Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Oberon]

Apparently there was a mound of evidence in the form of scholarship on which someone left a copy of the publication AWAKE on top of. When the cleaners came in at night they thought it was all a pile of trash and threw the whole works into the garbage. You can't blame them, they were just trying to do their job.

I am willing to bet than anyone who has read through this thread will see such humor as a deflection, designed to belittle scholarship because you haven't read any.

I have given you multiple sources you can check out for yourself if doubt me (which you obviously do, of course). And among those who actually study this matter, it is almost impossible not to come accross a work on early christianity or biblical studies which speaks about the historical Jesus.

The scholarship isn't hiding; you just haven't looked.

So I am still waiting for you to addres both my general comments on the evidence and type of orality, as well as the specific more in-depth analysis of a single aspect of this larger issue, and finally scholarship you have read which backs your view. Your response is humor and more google searches.

I ask for refences to scholarship rather than bad websites, and you belittle the scholarship of the people most acquainted with the evidence.

Apparently there was a mound of evidence in the form of scholarship

Actually there IS a mound. Also, this scholarship uses a great deal of primary sources material. Being unfamiliar with them, I understand that you can't say anything worthwhile about them. However, the scholarship I mentioned is based on enormous research of the relevent sources, and in addition uses techniques developed by other disciplines (e.g. sociology, literary theory, archaeology (before Jayhawker dumps on this, there is no direct archaeology evidence of Jesus. I was referring more towards the archaeology revealing the thorough "Jewishness" of Jesus hometown and home base.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, the scholarship I mentioned is based on enormous research of the relevent sources, and in addition uses techniques developed by other disciplines (e.g. sociology, literary theory, archaeology (before Jayhawker dumps on this, there is no direct archaeology evidence of Jesus. I was referring more towards the archaeology revealing the thorough "Jewishness" of Jesus hometown and home base.

Huh ???

 

[Imagist]

Just from a probablistic standpoint Jesus almost had to have existed. Jesus is essentially the same name as Joshua, and since Joshua was basically the founder of Israel, there were lots of people named Jesus at the time. His being from the lineage of David is also highly probable (remember that there were many generations of kings descended from David, each with hundreds of wives, constantly pumping out babies, so nearly everyone of Judean descent was descended from David by some route). There were also numerous traveling teacher/healers, since it was a good way to make money and get respect. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more than one Jesus.

 

[logician]

Just from a probablistic standpoint Jesus almost had to have existed. Jesus is essentially the same name as Joshua, and since Joshua was basically the founder of Israel, there were lots of people named Jesus at the time. His being from the lineage of David is also highly probable (remember that there were many generations of kings descended from David, each with hundreds of wives, constantly pumping out babies, so nearly everyone of Judean descent was descended from David by some route). There were also numerous traveling teacher/healers, since it was a good way to make money and get respect. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more than one Jesus.

Stated this way, he almost certainly didn't, since you can't pin down any one of these many "messiahs" as the real McCoy or being the real Jesus. Too many Jesuses is as bad as too few.

 

[Imagist]

Stated this way, he almost certainly didn't, since you can't pin down any one of these many "messiahs" as the real McCoy or being the real Jesus. Too many Jesuses is as bad as too few.

I suppose it depends how high of a standard you set for Jesus-ness. But that's clearly arbitrary if atheists like us are even discussing the issue: if we were to set the standard to the highest standard that this Jesus must have been born of a virgin, killed, resurrected, and ascended into heaven, then Jesus (by our beliefs) certainly did not exist.

 

[darkmage121]

In Wicca, we are polytheistic. We believe in a goddess and a god. Out goddess in Mother Natrue, the equivalent to the Father in Christianity. The god is the Son and Hunter. I believe that Jesus Christ is the the god from our faith, although we don't call him that. Do you think it's possible for our god and Jesus to be one in the same? It may be possible.

 

[dogsgod]

I suppose it depends how high of a standard you set for Jesus-ness. But that's clearly arbitrary if atheists like us are even discussing the issue: if we were to set the standard to the highest standard that this Jesus must have been born of a virgin, killed, resurrected, and ascended into heaven, then Jesus (by our beliefs) certainly did not exist.

It's the only story we have. If someone could produce a source that describes an itinerant preacher from Galilee that worked the area, and then went into Jerusalem and got himself crucified when Pilate was governor, I'd be the first to concede a good possibility of an historical Jesus that influenced this religion. But we don't have anything of that description. Some claim we do have a man behind this legend, but we don't, we just have the legend. Reading between the lines we might have an itinerant cynic type sage but he most likely would have been influential during the 70's, and there's no way to connect him with a crucifixion or the earlier Christianity in Jerusalem. Another plausibility is that Paul's Christ hearkens back to a Jesus type that may have lived and was possibly crucified in 100BCE. Read more of that here. Earliest Christianity

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's the only story we have. If someone could produce a source that describes an itinerant preacher from Galilee that worked the area, and then went into Jerusalem and got himself crucified when Pilate was governor, I'd be the first to concede a good possibility of an historical Jesus that influenced this religion. But we don't have anything of that description. Some claim we do have a man behind this legend, but we don't, we just have the legend. Reading between the lines we might have an itinerant cynic type sage but he most likely would have been influential during the 70's, and there's no way to connect him with a crucifixion or the earlier Christianity in Jerusalem. Another plausibility is that Paul's Christ hearkens back to a Jesus type that may have lived and was possibly crucified in 100BCE. Read more of that here. Earliest Christianity

Well that's just it and one of the points I've been trying to make. Sure, we can all speculate the existence of a man who we have little information about. As you said to me some pages ago...I'd be looking a long time and hard to find contemporaries. Well...I haven't. It's not that there's no contemporary...it's the extra-biblical written history that does not testify to this man. That I can tell there's no information that anyone interacted with this man. Given his outspokenness in the bible, I've found nothing in the written history that describes any attempt to catch him, or prosecute him. I'm not saying, necessarily, it didn't happen but the written history we have does not appear to have known him.

 

[Oberon]

Given his outspokenness in the bible, I've found nothing in the written history that describes any attempt to catch him, or prosecute him. I'm not saying, necessarily, it didn't happen but the written history we have does not appear to have known him.

There is plenty. The gospels ARE a type of history. Why would you accept people like Philo, Josephus, Livy, Diogenes, etc, as valid sources for history when they also contain myth, theology, rumor, etc.

You act as if, given Jesus' impact, there should be some record of him "in the written history we have." However, how many "historians" were writing soon after Jesus' mission (i.e. when he made his impact)? There weren't actually that many, and the bulk would have been little concerned with Jesus. Furthermore, the fact that even those historians who could have been interested in Jesus do not mention him means nothing, as they also don't mention other important personalities living then. Also, Josephus, one of the very few historians who lived during the earliest stages of Christianity (while people who followed Jesus during his life still lived, DOES mention him. Paul (who was not writing history but letters) was a contemporary to Jesus, persecuted the earliest Church, knew those who followed Jesus, and talks about him.

the written history we have does not appear to have known him

Again, the gospels are bioi/vitae (or something very close). They ARE ancient history. They are attempts to historically record the life of Jesus through the eyes and traditions of the earliest Jesus.

Basically, when you say "written history does not appear to have known him" you are looking to historians who would have little to no reason to mention him, and discounting all those who would have a reason and do. There is no logic or firm reasoning behind such an approach.

it's the extra-biblical written history that does not testify to this man. That I can tell there's no information that anyone interacted with this man.

This goes back your comment "we can't use the bible to prove the bible." Such an approach is completely false. It's akin to saying "we can't use greek literature to prove things about ancient greece." The "bible" is not just one coherent account, nor is the NT. The various texts within the NT record various traditions which can be compared with eachother.

As for extra-biblical accounts, again you are acting like we SHOULD have them. Who, besides the earliest followers, would care? And it is from them (the early followers) we have records. We are lucky to have Josephus.

And you are also ignoring extra-biblical accounts like Papias, who describes having spoken to those who knew Jesus or his disciples, and receiving the Jesus tradition from them.

 

[dogsgod]

Philo wrote about Pilate in a matter of fact way. He was a contemporary, was in Jerusalem during Pilates term, provided some facts, and offered his opinion of him. All we know of Pilate is very little. If he wrote that Pilate was born of a virgin, that the heavens parted and a voice boomed from above when he was baptized, and that he performed miracles during his rise to being governor, and didn't sign his name to his writings, it wouldn't be much use to us in terms of anything historical. The fact that there may really have been a man named Pilate as governor would be a coincidence and otherwise unrelated to these events.

 

[dogsgod]

Besides, it's not the first time a religion grew about an invisible entity as described in a book of mythologies.

 

[Oberon]

Philo wrote about Pilate in a matter of fact way.

Are you lying here, or did you just not read it? Philo's discussion of Pilate is full of rhetoric and blatant bias.
From Philo's Embassy to Caligula:

on pilate:
"With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honoring Tiberius..."
"When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition obstinately refused..."
"This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. "
"So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects..."

and so on.

Yes, this sounds so matter of fact. No hint of bias or anything but a desire to record history there!

Besides, it's not the first time a religion grew about an invisible entity as described in a book of mythologies

It would be the first time that a religion was started around a man by texts describing nearly contemporary events, including some written while people who were present were still alive, and which are a type of ancient history rather than myth. I understand, of course, that being completely unfamiliar with all of the issues under discussion, and being reliant entirely on google, such distinctions would be difficult for you.

 

[dogsgod]

Are you lying here, or did you just not read it? Philo's discussion of Pilate is full of rhetoric and blatant bias.
From Philo's Embassy to Caligula:

on pilate:
"With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honoring Tiberius..."
"When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition obstinately refused..."
"This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. "
"So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects..."

and so on.

Yes, this sounds so matter of fact. No hint of bias or anything but a desire to record history there!

You edited the part where I said he offered his opinions of him. Opinions are bias. Yet another example and reason enough as to why I have a problem with you and your distortions and lack of comprehension. You read what you want to read with blinders on. There's a striking difference between Philo's writing about Pilate and the writings of the Gospels that's completely lost on you.

 

[dogsgod]

It would be the first time that a religion was started around a man by texts describing nearly contemporary events, including some written while people who were present were still alive,and which are a type of ancient history rather than myth. I understand, of course, that being completely unfamiliar with all of the issues under discussion, and being reliant entirely on google, such distinctions would be difficult for you.

They were probably written in the diaspora which would explain the Greek, and for communities in the diaspora, so who would know?

 

[dogsgod]

I understand, of course, that being completely unfamiliar with all of the issues under discussion, and being reliant entirely on google, such distinctions would be difficult for you.

This sort of remark tells us more about you and your character than it does about those that might disagree with you. You have issues and I think it best you make attempts to deal with them in another way.

 

[Oberon]

You edited the part where I said he offered his opinions of him. Opinions are bias. Yet another example and reason enough as to why I have a problem with you and your distortions and lack of comprehension.

Fine. Let's take your qoute including the part about opinions.

Philo wrote about Pilate in a matter of fact way. He was a contemporary, was in Jerusalem during Pilates term, provided some facts, and offered his opinion of him.

Where does Philo distinguish his opinion from his facts? Exactly what part of his description of Pilate is "matter of fact?" Everything concerning Pilate is a model of diatribe. Your description of "matter of fact" even including your comment about opinion is woefully inaccurate.

There's a striking difference between Philo's writing about Pilate and the writings of the Gospels that's completely lost on you.

Not at all I (unlike you) have actually read the primary sources for this period extensively (and I, unlike you, can read them in their original language). This tract of Philo's is an entirely different genre. Philo is not writing a bio/vita/life of Pilate, he is merely referring to him.

The gospels ARE bioi/vitae/lives, and therefore should not be compared (in termes of style and genre, at least) with Philo but with ancient biographers who wrote lives.

The point is that Philo's works are almost as full (or as full) of theology, ahistorical information, bias, etc, as the gospels. To view his works uncritically, and then to reject the gospels entirely, is indicative only of bias and a lack of knowledge on the subject.

They were probably written in the diaspora which would explain the Greek, and for communities in the diaspora, so who would know?

First of all, there were Greek speakers all over Judaea, and in Jerusalem. Second, Paul, who had visited Jerusalem for the purpose of receiving the tradition, writes to various communities in the diaspora and speaks of "handing on" the tradition. Even as late as the early 2nd century, Papias discusses having spoken to the disciples of the apostles, or the apostles themselves, concerning what Jesus said. In other words, all of the early Christian communities communicated! And they took some care to make sure the tradition was handled accurately. Can you point to any scholarship on their place of origin?

And in anycase it is a moot point. You said of Christianity "Besides, it's not the first time a religion grew about an invisible entity as described in a book of mythologies"

All the myths of Greece, Rome, India, Egypt, etc. were set in a time long, long ago. This is important, because people actually travelled in the ancient world. If you set up a story that takes place in a specific area in a specific time less than 20 years after the event (for Paul) or around 20-30 years (Q) or around 40 years (Mark), people will have been to that area, and known the community. You are once again showing a complete lack of understanding of ancient history. The idea that these texts, which were distributed widely as soon as they were written, would be blindly accepted by people when no one could claim to know Jesus or anyone who knew him, or that no one would bother to check to see if anything was true (particularly the Jewish opponents) is ridiculous.

The whole point of "myth" is that it is unverifiable. It happened ages ago. To nail it down to a recent time and nearby place would make it impossible to be believed, unless there were at least a core of truth (i.e. Jesus actually lived and worked, and his earliest followers claimed he rose from the dead).

 

[Oberon]

This sort of remark tells us more about you and your character than it does about those that might disagree with you. You have issues and I think it best you make attempts to deal with them in another way.

Ha. Actually, there have been a number of people on this forum, and in this thread in particular, who I have disagreed with, and yet was able to remain in polite discourse with (e.g. Jayhawker Soul, Imaginist, etc). This was because they had either a knowledge of the subject, making intelligent discourse possible (like the two people I just mentioned), or did not blindly insist on their point of view when they knew too little about the subject. You don't fall into those categories. You have continued to spout nonsense and act as if you know something, and to criticize me when I am well-versed in this area (including writing off my comments as some sort of blindly believing Christian) despite your lack of knowledge. Let's go over our interactions here for a minute:

I pointed out my reasonings for my belief, and pointed to numerous scholars to back me up.

You referenced a bunch of websites.

I pointed out errors in those websites. I also pointed out many statements you made which indicate your lack of basic familiarity with this topic makes you unable to determine whether any of your referenced sites are any good.

You said I was lying and asked me to quote you.

I quoted you, and showed you the errors, and you couldn't respond.

You asked me for references.

I gave you numerous scholarly references

You dismissed them all for no reason, other than possibly because you have none.

I have (throughout this entire thread) asked you to reference any scholarship backing you up.

You failed to do so. You then tried to pass off two scholar's as being in agreement with you, and I quoted statements from them showing they completely disagreed with your view.

I continued to ask you to reference scholarship.

You have continually failed to do so.

You asked me to indicate my beliefs concerning orality.

I again repeated the general outline, referenced scholarship, and went over one particular argument in detail, to give an idea of the type of work done on the gospels by scholars (as you haven't read any, I figured this might be helpful).

You couldn't respond.

In short, I have again and again not only demonstrated a knowledge in this area, as well as made arguments you can only address by quoting websites, I have also provided numerous references to scholarship.

You have failed to demonstrate any real knowledge on the topic, have failed to cite anything other than websites or books by non-specialist, have made error after error, and in general made yourself look pretty foolish.

 

[dogsgod]

Fine. Let's take your qoute including the part about opinions.



Where does Philo distinguish his opinion from his facts?

He doesn't, that's for the reader to discern.

Exactly what part of his description of Pilate is "matter of fact?" The everything concerning Pilate is a model of diatribe. Your description of "matter of fact" even including your comment about opinion is woefully inaccurate.



Not at all I (unlike you) have actually read the primary sources for this period extensively (and I, unlike you, can read them in their original language). This tract of Philo's is an entirely different genre. Philo is not writing a bio/vita/life of Pilate, he is merely referring to him.

Ok, "matter of fact" or "merely referring to him" whichever.

The gospels ARE bioi/vitae/lives, and therefore should not be compared (in termes of style and genre, at least) with Philo but with ancient biographers who wrote lives.

The point is that Philo's works are no more full of theology, ahistorical information, bias, etc, than the gospels. To view his works uncritically, and then to reject the gospels entirely, is indicative only of bias and a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Unlike the gospel writers, Philo wrote theological essays. There is a difference. Philo's writing of Pilate can not be compared to the gospel writer's portrayal of Pilate within their theologies.

 

[Oberon]

Ok, "matter of fact" or "merely referring to him" whichever

He neither "merely" refers to him, nor speaks of him in a matter of fact way. He refers to him in a entirely hostile manner, and not in any "matter of fact" or "merely" way.

Unlike the gospel writers, Philo wrote theological essays. There is a difference.

Did you read the part of my post you quoted or not? I SPECIFICALLY stated there was a difference. Philo's texts belongs to an entirely different genre.

Philo's writing of Pilate can not be compared to the gospel writer's portrayal of Pilate within their theologies.

Why? If anything, Philo's depiction of Pilate is even LESS likely, a priori, to be accurate. Philo is CLEARLY biased against Pilate. Everything he says about him is negative. Although there is almost certainly truth in some part of it, parts of it are obviously simply Philo's hatred of Pilate (e.g. "So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, ...for he had [no]...desire to do anything which would please his subjects"). And Philo's treatise is theological and his motivations are clearly not simply to record history. The accounts of Pilate in the gospels are, if anything, less likely (a priori) to be motivated by theology or christology or anything else to distort this account (I suspect, however, that an aspect of their depiction of Pilate is to place more blame on the Jews, but this doesn't explain their almost entirely positive depiction of the one ultimately responsible for Jesus' death) . After all, Pilate was the one who sentenced Jesus to die.

How much of either account is historical is a matter of debate for another day (I will say now that neither is completely accurate in my opinion). The point here, however, is that you point to a work that is not designed primarily to record history (even by ancient standards) and is clearly motivated by dislike, bias, hatred, etc. Again, only your bias and lack of knowledge concerning this subject motivates your judgement.

 

[budhabee]

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?

Their is a story of a young indian lad in South America (somewhere) who was hunting in the forest when he came upon a beautiful man. The man was his exact duplicate and stared piercingly at him. His black hair fell clear down to his feet.
The lad knew instinctively that the beautiful double wanted him to merge with him. To physically walk inside of him. He was very much petrified to do this. Not understanding what it would mean. The man looked at him sadly for a moment then faded from his sight in front of him. I have read so many books I cannot recall where I picked this up but I have always remembered its implication. Just thought I would throw that out for a good ponder. I am thinking the man Jesus merged with his higher Son of God self. That he did not hesitate to do so.