Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[EGross]

"Jesus" was allegedly a Galilean, too. And Galilee was a part of the country which was forcibly converted to Judaism by Alexander Jannai at the very end of the 2d century BC. Less than 40 years later, Pompey the Great liberated the area so who knows how deeply any Jewish customs would have sunk in in such a short period of time?

When Antipas rebuilt Sepphoris it included baths and a forum and Greco-Roman temples. Hardly a "Jewish" town. Not to mention they told Josephus to go fuck himself when he and his rebel army showed up at the gates. They then admitted a Roman garrison. Such historical realities cannot be dismissed because xtians find them inconvenient.

A couple of interesting points about Gallilee. The Talmud (Mesechet Eruvin, IIRC) seems to mock that town more than any other, because they spoke so badly that if you tried to learn from someone there, you just wouldn't understand, or you would misunderstand. You can see a short English translation of those few pages of discussion here (I did a google search rather than bothering to translate it. It's a lazy day!). It is also possible that this is a bit polemical, even though it doesn't say so.

There is also a famous story of a man from Galilee who asks Bruriah (the smartest woman of her day) how to get someplace, and she called him a "Foolish Gallilean!" for (1) saying 1 word to many to a married woman, and (2) she recognized him by his poor speech habits). This is also in the same chapter of Mesechet Eruvin. This also may relate to the Yeshu haNotzri story where he gets excommunicated for having an eye for the ladies (Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a - one version has "Yeshu" in it and the other just has "student", and it is only in the uncensored versions, which I prefer)!

Polemic, or not? You decide!

Just tossing some extra meat to the mix!

[Minimalist]

The somewhat questionable strategy of the Hasmoneans to forcibly convert conquered peoples to Judaism seems to have backfired. Herod the Great was an Idumean; the Samaritans were not accepted as Jews and the Galileans appear to be been regarded as country-bumpkins by the Judaeans, themselves.

I imagine it must have seemed a good idea at the time? The result was roughly akin to freeing the slaves in the US and proclaiming them "citizens." Didn't go over so big with large parts of the home team!

[Cyberman]

If I have any complaint it is that WE are not the ones insisting that fucking "jesus" was real. I think the evidence for jesus is even less compelling that Davies, does...and he doesn't think much of it. But we do retain the right to blast the living shit out of those fundie morons who show up here insisting that he was.... in all his miracle-working glory.

I wonder why so many Christians think atheists are dreadful people.

Absolutely. Because as any fule kno, using the internet to point out inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and just plain idiocies is infinitely worse than centuries of repression, ignorance and slaughter in the name of appeasing a maniacal god.

[Minimalist]

Philip R. Davies, one of the more respected Minimalist Old Testament scholars has a new essay at Bible and Interpretation in which he can't resist weighing in on the historical jesus routine.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml

Interesting article because I think he's taking a sensible approach.

But one should not argue from these, as do Thompson and Verenna, that Jesus was invented. The use in this particular case of such mythic types ought to have been provoked by something,and the existence of a guru of some kind is more plausible and economical than any other explanation—which, by the way, does not necessarily make it the right one, but historian’s rules apply: plausibility and economy are the trump cards. How quickly stories about a guru can be manufactured, and how the outline of a possibly historically figure can be obliterated by all kinds of creative ‘memory’ is clear from the Qumran allusions to the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’. Awareness of such types and tropes should inform the historian how easily traces of historical reality can be painted over in the colours of myth and the conventions of storytelling.

So, there might have been a real man who was mythicized. We'll never know anything about him if he did exist, though.

I found one of the reader comments rather interesting.

The whole "Jesus is a myth" vogue is simply the ultimate extension of the anti-Jewish tendencies in Bible scholarship. Our scholastic pseudo-elite would rather have no historical Christ at all than a merely human, ie. purely Jewish, Christ.

If I have any complaint it is that WE are not the ones insisting that fucking "jesus" was real. I think the evidence for jesus is even less compelling that Davies, does...and he doesn't think much of it. But we do retain the right to blast the living shit out of those fundie morons who show up here insisting that he was.... in all his miracle-working glory.

I wonder why so many Christians think atheists are dreadful people.

I'll tell you what. The day I decide to care what those fuckheads think I'll let you know first!

[Confused Ape]

Absolutely. Because as any fule kno, using the internet to point out inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and just plain idiocies is infinitely worse than centuries of repression, ignorance and slaughter in the name of appeasing a maniacal god.

I agree with the sentiment but I wouldn't have phrased it quite like that - shit isn't classed as a living organism.