I'm not sure what you mean by "even contrarian scholars often view him as a peer." If any scholars view him as a peer, it would only be contrarian scholars (although I confess I don't know what you mean by that either).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus an Historical Person?
- Thread starter Jonathan Hoffman
- Start date
Jonathan Hoffman
Active Member
What I meant was that even those scholars who disagree with him respect him.
Anyway, let's get back to the main topic.
Anyway, let's get back to the main topic.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
These guys claimed to be Messiah around the same time as Jesus: Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Menahem ben Judah, and perhaps the list is longer. So it's not impossible that one or two of them, or other "Messiahs" running around at that time, contributed to the basic story and legend.
Here's a list of Jewish Messiahs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianic_claimants#Before_the_Common_Era
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
The legends and mythology were focused on the last week of a Galileans life who hailed from Nazareth, and was more then likely influenced by John The Baptist.
His name was probably Yehoshua the best I gather, and he may have never heard the word Jesus called to him.
We are talking about a passover event and a martyred man from such event. There was no need to inject another mans history into the legend turned mythology by cross cultural oral traditions decades after his death.
Jonathan Hoffman
Active Member
But since we have no historical record of a miracle producing Jesus, we must look for the man behind the myth. . . and IMO the best candidate would be Judas the Galilean, the one who cleansed the Temple (according to Josephus) just as Jesus was said to do.
Jonathan Hoffman
Active Member
Yes, I think you are on the right track.
More on messiah claimants here: Messiah: overview of articles
So, rather than use the incredible amount of historical documentation we have for Jesus, or even simply state that it is too difficult to seperate myth from fact and that we can only know a few things about this figure (such as name, rough period and place of life, that he was executed, etc.), we should turn to those for whom we have almost no evidence at all?
Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Once passage is widely agreed to be a modification of an original which did mention Jesus, although there are and have been scholars who argue that it is authentic as is or that it is in its entirety a later addition. The other passage, in which Jesus is identified as the brother of James (an identification present in Mark, Matthew, and Paul), is almost universally regarded as genuine.
Yet despite this at least sinular reference in Josephus to Jesus, you argue that we should ignore this, all other sources, and attribute to some other passing figure for whom we know almost nothing the entirety of whatever historical core to the NT exists? Why?
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
I think the mythology of Jesus finds it's only real substance/validations within religious, not veritable historical nor any meaningful testimonial/substantiated accountings.
If you wish to accept the "testimonies" of Homer re: a Cyclops, etc. as "real", then such is the power of "faith" above and beyond facile and plain storytelling in facilitation of a contemporary mythos, but let's bear in pointed note that authors akin to Homer never purported to offering testimonials of empirical fact.. just compelling and entertaining fiction
I suppose it might be worthy of inquiry as to whether the mythos of Greek,Roman, or -et al- myths are any more or less compelling "evidences" of named deities than Jesus as singularly accounted within the Christian religious texts...
Perhaps only a persuasion of the mind that a certain premise is "true/truth" is the lone definitive explanation if belief, or "faith"... and the rest is all so much background static and white noise.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Because it's not especially compelling evidence of any sort whatsoever.
Allow us to, at very least, contemplate the extraordinary claim:
"Jesus is the son of God"
Ok, now, um...really?
If we ever hope to preserve our capacities as a rational and logical species... must not we at least allow ourselves to accept as indisputable "fact" that some alleged omniscient, invisible, yet non-evidential benevolent space entity/deity actually exits within this mortal realm?
If I can demonstrate and prove that the element of Hydrogen exits-- can be measured, weighed, experimented upon, and manipulated to extract and sustain numerous working technologies...
...then why should it be so untestable to link the most abundant element known in the cosmos today, to the claimed progenitor of all existence?
What Would Jesus Ask as evidence if he were a physicist today?
What facts would He insist upon, or demand of his adherent followers accept as "truth"?
Hmmm?
outhouse
Atheistically
What your missing here is they attributed mythology to mortal men all the time. The hellenistic gospel authors were writing about jesus and competing his divinity with other mortal mens divnity.
Heres what you may not know
Emporers were seen as divine, while living. They were called "son of god" first before Jesus. The star for Jesus birth was probably from a Roman coin, influence from Augustus claiming his dad Caesar was ressurected. Jesus speaking in front of large crowds was another, as emporers spoke in front of large crowds. The forst gospel was written to and for Romans, the very enemy of the real Jewish Jesus who was severely oppressed by these people.
One more time in case you missed it here. Mortal men were seen as divine, and these authors all built up legends around mortal men.
outhouse
Atheistically
Josephas alone, I would almost agree. With everything we have, its almost a dead certainty a man was martyred at passover that hailed from Nazareth who was influenced by JtB.
Mortal men were called "son of god" and it originated shortly before Jesus birth.
Nothing strange at all with how Romans made men divine in this time period.
It did not carry the same context as today.
Why not?
The same was said of many others, from emperors like Augustus to Greek philosophers. Why judge the veracity of ancient sources using a modern yardstick which is bound to confuse, muddle, and render invalid any historical analysis of any ancient sources?
This is completely irrelevant to the issue. But no. I doubt that it will matter one way or the other.
Hopefully, he'd ask that physicists not pretend physics has anything to do with history.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And Josephus referred to 12 other people with the name Jesus. Imagine the confusion when people are talking about Jesus here and there, Messiahs here and there, Christs (Messiah) here and there, dying, revolting, talking, preaching, and making noise, and then try to figure out what who did when and how.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
There is little doubt that soon after Jesus death there were numerous Jesus movements formed of ex-Jews and Gentiles. These used, in part, a modified training aid based on the Jewish "two ways of Life" that is now called the Didache
At least some of these Groups would have had members who had heard Jesus speak, even if only as members of the crowd. They had no doubt at all that Jesus was real.
That movement grew into a church.
In those times people expected "miracles" and did not doubt their truth. Indeed they were a form of proof of truth.
The mists of time have hidden virtually all physical proof that Jesus existed.
However we may feel about the "Godhood" of Jesus, he has probably left behind the largest body of literature about him, than any man before or since.
It is inconceivable that this is not based on a real person and that it is all smoke and mirrors.
What we may believe or not believe about his status or his teachings and doings, is another matter entirely, and is a matter of faith.
At least some of these Groups would have had members who had heard Jesus speak, even if only as members of the crowd. They had no doubt at all that Jesus was real.
That movement grew into a church.
In those times people expected "miracles" and did not doubt their truth. Indeed they were a form of proof of truth.
The mists of time have hidden virtually all physical proof that Jesus existed.
However we may feel about the "Godhood" of Jesus, he has probably left behind the largest body of literature about him, than any man before or since.
It is inconceivable that this is not based on a real person and that it is all smoke and mirrors.
What we may believe or not believe about his status or his teachings and doings, is another matter entirely, and is a matter of faith.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Also before Jesus, like Athronges "Messiah". Or perhaps we should say Athronges Christ. My understanding is that Josephus even mentions him.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
How many people are called Jesus today?
Nor has it ever been an unusual name.
From the earliest days members of the "Jesus-Sect" knew who they were talking about, there was no confusion in their minds.
Later Historians never have the benefit of this direct knowledge, and have to infer who people were talking about.... They do not always get it right.
In the entire scriptures there is no confusion when Jesus is mentioned.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
During his life and for long after, there was no consensus that Jesus was the "Messiah"
Even to day I doubt the need to give him that designation.
The Messiah is a Jewish expectation.
I prefer to leave it at that.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Or so we should assume. We don't have documents from the early Jesus-sect, only from the Romanized later version. The Gospels were written after the diaspora, supposedly recorded from memory of the followers, but we can't know for sure.
Because they're written words and were cleaned-up over the years that ensued. The point of the OP isn't if Jesus existed or not, but if other Jesuses and Messiahs were part of influencing the scripture that later became one united canon (with exception of the canon and books that were rejected because they didn't portray the same Jesus).
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Doesn't change the fact that there were Messiahs and Jesuses doing things at the same time. The probability that one or more influenced the story increases with the number of these "originals".
Which brings us to an important point: names and identification. Here's a world in which so many people have the same name (there weren't nearly as many given names/first names as there are today) and no last names to speak of. How did people keep straight who they were writing or talking about? Through identification formulae. A common method was genitive kinship constructions. Another was nicknames, adjectives, titles, etc. Josephus refers to Jesus using the following: τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ/"the brother of Jesus, (the one called Christ), James by name." Here Josephus seek to identify which James he is talking about; to ensure that this James is not confused with a plethora of others by the same name. So he identifies James using the genitive of kinship: this James is the brother of Jesus. But which Jesus? Josephus ensures that this is clear as well by saying it is not e.g., Jesus son of Damneus or any number of others, but rather the one called Christ.
He doesn't state that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah. He simply uses the fact that this is a unique enough title/identifier to ensure his readers know which Jesus he is talking about.
1) The potential confusion of having many people with the same name wasn't some baffling thing nobody got. Just like today, authors had at their disposal multiple ways to indicate who they were talking about, and did so.
2) People weren't really talking about Christs here and there "dying, revolting, talking, preaching" etc. There were a few messianic claimants, and numerous teachers/leaders who were not, but this doesn't change the documentation we have. People in the first century weren't idiots. They didn't suddenly invent historical fiction and then forget that it was fiction.