When the question is raised as to whether an historical figure actually lived or not, we should first ask what we mean by the question. First, it is imperative that we associate the figure we are talking about with an agreed upon definite description so we have, as philosophers would say, an agreed upon referent. (Literally hundreds of books and articles have been written about the subtlety of reference. See Evans, The Varieties of reference) In the present case, what are we uncontroversially allowed to assume to be the necessary attributes of the man we are talking about, such as to establish the needed referent? Perhaps, we can agree, following the Bible, that we are talking about a man who went by the name of Jesus, and who was the inspiration for a religion called Christianity. But wait, is it a necessary condition that he went by the name “Jesus.” Perhaps not. Maybe all we need to discuss is whether there actually existed a man who served as the inspiration for a religious phenomena called Christianity. Are there any other necessary attributes to ground this discussion? If so, have they been clearly identified in the debate?

So, how much do we need here to make a meaningful discussion? O.K., let’s suggest the following: (1) His name was actually Jesus; (2) He actually lived in Nazareth as a youth; (3) He took on the claim of a religious leader of some sort; and (4) He had followers. So now, we can ask did such a person actually exist, and if so, was that person the inspiration for the rise of Christianity? Note, however, how elusive this is. Take any one of the above away. Does the discussion then evaporate? Which of the above are actually necessary attributes in discussions of the historical “Jesus?”

Moreover, note the problems when we assert the claim that such an actual person was “the inspiration” for Christianity. As the necessary attributes begin to drop off, the context of “inspiration” becomes quite elusive. Now, the argument shifts from the existential question of some guy named “Jesus,” to what was in the minds of the founders of Christianity. Did they have an actual human focal point, or simply a mythological character from the beginning? And, if an actual character, then what historical properties did they ascribe to him, and how many, if any, were actually historically true. Even if loosely inspired by an actual person, are we not left with an essentially mythic figure after all?

The historical question has now become quite trivial, and it remains trivial until at least a meaningful set of historical attributes are attached to the proposed inspirational figure, and we have an understanding as to what it means for such a person to be the inspiration for Christianity.

Although arguably, we might still end up with a quasi-interesting historical question, it is still ultimately quite trivial. First, there isn’t anything very interesting about the above limited description, and second, there is nothing in such description that connects to Christianity in any important way. To do that, you have to make an historical connection between “Jesus” the man (if he existed) and Christianity the religion. In other words, you have to provide a description of the real, existing man that supports in some meaningful way the religious phenomena that he was supposedly was the inspiration for. Put in another way, the credibility of Christianity must be enhanced, or denigrated by its association with the historical figure. Otherwise, any such association remains trivial. The fact, even if established, that Christianity was inspired by an actual historical person whose name was Jesus, who lived in Nazareth, who made religious claims, and who had followers, suggests absolutely nothing about the merits of the religion, including nothing about its truth or falsity. And the more you try to add to the description to make it epistemologically meaningful, the more controversial it becomes, and the more doubtful that such a person existed.

In short, all of this talk about the historical Jesus, including the so-called “scholarly” efforts, are, in my view, much ado about nothing. Which brings me to the next question. Did Shakespeare actually exist? Think about it.

I find the arguments fascinating even though I don't care one way or the other. :)

a historical Jesus' existance "is still ultimately quite trivial" is untenable in view of 1 billion people saying he came back to life, an occurance necessarily dependent on historicity.

Can't say that about Shakespeare.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 12:28PM by lulu.

Of course, whether a man "Jesus" actually existed is NOT trivial to adherents of Christianity. That goes without saying. But notice that the importance of Jesus in this religious context entails much more than simply his existence. In order to avoid the trivia, they have to include a description of the man that is consistent with at least some religiously significant Biblical claims, i.e. resurrection, miracles, etc. His historical existence merely provides a necessary back drop for these more controversial claims. Without the religious claims, the man Jesus, and any claim that he exists or does not exist, fades quickly into trivia.

In the context of discussions on this Board all of the religiously significant Bibilical claims of Christianity have been summarily denied on both sides of the debate. Once you do that, the existence, or non-existence of the man Jesus loses significance (becomes trivial).

Now, we might ask, given the importance of Christianity as a religious and historical phenomenon, doesn't that alone make the existence of Jesus as a man interesting and important, whether you subscribe to Christianity's religious claims or not? Well, maybe, but only if you can define what attributes of the man are necessary to identify him as the historical figure in question. If those aspects are soley mundane, and the connection to Christianity entirely ellusive, then how do you even address the question; how do you even know who or what you are talking about? It is almost meaningless.

The person may not have said anything that is attributed to him. The person is trival, the myth that has developed over centuries is what is important.

It is interesting to contemplate, but in the end is no more important than "Did Joseph Smith exist?"

jebus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is interesting to contemplate, but in the end
> is no more important than "Did Joseph Smith
> exist?"

Except that the difference would be: did a man who might or might not have been the Messiah or a good and somewhat radical religious teacher exist compared to Joseph Smith who was a womanising, murderous criminal exist? Because we all know Joseph Smith, the womanising, murderous criminal did exist.

Nicely stated, HB. The question of Jesus the Man's historicity is an academic debate signifying not very much. Whether the man existed or not, Art and Culture inspired by Jesus and his story abounds, and has done so for 2000 years. The tiniest, scantest most cursory look:


Augustine's Confessions:

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Oxford-Worlds-Classics-Augustine/dp/0199537828

(Or indeed Botticelli's Augustine):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Sandro_Botticelli_050.jpg


The Book of Kells:

http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=book+of+kells&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Kg-DT9GcEeagiALLg8jGAw&biw=1020&bih=1196&sei=WQ-DT5azL6vRiAKlgKmLAw



Medieval Cathedrals:

http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=early+gothic+cathedrals&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=-BKDT8CqBMmhiQLUp6yzAw&biw=1020&bih=1196&sei=_BKDT76bLoOsjALdhozFAw



The first book printed with movable type, the Gutenberg Bible:

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

(Or indeed the great literary achievement in English, KJV and it's 1611 introduction):

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php



Rubens's Raising of the Cross (say):

http://www.backtoclassics.com/images/pics/peterpaulrubens/peterpaulrubens_raising_of_the_cross1.jpg



The Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the American Civil Rights Movement:

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



Gibson's Passion of the Christ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdCppzXnPfs



None of the above, and the multifarious items before and after, require an historical Jesus the Man. Jesus Lives.

Human

Post Script: Indeed, whether Jesus the Man existed or not has no bearing on this artist and his audience's reaction:

http://vimeo.com/23864881

(h/t FreeRose)

Say, for argument's sake, there was a preacher named Jeshua, pretty much a Jewish nationalist, who traveled around, said some things that resonated with his Jewish followers, and got himself sufficiently cross-wise with the Roman authorities that they executed him.

So what?

That Jeshua has absolutely nothing in common with the God-man of Christianity except the name, and, possibly, the execution. All the rest is myth. So his historicity is irrelevant.

On the Shakespeare question, I guess the question could also be posed did Mark Twain exist? And the answer is no--but a man named Samuel Clemens used the Mark Twain moniker to "brand," if you will, his literary creations. Similarly, if you'd like to know the actual author behind the "Shakespeare" brand, my preferred candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. There are two excellent books on the subject, and, of course, google is your friend.

excellent-post-ly yrs,

S

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> In short, all of this talk about the historical
> Jesus, including the so-called “scholarly”
> efforts, are, in my view, much ado about nothing.
> Which brings me to the next question. Did
> Shakespeare actually exist? Think about it.

An interesting way of making a point, I must admit.

There is evidence for the existence of Mr. Shakespeare,
in connection with the London theatre. Whether or not
he was the writer of some (or all) of the plays attributed
to that particular name is a different question, of course.

No doubt there was ONE late second temple Jew named Joshua
(or Jesus, in the vernacular of that period). No doubt
SOMEBODY at a very early date compiled the "Q" Jesus sayings
we find in the canonical gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.

But how are those two statements related, other than in
their overlapping the name of a single Jew? There were
probably many Jews then living with that name -- and the
preserved Jesus sayings (and the rest of the New Testament)
came from sundry sources -- not from the voice of one man.

I think that, historically speaking, about the best we can
expect to accomplish, is to account for the first Christians.
Unlike Jesus himself, those people began to make a clear
mark upon the historical record about 1800 years ago. We
can examine the "historical Christians" much more closely
and profitably than we can search for the "historical Jesus."

But how do we close that gap (of about 200 years) in our
firm knowledge of King Herod's times and those of the first
documented Christians? How do we begin to understand the
beliefs, motives and actions of those very first followers
of Jesus, before the term "Christian" had even been invented?

We have the texts -- and gifted scholars will find ever
better methods to examine, differentiate and deconstruct
those "scriptures." Just as in the case of the Bard of Avon,
we have the words -- the ideas -- the genius.

Until we stumble upon fully reliable proof that Shakespeare
wrote his own plays, we have those plays and their effects.

Until we stumble upon such proof for an historical Jesus,
we have the Jesus quotes and their effects. Those effects
long ago became part of my own life, and I expect that they
will continue to do so for other people... for millenia.

UD

I suppose you could make the case that any person's history is ultimately trivial. When you get under your philosophizing it seems to me that you are taking a cynical position.

I also wonder if you haven't thought that perhaps one of the underlying issues here--and an important one for me--is how we arrive at answers? There also is the matter of some people find it pleasurable to try, not a small value.

Henry Bemis is a character from Twilight Zone who is frustrated because he is not left alone to read books. When he becomes the sole survivor of nuclear war, he is delighted to have time to read but he breaks his glasses.

When I saw Reed's first 'Bemis' post I marvelled over how he couldn't have pick a more fitting moniker. It's perfect.

(Reed's style is too unmistakable to be hidden.)

And Robertb I agree, the *question* of Jesus's historicity is it's own reward, separate from the answer that arises.

Human

Thanks for getting that, Human. It is the engagement in the question that is meaningful. Engagement is not trivial. This why people get excited about playing online games or collecting stamps or any number of things that another person might deem "trivial."

One other thing occurs to me. I can't remember the term [celebrity contagion], but it is the sense of connection a person experiences from possessing or believing to possess something belonging to a meaningful person. I believe this plays a great deal into religious feeling--feeling as if you "possess" whatever Jesus left, whether it is actually that or not. Not rational, but at times powerful and meaningful.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 07:14PM by robertb.

Indeed, relic worship was (and continues to be?) a powerful source of meaning for many. It was prevalent for the Greeks as well as for the Romans; and continued into the Middle Ages, for example John the Baptist's head at Amiens Cathedral. Logic has nothing to do with the power and meaningfulness of relic worship. A rock t-shirt is just a t-shirt, all said and done.

(per triviality: to 99.99% of the world's population Mormonism's authenticity is about as trivial as trivial can be; yet many on this site have devoted countless hours and endless intellectual energy to precisely that question. HB was certainly not calling the engagement trivial, lest he call his own engagement trivial. He was pointing out what is problematic with the answer for both sides of the RfM debate, since both sides deny the miracles etc attributed to Jesus.)

Just in case of any confusion, I read your's and bona dea's posts on the historicity of Jesus this morning and was once again grateful that you two continue on this board. Bringing intellectual rigour is one thing, but I most notice and value the temperate tone befitting civil discussion. I always have.

Cheers

Human

Thank you, Human



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 10:13PM by bona dea.

Robertb said:

"I also wonder if you haven't thought that perhaps one of the underlying issues here--and an important one for me--is how we arrive at answers? There also is the matter of some people find it pleasurable to try, not a small value."

But, in your search for answers, you need to be clear on what you are searching for--don't you? That means, just as I said, you need to know what definite descriptive attributes the person is thought to have such that if an actual person can be identified as having those attributes, it will satisfactorily convince you that the historical figure actually existed. This is hard to do in the context of a dispute about who that person was, and what that person did or did not do.

Human wrote:

"And Robertb I agree, the *question* of Jesus's historicity is it's own reward, separate from the answer that arises."

I do not see how a question that is poorly framed, with loose definitions, can be 'its own reward.' It reminds me of the question, "Does God exist?" This question is only meaningful (and rewarding), if we frame the question such that we understand exactly what we mean by "God" and "existence." Even if the question is metaphysical, and even if the prospects of finding an answer are remote, I agree that the question still can be meaningful, and its own reward in some sense, but only if we know what we are talking about; i.e. what the question means in human terms. SUch a question that defines "God" and "existence" in a way that is completely mystical, is not rewarding, in my view.

P.S. Yes, I loved this Twilight Zone episode, even as a young boy. You guys will appreciate the fact that, as I recall, the books Bemis was interested in reading at the end were primarily poetry and the classics, not science and philosophy.

I disagree with your beginning premise (as much as I found the whole 'nicely stated'):

"First, it is imperative that we associate the figure we are talking about with an agreed upon definite description so we have, as philosophers would say, an agreed upon referent."

With the question of Jesus's historicity (and indeed God's reality), the referent is obviously manifold from the outset. You can't just settle upon one from the outset san prejudice. In other words, the question cannot be answered deductively. It is necessarily a question involving induction. The referent(s) arise from the exploration of the question, which is its own reward.

History (inductive) is not theology (deductive).

Cheers, and always gladdened by your participation.

Human

". . . the referent is obviously manifold from the outset."

What do you mean by this? The referent of the term Jesus is minimaly some man, either real or fictional, with certain properties and attributes. It is far from obvious just what those properties and attributes are. A Christian would define them one way, a non-believer another way. Moreover, someone who claimed Jesus was a real person would describe the man one way, and someone who thought he was fictional another way. There is nothing obvious here.

"In other words, the question cannot be answered deductively. It is necessarily a question involving induction. The referent(s) arise from the exploration of the question, which is its own reward."

A referent to a proposition, such as "Jesus was a real person" cannot remain open, or tentative, while the proposition remains meaningful. It is like saying, "We don't yet know or understand what we mean by "Jesus," but he was a real person." The question, "who is it that you claim was a real person?" naturally arises, demanding an answer. The answer is provided by a definite description, i.e. well-defined properties and attributes that single out an individual person as the referent.

So, I might ask, what empirical evidence do you deem would be meaningful to establish a referent for an historical Jesus? You see, you cannot even ask this question without having something about Jesus in mind. You have to have something to look for. And, again, the problem is NOT that you cannot identify such attributes and then empirically research them. The question is whether you can frame such attributes uncontroversially in the context of a debate, and still have a meaningful inquiry, let alone meaningful from the standpoint of religion. You can say, for example, that Jesus was a carpenter in Nazareth, and then do a lot of digging to see what you find. And suppose you find out that there was in fact a such a person. Now, was that the same person as the referent of Jesus in the debate? Who knows. And what does that tell us about the Biblical Jesus that is important, not much.

Jesus, or Jesus as interpreted by Paul has had a profound effect on the western world-like it or not. That makes him important historically. If he had never lived, the world would be very different. If you don't care, that is one thing, but to say it doesn't matter is silly.

"Jesus, or Jesus as interpreted by Paul has had a profound effect on the western world-like it or not. That makes him important historically. If he had never lived, the world would be very different. If you don't care, that is one thing, but to say it doesn't matter is silly."

When you say "Jesus, or Jesus as interpreted by Paul" what are you talking about? A real person, or perhaps a story about a man named "Jesus" invented by Paul. The profound effect works either way. It certainly does not follow that because of such effect, Jesus must have been "important historically," or that the world would be "very different" if Jesus was not an historical figure. You are begging the historical question here. Also, I never said the question was silly, I said it was trivial--unless the attributes of "Jesus" are sufficiently defined such that the historical question can be meaningfully asked.

By the way, I am inclined to believe that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, meaning that he actually lived, made religious claims, and had a following in his lifetime. I also believe that there was probably a connection between this historical figure and the subsequent religion that came from it. I am not a scholar in this regard, but for me it is simple: It is much easier to build a successful religion within a historical context, rather than starting from scratch out of whole cloth. Why would the founders of Christianity NOT base their faith on an actual historical figure. It seems to be agreed that candidates were plentiful. Note, however, I do not spend a lot of time perusing the literature or arguing the point for reasons as stated.

I don't doubt there was an historical Jesus, but what we know today as Christianity is more from Paul than Jesus. From what we can tell, Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who may have thought he was the messiah, but never claimed to be God'd literal son and never intended to start a new religion. PAul did that.

How do you know that Jesus never claimed to be divine? Please, provide me some evidence extant to the bible, because the new testament (including Q) would beg to differ. Exactly what do you base this on?

Also, while you are at it... You stated that you don't doubt jesus existed... Exactly what would constitute sufficient justification to reject your current entrenchment?


Serious questions...

HH =)

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> but never claimed to be God's literal son and
> never intended to start a new religion.
...

It's hard to tell, looking back over all the centuries.
But, I'd guess that Jesus DID profess some special
connection with the Biblical God -- there are texts in
which he appears to be speaking as an oracle, or even
as an incarnate Divine voice, merged with that oracle.

On the other hand, I cannot fathom how an historical
Jesus could have possibly fit into the Jewish society
of that day, if he claimed personal divinity.

Even to make a claim for some special descent from the
Davidic kings (as required for the Messiah) was risky
business in that day and age.

If we could somehow trace back to its origin, the odd
pericope of "Peter's confession," we might well discover
an example of Jesus not only disavowing the Davidic
messiahship, but also condemning as "demonic" any disciple
who attempted to voice that conclusion. However, even
though the event is recorded in multiple places in the
gospels, it is overlaid with so much subsequent editorial
manipulation as to be practically undiscoverable today.

My guess is that the reading closest to the original is
the one found in the Gospel of Thomas -- in which Jesus
warns that his disclosure of the truth would be radically
unacceptible in those times. The later gnostic overlay
would argue that we all have a spark of the Divine within
us -- and perhaps Jesus' profession of a special relationship
with "The Father" is best interpreted along those lines.

UD

Agreed that it is hard to tell, but it would have been sacrilege for a Jew to claim to be the literal son of God. I agree that he wouldn't have lasted long if he made that claim.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose you could make the case that any
> person's history is ultimately trivial. When you
> get under your philosophizing it seems to me that
> you are taking a cynical position.

Interesting that you should detect that. I'm somewhat
influenced by Mack's view of Jesus, as a provincial
Cynic -- or, at least suggesting that he attracted a
body of followers of that philosophical persuasion.

My friend the late Vernal Holley spent the last few
years of his life pondering these sorts of questions.
You'll find a link to a Burton L. Mack excerpt among
those in the on-line Holley "library"
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/VH_Lib.htm

But the tenet of triviality is likewise something we
might ponder -- the idea that we each can tread lightly
upon the fabric of history, leaving only the faintest
of evidence for our existence. During his lifetime
Jesus appears to have worked in that fashion -- being
more of a harbinger of a messianic era than conforming
to the contemporary Jewish idea of a National Messiah.

>
> I also wonder if you haven't thought that perhaps
> one of the underlying issues here--and an
> important one for me--is how we arrive at answers?
> There also is the matter of some people find it
> pleasurable to try, not a small value.

For me, at least, it has been a journey. I could not
supply the same answers that satisfy me today, back
when I was 5 years old, or 15 years old. But how can
any of us hope to define a process as personal as our
own pathway to discovery? I suppose I could cite
Reason -- Science -- Experience -- even those life
events which remain outside of rational explanation.
But I would not expect my method of arriving at
answers to match up perfectly with anybody else's.


> Henry Bemis is a character from Twilight Zone who
> is frustrated because he is not left alone to read
> books. When he becomes the sole survivor of
> nuclear war, he is delighted to have time to read
> but he breaks his glasses.

Yes -- I'm familiar with the story -- and with the parody
that the Futurama folks came up with. The tools of
observation only take us so far, in our quest for
knowledge and understanding. Hopefully, once we reach
a sort of happy plateau in that upward evolution, we
can trust enough to now and then set aside our pondering,
and be ready for other sorts of realization.

If so, I'd reserve my deepest interaction with the words
of Jesus for those times when I've set aside Science and
Reason for a while. Perhaps the fictional Mr. Bemis was
unable to find within himself satisfying novels, essays,
expositions, rhetoric, poetry and scripture. Too bad...

UD

Just an additional thought to add: It is my understanding that traditional Jews were under a lot of pressure to adhere to a whole lot of law and rules, some of which can be found in the early books of the old testament. There were some religious sects of the day (Pharisees/Saduccees among others) who rose to the top to lord over and rule the rest, and it was very oppressive. Jesus came and basically said the law is fulfilled and now look at the heart. And love and be kind because God, who is my father, doesn’t care if you follow all those rules. And maybe the only way you will understand it, is if I become the sacrificial lamb so that in your minds you can comprehend and see that you don’t need to atone for your sins any longer or do all these crazy rituals, I’ll die in your place once and for all. I will die for my people so that they can see I loved them enough to set them free from all this rigidness to go and enjoy life and love and be kind to your fellow man. What commandments should be followed? Love your neighbor and your lord God. Nothing else anymore. He sought to take away the power and authority lorded over them by the religious rulers of the day. Maybe nothing magical happened on the cross other than a man’s attempt to show his people he would sacrifice his own life as the final “lamb” to free them mentally from their oppression and take away the power lorded over them.
Now. What do people do today. They seek to be ruled over. They seek to be re-chained to something. They want the meaningless rituals back.
Jesus, in and of himself, was not the starter of Christianity. He spread a message to free his people from their oppression. And anything said about him came from someone else. We have no writings in his hand.
The message resonates with many, and for good reason.
If he never existed there would have been reasons to make him up. But trying to harness it into one religion takes away the very reason for creating of him.
I believe he was a real person. But I can see that if he weren't, there would have been good reason to make him up.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 04:39PM by suckafoo.

The last lamb...interesting, I kinda like that idea.

Done by choice, by a mere man, that would be a very noble and compassionate thing to do.

And you are right suckafoo. that would make him the ultimate non-conforming rebel against any organized religion.
I do think all the church-related stuff attributed to Hay-sooos in the NT was added by ambitious, wanna be churchmen.

And today, LDSCorp. is the ultimate Pharisaic organization.

O the irony...

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 05:10PM by steve benson.

Interesting topic and good points by all who have commented.

Two things.

1) Given the large amount of material (mostly a couple of centuries after Christ) and followers of "Christianity", I would tend to err on the side that there was a "historical Jesus" of some kind or another. That is the view of most, not all, scholars (see Wikipedia article on "Jesus Christ").

2) If Jesus really was what he and his followers claimed (i.e., God's one and only begotten Son and Savior of the World) then why the dearth of accurate and verifiable historical information to even know for certain that he existed? If he were divine, and God cared that we know about him and his teachings, then why not provide ample evidence for his historicity and make the faith part come into play when you choose to believe his claims about being God's son. Come on, I mean even with Joseph Smith we know that he really did exist. He (JS) was a fraud of course, but his historicity is not in dispute, why not provide the same level of historicity for Jesus and then require the "faith" thing when it comes to his teachings and status. Doesn't make sense, I don't feel any obligation to even pursue the question of his existence because we can never really know.

Part of the problem in verifying jesus existence lies in the fact that he personally wrote nothing.That he was probably illterate would not be a surprise, as probably 95 percent of the people at that time were. The picture however off an iliterate god is something that is interesting to contemplate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 06:29PM by jebus.

jebus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Part of the problem in verifying jesus existence
> lies in the fact that he personally wrote
> nothing.That he was probably illterate would not
> be a surprise, as probably 95 percent of the
> people at that time were.

If by "illiterate," you mean unread, that may well
be true. But that little corner of the world seems
to have been the home of a large percentage of folks
who could at least read and write simple messages
and records. After all, it was where the roots of
our own alphabet came from.

I suspect that the typical middle class Galilean Jew
of that period knew enough Hebrew to open up the
Isaiah scroll in the synagogue and to correctly read
a few passages from such a text. And enough Greek to
know what was communicated on signposts, marketplace
notices, etc.

But I doubt that the same guy typically had the learning
of a Philo at his fingertips. Saul/Paul was probably in
the upper 10% of "literate" Palestinians in his day.

If the Epistle of James truly came from the pen of
Jesus' brother, we might wonder how a person in that
particular family was able to write in good koine.

Since the Jewish underclasses of that period really
were illiterate, we might also wonder to whom the
"search the scriptures" advice was originally directed.

>The picture however off
> an iliterate god is something that is interesting
> to contemplate.

I suppose that any person attempting to pass himself
off as God, among the Jews of that day, was practically
asking to be stoned to death (if no Roman officer was
around to notice such a public disruption).

So, if Jesus went about proclaiming himself to be the
Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, he would
not have lasted in his public life even so long as the
four gospels seem to indicate.

My best guess -- he was a literate Jew who could converse as
an equal with provencial scholars and teachers, but a fellow
who mainly directed his fellowship to the illiterate lower
classes, who had no particular use for reading & writing.

UD

Thank you Henry Bemis for your thoughtful and erudite contribution to the ongoing debate as to whether Jesus really existed.

It's interesting that after twenty centuries of human history this carpenter from Bethlehem, a small village in a small and at that time insignificant part of the world, should still be the most talked about, argued over, praised and reviled individual in the course of history itself. Hundreds of millions have called him Lord and many have also tried to destroy his work and question his very existence. Your efforts, couched in the language of those who know what's best, are just one of the countless attempts to bring into question his very existence.

That Jesus of Nazareth existed is well attested by history. Unfortunately you and your type have chosen to ignore the witnesses, both biblical and historical. Many brilliant and well educated men and women - scholars, writers and theologians have weighed the evidence and have given logical and credible reasoning and historical evidence for the existence and uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth, in fact some of the greatest minds in the history of the world have looked at the evidence and accepted the claims of Jesus to be what he said he was - the Son of God. Many Cynics have likewise attempted to discredit him.

Ask yourself, Is it possible that a myth, a fictitious character, would have such enduring influence on so many areas of human endeavour? In all of recorded human history no one else has even come close.

Why do you choose to ignore the many witnesses found in the bible itself? Arte they fictitious too? Are they not educated enough for your liking? Are they all a bunch of scammers? And what about all the prophetic witnesses of the coming of a Messiah - over 100 in Old Testament writings? And what of Jesus' own pronouncements that he was the Son of God? Of course you argue that he said no such things, that they were simply added later over the course of the next decades and centuries. So we are asked to take your word and those of other skeptics, who have gone before you, over the words of all those who actually sat with Jesus,ate with him and saw the power and majesty of God at work.

Perhaps you have spent too much time searching works such as "The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Jesus" or "The Gospel of Thomas" instead of going to the source itself. skeptics such as yourself have not much new you can offer, except to re-hash hundreds of year old arguments of various rationalist and humanists. have you ever bothered to read for yourself the gospels and the New Testament writings or is your skepticism simply a hand me down variety? are you clinging to your skepticism not because you have some new and overwhelming evidence but simply from the basis of your choice to not believe. Perhaps believing would require some unpalatable lifestyle changes, it's so easy to put faith in the too hard basket isn't it?

It is not surprising that many should continue to reject Jesus and try to deny his very existence. You can use whatever means and ways you like, your language of the learned may intimidate some into silence, your tired old arguments and biases may convince a few more and your personal choice to not believe may garner some support from like minded individuals but ultimately your efforts will fail. The evidence is there in abundance for those who seek it.

By your listing of major points you can easily prove that Jesus didn't exist. There was no Nazareth at the time of this man's birth. I think that it is not necessary to have that as his birthplace.

amartin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Nazareth at the time of this man's birth. I think
> that it is not necessary to have that as his
> birthplace.

Good chance that Nazareth was just the crossing spot
for two goat trails 2000 years ago. Oh, it may have
had a peasant's hut or two thereabouts -- but I greatly
doubt that there was any such village -- certainly not
a synagogue -- and probably not a carpenter's shop.

So, where did the "historical" Jesus come from? From the
Transjordan (where the Jerusalem Church later fled? From
Egypt (as the rabbis say)? From Bethlehem (a requirement
for a Davidic messiah)? Or from the "Land of Jerusalem,"
(as the Lehites professed)?

Perhaps from none of those places. And perhaps the later
association with "Nazareth" came from the same Hebrew
root-word as its Arabic cognate -- the Muslims call
Christians "Nazrani." The root-word in this case can
be applied to "little fish" -- the same image as occurs
in various places throughout the NT, and in Jeremiah.

Just one of several possibilities -- but I suppose that
references to "Jesus of Nazareth" are basically just as
problematic as to "Jesus of Bethlehem."

UD

In 2009 a house dating to the time of Jesus was found in Nazareth. Ehrman discusses this at great length in his book and the discovery of the house was covered at the time.http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-21/world/nazareth.home_1_nazareth-jesus-byzantine-period?_s=PM:WORLD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 11:09PM by bona dea.