Historical Jesus?

[lpetrich]

This poll's historical-Jesus possibilities I've distilled from
Historical Jesus Theories (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html)
Theories of the Historical Jesus (http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/historical_jesus.htm)

A god-man hybrid and savior of humanity; the Gospels are literally-true history
A wisdom sage; a Jewish imitator of the ancient Cynic philosophers
An apocalyptic prophet; a proclaimer of the imminent end of this age in the fashion of John the Baptist
An anti-Roman revolutionary leader
A Jewish holy man and/or mystic
Something else (please explain)
A myth; there was no historical Jesus Christ
No idea
Magical brownies


I've made it multiple-choice, because these possibilities are not mutually exclusive. I've also made it public, so you people can see who thinks what.

And the first possibility is the traditional Xian view of him, which I've tried to express in succinct and neutral terms. Being "fully God and fully man" or "God become man" I count as versions of being a god-man hybrid.

[Ian Nerr]

I selected everything that seems plausible. In my opinion, the most likely are that he was some kind of revolutionary or never existed at all.

[Goldie]

I simply checked "Myth" because the only proof is the Bible and it cannot be trusted as an accurate historical account.
If he was real, I would have chosen #2 or #4...or #5...:dunno:

[Rathpig]

I have no idea, and I think the evidence is so vague that not having an idea is about the best we can ever do. Anything else is speculation.

[Dreadnought]

I checked other/myth as I'm not convinced he was either of the proposed options, if he ever existed. If there's a thoroughly mythicised person at the core he wouldn't have to be any of the above options and declaring some parts of the possible embellishments more likely to be fact than others seems unwarranted.

[RexT]

Honestly, based on the inconsistencies in his speaking style and philosophies, I believe there were several writers putting words in the mouth of Jesus. Was he a real person? Well, obviously no one knows, but someone said those things and I'm happy to call that someone Jesus or Larry, Lucy would work too. Jesus is just a cool name so I like it best.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I went for both "Other" and "Myth". I tend to be agnostic about the issue, but with mythicist leanings.

Someone originally wrote the Q sayings (assuming they weren't collected from a whole school of philosophy), but I think that person likely has nothing to do with the "biographical" details of Jesus found in the Gospels - so I don't consider that person to have been Jesus in any significant way.

I find the theory that Paul's Christ (as opposed to the Gospels' Jesus) was a purely mythical figure to be reasonably convincing, so I lean towards that option - but I wouldn't say that it is definitely the case...

[Barbarian]

I voted "Something else", out of laziness, for it is conceivable that a better fitting choice did exist. I think that the Jesus-meme is the result of merging three sources:

(1) some itinerant philosopher/reb with almost Buddhist tendencies ("love thy neighbor"; "do not worry about the tomorrow"; "render unto Caesar")
(2) a Jewish local warlord-wannabe, like those recounted in Josephus' work, perhaps one with mystic tendencies much like ancient Chinese warlords ("whoever does not hate his family should not follow me" c.f. initiation rituals of child-soldiers in today's Equatorial Africa; "I came to bring sword, not peace" "my kingdom is not of this world")
(3) the meme of sacrificed and resurrected/reincarnated god-king.

It is conceivable that story elements referring to #1 and #2 got mixed up, pretty much as anecdotes like throwing the watch into the stream instead of the pebble, or the two cat-flaps for two cats are being re-told featuring different scientists (e.g. I have read the cat-flap one with Newton, Laplace and Einstein). At a later stage, this led to some sort of convergence upon a common, made-up figure. Guy #2 got caught and crucified for disturbing the peace of the province, according to Roman law. Guy #1 lived well beyond 33 CE, and when these two figures got merged in folklore, later sightings of #1 served as a basis for the resurrection of #2, also fed by the existence of #3.

Or maybe not. I am not an expert on the subject, if that was even necessary to point out.

[David B]

I voted 'something else' on the grounds that my working hypothesis is that he was a cult leader.

However, if it were to happen that the mythicists were to be shown to be right, it wouldn't make a lot of difference to my world view as a whole.

David B

[Nialler]

An alternative is the several jesus suggestion. I know that there is a strong feeling among scholars that there were two Patricks, with their separate histories and qualities becoming combined into the single all-inclusive narrative of Saint Patrick.

[Wordy]

My first choice is Something else (please explain) Not easy but someday when I am bright me will explain. It has to do with Midrash interpretation. You get it or have no way of getting such. :)

My second choice is A myth; there was no historical Jesus Christ but that goes for my first choice too. A Midrash is a kind of Myth but not what is usually thought of in that way the word Myth imply. Midrash is not really a myth. It is a way to live the text. That is something else. Myth is what one accuse the others to have.

My third choice is A wisdom sage; a Jewish Cynic philosopher but I don't find it very likely. I guess those that made the Midrash took things from these wisdom sages those Jewish Cynic philosophers

Most of all I think that Jesus as Christ emerge within our heart that is placed in our brain by representation. The emotional heart. Jesus emerge when you welcome him as your savior.

And that is my atheist interpretation. Has nothing to do with supernaturalism but with pure materialism. Personalities to me is physical processes and Jesus within us are a physical process. A kind of MPD phenomena but ritualized and sanctioned by cultural tradition

[Lucretius III]

Much like Nialler I think that it is a distinct possibility that there were several historic people ,whose stories were merged at later date,that could be an explanation of some of the supposed inconsistences not only in the story of his birth but aslo some of the varying personality traits shown throughout the NT.
Of course there is aslo the possiblity of some purely mythical Jesus or Messiah having aspects of "his " story " included as well.
Some possible ,and I emphasise possible,more recent examples of this sort of thing could be the stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood.

[Codec]

Personally I think there is enough evidence to support a real figure. You could argue several historical characters are supported only by one or two historical narratives with little other physical evidence. Having said that most of the other historical characters tended to be kings who left behind some physical things, but some didn't - King Alfred, Agamemnon maybe, people life that.

Having said that, the old extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence argument means I don't think he was more than something like a charismatic cult leader, to which undoubtedly other stories were attached.

[Ray Moscow]

I'm comfortable with there being only a mythical Jesus Christ, but some of the historical Jesus scenarios are possible as well. What's funny to me is that the HJ folks have such radically different theories about him, which I think speaks more about the holders of those theories than any real evidence for an HJ.

[Pavlov's Dog]

There was probably a guy named Jesus. All the stories about him are more than likely myths. Some of them are probably things he did, some are probably exaggerations of things he did, some are probably things that other people did that were attributed to him, some are probably things that other people did that were exaggerated and then attributed to him. The bottom line is, I don't care if he was real or not.

[Lanakila]

An alternative is the several jesus suggestion. I know that there is a strong feeling among scholars that there were two Patricks, with their separate histories and qualities becoming combined into the single all-inclusive narrative of Saint Patrick. This is me and since it wasn't really a choice I voted for magical brownies. Jesus was a popular name at the time and so having several fellows with that name whose deeds got mixed up with a bunch of supernatural thinking added in which was commonplace then sounds like a plausible theory to me.

[Wordy]

Oh I forgot that this is one of my fave too.
Originally Posted by Nialler
An alternative is the several jesus suggestion.

I loved that one since me first read about it around 1986 a German author had that view.

He found about three or more likely candidates one of them named BarAbbas.

[Febble]

My first choice is Something else (please explain) Not easy but someday when I am bright me will explain. It has to do with Midrash interpretation. You get it or have no way of getting such. :)

My second choice is A myth; there was no historical Jesus Christ but that goes for my first choice too. A Midrash is a kind of Myth but not what is usually thought of in that way the word Myth imply. Midrash is not really a myth. It is a way to live the text. That is something else. Myth is what one accuse the others to have.

My third choice is A wisdom sage; a Jewish Cynic philosopher but I don't find it very likely. I guess those that made the Midrash took things from these wisdom sages those Jewish Cynic philosophers

Most of all I think that Jesus as Christ emerge within our heart that is placed in our brain by representation. The emotional heart. Jesus emerge when you welcome him as your savior.

And that is my atheist interpretation. Has nothing to do with supernaturalism but with pure materialism. Personalities to me is physical processes and Jesus within us are a physical process. A kind of MPD phenomena but ritualized and sanctioned by cultural tradition

I think I'm in the same camp as you, wordy.

[Wordy]

Lizzie, thanks, I wish there was ways to describe this view that really hit home so one could talk about without all the misunderstanding that usually happens.

Midrash is an unfortunate word cause at that time alleged Jesus was living they had maybe three different traditions on doing midrash.

One is the fairly simple about how to behave as a good law abiding Jew.

To not work on the Sabbath day. Jesus disciples reaping the axe and eating was one example they played out. To follow the Law like the letter of in the spirit of the Law. Seen as a way to live it instead of being a slave under it. Jesus as a liberating savior.

To not talk to a foreign Samaritan woman when she and you are alone at the well.
This comment on the purity they wanted to upheld. The story do a Midrash on the old text reading it in new light that liberates them the writers seems to say.

It is fully ok to talk about the new time that will soon emerge even if one are only one man and one woman meeting. That is to share the new light from Jesus Christ, somthing that is Kosher and not filthy or make you less pure in heart. :)

And many others.

If one say that Jesus is only a Myth then these stories kind of miss the point.

If they are seen as Midrash about how to live the text now despite the text being very old makes the story a live story something to learn from even as atheist. A way to gain insight in how the wold look like from within that community the story was written for.

Myth sounds so similar to "Political Spin". The Other bad party do Political Spin or engage in Myth while we try to live a vision of the Good solidaric life of caring humans. :)

[clivedurdle]

I have voted god man hybrid, saviour of mankind (although fully god fully man is technically not a hybrid) because that is how the gospels and its religion portray this character. I think we should be honest and acknowledge the fundaments of this belief system.

But that leads immediately to a contradiction - we are discussing another member of a common group - part this part that - so Jesus is the equivalent of many part this and thats that the Greeks especially were good at inventing!

[disgracian]

As far as I know, all his deeds have been previously attributed to other man/god figures from other belief systems so it seems most likely to me that his life is an amalgamation of pre-existing legends.

The complete lack of coherent chronology and discrepencies in details among the gospel accounts further confirm this.

Cheers,
D.

[David B]

As far as I know, all his deeds have been previously attributed to other man/god figures from other belief systems so it seems most likely to me that his life is an amalgamation of pre-existing legends.

The complete lack of coherent chronology and discrepencies in details among the gospel accounts further confirm this.

Cheers,
D.

Yabbut!

As far as I know many of the words attributed to him in the bible are just classic cult leader stuff.

It's not extraordinary to suppose that there were cult leaders around at that time.

There are historical refs, are there not, to people like Simon Magus.

And, though it is far from proof, there is the inductive argument that many legends are founded in fact.

St Govan for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Govan

There is a hermitage on the cliffs, that I have visited many times.

Many others.

I don't see any reason for concluding that Jesus was mythical, as opposed to being a cult leader, about whom supernatural claims were made (like St Govan), though I also see no reason why there might not be a composite Jesus, reflecting more than one cult leader.

David B

[shipload]

I'm a mythicist. Not dogmatic, in that I'm fairly convinced it cannot be shown one way or another. However, for me the "midrash" explanation is the best.

Jesus was an invented character for midrash...a heuristic tool to illuminate some other teaching. I also think that the Q materials are very much like the Tao Te Ching in nature, a collection of wisdom sayings collected from sets of various religious elders and then retrojectively imposed upon the Jesus character. Once combined with the Markian tale, loosely based upon Homeric traditions (per MacDonald), the midrash came to be considered as referencing a real person and the historical details were retrojectively added....this, of course, could be done with impunity in that the Romans had destroyed all Judean records with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, a generation after the putative Jesus. All of the gospels were authored at least an entire generation from the events they purport to describe, by unknown authors, writing in a language not spoken by the putative Jesus and his followers. The tales crossed a linguist cultural boundary, hundreds of miles away, and emerge nearly a century after their purported occurance. If that's not an invitation for opportunistic editing and fanciful embellishment, I don't know what is. Other details were added to plump out Jesus' miraculous abilities ("our savior is just as good as yours; see, he had a miraculous birth, just like [fill in the blank]), his sketchy biography, and so forth. Over hundreds of years and massive infighting over texts and interpretations, editing helped those who would become "orthodox" keep those they deemed "heretical" from claiming to be legitimate heirs of the original Jesus (per Ehrman). Once accepted and promoted by the Roman emperors, the church then proceeded to destroy anything and everything which did not support their new "orthodoxy" or "orthopraxis".

This does not mean that Christianity is based upon a "lie", but a "mistake" by those who really wanted a new, and more compassionate dispensation in the midst of a period of huge social and political dislocation. I'm reasonably confident that, as such, Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, is a fiction.

[lpetrich]

In response to clivedurdle, I was asking about a historical Jesus Christ, the one that you would find if you could go back in a time machine and visit Palestine around 30 CE. If there was any at all.

Should I have made that clearer?


For my part, I voted for him being a myth. But if there was a historical JC, then I think that he would likely have been the second or third possibilities.

My main reasons are: (1) I find Earl Doherty's Jesus-myth scenario very plausible and (2) JC's high Lord-Raglan score, about 19 out of 22.

[Pavlov's Dog]

My main reasons are: (1) I find Earl Doherty's Jesus-myth scenario very plausible and (2) JC's high Lord-Raglan score, about 19 out of 22.

If that is all you got, especially the Lord-Ragan scale, then good luck to you. First, you have to stretch it to get to a 19. Second, it doesn't distinguish between Jesus being a myth, and the things that people said he did being mythical. I don't think George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, and then did the whole, "I cannot tell a lie" thing. That is a myth, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a dude named George Washington who was a general in the revolutionary war and a president of the US.

[Dlx2]

I actually don't buy the idea that Jesus was a real human being at all, but I also think the mythicist position is sort of weak.

So. Something else.

None of Jesus's teachings or sayings are unique. Many are derived from various sources, including Essene and Pharisee sources.

"Yeshua" is about as common a name as you could get at the time. It's the equivalent of "John Smith." Common names of such a sort are often used as an everyman pseudonym.

Much of the myth structure is directly borrowed from Isis and Osiris life-death-rebirth cultus. This includes symbology (such as the mother and child, the cross) and content (the meek inheriting the earth).

Much of the content is also aimed at pacifying the Judaeans, who were rather pissed at the Roman occupation. The Gospels especially are rife with Roman pro-assimilation propaganda, especially the later authors, such as Luke. Compare the putative speeches of Jesus to the putative speeches of Elazar at Masada and the putative speeches of Simeon bar Kochba, and so forth.

Many aspects of the Jesus cultus were directly derived from Manichaeism, which was being exported from the east.

My impression is that the Jesus cultus was largely a Roman syncretism during a period where a lot of folks in Rome were attempting to come to grips with institutionalized slavery and a lack of a distinct Roman identity. All these ideas were circulating at the time, and it just so happened that they coagulated around a Jew, given the rather bloody nature of the first and second Jewish revolts. Christian symbolism, including the ubiquitous crucifiction, was largely Roman or Egyptian thematically; the crucifix especially has thematic similarities with the Dying Gaul, another rather striking piece of Roman art from the same general period of time.

When you've stripped the post-mortem propaganda and syncretism from the character, all that's left is the name. Whether the name was originally attached to a relevant individual or not is perhaps a question worth asking, but this idea that "Jesus" was a mystic, revolutionary, or whatnot is sort of silly. That's like asking if Starbuck was a great trader who discovered coffee and brought it to Seattle. Of course not. Jesus is just a brand name associated with the zeitgeist of the first and second century of Imperial Roman expansion.

[cape_royds]

I simply checked "Myth" because the only proof is the Bible and it cannot be trusted as an accurate historical account.
If he was real, I would have chosen #2 or #4...or #5...:dunno:

At least one reliable Roman historian offers independent corroboration of the existence of a Judean radical named Christ.

He merits a brief and somewhat hostile mention by Tacitus, in his Annals:

[Nero] punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome.


Oh, those restless, depraved, provincials!

[Lucretius III]

I simply checked "Myth" because the only proof is the Bible and it cannot be trusted as an accurate historical account.
If he was real, I would have chosen #2 or #4...or #5...:dunno:

At least one reliable Roman historian offers independent corroboration of the existence of a Judean radical named Christ.

He merits a brief and somewhat hostile mention by Tacitus, in his Annals:

[Nero] punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome.


Oh, those restless, depraved, provincials!

As I have said before and doubtless will say again( & again & again :)) I have my doubts about that particular passage in the Annales

See this post

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=13537#post13537

(For those who may not know I have a B.A. Latin (Hons) and Tacitus was one to the "special authors " I studied in depth )

ETA I am not completely dogmatic that this passage is not the work of Tacitus just that I do have a few doubts about it for the reasons stated in the post quoted above.

[lpetrich]

cape_royds, here is Earl Doherty's argument:
The Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44), is the first pagan writer to speak of Jesus as a man crucified by Pilate. Rather than representing information he dug out of an archive (the Romans would hardly have kept a record of the countless crucifixions around the empire going back a century), this was probably derived from Christian hearsay about a human founder of the movement, newly circulating in the Rome of Tacitus’ day (c.115). On the other hand, there are those who question the authenticity of this passage as well.
Source: ED's page on Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm); Piece No. 1: A Conspiracy of Silence.

Suetonius's reference to a troublemaker named "Chrestus" is similarly short and cryptic, Josephus's reference is likely bogus (a misinterpretation of some scribe's note as part of the text, perhaps), Pliny the Younger mentions worship of "Christ as if a god", while Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberias, and Pliny the Elder say absolutely nothing about JC.

And in answer to Pavlov's Dog, it is certainly possible that there was some historical JC who got so encrusted with mythology that it is difficult to tell fact from fiction about him. But in that case, the JC of the Gospels was essentially mythical.

[clivedurdle]

Ok, god man myth hybrid, forerunner of Flash Gordon Saviour of the Universe? (Cue Queen at full blast!)

Note I used the term character!

[shipload]

My main reasons are: (1) I find Earl Doherty's Jesus-myth scenario very plausible and (2) JC's high Lord-Raglan score, about 19 out of 22.

If that is all you got, especially the Lord-Ragan scale, then good luck to you. First, you have to stretch it to get to a 19. Second, it doesn't distinguish between Jesus being a myth, and the things that people said he did being mythical. I don't think George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, and then did the whole, "I cannot tell a lie" thing. That is a myth, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a dude named George Washington who was a general in the revolutionary war and a president of the US.


You could've just done the chant, PV: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The cherry tree story is not it evidence for Mr. Washington's existence, either, it's more in the same vein as "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"...so, did Ichibod Crane exist? No. A myth does not make a man, otherwise, we'd have men in capes flying through our skies and men in spider suits swinging through our cities.

Please provide unquestionable evidence for the existence of said Jesus.

[shipload]

I personally ascribe to the approach used by Robert M. Price in his The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition? (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591021219/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top), where he deals with the "evidence" by deconstructing the claims.

I also highly recommend any of the works of Bart Ehrman, but, in particular, his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-Scripture-Christological-Controversies/dp/0195102797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208470312&sr=1-1), in which he shows that the documents were continually redacted and edited by those who held them sacred....primarily to prevent the "heretical" christians from claiming their interpretations were correct. Professor Ehrman is an historicist who is of the opinion that Jesus was a deluded prophetic figure who thought his death would issue in the "Kingdom of God"...a madman, in other words.

Also, given the find a Nag Hammadi, I'm pretty sure that we can safely assume that there were in excess of fifteen or twenty gospels, all contradicting each other to a certain extent, prior to the destruction brought upon the heels of the Theodosian Edicts of the late 4th century. I think that can be extended to even more, and it hints that there was a vast number of competing conceptions of the "Jesus teachings" prior to that time. Each unique christian community of the 4th century had it's own preferred doctrines...the Arians being the largest and most aggressive in the face of "orthodoxy".

[shipload]

I simply checked "Myth" because the only proof is the Bible and it cannot be trusted as an accurate historical account.
If he was real, I would have chosen #2 or #4...or #5...:dunno:

At least one reliable Roman historian offers independent corroboration of the existence of a Judean radical named Christ.

He merits a brief and somewhat hostile mention by Tacitus, in his Annals:

[Nero] punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome.


Oh, those restless, depraved, provincials!

As I have said before and doubtless will say again( & again & again :)) I have my doubts about that particular passage in the Annales

See this post

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=13537#post13537

(For those who may not know I have a B.A. Latin (Hons) and Tacitus was one to the "special authors " I studied in depth )

ETA I am not completely dogmatic that this passage is not the work of Tacitus just that I do have a few doubts about it for the reasons stated in the post quoted above.

You needn't.

The cite is proof positive that there were "christians" in Anatolia in the second century, no more. It is not evidence of Jesus at all, in fact, it doesn't even name him, referring to the title only. So...which Jesus was it? A gnostic Jesus, like the later Marcion would claim? Or, perhaps the inheritors of Paul's competitors...Nag Hammadi suggests that these christians could have been at quite a distance, doctrinally, from what passes for any christianity on today's scene.

Furthermore, his evidence was probably collected by torturers, and we know how reliable that is.

[Pavlov's Dog]

You could've just done the chant, PV: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The cherry tree story is not it evidence for Mr. Washington's existence, either, it's more in the same vein as "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"...so, did Ichibod Crane exist? No. A myth does not make a man, otherwise, we'd have men in capes flying through our skies and men in spider suits swinging through our cities.

Please provide unquestionable evidence for the existence of said Jesus.

What?

[Pavlov's Dog]

And in answer to Pavlov's Dog, it is certainly possible that there was some historical JC who got so encrusted with mythology that it is difficult to tell fact from fiction about him. But in that case, the JC of the Gospels was essentially mythical.

Well, if anyone thinks that there was a guy who was exactly like or even mostly like the guy described in the gospels, then they are idiots.

[cape_royds]

As I have said before and doubtless will say again( & again & again :)) I have my doubts about that particular passage in the Annales

ETA I am not completely dogmatic that this passage is not the work of Tacitus just that I do have a few doubts about it for the reasons stated in the post quoted above.

Fair enough to have doubts, since the Annals had a narrow escape from oblivion.

But while one can speculate about the text being somehow interpolated or corrupt, one would nevertheless have to provide a good justification for choosing to disregard it.

I find Lucretius III's stylistic criticism interesting but unconvincing. Abruptness and awkwardness are often described as hallmarks of Tacitus, and never more than in the Annals. There is also a considerable literature discussing the use of alliteration in Tacitus. Moreover I think it's quite characteristic that Tacitus took the opportunity in that passage to skewer both the cruelty of an emperor and the loathsome decadence of the cultists. I respect Lucretius III's knowledge of this author, but nevertheless modern editors of the text accept the passage, and I'm not sure why I should treat his authority as exceeding theirs.


It's not hard to see why other contemporary historical references are scant. Compared to the full-scale war in Judaea which took place 66-73 AD, the earlier disturbances there at the time of Christ probably didn't signify on a Roman's political horizon.

A historical figure is not necessarily a well or truly recorded historical figure.

[Lucretius III]

Fair enough to have doubts, since the Annals had a narrow escape from oblivion.

But while one can speculate about the text being somehow interpolated or corrupt, one would nevertheless have to provide a good justification for choosing to disregard it.

I find Lucretius III's stylistic criticism interesting but unconvincing. Abruptness and awkwardness are often described as hallmarks of Tacitus, and never more than in the Annals. There is also a considerable literature discussing the use of alliteration in Tacitus. Moreover I think it's quite characteristic that Tacitus took the opportunity in that passage to skewer both the cruelty of an emperor and the loathsome decadence of the cultists. I respect Lucretius III's knowledge of this author, but nevertheless modern editors of the text accept the passage, and I'm not sure why I should treat his authority as exceeding theirs.



At least you found it interesting :)
I must admit, that when I first read this particular passage in isolation from the rest of the surviving Annales, I didn't notice much "wrong" with it ,but when read as part of the work as a whole and saw it more in context , to me it seems to stick out like a couple of discordant notes in the middle of your favourite piece of music .
The change of style, the change of pace in this instance are to me Un-Tacitean ,it reads as if it were a later interpolation or a marginalia included either by accident or on purpose.
Of course he may have just had an "off day" when he wrote this I suppose :)

[lpetrich]

It's clear that Tacitus and Josephus are rather doubtful sources here, especially when one considers the volumes they have written on other subjects. Josephus had written at length about several self-styled messiahs who had lived in Judea in the first century CE, and he did not think very highly of them, calling them "tricksters". So one has to wonder why he did not write about Jesus Christ at similar length, and with a similar sort of jaundiced eye.

Now to Lord Raglan's profile. It has to be interpreted rather loosely, because otherwise, it would be hard to find anyone who scores very high in it. Here it is:

(1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin, while
(2) his father is a king, and
(3) the father is related to the mother.
(4) The hero's conception is unusual or miraculous; hence
(5) he is reputed to be a son of a god.
(6) Evil forces attempt to kill the infant or boy hero, but
(7) he is spirited away to safety and
(8) reared by foster parents in a foreign land. Besides this,
(9) we learn no details of his childhood until
(10) he journeys to his future kingdom, where
(11) he triumphs over the reigning king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, and
(12) marries a princess, often his predecessor's daughter, and
(13) becomes king himself.
(14) For a while he reigns uneventfully,
(15) promulgating laws. But
(16) he later loses favor with his subjects or with the gods and
(17) is driven from the throne and the city and
(18) meets with a mysterious death,
(19) often atop a hill.
(20) If he has children, they do not succeed him.
(21) His body is not buried, yet
(22) he has one or more holy sepulchers.

According to Lord Raglan and Alan Dundes,

Oedipus: 21
Theseus: 20
Moses: 20
Jesus Christ: 19
King Arthur: 19
Dionysus: 19
Romulus: 18
Hercules: 17
Bellerophon: 16
Gilgamesh: 15
Jason: 15
Robin Hood: 13

However, I think that this profile deserves some revision. I'd like "royal virgin" split into two criteria, and three additional ones added:
* He was a child prodigy.
* He fulfilled some prophecies,
* despite efforts to thwart that fulfillment.

I'd posted a lot on Lord Raglan's profile over at IIDB, including lots of evaluations; go there for my evaluations of Zeus, Krishna, the Buddha, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Charles Darwin, Harry Potter, and Anakin and Luke and Leia Skywalker.

I will now score Jesus Christ:

1. 0.5 - Mary is a virgin, of course, but she has no pedigree, except if one accepts the apologetic that Luke's genealogy of JC goes through Mary.

2. 1 - Joseph, according to Matthew, is descended from King David, making him an uncrowned king in the Davidic line.

3. 0 - except perhaps if one believes in the Davidic descent of Mary.

4. 1 - Need I say more?

5. 1 - He is not only the Son of God, but the Second Person in the Christian Trinity (either God or 1/3 of God).

6. 1 - King Herod tries to kill him by killing all those Bethlehem baby boys.

7. 1 - His parents flee to Egypt

8. 0 - He is raised by his "real" parents.

9. 0.5 - There's a story of his precocious learning, but that's about it. Some noncanonical gospels go into more detail, picturing him as an Anthony Fremont sort of child (Twilight Zone, "It's a Good Life").

10. 1 - He returns to Galilee.

11. 1 - He successfully resists the Devil's temptations, such as getting to rule all the kingdoms of the world, and the Devil slinks away in shame.

12. 0 - He is single all his life. Mary Magdalene, his extracanonically-rumored Significant Other, is a commoner.

13. 1 - He becomes a famous prophet, attracting crowds who follow him around.

14. 1 - Correct.

15. 1 - His teachings may be considered laws.

16. 1 - He gets put on trial by the authorities and a lynch mob wants him dead.

17. 1 - The authorities find him guilty of blasphemy.

18. 1 - His crucifixion.

19. 1 - That's where his cross is.

20. 1 - He has no appointed successors.

21. 1 - He rises from the dead and then ascends to heaven.

22. 1 - He resides in one before rising from the dead.

Royal mother? 0 - except if you believe the Luke genealogy being Mary's apologetic.

Virgin mother? 1 - she's not the Virgin Mary for nothing.

Child prodigy? 1 - JC is a super student in the Jerusalem Temple.

Prophecy fulfillment? 1 - JC fulfills OT prophecies of a coming Messiah.

Efforts to thwart it? 1 - King Herod tries to kill him to keep that from happening.

My score is 18, which is not much different from Alan Dundes's score. The Luke-Mary apologetic would push it up to 19 or so.

[Ray Moscow]

^^ IMO, once you eliminate the mythical and midrashic elements from the Jesus stories, you got nuthin'.

There could of course have been a real HJ anyway -- it's just that evidence for him is pretty thin.

[shipload]

Prophecy fulfillment? 1 - JC fulfills OT prophecies of a coming Messiah.

Not to the Jews, he wasn't. Anybody who gets crucified like a common criminal by the imperial warlords does not qualify as a messiah. One needs to remember that the messiah concept was considerably at variance to that which we, in this day and age, ascribe to the Jesus figure. It did not mean an ethereal spiritual teacher, but a warrior king who would force out the foreign overlords. This is why I think the Jesus name came to be associated with the "messiah" figure...it's a recapitulation of the Joshua son of Nun story regarding the genocidal retaking of the "promised land" from non-Hebrews to reintroduce the "Kingdom of God".

[lpetrich]

shipload, you are entirely correct about how much JC really fulfilled the OT messianic prophecies. The OT Messiah was supposed to be a king who would lead the liberation of the Jews from their foreign oppressors, re-establish control of Palestine, restart the Davidic dynasty, and restart worship at the Jerusalem Temple. By that standard, JC did not come close to being the OT messiah.

But what I am considering is the myth of JC as presented in the Gospels, and that includes fulfillment of OT messianic prophecies. I'm considering that in the way that I am considering JC's alleged virgin birth.

[SteveF]

Do many historians take the Christ myth seriously?

[Jobar]

As usual when this subject comes up, I advise those of you who are unsure about this question to get thee to http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/, and read. Tremendously interesting and well done site, and you'll learn more about this topic than you will at any other single source I know of.

[Wordy]

Is it not surprising that Richard Dawkins seems to be mixed up about Jesus. He seems to thing there existed a real person with ideas similar to the text in the Bible but that the Jesus Christ is a myth based on that real person.

And that it is impossible to know what is myth and what is an exxegarated story. Maybe he did get buried in Joseph from Arimatea toomb?

I think it is all myth but that the myth is based not on one real person but on many real persons. Maybe three or 5 or more. There where many such escatological preachers who was active.

Most likely it had the same function as our "Tele-Evangelists". Same kind of rich people who gives money to these current evangelists same at that time gave money to the "poor" who flocked aroung those pearchers who gave them hope.

A kind of soap opera live role playing but some 2000 years ago.

No mystery or supernatural at all. Ordinary human needs and social constructs creating a cultural tradition.

[Jobar]

Is it not surprising that Richard Dawkins seems to be mixed up about Jesus. He seems to thing there existed a real person with ideas similar to the text in the Bible but that the Jesus Christ is a myth based on that real person.

I'd be interested to know how Dawkins would answer this poll.

[AthenaAwakened]

I put MYTH.

I figure with the proliferation of mystery cults in the Area of Galilee around the time of the Christ supposed life, and the growing sentiment of the rebellion which would lead to Masada, would be "leaders of the people" were prolly popping up left and right. I think the Jesus character was most likely born out of a mix of ancient predictions, social longing for salvation for oppression, and an amalgamation of wannabe revolutionaries and street corner preachers.

[Magdlyn]

12. 0 - He is single all his life. Mary Magdalene, his extracanonically-rumored Significant Other, is a commoner.

Minor quibble.

I think we could add one more point to your list. MM is not only extracanonically seen as J's spouse. When she lets her hair down and wipes his feet with it, she performs an act only a wife could. And, if you see sense in conflating Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus, with MM, as I do, you see more wifely actions.

Also, calling her a commoner is not held up by scripture. She was a woman of means who supported J's mission with her own funds. And, the annointing and finding him at the tomb indicates a sort of priestesshood.

[shipload]

shipload, you are entirely correct about how much JC really fulfilled the OT messianic prophecies. The OT Messiah was supposed to be a king who would lead the liberation of the Jews from their foreign oppressors, re-establish control of Palestine, restart the Davidic dynasty, and restart worship at the Jerusalem Temple. By that standard, JC did not come close to being the OT messiah.

But what I am considering is the myth of JC as presented in the Gospels, and that includes fulfillment of OT messianic prophecies. I'm considering that in the way that I am considering JC's alleged virgin birth.

See Saoshyant in Persian mythos.

[lpetrich]

12. 0 - He is single all his life. Mary Magdalene, his extracanonically-rumored Significant Other, is a commoner.

Minor quibble.

I think we could add one more point to your list. MM is not only extracanonically seen as J's spouse. When she lets her hair down and wipes his feet with it, she performs an act only a wife could. And, if you see sense in conflating Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus, with MM, as I do, you see more wifely actions.
That's John 12:1-8 -- and I don't see any good reason for jumping to that conclusion, since there are several Maries in the New Testament. Someone even created a thread in IIDB called Too many Maries (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=202961)

Also, calling her a commoner is not held up by scripture. She was a woman of means who supported J's mission with her own funds. And, the annointing and finding him at the tomb indicates a sort of priestesshood.
Where in the Bible does it state all that? I'd like to see chapter and verse on that. I've tried to follow the Bible as far as possible, with a few mentions of noncanonical NT literature here and there, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

With the help of Mary Magdalene, I've found Luke 8:2-3, which states that she had financially supported Jesus Christ or some such. And the noncanonical literature includes a Gospel of Mary, who may possibly have been Mary Magdalene, and a Gospel of Philip, which states that Jesus Christ liked Mary Magdalene the most and liked to kiss her a lot.

But there is nothing that indicates any special status on her part.

Conceptions of Mary Magdalene have varied over the centuries. In centuries past, she was often imagined to be an archetypical penitent sexual sinner. But relatively recently, over the last half-century or so, she has often been imagined to be Jesus Christ's girlfriend or wife. And more recently, she has been imagined to be an Ann Druyan figure or even a Kelly O'Connor figure.

[shipload]

Do many historians take the Christ myth seriously?

Too many do, yes.

[Magdlyn]

12. 0 - He is single all his life. Mary Magdalene, his extracanonically-rumored Significant Other, is a commoner.

Minor quibble.

I think we could add one more point to your list. MM is not only extracanonically seen as J's spouse. When she lets her hair down and wipes his feet with it, she performs an act only a wife could. And, if you see sense in conflating Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus, with MM, as I do, you see more wifely actions.
That's John 12:1-8 -- and I don't see any good reason for jumping to that conclusion, since there are several Maries in the New Testament. Someone even created a thread in IIDB called Too many Maries (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=202961)

IMO, it is no coincidence that Jesus' mother, an apostle (MM), and his wife figure (Mary of Bethany) are all named Mary. If you view the gospel story as a myth, and not a strictly historical record, as it surely isn't, the role of this "Mary" becomes clear. She is present at the birth of the god, during some of the most important parts of his ministry, she annoints and sits at his feet, perhaps lies on his breast as the unnamed Beloved Disciple, witnesses his death, and is the first witness of his resurrection. Her story was perhaps chopped up during redaction, and obscured for patriarchal reasons, as the Bible is a story of the patriarchy. But people want a goddess, and Mary, in all her roles, is it.



Also, calling her a commoner is not held up by scripture. She was a woman of means who supported J's mission with her own funds. And, the annointing and finding him at the tomb indicates a sort of priestesshood.


Where in the Bible does it state all that? I'd like to see chapter and verse on that.

Supporting him with her own money, you found that verse. The priestesshood/divinity: not stated clearly, so much as implied.

I've tried to follow the Bible as far as possible, with a few mentions of noncanonical NT literature here and there, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

With the help of Mary Magdalene, I've found Luke 8:2-3, which states that she had financially supported Jesus Christ or some such. And the noncanonical literature includes a Gospel of Mary, who may possibly have been Mary Magdalene, and a Gospel of Philip, which states that Jesus Christ liked Mary Magdalene the most and liked to kiss her a lot.

But there is nothing that indicates any special status on her part.

Loving her more than all the other apostles does not count as special status in your mind?

[lpetrich]

IMO, it is no coincidence that Jesus' mother, an apostle (MM), and his wife figure (Mary of Bethany) are all named Mary. If you view the gospel story as a myth, and not a strictly historical record, as it surely isn't, the role of this "Mary" becomes clear. She is present at the birth of the god, during some of the most important parts of his ministry, she annoints and sits at his feet, perhaps lies on his breast as the unnamed Beloved Disciple, witnesses his death, and is the first witness of his resurrection. Her story was perhaps chopped up during redaction, and obscured for patriarchal reasons, as the Bible is a story of the patriarchy. But people want a goddess, and Mary, in all her roles, is it.
I prefer to treat those Maries as distinct unless I have reason to believe otherwise.

And do you have any reconstructed "history of edits" of the Gospels that was done independently of the possible identities of the various Maries?

If the Gospels were entirely fictional, then the abundance of Maries in them could be explained by their writers treating "Mary" as a generic woman's name.
(Me: )
Where in the Bible does it state all that? I'd like to see chapter and verse on that.
Supporting him with her own money, you found that verse. The priestesshood/divinity: not stated clearly, so much as implied.
As to supporting JC with her own money, that does not mean much, because JC had never been anywhere close to rich -- he was depicted as some wandering preacher who sponged off of his followers.

In fact, we don't have any hint as to how Mary Magdalene earned her living.

As to being a priestess, you'll need better evidence than anointing a corpse.
Loving her more than all the other apostles does not count as special status in your mind?
Checking on the Gospel of Philip,
And the companion of [] Mary Magdalene. [] her more than [] the disciples, [] kiss her [] on her []. The rest of []. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."
where I have omitted the interpretations of the gaps in the Wikipedia article and left them as []'s.

Turning to Mary Magdalene, I find that she is referred to in that gospel as koinônos, meaning "close friend" or "companion" or possibly "lover". The Liddell-Scott dictionary, online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu lists that word as meaning "companion", "partner", "fellow", "familiar spirit", professional colleague, etc.

So JC and MM may just have been good friends. And there is no evidence that MM was an eminent anything.

[Magdlyn]

Ah, I know. It's all speculation from chopped up and redacted ancient documents. I just find the theory compelling. I think The Woman with the Alabaster Jar by Margaret Starbird explains it best.

BTW, Mary didnt annoint a corpse. I find the story a likely simacrulum to the Greek and more ancient heiros gamos. The "annointing" of the "feet" of the sacrificial god-king in preparation for sex and death. (see Isis' role in mating with Osiris, not annointing, per se, but a very active goddess/priestess role)

In fact, much of the NT, to me, is centered around this Pagan meme, presented in Jewish trappings, as it were.

But, we are wandering off topic, by focusing on this one point about Jesus' mythical identity.