Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[FatAndFaithless]

TheMessiah, is the proposed conclusion that there most likely existed some obscure preacher at that time that was known as "jesus", but the details of his life, even the minor ones, are unconfirmable and the more grandiose supernatural claims are to be disregarded entirely?

[Minimalist]

Jesus most likely did really die via Crucifixion (and thus, his followers at the time were left in a very weird position) - because if Jesus was purely fictional, then it becomes very, very hard to imagine why they would write him to have died via crucixation.

Oh not the criteria of embarrassment again.  I don't feel like re-typing this but TTA will not object to your reading.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid790471

[TheMessiah]

The gospels are a collection of campfire tales floating around at the time. Someone simply compiled them.

So the better question is why were they compiled? What was the agenda? Did sommeone commission them?

Even apart from the supernatural elements in the Jesus account, there are fallacies concerning Roman legal procedures, especially in the province of Judea at the time. We're not even talking about a trial against a Roman citizen but about a jewish trouble maker, who was nothing but scum in the eyes of the Roman authorities. Dangerous scum if he really claimed to be the king of jews and it's next to impossible that one of his disciples or family members would have breathed even one second longer than wonder boy himself. The Romans weren't chicken hearted when someone questioned their authority. The best thing they could hope for was being shipped as slave material to some provincial market, but even that is unlikely.

Pilate finding no fault in a man claiming to be the king of jews is ludicrous. Also offering him up for amnesty. The jewish priests, who were string puppets of the Romans at the time in question, don't stand the realtiy check either. And the list goes on and on, down to the disposal of bodies when someone was crucified.

The problem with this is that you're assuming Jesus was truly a threat to Roman authority.

In all likelihood, he wasn't as big a threat as he is made out; there were many false messiah's at the time, who all claimed the same thing. He wasn't the only person who claimed to be king of the Jews. The difference with Jesus is his death --- he died, for a messiah, an utterly embarrassing death. The Jewish messiah was described to be a warrior, and yet Jesus was just a dude who got crucified, which put his followers in an askward position. 

Had Jesus truly been fictional, then I doubt Christianity would exist, ecause the Jews would not have altered the story to have their messiah die a criminal's death - it makes no sense; in comparison to a radical Jew getting killed and then his followers being forced to reconcile that death with their own faith.

Jesus was mostly a threat to the Jewish priests, who were concerned with this radical preachings and the consequences that would have on their system of control - Jesus was a trouble-maker - thus, the Jewish priests most likely convinced the Romans to kill him.

Jesus was a reformer in the sense that he tried to reform the Jewish faith, his threat was to Jewish authority moreso than Roman.

[TheMessiah]

Jesus most likely did really die via Crucifixion (and thus, his followers at the time were left in a very weird position) - because if Jesus was purely fictional, then it becomes very, very hard to imagine why they would write him to have died via crucixation.

Oh not the criteria of embarrassment again.  I don't feel like re-typing this but TTA will not object to your reading.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid790471

These exact arguments of ''nobody ever mentioned Jesus'' are debunked in the post I posted in the OP. Literally, these exact arguments.

Edit - this ''cruxification was meant to stir hatred against the Jews'' however I have not seen, that sounds ludicrous. There is no evidence for that.

But probably the best example of an element in the story which was so awkward for the early Christians that it simply has to be historical is the crucifixion. The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd. According to Jewish tradition, anyone who was "hanged on a tree" was to be considered accursed by Yahweh and this was one of the reasons crucifixion was considered particularly abhorrent to Jews. The concept of a crucified Messiah, therefore, was totally bizarre and absurd.

It was equally weird to non-Jews. Crucifixion was considered the most shameful and abhorrent of deaths, so much so that one of the privileges of Roman citizenship is that citizens could never be crucified. The idea of a crucified god, therefore, was absurd and bizarre. This was so much the case that the early Christians avoided any depictions of Jesus on the cross - the first depictions of the Crucifixion appear in the Fourth Century, after Christian emperors banned crucifixion and it began to lose its stigma. It's significant that the earliest depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus that we have is a graffito from Rome showing a man worshipping a crucified figure with the head of a donkey with the mocking caption "Alexamenos worships his god". The idea of a crucified god was, quite literally, ridiculous. Paul acknowledges how absurd the idea of a crucified Messiah was in 1Cor 1:23, where he says it "is a stumbling block to the Jews and an absurdity to the gentiles".

The accounts of Jesus' crucifixion in the gospels also show how awkward the nature of their Messiah's death was for the earliest Christians. They are all full of references to texts in the Old Testament as ways of demonstrating that, far from being an absurdity, this was what was supposed to happen to the Messiah. But none of the texts used were considered prophecies of the Messiah before Christianity came along and some of them are highly forced. The "suffering servant" passages in Isaiah 53 are pressed into service as "prophecies" of the crucifixion, since they depict a figure being falsely accused, rejected and given up to be "pierced .... as a guilt offering". But the gospels don't reference other parts of the same passage which don't fit their story at all, such as where it is said this figure will "prolong his days and look upon his offspring".

Clearly the gospel writers were going to some effort to find some kind of scriptural basis for this rather awkward death for their group's leader, one that let them maintain their belief that he was the Messiah. Again, this makes most sense if there was a historical Jesus and he was crucified, leaving his followers with this awkward problem. If there was no historical Jesus at all, it becomes very difficult to explain where this bizarre, unprecedented and awkwardly inconvenient element in the story comes from. It's hard to see why anyone would invent the idea of a crucified Messiah and create these problems. And given that there was no precedent for a crucified Messiah, it's almost impossible to see this idea evolving out of earlier Jewish traditions. The most logical explanation is that it's in the story, despite its vast awkwardness, because it happened.

Non-Christian References to Jesus as Historical Figure

Many Christian apologists vastly overstate the number of ancient non-Christian writers who attest to the existence of Jesus. This is partly because they are not simply showing that a mere Jewish preacher existed, but are arguing for the existence of the "Jesus Christ" of Christian doctrine: a supposedly supernatural figure who allegedly performed amazing public miracles in front of audiences of thousands of witnesses. It could certainly be argued that such a wondrous figure would have been noticed outside of Galilee and Judea and so should have been widely noted as well. So Christian apologists often cite a long list of writers who mention Jesus, usually including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Thallus and several others. But of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person - the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the "Christ" that was the focus of its worship.

If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures. And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the time. The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.

Josephus

The Jewish priestly aristocrat Joseph ben Matityahu, who took the Roman name Flavius Josephus, is our main source of information about Jewish affairs in this period and is usually the only writer of the time who makes any mention of Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the First Century. Not surprisingly, he mentions Jesus twice: firstly in some detail in Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 and again more briefly when mentioning the execution of Jesus' brother James in Antiquities XX.9.1. The first reference is problematic, however, as it contains elements which Josephus cannot have written and which seem to have been added later by a Christian interpolator. Here is the text, with the likely interpolations in bold:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man; for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men
as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the
Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared
to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold
these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the
tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

There has been a long debate about what parts of this reference to Jesus are authentic to Josephus or even if the whole passage is a wholesale interpolation. Proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, naturally, opt for the idea that it is not authentic in any way, but there are strong indications that, apart from the obvious additions shown in bold above, Josephus did mention Jesus at this point in his text.

To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephean in their style and phrasing. "Now (there was) about this time ..." is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work. There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as "a wise man", but this is a term used by Josephus several times, eg about Solomon and Daniel. Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus' miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral term παραδόξων ἔργων - "paradoxa erga" or "paradoxical deeds". Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean "deeds that are difficult to interpret" and even has overtones of cautious scepticism. Finally, the use of the word φῦλον ("phylon" - "race, tribe") is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about sects, nations or other distinct groups. Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν ("Christianon" - "Christians") every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus' writings.

The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity. Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts. And it is significantly free of terms and phrases from the gospels, which we'd expect to find if it was created wholesale by a Christian writer. So either a very clever Christian interpolator somehow managed to immerse himself in Josephus' phrasing and language, without modern concordances and dictionaries and create a passage containing distinctively Josephean phraseology, or what we have here is a genuinely Josephean passage that has simply been added to rather clumsily.

As a result of this and other evidence (eg the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of this passage which seem to come from a version before the clumsy additions by the interpolator) the consensus amongst scholars of all backgrounds is that the passage is partially genuine, simply added in a few obvious places. Louis H. Feldman's Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the passage to be partially authentic.

Peter Kirby has done a survey of the literature since and found that this trend has increased in recent years. He concludes "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the (Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 passage) to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist."

The other mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1, is much more straightforward, but much more of a problem for Jesus Mythicists. In it Josephus recounts a major political event that happened when he was a young man. This would have been a significant and memorable event for him, since he was only 25 at the time and it caused upheaval in his own social and political class, the priestly families of Jerusalem that included his own.

In 62 AD the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome. This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer reign than usual. Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed. This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests. But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.

Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand. This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways:

[TheMessiah]

TheMessiah, is the proposed conclusion that there most likely existed some obscure preacher at that time that was known as "jesus", but the details of his life, even the minor ones, are unconfirmable and the more grandiose supernatural claims are to be disregarded entirely?

What we know of Jesus:

- Obscure preacher

- Made claims of being the messiah

- Died via cruxification

That's about all we know for sure. His death is VERY well attested, thus we can deduce he must have caused a stir to land such a penalty.

In context, it's actually insigifcant to the myth Jesus

[FatAndFaithless]

TheMessiah, is the proposed conclusion that there most likely existed some obscure preacher at that time that was known as "jesus", but the details of his life, even the minor ones, are unconfirmable and the more grandiose supernatural claims are to be disregarded entirely?

What we know of Jesus:

- Obscure preacher

- Made claims of being the messiah

- Died via cruxification

That's about all we know for sure

Gotcha. Thanks for the summary, I'm on my phone so scrolling through all that block text is hard, heh.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence for that.

Read the fucking things and learn a little history.  There had been 3 Jewish revolts by 140 when xtianity seems to get going.  It isn't that hard to see where the Roman world would have been pretty pissed with them.

[TheMessiah]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='958940' dateline='1433530981']
[quote]

There is no evidence for that.
[quote]

Read the fucking things and learn a little history.  There had been 3 Jewish revolts by 140 when xtianity seems to get going.  It isn't that hard to see where the Roman world would have been pretty pissed with them.

Oh, I've read the history - however, the idea of a trouble maker getting crucified and his radical interpretation of Judaism getting put to a halt, with cruxification, a penalty which was routinely handed out is more likely than what you're proposing, which is rather illogical.

In fact, death via cruxiication was seen as so shameful that many Christians didn't even depict it because of how embarrassing it was - non-Christians laughed at the absurdity of a god who died via cruxification; the popular Christ image on the cross only gained popularity once the Romans banned cruxification.

It had absolutely nothing to do with getting people to hate the Jews.

[abaris]

Jesus was mostly a threat to the Jewish priests, who were concerned with this radical preachings and the consequences that would have on their system of control - Jesus was a trouble-maker - thus, the Jewish priests most likely convinced the Romans to kill him.

Yeah, and that's where history, real history comes in. The jewish priesthood couldn't control their own asses at the time in question, since they were entirely dependent and appointed by the Romans.

[TheMessiah]

Jesus was mostly a threat to the Jewish priests, who were concerned with this radical preachings and the consequences that would have on their system of control - Jesus was a trouble-maker - thus, the Jewish priests most likely convinced the Romans to kill him.

Yeah, and that's where history, real history comes in. The jewish priesthood couldn't control their own asses at the time in question, since they were entirely dependent and appointed by the Romans.

The Jewish priesthood had influence over Judea on a purely religious sense; hence if Jesus threatens them, then the Priests will get worried, and what happens when they get worried? They contact the Romans.

In fact, Jesus's ''revolution'' was actually quite small in scale - TLDR he pissed off Jewish priests. Jewish texts and prophecies at the time were very naracssistic; if a prophecy was made, it was solely about the socio-political structure of the time.