The Invention Of Jesus

[EnolaGaia]

Yeah but wouldn't the fact of their existence mean that Jesus existed too? Just wondered what the evidence is for their existence.........In history?

Yes, the demonstrated existence of blood relatives would support the notion of a historical Jesus.

However, there are problems with verifying whether various accounts that mention apparent siblings really refer to siblings in our modern sense. Both Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew lacked terminology for (e.g.) cousins and step-siblings, so these languages' terms for 'brother' and 'sister' were used for those relationships as well and didn't strictly denote other children of the same pair of parents.

Some writers and accounts treat these purported siblings as Joseph's children from a prior marriage. Others claim the terms are used in a merely figurative sense. It's all quite complicated, fuzzy, and dependent on which writer(s) and account(s) one cites.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Before closing the thread(!) I wondered whether anyone here knows anything about the 'Desposyni' - ie those 'belonging to the Lord' (ie. descendents; relatives / family members) of Jesus) being persecuted and killed off by the Catholic church? ...

This specific question hinges on nailing down:

- whether the Desposyni existed, and who they were;
- when it was there was a 'Catholic Church' to persecute them; and
- what specific actions a church took against these alleged blood relatives.

Even if one specifies a position on these factors, there remains the issue of deciding whether any purported blood relatives who were killed had died because of their alleged family relationship or simply because they were Christians.

IMHO there's no solid basis (with regard to any of these three factors) upon which to frame an answer. However ...

From a theological perspective, there's no question the Catholic Church historically downplayed or even suppressed some allusions to Jesus' alleged siblings so as to preserve the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

 

[Ermintruder]

Before closing the thread(!)

Let's NOT do that, please. There is much more that needs to be said and discussed.

I know, but there are people who would lke to draw a line under this!

Be more specific. Do you mean arrive at a definitive conclusion that finds in favour of the accepted status quo, thus nullifying all future argument and doubt on his existance?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Let's NOT do that, please. There is much more that needs to be said and discussed. ...

The allusion to closing the thread was a joke.

Burgeoning tangent on the Bible (rather than the person of Jesus per se) has been moved elsewhere.

 

[AlchoPwn]

Let's NOT do that, please. There is much more that needs to be said and discussed.

:rofl2:
No, we completely cleared it up. Y'know how people have been talking about Jesus for thousands of years, well, we just knocked it on the head here at TFF. Go us.
:jtease:

 

[Ermintruder]

No, we completely cleared it up.

Indeed we haven't. But Atwill's "Caeser's Messiah" very possibly has.

I'd be so pleased to get him, personally, onto this forum, this thread. So I shall try to do that (as well as analysing the book here)

 

[Ermintruder]

see the many discussions of the Testamentum Flavianum attributed Josephus)

What are your thoughts regarding Atwill's key thesis within 'Caeser's Messiah'? That Titus Flavius could have literally been a proxy for Jesus, and, the purported parallels between the Gospels and the 'Wars of the Jews' tracts?

 

[Schwadevivre]

What are your thoughts regarding Atwill's key thesis within 'Caeser's Messiah'? That Titus Flavius could have literally been a proxy for Jesus, and, the purported parallels between the Gospels and the 'Wars of the Jews' tracts?

Atwill? Personally, I think it is a load of bollocks

Again we come across the problem of a Jewish conception of a Messiah, which Titus would fulfil for Josephus (just as Cyrus fulfilled Elisha's standard for a Messiah) and the Christian conception of the Messiah.

Parallels between the Jewish Wars and the Gospels can be resolved by accepting the common understanding that the Gospels were composed a lot later than the purported life of Jesus (see note below):

c. 70 CE (round the time of the fall of the Temple) for Mark;​

80-85 for Matthew and Luke who both seem to have copied large portions of Mark;​

round 100 for John.​

This explains the parallels as the Gospel writers adding information from their present day into a euhemerisation of existing tales and legends (Such as Philo's pre-Christian Jesus) perhaps using the name of what Schweitzer called a minor apocalyptic prophet.

Atwill's thesis (to my mind) has 2 major flaws quite apart from the "a/the Messiah" problem.

a) There were a multitude of different theologies that we know existed in early Churches.​

Eg was Jesus a deity from conception (most of John), was he adopted the son of God at his baptism (Mark), was he adopted at his crucifixion (some epistles indicate this as do parts of John) or was he born a demigod and (later)transfigured into God (Matthew/Luke).​

Eg was he fully human and not in any way divine (Ebionite) or did he have no physical reality (some Docetists).​

​

These variations rather preclude a singular authoritarian origin such as would be the case if Atwill was correct.​

​

b) The inconsistency of the Roman state. It would require that all Roman officials and Emperors keep this schtum for more than 250 years.​

​

 

[Ermintruder]

These variations rather preclude a singular authoritarian origin such as would be the case if Atwill was correct.

I hadn't taken that implication from what I'd read so far, but will note this major potential flaw whilst I continue absorbing the book. I'd understood that the substitution aspect was more in terms of collective content control for the bible via the laying-down of key unprecidented precepts such as 'turn the other cheek' and 'render unto Caeser..' etc

Do you definitely feel there is no merit in the identification (not uniquely by Atwill) of these types of NT precepts being so diametrically-opposed to the prevailing physical paramilitary tactics of preceding Judean groups that there could well have been a deliberate strategy by Rome to neutralise opposition by absorbtion/adoption & diversion?

It would require that all Roman officials and Emperors keep this schtum for more than 250 years

But did they need to maintain any level of secrecy? Biblically or otherwise? Was this not all just some part of the St Peter proto-papal construct?

As Luke does seem to have been taking material from Josephus it would further explain the parallels that Atwill sees

Well, yes, but surely then in this respect Atwill is on target (or, conversely, equally-deluded). The level of typology / intertextual transference is something I never expected to be so prevalent. And as for the further fascinating insights from @Victory regarding Gematria....this to me almost sounds like a canonical version of the Bible Codes concept...which although Forteanly fascinating, did not end well.

 

[Schwadevivre]

I hadn't taken that implication from what I'd read so far, but will note this major potential flaw whilst I continue absorbing the book. I'd understood that the substitution aspect was more in terms of collective content control for the bible via the laying-down of key unprecidented precepts such as 'turn the other cheek' and 'render unto Caeser..' etc

"Turn the other Cheek" is not unprecedented, it appears in the Essene "Manual of Discipline" and, worse quite a few scholars claim the term is misinterpreted though exactly how this misinterpretation applies differs. Most see it as "Turn the Left Cheek" which implies making the assailant unclean.

"The render unto Caesar" is also not as "holy" as thought. The Temple had a sacred currency which was used for offerings and the purchase of sacrifices, Herod Antipas and Judea used Roman Currency and Temple Currency was (a) debased and (b) forbidden for worldly use by the Temple. Seen in this light it just means use sacred things for sacred purposes and profane things for worldly ones.
Side Note: the exchange of currency was a nice little earner for the Temple.

Do you definitely feel there is no merit in the identification (not uniquely by Atwill) of these types of NT precepts being so diametrically-opposed to the prevailing physical paramilitary tactics of preceding Judean groups that there could well have been a deliberate strategy by Rome to neutralise opposition by absorbtion/adoption & diversion?

My problem with that is that many large Jewish Groups such as the Therapeutae, the Essenes and the Nazoreans (followers of John the Baptist) who were very pacifist - and those are just the ones of which I know.
Side Note: the followers of John still exist and still use the same name among themselves, outside scholars call them "Mandaeans."

But did they need to maintain any level of secrecy? Biblically or otherwise? Was this not all just some part of the St Peter proto-papal construct?

Not so much level of secrecy but it was not unknown to make fun of the Christians for stupidity. Would Lucian of Samosata have missed out on such a juicy rumour in his satire on Peregrinus Proteus which lambasted Christians for gullibility?

Well, yes, but surely then in this respect Atwill is on target (or, conversely, equally-deluded). The level of typology / intertextual transference is something I never expected to be so prevalent. And as for the further fascinating insights from

Intertextual transfer is again very common. Consider that Mark is often seen as basing the structure of his story upon the Odyssey hence the frequent, unnecessary and inconsistent boat trips Borrowings from Philo's fictional Messiah tale occur throughout the Bible - which in turn borrows from non-Christian literature on demi-Gods

 

[Schwadevivre]

Another big problem with Atwill is that the fabrication was supposedly done by Josephus and this version of the historian supposedly had forgotten all he had known about:
Galilee (Josephus was the Jewish Military Commander of Galilee);
The topology of the region;
Roman legal processes;
Roman crucifixion protocols;
Jewish legal processes;
and Pilate.

 

[Ermintruder]

Another big problem with Atwill is that (he)....had forgotten all he had known about....

I'll be sure to look-out for these identifiable gaps whilst I continue to read 'Messiah'.

To what extent might some of these omissions be as a result of subsequent editorial actions upon the bible itself, as it was coalesced into a canonical sub-set? I'm only aware of the Council of Nicea (which has become well-known in this context) but I could expect there could've been other deletions/ modifications.

I'm *not* trying to support Atwill's position on Josephus/Flavius in the absence of proper evidence: that sort of approach can't be criticised in one context, then supported in another, I do take that point....but is there any kind of balance of probabilities to be considered?

 

[AlchoPwn]

I am not a fan of Atwill's thesis. It simply doesn't go back far enough in time. The fact is that the Roman Empire had not touched the Middle East by 150B.C. and that is the earliest date for the existence of the Docetists, who are the oldest Christian sect. The Docetists were tied intimately to the Therapeuts, who were Alexandrian trained medics sent to Palestine. The therapeuts set about making their doctrine, which was a combination of Greek and Egyptian Hermetic medicine, combined with the Ptolemaic state deity Serapis into something more Judaic to pacify these provinces for the Ptolemies. The Seleucids had failed to keep Palestine as they had never tried to do anything other than crush Judaism, and ultimately they lost to the Maccabean Revolt. As Palestine was inevitably one of the flashpoints between the warring Seleucids and the Ptolemies, the Ptolemies decided they wanted friends on their borders not enemies, hence the infiltration.

Crucially, Serapis was known as the "Christ" (the anointed) as effigies of the god were anointed with a chrysm of sacred oil. Serapis worship had Eposcopi or "Bishops", and the depictions of Serapis bear a striking resemblance to later depictions of Jesus. It is worth mentioning that the first Christian Bishop of Antioch is Serapion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapion_of_Antioch, whose name derives from Serapis and who was a Docetist. Ultimately Docetism is made heretical by the First Council of Nicea, as the great sin of Docetism was to reject that the story of Jesus was anything other than an analogy, and the rejection that Jesus was ever a flesh and blood person.

Now, Atwill's notion that the Romans set out to hijack Christianity later in the piece for political advantage is true. I strongly doubt the conversion of St Paul for example and I think that he was a Roman agent and his divisiveness was a deliberate attempt to politically divide the movement, which largely succeeded. I think that most of the Roman intervention comes much later in the piece however, when it becomes an expedient means to control the "Barbarians at the Gate" during the Late Roman Empire.

I also find the Gaulish Carpenter Deity Hesus to be of interest, given that Jesus is crucified on a tree, as a sacrifice to mankind, while Hesus was the deity of the wicker man, where the sinners were all burned and returned to the Gods. While wikipedia says these symbvolic threads are merre coincidence, I am not nearly so convinced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esus

 

[INT21]

I am not a fan of Atwill's thesis. It simply doesn't go back far enough in time. The fact is that the Roman Empire had not touched the Middle East by 150B.C. and that is the earliest date for the existence of the Docetists, who are the oldest Christian sect.

How did a Christian sect exist 150 years before Christianity formed ?

 

[Frideswide]

Because Christ is a title.

As AlcoPwn says above

Crucially, Serapis was known as the "Christ" (the anointed) as effigies of the god were anointed with a chrysm of sacred oil.

 

[AlchoPwn]

How did a Christian sect exist 150 years before Christianity formed ?

This was the crux of the whole argument. We as a society have a false picture of the history and development of Christianity, and by studying the societies that pre-existed Christianity, we can tease apart the veil of propaganda that has been pulled down to make it seem as if Jesus was a real person. He wasn't, he's an allegory. Docetism definitely pre-existed Christianity by about 180 years, which is a long time, and it makes them the earliest "Christians" by a long long way, and if they say Jesus is an allegory, then it is likely that they know what they are talking about. The other sects needed to silence them for fear that their whole "Jesus was a real person" con would come unstuck, and so the First Nicean Council made Docetism a heresy. Dirty politics.

 

[INT21]

https://bof.fandom.com/wiki/Chrysm

Possibly not the same Chrysm ?


Further confusion comes from us using the BC/AD system to date things.

 

[AlchoPwn]

Possibly not the same Chrysm ?

I accidentally opted for the older spelling of chrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrism, it comes from reading old source material.

Further confusion comes from us using the BC/AD system to date things.

Well, it is the one most people are familiar with, despite the fact that 1BC and 1AD are technically only a day apart as there is no zero BC.
Most lay readers don't like using BCE as a dating system.

 

[Schwadevivre]

... Crucially, Serapis was known as the "Christ" (the anointed) as effigies of the god were anointed with a chrysm of sacred oil. Serapis worship had Eposcopi or "Bishops", and the depictions of Serapis bear a striking resemblance to later depictions of Jesus. It is worth mentioning that the first Christian Bishop of Antioch is Serapion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapion_of_Antioch, whose name derives from Serapis and who was a Docetist. Ultimately Docetism is made heretical by the First Council of Nicea, as the great sin of Docetism was to reject that the story of Jesus was anything other than an analogy, and the rejection that Jesus was ever a flesh and blood person ...

.../Snip...

... I also find the Gaulish Carpenter Deity Hesus to be of interest, given that Jesus is crucified on a tree, as a sacrifice to mankind, while Hesus was the deity of the wicker man, where the sinners were all burned and returned to the Gods. While wikipedia says these symbvolic threads are merre coincidence, I am not nearly so convinced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esus

This is one of the points made by modern Mythicist students such as Carrier, Lataster, Fitzgerald and Price; the term "Christ" and its Jewish equivalent "Messiah" (both have the meaning anointed) was not a unique appellation *. None of these says that however the term came to be used, the (originally) Jewish cult group was not copying these other dying/rising god myths any more than the earlier users of the term were copying even more primitive myths. The point is that the themes were borrowed and applied by many groups to many different saviours.

To an extent, I think Atwill may have been confused by the "borrowing" of some themes from the Roman cult of the God/Hero Romulus who was also a resurrected miracle worker. The biggest problem of Atwill is how his brand mythicism has led to any person who propounds the idea that Jesus may not have had any reality being classified as a believer in "long-debunked conspiracy theories" by the "College" of Biblical scholars.

But this "College" has many members (probably the majority) who believe that the Jesus of the Gospels (resurrected miracle-working wise man and child of the deity) is entirely myth based upon a shadowy real person, famously characterised as a minor Jewish apocalyptic prophet (Schweitzer?). There have been many "Searches" for a "Real Jesus" carried out by scholars and none of these searches have been able to unanimously identify any words that can only have been said by Jesus and the only points all agree on about His life was that he was born somewhere and later died on the Cross. This means that the only real cause for argument is the extent to which the "Jesus" story is a myth.

The Wikipedia claim about mere coincidence seems very similar to me to the early Church Fathers characterising such similarities as the work of the Devil who, understanding the real meaning of the prophecies, set up these earlier faiths to undermine the Church
__________________________________________________________________

* Similarly, there seems to have been a Greek name "Chrestus" meaning "the Good" said to have been used by leaders of some dissident bands.

 

[Analogue Boy]

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Some tremendous postings on this thread - considerable time being taken to highlight and inform!

In all honesty, it was only a couple of years back, that I eventually looked up the difference between Jewish and Christian beliefs.

So... the Jewish take on things is that Jesus was no Messiah?

How does that work then, from a Jewish perspective?

Whilst the Old Testament is sound, the New Testament is...

...what exactly?

 

[Mythopoeika]

So... the Jewish take on things is that Jesus was no Messiah?

How does that work then, from a Jewish perspective?

The Messiah that they are waiting for is a bit more flash-bang-wallop than Jesus. Jesus was a man of peace and philosophy, whereas they are looking for someone who is more of a national leader.

 

[pandacracker]

I may not be remembering correctly but in the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" I think there is a scene where Jesus has to work out how he is to fit in with the Jewish concept of the Messiah. He's meant to come with sword and fire so he makes his preaching metaphysical manifestations instead of actual fire and sword.

As I say, I may have it all wrong though.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The Messiah that they are waiting for is a bit more flash-bang-wallop than Jesus. Jesus was a man of peace and philosophy, whereas they are looking for someone who is more of a national leader.

OK... I'm beginning to get the gist of this now.

 

[AlchoPwn]

I may not be remembering correctly but in the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" I think there is a scene where Jesus has to work out how he is to fit in with the Jewish concept of the Messiah. He's meant to come with sword and fire so he makes his preaching metaphysical manifestations instead of actual fire and sword. As I say, I may have it all wrong though.

This is pretty on the money. The Jews at the time thought they would get a messiah who was a national liberator in the spirit of the Maccabees who had liberated Judea from the Seleucid Empire, and who in turn would liberate Judea from the Roman Empire. What they got was Jesus, and a message of peace that was as utterly detrimental to the survival of the Roman Empire as the proverbial cup of hemlock.

 

[EnolaGaia]

This is pretty on the money. The Jews at the time thought they would get a messiah who was a national liberator in the spirit of the Maccabees who had liberated Judea from the Seleucid Empire, and who in turn would liberate Judea from the Roman Empire. What they got was Jesus, and a message of peace ...

I generally agree with you on this initial part, at least to the extent of reflecting the most defensible interpretation of how Jesus may have been viewed and / or posthumously promoted by the indigenous population under Roman rule ...

... but I'm not sure I understand your concluding bit ...

... that was as utterly detrimental to the survival of the Roman Empire as the proverbial cup of hemlock.

Did you mean "ultimately detrimental" rather than "utterly detrimental"? I ask this because:

- Whatever effect the message of peace induced took generations and centuries to manifest, and
- One might well argue it didn't so much kill off Rome's hegemony as facilitate its migration from the secular / military basis of the Empire to the religious / sociopolitical basis of the Church.

 

[Lizard King]

What's the explanation of Jesus in the Koran?

 

[EnolaGaia]

What's the explanation of Jesus in the Koran?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

 

[AlchoPwn]

Did you mean "ultimately detrimental" rather than "utterly detrimental"?

I said utterly detrimental and meant it. Christianity was poison to the whole ethos that made the Roman Empire work i.e. it was meeting fascism with passive non-violent resistance.

- Whatever effect the message of peace induced took generations and centuries to manifest, and
- One might well argue it didn't so much kill off Rome's hegemony as facilitate its migration from the secular / military basis of the Empire to the religious / sociopolitical basis of the Church.

Prior to Christianity, Rome is a conquest oriented society. After Christianity, Rome ends its public hygiene programs because they are pagan vanity, and becomes an increasingly militarily weak and defensive power.

 

[sdoig]

This was the crux of the whole argument. We as a society have a false picture of the history and development of Christianity, and by studying the societies that pre-existed Christianity, we can tease apart the veil of propaganda that has been pulled down to make it seem as if Jesus was a real person. He wasn't, he's an allegory. Docetism definitely pre-existed Christianity by about 180 years, which is a long time, and it makes them the earliest "Christians" by a long long way, and if they say Jesus is an allegory, then it is likely that they know what they are talking about. The other sects needed to silence them for fear that their whole "Jesus was a real person" con would come unstuck, and so the First Nicean Council made Docetism a heresy. Dirty politics.

Nah, don't buy it myself, During early persecution of Christians, they came in for a lot of abuse for their beliefs, but there are no records (as far as i am aware) of people calling out 'Jesus?- pish ! You made him up!' (remembering that when persecution began there were still plenty people around who would know if Jesus was a myth or not)

I'm not particularly spiritual (though I believe in some higher power) , I believe in Jesus as a man (and by and large, a very nice and pleasant man!) But I agree that a myth was created AROUND Jesus and we will never know what he thought he really was or what he believed he stood for.