• sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    There exists documented proof in many bits of literature from around 200 BCE to around 100 CE of numerous different figures in what is called ‘Jewish Apocalypticism’, basically a small in number but persistent phenomenon of Jews in and around what was for most of that time the Roman province of Palestine, preaching that the end would come, that God or a Messiah would return or arise and basically liberate the region and install a Godly Kingdom, usually after or as part of other fantastical events.

    Jesus was one of many of these Jewish Apocalypticists. Much like the rest of the movement’s key figures, they were wrong, and their lives were greatly exaggerated in either their writings or writings about them or inspired by them.

    This seems to be the (extremely condensed) opinion of most Biblical Scholars.

    There are a very small number of modern Biblical Scholars that are ‘Mythicists’ of some kind, who believe that Jesus was completely fictional and wholly invented by certain people or groups.

    This is an unpopular view amongst scholars and historians of that time and region, as most believe it more plausible that Jesus was just another example of a radical Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, which again, was fairly common for roughly 300 years in that region.

    Its like how if you go to a big city theres always that one guy with a megaphone preaching imminent doom. 99% of people think this is silly and ignore them, but tons of people know that people like them exist and do have small followings.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      I’ve heard theories that key people probably had hallucinations of Jesus a few days after he was killed, which was the big thing that helped launch him from yet-another-apocalyptic-preacher to (eventually) God himself. I don’t know how well these are accepted, though.

      • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        This stems from the fact that, so far, the earliest dated written fragments we have from what is now the New Testament are some of the writings of Paul.

        Paul was not one of the Apostles, and it seems possible that, after persecuting earlier, existing Christians, he could have basically had a stress induced psychotic break and hallucinated the vision of Jesus that he had, then converted.

        Thing is though, Christians would have to … you know exist and already be a real thing first, for that to make sense.

        It does explain why Paul does not mention some very key elements of the narrative of the Gospels: He just had not actually read about or heard of those parts yet.

        This creates some theological problems down the line, and some of those problems were ‘remedied’ by what a good deal of scholars and historians believe to be forgeries… chapters of the Bible that modern Christians attribute to Paul, but do not seem to actually have been written by Paul.

        It is also possible to some of the empty tomb accounts in some of the Gospels as similar kinds of trauma induced hallucinations.

        Mark famously originally just ends with an empty tomb, and nobody said anything about this because they were scared… and then the last bit of verses giving Mark a more satisfying ending have been shown to be added … decades later.