The Silent Historians

[Randy Carson]

Randy - and that is part of the foundation "myth" of the Church.  Not that none of it was real (in contemporary terms), or at least there were people back then who thought it was real (there is a strong case for this).  So if you are into foundation "myths" then you are going to convert to Islam then?  Muhammad is far more historical than Jesus, and did a lot more than Jesus.

BTW - I am Jewish, but I consider Moses to be mythical also.

It's true that Muhammad lived more recently and "did a lot more than Jesus" (including wiping out the Jews who had tried to co-exist with the new faith), but its relative novelty does not mean that what Islam teaches is the Word of God. That would be the stuff of another thread, however, and I'm not interested in opening a big discussion of Islam.

I'll just point out in closing that professional NT scholars - skeptics and believers alike - overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real person.

I can start a thread to present the evidence for this if anyone is interested.

[Baruch]

By all means ... in a new thread (scholarly evidence).

But not for me, I no longer consider scholarship to be reliable ... though I use it for other purposes.  I have done my own original scholarship ... so been there, done that.  Mike CL might be interested.

The "Is this the word of G-d" question?", is a trick question.  Theology is circular logic ... and in circular logic, everything is provable.

[Randy Carson]

I have done my own original scholarship ... so been there, done that. 

This is interesting.

If you have formal training in the relevant fields of study, I'd love to hear your credentials so that I may defer appropriately when necessary.

Atheist Bart Ehrman, a serious NT scholar at UNC-Chapel Hill wrote:

"Serious historians of the early Christian movementâ€"all of themâ€"have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause."

So, if you, like Ehrman and others, have formal training, if you have been to the museums and archives of Cairo and Jerusalem and Rome, if you have held these parchments and papyrii in your hands and done your own translations and been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, etc., I'm all ears.

What are your bona fides, Baruch?

[Baruch]

This is interesting.

If you have formal training in the relevant fields of study, I'd love to hear your credentials so that I may defer appropriately when necessary.

Atheist Bart Ehrman, a serious NT scholar at UNC-Chapel Hill wrote:

So, if you, like Ehrman and others, have formal training, if you have been to the museums and archives of Cairo and Jerusalem and Rome, if you have held these parchments and papyrii in your hands and done your own translations and been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, etc., I'm all ears.

What are your bona fides, Baruch?

It is normal for people of a certain sort ... to defer to authority.  I do not.  However I am not too proud to use the research of others, authority or not, in my own studies.  I have taught Biblical Hebrew ... which is more than most here can say.  As a polymath and polyglot ... I suffer from the usual problems of an encyclopedist.  A repeat for others, but I think this is hilarious ... BTW ... have you read Finkelstein?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE

[Mike Cl]

Jesus did not write a book...he established a Church which has survived for 2,000 and has spread the message of his existence to billions of people during that time. I'd say that's pretty effective and not bad for an obscure carpenter from a backwater of the Roman empire.

As far as we know, Jesus did not write--much less write a book.  And I would say that others started a church in the name of Jesus; not Jesus.  And of course my replies are simplistic--this is simply a forum and long detailed replies are not posted here--nor read.  And I do find the absence of evidence to be evidence in the case of the historicity of Jesus.  No contemporary wrote about him?  That is beyond believable.  And even his name--Jesus, which means savior, which is the same meaning of the name Joshua, who lead the chosen from the wilderness into the promised land.  Could it be that the Jews were simply yearning and trying to put flesh to a savior, and one who could and would save them from the Romans?  Yeah, most likely, for me. 

[Baruch]

Savior and Son of God are titles of Emperor Augustus.  Was he Jewish too?  The political implications are obvious, but only if you read the National Inquirer 2000 years ago.  We are a long way from being culturally like our ancestors.  As one observer put it ... synagogue worship in the US isn't real religion, it is just ancestor worship ;-)

[aitm]

Is there any good evidence that Nazareth even existed

My understanding from my studies done nearly 20 years ago, was that Nazareth was actually a cemetery somewhere between Jerusalem and Bethlehem which is why it was not well-known/understood. But, I have had a few beers and other assorted mixtures of alcohol and drugs of various types since then. Could very well have been a dream where god took me back in time…you know how that works eh?

[aitm]

Jesus did not write a book...he established a Church which has survived for 2,000 and has spread the message of his existence to billions of people during that time. I'd say that's pretty effective...

Well, if by "spreading the message" you meant killing and torturing millions to accept or die and by that, forced them and their children to become believers and thus spread the disease by birth..then yes, the "message" was spread.

And yes, it was effective. People back then, like now, wanted to live.

[Baruch]

As far as we know, Jesus did not write--much less write a book.  And I would say that others started a church in the name of Jesus; not Jesus.  And of course my replies are simplistic--this is simply a forum and long detailed replies are not posted here--nor read.  And I do find the absence of evidence to be evidence in the case of the historicity of Jesus.  No contemporary wrote about him?  That is beyond believable.  And even his name--Jesus, which means savior, which is the same meaning of the name Joshua, who lead the chosen from the wilderness into the promised land.  Could it be that the Jews were simply yearning and trying to put flesh to a savior, and one who could and would save them from the Romans?  Yeah, most likely, for me.

Being occupied by Rome is both an exterior and an interior condition.  The violent messianic Jews, tried to relieve the exterior condition ... the pacifist messianic Jews, tried to relieve the interior condition.  Interior occupation is like being Black and thinking that Black isn't beautiful.  By 135 CE ... there weren't any violent messianic Jews left.  The rabbinic movement that formed after that, was pacifist ... same as the spin off cults like that of Paul.  There is an interior eschaton ... and an exterior one.  People usually choose the wrong one.