Jesus of History and Myth

[Erik Nelson]

The OP has a valid point -- historical figures are often lionized over time.

The OP is correct, qualitatively (right idea)...

but not quantitatively (wrong numbers)...

Achilles fought in the Trojan War about 1200 BC. By the time Homer wrote down the tale in 700 BC, Achilles had become a heroic son of Zeus.

A post-Roman war leader (dux belorum) defeated the Anglo-Saxons at Badon Hill in about 500 AD. By the time Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him in 1100 AD, he had become "King" Arthur, with a fairy tale castle & court, complete with magical Merlin the wizardly warlock.

Lionization occurs over centuries, not decades. It occurs over many lifetimes, not within one. It happens as parents embellish the tale to their children, who embellish it to grandchildren, and so on. But no parent or bard exaggerates the story every week, to the same audiences who already know the (current) story.

Arthur was still a minor character when Gildas wrote about Badon in 545 AD, only 40-50 years after the event -- still within living memory.

The Gospels were written within a similar amount of time -- plausibly in half the time, 20-30 years.

Exaggeration does occur (qualitatively correct)...

over centuries not decades (quantitatively incorrect)

If the Gospels hadn't been written down until the time of Arthur & emperor Justinian 500-600 years later, then yes we very well might expect "a simple itinerant preacher" to become "Resurrected Son of God"...

but instead, everybody started preaching wide-eyed about the "Resurrected Messianic Son of God" from the outset.

Even at Pentecost, 50 days after the Crucifixion, St. Peter was already saying that the "pre-incarnate" Messiah Jesus Christ had appeared to king David, a thousand years earlier, in a Vision (Acts 2:25-36)… and that Christ, exalted to the throne of God in heaven, was himself dispensing the Holy Spirit of God to believers right there on earth at Pentecost (Acts 2:33)

right or wrong, the "high Christology" of Jesus as "super hyper prophet priest pro plus" was already being preached, immediately after the Crucifixion and reported Resurrection...

that's what Christians have been claiming from the very first

 

[Steve Petersen]

No, lionization can take place WITHIN a person's lifetime. Alexander the Great and Roman Emperors were proclaimed sons of the gods during their lifetime.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Within 7 years of George Washington's death, the myth of the cherry tree sprung up out of whole cloth: Cherry Tree Myth

I was taught it as truth late 60s early 70s.

 

[Erik Nelson]

No, lionization can take place WITHIN a person's lifetime. Alexander the Great and Roman Emperors were proclaimed sons of the gods during their lifetime.

yes, and Jesus was proclaimed Son of God in his lifetime, too -- that's called "Deification"

but their biographies didn't change over time, they weren't gradually "lionized" after they lived

people didn't exaggerate Caligula into an epic hero more & more, after his reign, probably because so much was written about him such would have been impossible to do

the mythologization you are suggesting can & does occur, has happened, when oral tradition is given 500-600 years

does not happen in decades, especially when the "story" is in the public eye, subject to mass scrutiny from all sides

 

[Steve Petersen]

"story" is in the public eye, subject to mass scrutiny from all sides

But if the story never happened it is not open to public scrutiny.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Within 7 years of George Washington's death, the myth of the cherry tree sprung up out of whole cloth: Cherry Tree Myth

I was taught it as truth late 60s early 70s.

If a biography of Jesus had been printed en masse in 37 AD, and sold suddenly to millions across the Roman empire... then perhaps details could have been added to millions of previously ignorant individuals, hungry for a hero

However, in 37 AD, the total number of Christians was 5000, all of whom had been evangelized personally, in public settings... the Christian gospel had to stay the same, or non-Christian Jews and other opponents would have cried foul -- can't change the story, when the customer base is growing slowly enough that most of the buyers, at any one time, already have a copy

right or wrong, Christians began claiming an exalted "high Christology" of Jesus as more than all of Israel's previous prophets, priests & kings combined, from Pentecost onwards

archaeology shows remarkable consistency, of both the OT and NT, they have been copied with surprising accuracy over centuries and even millennia

nobody has been changing the Christian tune -- "high Christology" came out of St. Peter's mouth at Pentecost, 50 days after the reported Resurrection

 

[Erik Nelson]

But if the story never happened it is not open to public scrutiny.

Jesus was well and widely known to first century Jews

he preached all over Judea for 3 years, drawing crowds, everyone knew of him

even the Jewish Talmud labels Jesus as "sorcerer" around whom paranormal events were reported to have occurred

when could / would who have made up what?

Whatever happened, Christians started claiming a very high "Christology" immediately after the alleged Resurrection

there was never a time when Christians talked about "Jesus as an itinerant preacher and nice guy"

the whole fervor of first century Judea was Messianic in character -- Daniel's "70 weeks of years" countdown clock was ticking down to zero, and everybody had Messiah fever, numerous Jews claimed to be the Messiah

and every single other one of those Messianic claimants claimed to be larger than life, what it takes to be Messiah, some may have even tried to fake miracles using illusions & sleight of hand

superficially, early Christians were much the same -- they were promoting their Messianic claimant, alleging miracles authenticating his claims

amongst the differences, the alleged miracles of Jesus are acknowledged even in the Talmud, although attributed to "sorcery"; all the other claimants were defeated by Rome, whereas Christianity converted the empire

there were plenty of other "fakes" who tried to do exactly what you are alleging of Christ & Christians -- 1st century Jews claiming to be Messiah, faking miracles, attracting followers who tried to promote their cause... they all failed

of all 1st century Jewish Messianic claimants, only one emerged as a successful movement, ultimately stretching from Ireland to China by 1000 AD, and became a worldwide global Religion

even if everything in the NT was all somehow faked by master Houdini illusionists...

the fact is they performed their magic show on the roads around Judea for 3 years...
and emerged from the Crucifixion immediately proclaiming an almost offensively high "Christology"...
which story has remained exaltedly difficult to accept from then until today

even if it was all fakery, the story has been the same since 30 AD -- from Pentecost onwards, the "high Christology" really couldn't get any higher, without flat out claiming that Jesus wasn't just the Son of God, but "God the Father in heaven"

that is the one and only claim Christians have never made, every possible thing short of saying "Jesus = God the Father" Christians have already been claiming for 2000 years straight

if there was any exaggeration, it was worked into the Gospel from the first -- no room after that for further "embellishments", the Christology was already maxed out at everything just shy of "Jesus = God the Father"

numerous other first century Jews also tried to claim the same title of "Messiah", we just don't bother paying much attention because they all failed miserably

Jesus was not the only person claiming all these things -- just the only one we still hear about have claimed all these things, b/c all the other claimants were defeated by the Romans

whatever the Jesus of history, the "myth" emerged immediately from the Crucifixion and alleged Resurrection -- and the "myth" has stayed the same since, no further embellishments, b/c the only further embellishment would be "Jesus = God the Father in heaven" vs. "Son of God the Father, seated at the Father's right hand, even on the Father's throne"

 

[cvanwey]

But, here’s the question, “Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do it (impeccable men having talked to witnesses and representing them, or actually being one)?” I don't think so.

Here's a very probable take... We actually do not know who wrote what, and when. Earliest known re-copied manuscripts turn up decades/centuries later. The further one dates back to the earliest ones found, the more deviations are found between them. It is not until many centuries later, where we find more consistent re-copies. Thus, we do not know what the first documents state, and what the intent was. Nor, do we know who wrote them, why, and how many tales of oral tradition was in play before such writings were first implemented. So here's the real questions (semi-rhetorical)...

1. Who actually first wrote of such specific tales down? And don't we find many tales written before and after, of claimed supernatural causation as well (either intended as truth or fiction)?
2. What was the motivation for doing so, in this specific case? Were they meant to be mere writings, until later churches canonized them, altered them, added to them, deleted from them?
3. What information was given to the writers who originally wrote as such? Since we really do not know of the actual writers per se, it is fair to say that people wrote stuff in which they were hearing about - (first from repeated oral tradition). The same goes for many other tales of now perceived fiction from some, while others taking as 'factual'. (i.e.) Muhammad flying to heaven on a white horse, etc...

 

[cvanwey]

How much do you think the "story" or "party line" changed, from the 30s AD (Crucifixion) to the 60s AD (Gospels) ?

A lot! 30 years is a long time, especially when superstitious people are retelling stories over and over and over again; when this is their only form of communication, entertainment, etc....

 

[inquiring mind]

Here's a very probable take... We actually do not know who wrote what, and when. Earliest known re-copied manuscripts turn up decades/centuries later. The further one dates back to the earliest ones found, the more deviations are found between them. It is not until many centuries later, where we find more consistent re-copies. Thus, we do not know what the first documents state, and what the intent was. Nor, do we know who wrote them, why, and how many tales of oral tradition was in play before such writings were first implemented. So here's the real questions (semi-rhetorical)...

1. Who actually first wrote of such specific tales down? And don't we find many tales written before and after, of claimed supernatural causation as well (either intended as truth or fiction)?
2. What was the motivation for doing so, in this specific case? Were they meant to be mere writings, until later churches canonized them, altered them, added to them, deleted from them?
3. What information was given to the writers who originally wrote as such? Since we really do not know of the actual writers per se, it is fair to say that people wrote stuff in which they were hearing about - (first from repeated oral tradition). The same goes for many other tales of now perceived fiction from some, while others taking as 'factual'. (i.e.) Muhammad flying to heaven on a white horse, etc...

Certainly, every scenario imaginable can be attributed to all the ancient texts written if you so desire, the gospels included. But, as Erik pointed out earlier, the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much proved that those who re-copied biblical works evidently made a great effort to not change anything. These works were no doubt revered by those trying to preserve them. I think that would have especially held true where the gospels were concerned. And, as Erik stated earlier, why would someone go to the trouble of writing such texts under another name? I think you’re grasping at straws here.

 

[cvanwey]

There is no reason to impugn Matthew's integrity, and claim he made it all up.

I never called him a liar. Just like I don't call all claimers, from opposing religious claims, liars You see what I'm getting at? Which is.... How do we determine which claims are actually true?

World-wide-spread reports of communicative Contact events, from godlike beings in the heavens, deserve to be seriously considered.

If you flat out dismiss what other people say, out of hand, with no inquiry or investigation... why can't people dismiss what you say, out of hand? Fair would be fair.

Your doctor's (alleged) first hand report of direct experience warrants more consideration than your second hand counter-report that "no, couldn't be, don't believe him".

If we can't trust a trained doctor, into whose care you yourself trust your fate... why could anyone trust you? What would be more nonsensical -- a "crazy doctor hallucinating" or something... or somebody else subjecting themselves voluntarily to the "crazy hallucinating doctor's" care?

I don't see how you are supporting your case.

I don't take your doctor's reported Contact experiences lightly or dismissively, especially in the context of world-wide-spread reports of similar Contact experiences spanning all of human history -- Saint Paul on the road to Damascus being just one of many many more.

My point is that we have 'unsolved' mass UFO sightings, 'unsolved' ghost sightings globally, 'unsolved' spiritual sightings globally. If ANY of such were properly corroborated, there would not exist further debates or conspiracy theories as such, (for the most part). It would just be established fact, and people would then be left to discuss the implications, ramifications, and/or consequences of such an established fact(s) or reality

I've investigated the claims from the Bible. They are not corroborated outside the Bible. Period. The Bible is a well attested bias source, backed by the already believing bias church who canonized as such, beginning with the theocracy of it's age / time period.

 

[cvanwey]

Certainly, every scenario imaginable can be attributed to all the ancient texts written if you so desire, the gospels included. But, as Erik pointed out earlier, the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much proved that those who re-copied biblical works evidently made a great effort to not change anything. These works were no doubt revered by those trying to preserve them. I think that would have especially held true where the gospels were concerned. And, as Erik stated earlier, why would someone go to the trouble of writing such texts under another name? I think you’re grasping at straws here.

I've already mentioned, yes, there is a difference between works of antiquity versus modern history.

I am not grasping at straws. The earliest works found are not even autographed. And these works were re-copies of re-copies. Much later re-copiers placed the titles upon the Gospels we have today.

The Dead See Scrolls reference the OT, documents which are a far cry from the NT by the way; just ask any Orthodox Jew

 

[cvanwey]

does not happen in decades, especially when the "story" is in the public eye, subject to mass scrutiny from all sides

I usually do not try to quote noted atheists, whom are in the common spot light, especially in these parts. However, I must bring up an example Sam Harris raised a few years back. 'Roswell'. From 1947, to 1977, (30 years or less), you had an all-out, full-on 'situation' brewing

But I will refine it a bit, or take it one step further. What if such a story was started 1,000 years ago, (absent) of the modern methods of discovery? There would exist no later methods to debunk such a claim, truly believed by millions wholeheartedly.

In the case for one-time sightings (i.e. a resurrection), you do not have any evidence to the contrary. You have nothing but eyewitness testimony alone. Yes, such Jesus claims have one very great thing going for it, which Roswell, certainly did not. Roswell left behind evidence to later test/verify. There can exist no (left behind) evidence of a person rising from the dead, ascending to heaven, and stated to be seen exclusively by the later writers of the Bible, to later test

 

[JackRT]

In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This research focused on societies which were largely illiterate. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. The researchers discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. What we are reading are very human documents.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I usually do not try to quote noted atheists, whom are in the common spot light, especially in these parts. However, I must bring up an example Sam Harris raised a few years back. 'Roswell'. From 1947, to 1977, (30 years or less), you had an all-out, full-on 'situation' brewing

But I will refine it a bit, or take it one step further. What if such a story was started 1,000 years ago, (absent) of the modern methods of discovery? There would exist no later methods to debunk such a claim, truly believed by millions wholeheartedly.

In the case for one-time sightings (i.e. a resurrection), you do not have any evidence to the contrary. You have nothing but eyewitness testimony alone. Yes, such Jesus claims have one very great thing going for it, which Roswell, certainly did not. Roswell left behind evidence to later test/verify. There can exist no (left behind) evidence of a person rising from the dead, ascending to heaven, and stated to be seen exclusively by the later writers of the Bible, to later test

what hard geological evidence would / should exist, which does not exist ?

A lot! 30 years is a long time, especially when superstitious people are retelling stories over and over and over again; when this is their only form of communication, entertainment, etc....

that is extremely illogical

St. Peter and the other Apostles could not have kept "changing their tune", or the thousands (Acts 2) and thousands (Acts 4) of "first-round listeners" would've noted the embellishments and called them on it

------

moreover, you are ignoring context

1st century Judea was abuzz with Messianic fever. Everybody and their brother was claiming to be "Messiah, Lord of Lord, King of Kings, Son of the Stars". None of those other Messianic claimants' stories were gradually embellished & exaggerated.

They just interpreted some events as a favorable omen, and started boasting about being the unique one-of-a-kind Messiah in all of human history, "Lord of Lord, Kings of Kings, Son of the Stars".

Of course, Rome defeated them all -- even when they were backed by Parthia (as alleged by Gerhard Baudy).

But my point is, Jesus was one Messianic claimant amongst many. (Very) superficially, his claims were the same as everybody else's -- "Lord of Lords, King of Kings" etc.

None of the other Messianic claimants' stories were gradually embellished over time -- none of the other claimants even survived decades for their stories to gradually grow! They just up and "wham! boom!" started claiming some sign showed they were "Lord of Lord, King of Kings"... they immediately attracted followers... took up arms against Rome... [only to be defeated]

But one more time, no other Messianic claimant started out as "just some itinerant preacher guy"... and gradually over decades became larger than life...

given 1st century Judean Messianic fever, they all tried to "cash in" and just up and boom! started claiming everything under the sun.

Was Jesus different???

If you want the "itinerant preacher come MESSIAH" exaggeration... just read the Gospels! That *is* what happened...

Jesus was an itinerant preacher for three (3) years, approximately 27-30 AD

Over those three (3) years, more & more miracles were reported & attributed to God the Father on Jesus' Messianic behalf. By 30 AD, thousands of Jews were hailing Jesus as the Messiah as he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21)

right there -- that is Jesus the itinerant preacher become larger than life!

-----

no way the Gospels were gradually exaggerated after the Crucifixion.

Jesus' reputation gradually grew for 3 years until the Crucifixion and reported Resurrection.

Afterwards, the Apostles preached Jesus Resurrected, Ascended on High to the Throne of God the Father

they couldn't have exaggerated anything further because "Messiah" was second in rank only to God the Father

the only room for "exaggeration" would have been to flat out equate Jesus Christ with God the Father, which is the only thing Christians haven't completely quite done

 

[inquiring mind]

I've already mentioned, yes, there is a difference between works of antiquity versus modern history.

Just imagine how much of an uproar a work by someone unknown, which did not depict the events of Jesus' life in the way the still living eyewitnesses among the relatively small group of first century Christians would have known them to be. Again, such misrepresentations would certainly not have become a revered writing in the Christian community.

I am not grasping at straws. The earliest works found are not even autographed. And these works were re-copies of re-copies. Much later re-copiers placed the titles upon the Gospels we have today.

I'm confident that all prominent Christians during the time would have known who the gospel authors were. There are a couple possible reasons the original works weren't originally autographed: 1) maybe the authors weren't that willing to be martyerd due to the first century atmosphere; 2) maybe it was a Christian thing and they weren't wanting to promote themselves, and felt it was everyone's story. Even so, it is generally agreed among bible scholars that the subsequent name additions were in fact the authors.

The Dead See Scrolls reference the OT, documents which are a far cry from the NT by the way; just ask any Orthodox Jew

Of course, but my point was that those who have hand-copied biblical works, OT or New, revered the writings and would have protected their integrity in both cases.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Of course, but my point was that those who have hand-copied biblical works, OT or New, revered the writings and would have protected their integrity in both cases.

This is not actually true.

'...if you take two New Testament manuscripts from around the year 1000 and compare them to one another, they are often very much alike in every verse. But if you do the same thing with the fragmentary copies made around the year 200, you find lots and lots of differences—differences both from the manuscripts of the year 1000 and, more disconcertingly, differences from one another. This tells us that the earliest scribes were not as skilled or assiduous as the later ones. And that’s a problem, because all of our surviving manuscripts were copied from earlier manuscripts, and the earliest copies of all were filled with mistakes. If our earliest known copyists made tons of mistakes, how many mistakes were made by their predecessors, who produced the copies that they copied? We have no way of knowing.'

New Testament Manuscripts: Good News and Bad News​

 

[inquiring mind]

This is not actually true.

'...if you take two New Testament manuscripts from around the year 1000 and compare them to one another, they are often very much alike in every verse. But if you do the same thing with the fragmentary copies made around the year 200, you find lots and lots of differences—differences both from the manuscripts of the year 1000 and, more disconcertingly, differences from one another. This tells us that the earliest scribes were not as skilled or assiduous as the later ones. And that’s a problem, because all of our surviving manuscripts were copied from earlier manuscripts, and the earliest copies of all were filled with mistakes. If our earliest known copyists made tons of mistakes, how many mistakes were made by their predecessors, who produced the copies that they copied? We have no way of knowing.'

I agree… if you’re going to regard the NT as a work of man alone, a worldly work only, then yes all of the above would constitute an accounting problem indeed. However, I think most Christians view the NT as God’s communication to us in written form, and as such underwrote the truth.

 

[cvanwey]

I agree… if you’re going to regard the NT as a work of man alone, a worldly work only, then yes all of the above would constitute an accounting problem indeed. However, I think most Christians view the NT as God’s communication to us in written form, and as such underwrote the truth.

If God was the one unified and inspiring author, then why the differences from one Gospel to the next? In each Gospel, such writings have Jesus doing differing things in differing places, the last month of His life. Thus, your logic would not make any sense.

 

[inquiring mind]

If God was the one unified and inspiring author, then why the differences from one Gospel to the next? In each Gospel, such writings have Jesus doing differing things in differing places, the last month of His life. Thus, your logic would not make any sense.

It's your logic that doesn't make sense. I'm not sure this is a good comparison, but it just came to mind. If you sent four war correspondents to report on a conflict... do you think you would get identical reports? No. Would that make the conflict any less real, the reason for the war different, the dissimiliar events reported any less true, reports on the same events from different perspectives identical, the different characters in the stories contradicting? No. And yet you would claim it not a unified report, and the authors uninspiring. You're grasping at straws again.