Jews and the story book jesus

[yo lunch]

I agree that the fantastical parts of those two stories are embellishments typical of many ancient writers and more modern myth-making as, for example, Santa Claus. But that hardly proves that neither Jesus nor Bishop Nicolaos of Myra ever existed as actual people. Because a voice from heaven is believed to have endorsed the teachings of Hillel over those of Shammai, does that mean that they never existed? Does the story about George Washington and the cherry tree mean that he never existed?

You have a valid point. However, the paucity of external and independent evidence that there was a real jesus does not speak well for their being a historical jesus! Seems that all of the non-biblical references are specious and seriously flawed!

[yo lunch]

I was not aware that the salient point concerned "records" contained in oral tradition. Has someone discovered a cache of oral tradition containing the daily proceedings of the Sanhedrin prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE?

One side of the story, with significant variations, is presented in the gospels and Acts. What would the Sanhedrin side(s) of this story look like? A voucher for 30 pieces of silver paid to a Judas of the Sicarii, sworn affadavits from (valid instead of false) witnesses accusing Jesus of blasphemy? It is not at all clear that the Sanhedrin was directly involved in the execution of Jesus. But, even if it was, after the destruction of the temple, the Hillelite leadership of the Sanhedrin and surviving rabbinic Judaism was reportedly not so inclined to celebrate Jesus' execution.

Outside the NT, there is little indication that later Jewish leaders took Jesus or his followers that seriously such that they would celebrate his execution. See the later vague comments of Rabbi Tarphon and the Justin's dialoge with Trypho.

The salient point is no written records were required and that word-of-mouth was sufficent to perpetuate the story! Therefore, Composer wants to know why the Jews do not make a big deal out of it today?

[robrecht]

The salient point is no written records were required and that word-of-mouth was sufficent to perpetuate the story! Therefore, Composer wants to know why the Jews do not make a big deal out of it today?

Actually, I think that is a very different point, but still worth discussing. Some Jews today realize that Jesus may indeed have been a faithful teacher within a very diverse Jewish tradition. There have been others to claim they were the Messiah or be given that title by others. And there are different ways to interpret what the Messiah will be. But for all we know the historical Jesus may never have claimed the title for himself. Maybe he create a ruckus in the Temple, maybe he was opposed to various teachings and practices of some leading teachers, maybe he was a disciple of John the Baptizer, sympathetic with the Essenes, or others. Who really knows for sure from a purely historical perspective? Knowledgable historians can create plausible scenarios, but there's no real certainty with which one can reconstruct a detailed portrait. You feel that Jews should nonetheless hate Jesus and celebrate his execution?

[robrecht]

You have a valid point. However, the paucity of external and independent evidence that there was a real jesus does not speak well for their being a historical jesus! Seems that all of the non-biblical references are specious and seriously flawed!

For how many people living in 1st century Palestine, do you possess lots of external and independent evidence of their existence?

[yo lunch]

For how many people living in 1st century Palestine, do you possess lots of external and independent evidence of their existence?

That is one mundane matter that does not concern me.

[yo lunch]

Actually, I think that is a very different point, but still worth discussing. Some Jews today realize that Jesus may indeed have been a faithful teacher within a very diverse Jewish tradition. There have been others to claim they were the Messiah or be given that title by others. And there are different ways to interpret what the Messiah will be. But for all we know the historical Jesus may never have claimed the title for himself. Maybe he create a ruckus in the Temple, maybe he was opposed to various teachings and practices of some leading teachers, maybe he was a disciple of John the Baptizer, sympathetic with the Essenes, or others. Who really knows for sure from a purely historical perspective? Knowledgable historians can create plausible scenarios, but there's no real certainty with which one can reconstruct a detailed portrait. You feel that Jews should nonetheless hate Jesus and celebrate his execution?

Remember, it was Composer who presented this point, ask him.

[emulator]

Josephus was one historian who kept a record of Jesus having existed...

the Sanhedrin would be the last people to document Christ because, that would be to propagate his teachings and legitimacy; they wanted Him to go away.

[yo lunch]

Josephus was one historian who kept a record of Jesus having existed...

the Sanhedrin would be the last people to document Christ because, that would be to propagate his teachings and legitimacy; they wanted Him to go away.

Why did Josephus not document the infamous "Massacre of the Innocents?" After all, he was a stickler for recording when Herod scratched his nose!

I believe that the idea that Composer wanted to get accross to you is that the Sanhedrin should have bragged that the Resurrection was a hoax. That, they would have documented!

[Composer]

Josephus was one historian who kept a record of Jesus having existed... .

Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from his own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source. (RED by Composer) (Source: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html)

[robrecht]

That is one mundane matter that does not concern me.

Well it should matter to anyone who wants to use the paucity of independent evidence to argue for the nonexistence of Jesus as a historical person.

[Hamster]

He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death

How do you know? Were you there?

[robrecht]

Remember, it was Composer who presented this point, ask him.

Composer is, of course, also free to comment on this but he did not say he "wants to know why the Jews do not make a big deal out of it today?" His point was rather that Jesus did not exist and thus the Jews did not manage to get Jesus crucified as an imposter because if they had they would have kept a record of this and celebrated this fact. The great majority of Jews throughout history have never disputed the historical existence of Jesus so their attitude today is rather irrelevant to Composer's argument for Jesus' nonexistence. Unless, as I have suggested, the new Hillelite leadership of the Sanhedrin after the execution of Jesus would not necessarily have endorsed, let alone celebrated, a Shammaite complicity in Jesus' execution, if that had ever even occured.

[yo lunch]

Well it should matter to anyone who wants to use the paucity of independent evidence to argue for the nonexistence of Jesus as a historical person.

Not really. However, I can easily discredit Christianity just fine without the Myth Theory. You see, I can prove that there is no Santa Claus by arguing that he is too fat to go down a chimney. However, there are so many other ways of getting to the same conclusion, such as reindeer can't fly, etc.

[yo lunch]

Composer is, of course, also free to comment on this but he did not say he "wants to know why the Jews do not make a big deal out of it today?" His point was rather that Jesus did not exist and thus the Jews did not manage to get Jesus crucified as an imposter because if they had they would have kept a record of this and celebrated this fact. The great majority of Jews throughout history have never disputed the historical existence of Jesus so their attitude today is rather irrelevant to Composer's argument for Jesus' nonexistence. Unless, as I have suggested, the new Hillelite leadership of the Sanhedrin after the execution of Jesus would not necessarily have endorsed, let alone celebrated, a Shammaite complicity in Jesus' execution, if that had ever even occured.

So tell him about it.

[robrecht]

Not really. However, I can easily discredit Christianity just fine without the Myth Theory. ...

Yes, really. The issue I'm discussing here is not so broad as the discrediting of Christianity, especially the miraculous claims, but whether there are good reasons for historians to deny the historical existence of Jesus. Historians care about things like what type of evidence is available at the time.