Were I to claim that there was never a Jesus, I would not be claiming that there was an elaborate hoax with everyone participating.
First of all, there was never a Jesus. There possibly was a Jeshua. Let’s get it right.
Secondly, have you ever heard of mormonism? (Wait, don’t slam the door!) Mormonism was started by four dudes: Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. By all appearances, the first three were in on the con. Harris, on the other hand, wasn’t. He was their rich dupe - he was an extremely credulous dude who fronted much of the money for their early efforts. He was their first convert, and participated actively in the spreading of mormonism until he gadfly’d off to other things.
This was in the early 1800s. I’m pretty confident that back in the early aughts one or two charismatic leaders could bring in an entire herd of subsidiary disciples, all of whom fully believed that their dreams and ‘visions’ gave them insight into the Big Man, and who saw nothing wrong in inventing tales to help the Big Man convey their beliefs about the religion to others.
Written manuscripts were rare, not nonexistent. Indeed Paul’s special significance is that he was a publicity star. He seized on a religious phenomenon which had become quite popular by 50 AD, imposed his own views on it and, with the help of putative scribes like Luke, published and — precisely because books were rare — achieved huge influence. Although Paul is unconcerned with Jesus’ bio, he does adhere to the usual chronology. Early oral traditions (or written drafts) of the Q, M, L, and Mark materials were also arising. The specific commonality to all narratives is the Crucifixion of Jesus. Crucifixions were common in Judaea during that era. The idea that hoaxsters invented a fake victim instead of relying on a real one seems excruciatingly unlikely. Con-men were not often so sophisticated in those days, to propel the religion’s huge and rapid exansion. Surely a real charismatic martyr is far more likely than a concocted fantasy or conflation.
I have huge respect for Tamerlane as a historian, and am too timid to present my crude lay understandings vs his expertise. (I also love the postings of Mississippienne — where is she?) But I do think Tamerlane underestimates the chance of historicity. Oh sure, some of the parables or anecdotes might have been borrowed from a fellow preacher or disciple. But the basic point — that a specific Jesus of Nazareth achieved fame as a healer and/or preacher, probably caused a disturbance in the Temple, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate — must be at least 95 to 99%, rather than, say, 65 to 85%.
Yes, we do. Cicero was Caesar’s bitter rival, and in his orations against Cataline, he frequently mentions Caesar. We also have objective lists of the men who served as consuls of Rome, and Caesar is on them.
But even if that were not the case, we have Caesar’s own writings, which are of such high quality, in both content and style, that they are still read and studied 2000 years later (I commend to all the recent episode of the Hardcore History podcast, “The Celtic Holocaust”). While it would not be unbelievable that Caesar employed a ghost writer, it is absolutely unbelievable that someone else would write such excellent commentaries (which were best-sellers as soon as they were written) and ascribe them to a completely fictitious character, thereby giving up not only credit for them, but any financial reward.
And a general comment – I am amazed that anyone thought my first post was not meant to be ironic. The fact that over a hundred million people believe anything Trump says, even when it contradicts not only written and video records, but also what Trump said the month before, shows that people will believe whatever they want, even when proof against it is easily available. And proof against what the Gospels claim was not easily available in the ancient world – the fact that Christianity grew rapidly only in regions where people knew next to nothing about Israel, or Jewish prophecy, is telling.
My opinion on Jesus has been stated many times on this board — that it hardly matters whether he existed or not, because the miracle stories about him in the Gospels could just as easily be made up about a real person as a fictitious person. But I tend to believe that there was an itinerant preacher known as Jesus of Nazareth, because of the incredible (and contradictory) birth narratives of Matthew and Luke that attempt to explain why the Messiah, who had to be born in Bethlehem, was raised in Nazareth.
Mythical figures frequently have contradictory stories about them. For example, Achilles was supposed to be invulnerable except for one tiny spot, and yet in the Iliad he wouldn’t go into battle without full armor.
Jesus (or rather, “Jesus” as depicted in “Luke”) had the “foresight” to admit as much up front: no prophet is accepted in his hometown.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that people in a “prophet’s” hometown would know better than anyone their backstory and that they’re full of shit. No, it must be the work of the devil and man’s sinful nature.
King Arthur probably was never a real person, but that doesn’t make Geoffrey of Monmouth guilty of a “hoax” for documenting the stories he had heard and believed in, even if he had embellished them somewhat. If there was a real person at the core of the Jesus mythos that the Gospels are based on, he probably didn’t do or say anything the Gospels say he did, and he may not even have lived anywhere near the time the Gospels are written. The Talmud mentions several Yeshuas who claimed to be messiahs and were executed in the 1st-2nd centuries BC, and it’s entirely possible that the first Jesus cults were based on one or more of them.
Most translations I’ve seen say “country” rather than “hometown,” but in any case, he’s wrong.
Zoroastrianism: founded by a Persian, became very popular in Persia
Buddhism: founded by an Indian, became very popular in India
Islam: founded by an Arab, became very popular in Arabia
Confucianism and Taoism: founded by Chinese, became very popular in China
Christianity: founded by a Jew, became popular in Rome, Greece, Asia Minor, and other places far enough from Israel that nobody could dispute the stories, but not Israel itself.
You have to admit, it’s kind of strange how he was so famous as an infant, with savants from distant lands coming just to see him, same with shepherds from all around his birthplace, the Jewish King willing to kill an entire region’s infants in an attempt to get him, choirs of angels singing his praises, various holy people of the Temple proclaiming him the Messiah to anyone who would listen — all this before he’s two months old, and hasn’t done anything but poop in his diapers, and smile at the little drummer boy.
But we’re told that after reaching his full adult powers, and performing all kinds of spectacular miracles witnessed by thousands, he’s so obscure that Judas has to identify him to the authorities, and he dies with less than a dozen followers.
The idea of writing fiction hadnt really come around, and the gospels and Pauls writings came around only a short time after the Crucifixion, when there were thousands of people who had seen Jesus.
Geoffrey of Monmouth was born some 4-500 years after the “real” Arthur was around. He never claimed to meet him.
All four of the Gospels were written within six decades of the crucifixion. Josephus wrote in that period also.
There’s a lot of difference in writing centuries after the last person who might have seen the Myth figure had died, and writing while thousands of them were still alive and well.
We don’t have “thousands of people” who saw Jesus. We have four people who never saw Jesus, writing a generation of more after the fact, that they heard there were thousands of people who saw Jesus.
And it’s quite silly to say that fiction wasn’t being written at the time - the Aenead, for example, was never intended to be read as a true story.
Nor does Paul claim to have met Jesus, and the authors of the Gospels certainly didn’t either.
Except that all Josephus says that we can be sure wasn’t a later interpolation is that a guy named James was executed. He spends far more time talking about a Roman who disguises himself as Anubis in order to have an affair with a married woman than on this man who was supposedly the living incarnation of YHVH.
Alas, DrDeth is coming from a seemingly unshakable position—not at all recognized as the consensus among scholars—that John not only saw Jesus, but authored the gospel attributed to him as an eyewitness.
