Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

I would argue that the contents of the Nag Hammadi library represents not alone alternative evidence for the existence of Jesus but a potentially more accurate depiction of who he was. The Gnostics were pronounced as heretics in 180 CE and had been ostracized and had most of their texts destroyed by 400 CE. The Nag Hammadi library dates from this time and likely represents the best original unaltered documents we have on the question of Jesus. There would have been no motive to alter the texts to fit a myth, the motive actually was to hide the texts to avoid destruction, and they did not get incorporated into the bible.

As the contents of the Nag Hammadi library are not contemporary we are going around in circles.

I was merely highlighting a contradiction in the post I was responding to.

The fact remains there are no extant documents which refer to Jesus and were written during his life time therefore one cannot say his existence is a historical fact but is, at best, a historical probability.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As the contents of the Nag Hammadi library are not contemporary we are going around in circles.

The fact remains there are no extant documents which refer to Jesus and were written during his life time therefore one cannot say his existence is a historical fact but is, at best, a historical probability.

I am not arguing that the existence of Jesus is a historical fact. I am disagreeing with your statement that the bible is the only evidence for his existence. Do you agree that the Nag Hammadi library is evidence for the existence of Jesus, and it is a non bible source?

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not arguing that the existence of Jesus is a historical fact. I am disagreeing with your statement that the bible is the only evidence for his existence. Do you agree that the Nag Hammadi library is evidence for the existence of Jesus, and it is a non bible source?

'Non' Biblical in that they did not conform to the message the compilers of the Bible wished to disseminate so were left out, however they are from the same tradition/time frame which brought us the gospels so they are not as far removed from the Gospels as you perhaps wish to imply. Had the compilers decided on a different orthodoxy these gnostic gospels could well have formed what we call the Bible.

They are a different interpretation of the same story written at the same time as the approved version. Which is not quite the same this as a true 'non' biblical source which would be one written by someone outside of the Christian framework - e.g. Roman officials, merchants letters etc etc.

And no, I would not agree it is 'evidence' for Jesus - it is evidence of early Christianity and a particular viewpoint of Jesus that was deemed unorthodox.

Gordon

oldrnwisr wrote: »

...

I didn't realise that the bible contained that much (and more) contradictory content! It really does amaze me how some people just lap it up.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And no, I would not agree it is 'evidence' for Jesus - it is evidence of early Christianity and a particular viewpoint of Jesus that was deemed unorthodox.

I am reminded of my days in college when no matter how "right" I believed I was, and no matter how "wrong" I believed the lecturer was, the lecturer by default was always "right"

Anyway I digress. Scholars are in two camps on the gnostics, some think they were around long before Jesus, and some think they were a Christian offshoot. The Essenes were definitely around before Jesus as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there is a definite gnostic flavor to Essene writings, and like much of the Nag Hammadi texts they stem from mystical experiences. The Essene variety of Judaism appears to be the primary source of gnostic thinking rather than Christianity, at least in that part of the world.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

I am reminded of my days in college when no matter how "right" I believed I was, and no matter how "wrong" I believed the lecturer was, the lecturer by default was always "right"

Anyway I digress. Scholars are in two camps on the gnostics, some think they were around long before Jesus, and some think they were a Christian offshoot. The Essenes were definitely around before Jesus as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there is a definite gnostic flavor to Essene writings, and like much of the Nag Hammadi texts they stem from mystical experiences. The Essene variety of Judaism appears to be the primary source of gnostic thinking rather than Christianity, at least in that part of the world.

Imagine the bruhaha when two lecturers disagree....

I find the Essenes fascinating - they are on my 'must have a better look at them' list. A list that has my OH completely bemused as she sees me sitting there reading a history book on my time off and asks why I am 'working' to which I reply 'I'm not. This isn't about my time period'.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Imagine the bruhaha when two lecturers disagree....

I find the Essenes fascinating - they are on my 'must have a better look at them' list. A list that has my OH completely bemused as she sees me sitting there reading a history book on my time off and asks why I am 'working' to which I reply 'I'm not. This isn't about my time period'.

I've seen it many a time and its not pretty:D

I actually think the Essenes are the key to understanding the Jesus puzzle. It is quite clear to me at least that the messiah the Essenses were expecting was a Cosmic Godman, and not the messiah that the orthodox Jews were expecting who would physically drive out the Romans and establish an independent Jewish state. The latter would have been a Zealot messiah and there likely was one of them as well who brought all the destruction of the first century on their heads. It could also explain who all these early Christians were in the first century, they were probably Essenes who survived as they were not based in Jerusalem. The gnostics likely stayed true to original Essene mysticism while orthodox Christianity that evolved during the first and second centuries incorporated all kinds of everything that appealed to the gentiles.

ravendude

Can anyone recommend me a good concise critique and overview of the bible for atheists (kindle included)? ideally something that would outline the historical context, inaccuracies and moral issues.
A kind of "the bible for atheists".
I can see a few on amazon but most seem focussed on scripture whereas I would like something that touches on the historical context also. One or more short kindle books may even do the job...

Thanks...

PopePalpatine

Off the top of my head, I can think of "The Skeptics' Annotated Bible".

robindch

ravendude wrote: »

Can anyone recommend me a good concise critique and overview of the bible for atheists (kindle included)? ideally something that would outline the historical context, inaccuracies and moral issues.

Bart Ehrman has written a few books, concentrating on the new testament and whether it can be considered an accurate account of real events (short answer, probably not on both counts).

You can get a flavour of him from the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo

roosh

Very interesting thread; just finished reading it. I had been wondering about the historicity of Jesus but had never really taken the time to look into it enough, so this thread has been quite useful in that regard.

The conclusion seems to be that we can't definitively say that Jesus existed, bcos there are no primary sources by him or which refer to him; there does seem to be some consensus, however, that he probably existed (is that fair enough?). It also seems to be that the depiction of him as a person is unreliable.

computer44

breaking bad was great. But the storyteller got it wrong .

There is no jesus or god.

oldrnwisr

roosh wrote: »

The conclusion seems to be that we can't definitively say that Jesus existed, bcos there are no primary sources by him or which refer to him; there does seem to be some consensus, however, that he probably existed (is that fair enough?). It also seems to be that the depiction of him as a person is unreliable.

That's pretty spot on in all respects.

Wibbs

Gordon wrote: »

I didn't realise that the bible contained that much (and more) contradictory content! It really does amaze me how some people just lap it up.

I'd suspect the geographical details being arseways may be down to the notion that the gospels as we know them are (later)collated mini stories making up a full narrative. There's a lot of "and he went from place X to place Y" in between stories. The writers weren't on the ground so went with whatever they knew to sew the narrative together and got a lot wrong(and a couple of general geography things right too).

What I always found odd is why the early church - which was otherwise gangbusters for winnowing out sources they didn't like or that didn't fit the narrative - didn't simply amalgamate the sources they did like into one book that did agree internally. Islam went through this when the first caliph rounded up the "correct" bits of the Quran and had the rest destroyed.

Sarky

Maybe they didn't really expect anyone to take such bullsh*t seriously?

Wibbs

Sarky wrote: »

Maybe they didn't really expect anyone to take such bullsh*t seriously?

Maybe they were actually in earnest and released those main books warts and all? They were different times, very different in certain ways. Historical accuracy often took a back seat to hagiography. The message behind the words was often more important than the words themselves. Religious faith was almost a given and in a very different way to how it's viewed today(even by the religious). Individual authors voices spoke much more loudly in what we would call histories or science. EG Check out some of Pliny's stuff(younger and elder).

However these were not stupid people, though today many like to think they were for "believing such bullshít"*. They would have noted the inconsistencies. What I find interesting is that they didn't seek to smooth them out. That was well within their capabilities. Indeed given how central the figure of Mary was becoming they could have added a lot more to back this up(she's barely mentioned in a couple of the Gospels). With the much later Quran we see a consistent text and secondary history where inconsitencies(though they exist) are much lessened and that after point zero it's written in stone.

Maybe there is a simpler reason? Maybe the four gospels we know today were held as definitive by four major early christian groups and so as not to alienate anyone in the early days of the faith all four were kept? Or maybe they saw the inconsistencies but looked on the books as inspired by god and not to be fcuked with, inconsistencies or not.





*It so depends on the culture and time. Put it this way if Boards.ie was online in 1950's Ireland, it would very likely have a popular Catholic forum and many(if not a majority) of those who post here in A&A would be daily communicants. Same level of intelligence or not as back then, the only diff is the surrounding culture. Hell I remember that in my own life towards the end of the churches popularity and power here. Many of my peers who sneer today forget they were quite the holy Joe's and Joannas's back in the day.

kylith

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd suspect the geographical details being arseways may be down to the notion that the gospels as we know them are (later)collated mini stories making up a full narrative. There's a lot of "and he went from place X to place Y" in between stories. The writers weren't on the ground so went with whatever they knew to sew the narrative together and got a lot wrong(and a couple of general geography things right too).

What I always found odd is why the early church - which was otherwise gangbusters for winnowing out sources they didn't like or that didn't fit the narrative - didn't simply amalgamate the sources they did like into one book that did agree internally. Islam went through this when the first caliph rounded up the "correct" bits of the Quran and had the rest destroyed.

Would they have bothered fixing the geography aspects even if they'd thought of it though? When Christianity took off in Rome and started spreading west I doubt many people in Europe would have had any idea of the geography of the middle east so the original compilers may have just decided 'Feck it, it's grand. Who's going to trek all the way to Judea to find out if Gallilee is north or south of Bethlehem anyway?'

Peregrinus

Wibbs wrote: »

IWhat I always found odd is why the early church - which was otherwise gangbusters for winnowing out sources they didn't like or that didn't fit the narrative - didn't simply amalgamate the sources they did like into one book that did agree internally.

They did think of it - the Diatesseron is precisely that; a harmonised text drawing on all four gospels, resolving inconsistencies, omitting duplications, etc. It dates from the late second century (some time between 160 and 175) and was in wide circulation and use. You can, naturally, find it on the internet today.

But there was never any pretence that it was an original source; it was explicitly a synthesis of the four canonical gospels. The editor of the Diatesseron is known - a bloke called Tatian - and there was never any pretence that he had apostolic authority or connections, or that his text was canonical.

lmaopml

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe there is a simpler reason? Maybe the four gospels we know today were held as definitive by four major early christian groups and so as not to alienate anyone in the early days of the faith all four were kept? Or maybe they saw the inconsistencies but looked on the books as inspired by god and not to be fcuked with, inconsistencies or not.

As a Catholic we would appreciate the canon of the NT as being derived from the Divine Liturgy - The way people 'worshiped' in the early Church under the guidance of the Apostles and so on, and that oral tradition (We call it 'Sacred Tradition' these days )....before the NT canon closed, there was the order of 'worship'. You can see parts of it in the Gospels, particularly in Paul's letters... The didache is an interesting look at an earlier time too...

So, today while we may look at Scriptures and automatically think that our Mass or Liturgy is derived from the written word alone....in fact, the Scriptures were put together because they were the books used in the Liturgy of the early Church during their meetings on the Lord's Day to break bread (Sunday)

Interesting to note that on the 'Road to Emmaus' one of the recorded meetings with the risen Christ - Scripture records that a couple of Jesus disciples didn't recognise him even though he was risen - they only recognised him 'in the breaking of bread', and then he was gone. Incidentally on the 'Lord's Day' - Interesting huh?


The early Christians weren't daft or silly, but they left these Gospels together without editing and intact even though they could be interpreted as Jesus didn't 'look like himself' precisely because that's how the disciples related and wrote down this meeting when Jesus spoke of how the Scriptures (OT) had been fulfilled - and because it's how they practiced all their gatherings. These were accepted testimonies in the early Church - The Liturgy came before the Gospels, the Apostles before the Liturgy, and Jesus before the Apostles were gathered.....:)

Wibbs

Peregrinus wrote: »

They did think of it - the Diatesseron is precisely that; a harmonised text drawing on all four gospels, resolving inconsistencies, omitting duplications, etc. It dates from the late second century (some time between 160 and 175) and was in wide circulation and use. You can, naturally, find it on the internet today.

But there was never any pretence that it was an original source; it was explicitly a synthesis of the four canonical gospels. The editor of the Diatesseron is known - a bloke called Tatian - and there was never any pretence that he had apostolic authority or connections, or that his text was canonical.

Didn't know about this. Cool still it begs the question why they didn't go with that one, or similar longterm. lmaopml's take seems to explain it I suppose. Oddly enough maybe too, they were just being honest about the canon and wouldn't change it warts and all.

Peregrinus

Wibbs wrote: »

Didn't know about this. Cool still it begs the question why they didn't go with that one, or similar longterm. lmaopml's take seems to explain it I suppose. Oddly enough maybe too, they were just being honest about the canon and wouldn't change it warts and all.

Well, yes. Here they are, professing to regard certain texts as authoritative and authentic, and you ask why they don't ditch them in faviour of a somewhat less problematic text. The parsiminious explanation for their behaviour is that they really do regard the primary texts as authoritative and authentic.

There's a popular trope in certain circles in which every act by a religious authority figure is presented as an unprincipled power play. No doubt that trope serves its purpose, but as an explanation for the observed facts it frequently falls short.

Frank Lee Midere

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As the contents of the Nag Hammadi library are not contemporary we are going around in circles.

I was merely highlighting a contradiction in the post I was responding to.

The fact remains there are no extant documents which refer to Jesus and were written during his life time therefore one cannot say his existence is a historical fact but is, at best, a historical probability.

The existence of extant documents rather than copies from the lifetime of any historical figure 2000 years ago is going to be a problem. We probably can't say that lots of people definitely existed, based on that criteria.

Bannasidhe

Anyone else feel like this is happening?

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Anyone else feel like this is happening?

What else would you expect? The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is not a novel topic, we've had 324 posts on the subject, and there are only so many ways you can say "fairly well attested by the standards applicable to figures from the period, but don't expect a slam-dunk".

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

What else would you expect? The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is not a novel topic, we've had 324 posts on the subject, and there are only so many ways you can say "fairly well attested by the standards applicable to figures from the period, but don't expect a slam-dunk".

It's the fact that we say it time and time again - and THEN we have to say it time and time again again- that is making me dizzy.

Geomy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's the fact that we say it time and time again - and THEN we have to say it time and time again again- that is making me dizzy.

Do you believe that the Buddha existed ?

Geomy

Geomy wrote: »

Do you believe that the Buddha existed ?

I can't imagine a lot of us care whether he actually existed since the philosophy and wisdom makes sense in and of itself. Bit different to the big deal about jesus is the claim that he was divine

Frank Lee Midere

Peregrinus wrote: »

What else would you expect? The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is not a novel topic, we've had 324 posts on the subject, and there are only so many ways you can say "fairly well attested by the standards applicable to figures from the period, but don't expect a slam-dunk".

But this is is what the thread is about. This particular thread. Is it fair to say that if it is clear that the existence of Jesus is

"well attested by the standards applicable to figures from the period"

We should assume his existence as much as we would assume the existence of anybody in that period. Like Caeser and Augustus etc.

Victory therefore, to those of us, who believe in the historicity of jesus.

kylith

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

But this is is what the thread is about. This particular thread. Is it fair to say that if it is clear that the existence of Jesus is

"well attested by the standards applicable to figures from the period"

We should assume his existence as much as we would assume the existence of anybody in that period. Like Caeser and Augustus etc.

Victory therefore, to those of us, who believe in the historicity of jesus.

I wouldn't say like Julius or Augustus Caesar, since their existence is very well documented by a number of sources.

Unfortunately I'm not much of a historian but I can't think of anyone else about whom there is such little proof, yet who is accepted to have existed, that Jesus could be compared to. I'm tempted to go with Hildegrund as is recorded in the National History museum: The only record of her is a carving calling her "an horny bitch". Since we know that Hildegrund is a name, and that women have libidos, then Horny Hildegrund can be accepted. Similarly Jesus/Yeshua is a middle eastern name, and the region was full of wandering preachers around 0CE, so a wandering preacher called Jesus/Yeshua is fairly likely.

If you want to call the fact that Jesus is as likely to have existed as a Danish whore called Hildegrund a win, then good for you.

Red Nissan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you can't link me a contemporary document?

My time machine is nearly ready for testing, what date do you want and I'll pop into the local Eason's and buy a copy of the Daily Mirror for ya.

But, by the time the paper is back, it'll be thousands of years old but paradoxically, contemporary to us as it will be brand new, only hours old.