Jesus: fiction or non

[Sunny C.]

I've tried to look at this issue objectively. The problem in considering even a moderately literal point of view is that all commentary, except for itchy apologists like Spong, is automatically biased by the constraints of faith. Then there are the Bible debunkers, followed by the shiny faced neo-Gnostics. Once the real scholarly debate starts, it seems that any possibility of the Gospel story being historically accurate is long, long gone. It's minimalists versus not quite so minimal-ists.

I don't know if Jesus was a real person. I'm leaning about two thirds toward thinking not. But it's hard to explain the Jesus phenomenon without some genuine artifact.

[Muslimwoman]

I beleive he was a real person and a Prophet of G-d.

However, Pope Leo X said in the 16th century "It has served us well, this myth of Jesus".

I have always believed that to refer to his status as Son of G-d but who knows?

Salaam

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, a literal, historical figure, was born in ~104 or 105BC.

Could you expand on that?

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Sunny –

Rudolf Bultmann posed exactly the same question in his extreme application of the historical-critical method, and 'demonstrated' that the Gospels were mythologies on the grounds of similarity with other mythological literatures ... assuming (rather inexactly) that because there are elements in common, they are the same in essence, a position which few accepted – even the Tubingen School, the most skseptical of universities, doubted the thesis that Bultmann put forward.

Pierre Benoit, on the other hand, 'demonstrated' that Bultmann's thesis could not have occurred within the necessary timescale – the gospels date to within a generation of Jesus – and the evolution of mythologies take much longer than that.

The question of 'historical accuracy' of the gospels is posed from a third-millenium perspective ... one has to remember the scribes were not interested in compiling an historical document.

Thomas

Hi Thomas. Just from my own reading it seems that the Gospels function to create Jesus' mythos. But who is the real man? What was his real name? When, and for how long did he actually live? I can't find anything credible on that. And then there's all this other Davinci Code stuff, black maddonas, secret bloodlines, Templars...not to mention Theosophy and it's pantheons. But underneath the mounds of lore and legend and derivitive mythology there isn't even a trace of the real man, unless one takes that one disputed passage from Josephus.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Sunny C., and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Hi Thomas. Just from my own reading it seems that the Gospels function to create Jesus' mythos. But who is the real man? What was his real name? When, and for how long did he actually live? I can't find anything credible on that. And then there's all this other Davinci Code stuff, black maddonas, secret bloodlines, Templars...not to mention Theosophy and it's pantheons. But underneath the mounds of lore and legend and derivitive mythology there isn't even a trace of the real man, unless one takes that one disputed passage from Josephus.

I am not Thomas, nor do I play him on TV, but I would like to comment if I may. I appreciate where you are coming from, but I don't think something like the mythos of Jesus would be invented "out of the blue." There had to be something concrete underlying to motivate the tellers and inspire the mythos, even if the mythos might not be 100% factually correct.

[AndrewX]

For an interesting argument of an extreme position - which is that we have NO evidence of a historical Jesus - check out ACA: Online Articles

This is found on the Atheist Community of Austin (TX) website, and is entitled, `Jesus: Fact or Fiction,' by David Kent.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, a literal, historical figure, was born in ~104 or 105BC.

There are a couple of reasons I believe this.

First, I think there is a historical record - some kind of evidence - that a literal, Jesus of Nazareth, existed during this time. All other legends either derive from this earlier, more likely Jesus ... or are deliberate falsifications, possibility adaptations or co-optings, even if we allow for the best possible of motive and intentions (which were by no means always the case in changing the facts).

And certainly, since Joshua/Jeshua is such a popular name, it is understandable how very many different individuals from ~2100 - ~2000 years ago may have become temporarily the focus of the public eye. As for the records, there is the article above, yet there is also the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu (Yeshu) of Judaism ... the Talmudic Jesus.


On Wikipedia, under Yeshu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, there is a quotation of Gerald Massey's which I do take seriously, and support:

Egyptologist Gerald Massey considered ben-Pandera to have been a real individual who existed in the second century BCE, and upon whom the stories of Jesus were based. He states

The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition 'that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia.' It also says, 'He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod.' That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 BC, although the point is not of much consequence here. Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin—the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 BC. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 BC, and that it could hardly be later than 100 BC when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 BC If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 BC.

Massey's identification of this character as the Jesus of the New Testament is, however, radically outside of the scholarly mainstream and enjoys no support from any New Testament scholar of any stature.

As for the second reason why ~105BC makes more sense to me, it has to do with astrological, and therefore astronomical, cycles. Even esotericists do not always agree on the precise date of the Sun's entry into Aquarius. Yet even taking the latest dates that we usually see, a `herald' for Pisces does not make sense just 2000 years ago.

I think it's easy to lose sight of a bigger picture ... especially if we're not used to even looking at it, at all. For instance, how many people even believe that World Teachers are really part of a liaison between God and Humanity, provided largely to help teach us, and show us the way, to live nobly and fit ... so that we may minimize unnecessary suffering both for ourselves & others, as well as fulfil our true Purpose in being here (alive, in the flesh!) as efficiently & effectively as possible (?).

I just accept this as a given, at this point ... since there's much more than a historical record to indicate it. There is a the mythological, but also the mystical .. as well as the esoteric, or occult record. I think it's when we try to pull one, single figure out of the "pantheon" mentioned, and exalt that figure to the point of Deity (to the exclusion of all others) - that we get into trouble. But then, that hasn't stopped us from trying ...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Hi Thomas. Just from my own reading it seems that the Gospels function to create Jesus' mythos. But who is the real man? What was his real name? When, and for how long did he actually live? I can't find anything credible on that. And then there's all this other Davinci Code stuff, black maddonas, secret bloodlines, Templars...not to mention Theosophy and it's pantheons. But underneath the mounds of lore and legend and derivitive mythology there isn't even a trace of the real man, unless one takes that one disputed passage from Josephus.

I would like to add a slightly different perspective here if I may.

Taking your questions into account with a comment made by Thomas about stories being written within a generation of the point and time in question, and combined with Andrew's thoughts on "exagerations" (sic), I present this for thought:

I, being born in 1960, could know nothing of my ancestors of Ireland, nor even of the first generation that came to the States in the 17 and 1800s. That is 150 to 250 years before my time. Agreed?

Yet, by questioning my parents, grandparents, great grand dames and Uncles, old friends of grand parents, etc., a picture of the past develops for me to record on paper. Now having half a brain, I know alot of what I am told is most likely "embellishment", yet the truth must be there, since all have a common core point of historical recall, that does not waiver or change.

So, I start with that "core" of apparent "facts" (and put the rest to the side for now). With this core set of actualisms, I am able to narrow down:

1. The existence of the root ancestors
2 The approximate times of their lives
3. The approximate locations of their "homes"
4. The approximate understanding of their livelyhoods
5. Who their neighbors might have been
6. What they collectively believed
7. How they might have lived.

With this "knowledge", I start combing through historical records of the era, the locations, folklore local, census records, church records, orginisational records, etc., and the picture begins to take solid footing, and begins to color in (just a little bit). Still I kept the "embellishment" of family out of the picture. I want only the facts.

It takes me 10 years to determine that:

1. my fore fathers arrived in the Americas from Ireland in 1750, 1840, and 1850.

2. They were located NOT in Pennsylvania (as family suggested), but in Maryland, NEAR the Pennsylvania border (close, but not dead on). Some moved to Pennsylvania, and some stayed in Maryland. (again, important deviations from the stories...close but not exact).

3. There were children born (obviously) and they married into other familys, and the lineage spreads from there, and as I move forward in History, the "facts of lives, locations, occupations, etc,. become clearer.

But that is not what I'm after. I want the "truth" of the beginning of the family. So I go backwards even still. So I focus on one branch of the family...(the one that makes my existence possible).

But I have to go there (to the place where I believe it all begins), and search out more than records, but families that still live there, the towns and their histories, listen to the tales of the local area. This takes another 10 years.

So far 20 years of research on tracing back the life of One man who started it all. (no computers or internet for helping either). And I still have no idea who the man was (personally).

I comb church records, county records, state records, which give me nothing, but a possible town...

So I go into that town, and stop to eat at a local pub/restaurant. Of course the locals being rather friendly inquire as to my business in town, and I tell them. The conversation stalls. And I'm being looked over (not at) by a whole lot of elderly people, as if they were not judging, but trying to recall old memories and comparing them with what was in front of them.

Then, they start murmuring to eachother (like I'm not even there), "yea he could pass for a Gelwicks. Naw, more like the Linggs, No, definately Crabbs..." I blurted out "you mean Cribbs?" And they laughed, and shook their heads. "Crabbs. You are part of the Crabbs...hell y'all part of all of them."

Then the oldest of them (must have been upper 80s), says "Go to St. Anthony's cemetary in the Grotto...right in front up the hill a bit, to the right of the statue of the Lady... I think you'll find what you're looking for, sonny."

He was correct. I found the grave sites of the first of my direct line from Europe.

So, now I know exactly where I came from. Time to find out "who they were", and what they did.

Well, five years later, I know my ancestor came from Ireland 1855. He arrived in Baltimore, could speak English and Gaelic, could write Gaelic, but was English illiterate (yet he could read a deed and call bull on a part that would give someone else the upperhand), and would sign his name over as X, once the deed was approved by all parties. He was a farmer/gardener in the states, but he was something else in Ireland, and it was never spoken about by the family, except to say he hated soldiering. Yet, he knew something about the military...

Reality is he signed up for the civil war and was given rank as "corporal", and designation "sharp shooter". He served honorably, was "retired" and after 1865 and given/earned US citizenship, at the end.

He was not considered a hero, because half of the town was pro-confederate, the rest was neutral, or pro Union. But he had given a "speech" that none could argue with about being at the mercy of a taskmaster (England), who cared less whether one lived or died, because they were red faced and ate roots from the ground, just to live. He said he just wanted to live, and so he'd fight to do so...

He acquired quite a bit of land (125 acres) for an ignorant immigrant. He married a shrewd woman who handled the financial affairs of the family (because of his "illiterateness"), but she always insisted that he place his "x" on signature line, before she signed. He hired a black man as his gardner/farm hand, and paid him an high wage, "for his continuance of service to the family", and gave him his own room in the house. When his right hand "man" died, he had him buried in hallowed ground (though he refused to step foot on church property). He hated the church fathers, and refused to go to Sunday services, yet insisted his wife and children go. He found the means to have both his sons and daughters educated, and tore up a classroom when a brother/monk/teacher dared call him a niggardly mick, who's children could not possibly learn the king's english, because of the loins they came from. He went before the parish priest...hat in hand. (it was his kids he worried about, and his wife's reputation (her family reputation). When he came out, he had new resolve.

He rebuilt the classroom, and the "brother" was sent elsewhere. And no one ever asked him to come to church again...(though they came to him for "talking matters over")

His daughters married into three families, in the area, but his three living sons migrated west to St. Louis, then south towards Texas and North towards Chicago, Il.

In the end, he was looked upon with chagrin and a bit of admirationbut the priest (drunk as he was), came to him sober, to give last rites in 1908.

I found that he was excommunicated from the Church in Ireland before arrival in the US (I've yet to find the reason why ), but he insisted his family partake in the local church constabulary/parish.



Bottom line is this:

After 30 years, I found out his life, what he actually did and what was "embellished" upon his existence (the two realities were actually quite close, though his factual life might be considered quite honorable by today's standards, but the familial history might not be, until the end).

But the fact is, it took me nearly a generation to be able to sit down and write a "good story" or "Gospel" about him, and have it reflect the facts of actual events in his life.

In this light, I can understand why the Gospels of the NT took a generation or more, before being published. The authors wanted to present the truth, and not embellishments, which would lead to mythos and folklore...but the Holy Bible is so much more, than a good story, it is truth. The authors did well in their research...

v/r

Joshua

edit: just as an aside...there is a man whom I've had the pleasure serving with in the military. We seemed to get along for the three years we were directly associated. Neither of us could quite put a point on it, but there was familiarity. We let it go at that. Even pondered earlier life times...naw.

Come to find out, his Great Grand mother, is my great great Aunt, who came from my "immigrant father" who started this whole line of family.

His dad, was Coast Guard too, just like him, and just like me...though we never met before.

For those who don't understand the Coast Guard, there aren't many of us (35,000). So linking with lost family is a 1 in a million shot, to be directly related...I can't even begin to calculate the odds...

[lunamoth]

Hi Q, Thinking about the Bible and the NT in particular as part of our family story is a pretty good way of going about it. luna

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Q, Thinking about the Bible and the NT in particular as part of our family story is a pretty good way of going about it. luna

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this, luna? Especially the part I've underlined?

With relevance to Q's post, I can see the comparison (obviously) ... so I guess I'm trying to elicit something more about "the family" in question.

thanks,

~andrew

[Thomas]

Hi Sunny C –

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Just from my own reading it seems that the Gospels function to create Jesus' mythos. But who is the real man? What was his real name? When, and for how long did he actually live? I can't find anything credible on that.

What makes the Gospels 'incredible'? It is your assumption that the gospels function to create a mythos, something Bultmann proposed, and something that Benoit has answered. But the orthodox view is that they are not a mythos. They happened.

What is more incredible is the idea that the gospels are an invention. I don't think you'll find any scholar who would give any creddibility to such a view today. Even the most skeptical Jesus Seminar voice allows that the gospels are the various accounts of a man who lived, preached and died.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

And then there's all this other Davinci Code stuff, black maddonas, secret bloodlines, Templars...

Then one has to be discerning. The DaVinci Code and its fore-runners have been thoroughly discredited. They are fictions and fantasy, they don't even aspire to myth. It was greed that did for the Templars.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

But underneath the mounds of lore and legend and derivitive mythology there isn't even a trace of the real man, unless one takes that one disputed passage from Josephus.

Actually there's Tacitus and Pliny, and two passages from Josephus, the first of which is not disputed. There's also the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a:

"On the Sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Jeshu) the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before his execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "Here is Jesus the Nazarene, who is going forth to be stonedd because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy."

And this from Mara bar Sarapion, a Syrian Stoic who was imprised by the Romans and was facing execution. He wrote this to his son, in a letter commending him to be wise in the face of adversity:

"What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates ... the Samians to burn Pythagoras ... what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on?"

"Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera's statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law he has given."
(from The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide")

From the above, and from the findings of archaeology and sociology, that in all probability the Jesus of the Gospels is the most reasonable and reliable data with regard to the existence of the man. His being the Incarnate Son of God is, and can only ever be, a matter of faith and personal revelation.

But that is what was preached, and held to be true, from the very beginning.

Thomas

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this, luna? Especially the part I've underlined?

With relevance to Q's post, I can see the comparison (obviously) ... so I guess I'm trying to elicit something more about "the family" in question.

thanks,

~andrew

Nothing deep Andrew, just that if you consider yourself a Christian then the NT is more than just history, or myth, or even wisdom. It's our sacred history, our family history, and that is always going to have more significance than other stories or books of wisdom.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Nothing deep ... if you consider yourself a Christian then the NT is ... our sacred history, our family history.

If I dropped a penny into that well of wisdom of yours, Lunamoth, I could grow a beard Mount Athos would be proud of, before I heard it splash.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Just a thing on myth.

Plato really nailed the whole mythology thing with his 'Myth of the Cave' – this was not a myth, but an unveiling of the mechanics of what a myth is, how it works ... and after that, no philosopher who knew his Plato (and all the early Greek theologians knew their Plato) would resort to inventing myths, orr looking at shadows ...

That's why the Greek pantheon faded, and the oracles lost their powers of persuasion. Christianity didn't do for 'em, Plato did. Philosophy – the love of wisdom – took over.

Christianity just provided the bit that was missing, the bit that the human intellect cannot attain unaided – the bizarre idea that God would engage not only with, but in the world .... lunatic but, if you accept the impossible, this new doctrine the Christians were banging on about, then the logic was flawless, and explained everything ... it did not dissolve the old philosophies, the old myths, it made them luminescent, and then transparent ... and that was just the start ...

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Q, Thinking about the Bible and the NT in particular as part of our family story is a pretty good way of going about it. luna

Awwwshhhiiiiiit. I was just telling a story about my life. How close or far from the life of Christ is y'all's call.

I think it is right on or (spot on), as our constituents concider.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

If I dropped a penny into that well of wisdom of yours, Lunamoth, I could grow a beard Mount Athos would be proud of, before I heard it splash.

Thomas

no...the penny hit sand within the first three feet of falling. Be carelful...

arrogance does not become you. (no joke).

v/r

Joshua