Arthurian legend can be traced to primary sources, and we can see how the “legend” grows over time
The Arthurian legend has a larger burden of proof on it - mainly that we pretty much know that there was no Briton kingdom with a magestical city/castle at the center. We can speculate that there was a king named something like Arthur (or used it as his banner), but Arhurian legend as presented is ridiculous.
The Jesus “legend” (we’ll call it that for now) is rather historically unobtrusive. Given the importance placed on the man’s life since, at the time he was a very minor character in a more important setting. Put bluntly, Jesus didn’t do much.
With Jesus, we have sets of primary and secondary accounts of his actual existing dating from the time he existed. What the story does tell matches historical record (more or less, as I understand it there is some debate about the order on all boys and other bits about his birth).
Both were likely embellished after the fact, though Arthur moreso than Jesus (Jesus became an important figure much sooner after his death than Arthur)
I’m pissed about the advertising campaign for the new Arthur movie. They say that it is the true story. Meh.
Do we have any first hand sources of Cecil existing?
I mean, sure the straight dope books have his name on them, but…those could have been ghost written…
…
>Assuming they did, what make you think that such a record would have existed at the first place and that they would have been kept for 100 years?
Good point. Why presume that the records of some Roman leader in a remote backwater occupied land would have survived a full 100 years later? And from the Roman perspective at that time and place, Jesus would have just been another Jew who seemed like a kook. And, looked at from a Christian point of view that considers the Gospels accurate, Pilate is depicted as a man who had his arm twisted by the Jews to kill Jesus. This was something that so disturbed Pilate he even symbolically washed his hands of the death of Jesus before the crowd. If so, Pilate may have intentionally made sure there weren’t any records kept of the death of Jesus.
I’m sorry but this paragraph is wrong on almost every point.
There are no primary accounts of Jesus whatsoever. Not a word of the New Testament was written by anyone who knew Jesus first hand. That includes the traditional attributions of certain epistles to apostles, as well as the tradition attribution of authorship to the gospels of Matthew and John.
There is nothing written from the time he existed. The very earliest Christian writings are from Paul in the 50’s CE. Paul never met Jesus personally and his letters say virtually nothing about the historical person of Jesus, focusing instead on a metaphysical “Christ” character.
Much of what is in the gospels is quite at odds, not only with the historical record but with each other. You alluded to Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, which is indeed a fictional event, but other historical problems include Luke’s “census of the world,” which contains a number of problems, including an impossible juxtaposition of dates (Luke cites a census which occurred eleven years after the death of Herod the Great).
There are also factual inaccuracies in the the accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin along with an impossible (under Jewish law) charge of “blasphemy” against Jesus for allegedly claiming to be the Messiah.
Whatever doesn’t clash with the historical record simply can’t be confirmed by it. Obviously there is no corroboration for the miracles, for the resurrection or for such remarkable events as the dead rising up out of their graves during the crucifixion, but there is also no real corroboration for anything else in Jesus’ life except for (probably) his crucifixion and (perhaps) a surviving collection of sayings. We can also confirm that John the Baptist was a real person, as well as Pontius Pilate and Caiaphus, the high priest, but we can’t confirm that any of them really had any contact with Jesus.
I won’t go into the internal contradictions in the gospel accounts, but suffice it to say, there are plenty.
I personally believe that Jesus existed, but trust me, the evidence is circumstancial, not dispositive.
We have a name for people who ask those kinds of questions… The disappeared.
Every historical indication and source I’ve heard about actually says that Pilate was/would have been amazingly indifferent if he even knew about Jesus at the time.
If, as you suggest the Bible suggests, he made a big enough deal of being pressured into it by “the Jews,” he would have kept very careful records indicating thusly.
And I wouldn’t say that it would be unlike the Romans to keep documentation around that long. Many ancient records are tax statements.
WHY would Pilate have kept careful records indicating thusly? It ain’t like Jews successfully pressuring him would be a thing that would help him get promoted. As for what records survived, that tax records did can easily be explained that the Romans would have considered that a priority because of embezzlement possibilities. Executing one insignificant Jew just ain’t something back in Rome that was considered important.
I there had been a census of the kind Luke reported, wouldn’t THAT have made big news at the time? It seems to me any Roman emperor who did a census of that sort, since it would have resulted in waves of travel to comply with it would have been seen as so disruptive and stupid that someone else would have documented it.
Absolutely- and if someone came forth with a records that showed that, I’d be skeptical. But the Romans were bureaucrats dude, they kept records of everything including many bits of minutia & trivia. To think that they went out of their way to record the execution of Jesus is silly- to think that they recorded every denarius that Pilate spent and what for- is “business as usual”.
Actually, Diogenes- most experts now think that John did dictate the Gospel (but that it was likely edited afterwards). Even the very skeptical Oxford Companion to the Bible accepts that as the explanation they offer (note that they also admit that it is a “matter of consierable debate”). But note it is “unlikely” that the Apostle Matthew wrote “his”, and Oxford really won’t even guess who wrote Mark, but it “probably” wasn’t him.
Note also Diogenes, that Oxford disagrees with your odd idea that “There are also factual inaccuracies in the the accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin along with an impossible (under Jewish law) charge of “blasphemy” against Jesus for allegedly claiming to be the Messiah.” (pg142) "The members of the Sanhedrin declared that Jesus deserved death because he had uttered blasphemy, they must have understood Deut 21.22-23 in a way similar to the Temple Scroll’. Even the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus was “executed because he had led Isreal astray, (a judgement based upon Deut 13.1-11).” In fact in the “Temple Scroll of Qumran; the delinquent must be hung up (on a tree) so that he dies (11QTemple 64,8) which amounts to crucifixion”. The crimes for this punishment are “blasphemy or idolatry”. Anyway, they write an entire page on this, and the Oxford Dons are quite skeptical and also extremely well regarded, thus it seems here that the prevailing weight of experts seem to be against you. Not to mention- I have never heard that theory before you mentioned it (well, yes, you mentioned it before, true).
Oxford isn’t that skeptical, and no, there is no prevailing opinion that John was dictated by an apostle. It’s too late for one thing (c. 100 CE), in the wrong language for another and the theology is Alexandrian rather than Palestinian. The polemic is also way too anti-Jewish to have been written or dictated by a Palestinian Jew.
It should also be noted that book itself makes no such claim of authorship and the traditional attribution to John dates only to the second century.
There is some argument that the gospel might contain some fragments of oral tradition related to a Johannite community (or some other apostolic tradition) but any real evidence for authorship by John is completely non-existent. There isn’t even any hard proof that John existed let alone wrote anything.
The Talmud does not mention Jesus. It is relatively common to see some passages from the Talmud being misapplied to Jesus. In particular, it is argued that a character named Balaam is really code for Jesus but these interpretations are highly implausible. The Talmud does not make any direct refernce to Jesus by name, and any interpretations as such are simply subjective and selective readings of passages which don’t really support those conclusions in context.
I was not presenting a “theory,” but only a factual statement about Jewish law. It was not a blasphemy to say you were the Messiah. The Jewish Messiah was not (and is not) God.
Furthermore, the trial before the Sanhedrin, as depicted in Mark, is riddled with procedural errors which show that the trial could not possibly have occurred as it is described. Jesus’ conviction for a non-existent blasphemy is merely to frosting on the cake.
The Talmud does indeed mention a Yeshu haNosri who was hanged for sorcery & sedition, there is some debate as to if that is JC as it appears in a discussion of events during a Hasmonea ruler (tho the medieval Gospel parody Toledoth Yeshua which is mistaken for Talmud by anti-Semites used the same historical setting).
Jesus was not before the Sanhedrin for ‘blashphemy’ for claiming to be Messiah but for threatening the civil order by claiming to be King and the religious order by claiming to destroy & rebuild the Temple. Any ‘blasphemy’ charges were from his claim to have authority to forgive sins, to flout Sabbath laws, and to identify himself as having a near-deity relationship with the Father. Those were confirmed by his addition to his claim to be the Messiah before Caiaphas, that he would see “the Son of Man at the Right Hand of Power/God”. JC at the very least was claiming to be God’s Right Hand Man- perhaps not blasphemy against God but definitely against the Sadduccean religious order which put the High Priest in that role & the Temple as God’s Earthly Seat.
Clairobscur’s points are pretty sound, and we’ve had this conversation a few dozen times by now, so I will just point out that you might want to have a closer look at Cecil’s coumn. I wrote in the Proof of Jesus thread, regarding Cecil’s terribly brief look at the problem of Jesus’s historicity:
The Hubbard reference is merely an example of how rapidly mythogenesis may take place; no deeper analogy is intended. I suggest a look at that thread, as it contains more complex and detailed arguments on this subject, many of which are mentioned here only in passing. And here is Cecil on why Christianity spread so far and so relatively fast: Why did Christianity become so popular – again, many of these points are integrated in the discussion of the linked thread.
Yes, if indeed the theory is that John wrote himself. I did not propose that, nor does Oxford. Oxford proposes as the most likely scenario that: A. “John the …Apostle transmitted orally to his followers an account of the deeds (especially the miracles or “signs”) and saying of Jesus and of his death & resurrection. As we have seen, these reminiscenses preserved historical information about the minisrty of Jesus in both Judea and Galilee”. B John and his followers move to Ephesus, and start the Johannine Church. Johns disciples then commit Johns oral traditions to writing. C After Johns death the Gospel is edited and an introduction and postscript are added. Oxford says that this theory is the best explanation for the Gospel of John.
The Babylonian Talmud most certainly does- and Oxford gives a reference & cite- "b.Sanh.43a .
Indeed- it is a 'theory" and a theory backed primarily by your cite- which cite being one guys Blog. :rolleyes: That’s it- a webblog- written by one guy- admittedly biased, with a few poor references. Oxford not only complete disagrees with this- but doesn’t even mention that this is another possible theory (which they do a lot). Thus, this 'theory" is so completely wrong it is “woo woo”. Your cite is one guy who runs a skeptical anti-christian site. My cite is a book written by some 300 experts in the field- mostly Professors, and even a few rabbis. It has been extensively & completely peer reviewed, fact checked, and critisised. And- it is unbiased. Not that I also “have no dog in this hunt”. I consider myself an Agnositc, but if someone wants to call me a Unitarian or a “doubting Xtian” I won’t argue with them. I am not trying to convert dudes to either Xtianity or Athesism. All I care about is “the Straight Dope” on this issue.
Now, I agree & admit that “Mark” (whoever the author really was) could well have have gotten details confused, or even made up a few things- I am not a beleiver in “Bibical Inerrancy”. But Oxford is very clear that the Sanhedrin *COULD * have condemned Jesus to death, but also almost certainly did. They give copious info on how & why the Sanhedrin could have done just that, including cites from the Temple Scroll of Qumran, various “Dead Sea scrolls”, the book of Deuternonomy, Josephus, the Sanhedrin etc. Thus your cite is not only just opinion but also just plain wrong .
They don’t even discuss that the Sanhedrin couldn’t “legally” meet on Passover. Either that is something beat to death by experts- or it is a detail that isn’t nessesary to “the big picture”. I’ll also point out that in the USA “lynchings” are also illegal- but many were help under colour of authority in our past- legal or no. And if I remember right- the Sabbath can be broken for “emergencies”- can one of our Jewish experts confirm this? Whose to say that this level of Blasphemy (on “inciting to riot” or “rebellion against the established authorities”) wasn’t considered an “emergency”?
Sorry dude- my cite beats your cite on all fronts. You should also stop calling things "facts’ when they are at the very best “disputed theories”.
There isn’t a shred of evidence to support any theory that John had anything to do with the Gospel of that name. You would have to start by providing a reason why such a hypothesis should be considered at all. The book makes no such claim for itself, nor does it make any claim to be an eyewitness account. It also makes does not identify John as the “beloved disciple,” nor does it identify the author as such. There is not even any tradition of Johannite authorship until 180 CE.
I’ve already mentioned the problems of dating and language. There are also historical anachronisms which strongly mitigate an eyewitness account, notably the assertion that Jesus and his followers were put out of synagogues during Jesus’ lifetime. The expulsion of Christians from the synagogues did not occur until about 90 CE. From Early Christian Writings
Furthermore, the theology itself is distinctly Alexandrian Greek which further mitigates against Palestinian Jewish authorship. The Logos, in particular, is directly from Philo and had no role in Palestinian Judaism. Neither Jesus nor any of his disciples would have been familiar with Philo or the Logos.
The book is also anti-Jewish in its polemic- another strike against the plausibility of apostollic origin.
One more thing, John shows layered authorship and dependency on a pre-existing “Signs” Gospel. Eyewitnesses don’t have to rely on other accounts.
You’ve basically admitted that the book was written too late and the wrong language to an apostollic composition and are now clinging to a theory of oral tradition but there is simply nothing to base that tradition on. What is your direct evidence that a.) John of Zebedee ever existed? b.) That he was the “beloved disciple” spoken of in the fourth gospel? c.) that he *was any kind of source for the fourth gospel?
As to the Talmudic passage, the one you referenced referes to a “Yeshu” who was hanged for “sorcery” on the day before Passover. Of all the alleged Talmudic references to Jesus this has the strongest chance of being authentic but it’s still not known with a certainty and it may very well be a reference to a different Yeshu who was hanged in 100 BCE.
Even if you accept it as authentic, it’s still not contemporary with Jesus, it dates from the third century. It also conflicts with gospel accounts in that it claims Yeshu was given forty days between his sentence and execution which would put his trial well ahead of where the gospels put it.
In any case, my point still stands that claimung to be the Mesiah was not blasphemy, and Mark’s trial could not have taken place as he describes it. A “lynching” is a bad analogy. It would be more akin to an account of the US Supreme Court holding a secret, illegal trial in the middle of the night at William Renquists house on Christmas Eve and sentencing someone to death for murder for performing an abortion (which is not legally murder). Oh…and after the sentence is passed, the justices begin to spit on the defendant.
It’s completely absurd. The Sanhedrin was no less serious an institution than any other court and they were bound not only by the law but the LAW, as in religious law.
Even if such a thing were to happen it would have no legal legitimacy
