There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. As Mockney pointed out the closest is Josephus writing about 60 years later. He mentions that they've 'invented another bleedin' wonderworker down in Galilee' in passing making it clear it was just another scam as far as he was concerned.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Silva went a little bit too far with "he will laugh at you", but there is in no way a consensus that "Jesus" actually existed, whether as the son of God or as man with some ideas about ethics.
I would imagine that Jesus the person certainly existed, but the myths surrounding his life & ministry are obviously 'borrowed'.
But see, you can't make an historical argument based almost solely on speculations about the motivations of people from that period. You need some contemporary historical evidence, and of that there is preciously little when it comes to Jesus.
I wasn't aware of that, but it's interesting though. I'm always intrigued by the stuff Tacitus wrote about the movement.
How many prominent Jewish figures let's say in the period from the 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE were mentioned by contemporary, Roman historians?
feck off with all this "Jesus never existed" shite. People are trying to make a living here.
Bizarre 
But you know what, the way you guys treat Beit Shemesh, Tel Azeka, and Tel Yizre'el, just to mention a few important sites, you'll soon be out of business. I found a bloody shopping trolley and tons of empty beer bottles in one of the trenches at Beit Shemesh, what's up with that shit?
If you look at the major Western ethics and cultures, something definitely happened with Jesus' ethics. The golden rule and the emphasis put on benevolence and charity were not integral to and usually not even part of the morals and ethics of the Ancient Greeks.
Cheap beer, lack of education and the number of archeological sites mean that the occasional pile of rocks isn't properly looked after.
I bet there weren't that many beer bottles in Qumran.
See my question in #326.
True. I spoke to a guy about this anyway, he said it's finances as well, if you want to make something decent out of Tel Yizre'el for example, you need proper parking, toilet facilities, constant supervision, maintenance, and who knows what else, it all just costs too much and frankly not many people really give a damn about some more obscure sites.
That may be true (though I haven't studied it myself), but that doesn't change the fact that historical theories have to be based on some measure of contemporary evidence.
I'm sure there are many myths and legends that are purported to have happened during this time period that aren't reported by contemporary works either. Only Jesus gets the special treatment that he is assumed to have lived almost from no basis at all (Not only Jesus, obviously, but more or less).
In fact, the location of some fascinating findings is kept secret and they are covered again after being studied to prevent robbery or pure vandalism. It could take years, if at all, before they are revealed again and opened to the general public.
The gospels present a very contemporary evidence. They have a good history and geography, they are very authentic in describing the various social classes, the religious authorities, the Roman authorities, the religious observance and practice of common people and the upper class, the economy and currency, the language (although written in Greek there seem to have existed an original Hebrew text as many idioms in the gospels make more sense if spoken in Hebrew than they do in Greek), there's tons of information about the typical day-to-day Jewish life under Roman occupation in the 1st century Judea.
And in all this you have a rabbi and his group of followers walking around and interacting with people from Galilee, Samaria, and Judea, on a limited territory and for a very short period of time. This scenario is so authentic and plausible that it's almost boring. You could ask why on earth would any Roman historian even bother recording it?
Well, I actually agree with you there for the most part, though that's not really conclusive enough for anyone to say "From what I've gone through, there's no doubt"...Which implies there's something you've uncovered that actually points definitively towards it...That's just an educated opinion gathered from your assessment of the probable motivations of people 2,000 years ago..
As it happens I share your educated opinion..I'm certainly not a Jesus myther. But again, on the grounds that it's a sensible opinion that it would've been far easier and convenient to aggrandise an existing figure than make up an entirely fictional prophet when there were lots of that ilk to chose from... Although I'm obviously anti-religion, I'm not that blinkered to think it was created that cynically..
Even L.Ron Hubbard & Joseph Smith weren't stupid enough to invent entirely fictional prophets...Thought they were stupid enough to make them themselves, and both invented a whole opus of silly fictional characters and people believed them, so it's not completely without precedent...
But yes, it's certainly plausible and reasonable to image that someone called Jesus possibly existed, and had some problems with the Romans and was killed...Though there's still absolutely no conclusive evidence for this beyond it being "sensibly plausible."...
From my perspective, the same "sensibly plausible educated opinions" would lead you to conclude that things written about a man hundreds of years after his death, by people who didn't even know him, recounted 2nd hand from some people who supposedly worshiped him, years later, would be spurious at best, and taken with a pinch of salt even today...So when you add in the fact it was 2,000 years ago, when there was a pittance of the verifiable information with which to assess it's worth as there was even in later Ancient times when figures like King Arthur or Robin Hood had probably fictional legends created about them, and I'd say it was a "sensibly plausible educated opinion" that you couldn't really believe any of it...And as such, it's "without doubt" complete bollocks.
Thats a very good post and explains my views better than I probably could myself.
On the balance of probability, it more than likely that a person called Jesus existed, called himself a prophet. However, most of the stories about him are probably made up.
You'd have to say the same about Mohammed as well I guess. I remember trying to research historical sources other than the Quran (which seems to contain some references as to his personal circumstances) for him a couple of years back out of curiosity and most biographies are written at least a hundred years later.
Just a remark regarding the recording timescale, I'm sure you know that there's solid scholarship which places Mark at around 70AD but definitely before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. I'd recommend taking a look at Prof. Dale Martin's lecture on Mark from the historical-critical point of view, a part from the Yale University courses, very interesting and informative: link here Class sessions — Open Yale Courses
If we assume the existence of Q then it's even earlier, obviously.
As for my 'without doubt', you're right, it's would be better phrased as 'so far my research has led me to this and that conclusion'. Fair point.
Now you want to adduce a non-existent document as a primary historical source?
No. Mark is sufficient. However, there's reasonable support for the idea that a Hebrew/Aramaic original served as the original transcript before being translated and written down in Greek.
It seems more likely that Q was an oral tradition, hence being soundbite based and having no extant copies.
Lots, and that's the point. Indeed, many relatively inconsequential locals of the time get a mention in contemporary historical documents. As such it beggars belief that someone supposedly as prominent an activist/preacher as human Jesus doesn't merit a word. Even if the quote in Tacitus is not a later interpolation at best it is his repeating what he has been told i.e. it is not first hand evidence from a relaible source.
And if the human Jesus really did exist but wasn't prominent enough to merit a mention by any of the hundred or more historians of the period whose writings survive then the Gospels themselves must be fiction.
Can you name any of those inconsequential locals and the historians that mention them?
What exactly "must be" fiction in the gospels (in regards to his historicity)?
What exactly "must be" fiction in the gospels (in regards to his historicity)?
None of the miracles, the trial and cricifiction, not even Herods slaying of the innocents rate a mention by Philo, Josephus et al. All are silent on the subject of Jesus. For example, Justus of Tiberius was a Galileean, and wrote a history covering the time of Christ's supposed lifetime. The work itself hasn't survived, but Photius, a renowned Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who knew it, says: "He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).
Indeed, none the earliest Christian writers make mention of a human Jesus. Just as tellingly none of these devotees show any inclination to make a pilgrimage to his birth place or any places of his ministry.
As to the [relatively] inconsequential locals who rate a mention there are many. But more tellingly is that John the Baptist, another big deal of the era, does get mentioned, whist Jesus the Messiah and miracle worker with thousands of followers doesn't.
Try this thread for discussion and to save me repeating
Remsberg Redux: should anyone have written about Jesus split from early apocalypse - FRDB
Rich
I have always regarded Saul of Tarsus as the key to this subject (which I have followed with interest in this thread, but decided a couple of years ago that I would refrain from making any more contributions to religious threads, as essentially one is wasting one's breath). Get him and you get the Christ-myth. The only more or less first-hand sources of the NT are the accredited letters of St Paul. He peddled his ideas and they were based on the Jesus figure. He wrote and spoke of him as an historical figure, in Jerusalem (eventually) and managed to fall foul of Jesus' own family, especially James the Just, Jesus' brother.
It would have been very difficult for Paul to have promoted his ideas successfully had there been no awareness among the local people that the figure he sought to portray as the focal point of his new theologising was real. Had he made this character up, he would have come up against the first major hurdle of people asking 'who?' Thus I feel we have the confirmation of the reality of Jesus as an historical figure; Paul/Saul chose someone well-known in Jewish circles at least. Perhaps he had a local renown as one of the many messiah-candidates around at that time. Possibly he was a freedom-fighter or insurgent (all mthe messiah was expected to do according to Jewish prophesy was to lead them out of subjection).
Indeed Robert Eisenman has written two works (esp. 'James the Brother of Jesus', Watkins, London, 2002) exploring the evidence, and interpreting the 'hidden' evidence contained in the Gospels, in a way which reveals that James was a far more historically solid figure than his brother. And because James seems to have accepted his designation by Paul as 'the brother of the Lord' without demurring, this goes a long way towards establishing Jesus' reality.
The trouble was, of course, that what Paul was trying to lay on Jesus clearly infuriated James and the rest of his family (brother Simon anyhow - his possible twin Jude/Judas was already dead - and that, as they say, is very likely the nub or crux of the matter).
It would have been very difficult for Paul to have promoted his ideas successfully had there been no awareness among the local people that the figure he sought to portray as the focal point of his new theologising was real. Had he made this character up, he would have come up against the first major hurdle of people asking 'who?' Thus I feel we have the confirmation of the reality of Jesus as an historical figure; Paul/Saul chose someone well-known in Jewish circles at least. Perhaps he had a local renown as one of the many messiah-candidates around at that time. Possibly he was a freedom-fighter or insurgent (all mthe messiah was expected to do according to Jewish prophesy was to lead them out of subjection).
Indeed Robert Eisenman has written two works (esp. 'James the Brother of Jesus', Watkins, London, 2002) exploring the evidence, and interpreting the 'hidden' evidence contained in the Gospels, in a way which reveals that James was a far more historically solid figure than his brother. And because James seems to have accepted his designation by Paul as 'the brother of the Lord' without demurring, this goes a long way towards establishing Jesus' reality.
The trouble was, of course, that what Paul was trying to lay on Jesus clearly infuriated James and the rest of his family (brother Simon anyhow - his possible twin Jude/Judas was already dead - and that, as they say, is very likely the nub or crux of the matter).
This is brilliant by Hitchens (and C.S. Lewis). He explains why, even if it could be proven, the Christians still would have all their work ahead of them even if Jesus lived.
Hmm... you have to take into account Paul's target audience, which was primarily a bunch of Greeks.
Also, you're talking as if James is himself a solid historical figure, but we know very little about him either. Certainly the idea that he was Jesus' brother is far from clear.
Personally I come down on the side that there probably was a rabbi called Joshua who was the main template for Jesus. But if I had to guess whether, when Paul referred to the guy who headed the apocalyptic sect that grew up around him in Jerusalem as 'Brother of the Lord', he meant he was really his brother, or he was just buttering him up, I'd go for the latter.
It seems like an irrelevant debate to me because either Jesus was a complete fabrication or he was an actual person or composite of more than one person upon which an almost complete fabrication was hung.
Jesus is as much of a historical figure as every other son of god.
Jesus mythsIsn't this precisely what Jesus myths are? Suggesting that the early Christians, in particular Paul, made the whole thing up for personal gain or power or something? I mean if it is all made up someone must have got something out of it. Yet three of the key figures in the early church (Paul, Peter, James) were killed for their beliefs. There was a lot of persecution of the early Christians. They were suffering for their beliefs.
Yes, the Greek-speaking goyim were the recipients of his main pitch. I still feel there would have been a credibility problem though if he'd just invented a figure. And indeed why do so? There were enough dead Jews who'd achieved a certain notoriety for him to select. Why kick off with such a major initial obstacle as preaching about a non-existent figure? Especially with such a radical theology as Saul's. Far better to choose someone reasonably - but not too - well-known from the recent past to use. If, as is the case, your totally new ideas (at least within the context of the Jewish religion) incorporate a novel relationship between the Jewish deity and a man - not that of prophet, but a species of god-anointed messiah, far different from that described in Daniel - it is surely wise to kick off with someone about whom something is known by people from within the original, first-covenant faith.
As for James, of course, the whole matter is in the realms of speculation. The Christian church, however, was sufficiently rattled by the traditions of Jesus having three brothers to re-invenmt them as cousins, in order to facilitate their new doctrine of a mother who was not just a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth, but perpetually so. These traditions are, surely, the tendenz of biblical scholarship. The existence of brothers of Christ is monstrously inconvenient, ergo they surely existed: no such tradition would have crept into a 'clean' theology starting from scratch. They were his brothers, and the church had to get around this obstacle. They would certainly not have invented such an obstacle themselves, surely.
You should read Eisenman. He makes a convincing case for the reality of James.
Alright, you know more about it than me and used the word tendenz. I cede authority.
Whatever happened to the Pharisees anyway? They could have been big. Shame, the world could do with more crazy middle-eastern religions.
Whatever happened to the Pharisees anyway? They could have been big. Shame, the world could do with more crazy middle-eastern religions.
it sure could - if you're very bored. Or maybe a commando with a grudge and something to prove. (the Pharisees are a bit like the dippers, no?)
Alive and well in Paris.
Israel scholars say biblical burial box is genuine - Telegraph
The ossuary bears an inscription with the name "Miriam daughter of Yeshua son of Caiaphas, priest of Maaziah from Beth Imri."
An ossuary is a stone chest used to store bones. Caiaphas was a temple priest and an adversary of Jesus who played a key role in his crucifixion.
The Israel Antiquities Authority says the ossuary was seized from tomb robbers three years ago and has since been undergoing analysis. Forgery is common in the world of biblical artefacts.
The IAA says in Wednesday's statement that microscopic tests have confirmed the inscription is "genuine and ancient."
The ossuary bears an inscription with the name "Miriam daughter of Yeshua son of Caiaphas, priest of Maaziah from Beth Imri."
An ossuary is a stone chest used to store bones. Caiaphas was a temple priest and an adversary of Jesus who played a key role in his crucifixion.
The Israel Antiquities Authority says the ossuary was seized from tomb robbers three years ago and has since been undergoing analysis. Forgery is common in the world of biblical artefacts.
The IAA says in Wednesday's statement that microscopic tests have confirmed the inscription is "genuine and ancient."
The cynic in me wonders how a 2000 year old box contains a document only put together 1600 years ago.
I know this debate is old and tiresome, but for the first time in my life I've actually sat down with some Christians and had a good old chat about God. I was the only atheist there, so it was always going to be a fairly one sided argument, but even with my most open of minds I had to conclude that most of what they spout is total bullshit. And I wanted to say it, I did, that some of their arguments make no sense, but they seemed fairly happy about attending Church this morning and getting closer to God so I didn't bother them.
Then they decided between them about which mass to go to. They didn't enjoy the one last week where they 'seem to want to have a high with God' so they changed this week.
It's not like they aren't intelligent either, they just seemed really brainwashed, coming up with stuff like 'I believe in micro-evolution but not macro' and 'I am created in the image of the Lord'.
Does it make them feel more important or make life seem worthwhile? I'm guessing that is the only reason why people still believe, that they are just clinging on to the hope that our existence isn't (totally) pointless.
Then they decided between them about which mass to go to. They didn't enjoy the one last week where they 'seem to want to have a high with God' so they changed this week.
It's not like they aren't intelligent either, they just seemed really brainwashed, coming up with stuff like 'I believe in micro-evolution but not macro' and 'I am created in the image of the Lord'.
Does it make them feel more important or make life seem worthwhile? I'm guessing that is the only reason why people still believe, that they are just clinging on to the hope that our existence isn't (totally) pointless.