Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe there was a man called, "Jesus", back 4000 years ago, or what ever the age was.

That gurgling sound you hear is your credibility going down the drain ... :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's a question [for Tristesse]. What ancient historical works have you read (such as the lives by Diogenes Laertius or Seutonius) with which to compare the gospels?

It is painfully apparent that Tristesse has read no historical works covering the period, be they ancient historical works or not.

 

[Tristesse]

That gurgling sound you hear is your credibility going down the drain ... :yes:

Do you get a kick out of being an ***? I understand that guy apparently doesn't understand when the story of jesus took place. But there are different ways to bring that to his attention.

 

[Tristesse]

It is painfully apparent that Tristesse has read no historical works covering the period, be they ancient historical works or not.

Why do you say that? I'm curious.

 

[dogsgod]

Please don't feed or encourage the trolls.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Historian? Jesus isn't found in history books, The Bible is a religious text.

haha as funny as that sounds, I've actually had a theologian try and debate that jesus is in history text books. My immediate response was, were you home schooled?

Stop embarrassing yourself. What history books have you read?

It is painfully apparent that Tristesse has read no historical works covering the period, be they ancient historical works or not.

Why do you say that? I'm curious.

Because it is, by far, the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the bigoted fluff offered by you above. Or, to put it in a form that you might understand ...

"haha as funny as it sounds," being unschooled is far more serious and irresponsible than being home schooled. Before talking nonsense about history and historians, you might wish to actually read some.​

Perhaps Will Durant, who notes ...

In summary, it is clear that there are many contradictions between one Gospel and another, many dubious statements of history, many suspicious resemblances to the legends told of pagan gods, many incidents apparently designed to prove the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, many passages possibly aiming to establish a historical basis for some later doctrine or ritual of the Church. the evangelists shared with Cicero, Sallust, and Tacitus the conception of history as a vehicle for moral ideas. And presumably the conversations and speeches reported in the Gospels were subject to the frailties of illiterate memories, and te errors or emendations of copyists.

All this granted, much remains. the contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in esssentials the synoptic Gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies - e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates - would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed - the competition of the paostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denials, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.

- source

 

[doppelganger]

history and historians, you might wish to actually read some.​

Perhaps Will Durant, who notes ...

Durant wrote this in ignorance of contemporary scholarship on the Synoptics. Of course they overlap on many key details . . . most scholars now agree GLuke and GMatt were written with a copy of GMark to work with. The copying is rather obvious. And given that they were copying from Mark, the changes, additions and deletions each made are even more glaring.

 

[Tristesse]

Because it is, by far, the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the bigoted fluff offered by you above. Or, to put it in a form that you might understand ...

"haha as funny as it sounds," being unschooled is far more serious and irresponsible than being home schooled. Before talking nonsense about history and historians, you might wish to actually read some.​

Perhaps Will Durant, who notes ...

​

No, actually I have read history books from that period. I don't recall jesus being mentioned in any of them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, actually I have read history books from that period.

Which history books? From that period or about that period?

 

[Tristesse]

Which history books? From that period or about that period?

I think the easier question would be, which history books about that era talk about jesus? Lets make sure were talking about history books taught in public school.

 

[dogsgod]

Durant wrote this in ignorance of contemporary scholarship on the Synoptics. Of course they overlap on many key details . . . most scholars now agree GLuke and GMatt were written with a copy of GMark to work with. The copying is rather obvious. And given that they were copying from Mark, the changes, additions and deletions each made are even more glaring.

Bang on, and not only that but it would have been a tremendous embarrassment for the authors of Luke and Matthew had they known their copies would become part of a canon with gMark for the world to see their plagiarism revealed. They copied gMark and they copied from a common sayings source.

 

[dogsgod]

Stop embarrassing yourself. What history books have you read?

Copy and pasting Will Durant should be embarrassment enough for one day, but it appears that you're not done yet.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Durant wrote this in ignorance of contemporary scholarship on the Synoptics.

Agreed.

... given that they were copying from Mark, the changes, additions and deletions each made are even more glaring.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this, but that's best left for a discussion of the *'Synoptic Problem'. The only point being made here is that to assert "Jesus isn't found in history books" is both ignorant and foolish.

*At some point it might be fun to address the somewhat quirky yet perhaps fruitful "Lucan priority" model.

 

[Tristesse]

Agreed.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by this, but that's best left for a discussion of the *'Synoptic Problem'. The only point being made here is that to assert "Jesus isn't found in history books" is both ignorant and foolish.

*At some point it might be fun to address the somewhat quirky yet perhaps fruitful "Lucan priority" model.

I'm still waiting on the history taught in school about the historicity of jesus.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm still waiting on the history taught in school about the historicity of jesus.

history books, I meant to say.

 

[doppelganger]

The only point being made here is that to assert "Jesus isn't found in history books" is both ignorant and foolish.

Well, except to the extent that it's far from established that the Gospels were written as or even intended as "history" by their respective authors.

*At some point it might be fun to address the somewhat quirky yet perhaps fruitful "Lucan priority" model.

It would.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, except to the extent that it's far from established that the Gospels were written as or even intended as "history" by their respective authors.

What does that have to do with the question of whether Jesus is found in history books?

 

[Tristesse]

What does that have to do with the question of whether Jesus is found in history books?

Can you please post some history books on the historicity of jesus? Your replying to everyone but me. It's not a challenge, I seriously would like to read up on his historicity. And to know what books on history I was not taught in school.

 

[Oberon]

Can you please post some history books on the historicity of jesus? Your replying to everyone but me. It's not a challenge, I seriously would like to read up on his historicity. And to know what books on history I was not taught in school.

The only college "textbook" (there are literally hundreds of scholarly books) I know of that is entirely devoted to the historical Jesus is Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz's Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. I believe it is available in an english translation, although I can't recall the title off the top of my head (the translation of the german title is "The Historical Jesus: A Textbook"). If you would like a good and fair introduction to historical Jesus scholarship, I would recommend John P. Meier's three (soon to be four) volume work "A Marginal Jew." A basic starting point he uses is what scholars of diverse religious backgrounds (atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jews, etc) could agree on concerning the historical Jesus.

Bang on, and not only that but it would have been a tremendous embarrassment for the authors of Luke and Matthew had they known their copies would become part of a canon with gMark for the world to see their plagiarism revealed. They copied gMark and they copied from a common sayings source

Again you display a lack of familiarity with the genre of ancient history. Copying from other sources, with or without reference, was common practice. The authors of Matthew and Luke would have expected their audience to know that they were reworking other sources, oral and written, and would not have cared. Plaigiarism is a modern invention. Stealing from sources, writing letters pseudonymously, etc, was common practice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you please post some history books on the historicity of jesus? Your replying to everyone but me. It's not a challenge, I seriously would like to read up on his historicity. And to know what books on history I was not taught in school.

Kirby's list remains a good one in my opinion. I would particularly recommend Meier, in part because of his explicit historiography. I like Vermes and enjoy Maccoby (although I think he over-reaches at times).

The point, however, is that many, many serious historians assume/reference Jesus even in texts not specifically about the historicity of Jesus. One example might be "Judaisms and Their Messiahs," edited by Jacob Neusner. Another example would be Schiffman's "Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls." A brief visit to any decent library would provide numerous similar examples - suggesting that "Jesus isn't found in history books" is embarrassingly wrong.