The most mythical man in the world

[Baruch]

If Jesus isn't special, then any false messiah will do ... to show how things were back then.  And yes, there was no particular reason to believe in Pontius Pilate before the Pilate stone ... though he had several extra-biblical references ... Tacitus, Philo and Josephus ... which would have been good enough for me.  Those other mentions don't mention any god-men ... just that he was a rather corrupt governor who had to be recalled by Tiberius (and probably executed).  Of course Josephus has some spurious mentions of Christ, as does Tacitus.  The Tacitus mention can be interpreted more than one way ... Chrestos isn't Christos, but probably both mean "anointed" which is code for "false king".  Actual "anointing" refers to both kingship, and charismatic spirit possession (see Last Temptation of Christ ... which gets it right).  So I am rather relying on Philo and the stone (which has authenticity because it gives a different technical title to Pilate), if I want to support his historicity.  Books are not original source material.  Of course a person like Tiberius is more historical, in terms of cross-evidence, has stone inscriptions not subject to monk's imaginations.  A single reference to Tom Sawyer in a book, isn't enough to prove his existence, and the existence of the author of that book is questionable, since we know it was a pseudonym ;-).  But better than the authorship of the Gospels, which in oldest copy have no ascription (they are anonymous).

[Baruch]

The same reason young earth reationists with PhDs in biology and geology fron respected universities write books: emotional investment. The Jesus-mythicists are emotionally invested in destroying Christianity and have decided to go for the jugular, just like the YEC crowd is emotionally invested in proving a literal interpretation of Genesis. Both groups ignore the consensus opinion of their respective communities.

All origination myths of all religions, including Judaism, are completely fictional.  They always involve miracles ... which are total bull.  For some atheists, destroying the Abrahamic religions are a priority, because they are extremely violent and dangerous.

Origination myths of countries, including the US, are complete propaganda for political purposes.  More bull.  The Japanese origination myth (Jimmu and Amaterasu, unless you want to go back to creation in the Shinto pantheon) is a fairy tale.  Same as the Mahabharata.  Nothing wrong with telling fairy tales to our children, except they still believe most of it when they are adults ;-)

I was impressed viewing the Shinto creation location ... Amanohashidate.  Not unlike the Blarney Stone in Ireland.

[Mike Cl]

Couldn't many of the arguments against Jesus' historicity be made against Pontius Pilute, too? Pilate was the most important figure in Judea for a decade and not one writing of his exists, nor do any contemporary accounts. Outside of the gospels, the only mention of this most prominent VIP in Judea comes fron Philo of Alexandria circa 50 AD and from Flavius Josephus decades after that. Until the Pilate Stone was discovered in the early 1960s, there were some historians who doubted his existence.

If there are no writings from or contemporary eyewitness accounts of the man who governed the land for a decade, then why should we expect there to be any for a poor Jewish preacher who travelled through backwater villages separated by miles of wilderness? You said so yourself: Jesus wasn't the only messiah. There were messiahs before and after him. He hardly would have been important enough to win the attention of anybody important.

Well said.  And with that in mind, the biggest difference between finding writings of Pilate and Jesus is because of the claims made for Jesus.  If, indeed, he were the son of God it is hard for me to fathom that he would not leave written guidelines to help future generations come to The Father.  Nothing approaching those type of claims were made for Pilate.  These claims made for Jesus are supernatural in nature and I would think would be backed by written records of The Son.

[LittleNipper]

I like Alexander the Great.

[Mike Cl]

I like Alexander the Great.

And I'm sure he loves you, too.

[LittleNipper]

And I'm sure he loves you, too.

I sure he doesn't know what is presently happening.

[Mike Cl]

The same reason young earth reationists with PhDs in biology and geology fron respected universities write books: emotional investment. The Jesus-mythicists are emotionally invested in destroying Christianity and have decided to go for the jugular, just like the YEC crowd is emotionally invested in proving a literal interpretation of Genesis. Both groups ignore the consensus opinion of their respective communities.

What type of degree must a real debunker of a historical Jesus must have to be legitimate?  Or what would make an author capable of rendering an honest appraisal of the historical records as they pertain to a real Jesus?

[Hakurei Reimu]

Any historical Jesus has been so mythicized and redacted by later authors that any underlying historical truth has been obscured. We don't even know if his name was really Jesus. As such, it doesn't matter at this point whether Jesus was real man who had been mythicised or a fictional figure that had been historicised â€" the mundane stuff is kind of banal, while the mythical stuff is clearly myth.

[The Atheist]

What type of degree must a real debunker of a historical Jesus must have to be legitimate?  Or what would make an author capable of rendering an honest appraisal of the historical records as they pertain to a real Jesus?

I would think that someone with competent knowledge in textual criticism and a basic knowledge of that part of the world at that tine would be able to offer a valid opinion.

As an atheist, I have no problem if Jesus never existed. But since I have no training in texual criticism, I can only defer to the experts, and the near-unanimous consent is that there was an historical man whom the gospels are based on.

For me, one of the most compelling arguments for Jesus' existence is that Luke's gospel attempts to justify the fact that he was from Nazareth. The Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, so Luke fabricated a story (or maybe wrote down a fabricated oral tradition) about Jesus having been born in Bethlehem and then moved to Nazareth later.

If Jesus was completely fictitious, wouldn't it have been easier to just avoid the whole Nazareth problem and say he spent all 30 years of his life in Bethlehem?

[The Atheist]

Well said.  And with that in mind, the biggest difference between finding writings of Pilate and Jesus is because of the claims made for Jesus.  If, indeed, he were the son of God it is hard for me to fathom that he would not leave written guidelines to help future generations come to The Father.  Nothing approaching those type of claims were made for Pilate.  These claims made for Jesus are supernatural in nature and I would think would be backed by written records of The Son.

That's a good point. Tha Catholics would argue that he left an infallible church to guide everyone, though.

[Baruch]

That's a good point. Tha Catholics would argue that he left an infallible church to guide everyone, though.

The problem with any documents left by an actual historical Jesus, is that the Church would destroy or hide them, since they won't be saying what the Church wants them to say.  In some respects, the Dead Sea Scrolls are documents of that type.  Then again, there is the recent theory that the Synoptic Gospels in particular, were inspired by Flavian politics even before they were utilized by Constantinian politics.  Less likely, but possible.  We do know that the NT books were redacted by early Church authorities (there was more than one Church BTW) for their own contemporary political purposes.  Some rare documents disapproved by the Constantinian Church survived, to be dug up in the 19th and 20th centuries.

BTW - in one branch of the Church, Pilate is a saint, because in their hagiography, he converted after the resurrection ;-)

The problem with Biblical opinions, is that people rarely enter into it, without an ax to grind.  And history is a branch of literature, not of science.  Archeology is a science, and the restoration of lost manuscripts and inscriptions is part of that.  What was copied by monk to monk for centuries, doesn't have the "continuity of possession" you expect of a crime scene investigation.

Exactly why the anonymous authors/communities did what they did and wrote what they wrote, will probably always be lost to time.  However I recommend reading The Didache ... because there is a very early document, older than Paul, which illustrates what it was like before it became a mass movement.  One view of what it was like to write religious literature, under spirit possession, is illustrated by the surviving fragments of the Gospel of Mary (of Magdala).

[The Atheist]

The problem with any documents left by an actual historical Jesus, is that the Church would destroy or hide them, since they won't be saying what the Church wants them to say.  In some respects, the Dead Sea Scrolls are documents of that type.  Then again, there is the recent theory that the Synoptic Gospels in particular, were inspired by Flavian politics even before they were utilized by Constantinian politics.  Less likely, but possible.  We do know that the NT books were redacted by early Church authorities (there was more than one Church BTW) for their own contemporary political purposes.  Some rare documents disapproved by the Constantinian Church survived, to be dug up in the 19th and 20th centuries.

BTW - in one branch of the Church, Pilate is a saint, because in their hagiography, he converted after the resurrection ;-)

The problem with Biblical opinions, is that people rarely enter into it, without an ax to grind.  And history is a branch of literature, not of science.  Archeology is a science, and the restoration of lost manuscripts and inscriptions is part of that.  What was copied by monk to monk for centuries, doesn't have the "continuity of possession" you expect of a crime scene investigation.

Exactly why the anonymous authors/communities did what they did and wrote what they wrote, will probably always be lost to time.  However I recommend reading The Didache ... because there is a very early document, older than Paul, which illustrates what it was like before it became a mass movement.  One view of what it was like to write religious literature, under spirit possession, is illustrated by the surviving fragments of the Gospel of Mary (of Magdala).

I have to disagree with some of what you said. As someone who was once considering becoming a priest, I did spend a great deal of time studying this stuff.

The problem with any documents left by an actual historical Jesus, is that the Church would destroy or hide them, since they won't be saying what the Church wants them to say.

I don't think that's true. It seems like what might happen in a Dan Brown novel, but the truth is that Vatican's archives (which aren't anywhere near as fancy-looking as the movie depicts) are open to any researcher with proper credentials. The Vatican possesses countless texts, many of which remain to be studied. There's currently an online project sponsored by the Vatican in which researchers scan and post these texts for the public to see.

In some respects, the Dead Sea Scrolls are documents of that type.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written between 200-100 BC. There's no evidence that the Catholic Church has worked to suppress them, nor is there anything in the Dead Sea Scrolls (well, only about 25% of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been studied) to make Christianity look bad.

We do know that the NT books were redacted by early Church authorities (there was more than one Church BTW) for their own contemporary political purposes.

I've never heard about early Christians redacting their writings. Most variations in manuscripts are due to copying errors, like one copyist misspelling a word or forgetting a letter. It's true that a couple of passages were added later, like the ending of Mark's Gospel, but this is rarely the case and it wasn't for nefarious motives, as far as is known.

I sort of have to disagree with the idea that there was more than one church. Part of the reason is because it depends on how you define church and Christian. In the anti-Nicene period, there were competing groups--e.g., the various gnostic groups--but, by all accounts, there was a mainstream church. In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus of Lyons (circa 180) argued that there was one "mainstream" church, which held a unanimous faith "in all parts" of the known world regardless of the fact that they couldn't communicate due to extreme distances, and then there existed multitudes of regional groups who differed wildly from one another. (Specifically, Books I and IV of Against Heresies.) The thing with Against Heresies is that the intended audience was the gnostics themselves; Irenaeus wouldn't offer an argument unless it was something they could objectively observe.

Some rare documents disapproved by the Constantinian Church survived, to be dug up in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Can you provide a link? I'm interested in learning about that. Are you're referring to those surviving passages from certain Arians?

BTW - in one branch of the Church, Pilate is a saint, because in their hagiography, he converted after the resurrection ;-)

I think I've heard this among Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. It sounds vaguely familiar.

What was copied by monk to monk for centuries, doesn't have the "continuity of possession" you expect of a crime scene investigation.

I have to disagree with this, and I offer the Dead Sea Scrolls as the reason why. Until they were discovered, the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament we had was a 10th century codex (whose name eludes me). There was no way to be certain that our Old Testament was the same scriptures used in Jesus' time, and some critics of Christianity even made the bold claim that Christians simply edited the Old Testament to make it appear that Jesus had fulfilled Messianic prophecy.

Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, we've acquired a complete copy of all but one book of our modern Old Testament. Except for a few minor "typos" and spelling changes, the books are the same. In other words, they were faithfully copied for ten centuries without deviation.

It's not so hard to believe that the New Testament survived being hand-copied.

(And let's not forget that the entire New Testament also exists as quotes in the writings of hundreds of Christians writers spread far apart by time and geography, going as far back as Ignatius of Antioch [circa 90-110 AD] and Clement of Rome [circa 80-90 AD]. Secondly, copying the "Holy Bible" by hand would have been considered a sacred act by monks; they would have been deliberate in their duty, as evidenced by the survival of the Old Testament during the first millennium AD. The typos that do exist in the most ancient manuscripts exist because, in ancient times, many copyists were illiterate. [As strange as that sounds, it makes sense. You didn't need to be literate to be able to copy letters.])

Exactly why the anonymous authors/communities did what they did and wrote what they wrote, will probably always be lost to time.  However I recommend reading The Didache ... because there is a very early document, older than Paul, which illustrates what it was like before it became a mass movement.

The Didache was most likely written in the latter half of the first century. It's pretty banal reading. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes extensively from it. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church even has it as part of their Bible. (The Didache was "rediscovered" by Europeans in the 19th century when a Russian monk visited an Ethiopian church, believe it or not.) Nobody holds that it was written before Paul's epistles. It is considered the earliest extant text outside of the NT, however, along with the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp.

One view of what it was like to write religious literature, under spirit possession, is illustrated by the surviving fragments of the Gospel of Mary (of Magdala).

The reason why Matthew/Mark/Luke and John are part of the Christian Bible, and why other gospels are ignored, has nothing to do with "hiding anything." It's because M/M/L/J were considered the oldest gospel texts (which is true), and because they were they only four universally venerated by Christians (also true). During the anti-Nicene period, many Christian writers offered scriptural canons. These lists are largely in agreement with one another, and all agree that M/M/L/J are the "legitimate" gospels.

The other gospels, such as the Gospel of Mary, are gnostic. The gnostics had a way of tricking people into following them. A particular gnostic group would write a new version of the gospel to fit their particular beliefs, then would bury it somewhere. They would then bring prospective converts out to the site and "discover" the text in front of these "eyewitnesses."

Early Christians were not unaware of this practice. Against Heresies discusses it. Irenaeus mocked these "foreign" gospels because of this very tactic, and sarcastically asks the gnostic converts how they could accept a gospel text that was unknown to anyone outside of their group and to everyone in previous generations.

[Baruch]

Atheist ... I respectfully disagree .. but at least it is clear you can read well.

My ex was a Catholic Sister, and later a Protestant pastor.  I read all her stuff and then some.  And I have studied Hebrew and Greek ... and much else besides.  But it is OK to disagree on things of the distant past ... hard to find living eye-witnesses ;-)