Interesting. I would agree with some of what he says. However, I would also say that I believe he is totally off on many others.

K just run across this and don't have time to watch it all now.  The first few minutes (birth story according to Matthew) was interesting, but not new to me).    I'll try to catch the entirity later today.

 

I found this wonderful site a month or so ago...The man has a marvelous background, facility with languages...and a think box in high gear...with a wonderful latin expression "Question everything"

His conclusions, being pretty much what I had in mind, will displease some, but everyone will learn something.

This site, is a internet-justifier

And for those who share my entheusiasm, let me recommend the TED Lectures.

A store-house of wonderment, coming from 'leventy 'leven different directions--

My computer is a magical device beyond my science-fiction dreams. 

(And I don't even have an i pad.) )

 

Yes, interesting, but none of it is new to me. The Gospels are narratives, probably historical fiction, or what is known today as "faction": fiction based on historical facts.

 

Although there is scant, if any, objective scholarly evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus, I don't doubt that such a person existed. He probably became a legend already in his lifetime, the legend grew, elements of mythology were added to the legend after his death, and the mythologized legend was told and re-told many times before finally written down. Moreover, the written versions reflect not only the belief system of the authors and the religious groups to which they belonged, but were designed to appeal to a specific target audience.

 

To my thinking, Jesus Christ is an archetype. Like other archetypes, gods, and demi gods, he probably once was a real person who was later legendized and mythologized.

 

As with all archetypes, it is not Jesus' historicity that matters, but what Jesus the archetype stands for.

 

To me, the archetype Jesus Christ stands for cosmic unity, synthesis, unitive love, unitive awarenss, consciousness and conscience, and for acting radically, dynamically and directly from those.

 

What a great lecture!  I took time to listen to it all this afternoon.  Some of it I've heard before, as early as the 1960s when I was a young person in a Bible Study group at St. James in downtown Montreal - more many years later when I began taking courses sponsered by the UCC, and was able to attend some great seminars on Theological Education. 

 

I would like to see more of this type of scholarship reaching out from the pulpit on Sunday mornings.  I'd like to see more clergy and lay leadership attending lectures and seminars in continuing education, and bringing back what they learn to the people in the pews. 

 

A friend of mine attended a week long seminar with Borg as the key-note speaker.  It blew her mind.  When she got back home she asked her husband, a retired UCC minister, why she and the people she knew from the church had never heard this type of thing before. His reply was that for years clergy were trained to preach to a grade five level of education and understanding, and never cause anyone to question their faith.  Thankfully, I hope those days are past. 

 

Great lecture!   It's worth blocking off an hour to listen to. 

I've just read two more of the lectures:  on the gospel of John and the letters of John.  Since I have recently completed a Bible study of John's gospel, I found it quite interesting.

 

Thank you, Oui, for posting this site.  I'd like to see more discussion on the historical Jesus.    What do other people think of this lecture? 

 

It's an excellent video so far.  I've watched about half of it and look forward to hearing more comments from people who have watched the whole thing.

Thanks Oui.

This is another reason why I no longer see this man we refer to as "Jesus" as God, but only as "Son of God."

 

 

Bolt

 

 

 cf - what do you feel is "totally off" about his research?

 

HG - I too love the wealth of free material on this site!  The Darwin series is also fascinating.

 

You are right Arminius, however, I think many people have never been taught the basics about the NT, such as who wrote it, and just where did it come from?  I never thought about the trial passages the way he presents them, very good stuff.

 

Glad you like it seeler, ninjafaery and bolt!  Don't miss out on his other lectures in the series.

 

I think he is very careful to distinguish between researching this as a historian versus as a theologian.  I like that approach because it leaves lots of room for exploring new directions/discoveries as new material becomes available, and new ideas arise.  

 

 

Hi Oui-- I was waiting hopeing some one who could write better than I would answer.I listened to the tape.The man is an exlent  speaker an seems vary smart..When he said there would have been no Followers of Jesus in the trial  Areas.  As Peter was only in the outer courtyard Was not Pual a  Pharisees At this time? Would Nicodemus a Pharisee not been there? The trial with Pontius Pilate Would a  Roman officer had been there?Could it be the one peter was sent to? Many became Followers of Jesus, on the day of Pentecost alone there were  three thousand. A good talker as I said but I Believe some things were missed. Airclean33

airclean,

 

To answer some of your questions:

 

Paul never met the historical pre-Easter Jesus. He had a vision of Christ, post-Easter Jesus after Jesus' crucifixion.

 

Nicodemus, though recorded as talking to Jesus, saying that you cannot condemn someone without hearing them, and helping Joseph of Arimathea arrange to bury him.... is that enough to label him a follower during Jesus' lifetime? A Christian?

He was recorded as a fellow teacher and being curious about another teacher does not mean embracing what they are teaching or how.... does it? You can think they graduated the same college as you (sent by God) and think their lectures or experiments (sermons and miracles) are amazing without agreeing when someone says they said they were the college dean.

 

Nothing in canonized scripture says Nicodemus became a Christian or a follower of Jesus. It says he spoke to Jesus, said the Sanhedrin should obey their own rules, and permitted Jesus' body to be buried.

 

Now, if one knows the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees, one knows Pharisees believed already in the supernatural.... miracles, angels, demons and life after death.  It is often turned around the other way, like much of Pharisee/Sadducee knowledge or lack of it, but Pharisees believed this. (Christians actually have more in common with Pharisees than Sadducees). Jesus' beliefs did not always oppose theirs, he felt they had become highly ritualistic and legalistic.

 

Nothing in the gospels have Nicodemus seeing the Risen Christ or becoming a disciple.

 

It is non-canonized material and Christian tradition and the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has him venerated as a saint that has led to viewing Nicodemus as Christian. They have Nicodemus baptized, leaving the Sanhedrin and leaving Jerusalem. The gospels are silent and the BIble offers no record.

 

In fact, Nicodemus poses unique problems for Bible literalists, because the Sanhedrin (Nicodemus included) apparently did not have any clue whatsoever about this Bethlehem story surrounding Jesus. For all the people in Jerusalem, including leaders, to not know this man was born nearby lends credibility to scholarship that Matthew and Luke were compiled at a later date and created a story or editted one to make it more appealing or to make Jesus something he never claimed to be.

 

 

I believe that what is recorded in the Christian Scriptures/Newer Testament cannot be called a trial before Pilate. Procurators, praefects, governers (they all mean the same) did not have to hold trials, and definitely not on Jews. There was no doubt or illusion around who controlled Judea. The Sanhedrin had control of religious affairs only under authority of Rome.

 

The trial and release talk may be nothing more than blaiming Jews for Jesus' execution and pardoning the Romans. One can look simply at the fact that Pilate allowed or ordered or permitted a shoddy , illegal Sanhedrin trial- which is what Nicodemus said. The Sanhedrin should have not had night trials according to Jewish and Roman law. They should not have been private, but public (again according to Jewish and Roman law). There should have been witnesses (again required by Jewish and Roman law). So.... is Pilate the warm, fuzzy guy some Christians like to like? After all, the gospels were written right before, during or shortly after the Temple was destroyed around James the Just's martydom...  

 

Would a Roman officer have stood up to Pilate? If they had they would be dead and if all the people there supported Jesus' death and Jesus is then dead... who tells that Roman's story anyway?

Yes, Airclean, presuming that the trials did take place, there would have been witnesses.  Not the disciples and those closest to Jesus, but yes, Nichodemus and Paul are possible witnesses.   Also possibly Joseph of Armithea.  But we don't hear anything of Nichodemus or Joseph after that.  And it was many years later that we hear from Paul - although he certainly may have been present and later told people what he had seen and heard (and understood and remembered). 

 

What we can most likely assume is that none of the twelve disciples were present.  Nor Mary Magdalene, or Martha and Mary of Bethany, or Salome or any of the other women we associate most closely with Jesus.  Also it doesn't seem likely that any of the writers of the gospels were present.  So, at best, we have a second or third hand account. 

 

Stevie - I was posting at the same time as you were.  I am not so sure that Paul had never seen the pre-resurrection Jesus.  It seem to me that if he was a Pharasee (although a young one) living in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion that there is a good chance that he was present at some of the events although he may not have paid much attention to them. 

 

However, if he was present, he doesn't mention it in any of his writings - prefering to write to the churches about how to live a Christian life as followers of the living Christ, rather than dwelling on reports of Jesus life. 

 

So, as I see it, while there may have been witnesses to the events between Jesus arrest and his public execution, and they may have talked a bit about what they saw and heard, I think those bits of information would have had to travel from person to person for some time, and been interpreted, changed, expanded upon, before they were eventually written down in the gospels.

 

 

It is extremely unlikely that any trial took place. Only Roman citizens were protected by Roman law and had the right to a fair trial under Roman law. It think the trial of Jesus by Pilate was pure invention, and was slanted by the Gospel writers, who tried to distance themselves and their new religion from Judaism.

 

Global anti-semitism may well have had its beginnings in that ficticious trial. Maybe Franz Kafka named his novel "The Trial" after that fictitious trial that proved so devastatingly fateful for the Jewish people. 

 

Kafka's The Trial begins with these memorable lines: "Without having done anything wrong, Joseph K. was one day arrested." Because of the fictitious Jesus trial, the Jewish people were on continuous trial without having done anything wrong. In that fateful fictitious trial of 2,000 years ago, simply being Jewish had become wrong, and remained wrong.

Hi-Arminius  Matt-Mark- Luck -and John all say there was a trial in front of Pontius Pilate. One said pilates Wife wrote a letter asking her husband to have nothing to do with it. The death that Jesus died by was Roman. Not Jewish,  He would have been stoned.Because He was called King by those who would kill him.  The  Romans would have looked at it very close .After all this is what would destroy Rome the people bringing down there leader from within.This is how Rome would be destroyed.

Airclean33:

 

You're making conclusions based on suppositions drawn from conjecture.

 

It's always a dangerous practice, and certainly does not warrant the premise that "this is what happened".

Hi Witch -- That is your right witch. But unless you have other proof .Then it will be your conjecture.

Except that you are making the conjecture by positing that Jesus died at Roman hands, that they did so because there was a claim that Jesus was King, and that this concerned them.

 

You're basing all of this on writings which are not only unverifiable, but which contradict things which can be shown objectively.

 

So your attempt to turnabout the problems with your conjecture onto me is as ingenuous as it is purile.

 

How about answering for your own premises for once, rather than trying to shift the burden of proof onto others?

 

Except that Jesus' trial was anything but fair. And besides, according to the lecturer, because both Mark and John (Multiple Attestations, which is first on his list of crtieria) have Jesus before Pilate, it would lend itself to being historic.

Hi witch - may I suggest you watch the tape by professor Dale B. Martin. If you have not? Airclean33

I have.

 

What, exactly, is your point?

This does not meaningfully respond to what Witch had said.

 

Did you not read Witch's post? Why pretend to respond to its contents?

airclean,

 

We have this pesky problem. One is, the writers of the gospels, who they, in fact, were. Two, the discrepancies between them all.You are insisting there was a trail and using the Bible... you simply can't.

 

Like the birth narrative, we cannot simply merge them all. Authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke say Caiphas is where Jesus is taken. The author of John says Annas.

 

Jesus has a hearing. When? In front of whom? Authors of Matthew and Mark say it is Passover evening and Pilate in the am. Luke says Passover morn. John says the day before the Passover.

 

Trial? Authors of Mark and Matthew say the whole Sanhedrin. The author of Luke says there is no trial. The author of John says nothing official, Jesus just appears before Annas and Caiphas,

 

Then what? The author of Luke mentions Jesus being sent to Herod, but no other gospel does.

 

What can we say we know for sure, even using Scripture?

Seeler,

Thanks, what I meant is that we do not have in scripture Paul having ever met or seen Jesus other than post-Easter Jesus on the Damascus road. 

 

People assume that if Paul had met Jesus previous it would be in there.... tons did not make it in there.

 

Now, could Paul have been one of the nameless "Pharisees"? Yes. Would they have wanted it written down that Jesus called Paul a blind guide, or a hypocrite or a whitewashed tomb? I think it is highly unlikely they would have wanted that to explain to folks.

 

Could he have been someplace Jesus was? Yes and it would likely not be included in the story.

 

What is included we, to this day, still clean up or never clearly talk about much... Acts 26:4-10.

I would believe that if Paul did in fact have any contact with the man we call "Jesus" during His ministry, it would have been included.

 

This would constitute an incredible testimony, to say the least, would it not?

I mean, Paul's testimony is incredible to me as it is.

 

Bolt

Hi - Stevie G-I don't believe I said Paul ment Jesus well he was a pharasee. I do Believe Paul would have been privy to any thing that was said at the trial of Jesus, and anything Jesus would have said and would probaly  have past it on. As far as timing goes . The Jews start there day at sundown. The gentile  stars their day at 12-01 am or sunrise. You of course know this.So if a roman said it was the next day, to him it would be sunrise.This could be possible. I do not change the word of God to what I want . I try to understand what He is Saying. Airclean33

Two problems Airclean33.

 

1. You seem to have the idea that the "Pharisees" were like a handful of very powerful men. The pharisees were a denomination of Judeaism, kind of like Anglicans, or Methodists are for Christians. There were thousands of them in Jerusalem. Why would you suppose a low-ranking pharisee among thousands would be privy to Jesus trial? Remember, at the time of Jesus, Saul was a nobody. Even as late as the stoning of Stephen, all he was good for was the coat room attendant. It wasn't until after Stephen that Saul started making a name for himself.

 

2. The Roman day started at dusk, like pretty much the whole of Europe and the Middle East of the time. So your supposition of the reason for the time difference fails.

Bolt - of course no one knows, but I picture Paul at the time he wrote the first of the letters recorded in the Bible - perhaps 20 years after Jesus crucifixion.  Would he remember back to everything that he saw and heard when he was a teenager or young man in Jerusalem?  It was not unusual at that time for someone to claim to be the Messiah, or to have that claim made for them.  Nor was it unusual for a Jew to be executed on the mere suspicion that he might be plotting an uprising.  So, even if Paul were a young Pharisee in Jerusalem around the time, would he have taken any note of another claim about a Messiah - possibly a mock trial (probably not) - and an execution?  Would he be apt to remember it years later?  Not likely.

 

However, John and Mark contradict each other.  In John, Jesus has a whole discussion with Pilate, and in Mark Jesus refuses to speak.  So in a  historical context, having no bearing on theology, this part of the story will likely be rejected.

 Here is another excellent (and shorter) lecture in the series.  Its called "The New Testament as HIstory".  Remember, this is a history course, not a theology course.

 

 

 

Except that both Mark and John have Jesus standing before Pilate. So in a historical context, since we have multiple attestation (the first criterion), that part of the story should not be rejected. Do both accounts have to be exactly the same as each other in order to be historically valid? According to the lecturer, no (unless I am mistaken). As multiple attestation is the first and strongest criterion, the fact that both Mark and John (two independant sources), have Jesus standing before Pilate is a strong case for being historically valid. Just becuase Mark does not record what Jesus might have said does  not invalidate John, nor the historical validity of the trial. If one wishes to argue over the finer details, fine. But the fact remains that both Mark and John record that Jesus stood before Pilate.

 

 

 

Mark and John are not independant sources

 

According to the lecturer they are. He argues that Mark and John are independant of each other and that Matthew and Luke copied another source. Hence, according to the lecturer, we can use Mark and John to validate historical events in the life of Jesus because they are independant sources.

 

And, upon another veiwing, the lecturer does not use the qualifier "of each other" in regard to the independance of Mark and John. He simply states that Mark and John are independant sources.

I would agree with this. Not likely.

Not unusual at all, at that time no doubt.

 

Bolt

 

OK I see where you're coming from.

The common material in Mathew and Luke is called "Q".

Amazing how Star Trek turns up everywhere isn't it?

Hi Seeler-- Thank you I would think this to be the way it was . I am sorrey for not getting back sooner.Airclean33

( Making the connection) My fave character, one one of them anyway. An egoistic God with a limited view. Neat-o!

 

 

The opposite is true:  its amazing how often quotes from the Bible (or whole stories) show up in modern literature, music and movies.

 

Indeed. and from other sacred texts as well, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, Aboriginal, you name it, we use it.

 

We draw on our past to interpret our present and create our future

 

There's a known connection between Mormon beliefs and the Battlestar Galactica franchise. I'd be interested in knowing if the person who names "Q" (might have been Roddenberry) was making a conscious link to the NT source

Seems pretty close to what a lot of people try to turn the "biblical God" into.

Are both Jesus and God beyond history ... like myth that a mortal cannot assume ... because they generally do not accept anything bigger than self?

 

Thas humbling Gnoe ... a w'ired storm in the brae 'n?

 

You are what you experience and many do not allow any alien stuff intheir brae'nz ... ITZ a fixation ... ide'e!