Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Merged content 2005: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Historicity of Jesus Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:57, 28 November 2004 editCheeseDreams (talk \| contribs)4,094 edits →Issues of priority ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:43, 20 March 2012 edit undoJohnChrysostom (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,573 edits shouldn't this redirect to talk page?
(28 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}}
	{{controversial}}
	{{jesus}}

	== Perspectives of Historicity ==
	Many Christians believe that God plays an active role in history through ] and ]; and some take as a basis for their faith a ] for the ], and the divinity of Jesus. Some Christians believe in God but question the divinity of Jesus and the Bible, and rely more heavily on the work of scientists and historians.

	Since ]s for the existence of God became more prevelant in ] teachings, the issue of the historicity of Jesus gained greater significance, and arguments about ] started to be used in significant ways in this context. Most Christian scholars, and many non-Christian scholars, do not dispute that a person named Jesus once lived, connected in some way to the biblical accounts, thinking that evidence for Jesus' existence is by historical standards fairly strong.

	Many historians do not dispute the existence of a person who was named Jesus, but there is much less acceptance of the narrative of his ] and death, and far less for any ] claims. Many scholars think that interpretations of Jesus' sayings are secondhand and literary extrapolations from his actions and mythologized invented detail which have been applied to an historical figure.

	However, a number of critics have proposed that there was no historical Jesus, adducing as support for this position the paucity of non-Christian historical ] corroborating Christian writings. Perhaps most prolific of those Biblical scholars who discount the historical existence of Jesus is a professor of German, ], who argues that Jesus was originally a ] ].

	== Jesus and Syncretism ==
	''Main article'':]

	The ]s tied ] and ] to mystical meaning, and often encoded deeper meaning within geometric or numerical representations, themselves encoded as ''outer mysteries'' in the form of stories. Some scholars think that some of these stories and their deeper meaning was incorporated into the story of Jesus, rather than them being a reflection on historic events. For example, ''12 apostles'' is thought to be a reference to the ] itself derived from geometry of spheres, ''72 disciples'' is thought to be a reference to the precession of the Zodiac.

	Other stories are thought to have more cryptic meaning, one of the best examples being the story of the ''153 fish'', which is thought to encode via ] (a greek version of ]) a mystical diagram known to ], the 153 being a repeated number in the diagram, and having religious significance connected to the ]. Many scholars have thought, throughout the centuries, that the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 has a cryptic meaning, early ideas tying the numbers to Jews, Gentiles, the Torah, and Apostles, wheras more recent ideas suggest there is an encrypted mystic diagram. Other instances of isopsephia are thought to occur, such as 666 which is quite literally the number of ''the great beast''.

	]
	The pre-Christian egyptian god ], itself a syncretism of many local deities, is thought to have many similarities with Jesus. According to some scholars, Horus shares elements of the nativity with Jesus, such as a virgin mother Mary married to Joseph, preceeded by annunciation, announced by stars, occuring in Bethlehem, though the similarities supposedly only reveal themselves when transliterating between ] and ]. Another story alleged to have been copied from Horus is that of the raising of ] at ], thought to be indentifiable with the raising of ] at the underworld, Annu, again only revealed by transliteration of the names.

	Titles are also shared such as ''The way, the truth, the life'', ''the anointed one'', ''Light of the World'', as are depictions, such as that of Mary and the baby Jesus, and the depiction of Mary in revelations. In addition, some allege that ] is the prototype for ], the story of the battle in the wilderness with temptation being shared between the stories. Since the Horus stories are thought to have astronomical meanings, some scholars suggest that this explains otherwise confusing ideas in the New Testament.

	]
	During the first and second centuries BC, Hellenic philosophy merged with minor deities to produce ], in which a ] was used as allegory to encode wisdom. Such religion quickly replaced many local religions as the dominant form throughout the Mediterranian, with the resulting variations of the central god-man figure becoming known as ]. Some scholars think that Jesus was one of the forms of ].

	The religions share with christianity many things, such as a form of baptism, religious meals of bread and wine (sharing the same meaning as Christianity, disturbing ]), the birthday of the central figure, pregnancy duration, nativity story, riding into town on a donkey, crucifixion at easter, and last judgement, although it varied as to which features were held in common.

	=== Mithras Sol Invictus===

	Worship of Mithras (known as ]) developed in the Rome army during the ], though it is currently unknown how this particular mystery religion originated, as it appears to have little to do with the ] ]. Since it developed amongst a group of highly mobile people (professional soldiers), it quickly spread to the outer regions of the empire. It soon proved to be amongst the most popular of the mystery religions, and at Rome, by the start of the ] emperors were openly encouraging it, as the religion favoured their rule.

	The ] religion is thought to have its ultimate origin in the cult of ], a deity connected to popular forms of ] (though it is important to note that strictly, early Zoroastrianism is dualist, and modern Zoroastrianism is monotheist, and neither contain Mithra). The ] of priests responsible for the cult of Mithra were the ], who, due to the religions connection to the stars (a reputation centred on ]), were considered both to be holy men and great astronomers.

	Magi were held in great esteem by most of the meditteranian and near-eastern world, and as such, things associated with them were given great respece. It is thought that, should it be fictional, the presence of Magi (in greek ''magoi'', sometimes translated ''wise men'' or ''kings'') at Jesus' birth was inserted to suggest that even these great holy and wise men thought Jesus was important, thus lending credence.

	One of the ancient gods associating with ] (the earlier non-mystery form of Mithras) was ], the moon god, and god of the waters. By the time of the mystery religions, Ea was referred to as ] (or sometimes considered as Oannes' father), which in greek is written Ioannes (i.e. John), and, according to the myths, Oannes spent the days teaching mankind wisdom. Consequently Ea is thought by some scholars, such as ], to be the origin of the story of ].

	Jesus allegedly is born on the winter solstice (when the sun starts to reappear), six months after John is born on the summer solstice (when the sun starts to dissappear), John baptises with water (the symbol of Ea) and Jesus with fire (the symbol of the sun), and Jesus is born to a young virgin wheras John is born to an old married woman. These comparisons, together with when, in the bible, John says to Jesus ''as you become more, I must become less'', lead some scholars to think John is used in the story as a representation of the moon, and Jesus as the sun (i.e. a sun-god).

	By the end of the 3rd century, the popular cults of Apollo and Mithras had started to merge into the syncretism known as ''Mithras Sol Invictus''<!-- Note to those who think this is a lie: the first known official use of Mithras Sol Invictus was by Diocletian in 307AD, and it occurs in many many texts from the period --> or simply '']'' (the unconquerable sun - a term confusingly also used by other cults), and in ] CE the emperor ] (whose mother had been a priestess of the sun) made worship of this form official.

	The Emporer ] was, like emporers before him, ''pontifex maximus'' (great priest) of the mithraic religion. However, he was also interested in creating unity for the sake of ease of governance, and to this end involved himself in many disputes between Christian groups, arranging councils (such as ], discussing ], amongst other things) and enforcing outcomes, thus creating the institution of ].

	Constantine also tried to smooth the differences between Christianity and its main competitor, the official religion of ''Sol Invictus''. In doing so, he moved the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th (since this was the date that Mithras' birth was celebrated, and that of ] (another form of ]) as well that of other winter solstice festivals such as ]). In addition, the Christian sabbath was moved from Saturday (which it had inherited from Judaism) to Sunday (the day holy to Mithras Sol Invictus, since it was "the day of the sun")

	Constantine also instituted use of the ], representative of Christianity, also alledged by some scholars have had use as an ] for "auspicious" thus serving both Christian and non-Christian purpose simultaneously. Constantine's lust for unity, but his tolerance for the existance of Christianity simultaneously to Sol Invictus, has led some scholars to postulate that there was little difference between the two religions (and thus each was able to absorb elements of the other with ease).

	Popular legend had it that Constantine I was Christian, however, this is a fallacy. Constantine never recanted his position as ''pontifex maximus'' of Mithras Sol Invictus, and the only alleged occurance of Constantine I converting was on his deathbed (as alleged by later church fathers), which is impossible to verify either way.

	Some scholars assert that Christianity grew in strength as the prime difference with the mystery religion was that Christianity took the superficial (i.e. literal) interpretation as the correct one, as would newcomers to the mysteries, thus simply larger the stronger number of adherants to its views. This was observed quite early, for example, the second century ] (whose words are preserved in ]'s ''Contra Celsum'', a text designed against Celsus) states that Christianity
	:''continues to spread amongst the vulgar, nay one can even say it spreads because of its vulgarity, and the illiteracy of its adherants. And while there are a few moderate, reasonable, and intelligent people who are inclined to interpret its beliefs allegorically, yet it thrives in its purer form amongst the ignorant''

	Shocked by this development, the emporer ] attempted to restore the previous religion by supressing and persecuting Christianity. However, this was short lived, as emporers such as the Constantine II (whom many confuse with Constantine I) repealed Julian's actions and encouraged the growth of Christianity. This state of affairs was finally enforced by a decreee in ] (by ], an ] who ascribed to Christianity) which banned outright any non-Christian worship.

	After the ban, and subsequent supression, many Mithraeum were converted into Christian churches (such as Notre-Dame du Taur, and the ]), often dedicated to the ]. Some scholars think that at this time Christianity absorbed the remaining practises and beliefs of Mithras, not already a part of Christianity, to an extent transferring the concept of Mithras to the archangel Michael (including being protector of Soldiers, for example). This is due to the idea that since the congregations were the same, in the same churches, and, in their opinion, there was little difference in the myths (except that Christianity took the story literally).



	== Sources ==
	''Main article'':]

	Although there is much evidence of Jesus attested by the ] and the ] (those works which the ] did not consider valid), those arguing against Jesus' historicity point out that since these are works written for religious reasons, they cannot be considered unbiased. Of the secular commentators in existence within memory of Jesus, from the evidence of their surviving works (which still survive in significantly high number to fill hundreds of volumes of text) only 6 are claimed to have written anything relating toJesus - Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, Philo, Lucian, and Tacitus. Many scholars consider it odd that a man of such significance as Jesus should be missing from historic texts and records, since lesser figures are, unless, that is, Jesus didn't exist, or was insignificant. Supporters of Jesus' historicity proclaim that the other records became the New Testament.

	] gave a ] referring to ''Chrestus''- some think this is a typographical error referring to ''Christ'', but others point out that ''Chrestus'' translates as ''Useful One'', a common slave name. ] makes no mention of Jesus or Christians, but his philosophy matched to the extent that early Christians considered him as one of them. ] wrote a satire demonstrating the existence of ] but condemning them as easily lead fools, wheras ] wrote the same opinion in prose. ] wrote ], one evidencing Christianity's existence, and one describing Jesus' death, which some scholars think he merely wrote having asked a Christian who Jesus was.

	Many Christians use a passage from ] (found only in quotations apparantly from it by ]) as evidence that the Bible is not the only contemporary document proclaiming the truth of their faith (such as the Resurrection of Jesus as Christ, part-God, who was executed at the suggestion of Jewish leaders, and won many converts). However, critical scholars note that the passage uses terms Josephus nowhere else uses, the passage is a rather odd thing for a non-Christian Jew to write, the other text reads more continuously without the passage in question, and that the first person known to have claimed that Josephus did not mention Jesus was ] (who lived centuries before ] who is the first person known to have claimed (or quoted) that he did). The discovery of a more neutral 10th century version, bolstered Christian hopes of the validity of the passage, however, it fails to explain why the earlier 9th century manuscripts should have the flaws, and may itself be a forgery.

	The only known text claiming to be a form of official governmental records which also evidences Jesus, is the collection known as the ''Letters of Herod and Pilate''. They are found in some 6th century manuscript copies of the work of ] (who was of the same time as ]). However, these are almost universally regarded as forgeries, due to extreme obviousness, failure to match historic events or people, failure to match the biblical accounts, appearance as a vindictive wish list of retribution against Pilate and Herod, and other problems.

	Jewish records, both oral and written, of the period, were compiled into the ], a work so large that it fills at least 32 volumes. Within its vastness, there is very little mention of anyone called Jesus, the closest match being a person or persons called '']''. However, the description of ''Yeshu'' does not match the biblical accounts of Jesus, the name itself is usually considered to be a derogatory acronym for anyone attempting to convert Jews from Judaism, and the term does not occur in the Jerusalem version of the text (which, compared to the Babylonian version, would be expected to mention Jesus more). Some Christians proclaim that the lack of references, and the difficulty in associating ''Yeshu'' with Jesus, is due to Christianity being negligable when the Talmud was predominantly created, in addition to the Talmud being more concerned with teachings, than recording history.

	== Gnosticism ==
	=== The Epistles of Paul ===
	The epistles of Paul can be split into two sections, those known as the Pastoral Letters, and the non-Pastoral letters. The authenticity of the Pastoral letters is disputed by many scholars, for various reasons.
	The non-Pastoral letters do not mention Jesus in any way which implies he actually existed. The non-Pastorals feature many things in common with Gnosticism, including the esoteric style in which they were written. Some scholars theorise that Paul was a gnostic teacher, and as such saw Jesus as an allegory, as part of a Jewish mystery religion.
	{{sectstub}}

	=== The Synoptic Gospels ===
	The gospel of Mark makes much mention of secrets and of secret teachings. This is a founding principle of gnosticism, the secret teachings being gnosis.
	If the Secret Gospel of Mark is genuinely attributable to the same author, it can be considered to imply the existance of secret teachings.
	Thomas Didymous, also known as doubting Thomas, can be considered to be a Gnostic allegory. His name, having parts from two languages, literally means "Twin Twin". A twin of the Gnostic initiate is used to represent the earthly part of a character. Association between Thomas and Jesus points to Thomas being the earthly part of Jesus' gnostic self. This is further identified by the gradual learning process Thomas is put through, leading him to attain the nickname "doubting Thomas", symbolising the learning of the gnostic initiate.
	To gnostics, Jesus symbolises the gnostic initiate's higher self. His death and resurrection symbolise the throwing away of previous beliefs, and coming to gnosis.
	The naked youth at gethsemene, if identified with the white robed youth, at the tomb (who in some gospels is referred to as an angel), symbolises the initiation ceremony. These ceremonies typically consisted of stripping completely naked, being baptised, and then being robed in a white cloth.
	To gnostics, Jesus was not real. If the synoptic gospels are gnostic, they do not provide evidence for Jesus.
	{{sectstub}}

	=== The Gospel of John ===
	There is some doubt over the nature of the ]. Traditional views place it as being John, a disciple.
	More recent study reveals that it has various discrepencies with the description of John given in the bible.
	The generally accepted opinion is the John was the last gospel to be written. Most scholars place it in the second century, though are divided as to whether at the beginning or the end.
	During the second century, Christianity was embroiled in arguments over the nature of Jesus, particularly with the Gnostics. However, the synoptic gospels did not provide much anti-gnostic argument, and those who were vehemently anti-gnostic used quotes from the Gospel of John.
	The gospel of John differs substantially from the Synoptic Gospels.
	The first evidence of mention of the Gospel of John is in the works of ], a vehement anti-gnostic. He makes great use of it, and there is some suspicion that he made it up for this purpose. If this is the case, the Gospel is a fake, and cannot count as evidence.
	{{sectstub}}

	=== Other Gospels ===
	Many non-canonical gospels exist. Sometimes, these are used to support evidence for Jesus. However, many consider some of these works to be wild fictions, such as the ]. Others are clearly gnostic, and as such cannot support the existance of Jesus as anything other than allegory.
	{{sectstub}}

	=== Persecution of Gnostics ===
	Gnosticism survived into the 13th century, producing groups such as the ]. Gnostic ideas of god, the consideration of Jesus as allegory, that it was the idea of Jesus' actions (as interpreted in Gnostic texts) that was the saving of Mankind rather than Jesus' actual actions, as well as willingness to tolerate other faiths, made the catholic church feel deeply threatened. To counter this, the pope (]) organised a "crusade" (massacre) against the gnostics known as the ]. Then it created the ], from which other ]s such as the ] developed, to hunt anyone who still held the beliefs.
	{{sectstub}}

	==See also==
	*]
	*]
	*]
	== External links ==
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*

	==Reference==
	* Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, ''The Jesus Mysteries - was the original Jesus a pagan god?'' ISBN:0722536771
	* Michael Grant, ''Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels''
	* Edgar J. Goodspeed, ''Biblical Forgeries''
	* Raymond E. Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, Roland Murphy, ''Jerome Biblical Commentary'', Prentice Hall, 1968
	* Rudolf Bultmann, ''History of the Synoptic Tradition'',Harper & Row, 1963
	* Edgar V. McKnight,''What is Form Criticism?'', 1997
	* Norman Perrin,''What is Redaction Criticism?''
	* Robin Jensen,''Understanding Early Christian Art'', Rutledge, 2000
	* Stephen Patterson, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossman, Edited by Hershel Shanks,''The Search for Jesus: Modern Scholarship Looks at the Gospels'',Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994 Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution, 11 Sept 1993
	* Earl Doherty, ''The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus'', Publisher: Canadian Humanist Pubns; 1st edition (October 19, 1999)
	* Phyllis Graham, ''The Jesus Hoax'', Publisher: Frewin; (1974)
	* Charles Guignebert, ''Jesus'', Publisher: Albin Michel; (December 31, 1969)
	* Gordon Stein, ''An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism'', Publisher: Prometheus Books; (December 1, 1989)
	* George A.Wells, ''The Historical Evidence for Jesus'', Publisher: Prometheus Books; (January 1, 1988)
	* Ian Wilson, ''Jesus: The Evidence'', Publisher: Regnery Publishing; 1 edition (October 1, 2000)
	* Barker, Dan. ''Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist.'' Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.
	* Bruce, F. F. ''The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?'' 5th ed. Intervarsity, 1960.
	* Fox, Robin Lane. ''The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible.'' New York: Vintage, 1991.
	* Keller, James A. ''Contemporary Doubts About the Resurrection.'' Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988): 40-60.
	* Mackie, J.L ''The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God.'' New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
	* Martin, Michael. ''The Case Against Christianity''. Temple University, 1991.
	* McCabe, Joseph. ''The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays''. 1925. Prometheus, 1993.
	* Miller, Glenn. ''Christian `bias' in the NT Writers: Does it render the NT unreliable or inadmissable as evidence?'' 23 Feb. 1995.
	* O'Hair, Madalyn. ''Fundamentalism.'' Memphis State University. 22 Oct. 1986.
	* O'Hair, Madalyn. ''Why I Am An Atheist.'' Second Revised Edition. American Atheist Press, 1991.
	* Ranke-Heinemann, Ute. ''Putting Away Childish Things: the Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don't Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith.'' Translated by Peter Heinegg. 1992. Harper Collins, 1994.
	* Russell, Bertrand. ''Why I Am Not a Christian''. Touchstone, 1957.
	* Spong, John Shelby. ''Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture.'' Harper Collins, 1991.
	* Stamos, David N. ''Why I Am Not a New Apostolic'' Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Edited by Ed Babinski. Prometheus, 1995.
	* Stein, Gordon Ed. ''An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism.'' Prometheus, 1980.
	* Stein, Gordon Ed. ''The Encyclopedia of Unbelief.'' Prometheus, 1985.
	* Stein, Gordon Ed. ''Freethought in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.'' Greenwood Press, 1981.
	* Stein, Gordon Ed. ''God Pro and Con: A Bibliography of Atheism.'' Garland, 1990.
	* Robert Ingersoll ''A Checklist.'' Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1969.
	* Stein, Gordon and Marshall Brown. ''Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography.'' Greenwood Press, 1978.
	* Swinburne, Richard. ''For the Possibility of Miracles - To Believe or Not to Believe: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion.'' Edited by E.D. Klemke. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992.
	* Taylor, Larry. ''MessiahGate - A Tale of Murder and Deception.'' August 1987: 1-7.
	* Till, Farrell. ''Did They Tarry in the City?'' The Skeptical Review. Volume 3, Number 2.
	* Watts, Charles. ''The Claims of Christianity Examined from a Rationalist Standpoint.'' Watts & Co., 1895.
	* Wheless, Joseph. ''Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion.'' Psychiana, 1930.
	* Wheless, Joseph. ''Is It God's Word?'' Kessinger, 1925.
	* Zindler, Frank R. ''Biography. - Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists''. Ed. Ed Babinski. Prometheus, 1995.
	* Zindler, Frank R. ''Dial an Atheist: Greatest Hits from Ohio'' American Atheist Press, 1991.

	]
	]

	== Remains of original article before edit started ==
	Debates concerning the '''historicity of Jesus''' center on two issues: the role of God in natural and human history, and the veracity of the New Testament as a historical source.



	=== The Epistles Of Paul ===

	]'s letters appear to have a distinct lack of detail about Jesus' day-to-day existence or activities, leading to scholars such as ] suggesting that Paul's idea of Jesus was derived from his reading of the ]. Most of Paul's references to Jesus make little mention of his time on earth, although, in letters that many scholars consider to be forgeries, there is reference, in moderate detail, to the ] as though it was an actual historical event.

	In this extreme position within this skeptical view, Paul had not heard of any actual person named Jesus from Nazareth (or Bethlehem), but rather believed in a metaphysical Jesus who died on some ethereal plane at the beginning of time, or some far-off time in history.



	=== Gnostics ===

	In general, some Christians groups tended to oppose ]; for instance ] was quickly condemned for his Gnostic interpretation of the Scriptures. ], a reknowned second century heresy condemner, and church father, said, in ''Against Heresies'', of the ] group of Gnostics "''They keep asking us how it is that when they confess the same things, and hold the same doctrines, we call them heretics''"

	<!-- Maybe the quote from Celsus ought to go here, as it seems particularly relevant to the section, and may make it seem even less like it ought to go in the mystery religions article. -->

	The case for the myth usually states that the reason Christianity doesn't view Jesus as a myth is because they didn't comprehend it. The failure of mystery religions was that by their very nature, the masses took the stories somewhat literally, with the belief in the literal truth of stories eventually superceding the understanding of it as metaphor.

Latest revision as of 13:43, 20 March 2012

Redirect to:

Talk:Historicity of Jesus

From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.