The Best Case Against Jesus

[Clive]

The voyages of Paul do have obvious parallels with many very famous ancient voyage stories!

Paul, Jason, Odysseus and the Argonauts?

[Stephan Huller]

Since absolutely none of these subsequent comments HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO with the original thread, I will continue to gloat (as I was the only person here who was able to fulfil Bernard's original request).

The gospel of John twice references the encounter between Moses and the second power of the tradition Israelite godhead. The answer is clear that in some form earliest Christianity - i.e. whoever produced the 'I AM' reference in the aforementioned gospel - identified this figure only identified as ΙΣ in the earliest manuscripts (so Hurtado) as the fiery angel of the Pentateuch. Not only does this satisfy Bernard's original question it confirms that THE BEST AND LEAST CONVOLUTED way for explaining Jesus as a divine rather than human being is to assume that:

a. the original author of the gospel was Jewish
b. belonged to a sectarian tradition already identified in the rabbinic literature as holding 'Christian' beliefs
c. wrote the narrative as if 'the Jews' were punished for no longer recognizing the true god of their tradition, the angel who visited Moses and dispensed the ten commandments (which Jesus interestingly never contradicts in any known passage from the gospel used by the heretics)

The question then that stands before us is why persist in countless other convoluted and ultimately inferior explanations of 'mythicist origins' or 'mythicist explanations' for early Christianity? The answer is clearly that people have no real interest in explaining early Christianity. They just want to make a name for themselves with some stupid idea that popped into their head one day sitting on the toilet and will spend the rest of their lives defending, promoting etc.

My idea popped into someone else's brain while sitting on the toilet one day (i.e. the author of the gospel and founder of Christianity). I just humbly seek to understand his mind, his POV. I wish others would put aside their bigotry and join me in the quest for truth.

[Stephan Huller]

And remember, the fact that one author decided to develop a narrative around Ishu the second god of the Israelite godhead does not mean there wasn't a historical Jesus. It is just a question of which came first

[steve43]

Well, we have to accept the history first, but people can't even agree on proper sources for even that, cherry-picking what they want from Josephus, Tacitus, and NT that supports what they want, and trashing the rest.

An exercise in futility- though cathartic under the right set of delusions.

For straight history go with Hagan. If you don't see the logic then there is no hope for you.

And let's leave Carrier on the toilet waiting for his next burst of genius...

[Stephan Huller]

I think the only 'history' we have to accept is the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE. This clearly stands in the immediate frame of reference of the author of the gospel. To anyone who claims that the gospel was written without the REALIZED destruction of the temple (and the subsequent application of Daniel 9:24 - 27 to that destruction) you're likely an apologist who believes in the working of the Holy Spirit.

But in terms of anything in the gospel being 'certainly' historical - i.e. that more than the gospel writer 'knew' them to be true - I see no compelling evidence. It may of course have been true. I can't say that with any degree of certainty. But aside from the crucifixion what really stands out as a 'historical' occurrence that difference from the 'miraculous' things attributed to various saints posthumously?

And with respect to the crucifixion I will tell you what I find suspicious. Why was it so necessary from Irenaeus on down to gather together all the Christian believers and make them swear an oath (sacramentum) that all believers are on the same page about what happened? I find that very odd.

I am not denying of course that the crucifixion was 'historical' but the fact that it was Jesus crucified on the cross seems to have been the issue which divided the community.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Again the question isn't whether there was a crucifixion or even a crucified one. But there is clear division already in the second century community as to whether it was Jesus who was crucified. This continues to the present day with respect to the beliefs of those who come from the 'land of Jesus' (= Islam) and those whose traditions developed under the Imperial authority.

As such I think it is uncertain whether we can use the crucifixion as a 'proof' that Jesus existed. There seems to have been agreement someone was crucified - but was it Jesus? A crucified Judas interestingly offers the poetic ending that 'the Jews' (= Judas) were to be crucified and this act was 'sanctioned' by god (as they were in great number according to Josephus) indeed as some sort of imitatio Dei.

The parallels between the wicked 'Judas' and the 'wicked' Jews is well established in the literature. A crucified Judas only takes that to the next degree. Even the statement that Jesus was thirty (cf. the gnostic interpretation of the number being '30' rather than 'almost 30') could well have been kabbalistic i.e. Judas in Hebrew has a numerical value of 30. So 'he was thirty' from the beginning of the narrative is a secret way of saying that the human 'partner' of Jesus = Judas. Just a thought.

[gilius]

Most of the things constructed for Jesus as a composite character in the New Testament were based on Titus' campaign in AD 70, including the Crucifixion:
http://s11.postimg.org/qvtpx0fab/image.jpg

[Peter Kirby]

In the same manner as Peter handled "The Best Case For Jesus", that is with reference to authors from antiquity and quotes from their writings, what are the best cases against the existence of somebody named Jesus (Greek for Aramaic Joshua), as a first century man credited to have started Christianity?
An example would be 1 John 4:2. Please elaborate on that one and come up with other ones.

Cordially, Bernard

This might ignore the limits set by the OP, but I made a 2013 post I to JesusMysteries.

...

Right now I'm trying to see if I can gather together the arguments that have been made for the non-historicity of Jesus (and also the opposite, but that's not the subject here). So I figure this is one of the best places to ask.

So far my outline looks like this:

(1) Earl Doherty has made an extensive case that several documents, including but not limited to the New Testament epistles, have language and emphasis and some particular statements that are best understood if the authors didn't believe that Jesus were a man on earth. This has been made in detail, with numerous examples, on his website and in his two books.

(2) Detering has been publishing in an attempt to revive the Dutch Radical hypothesis. Essentially, he puts the letters of Paul into the second century, and the Gospel material even later, towards the mid-second century. This opinion, with the motives attributed to the creators of this literature, has the effect of making it doubtful that the subject of the texts is historical.

(3) Ken Olson, among others, has been sustaining the argument that the original text of Josephus didn't have anything written about Jesus. Nobody expects anything more than evidence leading to a probability, and an omission by Josephus is simply that.

(4) This is my own suggestion: the kind of analysis done by Doherty could be expanded to the "Gnostic" texts, such as the Nag Hammadi Library. The results might do a lot to disturb the traditional understanding of the "trajectories" of Christianity and could, perhaps, fuse arguments like his with radical theses like Detering's.

(5) There are a lot of books about the parallels of Jesus to other gods, so there is a category of argument that appeals to this and places Jesus as an archetypal dying and rising savior god like other mystery cults, both in outline and in particular similarities. Freke and Gandy, authors of the titular book The Jesus Mysteries, take this route, among many others.

(6) G. A. Wells and Alvar Ellegard, going back to G.R.S. Mead, argue that the original Jesus was a figure of the murky or more ancient past. There is some evidence for such an account in the rabbinic stories about a Yeshua. It's another way of interpreting the New Testament letters that, instead of placing Christ in the heavens, places him in the mythic past.

(7) There are those who argue that all the texts were written by people who did not actually hold such religious beliefs, making Christianity a hoax, perhaps by imperial perpetrators.

(8) There are those who would push all the texts of Christianity (and perhaps lots of classics as well, according to one Russian writer) to the third century or later.

I would like to be able to flesh out this outline and add more points to it, so I am welcoming all suggestions and additions with gratitude. Thank you.

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,
you asked:

BTW what is interesting about 1 John 4:2 ?

1 Jn 4:2 RSV "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,"

Cordially, Bernard

I have attempted a small compilation of references that could refer to some kind of "docetism" or related "error," in addition to 1 John. Obviously it can be held that none of this represents evidence against the historicity of Jesus, and I have not claimed that it is, but it would be foolish not to read through it first before coming to figure out what it may or may not mean.

split off here:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1305

[Peter Kirby]

There is also the thread "Therefore, Jesus did not exist" on the old forum:
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 42f-4.html

Perhaps we can also refer to the explicit outline of his own argument in Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus.

[John T]

This isn't a best case, just one text. In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (8.4), Trypho says, "But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

from the TLG:

Χριστὸς δέ, εἰ καὶ γεγένηται καὶ ἔστι που, ἄγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα, μέχρις ἂν ἐλθὼν Ἠλίας χρίσῃ αὐτὸν καὶ φανερὸν πᾶσι ποιήσῃ· ὑμεῖς δέ, ματαίαν ἀκοὴν παραδεξάμενοι, Χριστὸν ἑαυτοῖς τινα ἀναπλάσσετε καὶ αὐτοῦ χάριν τὰ νῦν ἀσκόπως ἀπόλλυσθε.

Some people take this to attest to a belief among some 2nd-century Jews that Jesus (the guy worshiped by Christians) did not exist. I don't think the text says that explicitly. It may be clearer if we replace "Christ" in the English with "Messiah." Trypho seems to be saying that "maybe Moshiach has been born, maybe not - but he hasn't been shown to the world yet. But you mold up/fashion/invent some M. for yourselves..."

I think this text is consistent both with the thesis that some Jews didn't believe there was a real Jesus AND consistent with the thesis that some Jews accepted Jesus' historicity but denied that he was the Messiah. The literal sense of ἀναπλάσσετε is "make/fashion up a model or building." But there are a good number of cases where its metaphorical sense, "invent," is in play. The question here is whether T. thinks the Christians invent a guy and a story or invent a story about a real guy. That which Trypho says the Christians have accepted, sc. "a vain/empty rumor [i.e.: "something you heard, and there's nothing to it"]" could be either the guy + Messiaship part or only the Messiaship part. It's not clear to me which.

And Trypho is presumably Justin's fictional creation. But he presumably is given real Jewish beliefs to say in the dialogue.

Silence: it's interesting, though, that Justin's discourse to Trypho is mostly proofs from scripture. You might think he would tell Trypho of Jesus' amazing life, works, and teachings, but he doesn't do that. I consider this a problem, but I don't have a pick at this point among the fairly obvious, possible answers.

Close but no cigar!
I'm tired of hunting and searching. Can anyone provide a clear-cut example of an ancient author that claimed Jesus never, ever existed?

Anyone?

Sincerely,
John T