The likely truth of the bible?

Question

Could the following be true:

1. Jesus was not, contrary to popular belief, a pale-skinned aryan with straight, golden hair and sapphire eyes. As a semitic peasant he would have been dark, slim and most likely unclean, or at the very least scruffy.

2. The bible lands during the early Iron Age were made up of many tribal families who, ethnography has proven, would have led hard lives and therefore also been heavy drinkers and drug users during rest periods (therefore explaining the visions oe Ezekiel and Revelation).

3. During his life Jesus was not viewed as a Messiah; he would have been a young Jewish troublemaker whom the Romans would have seen as little more than an annoyance.

4. If your friends wrote a book about you, you'd look pretty good too.

How far do you think this may be true HISTORICALLY, not THEOLOGICALLY? And yes, the frst point is made in jest.

I am not saying I agree with these points but would just like to hear your take.

Answer 1

Don't have a problem with point 1- doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, it's what he did that matters.
Point 2, I can't say I've studied this particular topic, but the visions of the prophets through the ages were startlingly similar, and how many drug users who have visions write them down and think they are true? The lives the prophets lived were not just vision after vision, they lived holy lives and were persecuted, strange to persecute someone who was simply having a bad trip, especially if everyone else was having a bad trip day.
Point 3, Jesus revealed his messiahship carefully because he knew the Jews were waiting for a different sort of Messiah (still are). He didn't come to bring down the Roman empire, or fight great battles to free the Jews, he came preaching love and peace and turning the other cheek. If the Romans didn't see him as a threat, so what? He didn't come to challenge roman rule.
Point 4, if my friends wrote a book about me I doubt they would claim any of the things about me that Jesus' followers claim about him. Jesus said he was the way the truth and the life, the only way to God, he did amazing miracles and his preaching and way of life was radical. I don't think the hard headed fishermen would have followed him, giving up their lives, if they didn't think it was true. And to die for something they knew was false seems pretty unreal to me.

Answer 2

"1. Jesus was not, contrary to popular belief, a pale-skinned aryan with straight, golden hair and sapphire eyes. As a semitic peasant he would have been dark, slim and most likely unclean, or at the very least scruffy. "

Pretty much correct. The likely unclean part? By today's standards maybe. But not by the standards of his community.

"2. The bible lands during the early Iron Age were made up of many tribal families who, ethnography has proven, would have led hard lives and therefore also been heavy drinkers and drug users during rest periods (therefore explaining the visions oe Ezekiel and Revelation). "

That could be part of it. However, Religious experience also leads to a lot of imagery if one is really deep into it. Revelation and Ezekiel also use literary forms common to the time to point out very specific things going on at the time. So I am not sure how much drugs played a role in these specific cases.

"3. During his life Jesus was not viewed as a Messiah; he would have been a young Jewish troublemaker whom the Romans would have seen as little more than an annoyance."

How do you know what he was viewed as? Seems he had followers that did view Him as the Messiah.

"4. If your friends wrote a book about you, you'd look pretty good too. "

That assumes the opposite is true: If I'm good and my friends write a book about me, it will end up looking bad. Why would a collection of favorable works written about you point to the idea that you are not a favorable person?

Matt

Answer 3

The biggest problem historically speaking with the idea that no one thought Jesus was the Messiah in his time is that no one could possibly have come up with the idea after his death. If there was one thing that automatically disqualified you from serious consideration as a would-be messiah, it was being executed by the foreign ruling powers a Davidic messiah was expected to defeat.

There is no need to posit drug use to account for the books of Ezekiel and Revelation. These are forms of literature. While there may have been some actual mystical experiences behind them, both these books are literary depictions of visions, and in particular Revelation was part of a category of literature that described visions allegedly had by earlier figures. No drug use was necessary to write such things, and the heavy symbolism is better accounted for in terms of the volatile nature of the message, which was heavily critical of the powers that be.

Your last point is obviously true - in the New Testament we only have the perspectives of those who viewed Jesus positively. There will soon be a book coming out entitled Who Do My Opponents Say That I Am? (to which I've contributed a chapter) which asks about the evidence we have for other perspectives on Jesus, from less friendly sources.

Answer 4

On your first point, I have said for a long time that the pictures we see of Jesus might not be too accurate. From the Bible, we know Jesus had a beard. However, being from the Middle East, you would think that he would be dark skinned.
On your second point, I am not denying that some where heavy drinkers. I really don't think drugs had anything to do with Ezekiel's or John's visions.
Because Jesus came from among the common people, they didn't see him as the Messiah. They were looking for someone that looked the part of a military general, not a carpernter's son. If they truly understood the book of Isaiah, they would've known what to look for. There are many prophecies about Jesus throughout that book.
I understand what you are saying in your last point. However, this was not some regular Joe. This was Jesus Christ.

Answer 5

Yes, I not only think that your premise has substance, there is actually biblical reference to the physical attributes of the 'Messiah'. I do not recall the exact piece, but I believe that in Isaiah there is a description that the person would be short, with a crooked back, malformed, of a dark and swarthy complexion, and would generally be despised for his appearance.

The 'Christian' churches would not of course have allowed such an image, it did not match up to Roman ideals of physical perfection, even the Greek 'God' Hephaestus, who had a gammy leg, and a consequent limp, got tidied up into Vulcan, a much more wholesome and 'godly' image, for the Roman pantheon.

Who the model for 'Jesus' was, Yashua bin Yusef, was pretty much as you say, from the Roman perspective. Ironically the Monty Python team's 'Life of Brian' portrayed quite accurately the scene in Palestine of the period, with 'Messiahs' popping up at every street corner. There were three claimants to the title out of the same family, Yashua, his younger brother Y'acov ( James the Just ), and his cousin John the Baptist. It is widely thought that the biblical 'Jesus' is, in fact, a composite of all three. Interestingly there is sect in Yemen that survives right up until today that believe that they are the true followers of John the B., and they are called 'Nasoreans', which means 'Little Fish'.

Truth is often stranger than fiction. ;-)

Answer 6

Absolutely! All that you have said might be true. However, as a Christian, I believe that those are not true. The odds are better that Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies in the OT and was the true Messiah, than the odds that we are the result of a happy accident involving a galaxy sized bowl of primordial soup.

Bottom line; if I'm wrong, when I die, I've spent my life following a belief that has satisfied me and sustained me through hardship and tribulation never knowing that I was wrong because I will simply cease to be. If you're wrong, assuming your not a follower, you'll spend an eternity in pain and suffering wishing you had taken the chance to be great in the eyes of God.

Answer 7

1 - you're right, nice 'joke'. He was as oive-skinned as any other Jew of his time...

2- Not sure that holds historically. That excuses such behavior just because someone has a "hard" life. If they knew nothing different, why would they see it as hard? But even this doesn't fully explain the visions.

3- He was regarded as the Messiah by a large group of people. The Romans and Jewish leaders may not have, but there was a large group who did view him that way.

4- But you fail to mention the references to potentially embarrassing information (like the women finding the tomb empty, and shepherds heralding the birth of Christ), proving that they gospel writers were trying to be as true to the actual events as they could possibly be.

Needless to say, I don't think your arguments go very far historically - let alone the theological ramifications.

Answer 8

Jesus main issue was that the poor the sick the crippled and the deformed were excluded from mainstream society and religion not unlike some parts of the world today.He was in fact one of the first Socialists. And yes he was from a Semitic people just emerging from a nomadic lifestyle to a settled town dwelling life. that is how the human race progresses

Answer 9

Ethnography is theory and not fact like all psychological and sociological studies.

If you want historical fact on what happen then read what the romans wrote. They documented everything, even what happened to Jesus.

Another point is, Christians get their strength from having faith not facts.

Answer 10

1. I've always thought its a bit weird jesus is portrayed as pale skinned because he would have at least had a bit of a tan from the part of the world.

2. Possibly

3. doesnt it say that the romans thought that anyway?

4. yup