The Historical Jesus

[Rivers]

I've been under the impression that most New Testament scholars believe that Jesus was a real historical person even if many don't believe in his divinity.  I have never heard of any persuasive argument for the non-historicity of Jesus until I came across this video.  It is really long but the gist of the this historian's argument is that Jesus was a mythological celestial figure who was later turned into a historical person. This video brought up a lot of interesting ideas that I've never heard before.  I don't know if I can ever read the New Testament the same way after watching this. is anybody else familiar with this guy's line of thinking?  Any good rebuttals?

 

Edited September 19, 2013 by Rivers

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Buzzard]

If I understand correctly, the reason some scholars posit is that Jesus is not real because of imperfect paralells between his story and attributes and the stories of other contemperary religious groups.

With our understanding of the dispensations of the gospel, it seems more probable that these other paralells were apostate remnants of the gospel as revealed to ancient prophets. Of course, if you don't have that perspective, the mythical alternative becomes more plausible.

[Freedom]

There is  no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus. There is mention of a few reformist type preachers at the same time as Jesus, but nobody mentions the Savior at any time. His chronology as laid out in the scriptures does not match what is known from secular records. Many scholars assume he was a real person out of tradition and loyalty to the bible. The same problems that beset the Book of Mormon, however, also beset the New Testament. We just have to take it on faith and rely on personal revelation to confirm the reality of a redeemer.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Freedom

[Robert F. Smith]

There is  contemporaneous evidence of Jesus. There is mention of a few reformist type preachers at the same time as Jesus, but nobody mentions the Savior at any time. His chronology as laid out in the scriptures does not match what is known from secular records. Many scholars assume he was a real person out of tradition and loyalty to the bible. The same problems that beset the Book of Mormon, however, also beset the New Testament. We just have to take it on faith and rely on personal revelation to confirm the reality of a redeemer.

Confirming the reality of a redeemer is not the same thing as confirming the reality of a guy named Jesus.  Even Jews generally believe in a guy called Jesus who was not the son of God, and they blame Paul for inventing that eschatological Jesus as Messiah.  Tradition and loyalty to the Bible has nothing to do with scholarly appraisals.  Since most records from that period have been lost, we can't expect to read official Roman or Sanhedrin reports about him.

Jews do talk about several other rabbis who were contemporary with Jesus, and about whom secular records also do not exist, but no one doubts they existed:  Rab Hillel, and Honi haMeagel.  The last was Honi the Circle-Maker, a Galilean miracle-worker who received his moniker from his habit of bargaining with God -- so that when there was a drought and famine in the land, he would draw a circle stand inside it and beg God to send rain.  He also added that, if God did not send rain, he would simply stay in that circle until he died.  Since God loved Honi, he would send rain.

[why me]

We need to remember that Jesus also had a brother named James who lead the church in Jerusaluem. It is difficult to claim that Jesus never existed, espeically since he is mentioned briefly by josephus. What can be claimed is that he was not at all divine but a man who gathered a small following and that he had very little impact when alive. Also, his miracles were so not miraclous since his disciples did not exactly believe in him until he appeared as a resurrected being.

[why me]

There is  contemporaneous evidence of Jesus. There is mention of a few reformist type preachers at the same time as Jesus, but nobody mentions the Savior at any time. His chronology as laid out in the scriptures does not match what is known from secular records. Many scholars assume he was a real person out of tradition and loyalty to the bible. The same problems that beset the Book of Mormon, however, also beset the New Testament. We just have to take it on faith and rely on personal revelation to confirm the reality of a redeemer.

The NT is not a historical text at all but a loosely put together series of narratives. Also, these narratives were written with a particular audience in mind: the early christian community. Because of this we have a very faith promoting series of narratives which excludes any information that may be considered non-faith promoting. The gospel writers did a wonderful job in writing such narratives. The problem of course comes with their intent and contradictions. The key to the narratives is to show that jesus was divine and not just a man.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've been under the impression that most New Testament scholars believe that Jesus was a real historical person even if many don't believe in his divinity.  I have never heard of any persuasive argument for the non-historicity of Jesus until I came across this video.  It is really long but the gist of the this historian's argument is that Jesus was a mythological celestial figure who was later turned into a historical person. This video brought up a lot of interesting ideas that I've never heard before.  I don't know if I can ever read the New Testament the same way after watching this. is anybody else familiar with this guy's line of thinking?  Any good rebuttals?

....................................................   

Thanks for the video, Rivers.

Richard Carrier does bring more detail and intensity to the debate, but there is really nothing new here.  We can no more "prove" the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, or many another biblical figure, than we can "prove" the existence of Jesus.

 

We've long known about the dying & rising gods.  C. S. Lewis even decided to become a Christian while having a discussion about dying & rising gods with a fellow atheist at Oxford Univ. (both he and his colleague were professors there).  Carrier gives short shrift to Lewis' notion that the Jesus instance was the one authentic case.  The commonality among these stories is not a scandal, but should alert us to the ancient and authentic nature of the stories, which Mormons believe come down from hoary antiquity.

 

Carrier is a Classicist, and as such follows a now outmoded Hellenistic approach to Jesus at a time when most scholars on the cutting edge are busy examining the Jewish roots of Jesus.

 

Still, normative Christians are in trouble, and in Europe in particular Christianity is on the wane -- precisely because it doesn't make sense to a secular mind.  Faith is required, and normative Christians don't really have very much of that any more.

 

Christian theology is irrational and self-destructive so far as rational belief is concerned.  Mormon theology, on the other hand, is rational, comports with Bayes' theorem (which Carrier uses as a weapon against normative Christianity), and posits a wondrous source of the Book of Mormon, which -- if it can be verified to describe actual civilizations (see Sorenson, Mormon's Codex) -- then it is much easier to believe than the Bible, since the Bible came to us via non-miraculous sources of transmission -- leaving it possible to disbelieve in the Bible and Jesus with no self-contradictory residue.

[Stroopwafel]

Because of this we have a very faith promoting series of narratives which excludes any information that may be considered non-faith promoting.

 

"...and adds some more which may be considered as an 'embelishment' of reality."

 

You forgot that part.

 

Faith promoting narratives don't tend to "just" omit certain information...

[Freedom]

Confirming the reality of a redeemer is not the same thing as confirming the reality of a guy named Jesus.  Even Jews generally believe in a guy called Jesus who was not the son of God, and they blame Paul for inventing that eschatological Jesus as Messiah.  Tradition and loyalty to the Bible has nothing to do with scholarly appraisals.  Since most records from that period have been lost, we can't expect to read official Roman or Sanhedrin reports about him.

Jews do talk about several other rabbis who were contemporary with Jesus, and about whom secular records also do not exist, .

In other words, we have no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus.

[Questing Beast]

... This video brought up a lot of interesting ideas that I've never heard before.  I don't know if I can ever read the New Testament the same way after watching this. is anybody else familiar with this guy's line of thinking?  Any good rebuttals?

 

 

I will watch it later. But my immediate response is to refer to the book, "Jesus Outside the New Testament" http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780802843685&cm_mmc=shopcompare-_-paid-_-Google-_-books?ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=9780802843685 which sums up by saying that all of the "gentile", Jewish and apocryphal texts outside the Bible are inferior to what is in the Bible, and "point the reader back to the New Testament" (the Gospels). In other words, after much "introduction" to the extra-biblical sources, the author says in so many words, "forget about finding anything outside the Bible itself that shows Jesus as a literal, or historical person, let alone showing that he was considered by his contemporaries to be "the Christ". The best source for Jesus' divinity and messiah status is the Bible itself. We already knew that, but it is a constant and intriguing effort to find outside evidence for the historical Jesus. Thus far nothing at all convincing or impressive has turned up, imho at any rate....

Edited September 19, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

If I understand correctly, the reason some scholars posit is that Jesus is not real because of imperfect paralells between his story and attributes and the stories of other contemperary religious groups.

With our understanding of the dispensations of the gospel, it seems more probable that these other paralells were apostate remnants of the gospel as revealed to ancient prophets. Of course, if you don't have that perspective, the mythical alternative becomes more plausible.

Exactly, which is the problem, when the LDS faith "falls" to the level of any other manmade religion. There is no historical reality to a "great apostasy" or "dispensations": all of that is history making by the religion makers....

[SargentYork]

We need to remember that Jesus also had a brother named James who lead the church in Jerusaluem. It is difficult to claim that Jesus never existed, espeically since he is mentioned briefly by josephus. What can be claimed is that he was not at all divine but a man who gathered a small following and that he had very little impact when alive. Also, his miracles were so not miraclous since his disciples did not exactly believe in him until he appeared as a resurrected being.

 

Wasn't He also mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius?

[Questing Beast]

...

 

Christian theology is irrational and self-destructive so far as rational belief is concerned.  Mormon theology, on the other hand, is rational, comports with Bayes' theorem (which Carrier uses as a weapon against normative Christianity), and posits a wondrous source of the Book of Mormon, which -- if it can be verified to describe actual civilizations (see Sorenson, Mormon's Codex) -- then it is much easier to believe than the Bible, since the Bible came to us via non-miraculous sources of transmission -- leaving it possible to disbelieve in the Bible and Jesus with no self-contradictory residue.

And that was my condition for decades. I accepted on faith (in what others testified that they "knew") that Jesus Christ was real, based on the BoM confirming the Bible, which book I had always had troubles with in so many areas. When the BoM fails to be historical, so too does the Bible, and the entire "Abrahamic religions" paradigm fails with it. But that doesn't mean that I discount thousands of years of religious influence that has been far more good than bad. And I think that "God" works within what men create as belief structures, constantly working them into better tools for enlightenment. Religions are "fluid" that way....

[Questing Beast]

In other words, we have no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus.

That is correct. All "gentile/Roman" references and all Jewish references and in fact ALL references to Jesus of Nazareth, aka "the Christ", come many years after his death, when the religious sect was already a going concern. By that time the myths were already spread out all over the Roman world....

[SargentYork]

That is correct. All "gentile/Roman" references and all Jewish references and in fact ALL references to Jesus of Nazareth, aka "the Christ", come many years after his death, when the religious sect was already a going concern. By that time the myths were already spread out all over the Roman world....

 

"Many years"?

 

Don't historians generally estimate it taking a little more than years to build a myth?

 

I mean, isn't it generally assumed to take centuries (or at least decades)?

[Duncan]

I can't recall which book I read it in but basically who would have written down what about Jesus and why would that have survived 2000 years? I am under the impression that the literacy rates  were abysmally low. Besides of which wasn't the book of Corinthians written within 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection thus making ch. 15 amazing

[Freedom]

"Many years"?

 

Don't historians generally estimate it taking a little more than years to build a myth?

 

I mean, isn't it generally assumed to take centuries (or at least decades)?

Myths require repeating, not time. Just consider the myths around Paul McCartney's death in the 1960. The earliest mention of Jesus outside the bible is Josephus, and it is referenced in passing. This was written around 90 AD. But to say someone does not exist because there is nothing written about them would mean that nobody existed on the planet prior to written records. We cannot prove he did not exist, nor can we prove he did.

[SargentYork]

Tacitus wrote in 64 A.D. (only about 30 years after the crucifixion), and he wrote this:

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...

[SargentYork]

Suetonius, writing around 49 A.D., wrote:

 

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

 

This ties in with Acts 18:2.

 

There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome...

 

Which may tie in with The Nazareth Inscription.

 

THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION TRANSLATION

 

1. EDICT OF CAESAR

2. It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs—whoever has made

3. them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household

4. members—that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally

5. charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted

6. those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who

7. have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has

8. moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a

9. judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in

10. human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat

11. with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to

12. allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if

13. [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under

14. the title of tomb-breaker.

 

There has been a great deal of scholarly debate about the dating of the Nazareth Inscription. The French scholar M. Franz Cumont, who first published the Nazareth Inscription, placed its date between 50 B.C. and 50 A.D. He based his dating of this rescript on the style of its epigraphy [Cumont 265]. However, the American scholar Frank E. Brown of Yale University argued “… that our inscription comes from the decade after the stamping out of the [Jewish] revolt of 132-135 A.D.” [brown 19]. On the other hand, both Cumont and Prof. F. de Zulueta argued for dating this Inscription in the reign of the Emperor Caesar Augustus, 31 B.C. to 14 A.D. [Cumont 265; Zulueta 186].

M. P. Charlesworth in his book Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero lists the Nazareth Inscription as one issued by Claudius, but writes that it “…is of doubtful provenance and date, but some scholars ascribe it to Claudius” [Charlesworth, 3]. It will be argued in this article that textual evidence and historical synchronisms provide strong support for dating the Nazareth Inscription to the early reign of the Emperor Claudius, 41-54 A.D.

Textual support for dating the Nazareth Inscription to the reign of Claudius is very compelling. But before dealing with this evidence, it is first necessary to deal with a theory, first advanced by Cumont, that the Nazareth Inscription was originally written in Latin and translated into Greek [Cumont 265]. Cumont believed that the translation from Latin into Greek was probably done by the Imperial Chancellery. There is, however, no compelling reason for believing that the Nazareth Inscription was composed originally in Latin. There are other examples of imperial letters written in Greek, which almost certainly were not first composed in Latin.

In the period from the first century B.C. through the first century A.D., almost all educated Romans could speak and write in Greek. It is known from ancient sources that debates in the Roman Senate at times took place in Greek. If the Emperor Claudius was the author of the Nazareth inscription, as this article will argue below, then there are very good reasons for assuming that the original version of the Nazareth Inscription was dictated directly into Greek by Claudius himself...One additional feature must be considered before examining some of the textual evidence for dating the Nazareth Inscription to the reign of Claudius. Cumont correctly noted in his article that the Nazareth Inscription was a “rescrit,” or rescript. When a Roman official wrote a letter of inquiry to the emperor asking some legal or political question, then the emperor would write a rescript letter back answering those questions, and in the process sometimes make law.

One of the best examples of this rescript process is the letter written by the Emperor Trajan [ruled 98-117 A.D] to Pliny the Younger. Governor Pliny the Younger had earlier sent a letter of inquiry to the Emperor Trajan asking for guidance on how to deal with Christians. Pliny the Elder wrote a rescript letter in reply, giving Pliny the Younger legal guidance on how best to proceed in handling Christians [Pliny ii, 400-407].

While the Nazareth Inscription does not give the name of the Emperor who wrote this rescript letter, or the name of the author of the letter of enquiry, there is little doubt that the Nazareth Inscription is an Imperial rescript, as Cumont correctly noted. As will be seen below, an imperial rescript letter could have the force of law and could be referred to in Greek as a “diatagma” or decree, the very Greek word used in the Nazareth Inscription.

The Greek title on the Nazareth Inscription calls it a “Diatagma Kaisaros” or “Decree of Caesar.” In other words, the Nazareth Inscription is an imperial rescript, which had the force of law. However, it should be noted that rescripts were often local in their scope, and that they frequently dealt with unusual legal, religious, or political issues, which had arisen in a specific city or province.

Most rescripts did not have the force of universal law throughout the entire Roman Empire, but were, as was noted above, local in nature. However, on some occasions rescripts could decree universal Roman law. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus provides one rescript letter of Claudius in which the Emperor protected Jewish rights throughout the entire Roman Empire. This rescript letter is given by Josephus in Greek, and it is likely that he found it written in Greek in the imperial chancellery. This rescript has many connections to the Nazareth Inscription and for this reason it is translated in its entirety below. Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribune, Twice-Elected Consul states: King Agrippa and Herod[v], persons dear to me, have asked that I assent to guaranteeing the same rights to the Jews in all the areas under Roman rule, as has been done for those Jews living in Alexandria. Not only do I happily grant this request to those who have asked me, but [i do so] also because I am convinced that [King Agrippa and Herod] are worthy [of having their request granted] and because of their loyalty to and love for the Romans. I especially determine it to be just that no Greek city deny [to the Jews] these same rights, since they were guaranteed to them by the god [Caesar] Augustus. It is therefore fitting that the Jews, in all [parts] of the world ruled by us, be unhindered in observing their ancestral [religious] customs. I also now command [the Jews] that they make use of this my generosity to them in the most reasonable manner [possible] and that they not show contempt for the religious beliefs of other ethnic groups, [but rather] that they obey their own [religious] laws. I also order that the leaders of cities, colonies, and municipalities[vi], both inside and outside of Italy—including kings and dynastic governors, through their own officials—have this my decree [diatagma] engraved [on a stone tablet] and posted outdoors for not less than 30 days in a public place where it can be easily read from paved ground [ Charlesworth, 14; Josephus, AJ, XIX, 5, 3][vii].

It should be noted that the above rescript was called by Claudius a “diatagma” or a “decree,” and that it was to be engraved in stone and publicly posted, just as was also apparently done for the Nazareth Inscription. It is very likely that when this decree on Jewish rights was posted, it was posted in an abridged version. There would be no reason to include the portions of this letter referring to Agrippa and Herod in the publicly posted version of this decree. The poor spacing of the letters in the Nazareth Inscription and its rump or abridged form—which will be discussed below—strongly suggest that it too was intended for public posting.

It should also be noted, in the rescript on Jewish rights translated above, that even kings and dynastic governors were ordered by Claudius to post this decree. This fact destroys the assumptions and consequent arguments used by Frank E. Brown for his dating of the Nazareth Inscription. Brown’s dating of the Nazareth Inscription [mid 2nd century A.D.] was largely based on his assumption that the Nazareth Inscription was as imperial decree and that it therefore could not have been written during the rule of any Jewish king over Galilee. Brown writes:

In the realms of such kings, created and upheld in independence by the emperor and the senate for the purpose of securing the frontiers, no constitution of the emperor was valid [brown 14]. Clearly Brown’s assumption is false, and his consequent arguments for dating the Nazareth Inscription are faulty and unreliable. The Emperor Claudius in the above rescript clearly gives orders to “kings and dynastic governors.” ...The Nazareth Inscription contains words and grammatical structures, which are very similar to those found in several other Greek rescripts of the Emperor Claudius, especially those which in some way deal with the Jews. For example, of the 90 words used in the Nazareth Inscription, the only Greek words or phrases not found in other known rescripts of Claudius are: taphous [graves], tumbous [tombs], ametakinetous [undisturbed], katalelukota [destroyed], kekedeumenous [those entombed], ekserriphota [extracted], dolo ponero, [wicked fraud], katoxus lithous [tomb stealing stones], kriterion [tribunal], metakinesai [move], kephales katakriton [capital punishment], and tumburuxias [tomb-breaker]. Nearly all of these words deal with the specifics of the reason for which this rescript was written, i.e. breaking into tombs, stealing dead bodies, and moving them to other places.

A number of similar phrases are also used in both the Nazareth Inscription and other rescripts of the Emperor Claudius, as the following chart illustrates:
NAZARETH INSCRIPTION OTHER RESCRIPTS OF CLAUDIUS Diatagma Kaisaros mou to diatagma[viii] [Decree of Caesar] [my decree]     threskeias anthropon patrion threskeian[ix] [religious observances of men] [paternal religious observance]     keleuo...medeni keleuo meden[x] [i order that...to no one] [i order that nothing]     kathaper peri [just as concerning gods] theon kathaper ek progonon [just as from parents]     mallon...xre to alethes eipein            mallon deesei tous kekedeumevous timan [moreover it is required to tell the truth] [moreover it is necessary to honor the dead]
This is only a partial list but serves to illustrate that the Nazareth Inscription fits well with the vocabulary and style of the rescripts of the Emperor Claudius...

[SargentYork]

Here's the URL for that last quote.

 

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/the-nazareth-inscription-proof-of-the-resurrection-of-christ.aspx

[SargentYork]

And this is from Mara Bar Sarapion (who wrote around 70 A. D.)

 

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samon gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after this that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews ruined and driven from their land, live in dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.

[SargentYork]

Pliny's Epistle To Trajan About 112 CE

 

Sir,

It is my constant method to apply myself to you for the resolution of all my doubts; for who can better govern my dilatory way of proceeding or instruct my ignorance? I have never been present at the examination of the Christians [by others], on which account I am unacquainted with what uses to be inquired into, and what, and how far they used to be punished; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not a distinction to be made between the ages [of the accused]? and whether tender youth ought to have the same punishment with strong men? Whether there be not room for pardon upon repentance?" or whether it may not be an advantage to one that had been a Christian, that he has forsaken Christianity? Whether the bare name, without any crimes besides, or the crimes adhering to that name, be to be punished? In the meantime, I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished. There have been some of this mad sect whom I took notice of in particular as Roman citizens, that they might be sent to that city. After some time, as is usual in such examinations, the crime spread itself and many more cases came before me. A libel was sent to me, though without an author, containing many names [of persons accused]. These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go. Others of them that were named in the libel, said they were Christians, but presently denied it again; that indeed they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years, some many more; and one there was that said he had not been so these twenty years. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition. Hereupon I have put off any further examinations, and have recourse to you, for the affair seems to be well worth consultation, especially on account of the number of those that are in danger; for there are many of every age, of every rank, and of both sexes, who are now and hereafter likely to be called to account, and to be in danger; for this superstition is spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, but into country villages also, which yet there is reason to hope may be stopped and corrected. To be sure, the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin already to be frequented; and the holy solemnities, which were long intermitted, begin to be revived. The sacrifices begin to sell well everywhere, of which very few purchasers had of late appeared; whereby it is easy to suppose how great a multitude of men may be amended, if place for repentance be admitted.

 

TRAJAN'S EPISTLE TO PLINY

 

My Pliny,

You have taken the method which you ought in examining the causes of those that had been accused as Christians, for indeed no certain and general form of judging can be ordained in this case. These people are not to be sought for; but if they be accused and convicted, they are to be punished; but with this caution, that he who denies himself to be a Christian, and makes it plain that he is not so by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly, may be allowed pardon, upon his repentance. As for libels sent without an author, they ought to have no place in any accusation whatsoever, for that would be a thing of very ill example, and not agreeable to my reign.

Edited September 20, 2013 by SargentYork

[Questing Beast]

"Many years"?

 

Don't historians generally estimate it taking a little more than years to build a myth?

 

I mean, isn't it generally assumed to take centuries (or at least decades)?

Decades will do. There were virtually no living witnesses to the time Jesus was said to have lived, by the time the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. In the video above, the point is made that the insertion into history of Jesus as an earthbound figure only occurred after that time. That Paul, et al. the apostles made their authority come from revelation and the scriptures, not historical witnesses passing down a narrative of an earth life. To them, as with the other Hellenized religions, Jesus was cosmic not earthly. The historicity was added on much later in the Acts and the Gospels....

[volgadon]

Confirming the reality of a redeemer is not the same thing as confirming the reality of a guy named Jesus.  Even Jews generally believe in a guy called Jesus who was not the son of God, and they blame Paul for inventing that eschatological Jesus as Messiah.  Tradition and loyalty to the Bible has nothing to do with scholarly appraisals.  Since most records from that period have been lost, we can't expect to read official Roman or Sanhedrin reports about him.

Jews do talk about several other rabbis who were contemporary with Jesus, and about whom secular records also do not exist, but no one doubts they existed:  Rab Hillel, and Honi haMeagel.  The last was Honi the Circle-Maker, a Galilean miracle-worker who received his moniker from his habit of bargaining with God -- so that when there was a drought and famine in the land, he would draw a circle stand inside it and beg God to send rain.  He also added that, if God did not send rain, he would simply stay in that circle until he died.  Since God loved Honi, he would send rain.

 

 

Very good point about Hillel and Honi. Off the top of my head, I can think of only two sages known to us from archaeological findings outside of the textual record of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmuds. Even when the attributed statements are contested, the existence of the other sages is not.

 

A prominent Jewish scholar of the Second Temple Era, the late David Flusser, has a fascinating book on the historical Jesus.

In his book, Flusser proposes that the meaning or significance of a religious tradition/founder can be reconstructed from what it/he meant to his followers. Surprisingly, Flusser mentions Joseph Smith favourably, as an example of such, and references Fawn Brodie in the footnote.

 

"Even if objective documentation is plentiful, the most genuine sources concerning a charismatic personality are his utterances and the accounts of the faithful - read critically, of course. Together with these, the testimony of outsiders serves as a control. Let us take two modern examples. All that is significant about Joseph Smith (1805-1844), founder of the Mormons, can be learned mostly from his words and from Mormon documents."