Jesus is...

[Joe Barron]

Very interesting. Are there any good books on this type of thing?

For sure. Robert Price is may major source, here and here.

And there's no parody. This guy is actually quite scholarly. His basic thesis is that large sections of the Gospels are literary contructs:  the later Gospels embellish stuff found in earlier Gospels, and stories in all four were written as glosses on Old Testament verses, what the Jews call midrash. In attempting to reconstruct the "historical" Jesus, scholars will try to peel away subsequent embellishments or commentary. Unfortunately, when they do that, they find very little is left. I'm no expert, and I won't argue with any believers here the way Rob Newman does, but Price makes a very interesting point: that the Gospels were written not as sources of faith, but as expressions of faith. When I read that, a lot of the arguments I had with priests and other believers when I was younger suddenly came into focus. It's interesting. My good friend Lynn, who does believe in God, told me a while ago she reached much the same conlusion independently.

Price also has a Web site: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He's one of the good guys, even if he didn't vote for Obama.

[Dr. Dread]

For sure. Robert Price is may major source, here and here.

And there's no parody. This guy is actually quite scholarly.

Thanks, Joe!

[Joe Barron]

So, that fact (that we have no such contemporary accounts) "means" that Jesus is probably fictitious, or a composite?

I mean, journalism in AD 30 was pretty much the same as it is today, right?

No, there's much more to it than that. See above. But the fact that major miracles were being ignored at the time is certainly suggestive. And I don't understand your point about journalism. I assume you mean it wasn't much as it is today. Today's journalism is quite good at discovering stuff while it's happening.

Another interesting point is that there is no independent confirmation that the Apostles ever existed or traveled they way the Acts describe. Peter, for example, is sort of the break out character of the Gospels. In early stories, he's just one of the crowd. In later stories, he's become a foil for Jesus, existing to be weak or wrong so that Jesus can make his points about faith. They have much the same relationship at Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy in the third season of Star Trek.

in any event, the earliest Christian writings are Paul's epistles, and the Gospels most likely drew their theology, and hence their narrative, from him. Mark's Gospel, the earliest, dates from about AD 70, and even that has a lot of later interpolations.

[Catison]

Joe,

What is really interesting is that my experience is exactly the opposite.  It was not until I understood these imperfections about the Bible that I started to become a Christian.  For me, the Bible was represented as too perfect.  How could an entirely theology be built into book?  And, isn't it convenient that this book is divinely inspired and not others?  And don't those errors make it impossible to interpret it?

Once I understood how the New Testament was written and constructed things seemed more "real" to me.  We can't exactly prove that everything in the New Testament is accurate or that any of the events took place.  But if we, for the sake of argument, suppose that it is merely a reliable account of real events and not a play by play retelling, and, taking into account history, the intended audience, the authors themselves, the writing standards of the time, etc. what emerges is that the New Testament is entire consistent with such an assumption.  And as a Catholic, these books don't have to stand on their own, but are supported by the Church herself, which is another, parallel witness of the reality of Jesus.

One of the things I like to think is this.  Suppose that Jesus had waited until today to appear to us instead of 2000 years ago.  And suppose while He was with us, we were able to capture Him on camera, poke Him with needles and take all the scientific measurements we could to satisfy our curiosity.  Further, suppose that He was able to perform miracles in which many people saw Him and we were able to capture these on camera, take samples of the wine, etc.  And finally, suppose that many intelligent, rational people were converted based on all of this evidence.

Now fast forward 2000 years to 4009 and imagine all of the crazy technology available to the world.  Christians then would be forced to believe in the accuracy of our ridiculously primitive technology.  Can you imagine the arguments against it?  "Can you believe those idiots back then who thought matter was made of strings?!  No wonder they believed in Jesus."  "We can't trust those gas spectroscopy measurements because they had no understanding of the Barron Effect."  "It is impossible to know who the real Jesus really was, because the cameras were only two-dimensional and half the digital files are corrupted from being copied so many times."  "Ever since the quantum computer, it is has been possible to create fake footage of anything you want."  You can think all sorts of these.

The point is that we know, from history, that many people were converted and called themselves Christians shortly after Jesus died.  Not only that, they believed so strongly that they were willing to die because of their beliefs.  Of course, they could have been a part of some cult, but the point is that this wasn't just casual belief floating around.  They had no better technology than the written word to capture accounts of Jesus and we do have writings by contemporary Greeks calling Jesus a sorcerer.  So we know that someone or something called Jesus was really capturing the attention of the people around Jerusalem.  That is pretty far from fiction from my point of view, and it is entirely consistent with the teachings of the Church.

[Joe Barron]

Catison, you raise many interesting and challenging points. The fact that I disagree with all of them is, I guess, the reason you are stilll a practicing Catholic and I am not.

Everything really boils down to your conclusion: "So we know that someone or something called Jesus was really capturing the attention of the people around Jerusalem." But that, in my view, is precisely what we do not know.  It is impossible to reconstruct just what, if anything, early Christians thought or knew about a historical person Jesus since, as Price shows, everything we say about him now is demonstrably the product of a later age, and the stories grew in the telling. To take an obvious example: The post-Resurrection career of Jesus grows from a single incident in Mark to forty full days in Acts. It is hard to believe that a large number of reliable witnesses would disagree so radically. (And in any event, there were not a large number of witnesses in Mark, only a few confused disciples who didn't realize what had happened until it was over.) I think it's more more reasonable to conclude that new stuff was added as an expression of a growing faith. I find your statement that the Gospels are "merely reliable" to be overly generous.

Second, it shouldn't be necessary in the post-9/11 world to point out that the willingness of someone to die for a belief is in no way a measure of the truth or validity of that belief. If it were, the church would have to grant more credence to all the heretics it burned over the centuries.

[DavidRoss]

...this book is divinely inspired and not others

I think my mind is open enough not to quibble with the idea that those books--some of them, at least--are "divinely inspired."  I cannot, however, admit that there are no other such books.  I have read many books that seem at least as divinely inspired as these, and many that seem far more so.

The point is that we know, from history, that many people were converted and called themselves Christians shortly after Jesus died.  Not only that, they believed so strongly that they were willing to die because of their beliefs.  Of course, they could have been a part of some cult [they were, by definition], but the point is that this wasn't just casual belief floating around.

That first point, that so many people were willing not just to die (like the Jonestown cult or the Rancho Santa Fe wackos), but to suffer horrible tortures for their beliefs, in addition to having their businesses ruined if others found out (not as trivial as it sounds), speaks loudly down through the ages that there was something quite unusual and rather profound happening there.  Wandering rabbis with messianic pretensions were dime-a-dozen, but there was something so special about that one that the State felt threatened enough to kill him, and that within a few days something happened so that his followers suddenly threw off their fear that they would likewise be killed as heretics and boldly proclaimed themselves, often suffering similar martyrdom as a result.

Claims that there's no historical basis for Jesus are ridiculous.  The letters of Paul and James and others attest to it.  They certainly had nothing to gain by inventing the story, and everything to lose.  If anyone lacks the common sense to grasp this for himself, then led him make an honest inquiry into the scholarship on the matter and see for himself what evidence scholars (not hacks) rely on.

[Dr. Dread]

If anyone lacks the common sense to grasp this for himself, then led him make an honest inquiry into the scholarship on the matter and see for himself what evidence scholars (not hacks) rely on.

Always end with an insult, right?  Just like Jesus. 

[drogulus]

     Excellent post, Joe Barron.

     People believed propaganda back then, and they do now. The credulousness of ancient peoples can't testify to the truth of beliefs for us without lowering our standards to match theirs. We have an advantage here, since there are scholars who are not apologists who won't be arrested and brought before a religious court for simply giving an objective account of what the evidence says really happened. And we can compare these accounts and make some estimate of their reliability, as well as the quality of the evidence available.

     Paul did not invent the Jesus story. He didn't know, just like we don't, and like believers today the belief and not some purported fact of the matter was the important thing. True by belief means the belief is the fact. Other bothersome facts, if they appear, are to be ignored or explained away. Objectivity, when it appears, is opposition, so it can be discounted.

[greg]

Kim Jong Il is Jesus, and whoever says otherwise will be executed. This is only fair. 

[drogulus]

    Magical thinking doesn't become truth because someone dies or suffers terribly. And something extraordinary is not the same as living gods running around performing miracles and being sons of other gods. An interesting point (for me, at least) is if someone saying that a person is divine (or that person saying it himself) doesn't constitute evidence, what does count as evidence for sonofgodhood? I mean in the opinion of the experts in divination that post here?

    The reason for asking (beyond ridicule, a good reason in itself ) is that according to my idea when no attributes can be attached to a name nothing else can be said about it. Can X exist if it's just a placeholder for an unspecified something? What is X like? Is it the kind of being that only beliefs can inform you about, even according to the X-ists? How is the expertise acquired that would allow you to say it's definitely divine when you have exactly the same problem with the concept of divine?* You are attaching one dubious concept to another without the faintest hope that combining them is any more informative about anything than the concepts taken separately.

    _{* Could it be that no such expertise exists? Yeah, that could really, really be.}
   

[DavidRoss]

Always end with an insult, right?  Just like Jesus. 

How is that an insult?  "If anyone is not tall enough to reach the pickle jar on the top shelf, then get a stool or ask someone for help."

"If a defendant is not able to understand spoken English, the court will appoint a translator to assist."

"If anyone lacks the common sense to grasp this for himself, then led him make an honest inquiry into the scholarship on the matter and see for himself what evidence scholars (not hacks) rely on."

It's a matter of plain common sense, Dave.  It's not just Ockham's razor, it's Ockham's chainsaw.  Those who insist on defying common sense--especially those who take pride and pleasure in insulting the religious beliefs of others--cannot possibly be insulted by this advice.

[Dr. Dread]

Those who insist on defying common sense--especially those who take pride and pleasure in insulting the religious beliefs of others--cannot possibly be insulted by this advice.

I don't think anyone consciously defies common sense. And therefore will not take this advice.

[drogulus]

I don't think anyone consciously defies common sense. And therefore will not take this advice.

      There is no sense, common or otherwise, to asking for expertise about things no one knows about. Self appointed experts who display no superpowers are not to be taken at their own estimate.

      And ridicule is necessary. The idea that you shouldn't ridicule these silly notions is to coddle the people who hold them, as though they were abnormally stupid or childlike. This isn't usually the case. The problem is that intelligent people have had excuses made for them as though they were stupid and childlike. I won't do that. My arguments assume that people will respond positively to reasons and are capable of understanding, even though they don't always manage to do it. I'm an optimist, so shoot me! 

[Brian]

I mean, journalism in AD 30 was pretty much the same as it is today, right?

Yes, indeed, Karl, as evidenced by this excellent ancient book I discovered in the ruins on a recent trip to Pompeii.

[Dr. Dread]

After carefully reading all the religious threads available on GMG, I have decided to worship...

[karlhenning]

     Excellent post, Joe Barron.

Dave called that one, too.

Ah, well; I rather suspect that Dave hadn't meant to create yet another religion-bashing thread.

[karlhenning]

Yes, indeed, Karl, as evidenced by this excellent ancient book I discovered in the ruins on a recent trip to Pompeii.

Delightfully done, Brian!

[karlhenning]

      And ridicule is necessary.

Hold onto that thought.

[Dr. Dread]

Dave called that one, too.

Ah, well; I rather suspect that Dave hadn't meant to create yet another religion-bashing thread.

True!

I just wanted to see folks' opinions.

[Brian]

Per Dave's post immediately above, I offer this solely as my opinion and not to stir the pot. If it's a little long, that's so I can return to it later to borrow lines from, since it's relevant to some things I am writing right now.

For what it's worth, I had a hard time voting on this one. I almost chose "Other," for the following reasons...

Fictional. It's true that there is very few documented evidence of Jesus' existence from his contemporaries; one would have expected Jewish historians operating from Israel and Egypt at the time to mention him, or Roman logs to mention him, or something. And it is true that many of the historical details in the Bible itself do not jive with what we know to be true: for instance, we know that the Jewish tribunals would never have convened and sentenced somebody to execution during Passover. But does this add up to Jesus not existing? How did Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and entirely separately (but slightly earlier) Paul, not to mention several tens of thousands of people in Rome within thirty or forty years of Jesus' death (there had to be a sizeable community by the time of Nero - indeed, in From Paul to Valentinus Peter Lampe establishes that there was such a community by A.D. 50 or 60) - how did they all get this idea of a guy called Jesus? If reason and the rational aspect of the human mind has taught us anything, it is that usually the simplest, most plausible explanation is the best one. And I think the simplest explanation is this one: there was a guy named Jesus, leader of a messianic cult [in the technical religious studies sense, not in the Jim Jones sense], who developed a large following and was killed for being a criminal. His followers developed a novel, indeed brilliant, way of understanding his death. Some reported having seen various miracles. And a couple who likely had not met him ended up writing books based on what the witnesses said. The story was instantly appealing and quickly spread throughout the Mediterranean.

I do not understand why some non-Christians try to insist that Jesus did not exist, or probably did not, or could not have. Why? Is it necessary to take up an extreme position about something in order to get away from it? Will, 2000 years from now, somebody try to disprove Scientology by saying that L. Ron Hubbard didn't exist? Granted, there is a ton more documentary evidence for L. Ron Hubbard than there is for Jesus, indeed, infinity-minus-five-or-six more pieces of evidence for Hubbard. But the analogy is intended to ask this: if you don't believe in what Jesus said, or don't believe he was the Son of God, why should you goad yourself into believing that he was imaginary?

A swell guy. Maybe. I don't even really think so, though. That stuff about Hell was morally repugnant. So was the stuff about flames and unbelievers, the horrific name-calling he engaged in with pettier (or equally petty?) rivals, and the central doctrine of personal salvation, ie, saving yourself. As Walter Kaufmann puts it in The Faith of a Heretic, "The perspective of the [Old Testament] prophets is reversed. They, too, had taught humility and love, but not this preoccupation with oneself. The accent had been on the neighbor and the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and the poor. Social injustice cried out to be rectified and was no less real because it meant a lack of love and a corruption of the heart. Man was told to love others and to treat them justly - for their sake, not for his own, [or] to escape damnation. To the Jesus of the Gospels, social injustice as such is of no concern. Heaven and hell-fire have been moved to the center." (p. 208)

More: "The Jesus of the Gospels appeals to each man's self-interest. This may strike some modern readers as paradoxical because liberal Protestantism has persuaded millions that the essence of Christianity is altruism and self-sacrifice. But our analysis [ie Kaufmann's view] may help to explain why so many people take it for granted that morality depends on the belief in God and immortality. It is not uncommon to hear people admit that if they lost their belief in a life after death, no reason would remain for them to be moral. In fact, they cannot see why anyone lacking this belief should be moral; and this accounts in large measure for the widespread horror of atheism." Why? Why do we consider morality as a question of "will I be rewarded or punished for this?" [that's not a quote from Kaufmann, but the next bit is] Because "In the Gospels, one is to lose oneself only to find oneself....In what truly matters, we are expected to see to our own interest. The "reward" is always my reward. Really sacrificing oneself for the sake of others, for the chance, uncertain as such matters are in this world, that our neighbor or society might benefit - or foregoing one's own salvation for the salvation of others, as Mahayana Buddhism says its saints do - the Gospels do not ask of man." (p. 211) Or, I should rephrase, they do not ask other than of one single man two thousand years dead.

To be blunt: I don't like that philosophy.

I like parts. I like a lot of what Jesus said. If we went line-by-line I'd probably like more than 60% of what he says. But, with some of those views about hellfire and sin and evil, and with some of those temper problems, I think that, if he was a swell guy, he wasn't the most swell guy ever by any stretch of the imagination.

Son of God. You can guess my position on this one.

A concept. Well, yeah, in the philosophical sense that everything has conceptual value, but is this basically saying he doesn't exist? Or is a metaphor? Blah, blah!

Satan, MN Dave, Iago, Late for Dinner, Fun at Parties. These made me smile. I actually did choose "Late for Dinner," if for no other reason than that, notwithstanding all our differences in faith, and despite all our disagreements about who Jesus may or may not have been in real life and what he means to us today: we can all agree on one thing: Jesus sure is taking his time returning to Earth. Or as George Carlin put it,