The Jesus Myth

[Ilisrum]

he was a traveling hellenistic teacher of judaism who was baptised by john and was a healer. he ticked off the pharisees and romans who quickly crucified him.

beyond that little can be said with any certainty

I don't think Jesus was "Hellenistic" in any way. I think he was a traditional first century Galilean Jew who held apocalyptic hopes about the future of Israel and had some Zealots as his intimate followers. Later Paul came along and Hellenized and sanitized his message for the non-Jews.

Aside from that, I agree with you completely. Even the gospels don't give much information, and some of what they say is iffy. I doubt too much can be said with certainty about him.

 

[outhouse]

And how would the Hellenistic world have influenced Jesus?
Jesus apparently grew up in Galilee which was at that time under Herod Antipas undergoing a form of Hellenization. There was a continuation of the program of Herod the Great, the father of Herod Antipas. And that Hellenization was most visible in a place like Sepphoris which was being reconstructed during the youth of Jesus. It was visible in several other cities around Galilee. A place like Beth-shean, for instance, which still has a magnificent theater dating from the Hellenistic period. We have clear evidence in all of that architectural remains Hellenism was having a strong impact even on Galilee during this period.


Read more: A Portrait Of Jesus' World - Hellenistic Culture | From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Ilisrum]

I'm well aware of the Hellenistic development in his native Galilee. However, many Jews of his time, and many more centuries before him, resisted incorporation into the larger Hellenistic world. I'm convinced that Jesus was among them.

BTW, I own From Jesus to Christ on DVD. Good documentary.

 

[outhouse]

I just figure with many that think he knew some koine greek even if he was illiterate and with Galilee being partially hellenistic. wasnt much of a way for him not to be.

I think I coined that from another historians site anyway

 

[outhouse]

I was just reading up on that, sounds like a great dvd

 

[Ilisrum]

I was just reading up on that, sounds like a great dvd

Yeah, it's entertaining, but probably not much you don't already know. All the familiar faces comment on it.

From PBS, I'd also recommend from their Empires series Peter and Paul, which is a critical history of the early Church from the Crucifixion to the destruction of the Second Temple. Also the Kingdom of David, which covers Jewish history from mythic times (Abraham and the Patriarchs) to about the 5th century CE. Both are great documentaries. Not much new though.

 

[Ilisrum]

I just figure with many that think he knew some koine greek even if he was illiterate and with Galilee being partially hellenistic. wasnt much of a way for him not to be.

I think I coined that from another historians site anyway

It's not impossible. There's no evidence that he spoke Greek however. On the other hand, we can assume that he could at least read Hebrew, which was a part of a standard Jewish upbringing. His brother Yakov was likely fluent in Hebrew also.

 

[Desert Snake]

Without real evidence that Jesus was "Hellenistic"(?), It seems most likely that He was an Aramaic speaking Jew...like how He's portrayed...There are also subtle things that set Jesus apart, one of these being His hair, which He wore in the Nazarean fashion. I think there needs to be a more concise definition of Hellenic regardless, is language being referred to here? Geography? Customs? Religion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's not impossible ...

there is no evidence ...

we can assume ...

his brother Yakov [sic] was likely ...​

Such in the persistent character of this persistent topic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are also subtle things that set Jesus apart, one of these being His hair, which He wore in the Nazarean fashion.

My apologies - I take back what I said above. I was simply unaware that someone had a picture.

 

[Desert Snake]

My apologies - I take back what I said above. I was simply unaware that someone had a picture.

Well Jesus is portrayed in this fashion. Take it for what You will. I don't have a "side" in this argument of whether jesus existed, or if He spoke Greek etc. All we can do is look at the evidence that history has supplied.

 

[Desert Snake]

My apologies - I take back what I said above. I was simply unaware that someone had a picture.

Kidding aside, it is interesting that there is no "set" way of depicting Jesus. It's more or less just some vague parameters, even Chinese, Japanese, Ethiopian, portrayals vary by culture. Not to mention European differences. The Nazarean hair is the most consistent feature it seems. But yeah, who knows.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well Jesus is portrayed in this fashion. Take it for what You will.

Thanks. I did.

All we can do is look at the evidence that history has supplied.

We can also be cautious concerning what we affirm as evidence.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks. I did.

We can also be cautious concerning what we affirm as evidence.

Right. Because a lot of what is accounted for as "evidence" historically speaking is hearsay etc. Goes with the territory.

 

[doppelganger]

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?

Things are rarely so black-and-white as we would like them to be. Whether there was one or more historical persons that inspired parts of the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus doesn't change that the nature of those stories can fairly be viewed as metaphorical fiction.

A few observations I think I can make:

(1) There is virtually no historical record of Jesus to bolster or support the events depicted in various early Christian writings, making it almost impossible to determine whether there was such a person, or if there was, whether any of the writings we have were even intended as biographical accounts of a person's life.

(2) The earlier one goes back in Christian writings, the more vague the historical presence of Jesus becomes, which is the opposite of what you'd expect if a historical person were becoming mythologized. The earliest identifiably "Christian" writings are the genuine Pauline epistles. Paul writes ad nauseum of a mystical Christ representing the transformational power of love as the great mystery of which moral law is a pale reflection. And he writes virtually nothing (and maybe nothing at all) of either a historical Jesus or any of his teachings. It is an unfounded assumption to read the gospel accounts, which were written later, into a few vague and contradictory passages found in the Pauline letters.

(3) By the latter half of the 2nd Century, there was a very powerful political motive to bolster the idea of an historical and literal Jesus and a growing means in the hands of orthodoxy (particularly after its marriage to the Roman Empire) to try to alter the historical record.

In short, there's really no evidence of why these stories were made in the first place. They seem predominantly mythical and metaphorical in nature. And the earlier one gets in Christian history, the more its central figure slips into shadow as an historical figure.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Things are rarely so black-and-white as we would like them to be. Whether there was one or more historical persons that inspired parts of the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus doesn't change that the nature of those stories can fairly be viewed as metaphorical fiction.

A few observations I think I can make:

(1) There is virtually no historical record of Jesus to bolster or support the events depicted in various early Christian writings, making it almost impossible to determine whether there was such a person, or if there was, whether any of the writings we have were even intended as biographical accounts of a person's life.

(2) The earlier one goes back in Christian writings, the more vague the historical presence of Jesus becomes, which is the opposite of what you'd expect if a historical person were becoming mythologized. The earliest identifiably "Christian" writings are the genuine Pauline epistles. Paul writes ad nauseum of a mystical Christ representing the transformational power of love as the great mystery of which moral law is a pale reflection. And he writes virtually nothing (and maybe nothing at all) of either a historical Jesus or any of his teachings. It is an unfounded assumption to read the gospel accounts, which were written later, into a few vague and contradictory passages found in the Pauline letters.

(3) By the latter half of the 2nd Century, there was a very powerful political motive to bolster the idea of an historical and literal Jesus and a growing means in the hands of orthodoxy (particularly after its marriage to the Roman Empire) to try to alter the historical record.

In short, there's really no evidence of why these stories were made in the first place. They seem predominantly mythical and metaphorical in nature. And the earlier one gets in Christian history, the more its central figure slips into shadow as an historical figure.

On balance, it's a fairly good summary, although I believe that your opening sentence in (2) overstates the case, and I continue to maintain that Josephus and Acts are sufficient grounds for the presumption of an historical Jesus.

 

[doppelganger]

I continue to maintain that Josephus and Acts are sufficient grounds for the presumption of an historical Jesus.

I have serious doubts about Acts. There's no extant reference to it until the latter 2nd Century, and there's much about it to suggest that it was written as a polemic - possibly in response to Marcionism.

Amazon.com: Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (9781570036507): Joseph B. Tyson: Books


As for Josephus, I agree that there is some evidence of a person named Jesus, but it doesn't support the extrapolation that the Gospels accounts are about that person. In terms of the historical record, everything points to James being more important than his brother.

Do you agree at the least that his adulatory comments about Jesus's deity in the Testamonium are probably not genuine?

What that leaves are two references in Josephus.

(1) A reference to the stoning of James, who the author considered important enough to mention, and who had a brother named "Jesus" that includes a debatably authentic reference to this brother being called "the Christ". The only historical detail gleaned is that there actually was a James, who had a brother named Jesus, and that James and his followers were stoned by an unlawful session of the Sannhedrin. The same passage references another person named "Jesus" as well, who replaced Ananus as high priest.

(2) The problem of piecing together something from the probably altered testamonium using manuscripts that are no older than the 10th century and extant references no older than the early 4th century.

My own opinion is that Josephus was reporting on the religion that had emerged by the time he was writing Antiquities and was simply reporting the beliefs of the group of early Christians that had emerged by that time, which was later altered to make it sound like he was endorsing their beliefs. If he had been speaking of the same "Jesus" that he mentions as the brother of James in the other passage, it seems awfully conspicuous - given Josephus's thoroughness - that he doesn't mention that this "Jesus" is the same guy who was the brother of the dude whose illegal trial and stoning ended the tenure of Ananus as high priest.

My two cents.

 

[fallingblood]

And how would the Hellenistic world have influenced Jesus?
Jesus apparently grew up in Galilee which was at that time under Herod Antipas undergoing a form of Hellenization. There was a continuation of the program of Herod the Great, the father of Herod Antipas. And that Hellenization was most visible in a place like Sepphoris which was being reconstructed during the youth of Jesus. It was visible in several other cities around Galilee. A place like Beth-shean, for instance, which still has a magnificent theater dating from the Hellenistic period. We have clear evidence in all of that architectural remains Hellenism was having a strong impact even on Galilee during this period.


Read more: A Portrait Of Jesus' World - Hellenistic Culture | From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS

I would be careful on giving this more than it really does. Just because there was hellenistic influence on the region, Jesus still grew up in a small Jewish village that would not have had much impact from the hellenization.

 

[Storm]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?

I think so, though certainly embellished.

I'd like to help as much as possible, but I'm not sure what details you're looking for.

Could you give me some sample questions?

 

[fallingblood]

It's not impossible. There's no evidence that he spoke Greek however. On the other hand, we can assume that he could at least read Hebrew, which was a part of a standard Jewish upbringing. His brother Yakov was likely fluent in Hebrew also.

Actually, Hebrew wasn't standard at that time. Hebrew was a struggling language that was not used widely. We can see this by the need for Greek and Aramaic translations of the text. Jesus may have known Hebrew, but we can't take that for granted.