RE: Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?
June 17, 2010 at 12:50 pm
(This post was last modified: June 17, 2010 at 1:09 pm by Minimalist.)
Nice first post, CH.
Yes, all 3 names were common. Why assume that the factual element was the "jesus" part? Perhaps the factual part was that there was religious ferment with jesus later concocted and added into the mix?
The Roman model for dealing with conquered territories was not to exterminate the ruling class but to absorb them. The nobility were granted Roman citizenship as a reward for cooperation and for keeping the commons in order. When the nobility of Judaea wanted Archelaus removed, Augustus agreed. Apparently there were some small scale riots but they were suppressed by local forces. The legions were not needed as they had been upon the death of Herod the Great. Now, lets continue the thought about social conditions.
Herod was one of those people in history for whom the only things we know about him were written by his enemies. Herod was an Arab whose father Antipater had converted to Judaism. The priestly classes ( who were, obviously, the literate class) never accepted him. They would have preferred a ruler from the Hasmonean dynasty but, as noted above, the Romans preferred Herod and the Romans were in charge. But if you look at what Herod did the situation becomes a bit clearer. Herod was a builder. His building projects would have employed tens of thousands and they would not have been from the upper class. They would not have been working with their hands. Herod built the city of Caesarea Maritima to be a port on the Mediterranean coast. It was fantastically successful and did much to enrich the kingdom but Caesarea was a Roman-style town. It had nothing to do with the priests of the nobility. The workers who built it owed their livelihood to Herod's vision and ambition.
So, perhaps what Herod set in motion was a social re-ordering? The commons were no longer dependent on the nobility but rather on the king. When Herod died this re-ordering was endangered and the nobility moved to reassert control. Perhaps what we are seeing in the early first century is a social problem which someone later overlaid with religious trappings? I can see the priests doing that. It would have been in their interest.
This is an exceedingly complex issue and usually ends up revolving around the alleged "Paul of Tarsus."
There are Talmudic references but the Talmud was written in the 2d to 5th centuries AD. They are even farther removed from the events than the so-called gospels. It probably needs its own thread.
The main first century Jewish scholar in the surviving literature is Philo. He never mentions any jesus. He did write a diatribe against Pontius Pilate but, although accusing him of all sorts of crimes, never makes the slightest reference to his execution of any "messiah."
Really? The last thing I read about the DSS was that there is no reference to jesus or xtianity in any of them. Which is not to say that xtians do not harp on any ambiguity they can find and say "Yup...THERE HE IS!!! THAT'S JESUS!!!!!" As a matter of fact the whole Essene thing is under fire. Israeli archaeologists Magen and Peleg have suggested that Qumran was a multi-use facility over the years being, at times, a military post (it does overlook one of the eastern approaches to Jerusalem and so would serve some use as a lookout station) and a pottery factory.
The whole Essenes as monks copying books started with a French monk, Roland de Vaux. Perhaps he took a European vision of what monks did and transported it to Palestine? Josephus gives a discussion of the Essenes. They do not sound particularly bookish. As a matter of fact he describes them as agricultural workers.
Definitely. The question is "when?" It is reported that Pompey's troops ran into Mithraism while he was suppressing the aforementioned Cilician pirates in the east c 67 BC. Quaint idea but the truth is that the Romans had been active in the area since crushing the Seleucids at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC and they would have been in contact with the ideas through trade long before Pompey got there. The name "Mithradates" [ "Given by Mithras" ] goes back to the 4th century BC at least.
At some point it took off among the Roman military and business classes. Women were excluded. One can speculate that the Mithraic cult would have taken a hit in the mid 3d century when the Romans suffered a series of military disasters in the east. To make matters worse, survivors brought back a plague which killed millions. Xtianity arose in the early 4th century. Coincidence? I don't like coincidences.
Hmm.... the trouble here is that it elevates Palestine to something more than it was. What it was, was a relatively poor region which just so happened to occupy a strategic piece of coastline between two of Rome's most valuable territories: Syria and Egypt. There were 4 legions in Syria and another in Egypt.
Roman military force in Palestine was minimal. They used a surrogate to rule and relied on the fact that anyone touching off a revolt would be crushed by the Syrian-based army. All the Romans seemed to want out of Palestine was quiet. Like a noisy downstairs neighbor, sometimes they had to bang on the floor!
I've read some of the "Caesar's Messiah" kind of stuff and while interesting it does not seem to reflect what the Romans actually did. They almost seemed to regard Palestine as an annoyance. They had to control it but they did not want to rule it. Again, Herod and his father were confidants of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Herod was also acclaimed king of Judaea by the Senate. Perhaps he convinced them that things would be quieter if a Jew were running the place for them? I don't know. I only know that it was a model they used no where else in the empire.
Most of them who show up here are xtians and most are here to preach. It doesn't matter if you use logic, insults or a shotgun blast to the head. They just want to spout their jesus shit. Fundamentalists are the same everywhere.
I personally resent the implication that I won't insult muslims!
I just don't get as much opportunity as I would like.
Quote:Returning to the original question.... On the balance of probabilities, I always assumed that there was actually a Jesus, son of Mary & Joseph. They were very common names so maybe there is simply lots of confusion. My reasons are/were:
1. The many gospels, not just Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - I mean all the Gnostic gospels which no one seems to have mentioned. Paul, Philip, Judas, Mary Magdelen, etc. I am unaware of any completely contemperaneous record but oral traditions usually have some factual elements.
Yes, all 3 names were common. Why assume that the factual element was the "jesus" part? Perhaps the factual part was that there was religious ferment with jesus later concocted and added into the mix?
The Roman model for dealing with conquered territories was not to exterminate the ruling class but to absorb them. The nobility were granted Roman citizenship as a reward for cooperation and for keeping the commons in order. When the nobility of Judaea wanted Archelaus removed, Augustus agreed. Apparently there were some small scale riots but they were suppressed by local forces. The legions were not needed as they had been upon the death of Herod the Great. Now, lets continue the thought about social conditions.
Herod was one of those people in history for whom the only things we know about him were written by his enemies. Herod was an Arab whose father Antipater had converted to Judaism. The priestly classes ( who were, obviously, the literate class) never accepted him. They would have preferred a ruler from the Hasmonean dynasty but, as noted above, the Romans preferred Herod and the Romans were in charge. But if you look at what Herod did the situation becomes a bit clearer. Herod was a builder. His building projects would have employed tens of thousands and they would not have been from the upper class. They would not have been working with their hands. Herod built the city of Caesarea Maritima to be a port on the Mediterranean coast. It was fantastically successful and did much to enrich the kingdom but Caesarea was a Roman-style town. It had nothing to do with the priests of the nobility. The workers who built it owed their livelihood to Herod's vision and ambition.
So, perhaps what Herod set in motion was a social re-ordering? The commons were no longer dependent on the nobility but rather on the king. When Herod died this re-ordering was endangered and the nobility moved to reassert control. Perhaps what we are seeing in the early first century is a social problem which someone later overlaid with religious trappings? I can see the priests doing that. It would have been in their interest.
Quote:2. Some Jewish theologians make the case that Jesus was executed for being a trouble making Zealot. Although he seems to me more likely to have been an Essene the groups are constantly being mixed up. I have no idea what 1st century Jewish records actually exist but just maybe that Jewish Theologian does. I find theologians even more difficult to pin down than theists.
This is an exceedingly complex issue and usually ends up revolving around the alleged "Paul of Tarsus."
There are Talmudic references but the Talmud was written in the 2d to 5th centuries AD. They are even farther removed from the events than the so-called gospels. It probably needs its own thread.
The main first century Jewish scholar in the surviving literature is Philo. He never mentions any jesus. He did write a diatribe against Pontius Pilate but, although accusing him of all sorts of crimes, never makes the slightest reference to his execution of any "messiah."
Quote:3. The dead sea scrolls and other fairly recent finds record Jesus as being a Zealot which fits in with him telling his disciples to, "come with a sword, if you don't have one sell your cloak and buy one". Whether he was meek and mild or a trouble maker is another question.
Really? The last thing I read about the DSS was that there is no reference to jesus or xtianity in any of them. Which is not to say that xtians do not harp on any ambiguity they can find and say "Yup...THERE HE IS!!! THAT'S JESUS!!!!!" As a matter of fact the whole Essene thing is under fire. Israeli archaeologists Magen and Peleg have suggested that Qumran was a multi-use facility over the years being, at times, a military post (it does overlook one of the eastern approaches to Jerusalem and so would serve some use as a lookout station) and a pottery factory.
The whole Essenes as monks copying books started with a French monk, Roland de Vaux. Perhaps he took a European vision of what monks did and transported it to Palestine? Josephus gives a discussion of the Essenes. They do not sound particularly bookish. As a matter of fact he describes them as agricultural workers.
Quote:4. The mixing up with the Mithras stories (if you have not read them, you really must) would have appealed to the Romans who had Mithras as the soldiers god for centuries but then banned other gods when they thrust Christuanity upon the unsuspecting world. Adding Mithras to the Jesus story in the religion that they created would have helped quell some of the uprisings - Jesus died for you, now behave yourself - it would also have kept some soldiers on side - sorry chaps, we got the name wrong, it was Jesus, not Mithras.
Definitely. The question is "when?" It is reported that Pompey's troops ran into Mithraism while he was suppressing the aforementioned Cilician pirates in the east c 67 BC. Quaint idea but the truth is that the Romans had been active in the area since crushing the Seleucids at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC and they would have been in contact with the ideas through trade long before Pompey got there. The name "Mithradates" [ "Given by Mithras" ] goes back to the 4th century BC at least.
At some point it took off among the Roman military and business classes. Women were excluded. One can speculate that the Mithraic cult would have taken a hit in the mid 3d century when the Romans suffered a series of military disasters in the east. To make matters worse, survivors brought back a plague which killed millions. Xtianity arose in the early 4th century. Coincidence? I don't like coincidences.
Quote:5. Anyone who challenged the strong Jewish traditions would have been a 'god send' to the Romans so if they did have early records of a peace loving rabbi or teacher challenging Jewish authority they are likely to have promoted him as much as they could. Far better to have the Jews fighting each other than fighting the Romans.
Hmm.... the trouble here is that it elevates Palestine to something more than it was. What it was, was a relatively poor region which just so happened to occupy a strategic piece of coastline between two of Rome's most valuable territories: Syria and Egypt. There were 4 legions in Syria and another in Egypt.
Roman military force in Palestine was minimal. They used a surrogate to rule and relied on the fact that anyone touching off a revolt would be crushed by the Syrian-based army. All the Romans seemed to want out of Palestine was quiet. Like a noisy downstairs neighbor, sometimes they had to bang on the floor!
I've read some of the "Caesar's Messiah" kind of stuff and while interesting it does not seem to reflect what the Romans actually did. They almost seemed to regard Palestine as an annoyance. They had to control it but they did not want to rule it. Again, Herod and his father were confidants of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Herod was also acclaimed king of Judaea by the Senate. Perhaps he convinced them that things would be quieter if a Jew were running the place for them? I don't know. I only know that it was a model they used no where else in the empire.
Quote:As a newcomer, I must say that I am very impressed by the (apparent) level of expertise on this web site, less impressed though with insults to anyone who holds a theist view or even has doubts. Surely better to convince them with logic than convince them that atheists are unpleasant louts and all to be avoided. Also, why does everyone seem to knock the poor Christians and not the other faiths? They are mostly as bad as one another - or are we no meant to upset Jews and Muslims etc?
One last point, in the early centuries of pilgrimages there were plenty of maps showing pilgrim routes. I don't think there were any early pilgrim maps showing the location of Nazareth but maybe someone will correct me.
Most of them who show up here are xtians and most are here to preach. It doesn't matter if you use logic, insults or a shotgun blast to the head. They just want to spout their jesus shit. Fundamentalists are the same everywhere.
I personally resent the implication that I won't insult muslims!
I just don't get as much opportunity as I would like.
