Why do people believe that Jesus was a real person?

[MadArchitect]

You seem to have a lot of issues woven into the question of a historical Jesus that simply don't need to be there. Nearly all of the reportedly miraculous elements are entirely separable from the main events of the gospels stories, so there isn't much reason to dwell on evidence against those. I take it pretty much as given that when a person talks about the question of a historical Jesus, they're talking about a figure around whom a nexus of mythological elements were arranged. In attempting to debunk the idea of a historical Jesus, you seem to have taken for granted ideas that you wouldn't have taken for granted if they didn't serve your point. How, for instance, do we know that the mythological elements are native to the earliest writings about Jesus, when those writings have not survived? One way to check for the existence and broad acceptance of those elements is to see how prominantly they figure in the early letters of Paul, which are the earliest surviving mention we have of Jesus. And the answer there is that concentrates on the sermons and doctrines. Moreover, it's possible to trace through Paul's correspondence the development of his thought concerning Jesus' death, and it seems clear that the resurrection was not a stable part of his conception of Jesus as a historical figure. Paul's later writings give form to the eschatological explanation, but his early writing show signs of a crisis in natal Christianity as to how to account for the literal death of Christ, which would have posed no problem if the resurrection account were an inexorably native figure of the gospel story.As for Jesus' name, even if you had gotten your facts right, I hardly see how that serves as evidence. At best, it's corroboration for an argument based in better evidence. At any rate, "Christ" was a title appended by his followers after they had posited that he was the Jewish messiah -- even if the Gospel accounts are fictive, they never claim that his parents named him Christ, as in Jesus H. Christ. And Jesus is a diminuitive form of Joshua, an extremely common name among Jews, meaning not "the sun" but "God is generous". It's hardly uncommon for Jewish names to make reference to God, so that in itself demonstrates nothing. I don't know where you got the "sun" derivation, but I suspect that it's from some other language, perhaps the coincidental effect of translating a common Hebrew name into, say, Greek.The similarities of other cultural myths to the mythological elements of the gospels is hardly troubling if all we're attempting to assess are the non-mythological elements. And the accounts of Jesus' wanderings in Palestine and his teachings are hardly assimilable to Greek and Roman forms. Rather, they're obvious line of descent is through the Jewish rabbinic and prophetic traditions, which is hardly surprising given that the reportedly historical Jesus saw himself as belonging to both those traditions. That the gospel texts closely resemble other contemporary genres isn't terribly problematic -- fiction and non-fiction genres always feed off one another, and if you were to systematically compare modern works of history to modern works of literature, I'm sure you'd find just as many similarities.If you want to give me some citations so I can read the full versions of these "other theories" as to how the canonical gospel writers got their information, I'd be glad to look them up. So far as I know, the consensus among historians and scholars is that they were all written in reference to a text designated Q for "Quelle", and possibly to a collection of the sayings of Jesus that were circulating at the time. I haven't come across any other reputable theories, and certainly none that I have seen would qualify as serious contenders.As for your hypothetical account of Jesus as a tragic figure whose death was inevitable, that still leaves the problem of why early Christianity would have a) settled on that figure as central to their religion, b) have left the death account intact rather than replace it with a less problematic, undignified conclusion, and c) believed in the historical veracity of a character in a fictional genre they all would have recognized. And those are just the problems that occur to me off the top of my head. That sort of thinking seems to raise more problems than it solves -- the historical existence of a Jesus seems a much simpler way to account for the tenacity with which Christianity insisted on a humiliating, originally unredemptive death for its central figure.How would a Historical figure at its head make it more likely to survive?Because it would presumably have been much easier for Roman or Jewish contemporaries to disprove the historicality of Jesus had there not been an actual Jesus. That we have no documentary evidence doesn't mean that they did not -- they very likely did given the role of record-keeping in Jewish and Roman life, but we see very little evidence of an attempt to discredit Christianity by an attack on its historical basis. Rather, the attempts were built along ethical and political lines.Your argument that the authorities wouldn't even have tried is unconvincing. They tried other lines which were no more persuasive nor successful -- so why not an outright denial of the existence of Jesus? That they denied his divinity but not his historicality may be telling -- why attack a point on which you can't provide evidence either way (divinity) rather than a point that can at least be backed by records or appeal to memory?Mr P's comment is probably worth more consideration: did Jesus (or people writing on behalf of a character named Jesus) introduce any new strain of thought? Not in any final form, I'd say. What I think Jesus contributed to the following ages was an interpretation of Greek and Judaic thought, complete with a battery of images and similes that would provide a substantial foundation on which later elaboration could be founded. I'd disagree pretty strongly with the idea that similar things being said by other people are ultimately interchangeable, and had any other Messianic train of thought taken hold instead of that provided by Jesus, we'd be living in a very different world now.Getting back to Frank, I think you've either missed or just deliberately ignored the central point of DH's point about Josephus and Tacitus' mention of Jesus -- that they're important as historical documents precisely because they present Jesus in a very mundane light. In that sense, they show that, even as the mythologized gospels were taking form, a non-mythologized account was circulating in Rome. We cannot, therefore, be so sure that the recognizeable mythological elements were part of the basic account.

[Frank 013]

That's not surprising the things I am bringing up are common questions. Most of which have no satisfactory answers.I will probably still read the book, but unfortunately I will be out of contact while I am at the corrections academy it starts soon (less than 2 weeks) so I couldn't get very involved at any rate.Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

[MadArchitect]

Frank: Actually where I was headed with this is that it seems very deliberate (to me) that the name Jesus and the later added Christ had religious meanings in nearly all the major languages in the area.I'm not at all sure that's so. Thus far, you've mentioned two languages in which the terms have some religious connotation (Greek and Egyptian), and I'm not even certain about Egyptian. Two is hardly a consensus anyway, and when it comes right down to it, we shouldn't be surprised by similarities in word meaning among languages tied to a particular area since word borrowings and cognate usage are par for the course when it comes to language. If Sanskrit and the romance language can share words, I don't see any particular reason why the similarities between languages around Palestine should strike us as evidence of a deliberate fabrication.All of which date to well after Jesus was said to have lived. many are copies of copies and like I mentioned earlier some of the stories are obviously copied from each other, in some cases word for word. Any patterns you might find are meaningless in light of this.Actually, that's a pretty typical situation for historical records across the board. I doubt very many historians would accept the assertion that those difficulties render their conclusions, or the conclusions of their comrades, meaningless. I'd say you're holding these writings to a higher standard than that to which other historical documents would be held.(Actually, it seems likely to me that you're drawing from the arguments of other writers, and that those writers are working according to standards that they devised ad hoc.)If the Jesus story was an attempt at a new religion (which is itself an assumption) I would expect some attempt at originality, but the fact that the Jesus story follows the overall structure of a Greek myth says quite a bit about the writers, what they were trying to accomplish and the audience they were trying to reach.I think you'd be mistaken on several points. In the first place, a broad study of the history of religion would show that, while there is a significant amount of variation in disparate religions, certain features turn up with a fair amount of consistency, and without any apparant historical connection. So the fact that elements like a rebirth cycle or virgin birth show up in one religion is neither terribly surprising nor evidence of inheritence from any other particular religion. Buddhism, for instance, has virgin birth legends, and there need be no point of historical connection for us to note rebirth cycles in both Egyptian and Norse religion. Anthropologists tend to be in agreement on the point that most such features are as likely suggested by the agricultural mode of the societies in which the occur, so the fact that they occur in Christianity is, in itself, no evidence of a direct correlation, nor of a conscious borrowing on the part of the gospel writers. If as you claim these fantastic events were added to a story of a real person wouldn't the people that remembered him say something?That depends, I suppose, on who the stories were told to and who they were aimed at. It also depends on how they were originally told. If the original doctrine of virgin birth was more along the lines of, "Jesus was conceived by God through the vessel of his biological father", it's entirely plausible that converted Gentiles may have retold the story in terms more familiar to them from their background in other religions, thereby reducing the role played by Joseph. Depending on who circulated these variations and among whom, there may have been no one to correct the doctrine.My understanding is that the crisis among early Christian circles was solved by the Pauline eschatology, and that the relief that solution raised among Christians prompted them to rapidly reinterpret the original gospel story in a variety of ways -- Gnostic, Marcan, Johannine. The result is a great deal of revision, some of it influenced by the pagan religions from which many early Christians had apostasized. Lacking the Jewish background that informed Jesus own doctrines and the Christianity of Paul, they had to work with the concepts they knew, and that resulted in some mythologization that is not entirely consistent in the early gospels themselves -- one, for example, lacks the virgin birth; most lack the Johannine claims of divine incarnation.You can see a similar process in Haitian Voodoo, in which the adoption of Catholocism has lead to a process of syncretization that works backwards, such that neither the original Dahomean religion of the imported slaves nor the Catholicism of their masters developes in the same way that either would had they not been reflected through one another....yet you accept the historical Jesus theory based off of assumptions with zero material evidence to back it up.I accept a lot of things without much in the way of material evidence -- for example, the evolutionary transition from one form of primate to another. There is no material evidence substantiating the link between one set of bones and another, but I accept the connection because it seems to me the best explanation for the existence of the human species. I personally think the actual existence of a grassroots religious leader called Jesus is the best explanation for the sudden flowering of a religion capable of proliferating throughout Europe and the Americas.Maybe there is an element of intensity that I am missing?Intensity? What do you mean by that?Why do you insist on making claims about my motivations that are untrue?Go back and read the first post in this thread. That's why.Mr P: I know Mad is discounting Ehrmans work for his own reasons, but Frank, you are arguing points that Ehrman brings up.Just to be clear on this, I haven't said, nor would I say, that Erhman's book is unfactual or that his conclusions are obviously wrong. But there are books on the same subject that provide better citations, that are better written, and give a more in depth explanation of the issues involved. I just think that we'd be better off dealing with one or more of those rather than spend three months on a book just because it has more visibility.

[Frank 013]

Quote:MadActually, that's a pretty typical situation for historical records across the board. I doubt very many historians would accept the assertion that those difficulties render their conclusions, or the conclusions of their comrades, meaningless. I'd say you're holding these writings to a higher standard than that to which other historical documents would be held.I explained this earlier, other (credible) documents lead to something tangible, a battle site, a tomb whatever, the Jesus works lead us nowhere. Quote:MadI think you'd be mistaken on several points. In the first place, a broad study of the history of religion would show that, while there is a significant amount of variation in disparate religions, certain features turn up with a fair amount of consistency, and without any apparent historical connection. So the fact that elements like a rebirth cycle or virgin birth show up in one religion is neither terribly surprising nor evidence of inheritance from any other particular religion.I might agree with you except that these other religions were introduced to the area by the Romans long before Christianity was established. Quote:MadThat depends, I suppose, on who the stories were told to and who they were aimed at. It also depends on how they were originally told. If the original doctrine of virgin birth was more along the lines of, "Jesus was conceived by God through the vessel of his biological father", it's entirely plausible that converted Gentiles may have retold the story in terms more familiar to them from their background in other religions, thereby reducing the role played by Joseph.So in the case of the Romans debunking the religion we should expect some memory (or lack there of) but when talking about the risk of embellishment we shouldn't? Quote:MadI accept a lot of things without much in the way of material evidence.For some reason I believe you. Quote:MadIntensity? What do you mean by that?In order to equal out the two extremes of your contradictory behavior I guessed that maybe you believed one point more powerfully then the other, you know for neutrality's sake. Quote:MeWhy do you insist on making claims about my motivations that are untrue?MadGo back and read the first post in this thread. That's why. So because I was a little rude you get to libel my writings?And this is hardly the first time, I commonly have to start a responce to you by explaining away your false claim of a statement that I made. Anywayhere is a little light reading on the subject...www.infidels.org/library/historical/mar ... ive.htmlBy Marshall J. GauvinA short work on the problems with scripturewww.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htmJohn E. RemsbergA list of contemporary historians their relevant works and why they would or would not be expected to record a Jesus character's doings.It also contains a good account of the forgery of Josephus' worksLater Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

[Frank 013]

Quote:MadGo back and read the first post in this thread. That's why.You know I just read the first post and I agree the wording is insensitive, but you have not given me any reason to think differently than I did when I first posted my question. In fact you fell right into one of my categories. In your case you seem to give far to much credit to theories that are not grounded by factual support, you also ignore the fact that there is absolutely no material evidence to support your theories, furthermore not a single reason that you have offered is new, unique or cant be as easily explained by a fictional story and character. You have instead focused on debunking the counter evidence (without much success I might add) which (even if you were successful) still does nothing to further the historic claim. And I will again add that the standards that I am holding the evidence to are not mine; nor were they made up on the fly by some crackpot atheist. They are the standards used in categorizing historic figures and many pass through it with ease, including Alexander the great, Julius Cesar, as well as many others. The reason is that real people leave behind real evidence of their lives. And while it may be true that there was a real Jesus who's life was lost to history, covered up and buried by the myth, there is no evidence to show that that is the case. So I am sorry if my insensitivity hurt your feelings, or made you feel inadequate, or cry, but until you find some tangible evidence that does not rely on assumptions or possibilities then I think that we are pretty much done here.Or would you like to continue? Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

[Frank 013]

Here is another good site.www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htmA little less than half way down the page you will find a comparison between Jesus and Horus.It's defiantly worth a look.Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

[Frank 013]

DH, Mad,If you have a real interest in the arguments that I am making check out this website.It is lengthy but offers a good overview of the case against a historical Jesus.It offers comparisons and translations from the actual works and shows the problems that arise when looking for a historical Jesus. I could paraphrase some of the material but I feel that reading the web site would be a better use of your time. www.rationalrevolution.ne...istory.htmWhen you are done there get back to me. Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

[MadArchitect]

I haven't had time to read the entire page just yet, but even early on I see some problems. For example, the fact (broadly accepted by scholars) that Matthew, Luke and John are based in large part on Mark, or on a text largely reproduced in Mark, does not indicate that Mark is the ultimate source for the story -- only for portions of the other canonical gospels. In fact, part of the reason that they're canonical in the first place is that they agreed on certain points, and that agreement is almost certainly due to the interrelationship between the texts. But again, that doesn't make Mark the origin of the story, and there are reasons (such as the probable existence of Q) for supposes that it was not the first, even if it's the earliest extant (canonical) version.Nor am I terribly convinced by his argument that Mark is definitively allegorical in intent. His comparisons, while probably contemporary, were written for an Imperial audience; differences in audience will naturally entail differences in style. I will of course agree that Mark was likely intended to have a different use than the histories, but that does not in itself imply that it was not meant to be about a historical figure. In fact, the author of the paper doesn't bother to compare Mark to allegorical works at all; he simply compares it to histories written for an Imperial audience and then concludes that since it does not resemble the official histories, it must be an allegory. Non sequitur est.The examples that he does give from Mark fail to prove his case. They don't look to me like allegory, which presents a fictional world as a veiled reference to the real world, but rather like the explication of prophecy from a cultural, historical tradition. The appearance of John the Baptist is presented in Mark as the fruition of prophecy, not as allegory.The distinction is important because, while not as reliable as a conscientiously written historical document, this sort of writing does at least aspire to handle actual events. An allegory posits a world and then encourages the reader to draw points of connection between that world and the real world around them; Mark, rather, is looking for meaningful connections between present and past, both of which are likely presumed by the author and readers to have actual existence.This discursive section on Psalms and Maccabbees doesn't seem entirely relevent, but I will at least say that it's easy enough to reconcile the author's proposed explanation as to the Marcine author's intent with belief in a historical Jesus: if there was no Jesus, then a satirical intent may be possible; if there was a Jesus, then the Marcine narrative serves to promote Christianity as a reconciliation of unredeemed Judaism by polemicizing Jews assimilated into Roman culture.The influence of Hebrew messiah stories on the conception of Jesus' divinity is palpable, and I doubt anyone would deny it. But the author of the paper has not yet demonstrated why we should take that influence as the inspiration for a fictional story rather than the imposition (very probably voluntary, given that Jesus would have been, himself, a devout Jew) of tradition on an actual movement within Judaism. The author provides no explanation so far as I can tell, but simply leaps to the conclusions that Mark is a "story" built on the pattern of Hebrew Canon.In particular, I find this passage telling: The author of Mark probably made all of the biographical information up himself based on the existing "Old Testament" scriptures. On what grounds does the author assume that? Only a few sentences before he has stated that the character of "Jesus Christ" was probably predated the Gospel of Mark, and further up he has noted the probable existence of the Q document. So how would he decide that it is probable that Mark simply made up all of the biographical information?The author's interpretation of that biographical information (eg. Christ's death as symbolic of the defeat of the Jews) hinges entirely on his assumption that the book itself was intended to function as allegory. To some degree, it may be true that a contemporary Jewish reader was intended to see some parallels, but it isn't at all obvious to me that Mark was intended primarily as allegory, and it seems just as likely that the parallels could have been drawn out from events that the author took to be historical. The treatment, in fact, seems far more in line with the Hebrew prophetic tradition than with more strictly allegorical works like Job, and the placement of the story in a distinct time and place certainly distinguishes it from the Judaic allegorical tradition, which tended more towards and abstraction of time and place. On the whole, I'd say the literary treatment in Mark is consonant with Jewish traditions of layering a theological, symbolic content on a narrative tradition that is historical in character -- cf. Judges, Kings, etc.Naturally, I would agree that Mark is a polemical story, but I tend to find Elaine Pagels' view of those polemics, as expressed in "The Origins of Satan", to be better reasoned and more clearly connected to the book itself than that expressed in this article. Mark is obviously not a history in the Thucydidean tradition (although, it does fit the mold cast by Herodotus to a large degree), but I think the author of the article is wrong in supposes that it works as an allegory. It's problematic there, as well, as he might have seen if he had been through as much trouble to compare it to other allegories as he was to compare it to Roman histories.To whatever degree his critique of the historical Jesus thesis depends on the supposed allegorical character of Mark, I'd say his argument is in dire straights. I'll try to read more of it later on and get back to you.

[Frank 013]

Quote:MadI see some problems. For example, the fact (broadly accepted by scholars) that Matthew, Luke and John are based in large part on Mark, or on a text largely reproduced in Mark, does not indicate that Mark is the ultimate source for the story -- only for portions of the other canonical gospels. He is not making the claim that Mark was the ultimate source of the story, his case is simply that it is the source of the other gospels, the only other point he is making is that the other gospels once said to have been written earlier than Mark are clearly copies of Mark, or were at the very least copied from a work common to mark. It is not meant as proof in and of itself, neither is any one point he makes here, but as the author states at the beginning... All of these points are used in combination to show his final conclusion.What you are seeing here is merely important information for the foundation of his theory.Quote:MadHis comparisons, while probably contemporary, were written for an Imperial audience; Not entirely so, Josephus and other Jewish historians of the time were Jews writing for a Jewish audience. Quote:MadI will of course agree that Mark was likely intended to have a different use than the histories, but that does not in itself imply that it was not meant to be about a historical figure.Nor does it imply a historic character. But again you are only looking at the foundation.Quote:MadThe distinction is important because, while not as reliable as a conscientiously written historical document, this sort of writing does at least aspire to handle actual events. You mean like walking on water, turning water into wine, dispelling demons from children and so forth? Quote:MadAn allegory posits a world and then encourages the reader to draw points of connection between that world and the real world around them; Mark, rather, is looking for meaningful connections between present and past, both of which are likely presumed by the author and readers to have actual existence.Not presumed by all, many early Christians viewed Jesus as a totally spiritual being.Quote:MadThe influence of Hebrew messiah stories on the conception of Jesus' divinity is palpable, and I doubt anyone would deny it. But the author of the paper has not yet demonstrated why we should take that influence as the inspiration for a fictional story rather than the imposition (very probably voluntary, given that Jesus would have been, himself, a devout Jew) of tradition on an actual movement within Judaism. The author provides no explanation so far as I can tell, but simply leaps to the conclusions that Mark is a "story" built on the pattern of Hebrew Canon.I think that the parallels he gives from the Old Testament sources that show up throughout the Jesus' story are rather convincing, they are very obvious attempts at prophesy fulfillment and they are cleary the influance of every major event in the Jesus story.Quote:MadSo how would he decide that it is probable that Mark simply made up all of the biographical information? He did not decide that, He points out that, the biographical information largely matches the Old Testament prophesies (including the ones made from translation errors) and the only way that that could be possible is if the characters biography was developed to fulfill those specific prophesies.Quote:MadThe author's interpretation of that biographical information (eg. Christ's death as symbolic of the defeat of the Jews) hinges entirely on his assumption that the book itself was intended to function as allegory. Not so, (Although its possible you haven't gotten to the point yet) the author explains through use of temple law and sacrificial ritual rites that Jesus' execution as written was impossible and how Jesus' sacrifice closely parallels the sacrifice of the lamb that was traditionally done on Passover eve. (Coincidentally the same day Jesus was said to be executed) Quote:MadThe treatment, in fact, seems far more in line with the Hebrew prophetic tradition than with more strictly allegorical works like Job, and the placement of the story in a distinct time and place certainly distinguishes it from the Judaic allegorical tradition The author does explain this; the Jewish "tradition" was constantly changing being influenced by several different cultures that took control of the Jews over the years.Quote:MadTo whatever degree his critique of the historical Jesus thesis depends on the supposed allegorical character of Mark, I'd say his argument is in dire straights. I'll try to read more of it later on and get back to you. I think as you read that this will come together better; It's very long and if you skim it you will miss important information and stopping halfway through does not give you the whole picture.Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"Edited by: Frank 013 at: 7/25/07 9:41 am

[MadArchitect]

I think you're mistaken about Josephus. He wrote most of his histories under Flavian patronage, and the functioned in large part as an apologetics for Jewish rebellion earlier in the century. Jews under Roman rule were no doubt a part of Josephus' intended history, but they were certainly written with Romans in mind.The fact that the Marcan narrative parallels Hebrew Canon prophecy does nothing to demonstrate a supposed fictional character -- it wouldn't serve as prophecy if it didn't refer to events that the author and his readers took as having actually happened. What you do see a great deal in Mark is interpretation of events to fit them into the mold set by prophecy -- even where the actual written events do not, in themselves, seem to fit that mold entirely. Those events aren't often the miraculous episodes you object to so much. Virgin birth isn't really part of the whole prophecy cycle of the Hebrew Canon, for example. Descendence from the house of avid is, however, and the gospels are often at pains to demonstrate that descendence, though nothing about their explanations does all that much to stretch credibility. It seems entirely likely to me that the miraculous episodes are a distinct strand from the episodes that present the fulfillment of prophecy, and it doesn't look to me as though the "allegory" theory of Mark adequately accounts for the presence of both.That's about all the time I have now. I'll try to skim through the rest of the article later on.