Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[dogsgod]

I'll quote from Meier's second volume of A Marginal Jew: "There is no credible reason why the early church of the first generation should have gone out of its way to invent a story that would only create enormous difficulties for its inventor. After all, the story of the baptism presents the church's Lord being put in a postition of inferiority to John by accepting from him a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The narrative runs counter to the desire of all Four Gospels to make the historically independ John merely the forerunner, proclaimer, prophet, or witness of Jesus. More to the point, the idea the Jesus, whom early Christainity considered sinless and the source of forgiveness of for humanity, should be associated with sinners by undergoing a "baptism for the forgiveness of sins" is hardly a fiction created by the church, unless the church enjoyed multiplying difficulties for itself. Significantly, in this case we are not simply projecting embarrassment we may feel back onto the early church, which in theory might have had different sensitivities on the subject. As a matter of plain fact, the Gospels do encince embarrassment at the story of Jesus' baptism and try to "control the damage" as best they can.
The earliest kind of damage control seems already present in the pre-Markan tradition: the overshadowing of the actual event of baptism--which is quickly passed over and barely "narrated" in any real sense--with the theophany that follows.





Why? The point was that it was embarrassing for the church. It is a suprise, in a way, that we find it in any gospel, for the reasons quoted above. That John, perhaps the most likely of any gospel author to "innovate" would have left this event out, even if he had access to it, is not suprising.

All this is based upon the assumption that the author of Mark had a crystal ball and knew by looking into the future that his story of a failed Messiah would be at the core of a new religion. Obviously the authors of Matthew, Luke and John saw the potential from the success of the story and made the appropriate corrections in order to have Jesus triumph. The following is just one example of the process:

Mark16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The passing reference to some Jesus made by Josephus is an obvious forgery, ...

That is an arrogant and woefully ignorant comment.

Jay what the hell is wrong with you? ... show some respect for people who don't agree with you please.

His comment deserves zero respect.

 

[Oberon]

All this is based upon the assumption that the author of Mark had a crystal ball and knew by looking into the future that his story of a failed Messiah would be at the core of a new religion. Obviously the authors of Matthew, Luke and John saw the potential from the success of the story and made the appropriate corrections in order to have Jesus triumph. The following is just one example of the process:

Wow. First, the letters of paul clearly show a wide following of jesus and several christian communities prior to Mark. And your conclusion that "matthew and luke are only carbon copies of mark" fails to account for or to explain the Q hypothesis, which shows and alternate tradition at least as early as Mark. Also, it fails to account for the seperate traditions in the forms of Thomas and John. Now, some scholars argue that Thomas was dependent, at least in part, on the synopitcs. However, both gospels clearly record parts of the Jesus tradition independently of Matthew and Luke. And Luke wrote acts as well, which also documents the early church.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lots of problems with that;

---Messiah wasn't/isn't a hereditary title.

I'm not sure what you mean. Josephus, being a Jew, wouldn't have any problem using the word Messiah (Mashiyach)/Christ when referring to men. This word (kristos) is present in the Septuagint version of the bible (OT) when referring to (High Priest). The christian meaning of the word (Christ/Messiah) differs from how it was meant and used back then. Even today Jews are not exspecting a saviour god/man to come.

---The characters mentioned in 18:3,3 puts the time period somewhere around 62 CE.
---This James is usually identified with the author of the Epistle of James, which would mean that he's refering to himself when he mentions "Christ" in the Epistle, which, for a lot of reasons, doesn't make sense.

Assuming James and Jesus weren't common names. Just in the writing of Josephus there are a few mentions of other men named Jesus as well as in the NT of the bible there were a few James that traveled with the biblical Jesus. The assumption is that this has to be talking about James of the bible and his brother/cousin/half brother (?) Jesus of the bible. I just don't think that the supposed evidence has made that clear enough.


I personally don't think Jesus ever existed but I leave room for the possibility of an out spoken man name Yeshua who had a following and bucked the system who was nothing like the god/man as described in the bibile but has been hyped up by scribes and followers. For me, at best Josephus is only repeating what he heard.

 

[dogsgod]

Wow. First, the letters of paul clearly show a wide following of jesus and several christian communities prior to Mark. And your conclusion that "matthew and luke are only carbon copies of mark" fails to account for or to explain the Q hypothesis, which shows and alternate tradition at least as early as Mark. Also, it fails to account for the seperate traditions in the forms of Thomas and John. Now, some scholars argue that Thomas was dependent, at least in part, on the synopitcs. However, both gospels clearly record parts of the Jesus tradition independently of Matthew and Luke. And Luke wrote acts as well, which also documents the early church.

Yes, a vast array of Jesus and Christ traditions with communities spread out all over Asia Minor even as early as Paul wrote. Too bad no one has explained how these all bottle neck back down to a single Jesus at its roots, or to a single place or time where these all started. The gospel story takes place in Galilee and Jerusalem but that doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity began there, or that the stories are anything other than allegorical fiction, nor can we be sure where the stories were written.

 

[dogsgod]

The following is allegory, borrowing from written traditions rather than an oral tradition, and not a record of actual events.





2 Kings 1:
8 They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist."
The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite."


This implicit reference identifies John the Baptist as Elijah, but this is not obvious to the reader, for there is nothing in the passage that draws attention to the fact that this line is a paraphrase of 2 Kings 1:8, but nevertheless the identification of John the Baptist as Elijah is of critical importance to the storyline in Mark and comes into play later in the narrative. This is the first indication we have that the author of Mark is using both implicit and explicit references to the scriptures, and that elements of the narrative are built around the Hebrew scriptures.



Mark 1.6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.

Matthew 3.4 Now John wore a garment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.


Mark 9.11[SIZE=-2][/SIZE]And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?" [SIZE=-2]9.12[/SIZE]And he said to them, "Eli'jah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? [SIZE=-2]9.13[/SIZE]But I tell you that Eli'jah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."

It is here that the literary allusion from Mark 1:6 becomes important, because one has to realize from that literary allusion to 2 Kings 1:8 that John the Baptist is Elijah in order for this scene to make sense.
The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

 

[Father Heathen]

His comment deserves zero respect.

Neither do any of yours, especially considering that 99% of your posts amount to nothing more than glib, worthless, condescending one-liners.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, a vast array of Jesus and Christ traditions with communities spread out all over Asia Minor even as early as Paul wrote. Too bad no one has explained how these all bottle neck back down to a single Jesus at its roots, or to a single place or time where these all started. The gospel story takes place in Galilee and Jerusalem but that doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity began there, or that the stories are anything other than allegorical fiction, nor can we be sure where the stories were written.

Plenty of people have explained how. You just don't like their explanations (although you probably haven't read any of them). As I said before, there are numerous people in the gospel stories whose existence is confirmed outside of the NT, and these historical people and places root the gospels firmly in galilee at a specific time.

The following is allegory, borrowing from written traditions rather than an oral tradition, and not a record of actual events.

Except that John the Baptist is confirmed outside of the NT. From Josephus' Antiquities 18.5 "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness"

You never thought that perhaps John was consciously modelling himself on the prophets that came before him?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, a vast array of Jesus and Christ traditions with communities spread out all over Asia Minor even as early as Paul wrote.

How would you explain this in the absence of a historical Jesus?

 

[Buttons*]

Neither do any of yours, especially considering that 99% of your posts amount to nothing more than glib, worthless, condescending one-liners.

.... was the quoted post above just a "worthless, condescending one liner"? Quite possibly

I guess you don't like Grandpa Jay stealing your thunder *snicker*

*Runs off to troll someone else*

 

[dogsgod]

How would you explain this in the absence of a historical Jesus?

It's a thing called religion. Do you believe invisible gods are real and actual historical entities residing in the heavens? Besides, Epistle to the Hebrews describes a Spiritual Christ that was sacrificed in a heavenly realm. Epistle to the Hebrews 8.4 If he [Jesus] had lived on earth he would not have been a priest.

 

[Tristesse]

Or did he actually walk the earth and do the things he claimed he did ?

And if he did, is there something we should be paying attention to?

Jesus may have been a mythical character. We don't know enough, or have enough verifying information. But I have no problem saying a man named jesus lived during the 1st century. I don't believe the depiction of him in the new testament is accurate, in fact most of the stories about jesus, well, all the supernatural claims are taken from pagan god stories, like the crucifixion, resurrection, virgin birth and others. Those are stories that are not original to jesus. But I think a rabbi named jesus may have lived during the 1st century, but his character is most likely mythical.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus may have been a mythical character. We don't know enough, or have enough verifying information. But I have no problem saying a man named jesus lived during the 1st century. I don't believe the depiction of him in the new testament is accurate, in fact most of the stories about jesus, well, all the supernatural claims are taken from pagan god stories, like the crucifixion, resurrection, virgin birth and others. Those are stories that are not original to jesus. But I think a rabbi named jesus may have lived during the 1st century, but his character is most likely mythical.

I agree. Now assuming he was a real person then what makes him so special? Is he special because people have made him special?

If you strip away all the mysticism we've read in the bible then you appear to be left with a rebel rouser(?) who appears to be not that much different than any other activist before or after him.

It is true that not much is known about this man, even extra biblically. At best Josephus is going off of hearsay in Antiquities 20,9,1. Assuming it too is not an interpolation then what we can gather is that the (story goes like this)...at least that's pretty much how the beginning of the paragraph starts.

 

[Tristesse]

I agree. Now assuming he was a real person then what makes him so special? Is he special because people have made him special?

If you strip away all the mysticism we've read in the bible then you appear to be left with a rebel rouser(?) who appears to be not that much different than any other activist before or after him.

It is true that not much is known about this man, even extra biblically. At best Josephus is going off of hearsay in Antiquities 20,9,1. Assuming it too is not an interpolation then what we can gather is that the (story goes like this)...at least that's pretty much how the beginning of the paragraph starts.

Yeah, actually Thomas Jefferson created his own bible and cut out all the mysticism of jesus, and what he was left with was just an ordinary man. And thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a christian.
Josephus was born after jesus' death. So, it's odd to me that anyone would even mention his name when we're talking about jesus. Most christians will compare jesus to Julius Caesar as far as history goes, but it's nowhere near the same, we actually have writings from Julius Caesar, he also created a from of government that was used for hundreds of years, we also have writings from his friends and family, not to mention he created a calendar that is still in use today. So, the evidence for Julius Caesar is insurmountable compared to Jesus. But I have no problem saying that he existed, I have a problem with the claims attributed to him though. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And we don't even have reliable enough evidence to say he even existed, let alone the things he's said to have done.

 

[logician]

The bottom line is, it is impossible that a miracle worker named Jesus existed, simply because miracles are impossible. Strip away the miracles from the gospel, and you essentially have done away with Christianity, which is all about the ressurection of Jesus paying for our sins. Simply put, the Jesus of the bible could not have existed, because the gospels had to be total fiction, or were a fictionalized account of an ordinary unknown man elevated to god status using established traditions.

 

[Oberon]

It's a thing called religion. Do you believe invisible gods are real and actual historical entities residing in the heavens? Besides, Epistle to the Hebrews describes a Spiritual Christ that was sacrificed in a heavenly realm. Epistle to the Hebrews 8.4 If he [Jesus] had lived on earth he would not have been a priest.

Actually, that isn't what Hebrews 8.4 says (once again we have a problem with those who can't read the text making it say things it doesn't). ei men oun en epi ges, oud' an en hiereus, onton ton prospheronton kata nomon ta dora.
So if he was on earth [now], he would not be a priest, there being those [already here] bearing forth gifts according to the law.

The above is a perfect example of a PRESENT contrary-to-fact conditional statement. In the protasis you have an imperfect form of the verb einai/to be, and another imperfect in the apodosis along with the particle "an." In other words, the condition is clearly stating that "if jesus were here RIGHT NOW, he would not be X" and NOT "if he had ever lived, he would not have been X."

Also, again I will point out (as you seem to be unable to grasp the difference) that the gospels DO NOT resemble the various texts of pagan myths. ALL of those are described as happening in an ancient past. They are not anchored to a specific time and place, with other historical people and events which are verified independently (as is Jesus in Josephus). In other words, your scenerio basically has Mark the author of some type of religious historical fiction, a genre which (if it ever has existed) certainly wasn't present in the first century.

In addition, Paul clearly states that Jesus lived at one point. He downplays the significance of Jesus' life, because he is contending with disciples who actually knew Jesus. But he nonetheless distinguishes betwee his (paul's) teaching, and the teaching which comes from Jesus himself.

 

[Oberon]

The bottom line is, it is impossible that a miracle worker named Jesus existed, simply because miracles are impossible. Strip away the miracles from the gospel, and you essentially have done away with Christianity, which is all about the ressurection of Jesus paying for our sins. Simply put, the Jesus of the bible could not have existed, because the gospels had to be total fiction, or were a fictionalized account of an ordinary unknown man elevated to god status using established traditions.

What established traditions? I am still waiting for your quotations from SPECIFIC texts, nor have you mentioned where it says in the gospels you claim to have read that Jesus' parents stayed in Maturea, nor have you addressed any of the other problems I pointed out in your last "citations."

 

[dogsgod]

Actually, that isn't what Hebrews 8.4 says (once again we have a problem with those who can't read the text making it say things it doesn't). ei men oun en epi ges, oud' an en hiereus, onton ton prospheronton kata nomon ta dora.
So if he was on earth [now], he would not be a priest, there being those [already here] bearing forth gifts according to the law.

The above is a perfect example of a PRESENT contrary-to-fact conditional statement. In the protasis you have an imperfect form of the verb einai/to be, and another imperfect in the apodosis along with the particle "an." In other words, the condition is clearly stating that "if jesus were here RIGHT NOW, he would not be X" and NOT "if he had ever lived, he would not have been X."

Also, again I will point out (as you seem to be unable to grasp the difference) that the gospels DO NOT resemble the various texts of pagan myths. ALL of those are described as happening in an ancient past. They are not anchored to a specific time and place, with other historical people and events which are verified independently (as is Jesus in Josephus). In other words, your scenerio basically has Mark the author of some type of religious historical fiction, a genre which (if it ever has existed) certainly wasn't present in the first century.

In addition, Paul clearly states that Jesus lived at one point. He downplays the significance of Jesus' life, because he is contending with disciples who actually knew Jesus. But he nonetheless distinguishes betwee his (paul's) teaching, and the teaching which comes from Jesus himself.

The tense here is ambiguous. The Greek for the key phrase is "ei men oun en epi ges" or literally: "now, therefore, if he were on earth," with the verb "were" in the imperfect. This is, strictly speaking, a past tense, and the NEB translation above reflects this, with its clear implication that Jesus had never been to earth. Scholars, naturally, shy away from this meaning. Paul Ellingworth [NIGT, Hebrews, p.405] admits that the NEB is grammatically possible, "since the imperfect in unreal conditions is temporally ambiguous." But he counters: "However, it goes against the context, in at least apparently excluding Christ's present ministry, and it could also be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never 'been on earth.' He thus opts for a translation like most others, "If he were [now] on earth, he would not be a priest at all."

Even with the latter translation, however, there is an awkward silence. The writer offers no qualification for an idea which could be misconstrued as covering past times. He shows no cognizance of the fact that Jesus had been on earth, and that an important part of his sacrifice had taken place there, the shedding of his blood on Calvary. The implication that he would have had nothing to do on earth, since there were already high priests there, goes against the obvious fact that he had had very much to do on earth. Ellingworth goes on to say that, "The argument presupposes, rather than states, that God cannot establish two priestly institutions in competition." This is indeed the case, yet with Christ the High Priest on earth, performing an important part his sacrifice on Calvary, such a competition would in fact be present, and the writer should have felt obligated to deal with it.

The epistle's fundamental point is the setting up of two counterpart sacrificial systems, the old and the new, the Sinai cult on earth and the heavenly sacrifice of Jesus which supplants it. The presence of Jesus on earth, crucified in the earthly sphere in the present or the past, would have foiled such a Platonic duality.
jesuspuzzle.com

 

[Oberon]

The tense here is ambiguous. The Greek for the key phrase is "ei men oun en epi ges" or literally: "now, therefore, if he were on earth," with the verb "were" in the imperfect. This is, strictly speaking, a past tense, and the NEB translation above reflects this, with its clear implication that Jesus had never been to earth. Scholars, naturally, shy away from this meaning.

This is the problem in quoting people when you don't know enough to know whether they have any idea what they are talking about. The tense is not ambiguous. Again, this is a clear PRESENT contrary-to-fact condition, and every scholar of the NT would know this; hence, they aren't shying away from the meaning. They know what they are talking about. Check out a greek grammar under conditions and look for present-contrary-to fact. For any classics students here, I know Smyth (rev. by G. Messing) is the standard reference grammar for greek, so I will tell you that the Smyth reference is 2302, 2304.

I'll even quote it for you:

In present and past unreal conditions the protasis implies that the supposition cannot tell or could not be realized because it is contrary to a known fact. The apodosis states what would be or would have been if the condition were or had been realized.

The imperfect refers to present time or (sometimes) to a continued or habitual past act or state.

The table for the conditions is Smyth 2297:

For Present Unreal: "ei" with the imperfect indicative in the protasis, imperfect indicative with "an" in the apodosis.

In other words, as I already said, this is a present contrary to fact, and thus refers to a condition which would be a certain way, but is contrary to a known fact (i.e. if jesus were now here, he would not be a priest, but he isn't here now)

 

[dogsgod]

Even with the latter translation, [your translation oberon]however, there is an awkward silence. The writer offers no qualification for an idea which could be misconstrued as covering past times. He shows no cognizance of the fact that Jesus had been on earth, and that an important part of his sacrifice had taken place there, the shedding of his blood on Calvary. The implication that he would have had nothing to do on earth, since there were already high priests there, goes against the obvious fact that he had had very much to do on earth. Ellingworth goes on to say that, "The argument presupposes, rather than states, that God cannot establish two priestly institutions in competition." This is indeed the case, yet with Christ the High Priest on earth, performing an important part his sacrifice on Calvary, such a competition would in fact be present, and the writer should have felt obligated to deal with it. jesuspuzzle.com