Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said there were a plethora of writings I meant "religious" writings, many of which were excluded from the various biblical canons (but I'm also speaking of those which were included). The fact that there are so many, all written within a century or two as I understand it, indicates that they were based on a real person.
Osiris existed, Egypt's myths wouldn't be without him.
Odysseus existed, the Illiad wouldn't be without him.
Krishna existed, the Gita wouldn't be without him.
James Bond existed, the books wouldn't be without him.
Daft argument - that a book's existence means the characters exist.
Oddly enough, several of the attempts at histrorical documentation concerning Heracles comes from the Christian Church!
Eusebius of Caesarea stated that Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) shows Heracles as king over Tiryns in Argos. Based upon Clement's writings, it has been asserted the Heracles reigned for 38 years from 1264 BC to 1226 BC. After his death, he was then deified.
If that is correct (which I highly doubt), then the stories concerning his life started shortly after his reign of 38 years. The stories of Heracles date from Ancient Greece and of course Ancient Rome as they adopted Hellenism.
The fact that historical people wrote of him or contemporaries told stories of him does not necessarily mean that he actually existed.
Just as historical people wrote of Jesus, so did historical people write of Heracles/Hercules. Hesiod and Plato mention him. Homer tells of his life. Aesop "quoted" him. Ostensibly, Josephus briefly mentions Jesus, but he also mentions Hercules (more time than he did Jesus as Rafius stated) in the very same work! Tacitus also mentioned Jesus in Annals, but again, like Josephus, he mention Hercules many more times in the very same work.
Thanks for the info. As far as you know, then, no contemporaries committed the stories of Hercules to paper.
Quote:
Myth from history is nothing new. George Washington cut down an apple tree and later stated "I cannot tell a lie" did he not? But what is stranger is that history has often been created from myth. The Greek and Roman historians of the day such as Diordorus Siculus, Cicero and even Herodotus assumed that there must have been a historical basis for the myths. Some invented "historical" timelines for these people (that may not have even lived) or attempted to determine when they lived. This is called Euhemerism. Euhemerus, from whom the term is coined, believed that mythological accounts are a reflection of historical events; however, those mythological accounts are shaped retelling.
The early Christians including "Church Fathers" used this techique a lot. It is quite possible, and I think probable, that the story of Jesus of Nazareth as we know it today was shaped by this technique of rationalization.
In the case of Washington, of course, we have a real person behind the myths.
Many of the writings pertaining to Jesus are either written by contemporaries of Jesus, not people conjecturing about someone they didn't know, or by people who knew those contemporaries. It doesn't mean there wasn't already fiction being mixed with fact, or that later alterations to the texts didn't further embeliish. But it still seems likely to me that there was a real person behind the stories.
Many of the writings pertaining to Jesus are either written by contemporaries of Jesus, not people conjecturing about someone they didn't know, or by people who knew those contemporaries.
There are no contemporaneous accounts of this Jesus...none...not one...zilch...nada!!!
Osiris existed, Egypt's myths wouldn't be without him.
Odysseus existed, the Illiad wouldn't be without him.
Krishna existed, the Gita wouldn't be without him.
James Bond existed, the books wouldn't be without him.
Daft argument - that a book's existence means the characters exist.
It's possible that those stories were based on real people. And, again, we're not speaking of books written by people who claimed to be contemporaries. But, in the case of characters that were never claimed to be anything but fictional, that's comparing apples to oranges. So, my thoughts on the matter may be "daft" but your response is disingenuous, imo.
According to the only book that the religious consider truthful, the bible, this "jesus" already returned three days after his death. Other than causing a spread of susperstition, it really accomplished nothing.
Perhaps that is the reason so many of the "faithful" are still hoping for a re-do.
It's possible that those stories were based on real people. And, again, we're not speaking of books written by people who claimed to be contemporaries. But, in the case of characters that were never claimed to be anything but fictional, that's comparing apples to oranges. So, my thoughts on the matter may be "daft" but your response is disingenuous, imo.
There does not seem to be any motive for people to write about Odysseus, Osiris, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus etc if they didn't exist. People didn't believe that they were fictitious characters. Millions of people believed they were real and with as much conviction that people today believe that Jesus was real. What is the difference?
People DO write legends, stories, myths. They do it today, they have always done it.
There are no contemporaneous accounts of this Jesus...none...not one...zilch...nada!!!
Are you speaking of the original manuscripts of those accounts? Would you expect those to still exist?
If you're simply speaking of the accounts, themselves, some do claim to be written either by Jesus' contemporaries, or by people who knew those contemporaries. Can you tell me how you know with certainty that they were not?
And, just so you know, I'm not here to win an argument nor do I claim to have any expertise in this area. I'm interested in the subject and, to me, my questions and thoughts are legitimate for the level of understanding I currently have, even if you find them "daft".
There does not seem to be any motive for people to write about Odysseus, Osiris, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus etc if they didn't exist. People didn't believe that they were fictitious characters. Millions of people believed they were real and with as much conviction that people today believe that Jesus was real. What is the difference?
People DO write legends, stories, myths. They do it today, they have always done it.
You're telling me that the author of the James Bond stories thought he was real? I honestly have no idea, not being a James Bond fan, but I find that hard to believe.
At any rate, whether or not people did/do write myths and legends doesn't mean that the accounts of Jesus were not based on a real person, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.
It's possible that those stories were based on real people. And, again, we're not speaking of books written by people who claimed to be contemporaries.
You seem to be relying heavily on the 'contemporaries' card my friend so let's examine that in some depth.
I hope I don’t have to remind you that the Bible is an extremely suspect source of historical facts. Even assuming the writers were trying to be historians (which they really, really weren’t), oral traditions don’t weather well across generations, and that’s what the biblical stories were before the finally got written down. Even if you’re willing to assume that the Jesus stories were passed down verbatim, the writers of the New Testament and the committee that assembled it very obviously had an agenda to promote Christianity and the divinity of Jesus.
Still, let’s take a look.
It goes without saying that the Old Testament doesn’t mention Jesus at all. The New Testament consists of the Gospels, the Acts, and Epistles, and Revelation. The Acts aren’t relevant, since they are set after the death of Jesus. Revelation is interesting. It’s hard to date, and the Jesus mentioned (sporadically) in it is very obviously supernatural. It describes dreams (”revelations”; hence the name), so it’s not really relevant, but there is some evidence to suggest that this supernatural “Lamb” of this blend of Jewish mythology and ancient astrology was originally in Revelation, and later repurposed to be the man-like Jesus of Nazareth.
The Gospels, then.
It’s worth noting that the authors are unknown. Irenaeus of Lyon said there were four, and gave them their names, but there is nothing to suggest that he wasn’t just making stuff up.
The Gospel of “Mark” is the oldest. It was written somewhere around 70-90 CE, so this Mark could not have been a contemporary of Jesus. Assuming Jesus was born in 1 CE (his date of birth is something the gospels are in contradiction about, of course) and crucified in 33 CE, and a reliable eye-witness would have had to be at least 13 years old at the time, Mark would’ve had to be 50 to 70 years old when he wrote the gospel, which is somewhere between very unlikely and down-right impossible, at the time, and even if he were, waiting forty to sixty years to write about something is bound to taint your memory of the events a bit don't you think? Either way, the gospel itself suggests Mark had never even been to Palestine. How do we deduce this? Well Mark writes in Mark 10:11-12...
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Now in Palestine at the time (and probably now as well), a woman could not divorce her husband at all. Only the man could decide this. This is just an example. There are more to be found, if you want to look for them, including his ignorance of basic local geography. Point is, Mark never knew this Jesus personally.
Then there are Matthew and Luke. These draw heavily from Mark… Well, honestly, they plagiarise considerable parts of it outright, sometimes almost verbatim. They do expand upon it, though. Either way, they’re obviously later works, so it’s even more unlikely the authors were alive when Jesus was supposed to have lived, and eye-witnesses don’t just lift other people’s stories. So they can be ignored entirely.
The Gospel of John is the latest, having been written around 110 CE—clearly far too late to be an eye-witness account. Not only that, the Jesus is even more god-like than the others, so it’s safe to assume it was entirely fabricated.
So much for the Gospels. The Epistles, then.
Thirteen of them have traditionally been credited to St. Paul of Tarsus. Of these, only about four (or seven, depending on who you ask) can be said to have the same author with some degree of certainty. These include the letters to the Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 11:32 mentions dealing with a King Aretas of Damascus. This person died in 40 CE, so if Paul, if he is indeed the author of this letter, isn’t just making stuff up, he is probably the earliest biblical source of information on this Jesus character. Paul, or Saul, never met Jesus in person, though—he came to him “in a dream”. So, secondary source, at best.
Even so, Paul’s primary source must’ve been rubbish because he never mentions the virgin birth, Jesus’s trial by the Romans, the place he was executed, Peter’s denial of Jesus, any miracles at all, Judas, &c. He never even mentioned Nazareth, even though this Jesus is so often known as “Jesus of Nazareth”. He can’t really be blamed for that last thing, though, seeing as how there was no town called Nazareth in the first century CE. Interesting, eh?
The first mention of Nazareth by the Jews was in the 3rd century CE. Archaeological finds suggest that the earliest there certainly was human life in what is now Nazareth was in the 2nd century. Before that, just a graveyard.
Nazareth almost certainly sprung into existence after Christianity itself was already well underway, and it’s relatively safe to assume the earliest settlers were Christians.
This as an aside, though.
Paul does mention Peter, but doesn’t suggest Peter knew Jesus in person either, and he made the same mistake as Mark when he said “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband” in 1 Corinthians 7:10. So much for the Pauline Epistles.
The other Epistles aren’t particularly relevant, and they’re not as old.
If you want to argue the New Testament Apocrypha should count as evidence, well, they generally date from the middle of the 2nd century CE, so they aren’t old enough either.
So I'm afraid that when you look at the evidence, there are no contemporaneous accounts for this Jesus...just after-the-fact hearsay from people who never met him.
If you're simply speaking of the accounts, themselves, some do claim to be written either by Jesus' contemporaries, or by people who knew those contemporaries. Can you tell me how you know with certainty that they were not?
Well in relation to the Gospels you just have to look at the evidence.
Luke was not a follower of Jesus, he was a follower of Paul. Because some spurious stories about this Jesus were circulating, Luke interviewed people who claimed to have known the Jesus character. So the Gospel of Luke is nothing more than second hand stories from people who claimed to have know this Jesus.
Matthew makes no direct claim in his gospel to being an eyewitness and heavily plagiarised Mark...which an "eye-witness" wouldn't need to do.
Mark wrote down what Peter had told him about who Jesus was, what he did, where he went and what happened. Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, written down by Mark.
The Gospel of John was written c100-110 CE. Far to long after the events to have been written by an eye-witness.
Simple huh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But what is stranger is that history has often been created from myth. The Greek and Roman historians of the day such as Diordorus Siculus, Cicero and even Herodotus assumed that there must have been a historical basis for the myths. Some invented "historical" timelines for these people (that may not have even lived) or attempted to determine when they lived. This is called Euhemerism. Euhemerus, from whom the term is coined, believed that mythological accounts are a reflection of historical events; however, those mythological accounts are shaped retelling. 
