Yuku free message boards

Where should I start? Well, let's start with Nazareth. Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, and the fact it was a graveyard would have prevented their being a town there. It is not in any historical sources and there is no archaeological proof. Nazareth is invented from a misinterpretation of the term Nazarene which does not mean "of Nazareth".

Jesus has two different birth stories, set a decade apart. There are problems with both of them (not least that they are contradictory):

For a start, the two genealogies contradict each other. These cannot be reconciled as Matthew's is patently artificial, being many generations too short, so the old apologetic response that one is Joseph's, and one Mary's, is ridiculous. In any case, the messiah had to be of David's stock through the male line. Mary being of David's line is meaningless, as is adoption, as is Joseph being of David's line but Jesus not actually being his son - either way you look at it, Jesus doesn't qualify.

But there are other problems, too. Of course virgin births and the mother and child theme are pagan and older than christianity, but if we look at the actual details of the nativity, we find that Mt and Lk can't agree where Jesus was born, or comes from. More seriously, they both say that Jesus was born in the time of Herod who died 4BC. However Luke goes on to place his birth at the time of the historical census (and invents the fictional need to move for the census). This means it is 10 years after Herod died!

Even worse, Galilee wasn't even part of the census

So, having pointed to Jesus's birth story and place of origin being fiction, I'll take a break. More later.

Where did we get to? Ah, yes - why Jesus should be thought of as a fiction.

Well - there are no external sources that mention Jesus. The references in Josephus are both later christian interpolations. Philo and Justus are striking in their lack of reference to Jesus - if he was indeed a real person. Tacitus, c.115 simply repeats the story in the gospels, which proves nothing. Suetonius, writing in the first half of the 2nd century, mentions a "Chrestus" purportedly in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54AD), whose followers were "stirring up trouble". That hardly corresponds to the gospel accounts, so can again be ignored, or simply seen as a confused mention of Christians being in Rome at this time (which we can deduce from Paul's epistle to them anyway).

Another source sometime mentioned is Mara Bar-Serapion, who mentions that the Jews executed a "wise king". But he doesn't name Jesus and the people he contrasts him with - Socrates and Pythagoras - both lived several hundred BC, so the identification of this "wise king" is far from certain.


So what about Jesus, then? Just because the gospels are contradictory and contain fictional elements, does that mean Jesus was not a real person?

Well firstly, if the story in the gospels - the myth - is not real, then does it matter if Jesus was actually a real person or not?

That the story has been influenced by other well-known hero myths - particularly in Christian legends, rather than the gospel themselves - is undeniable. However, the origin of Jesus in such myths is not the same thing. So where does Jesus spring from?

I came across The Messiah Myth when it came out, and recently LV pointed me toward Rook Hawkins who, along with Thompson and others - has clearly revitalised the mythicist position.

Why is it that the Jesus seminar rejected 83% of the saying attributed to Jesus in the gospels? What was left - what came from the Old Testament - just like Jesus himself. As did the miracle of the loaves and fishes in Mark, of course. Matthew and Luke took Mark, a reworking of the OT, and reworked it themselves. None of the gospels - Mark, Matthew, Luke or John are first hand testimony. Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, written at least a generation after the alleged execution of Jesus, by a man who is geographically ignorant of the locations he is talking about.

The author of Luke/Acts used Josephus extensively (and there are several hints "Matthew" also may have), so couldn't have written before 100AD. The gospels show a rise in the number of miracles that are obviously the story being expanded upon (compare the evolution of Arthurian myth!):



( http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php )

In fact after that we have a huge number of apocryphal writings, most of which have vanished, that show the increase of the story of Jesus. Of course the NT itself contains, not only the gospels whose authors are not who they purport to be, but also many epistles once attributed to Paul but now known to be fakes, "pious frauds".

What do we have then? We have a figure that is drawn from the Old Testament, in the style of work that was common at the time. We have Paul, who it has been argued convincingly, never believed in a physical Jesus. Paul certainly doesn't describe biographical details of Jesus, or know of any sayings or teachings of Jesus. We have a Jesus that is ahistorical, a fictional, mythical character, who remain entirely elusive to the believers that go looking for him in the gospels - hence so many different versions of the "real" Jesus. We have a Jesus with no hometown.


The idea that the gospels are history based on "Q" and oral tradition, is ridiculous - a fiction perpetuated by those people who assume that Jesus must be a real person, so there must be real sources behind him. But the gospels are Jewish fiction writing.

I seem to recall having said this before at TRT:

These [Biblical] books existed in the oral tradition for hundreds of thousands of years

Surely that should say hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of thousands...

And in the case of the NT (as opposed to the OT) it would be decades. There is no reason why, in a literate society, Jesus or his actual disciples couldn't have written down his teachings, rather than relying on those writing "received tradition" or "oral history" a couple of generations later.

Another link showing that Luke/Acts used Josephus

Not only was there no Nazareth for Jesus to come from, did you know there was also no Arimathea? So who is the important figure, "Jospeh of Arimathea?"

Seemingly this figure is also borrowed from Josephus - it is Josephus himself!

If he did not exist, the next question would be where Mark got his story (and the name) from. There is a very likely candidate for this. As the Jewish scholar, Hugh Schonfield [8], pointed out, the story of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels resembles very closely an episode from Josephus' Autobiography. In it, Josephus relates his own experience upon seeing his friends on the cross:

Once more when I was sent by Titus Caesar...to a village called Tekoa to prospect whether it was a suitable camp, and, on my return, saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of my acquaintances among them, I was cut to the heart, and came and told Titus with tears what I have seen. He gave orders immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most careful treatment. Two of them died in the physician's hands, the third survived. [9]

One can immediately see that the above passage closely parallels the Markan account. First there were three victims of crucifixion that played a role in Josephus' story just like in the gospels where Jesus was crucified together with two robbers. Just as Josephus went to the Roman commander to beg for his friends' lives, Joseph of Arimathea went to the Roman governor to asked for Jesus' body. And just as Jesus was resurrected where the other two died, in Josephus' story one of his three acquaintances survived. [10]

The similarity in the names of the main protagonist is also considerable. In the same work, Josephus elucidated his distinguished ancestry. His grandfather, also named Joseph, begot Matthias his father in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus (AD6). In the Greek text (the language Josephus wrote in) Joseph begot Matthias is rendered as Josepou Matthias. In Mark's gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is written in Greek as Joseph apo Arimathias, the similarity is curious. To quote Schonfield:

It is certainly curious that we have Josephus, himself a Josepou Matthias, begging the Roman commander for the bodies of three crucified friends, one of whom is brought back to life. [11]

Thus we have in the autobiography of Josephus an episode very similar to that of Mark. We have even found a possible way how the name Joseph of Arimathea could have been constructed. The correspondence is uncanny if these similarities are purely due to coincidence. Now Josephus' book was published in the last years of Josephus' life; the exact year of his death is uncertain, but it most probably falls within the year AD95 to 100.[a] Thus the publication date is well within the probable time scale we set for Mark; i.e. that Mark could have been written after the publication of the Autobiography.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/burial.html#joseph

Genealogies:

It's a well-known fact that the Genealogies in Mt and Lk disagree. The standard explanation is that they are Jesus' double descent from David. However, this does not hold water for a number of reasons.

There is a 15-generation discrepancy. This is just too big to ignore. For instance, genealogies are often used to get a rough calculation of time-spans. Taking a rough guess of 30 years for a generation (though this would depend on the lifestyle, living quality, and other factors of the people involved, generation lengths for anywhere in the ancient or medieval world never vary from an average of 25-35 years) 15 generations comes out at 450 years - half a millenium. Taking either Wilson's timetable or the conventional chronology, David lived about 1,000 years before Jesus' birth. In fact, 28 x 35 year generations or 43 x 25 year generations fits the chronological timetable, but since these generation lengths are supposed to be of the same group of people in the same place and time, the generation spans - on average - of the two lines should be similar.

The thing about generations is that they do average out - that's how an average generation is calculated - so a difference of 50% over 30-40 generations is ridiculous. Over a shorter number of generations a difference in generation spans may be expected, but the more generations, the more likely to arrive at an average figure you are.

A difference of 7 years when talking about a generation span of 28 years is a 25% difference. Clearly, something is wrong there.

But let us just suppose for second that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary? This idea is untenable - it is explicitly clear in Luke that the genealogy is that of Joseph. Here's what he says:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

"as was supposed". 'As was supposed' can only refer to Joseph himself - for it was supposed that Jesus was his son, but that phrase cannot possibly refer to Mary who was in fact, not supposition, his mother. So, the genealogy cannot refer to Mary (the Greek grammar in any case is clear using the male genitive case showing it is Joseph it's talking about).

Even saying that, the fact is it wouldn't do anything to legitimise Jesus' claim to being the messiah because tribal affiliation and 'house' are only passed on through the male line. The fact that the daughters of Zelophchad inherited their father's property (Numbers 27) doesn't prove that genealogy can be passed through the daughters. This is born out by Numbers 36, where they are told that they must marry someone from their father's tribe, otherwise the inheritance would pass out of their family. Since Mary is said to be realted to Elizabeth (Lk 1:36) she must be then considered a part of the familly of Aaron. Nor would it matter as that genealogy descends from Nathan, though only those of the line of Solomon were elligile, presumably to avoid the curse on the seed of Jeconiah. Which still stood - including for the descendants of Zerubbabel:

Jeremiah 22:30
Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Which would describe the messiah. And God says he does not change his mind:

Ezek.24:14
"I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

On the other hand, Matthew's version cannot refer to Mary as he mentions her specifically:

1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


So the idea of a double descent (which was surely notable enough to warrant mention in any case, though this is not actually said in any gospel) is simply impossible.


You should also compare Matthew's genealogy to that in Chronicles. Mt is on the left, Chr the right:

Solomon.......Solomon
Robomoam....Rehoboam
Abia............Abia
Asa.............Asa
Josaphat.....Jehosaphat
Joram.........Joram
Ozias.........Azariah
-...............Joash
-...............Amaziah
-...............Azariah
Joatham.....Jotham
Achaz........Ahaz
Ezekias......Hezekiah
Manasses...Manasseh
Amon........Amon
Josias.......Josiah
-..............Jehoiakim
Jecohnias..Jeconiah

Notice the missing generations? Matthew has deliberately manipulated the genealogies to set his out as 3 sets of 14 generations. It is contrived to fit a pattern.

Meddling with and inventing genealogical data to legitamise claims was the most common form of fraud in ancient times, and this is evident here.

This then is why Matthew has a longer average generation - the average of the remaining names must go up to make up for the people who have been cut out.

I once posted this argument at Metacrock's board and he replied with this answer (I don't know who BK is):

We know from
the Bible that Zarubbabel led the first return from captivity (which
was about 538-536 B.C. We don't know if he was very young, young,
old or very old at the time.

So, let's pick up the generations from Zarubbabel to the birth of
Jesus leaving Zarubbabel off the list. I will also exclude Jesus
because I will assume a birthdate for him of 4 B.C. and including
him in the numbers will throw things off.

>Matthew (10 generations)<
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Akim
Eliud
Eleazer
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph


>Luke (19 generations)<
Rhesa
Joannan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph

Calculating this out using a date of 540 as the birth of the child
of Zarubbabel, we find an average age of a generation to be the
following:
In Matthew: 53.6 years.
In Luke: 28.21 years

Now, personally, I think that it is clear that Matthew has more many
years for each generation than we expect given that life expectancy
was much shorter for the average person. But then, Luke is the same
because most people started having children by 14 or 16 years old.
But are they unreasonable? Not in my eyes. There are certainly
accounts of people living into their eighties. Older men who lost
wives could have married younger women and had babies well into
their sixties or seventies.

Additionally, we already know that genealogies were quite
probably "open", i.e., that they are prepared for a purpose, and
they do not include every generation as part of the listing. As
stated by the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:

"In biblical Hebrew culture, being a father was thought in the same
light as being a forefather or ancestor. Begat can mean 'was the
ancestor of.' The word son (ben) can mean descendant. Jesus was
the 'son of David' though at least thirty-one generations separated
David from the Christ (the twenty-eight named in Matt. 1:17 plus the
three missing from verse 8 that are found in 1 Chr. 3:11-12)."

Thus, I would certainly argue that if anything, both genealogies are
too long--not too short. But that they can certainly be reconciled
both with the historical practice among the Hebrews of older
widowers being permitted to remarry younger women, or with the open
genealogy approach.

BK

Let's look at this then. The generation length in Mt, over the period looked at, (I'll come back to that) is absurd, to be honest. Generation calculations from regnal lists were traditionally reckoned at 33 years, though modern scholars have argued that this is too long, and from several lists where good dating is known suggest that 27-30 years is far more realistic. 53.6 years is nearly double the lower end of this estimate. Lk, on the other hand, has a very realistic figure of about 28 years.

That, in itself, is not absolutely impossible, I admit - there are some Arab lists with quite long generation lengths, but considering the average lifespan was less than 35 years, generation lengths of over 50 years are incredible in the literal sense. See I've highlighted the word average? You get exceptional lifespans now and again in any list, but the odd one or two don't affect the average much. That's why we can be fairly confident of reasonable accuracy using a calculation based on an average generation length. It's a tried and trusted method. You might expect to be out by a decade or two but not nearly two and a half centuries! 10 x 30 = 300 years not 540.

But that's not all. Consider that the gap back to David from Zerubbabel. Luke has this filled with 22 names and Mt 16, but we know Mt has dropped at least 4, when we cp it with 2 Kings and Chr (above) but he's also dropped out a name between Josiah and Jeconiah (2 Kings and 2 Chr again).

So that makes 21 names to fill the gap in Mt and 22 in Lk - ie, about the same generation length (of about 28 years). Why should it suddenly double for the next 540 years? That's simply not plausible, so it must be seen as Mt removing a large number of generations simply to make the genealogy fit his pattern - and so meaning he is not to be trusted, meaning his veracity as a source must be labelled as highly questionable.


As for the idea of 'open' genealogies, the problem is that although terms such as 'son of', 'begat' and 'grandfather' might mean a more ancestral lineage than a direct one, this depends on context (such as the term atavus in latin, which could mean either grandfather or ancestor) and in a listed genealogy like these the meaning is simply the literal one - particularly when Mt has the cheek to count the generations. Obviously therefore it is intended to be read as a full and complete list.

But in any case, then 'BK' goes on to make a statement that makes no sense whatsoever - that they could be 'open' with generations missing, and that Mt as we know missed some out - yet then he says that if anything "both genealogies are too long--not too short". How can they be too long if you say they are missing generations? That is simply complete nonsense.

I am amused you have compared lack of archaeological evidence for a single individual to the lack of evidence for a settlement. If you can't see what's wrong with this, you have serious problems.

When some hack scholar whose name was something like Achyra S. first introduced me to the notion that much of the Christian teachings were inspired by Pagan myth I thought she had some good points. I already knew that the Church had adopted many Pagan teachings over time, but were the early Christians themselves inspired by pagan teachings? Upon closer examination it turned out that she wasn't the first to abuse the position of scholar in this way. If you actually discuss the matter with true scholars of pagan myth they will tell you that there is no connection. Such and such a god was never believed to be born of a virgin etc.

Well, firstly I agree with you that AchyraS is not a good source and uses her sources uncritically. There is some merit in some of her arguments though.


However, my argument has nothing to do with the later adoption of the winter festival as Jesus birth day (though the reasons for this are obvious) but that his death at the spring festival (an integral part of the easter story) as a human sacrifice is enough of an argument in itself. Easter was not adopted later as Jesus' deathday!

Your argument about virgin births is fallacious, though. There are two points to make - firstly that unusual, and indeed virgin - birth stories are common in pagan legend before and after Jesus' supposed life (claimed for Alexander several hundred years earlier, for example) and that in fact, as so often been pointed out, that the Immanuel story is not a prophecy of Jesus and doesn't even mention a virgin in the Masoretic text.

But it's not just the birth - the escape of the child from the Evil King can be seen for Zeus, as an example, several hundred years before Jesus, and there are numerous other examples again, before and after. It is a common mythological theme - just as is the god/hero returning from the underworld.

You can throw AchyraS in to muddy the waters, but it doesn't remove the reality of these statements. There is no prophecy about the messiah spending 3 days in the underworld - at least, not in the Old Testament. There are parallels in other mythologies, though!

It would be a great deal more difficult for you to demonstrate that such and such a god did actually exist than it would for you to do the same with Jesus, not to mention the time the god was said to exist.

Why would I try to do that? Prove the existence of a mythological figure? I think you've missed the point - the argument shows the lack of reality of the story. But if Jesus wasn't really born of a virgin, why should I believe he is really the son of a god? The story does not lend credibility to the tale but in fact shows mythological borrowing or simply symbolic invention, using the normal formula for the "hero" in such stories. That being the case, a virgin birth does nothing to prove the reality of Jesus. It is simply a story - expected, formulaic.

But that brings us back to the self-sacrifice of Jesus at the spring feast and his conquering of death to renew the kingdom - again, another common mythological theme and no more believable for it. It doesn't prove Jesus was the son of god, it proves the story is in the form of a myth. And myths are not to be taken literally!