The Myth of an Historical Jesus?

[RickSp]

Two interesting discussions of the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. The first, Did a historical Jesus exist? discusses the lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. Not a single contemporary Roman record shows that a Pontius Pilate executed a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus reveal that its authors wrote well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

A second essay, THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS compliments the first by looking at various figures who may be the basis for elements of the Jesus accounts.

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer, which means a shoot or sprout--an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu. Jesus was partly based on Yeishu and ben Stada who probably lived more than a century apart. He was also based on the three false Messiahs, Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, who were crucified by the Romans at various different times.

I find the idea that Nazareth may have been a mistranslation of "Nostri" particularly interesting. The previous link points out that Nazareth in the time when Jesus was said to have been born was not a "city" as represented in the New Testament.

Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though they wrote most of the epistles before the gospels.

Given the Christian propensity for borrowing from other religions, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the story of Jesus was a folkloric amalgam of various other acounts and tales about the sorcerer Yeishu and the Nostrim as well others in the Messianic tradition who lived within several hundred years of each other.

Any thoughts?

[Nono]

First, I have no spiritual, emotional or other stake one way or another.

Why should there be much in the way of historical evidence for a guy who lived 2,000 years ago and didn't, say, have his head printed on recoverable coins or anything? If people can still be debating about whether some fuzzy figure named W. Shakespeare actually wrote any of the things that bear his name, I think one can't be too demanding about historical proof of Jesus's existence.

As for Christianity borrowing heavily, well what's new? Don't they all do it?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono Why should there be much in the way of historical evidence for a guy who lived 2,000 years ago and didn't, say, have his head printed on recoverable coins or anything? If people can still be debating about whether some fuzzy figure named W. Shakespeare actually wrote any of the things that bear his name, I think one can't be too demanding about historical proof of Jesus's existence.

I think this is reasonably well addressed in the first piece:

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5). So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

The culture from which Jesus was said to have come was, for its time, highly literate. The Romans were also prodigious record keepers. Why were there no contemporary references?

In a larger sense, I think it does matter whether there was a historical Jesus, certainly as compared to determining the authorship of a group of plays and sonnets. At least in the case of Shakespeare, there is evidence to argue about. Not so with the historical Jesus.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Two interesting discussions of the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. The first, Did a historical Jesus exist? discusses the lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus. A second essay, THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS compliments the first by looking at various figures who may be the basis for elements of the Jesus accounts. I find the idea that Nazareth may have been a mistranslation of "Nostri" particularly interesting. The previous link points out that Nazareth in the time when Jesus was said to have been born was not a "city" as represented in the New Testament.Given the Christian propensity for borrowing from other religions, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the story of Jesus was a folkloric amalgam of various other acounts and tales about the sorcerer Yeishu and the Nostrim as well others in the Messianic tradition who lived within several hundred years of each other. Any thoughts?

one, Nazereth and Nostri were two different languages. that theory came out years ago, and was debunked years ago. that theory was prior to modern archaeology.
two, a city in the New Testament could have been anywhere from a small shantytown that you could walk through without knowing you were there, to a huge metropolis the size of NY, NY. Nazereth isn't given a size. in fact, most biblical scholars believe that Joseph had a hand in building most of the residences in that city. a person with that kind of monopoly in those times would have to live in a small town.
three, I can debunk every theory about borrowed beliefs based on the very culture of the Jewish people. the Jews were known to be a very proud people. they didn't trade throughout their life prior to the splitting of the nation, and very little trading went on after. even then, prophets wrote of prophets who wrote of prophets, creating a web of information so fragile, that if one went astray, the whole web fell apart. it was like a huge machine, lots of moving parts moving around, but pull one, and the whole thing falls apart. such a fine, thin thread, so easy to break, so currently intact. and in the years after Jesus's life, you would have easier gotten results from asking them to castrate their brother than mix their religions.according to history, after the exile, the Israelites, as a nation, were cured of their idolatry, which had included sacrifice of live babies to flames.
four, what does the Talmud say of the dissappearance and reappearance of Nazareth. cities don't just up and walk away. where did it go?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Nono First, I have no spiritual, emotional or other stake one way or another. Why should there be much in the way of historical evidence for a guy who lived 2,000 years ago and didn't, say, have his head printed on recoverable coins or anything? If people can still be debating about whether some fuzzy figure named W. Shakespeare actually wrote any of the things that bear his name, I think one can't be too demanding about historical proof of Jesus's existence. As for Christianity borrowing heavily, well what's new? Don't they all do it?

well, they don't have Homer's head printed on a coin. none of his autographs (actual first copy of his work, the original). what makes them so sure he existed, other than the words from his........followers?

[Disinterested]

Quote by: RickSp Two interesting discussions of the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. The first, Did a historical Jesus exist? discusses the lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus. A second essay, THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS compliments the first by looking at various figures who may be the basis for elements of the Jesus accounts. I find the idea that Nazareth may have been a mistranslation of "Nostri" particularly interesting. The previous link points out that Nazareth in the time when Jesus was said to have been born was not a "city" as represented in the New Testament.Given the Christian propensity for borrowing from other religions, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the story of Jesus was a folkloric amalgam of various other acounts and tales about the sorcerer Yeishu and the Nostrim as well others in the Messianic tradition who lived within several hundred years of each other. Any thoughts?

The Romans kept annals and records of everything. If there was a Jesus who stirred up as much commotion as the Bible says he did, I think there would be some mention of him somewhere in the archives of Roman history; yet, there is none. This omission of record leads me to reasonably conclude that Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, did not exist.

[RickSp]

dthmstr254, you do go on. Your knowledge of Judaism is as laughable as your understanding of Buddhism.

Your citing of Homer is a fine example. While it is possible that Homer was one person, many if not most think that he was an amalgam of poets. The name Homer, means "witness" and many think that a number of poets developed the epic poem, passing it from one to the other. Chances are there was no single "Homer," no single "witness".

Of course Homer, or the "Homers" lived almost a thousand years before Jesus was alleged to have lived. Jesus lived in a literate culture ruled by literate rulers yet no one thought to make a single mention of his existence until many decades after his death. Homer is more plausible.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Disinterested The Romans kept annals and records of everything. If there was a Jesus who stirred up as much commotion as the Bible says he did, I think there would be some mention of him somewhere in the archives of Roman history; yet, there is none. This omission of record leads me to reasonably conclude that Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, did not exist.

Hah! laughable. You think that the Romans didn't erase this Jesus?

We are talking about JESUS. The one who basically goes against the Roman teachings. No He does not interfere with Caesar, but don't you think it seems a little odd that no record of a person who turned scores of people against Roman rule as Caesar being king. Though not intentionally, after the death of Jesus is mainly when Christains started to pull away from Roman rule.

Don't you think that they had enough power to control their own history? :rolleyes:

Also, there were many blasphemers at that time. Why should they put this one down it the record books as any different.

Jesus was seen and persecuted as a blasphemer, much like others at the time. Why should the Roman's give mention to this one?

The shouldn't and didn't. That is why there is no mention of Jesus in Roman Records.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: ldmaniac Jesus was seen and persecuted as a blasphemer, much like others at the time. Why should the Roman's give mention to this one? The shouldn't and didn't. That is why there is no mention of Jesus in Roman Records.

Because in the 4th century, Rome, although somewhat dwindling in size, became a Christian empire that hailed Jesus. Yet no one had records of the one who Nero blamed the Roman fires on, nor records of their own "savior" in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Jesus was not just any blasphemor. In the 2nd century, Chrisitanity saw massive growth in his name and he, although dead (his name anyways), became famous. Yet, not record of his actual life at the time, until some people decided to throw some documents together into a coherent Bible to reunite the people under Christianity. Christians usually forget that part.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Because in the 4th century, Rome, although somewhat dwindling in size, became a Christian empire that hailed Jesus. Yet no one had records of the one who Nero blamed the Roman fires on, nor records of their own "savior" in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Jesus was not just any blasphemor. In the 2nd century, Chrisitanity saw massive growth in his name and he, although dead (his name anyways), became famous. Yet, not record of his actual life at the time, until some people decided to throw some documents together into a coherent Bible to reunite the people under Christianity. Christians usually forget that part.

And Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyon, and Sir Gawain and Grendel. Don't forget Gilgamesh!

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Disinterested And Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyon, and Sir Gawain and Grendel. Don't forget Gilgamesh!

While the Epic of Gilgamesh is obviously fanciful there is probably stronger evidence of an historical Gilgamesh than there is of an historical Jesus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2982891.stm

Keith

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp dthmstr254, you do go on. Your knowledge of Judaism is as laughable as your understanding of Buddhism. Your citing of Homer is a fine example. While it is possible that Homer was one person, many if not most think that he was an amalgam of poets. The name Homer, means "witness" and many think that a number of poets developed the epic poem, passing it from one to the other. Chances are there was no single "Homer," no single "witness". Of course Homer, or the "Homers" lived almost a thousand years before Jesus was alleged to have lived. Jesus lived in a literate culture ruled by literate rulers yet no one thought to make a single mention of his existence until many decades after his death. Homer is more plausible.

actually, it was 5 years after His death that the first books of the New Testament were finished. Corinthians and Hebrews made it out first, stating that the scriptures said that Christ lived, died, and rose again on the third day "according to the scriptures." five years, and there is already a book written mentioning Him in detail. secondly, the only "literate" people were the lawyers of the day. public education wasn't even a concept back then. sure, the rulers and nobles might have been literate. however, rarely in history do we find a society where the rulers and nobles make up the majority of the people. in reality, the majority of the people (approx. 70-80% according to Traditions and Encounters) were illiterate. Jesus didn't come to the nobles, nor to the rulers. he came to people like myself. the poor, sick, needy people who packed the streets like sardines just to come and see this miracle doer. this is part of why the pharisees and saducees wanted him dead in the first place. Jesus kept speaking of the "kingdom of God". to Jesus and Christians, this is a spiritual realm that won't be made physical until after the judgements. to the nobles, however, it seemed like another vie for power. they wanted to end it then and there. Pilate is the only person who seemed to disagree with them, going so far as to offer a murderer to go in Jesus's stead, hoping to appease their bloodlust. and I haven't even touched the gospels. this is stuff that you can gather from reputable historians like Tacitus and Josephus.
oh, considering I passed Old Testament Survey with an 89%, I haven't even touched the resources I have on Judaism. shoot, the only Bible Jesus had was the Torah.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger While the Epic of Gilgamesh is obviously fanciful there is probably stronger evidence of an historical Gilgamesh than there is of an historical Jesus. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2982891.stm Keith

This Jesus fellow though seems to have been fabricated. There may have been a Jesus but not what the New Testament makes him out to be by all known historical records.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Disinterested And Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyon, and Sir Gawain and Grendel. Don't forget Gilgamesh!

If only Paul Bunyan had crazy followers, some moral codes, and some fools to make his stories even more supernatural.

[Jack]

I'm still persuaded that he didn't exist at all. But I will say that if I were proven wrong and became convinced he had in fact existed, it still doesn't mean squat. His humanity isn't what the christians worship. They seldom emulate it.

All they're interested in is his purported divinity. And I will continue to disbelieve in that. For that there can be no proof, no evidence.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm still persuaded that he didn't exist at all. But I will say that if I were proven wrong and became convinced he had in fact existed, it still doesn't mean squat. His humanity isn't what the christians worship. They seldom emulate it. All they're interested in is his purported divinity. And I will continue to disbelieve in that. For that there can be no proof, no evidence.

Chrisitianity hangs by but a single thread...

I wonder if in my lifetime some archaeologists discover some final evidence that the disciples read off of mistranslated or made up texts of that guy. I wonder what the Christians would do...I'm thinking they would go atheist, which is actually the majority of our population, they just keep the title and go to church for show, generally.

[Jack]

Not that it would be a bad thing. Churches do provide a valuable and humane purpose, just for the wrong motivation.

Humans are group animals. We aren't meant to live isolated from one another. Yet that produces serious strains on our peace of mind. Churches, synagogues, mosques; all provide valuable services to the community. In some places they are the community. They are places of rest, quiet and solace. They're a great place to meditate. I still enjoy the idea of a chapel. There's one I visit time to time to "get my head together". (my secret vice is that I still use gregorian chant to meditate to. Polyphonic motets will never be beat.) Once religion fades away, these buildings will revert to being public places. They could even be revitalized as centers of the community. People need the benefits of the church, but they deserve better than the mental degradation caused by superstition.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Disinterested The Romans kept annals and records of everything. If there was a Jesus who stirred up as much commotion as the Bible says he did, I think there would be some mention of him somewhere in the archives of Roman history; yet, there is none. This omission of record leads me to reasonably conclude that Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, did not exist.

If you can obtain a copy of the early publication called "the lost books of the Bible and the forgotten books of Adam and Eve" - published by Double-Day - you will find additional chapters about other related documents. One such document with the offical seal came out of Rome which repremanded the judgement and death of Jesus ( whom Rome called a god of the jews - as they had suffered a distructive earthquake on the day Jesus was put on the cross). So the idea came to me to ask "how can you prove that no other documents are known about that were written by the Romans", or that those writing were not distoryed due to the crusades when Rome fell from power?

To say that something did not happen because anicent manuscripts were not well preserved is a little missleading. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were falling aprat when discovered and much of it not-readable due to the effects of time on those writings.
Just because old documents turn into dust would not mean they are a hoax.
If they had been using stone tablets perhaps we would have more original documents instead of reprints. Now if the story of Jesus had reported that he led an army to defeat the Roman Impire then you would have someting to squak about - but he did nothing that can be proven because they were mostly just "sayings" - which sayings became the foundation for the Christian momentum.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Isherwood Not that it would be a bad thing. Churches do provide a valuable and humane purpose, just for the wrong motivation. Humans are group animals. We aren't meant to live isolated from one another. Yet that produces serious strains on our peace of mind. Churches, synagogues, mosques; all provide valuable services to the community. In some places they are the community. They are places of rest, quiet and solace. They're a great place to meditate. I still enjoy the idea of a chapel. There's one I visit time to time to "get my head together". (my secret vice is that I still use gregorian chant to meditate to. Polyphonic motets will never be beat.) Once religion fades away, these buildings will revert to being public places. They could even be revitalized as centers of the community. People need the benefits of the church, but they deserve better than the mental degradation caused by superstition.

Well put. I must say I'd be ecstatic with such a consequence.

[Technosoul]

Proof? Lets say that a person killed his wife but left no evidence of the crime, no court of law could ever convict the person for murder due to lack of evidence. So I ask you - was the murder a hoax or just a myth? What is the philosophy for that?