What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[TimOneill]

And anyone should think you're included in that group why?

Because, unlike you or your brother, I know the relevant critical scholarship, I can read the relevant texts in their original language and I know what I'm talking about. You can't and don't. Spot the difference.

I'm sure there was a historical Jesus. And a historical Bob and a historical George. Please tell me why I should think the Gospels relate any accurate historical information about this Jesus---or just stop babbling about the majority of scholars who can't seem to find any agreement over the basic facts other than that this man was born and died like thousands of other crucified victims.

*yawn* The usual ex-fundie "all or nothing" crap. The evidence indicates a Jewish preacher who was crucified by Pilatus in Judea and who had a brother called James who was later executed by the Priests in Jerusalem about 30 years later. Guess who.

Right. One instance. Like I said. Do you read?

I read the Greek. The very first thing gMark says about Jesus is:
ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
(Mark 1:9)
Explain why this isn't what it clearly is - a reference to where he originally came from. Then a little later we get gMark telling us Jesus came to his hometown (ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ ). He'd just left Capernaum and "the country of the Gerasenes", so where was this hometown other than the place gMark has just told us he originally "came from"? Unless you have some textual basis for deciding Mark 1:9 isn't original to the text. If so - evidence please.

In other words, you're about as qualified as my brother.

If your brother thinks there is only one source behind the gospels, I'm much better informed than your brother. Because your brother is demonstrably wrong.

Here's a suggestion: go fuck yourself.

I'll simply note this feeble squeak for future reference and say no more.

[Mudhammam]

Hey asshat, just for the record, you need to get out more. Seriously, your social skills suck. I wasn't trying to "impress" or debate you. You're not somebody with authority in this field so please stop acting like reading some books on the topic gives you special insight. I know you want to be more than an amateur historian with a small online presence, but let's face it, you're a long way from that when you can't even conduct a polite conversion with a stranger over text.

---

Oh okay. This explains a lot:

True confession time: O’Neill hasn’t impressed me to date; I typically have run across him in the comment threads of atheist blogs, usually snarking around and defending himself against charges of being an abrasive douchebag. He often acts as if he’s spearheading a one-man quest for rationality and can’t understand why everyone else doesn’t listen to him. He also gets frequently carried away with his need to: A) be right all the time, even when he’s wrong; and B) castigate the errors of lesser beings with unusually high levels of bitchiness. For instance, he used to regularly show up on Richard Carrier’s blog doing his usual pissy, nitpicking schtick until of course he took it too far and Carrier actually caught him in a lie, which seems to have put an end to his antics on that blog. So in a nutshell, when I run across O’Neill nowadays, my first thought is almost always: what IS this guy’s fucking problem?

http://vridar.org/2012/01/24/david-fitzg...of-nailed/

I guess I was right to add this dipshit to my ignore list.

[TimOneill]

Hey asshat, just for the record, you need to get out more. Seriously, your social skills suck. I wasn't trying to "impress" or debate you. You're not somebody with authority in this field so please stop acting like reading some books on the topic gives you special insight. I know you want to be more than an amateur historian with a small online presence, but let's face it, you're a long way from that when you can't even conduct a polite conversion with a stranger over text.

I seem to have upset you in some way. How about you start with the substantive issues relevant to the historical questions being discussed here and work from there.

Oh okay. This explains a lot:

Yes, I seem to have upset another ex-fundamentalist. I find those of us capable of nuanced thinking tend to do that. Poor Neil used to be a devout member of the World Wide Church of God - a rather crazy British Israelite evangelical literalist church. The poor man had never quite recovered.

I guess I was right to add this dipshit to my ignore list.

Really? We've barely got started. How about you present your reasons that the vast majority of scholars, including non-Christian and Jewish ones, are wrong when they accept that a historical Jesus existed and we can work from there.

Or have you now gone from screaming obscenities to running away making squealing noises? Hello?

Oh. It seems he's gone.

[Mudhammam]

When you're done being a child, I'll be glad to engage with you

[robvalue]

I go away for 5 minutes, and this is what I come back to? :p

Can't trust jesus with the price of ham, it seems.

[Mudhammam]

I go away for 5 minutes, and this is what I come back to? :p

Can't trust jesus with the price of ham, it seems.

Well, unfortunately it seems like our new friend here has quite an online reputation for turning conversations into fights that a 13 year-old might find worthwhile, which is both ironic and disappointing since he says he's been studying Jesus for over 30 years.

[DeistPaladin]

My brother has spent quite a bit of time reading early church material and researching different hypotheses regarding the original sources for the gospels. He suggested to me the idea that all four gospels might have been working off an earlier narrative.

Critically examining the story of all four Gospels, I can't see why anyone thinks they're all written accounts of the same story. It seems to fit better if:
1. Mark came first, whether or not Mark had some sort of basis in a Historical Jesus.
2. Then Luke and Matt were fanfiction elaborations on Mark, adding a birth story and so on, but working separately so as to create contradictory narratives with one another, often going in opposite directions.
3. Then John comes along much later and offers a complete rewrite.

Re point #2, consider how Luke has Jesus' family come from Nazareth, had to go to Bethlehem for a highly problematic census, and then returned to Nazareth. Matt has Jesus' family come from Bethlehem, move to Egypt and then come to dwell in Nazareth.

The time when Jesus is born is also incompatible. Matt says Jesus was born under the reign of Herod the Great. Luke apparently goofs on his dates, as he has the conception during Herod's reign but Jesus was born during the administration of Quirinius of Syria, telling us that Jesus was born 10 years later. Those sons of God take longer to bake in the oven, it would seem.

There is simply no way these two were working off the same material when it came to the birth and childhood of Jesus. It seems more likely they were writing their own fanfictions, leaving later Christians to tie themselves into knots trying to reconcile the two.

John is a complete new story about a different character written for a different time. As I've said before, John's Jesus must contend with "The Jews", not the "Pharisees". This tells us it was written at a time when his Christian audience did not consider themselves to be a faction of Judaism but after Christianity had emerged as a separate religion completely.

John's depiction of Jesus is also theologically advanced, taking us closer to modern Christian ideas of the Trinity. The Synoptic Gospels depict a Jesus that is clearly separate from and subordinate to his "father". If you read only the Synoptic Gospels, you would come away with the impression that Jesus was a holy man or perhaps even a demigod. Jesus has an inferior bank of knowledge to his father ("no man knows the hour, not even the Son, but the Father only"), he has a separate and subordinate will ("Not as I will but as thou wilt"), and they speak of one another in 3rd person and to one another in 2nd person ("This is my son, hear ye him"). But John's Jesus claims equality with his father, "I and my father are one".

John's Jesus is bolder, more bombastic, and his re-write of the story reflects this. The Synoptic Jesus starts his ministry only once John the Baptist has left the stage but John's Jesus is not so timid. He virtually elbows JtB aside to take center stage, stealing JtB's disciples, beating him with a rival ministry and JtB cheers Jesus on the whole time. It really reads like a bad Marty Stu fanfic.

The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus start his ministry around the Sea of Galilee and make his way to Jerusalem, culminating in his triumphant entry on Palm Sunday, his cleansing of the temple and then fall and crucifixion. John's Jesus starts in Jerusalem and kicks off his ministry with the cleansing of the temple.

if we assume that Jesus really was crucified sometime around 30-33 C.E.

I wanted to comment on these dates often offered as the dates of JC's crucifixion. They're too early if we take seriously the Gospel account that John the Baptist was put into prison either before or during JC's ministry.

John the Baptist was supposedly put into prison and executed for mouthing off about Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodius and his divorce with his previous wife, the daughter of Aratas IV. These dates are pretty well fixed in history with the drama that ensued. Aratas' daughter got wind of the coming divorce and fled to her father, who made war with Antipas. Antipas' forces were defeated and he plead with Rome for assistance. Roman forces arrived in 37 but their defeat of Aratas averted by the death of Caesar Tiberius.

So, putting it together, if Jesus was crucified in let's say as late as 33 CE, that would mean JtB was put into prison earlier than that, which means he would have mouthed off about the divorce/remarriage of Antipas earlier than that, which means the divorce happened earlier than that. Let's say 31 CE, which gives Jesus' ministry its minimum year between the arrest of JtB and Jesus' crucifixion. That would mean Aratas' daughter fled in 31 CE, Aratas twiddles his thumbs in 32 CE, he twiddles his thumbs in 33 CE, he twiddles his thumbs in 34 CE, he twiddles his thumbs in 35 CE and finally in 36 CE he gets outraged and says "ATTACK!" ...or the whole drama with the arrest of John the Baptist occurred closer to 36 CE.

[Mudhammam]

DP, I have no idea what his reasons for suggesting it were and we didn't get into it. I don't think the drastic differences would necessarily be an issue because I took him as basically saying all of them relied on an earlier narrative for the common stock of stories and ideas they share. At face value, I don't see how that is inherently less feasible than proto-Mark, proto-Luke, and the many other hypothetical documents scholars conjure up. But I haven't looked into it. The only reason I brought it up was to get Tim's insight. Sadly he didn't have any to offer.

[watchamadoodle]

if we assume that Jesus really was crucified sometime around 30-33 C.E.

I wanted to comment on these dates often offered as the dates of JC's crucifixion. They're too early if we take seriously the Gospel account that John the Baptist was put into prison either before or during JC's ministry.

John the Baptist was supposedly put into prison and executed for mouthing off about Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodius and his divorce with his previous wife, the daughter of Aratas IV. These dates are pretty well fixed in history with the drama that ensued. Aratas' daughter got wind of the coming divorce and fled to her father, who made war with Antipas. Antipas' forces were defeated and he plead with Rome for assistance. Roman forces arrived in 37 but their defeat of Aratas averted by the death of Caesar Tiberius.

So, putting it together, if Jesus was crucified in let's say as late as 33 CE, that would mean JtB was put into prison earlier than that, which means he would have mouthed off about the divorce/remarriage of Antipas earlier than that, which means the divorce happened earlier than that. Let's say 31 CE, which gives Jesus' ministry its minimum year between the arrest of JtB and Jesus' crucifixion. That would mean Aratas' daughter fled in 31 CE, Aratas twiddles his thumbs in 32 CE, he twiddles his thumbs in 33 CE, he twiddles his thumbs in 34 CE, he twiddles his thumbs in 35 CE and finally in 36 CE he gets outraged and says "ATTACK!" ...or the whole drama with the arrest of John the Baptist occurred closer to 36 CE.

From looking at wikipedia articles, Herod was in Judaea from 27 CE to at least 37 CE. Where do the traditional dates come from? Are they simply adding the traditional age of Jesus to the dates from the nativity stories?

[DeistPaladin]

From looking at wikipedia articles, Herod was in Judaea from 27 CE to at least 37 CE. Where do the traditional dates come from? Are they simply adding the traditional age of Jesus to the dates from the nativity stories?

If that was the case, the dates would doubtlessly be different, as needed to make the Gospel story work. The Gospel dates are so horribly off from the rest of history that if the rest of history were based on the Gospels, then someone did a lousy job.

By the way, I didn't mention this but according to the Gospel of John, the crucifixion is dated to 29 CE. How do I know this? Everyone open your Bibles to John chapter 2.

John 2:20 Then said the Jews [to Jesus], Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

This quote was from the first Passover of JC's ministry in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John tells us about three Passovers during that ministry. Temple construction started in 20 BCE. There was no year 0. So, doing the math, this conversation recorded in the Bible happened during the Passover of 27 CE. Plus two years gives us 29 CE.

...which is funny because Luke's Gospel tells us that John the Baptist didn't even start his ministry until 28 CE.

It's a mess.