As a Christian, I would hold that it was I that crucified Jesus because He hung on the cross for my sins.
-
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!
Your POV on the historical Jesus
- Thread starter Galateasdream
- Start date
I would just hold the position that the New Testament shares.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, ... now you've stumped me.
Initially, when you posted this:
I assumed that you were talking about books of history, not romantic poetry, pure fiction, or speeches, and the like. But apparently your term "actual history" is either a very technical term used by historiologists/historiographers or it's an undefined term.
Do you want to help me out by telling me either where you got that term or how you define it?
Jim
Nets of Wonder
What I mean by “actual history” is what is currently considered as actual history by historians using current methodologies.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Maybe I should have said, current conceptions of actual history. What I meant was whatever current methodologies are aiming for, in writing about history. Discussions about the historicity of Jesus only make sense in a context where historians are denying or questioning the reliability of Papias and Clement for example, and the sources they used, for writing history. That didn’t happen in Christian societies until after the Bible was compiled.
The existence of an historical Jesus can't be ruled out.
On that scenario, Paul was right to say that followers of a real Jesus existed as a Jewish sect around 30 CE. Who he was is more difficult to say, and what anyone knew about him is harder still. Historical method discloses one rather persuasive datum ─ In the gospels, with only one exception, Jesus never mentions his mother except in the nastiest terms: Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 10:35, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26.
Paul says plainly at Galatians 1:11 that he never met an historical Jesus and was never instructed about him by other people. Instead he had a vision ─ that is, everything Paul tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head.
But was there a list of sayings attributed to Jesus, which might be detected in Mark, and as the Q hypothesis suggests for Matthew and Luke? Crossan (a believer), not limiting himself just to the NT, thinks there was, but concludes that precisely which biblical sayings might be authentic can only be guessed at, some guesses having a more promising foundation than others.
(His book The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant concludes: "This book, then, is a scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus ... one could surely offer divergent interpretative conclusions [to mine] ... But one cannot dismiss it or the search for the historical Jesus as mere reconstruction, as if reconstruction somehow invalidated the entire project. Because there is only reconstruction ... If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in.")
As a Bart Ehrman fan, I was sorry to be less than persuaded by his Did Jesus Exist? (2012). It seems principally to rely on the same two things that always seem to be offered: Jesus exists in history because nearly all academics think he did; and Jesus exists in history because Paul refers to James the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19), and either emphasizes the point, or undermines his own credibility, depending on your view, by adding "(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)" Unfortunately, Paul also used the like expression for others who plainly were not blood kin of Jesus, so even accepted at face value it's not decisive.
So how does doubt arise in the first place? First, by noticing that nowhere in the NT is there even one eyewitness account of an historical Jesus (visions don't count, of course). Nor is there even one contemporary record of him, even though if the gospels are to be believed, he was involved in a trial that involved not only the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish authorities, but the Roman Prefect himself and in person ─ such matters didn't go unnoticed, yet this one did.
Then there's the chronology. Jesus is generally taken to have been crucified in 30 CE. The first time we meet Jesus in history is in the letters of Paul, written between 51 and (max) 58 CE. (The authenticity of these letters is also disputed, since they were apparently unknown until they were produced in support of Marcion, leader of a gnostic branch of Christians, during Marcion's 2nd century arguments with what are now more mainstream Christians; and Paul is a gnostic. However, I find the character of Paul rather convincingly human, so I don't rush to conclude he's fictitious.)
Paul never met Jesus, and his earthly biography of Jesus fits in a couple of lines ─ Jewish (no parents mentioned), descended from David, had a ministry and followers, preached the Endtimes, introduced the Eucharist, was arrested and crucified (no reason given) and buried.
Not till we get to Mark around 75 CE do we get the only biography of Jesus we have. The author of Mark is not of Paul's school. His Jesus is born of fully human Jewish parents, his birth was not foretold, he's not a descendant of David, his upbringing draws no remarks, and he isn't noticed until John the Baptist washes away his sins, whereupon the heavens open and God adopts him as his son, just as God adopts David as his son in Psalm 2:7 (a point made explicit in Acts 13:33). The author of Mark moves Jesus through a series of episodes that can be mapped onto passages of the Tanakh, as the author takes them to be messianic prophecies, and that's a major part of the problem ─ you don't need an historical Jesus to write a book like Mark.
Then the authors of Matthew, Luke and, at a greater remove, John, take Mark and add to, delete from, and alter it as seems best to each author, including again much fulfillment of purported prophecies. Jesus is no longer a son of Jewish parents. He's got God's Y-chromosome in Matthew and Luke. John's Jesus is gnostic like Paul's ─ both pre-exist in heaven with God, create the material universe, and come to earth to mediate between God and man.
And since Mark doesn't demand an historical Jesus to account for its existence, neither do the other gospels.
If there was one, and if anything about him is reflected in Paul and/or the gospels, then it appears that he was Jewish, from out of town, preached the endtimes like John the Baptist, and was crucified by the Romans.
But then again, Paul (it's thought) is quoting a very early Christian document not of his own making in Philippians 2:6-11, sometimes called the 'Kenosis hymn'. If you read verses 8 and 9 carefully, you'll notice they say that Jesus was not called Jesus till after his death, a sort of title (Yehoshua / Yeshua / Joshua) meaning 'the Lord is Salvation').
And just to stimulate your thoughts, I'll add that the 'hymn' is written as Greek poetry, that is, its lines have a particular scansion; and the scansion is broken by the words in verse 8 "even death on a cross", indicating that they were added later ─ thereby opening up the possibility (not more) that the idea of Jesus dying on the cross were not part of the original tradition.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
He was a real person.
Yes.
He was a very capable handworker, healer and he believed that the Priesthood should be above greed, disloyalty, corruption, etc, which it sadly was not.
He picked up the Baptist's mission after that great man was arrested, and he tried his best to carry it forward in the Galilee and (later) in Jerusalem.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Sorry, I should have said, current conceptions of actual history, whatever current methodologies are aiming for, in writing history.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
My “now Jesus” is the one in the gospel stories, no matter how much or how little in them ever actually happened.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Oh, I have no doubts about Jesus 2000 years ago. Such a great soul, anything they attributed to Him I believe to be possible (even more)
Searching in the past won't give any answers, unless one is omnipresent (living in past or present; not so many)
Searching in the heart can reveal "Jesus" now and here. Hence I said "easier".
That is very generous of you to stand up and take responsibility. I’m sure the Jews will breathe a huge sigh of relief that after two thousand years the Christians are finally stepping up!As a Christian, I would hold that it was I that crucified Jesus because He hung on the cross for my sins.
Augustus
…
???
Well, there goes the neighborhood... bye, bye, guys ....
You wouldn't happen to be a College Classics Major dropout, would you?
Classical periodHellenistic period
- Herodotus (484 BC – c. 420 BC), Halicarnassus, wrote the Histories that established Western historiography.
- Thucydides (460 BC – c. 400 BC), Peloponnesian War
- Xenophon (431 BC – c. 360 BC), Athenian knight and student of Socrates
- Ctesias (early 4th century BC), Greek historian of Assyrian, Persian, and Indian history
Roman Empire
- Theopompus (c. 380 BC – c. 315 BC), Greek history
- Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370 – c. 300 BC), Greek historian of science
- Ptolemy I Soter (367 BC – c. 283 BC), general of Alexander the Great, founder of Ptolemaic Dynasty
- Duris of Samos (c. 350 BC – after 281 BC), Greek history
- Berossus (early 3rd century BC), Babylonian historian
- Timaeus of Tauromenium (c. 345 BC – c. 250 BC), Greek history
- Manetho (3rd century BC), Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian: Tjebnutjer) who lived during the Ptolemaic era
- Quintus Fabius Pictor (c. 254 BC – unknown date), Roman history
- Artapanus of Alexandria (late 3rd to early 2nd centuries BC), Jewish historian of Ptolemaic Egypt
- Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), Roman statesman and historian, author of the Origines
- Cincius Alimentus (late 2nd century BC), Roman history
- Gaius Acilius (fl. 155 BC), Roman history
- Agatharchides (fl. mid-2nd century BC), Greek history
- Polybius (203 BC – c. 120 BC), early Roman history (in Greek)
- Sempronius Asellio (c. 158 – after 91 BC), early Roman history
- Valerius Antias (1st century BC), Roman history
- Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius (1st century BC), Roman history
- Diodorus of Sicily (1st century BC), Greek history
- Posidonius (c. 135 BC – 51 BC), Greek and Roman history
- Theophanes of Mytilene (fl. mid 1st-century BC), Roman history
- Julius Caesar (100 BC – c. 44 BC), Gallic and civil wars
- Sallust (86 BC–34 BC), Roman history
- Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 BC – after 7 BC), Roman history
- Livy (c. 59 BC – c. 17 AD), Roman history
- Memnon of Heraclea (fl. 1st century AD), Greek and Roman history
- Strabo (63 BC - 24 AD), geography, Greek history
- Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC – c. 31 AD), Roman history
- Claudius (10 BC – 54 AD), Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history
- Pamphile of Epidaurus (female historian active during the reign of Nero, r. 54–68), Greek history
- Marcus Cluvius Rufus, (fl. 41–69), Roman history
- Quintus Curtius Rufus (c. 60–70), Greek history
- Flavius Josephus (37–100), Jewish history
- Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD), history of the Getae
- Thallus (early 2nd century AD), Roman history
- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–120), early Roman Empire
- Plutarch (c. 46–120), Parallel Lives of important Greeks and Romans
- Criton of Heraclea (fl. 100), history of the Getae and the Dacian Wars
- Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122), Roman emperors up to the Flavian dynasty
It depends what we mean by 'history'.
Obviously there have been people who have written or talked about the past since time immemorial, so in this sense history has always existed.
If we consider 'history' to be a method of enquiry aimed at presenting historical events as accurately, objectively and as close to the 'truth' as possible then it's a lot less clear cut.
Ancient historians were rarely writing without an ultimate purpose to serve, be it promoting themselves, their patron or engaging in hagiography; illustrating a point of philosophy or ethics; using the past to explain why the present is the way it is, etc. Accuracy was usually less important than narrative: 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'.
As a simple example, Caesar's Gallic Wars was basically an exercise in political PR. Alternatively the Gospels are written as a moralistic and religious narrative aimed at explaining and influencing it's contemporary environment.
(of course modern history is not truly objective or free from agendas, but an imperfect attempt at accuracy is fundamentally different in nature to an approach where accuracy is subsidiary to the primary motivation).
That's the spirit, just call all those theologians with all their studies 'fake news' so you don't have to think too deeply on the subject and can carry on as before.I don't consider you a reliable source.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Right. And I asked Jim, later on, what he meant by his "technical term" "actual history". And this is what he said:
From that I gather that none of the historians in the short list I posted meets his preferred standard. With that I decided that I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Sorry, I’m too cryptic sometimes. When I said “actual history,” I didn’t mean what I personally think actually happened. I meant what is considered as actual history by historians using current methodologies. That’s the only context in Christian societies that I can see where there can be any doubt or question about the historicity of Jesus. In Christian societies in the past, the gospels and the epistles in the Bible were used as sources by historians for writing history, without anyone questioning that.
What I meant was that in Christian societies there wasn’t any concept of history in which there could be any doubt or question about the historicity of Jesus, until long after the Bible was compiled.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes, I'm aware, and my statement is still correct.
Are you aware of how "textual criticism" is not "forensic science" and of how you've just made an appeal to authority fallacy and an ad populum (most scholars believe X)?
At the time of Scripture writing, the overwhelming majority of people thought that Creation was a big, solid, lumpy plane, surrounded by water, with a blue dome over the top. And the sun revolved around it.
What "Most people believe..." isn't necessarily indicative of truth.
Tom
Given the fact that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were all common names at the time, Jesus ben Joseph son of Mary doubtless existed. The only real question is how closely did any of them match the Legend(s) of Christ.
Tom
The most plausible explanation, to me, is that historical Jesus was a combination of social reformer and anti-Roman guerrilla operative in "recruitment" endeavors. AKA "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" depending on your attitude towards Rome.
After His execution, His fellow guerrillas were hardly going to tell Saul of Tarsus about that side of Jesus's Ministry or they'd have wound up on a cross as well. So Saul/Paul based a new religion on the social reformer part of Jesus.
Tom
After His execution, His fellow guerrillas were hardly going to tell Saul of Tarsus about that side of Jesus's Ministry or they'd have wound up on a cross as well. So Saul/Paul based a new religion on the social reformer part of Jesus.
Tom