Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Oberon]

So how do historians sort through the gospels for the historical Jesus?

First, it is important to understand the background which produced the NT texts, and this means understanding first-century Judaism. Next, it is important to understand the nature of the texts in the NT, which consists mainly of gospels and letters.

Let’s start with the letters of Paul. Paul wrote letters to Christian communities advising them, and his letters were saved and copied because of his status within the Jesus community. These letters are not overly concerned with transmitting information about Jesus himself, because they are addressed to people who already know the tradition. However, Paul speaks of the Jesus tradition being formally transmitted to him, and he talks about meeting with the people who personally knew Jesus.

Then there are the gospels. I have already said they are a type of ancient history/biography. They are recordings of oral traditions. Therefore, the most important part of sorting through the gospels for historical information is understanding the method of transmission of these traditions.

First, when these texts were written, people who knew Jesus were still alive. This in itself does not mean that the oral traditions upon which the gospels were based were accurate. Methods of oral transmission vary vastly between cultures and within the same culture, depending upon the type of information being transmitted (for example, rumors vs. religious material). It is important to note, however, that even oral traditions transmitted over hundreds of years that are not designed to reliably transmit history retain nuggets of historical truth. Take, for example, the Iliad. Here is an story from oral traditions going back hundreds of years, which was told for entertainment purposes and without thought for historical accuracy. Yet we know from archaeological records that even in this work historical nuggets are to be found. The gospels were formed from a vastly more reliably transmitted tradition, and were written down within a generation or two after Jesus died, leaving far less room for change.

I may get into more detail about orality within the Jesus tradition later, but right now I will refer those interested in learning how accurately the sayings/stories in the Jesus tradition were transmitted to two excellent works:

Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Chiristianiyt by Birger Gerhardsson

And

Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition ed. Henry Wansbrough (with contributions from 15 scholars).

And now for those interested in historical Jesus studies by critical non-christian scholars:

Bart D. Ehrman, an ex-Christian who lost his faith when he began studying the gospel in detail wrote a short book on his view of the historical Jesus titled “Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium.” I personally think he is wrong on many points, and his work is mostly a rehash of Schweitzer, but for those looking for anti-Christian views of the historical Jesus by actual scholars, he is one.

J. D. Crossan, an ex-Catholic priest who believe Jesus’ body was devoured by dogs wrote “The Historical Jesus.” Although some of Crossan’s work has merit, I consider most of it way out there with little to back it up, but again here is someone with expertise writing about the historical Jesus.

Geza Vermes is a Jewish scholar with many publications on the historical Jesus, but see in particularly his book “Jesus and the Jews: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels.”

I can give more if need be.

However, if you want a very good up-to-date book on the historical Jesus and aren’t prejudiced by reading from a Christian historian, see James Dunn’s “Jesus Remembered.”

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, "First, when these texts were written, people who knew Jesus were still alive." The circular reasoning here is that you are using the texts to validate the texts. The texts claim that Jesus lived at a given time and place. People that would have known Jesus were still alive when the texts were written based on the texts telling us when and where Jesus lived. And round and round we go.


The same goes for this statement of yours,"and he talks about meeting with the people who personally knew Jesus." Again, Paul never tells us this, but you've read the gospels that were written much later, so your assumption based on these religious texts, is that these people that Paul writes of knew an historical Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, the gospels consist primarily of a written tradition. Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark with their own birth stories added to the beginning, as well as their own post resurrection stories. The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q. There may be some oral tradition sprinkled in the story line, but the method used to write the gospels is called midrash. It was a method of taking lines from scripture and arranging them in such a way as to tell a new story that reflect the new times. Practically every line making up the gospels can be found in the OT.

 

[logician]

"First, when these texts were written, people who knew Jesus were still alive"

This statement is false, they were all written well after the time of the supposed Jesus by unknown authors.

 

[Quagmire]

And yet we find christian theologians such as Robert Berckford informing us of the similarities and parallels of Mithra, Jesus, Horus etc.

Sorry, but I don't see how this addresses what I was saying.

 

[Sententia]

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

Opinions are acceptable I take it since there is no factual answer to this question hehe.

Did he walk the earth is irrelavent. Did he walk on water? If you believe people can walk on water because they are gods son and really want to then yes you believe in a fictional jesus.

 

[Oberon]

"First, when these texts were written, people who knew Jesus were still alive"

This statement is false, they were all written well after the time of the supposed Jesus by unknown authors.

Not well after the time (within 1 or 2 generations), but you are right that I overstated here.

The most commonly agreed upon dates are 50s for Pauls letters, c. early 70s for Mark, and 80s for Matthew and Luke, and 90s for John. What I should have said was that the authors of the texts LIKELY knew people who knew Jesus, and were recording traditions that were possibly secondhand, which is very good for oral traditions.

Oberon, the gospels consist primarily of a written tradition. Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark with their own birth stories added to the beginning, as well as their own post resurrection stories. The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q. There may be some oral tradition sprinkled in the story line, but the method used to write the gospels is called midrash. It was a method of taking lines from scripture and arranging them in such a way as to tell a new story that reflect the new times. Practically every line making up the gospels can be found in the OT.

With all due respect, you are WAY off here. I would say by your statement that you haven't read any significant indepth scholarship on the historical Jesus, because anything that went into any depth on the sources for the Gospels (or explained Q or Matthew and Luke's use of Mark) would have explained that these were recordings of oral traditions. If you have read scholarship, I would ask you to cite it.

And having read the gospels in Greek many times, along with the LXX (and a fair amount of the Hebrew) this statement:"Practically every line making up the gospels can be found in the OT"

is blatantly false.

The same goes for this statement of yours,"and he talks about meeting with the people who personally knew Jesus." Again, Paul never tells us this,

Yes he does, but apparently you haven't read the texts you are discussing. Gal 1:15- epeita meta ete tria anelthon eis Ierosoluma istoresai Kephan kai epemeina pros auton hemeras dekapente, heteron de ton apostolon ouk eidon ei me Iakobon ton adelphon tou kuriou./ thereupon after three years I went up into Jerusalem to visit Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days, and I did not see the other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.

Oberon, "First, when these texts were written, people who knew Jesus were still alive." The circular reasoning here is that you are using the texts to validate the texts. The texts claim that Jesus lived at a given time and place. People that would have known Jesus were still alive when the texts were written based on the texts telling us when and where Jesus lived. And round and round we go.

Such is the problem with all texts from ancient history. If you want to apply such standards of historicity to the gospels, fine. I have no problem with that, as long as you do the same for all ancient texts. Of course, this would mean that we can write off just about everything we know about history as myth, because there is more textual evidence for Jesus than most figure from ancient history. Scholars and historians write biographies of ancient people from a single text removed hundreds of years from the person discussed. Like I said before, you look on the texts of the Gospels with such a critical eye because you haven't read enough of ancient historical works (or enough scholarship on the historical Jesus).

 

[logician]

Not well after the time (within 1 or 2 generations), but you are right that I overstated here.

The most commonly agreed upon dates are 50s for Pauls letters, c. early 70s for Mark, and 80s for Matthew and Luke, and 90s for John. What I should have said was that the authors of the texts LIKELY knew people who knew Jesus, and were recording traditions that were possibly secondhand, which is very good for oral traditions.



).

Except the "biblical" Jesus never existed, he was a created mythology taken from pre-existent god myths.

Read Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The LAughing Jesus" to get a historical perspective of what was going on prior to and after the time of the supposed Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Except the "biblical" Jesus never existed, he was a created mythology taken from pre-existent god myths.

Read Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The LAughing Jesus" to get a historical perspective of what was going on prior to and after the time of the supposed Jesus.

You obviously didn't read my whole post before. I wrote an entire one based on their work. Again, just to point out by own biases and background (in comparison with theirs) I am a working on my dissertation (PhD) on orality within the Jesus tradition and I am not a Christian. One of them has a B.A. in psychology and the other a M.A. in classical studies. I have read their work (along with several others), as part of a paper I wrote some time ago on popular misconceptions concerning the Jesus tradition (titled "The Resurrecting Godman Myth: From Frazer to the Da Vinci Code"). I have already responded to it within this thread. Their work is awful. They get dates wrong, gnosticism wrong, paganism wrong, greek wrong, etc. This is to be expected, as they are laypersons. If you want to talk to about the historical Jesus, please cite works from actual scholars in the field. I have already cited a few who are not christians (and are opposed to Christianity), for those who think all Christian historians are biased. Please don't respond to my posts without reading them.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Religion contains both the mythic and the parabolic. I would assume that Jesus also carries these traits.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Religion contains both the mythic and the parabolic. I would assume that Jesus also carries these traits.

But is he also hyperbolic? This is the key question.

 

[logician]

You obviously didn't read my whole post before. I wrote an entire one based on their work. Again, just to point out by own biases and background (in comparison with theirs) I am a working on my dissertation (PhD) on orality within the Jesus tradition and I am not a Christian. One of them has a B.A. in psychology and the other a M.A. in classical studies. I have read their work (along with several others), as part of a paper I wrote some time ago on popular misconceptions concerning the Jesus tradition (titled "The Resurrecting Godman Myth: From Frazer to the Da Vinci Code"). I have already responded to it within this thread. Their work is awful. They get dates wrong, gnosticism wrong, paganism wrong, greek wrong, etc. This is to be expected, as they are laypersons. If you want to talk to about the historical Jesus, please cite works from actual scholars in the field. I have already cited a few who are not christians (and are opposed to Christianity), for those who think all Christian historians are biased. Please don't respond to my posts without reading them.

A very biased post.

 

[Oberon]

A very biased post.

Does that mean you can't cite any scholars in the field who agree with you or Freke or Gandy?

 

[sojourner]

But is he also hyperbolic? This is the key question.

Hyperbole would be a characteristic of the mythic. I answered that "key question" the first go-round.

 

[sojourner]

Oberon, the gospels consist primarily of a written tradition. Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark with their own birth stories added to the beginning, as well as their own post resurrection stories. The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q. There may be some oral tradition sprinkled in the story line, but the method used to write the gospels is called midrash. It was a method of taking lines from scripture and arranging them in such a way as to tell a new story that reflect the new times. Practically every line making up the gospels can be found in the OT.

However, the culture is still not a print culture, but an oral culture. The sayings and stories were told before they were written down in gospel form. The gospels, then consist of written materials that are based in oral tradition. Let's be careful here. I think it would be safe to say that, at least for Mark and Q, the material is highly oral, and probably for Matt - Lk as well.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sorry, but I don't see how this addresses what I was saying.

No problem. You said, and I'll highlight some things here;

""Most of the experts believe Jesus existed, therefore he must have"

This is simply untrue. Those who assert the validity of a historical Jesus offer no evidence of his existence other than their bias and their knack for regurgitating scripture. The Jesus story is so very similar and almost to the point of being repetitive of earlier god/man mythical stories. If it weren't true then we would not be able to make the comparison. Also remember, back in the day "smart and learned men" thought and tought that the world was flat, the sun revolves arount the earth...etc...etc... A "concenses" doesn't necessarily mean truth.

I'm saying, "If intelligent people who have devoted their lives to studying all this have come to a certain conclusion, it may be worthwhile looking at what they have to say (even if it isn't what you wanted to hear) before making definitive statements based on personal bias".

This is true in both our cases. This is why I presented Robert Beckford and the documentary he did. Instead of just reading what a Christian scholar/theologian said, we can actually hear and see him. He touches on the mythic stories before the biblical Yeshua comes on the seen and he has no problem understanding or admitting the similarities all the while remaining firm in his faith. It is a documentary that, as you say "may be worthwhile looking at what they have to say (even if it isn't what you wanted to hear) before making definitive statements based on personal bias".

 

[Quagmire]

No problem. You said, and I'll highlight some things here;

""Most of the experts believe Jesus existed, therefore he must have"

No, I said

You're thinking in black and white here; I'm not saying, "Most of the experts believe Jesus existed, therefore he must have",...

It's the exact oppisite of what you have me saying here.

Did you purposely take that out of context?

 

[Quagmire]

This is true in both our cases. This is why I presented Robert Beckford and the documentary he did. Instead of just reading what a Christian scholar/theologian said, we can actually hear and see him. He touches on the mythic stories before the biblical Yeshua comes on the seen and he has no problem understanding or admitting the similarities all the while remaining firm in his faith. It is a documentary that, as you say "may be worthwhile looking at what they have to say (even if it isn't what you wanted to hear) before making definitive statements based on personal bias".

I see, so basically your trying to use "may be worthwhile looking at what they have to say (even if it isn't what you wanted to hear) before making definitive statements based on personal bias" to prove that I was wrong when I said "may be worthwhile looking at what they have to say (even if it isn't what you wanted to hear) before making definitive statements based on personal bias".

Not sure I'm following your logic here.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, I said

It's the exact oppisite of what you have me saying here.

Did you purposely take that out of context?

Ahhh...Nope...must have missed it..teee...heee .....heee...

My sincere apologies on that one....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I see, so basically your trying to use "may be worthwhile looking at what they have to say (even if it isn't what you wanted to hear) before making definitive statements based on personal bias" to prove that I was wrong when I said "may be worthwhile looking at what they have to say (even if it isn't what you wanted to hear) before making definitive statements based on personal bias".

Not sure I'm following your logic here.

Well, I wasn't trying to prove anyone "wrong" here. Just showing that Robert Beckford fits the criteria you presented. If you don't think so then I stand corrected.