grotesque cognitive disconnect. Mark is not much better while John is, if anything, far worse. As for Paul and the Deutero-Pauline letters, they offer less biography than your average candy wrapper.

Paul and the letters are not biography. I would suggest you do a bit of research on the ancient literary genre of "lives." The gospels are a type of "life." Again, see "What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography." by Dr. Burridge or

"What is a Gospel: the Genre of the Canonical Gospels" by Dr. Talbert.

Is this the consensus view? I don't think so. But these two are not alone in their view (for example, L. Michael White also calls the gospels "lives").

In any case, what is a consensus (probably unanimous) is that the gospels are recordings of oral traditions concerning Jesus. To what extent they are also dependent on literary texts is debated (e.g. was "Q" oral or written? Did John or Thomas make use of the synoptics? etc), but everyone agrees that the Jesus tradition began as an oral tradition, that this tradition continued on probably even after the gospels, and certainly alongside of them.​

The question then becomes how accurate the transmission of these "oral texts" was. Again, using cross-cultural comparisons of the transmission of religious oral traditions, examinations of orality in modern day middle eastern remote villages (a culture that retains a close similarity in many ways with that of Jesus), and analysis of oral tradition within Judaism around Jesus' day and within Ancient Greece and Rome, I would say that the tradition was fairly accurately transmitted. This being the case, it is reasonable to suppose that many of the sayings, teachings, parables, and even some events recorded in the gospels are historical.​

​

 

[Oberon]

Except in the writiings actualy attributed to Paul (whoever he was), he acted like he never heard of a physical Jesus, only a spiritual one, he was very much of a gnostic believer.

Yes, we all know that you read "The Jesus Mysteries." However, I would suggest trying to read something by people who actually know what they are talking about. I'll have to post a thorough critique of that particular piece of garbage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In any case, what is a consensus (probably unanimous) is that the gospels are recordings of oral traditions concerning Jesus.​

Golly gee ...

And whose ouija board was used to distinguish between what was accreted/redacted oral tradition and what was midrash or exaggeration or ignorant inference? And by what manner of divination did you (or they) determine that "a good deal of the gospels" (including, apparently, Thomas) are historical while the same is not true for a good deal of, let us say, the Infancy Gospels?

My question re Matthew stands and you persist in avoiding it.

The question then becomes how accurate the transmission of these "oral texts" was.​

Nonsense. The primary question is what percentage of this tradition is based on historical fact.

• Is it an historical fact that Joseph and Mary came from Nazareth?
• Is it an historical fact that he was born in Bethlehem?
• Is it a historical fact that there was a slaughter instituted by Herod?
• Is it an historical fact that there was a flight to Egypt?

... and the list goes on and on.

..., I would say that the tradition was fairly accurately transmitted. This being the case, it is reasonable to suppose that many of the sayings, teachings, parables, and even some events recorded in the gospels are historical.​

And, perhap, many are not. In either event, look where your trajectory has taken you: from ...

I believe that currently, especially with ongoing research into accuracy within transmission of the oral traditions, scholars (including atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc) are for most part accepting a good deal of the gospels as historical.​

to the significantly more modest and defensible ...

even some events recorded in the gospels are historical.​

Agreed.

 

[logician]

Paul and the letters are not biography. I would suggest you do a bit of research on the ancient literary genre of "lives." The gospels are a type of "life." Again, see "What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography." by Dr. Burridge or

"What is a Gospel: the Genre of the Canonical Gospels" by Dr. Talbert.

Is this the consensus view? I don't think so. But these two are not alone in their view (for example, L. Michael White also calls the gospels "lives").​

In any case, what is a consensus (probably unanimous) is that the gospels are recordings of oral traditions concerning Jesus. To what extent they are also dependent on literary texts is debated (e.g. was "Q" oral or written? Did John or Thomas make use of the synoptics? etc), but everyone agrees that the Jesus tradition began as an oral tradition, that this tradition continued on probably even after the gospels, and certainly alongside of them.​

The question then becomes how accurate the transmission of these "oral texts" was. Again, using cross-cultural comparisons of the transmission of religious oral traditions, examinations of orality in modern day middle eastern remote villages (a culture that retains a close similarity in many ways with that of Jesus), and analysis of oral tradition within Judaism around Jesus' day and within Ancient Greece and Rome, I would say that the tradition was fairly accurately transmitted. This being the case, it is reasonable to suppose that many of the sayings, teachings, parables, and even some events recorded in the gospels are historical.​

So the very similiar mythos of Horus, Attis, Krishna, Mithras, and a number of other legends of god-men can all be considered to be mythos of real historical figures?

 

[Oberon]

So the very similiar mythos of Horus, Attis, Krishna, Mithras, and a number of other legends of god-men can all be considered to be mythos of real historical figures?

They aren't as similar as Freke and Gandy make them appear. You should read the primary sources or good scholarship rather than that trash. For example, the hellenistic Mithras (the one who died and resurrected) doesn't date until after the four canonical gospels were written.

 

[Oberon]

Golly gee ...

And whose ouija board was used to distinguish between what was accreted/redacted oral tradition and what was midrash or exaggeration or ignorant inference? And by what manner of divination did you (or they) determine that "a good deal of the gospels" (including, apparently, Thomas) are historical while the same is not true for a good deal of, let us say, the Infancy Gospels?

My question re Matthew stands and you persist in avoiding it.


Nonsense. The primary question is what percentage of this tradition is based on historical fact.

• Is it an historical fact that Joseph and Mary came from Nazareth?
• Is it an historical fact that he was born in Bethlehem?
• Is it a historical fact that there was a slaughter instituted by Herod?
• Is it an historical fact that there was a flight to Egypt?

... and the list goes on and on.



And, perhap, many are not. In either event, look where your trajectory has taken you: from ...

I believe that currently, especially with ongoing research into accuracy within transmission of the oral traditions, scholars (including atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc) are for most part accepting a good deal of the gospels as historical.
​

to the significantly more modest and defensible ...

even some events recorded in the gospels are historical.
​

Agreed.

I would still say that scholarship (including that from atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc) is moving towards accepting more of the gospels, including "a good part" of the gospels, as historical. I have already defined "a good part" as dozens of sayings/parables and a few events.

 

[dogsgod]

I would still say that scholarship (including that from atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc) is moving towards accepting more of the gospels, including "a good part" of the gospels, as historical. I have already defined "a good part" as dozens of sayings/parables and a few events.

Describe one event.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well...we're some how getting criticized for not reading "primary" scholars works. What is a primary? I've watched, listen to and read works by Dr. Robert Beckford (Christian Theologian and a PhD.) as well as Dr. Payam Nabarz (PhD. Oxford Univ.) and so far they have no problem drawing the parallels of the Jesus myth with the myths before it.

So what...!?...now we have a battle of one scholar vs. another and all that we are arguing on their behalf is their interpretation. The problem, as I see it, is that so far no credible outside (outside the gospels) information has been submitted for a historical Jesus. Paul won't due nor will Josephus. We can't use the bible to prove the bible. It's futile. It of itself contradicts itself. It's a painstaking task to separate the inconsistencies, well not anymore because others (christians, atheist, agnostics etc.) have done it for us......Once you have sized up the inconsistancies you begin to discover little nuggets of truth mixed in with a lot of stuff that really isn't. By todays' standards none of this information would or could be used in a court of law to prove a historical Jesus.

Starting off the research by using the bible is going in the wrong direction. Let's first see what has been recorded in history about the supposed Jessus before we start with the bible. So far the attemps to prove a historical Jesus as beleived upon by many cristians, muslims, jews. agnostics etc....has't introduced anything new. Were there men or a man name Yeshua...? Most likely. Some jews that I've listen to have said that was a common name back then. Was there a jew by the name of Yeshua as described in the bible, even if we take away all the magic, I don't think so. So far there is nothing outside the bible that substantially points to this supposed historical figure.

Was the Jesus mythical character, Mithras, Osirus etc. similar? Yes. The scholars I've mentioned seem to think so. But forget what the scholars "beleive"...("collectively"...even)......What information is there outside the bible we can look to to study to see if this man really did exist. Oberon you said there was a couple things available...so what is it or where is it? Who wrote it and when?

 

[Sententia]

During the time of 'Jesus' the world was ruled by superstition and snake oil. Any story by a person of that age is likely to include a lot of malarky. Its one thing to believe in the man and quite another to believe in the superstition and miraculous powers that people who lived during a time when superstition ruled the world wrote about in today's age where such is known to be malarky.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have already defined "a good part" as dozens of sayings/parables and a few events.

Good grief.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem, as I see it, is that so far no credible outside (outside the gospels) information has been submitted for a historical Jesus. Paul won't due nor will Josephus.

The problem may well be your criteria for 'credible.' I believe the combination of Acts and Josephus, along with the nature of early Pagan anti-Christian polemic, render an historical Jesus the more reasonable inference.

 

[Oberon]

Well...we're some how getting criticized for not reading "primary" scholars works. What is a primary? I've watched, listen to and read works by Dr. Robert Beckford (Christian Theologian and a PhD.) as well as Dr. Payam Nabarz (PhD. Oxford Univ.) and so far they have no problem drawing the parallels of the Jesus myth with the myths before it.

So what...!?...now we have a battle of one scholar vs. another and all that we are arguing on their behalf is their interpretation. The problem, as I see it, is that so far no credible outside (outside the gospels) information has been submitted for a historical Jesus. Paul won't due nor will Josephus. We can't use the bible to prove the bible. It's futile. It of itself contradicts itself. It's a painstaking task to separate the inconsistencies, well not anymore because others (christians, atheist, agnostics etc.) have done it for us......Once you have sized up the inconsistancies you begin to discover little nuggets of truth mixed in with a lot of stuff that really isn't. By todays' standards none of this information would or could be used in a court of law to prove a historical Jesus.

Starting off the research by using the bible is going in the wrong direction. Let's first see what has been recorded in history about the supposed Jessus before we start with the bible. So far the attemps to prove a historical Jesus as beleived upon by many cristians, muslims, jews. agnostics etc....has't introduced anything new. Were there men or a man name Yeshua...? Most likely. Some jews that I've listen to have said that was a common name back then. Was there a jew by the name of Yeshua as described in the bible, even if we take away all the magic, I don't think so. So far there is nothing outside the bible that substantially points to this supposed historical figure.

Was the Jesus mythical character, Mithras, Osirus etc. similar? Yes. The scholars I've mentioned seem to think so. But forget what the scholars "beleive"...("collectively"...even)......What information is there outside the bible we can look to to study to see if this man really did exist. Oberon you said there was a couple things available...so what is it or where is it? Who wrote it and when?

A few things.

First, when I said "primary" I mean the primary sources (i.e. ancient sources) which actually discuss the myths being compared with the gospels. Although single lines or events may be taken out of these sources and compared with parts of the gospels, when you compare the any one of the myths AS A WHOLE to the Jesus tradition, the similarity is far less striking, when it exists at all.

Second, there is no reason to write of Josephus as a whole, as most scholars agree (see in particular the Jewish scholar Vermes in his discussion of typical Josephan terminology within one of the passages concerning Jesus) that parts of Josephus' references to Jesus are genuine.

Third, you are correct to say "you can't use the bible to prove the bible." The problem, however, with your statement is that, unlike a historian, you are approaching the bible as a singular entity/document/article of faith/etc. Historians, on the other hand, examine the contexts, purposes, traditions, etc, behind the individual documents within the bible. If you compare, for example, Luke to other ancient histories you will find that many of these ancient histories are just a biased and full of incredible/miraculous stories. Yet so far none of the authors who have put forth works doubting entirely the existence of a historical Jesus have applied the same level of skeptism to equally unbelievable documents.

Fourth, even without the bible, the references by Tacitus and Josephus alone provide more evidence for a historical person Jesus than many ancient persons.

 

[dogsgod]

The problem may well be your criteria for 'credible.' I believe the combination of Acts and Josephus, along with the nature of early Pagan anti-Christian polemic, render an historical Jesus the more reasonable inference.

I would have to disagree with you. Josephus, as regards to Jesus, has been tampered with to the point it's not reliable and besides that, it's not contemporary. Acts is a work of second century myth making which conflicts with Paul's writings in an attempt to smooth over the conflicts between Paul and other apostles of his day.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would have to disagree with you. Josephus, as regards to Jesus, has been tampered with to the point it's not reliable and besides that, it's not contemporary.

Sloppy and irrelevant.

Acts is a work of second century myth making ...

You pretend to know a good deal more than you know. This is not skepticism. It's baseless mantra ...