The Historical Jesus

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Correct.  And the same applies to numerous other historical events and people which secular historians accept as historical.

[Robert F. Smith]

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....

And you base that august declaration on what evidence?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Do you have a document contemporary with Jesus which can be authenticated?

[Questing Beast]

And you base that august declaration on what evidence?

A total lack of evidence to the contrary, where I require such in order to believe in a literal Jesus Christ, or at least a Jesus of Nazareth that later had messiahship pinned on him....

[Abulafia]

Some of the best evidence for a historical Jesus are in the letters of Paul.  We may not believe in all of Paul's theology or outlook, but this is a man who had direct communication (from the genuine letters contained within the NT) with Peter and the Jerusalem contingent, who themselves had walked and talked with Jesus the man.

Who Jesus was is another matter altogether.  But that he existed, that he was baptized by John (most certainly true under the criterion of embarrassment since the later writers attempted to explain away the implications), and that he was crucified (again most certainly true using the criterion of embarrassment - that just wasn't supposed to happen to a Messiah) almost all scholars accept as historical.

[Questing Beast]

But did the Jerusalem apostles/disciples "walk with the man"? Or did they teach a "cosmic" Jesus who had been crucified by "demons"? There is nothing in the letters of Paul, accepted as genuine, that points to Jesus the physical mortal who was executed by Romans. All of that came much later, if we accept what Richard Carrier says about the origins of the "original documents". At the time Christianity arose there were other Hellenized religions who believed in the same kinds of gods who existed "in space" and whose self sacrifices mirrored what Jesus Christ later was asserted to have accomplished for himself and others. The "authority" of the teachers was based on revelation and the scriptures, not on an appeal to historical narrative, and Paul is no exception....

[Duncan]

But did the Jerusalem apostles/disciples "walk with the man"? Or did they teach a "cosmic" Jesus who had been crucified by "demons"? There is nothing in the letters of Paul, accepted as genuine, that points to Jesus the physical mortal who was executed by Romans. All of that came much later, if we accept what Richard Carrier says about the origins of the "original documents". At the time Christianity arose there were other Hellenized religions who believed in the same kinds of gods who existed "in space" and whose self sacrifices mirrored what Jesus Christ later was asserted to have accomplished for himself and others. The "authority" of the teachers was based on revelation and the scriptures, not on an appeal to historical narrative, and Paul is no exception....

 

 

I wonder what Richard Carrier thinks about 1 Corinthians 15, accepted by nearly everyone as authentic.

[Abulafia]

But did the Jerusalem apostles/disciples "walk with the man"? Or did they teach a "cosmic" Jesus who had been crucified by "demons"? There is nothing in the letters of Paul, accepted as genuine, that points to Jesus the physical mortal who was executed by Romans. All of that came much later, if we accept what Richard Carrier says about the origins of the "original documents". At the time Christianity arose there were other Hellenized religions who believed in the same kinds of gods who existed "in space" and whose self sacrifices mirrored what Jesus Christ later was asserted to have accomplished for himself and others. The "authority" of the teachers was based on revelation and the scriptures, not on an appeal to historical narrative, and Paul is no exception....

Oh, I think that the Jerusalem followers most certainly walked and talked with the man Jesus.  Whether they taught a cosmic Jesus is up for grabs but Daniel Boyarin makes a good case (in my opinion) for the Hebrew origin of the 'cosmic' Jesus.   He uses Daniel and Enoch to argue the case.  Interesting stuff.  

Having said that, the Gospel records indicate that the christology of Jesus was debated almost from the beginning.  Was he a man, was he Divine. etc    The writer of Mark saw Jesus one way, and the writer of John saw Jesus in a completely different way in terms of christology.  

The implications of the two almost certain historical events of baptism under John the Baptist and crucifixion under the Romans is something that I would love to delve deeper into.  

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Jewish-Gospels-ebook/dp/B007QXUY6O/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379694077&sr=1-1&keywords=daniel+boyarin

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2013 by Abulafia

[Questing Beast]

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

 

...

He was born c. 69, so was writing about events c. 49, not writing at that early date. Just to clarify....

[Abulafia]

Here's Pliny the Younger discussing the Christians (and the female deaconesses but that's another matter!).

 

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

 

So, for many early christian communities, (not all) a high christology developed quite early.  Pliny is writing to Trajan in about 113CE.  



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

 

[Questing Beast]

I wonder what Richard Carrier thinks about 1 Corinthians 15, accepted by nearly everyone as authentic.

As I recall the lecture, 1 Corinthians 15 fits into Carrier's examples of the Jesus who lives and dies and is resurrected "in space", "beneath the moon", etc. He sees no evidence or need for a physical or mortal Jesus in Paul's teaching, but only a scriptural and revealed Jesus. All of the visitations by the resurrected Jesus are "hallucinated", i.e. seen in vision or revelations. Carrier draws modern examples of how such things rapidly become much bigger stories and myths. If in this day and age of communication such things can occur and obtain followers/believers, how much more likely was it in the time of the early religions? (words to that effect)

 

All that aside, I think the topic of this thread is going to wind up unchanged: most people are going to accept that Jesus actually lived in history, and the arguments are going to surround the implication of that reality, not questioning it as Carrier does. His assertions are not new, and he wants to sell books, "So, what else is new?" ...

[mfbukowski]

Just a note on methodology here:

 

It is very curious to me that everyone here seems to implicitly assert that to believe in a historical Jesus, one should see what the "secular historians" have to say on the subject, kind of conceding that the secular view, is the "worst case scenario" for believers, but "we are still safe because even secular historians say he existed".

 

The argument appears to be "Well, even the secular historians agree that Jesus existed, so there is something to the story of Jesus".  Their faith in essence ends up hanging on the words of secular historians.

 

Yet no one seems to take the other worst case scenario- what do we do if there was NO evidence of Jesus?  Certainly there still remains the question, regardless of whether or not there was a real man Jesus, of whether or not he was the Messiah, and died for our sins, etc.

 

I just don't see the logic of why the question of his historical existence is thought to be important.

 

To me, the real question is why or why not should we believe in the spiritual teachings we have from "Jesus" REGARDLESS of whether or not he existed.

 

Are we really ready to hang all our beliefs on the shaky sands of what secular historians have to say about it all?

 

We are missing the point entirely, in my opinion.

Edited September 20, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Questing Beast]

...

 

Are we really ready to hang all our beliefs on the shaky sands of what secular historians have to say about it all?

 

We are missing the point entirely, in my opinion.

I don't see myself doing that at any point. My problem, at an early age, was trying to wrap my mind around the fundamental concepts of Christianity: fallen man in a "garden" setting that I could not literally believe in, so I accepted that "the fall" was not literal either, just making a point of comparision to mortals and Immortals, especially GtF, et al. "celestial" beings; then we have prophecy for thousands of years leading up to Jesus the Christ, all broken down into "dispensations" of the gospel, etc; followed by an almost immediate dissolution of the "true church" into apostasy, and this "long night" lasting clear until c. 1820. I know that asking why is like being a little child. But I always asked "why"? And I have received no satisfying answer to any question. Now I accept that religion is exactly what Carrier asserts it to be: manmade. But I don't care what his agenda is for needing to believe that. My "agenda" is to make the most sense out of this world of humans. And I don't see any superiority of any religion over another, or none at all. "Atheists" are quite as moral and ethical as religious people, for instance.

 

"God" works with each person one on one and always has and always does. So what religion you belong to or none at all is immaterial in the eternal scheme of existence. We are what we need to be at the moment and we learn about "God" from everything that happens. We learn about Existence. "God" can "save" anyone. This puts Christianity into the superfluous category. Everything specific is superfluous. I mean that everything asserted by humans to be necessary or required or "core", at the expense of differing or conflicting notions, is superfluous. The ONLY thing that matters is being true to your inner light: "Never lie to yourself". Once I am committed to this core tenet, I cannot willingly do what feels wrong. Information validating the feeling is not required or even forthcoming "on the ground" as it were. I just have to be willing to be true to my authentic self above all else. Then time and experience will purify "truth" for me. At some point, I believe (have faith) that every single soul will admit the reality of "God" and include "God" in that core belief of remaining true to the authentic self: then really beneficial advancements are made from that point on. Including "God" in all thought processes admits that the Source or Cause of Existence in the first place is interested in my life and has always been guiding me. Now that I accept this as reality, I am consciously not alone but have a Counselor and potential Soul-mate.

 

Jesus Christ is the most potent personification of this relationship to rise in human history. But perhaps "he" has had his day? Perhaps the individual "soul-mate" relationship with "God" is going to supplant organized dogma for the masses....

Edited September 20, 2013 by Questing Beast

[halconero]

I'll post some stuff I'm working with for an Early Christian Writings class that I'm taking right now for a minor, but I'm limited (the internet at our new apartment isn't hooked up yet. This is being posted from the big M's steakhouse downstairs).

 

My favourite quote concerning the historicity of Jesus comes from Will Durant:

 

"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels"

[mfbukowski]

Luke 17:20-21

King James Version (KJV)

²⁰ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

²¹ Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[Duncan]

As I recall the lecture, 1 Corinthians 15 fits into Carrier's examples of the Jesus who lives and dies and is resurrected "in space", "beneath the moon", etc. He sees no evidence or need for a physical or mortal Jesus in Paul's teaching, but only a scriptural and revealed Jesus. All of the visitations by the resurrected Jesus are "hallucinated", i.e. seen in vision or revelations. Carrier draws modern examples of how such things rapidly become much bigger stories and myths. If in this day and age of communication such things can occur and obtain followers/believers, how much more likely was it in the time of the early religions? (words to that effect)

 

All that aside, I think the topic of this thread is going to wind up unchanged: most people are going to accept that Jesus actually lived in history, and the arguments are going to surround the implication of that reality, not questioning it as Carrier does. His assertions are not new, and he wants to sell books, "So, what else is new?" ...

 

 

true, true but Luke 24 to me anyways and to you I assume defies this mystical Jesus nothing more then visitation business

[Questing Beast]

Luke 24 is part of the much later historical positioning of Jesus....

[Duncan]

Luke 24 is part of the much later historical positioning of Jesus....

 

 

says who? and why would "they" do that? I wonder why people would ramp up Jesus if he failed in what they expected from him?

[Robert F. Smith]

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."

.Thanks for that.  I wasn't aware of it.

Flusser was one of the most respectful toward Christians of any scholar.  Some of his other works, for those interested:

 

Flusser, David, “Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum,” G. Alon Memorial Volume (Tel Aviv, 1970), 133-168  (Hebrew).

 

Flusser, David, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (Sifriat Poalim, 1979), (Hebrew).

 

Flusser, David, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern, 1981).

 

Flusser, David, ed., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, 1988).

 

Flusser, David, Das Christentum--eine jüdische Religion (Munich, 1990).

 

Flusser, David, Jesus, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Hebrew University/ Magnes Press, 1997).

[volgadon]

 

 

Flusser, David, Jesus, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Hebrew University/ Magnes Press, 1997).

 

 

That is the book. Well worth it for the chapter on the kingdom of heaven alone.

[Tacenda]

Luke 17:20-21

King James Version (KJV)

²⁰ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

²¹ Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Lovely posts, MF and Halconero! ♥ Edited September 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

I'll post some stuff I'm working with for an Early Christian Writings class that I'm taking right now for a minor, but I'm limited (the internet at our new apartment isn't hooked up yet. This is being posted from the big M's steakhouse downstairs).

 

My favourite quote concerning the historicity of Jesus comes from Will Durant:

 

"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels"

This is also the way I view Jospeh Smith's "writing".

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus' death, so he wasn't contemporaneous.

Edited September 21, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[bcuzbcuz]

Wasn't He also mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius?

Neither Tacitus, nor Suetonius were alive at the time of Christ so their writings were not contemporaneous.

[volgadon]

Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus' death, so he wasn't contemporaneous.

 

If we accept the 37 CE birthdate for Josephus, then he lived well within the time of people who would have known Jesus.