How many Joseph Smiths?

[Swatopluk]

On alternet.org the comment threads on almost all religious topics tend to devolve into a debate between those that see Jesus as the Christ and Saviour and those that deny that Jesus ever existed as a historical person.
By now I tend to put a more or less standard comment there:

The problem is that we know of several (minimum 7) rabbis by the name of Jesus active at the time in Palestine. The 'real' one could have been any or none of those. Jesus/Joshua was and is a very common Jewish name and so is Joseph. So the uqestion is less "was there a rabbi Jesus?" but "which rabbi Jesus?". The question whether the biblical one had much in common with a flesh and blood one is secondary. I assume that at the time Mormonism was founded there were several other Joseph Smiths in the US that dabbled in religion (as preachers/ministers/etc.) given that a) the US are a big country with lots of people (more than Roman time Palestine) and b) both Joseph as a given name and Smith as a family name are extremloy common and c) the US went through a number of religious awakenings boosting the number of dabblers in religion beyond the normal level of other countries. It would therefore imo be highly unlikely, if there was no other Joseph Smith 'doing' religion.
Many consider Mormonism as a silly/fake religion (like scientology) because we know so much (including hard facts!) about the founder and he looks rather fishy. Christianity on the other hand is based on second-hand accounts of a guy who lived 2000 years ago with lots of people and lots of time to distort any truth or hard facts. Provided there is still someone around to discuss Mormonism in 2000 years, will the situation look similar? Will the historicity of Joseph Smith be doubted because all sources are tainted or lost? And will it be difficult to find the 'real' Joseph Smith among the others I assume existed at the time?

Discuss! 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Clearly, Joseph Smith is a myth!

Frankly I doubt the historical references of this age will be completely lost even if there is a global catastrophe that wipes out 95% of everything, now we have large forms of information distributed all around the globe and as times go by the more sophisticated and reliable those will be. OTOH, historical accounts 2k years ago, were by definition rare and sketchy, only a few lettered guys (not that many gals on the business I'm afraid) who among their duties included chronicles that 95% of the time came from 3rd party sources and with a significant delay.
===
As for the historicity of JC, chances are that some of the tales belong to one or more of the Joshuas in question, but I seriously doubt that there was one of them that actually fits the general description, even removing the obvious mythical parts. To me it will remain as the best creation of one Saul of Tarsus, enriched later by his disciples. 

[Aggie]

Surely the South Park episode on Mormonism will survive? 


==
Reading the Gospels, I'm actually surprised at what a narrow slice of (potentially) one man's life has been used as the basis for the faith.  I tend to view the Christmas story as something that was tacked on later to increase the mystique of Jesus.  There's one reference to Jesus at 12 years old, but otherwise nothing detailing his life until about 30. The actual ministry of Jesus appears to be quite short compared to similar figures.  This fits with the composite theory, could imply that he did some things as a young man that were inconvenient to the Church and thus were excluded, or may imply that he travelled during his youth and was exposed to other belief systems.

IMHO, it actually suggests that Jesus was not an entirely fictional character; I suspect if it was all made up there'd be tales of his wonders throughout his entire life.

[Griffin NoName]

Reading the Gospels, I'm actually surprised at what a narrow slice of (potentially) one man's life has been used as the basis for the faith.  

I've always thought he existed with a narrow band of followers. But yes, very odd that anything based on it. There were obviously others, wandering around too, similar bands with different leaders, so why single one out? wish we knew why it grew and grew.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

IMHO, it actually suggests that Jesus was not an entirely fictional character; I suspect if it was all made up there'd be tales of his wonders throughout his entire life.

Probably not, but then again if we have a composite of the many Joshuas there is no way to tell much about the rest of their lives. I imagine that one made the speech in the mount and then others started to tell stories that could belong to other Joshuas, soon the stories were compiled, and from the many tales those that strengthened the desired narrative were included and the rest removed. The stories have a ring of truth but likely don't belong to the same person. It might even help the narrative, for instance, to my knowledge about four Joshuas were crucified at the time. One of them may have been a rabbi but other Joshuas likely survived, so when one says 'he was crucified' and other says 'but he was seen with his followers after' they are telling the truth only about different people. Add the fact that the first written relation comes from Saul of T. but doesn't include most of the details that appeared later in the gospels, exactly as a work in progress. Better yet, if you only have little bits and pieces about a real man and send to look for more details 50+ years after the fact, the tales you will hear will be mixed with gossip and exaggeration added to the confusion of many guys with the same name doing fundamentally the same thing.

I bet if we found out what the guy who said the sermon of the mount did before and after, it would be very, very different from what the gospels say.

[pieces o nine]

As a lifelong afficionado of Arthurian/Grail Quest stories, I would add here that there seems to have been more than one Merlin, as well...   

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

To me, the biggest proof that if Jesus was an actual historical figure, he was certainly not divine in any way shape or form, is the utter lack of anything written by his hand.

Think about that, for a bit:  presume that Jesus was real, and a god.  And presume that, if he did not possess actual omniscience, he at least had the divine wisdom to make predictions about the future with some degree of accuracy.

Knowing that, and knowing, to a god-level of 'knowing' the nature of human behavior...

.. but to >>not<< leave behind some clear, unambiguous instructions is... unconscionable.

Just think:  to a god/deity who could transmute water into wine, making indelible plates that would outlast human ability to destroy or deface them would've been a cake-walk.

All he'd have needed was something with a melting temperature higher than what those primitive humans could do, like platinum or some alloy of that family.  

Even better:  make the plaque 100 feet high, and surround it with an electrified fence, and leave careful instructions that if you touch the fence, you'll die-- power the fence with plutonium-- a metal that could not exist naturally by the time he showed up.

Put the instructions in all the known languages of the world, one after the other, to ensure it's meaning would never be lost.

By the time humans learned how to get to it, and mess it up?  It'd be too late-- the word of it's monumental divinity would be unquestioned, and it'd be unlikely anyone would try-- but even if they did, the message would be spread world-wide, all but impossible to eradicate from the cultures it had encompassed.

You'd think this small and simple thing would be the least an actual deity could do for the subsequent generations...

.. and think of a world with but one, single, unified religion...



Think of all the wars that wouldn't have been fought...

.... but that didn't happen, did it?

A rather serious oversight... if there be a genuinely caring deity.

But that's just my 3 pence worth; with 97 cents more, you can get a crappy cuppa joe at your local quicky-mart....

[Swatopluk]

The traditional argument against this is that it would remove human freedom of decision. Such actions would remove one essential of faith, i.e. the blind belief in something that exists while lacking unambiguous proof.
It was also the devil's offer in his temptation of Christ, if one beliefs the gospel. The essence of that story is that the Christ could essentially force humans to believe in him, which he rejected (to the chagrin of Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor).

My personal opinion: yes, there was a rabbi Jesus that teached something similar to that what can be found in the synoptic gospels and may have believed that he was on a personal mission from God. But I do not believe that he was superhuman/divine/whatever. It has been said that he was turned from a good person (rare) into a bad god (lots of those around).

[Aggie]

To me, the biggest proof that if Jesus was an actual historical figure, he was certainly not divine in any way shape or form, is the utter lack of anything written by his hand.

Think about that, for a bit:  presume that Jesus was real, and a god.  And presume that, if he did not possess actual omniscience, he at least had the divine wisdom to make predictions about the future with some degree of accuracy.

That's awfully presumptuous, IMHO, regarding the nature of god. _{not to pick at you specifically; it's one of my chief discomforts with the 'new atheist' line of reasoning}  Personally, I prefer not to presume that god actually gives a flying crap about human custom (including religious custom) or 'proving' divinity. Mind you, I'm a bit of an odd duck in regards to my concept of god.   For that matter, an omniscient god would probably also have the foresight to realize that divinely derived sets of instructions tend to become idols themselves, and that any irrefutable proof of divine authority would provide an even greater excuse for power-hungry people to carry out violence, cruelty and depravity in the name of divinity against those who didn't believe. Even with a common starting artifact and message (the Bible), there's plenty of violence carried out between Christian sects in the name of God.

On the 'divinity' of Jesus, my personal view is perhaps compatible with a very liberal Christian interpretation. I am of the opinion that it's possible there was a historical Jesus who was a spiritually talented man (comparable to Siddhārtha Gautama) and very much in touch with god/enlightened/however one wishes to phrase this. _{I'm presuming with this line of thinking that there's some phenomenon that one can be in touch with.. ymmv} I see some support for this in the account of Jesus's death given in Matthew and Mark, in which the near-death Jesus cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?".  To me, this speaks of a human being who has lost grasp of his ability to keep his mind on god, and let 'enlightenment' slip in his last moments. In light of this, I don't see much to quibble with in Jesus speaking as God, from his perspective.

I personally see no necessity of a divine origin or a literal incarnation of God. I'm not studied on the then-contemporary Jewish views of the Messiah, so I cannot comment if these elements would have been expected to be present, or were made up later to help propagate the new cult.  I admittedly take a rather dim view of miracles in the New Testament; while these accounts were almost certainly held up as 'proofs' of divinity in (and well beyond) the early years of Christianity, they are discrediting in this day and age.

[The Meromorph]

As a lifelong afficionado of Arthurian/Grail Quest stories, I would add here that there seems to have been more than one Merlin, as well...   

'tis my 'belief' or 'memory' that 'Merlin' is a title/position/job rather than a personal name. 'Merlin of Britain' would only have been one person at any one time...
I should point out that an 'official position' is somewhat different from multiple occurences of a common personal name... 

[pieces o nine]

^ True dat.

But have you ever seen an Arthurian drama of any calibre which referred to "the current Merlin of Britain"? The general public conflates the whole pile of Merlins into one miracle-working legend.

In a similar, if more current, vein the continual sightings of Elvis in far-flung locations is not the evidence of multiple Elvi (on this plane or any other) but PROOF! of the ineffable, apotheosized King.

[The Meromorph]

^ True dat.

But have you ever seen an Arthurian drama of any calibre which referred to "the current Merlin of Britain"? The general public conflates the whole pile of Merlins into one miracle-working legend.

"The Mists of Avalon"

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Personally, I prefer not to presume that god actually gives a flying crap about human custom (including religious custom) or 'proving' divinity.

That's fine, if gods don't give a flying crap about anything with regards to human activity, including any possible fate we may experience after we die.

And if that is true, then they likely don't give a crap if we lowly humans even bother to acknowledge they even exist, let alone would they care if we bowed and demeaned ourselves with worship.

And such deities may as well not exist, from our lowly perspective.  What would be the point?

On the other hand?

If there are consequences for believing in this deity versus not-believing?  Any kind of consequences, no matter how small?

Then... they most certainly do have an obligation to make clear what they want from us.

Do do otherwise, would be tantamount to deliberately obfuscating the requirements, such that most folk fail to meet the conditions.

And that would be... immoral.  

So, I hardly think it's presumptuous; fealty must flow both ways, or else it's just tyranny.  

Exactly like the ant bully is tyranny-- only the ant bully, at least, did not specifically create the ants so he could burn them with a glass..

[Aggie]

On the other hand?

If there are consequences for believing in this deity versus not-believing?  Any kind of consequences, no matter how small?

Then... they most certainly do have an obligation to make clear what they want from us.

Ayuh.  I don't hold much truck with the idea that we are obligated to believe, personally.

That's fine, if gods don't give a flying crap about anything with regards to human activity, including any possible fate we may experience after we die.

And if that is true, then they likely don't give a crap if we lowly humans even bother to acknowledge they even exist, let alone would they care if we bowed and demeaned ourselves with worship.

And such deities may as well not exist, from our lowly perspective.  What would be the point?

Does a river give a flying crap about whether I acknowledge that it exists? I wouldn't suppose so.  That doesn't mean there's no point drinking from it if I'm thirsty.

I'm not implying that this sort of thing is remotely a necessity in the way that water is...  but if there's something out there to experience, I would like to explore it to see if it will be positive influence in my life.  I can't say anything significant at the moment than to acknowledge that the exploration so far has been a largely positive experience.

Gods that beg for attention and self-debasement just seem too....  human for my tastes.

If there's any carryover of the Self from this life, my philosophical stance is that whatever may come is a natural process and our squabbily little paths of action and opinion will have little bearing on the outcome.  Religious beliefs, really, are nothing more than opinions... a repeatedly reinforced neural network. Any god that is going to exert will to punish a creature for 'bad' connections in the brain - a physical condition most often caused by exposure to environmental factors - may as well not exist, from my lowly perspective.  

Perhaps there is something in spiritual practice that has a larger effect in metaphysical terms, but I'm rather more interested in the effects on the act of living and approaching the world. If I'm less anxious and upset, and my conduct towards others is taddier, it's a worthwhile thing. If I am able to find more meaning in my life and understand my place in the world better, it's a worthwhile thing. That seems more to the point of the exercise, not saving my eternal arse from an infernal whupping.

 

[pieces o nine]

"The Mists of Avalon"

I forgot that one.     

And if that is true, then they likely don't give a crap if we lowly humans even bother to acknowledge they even exist, let alone would they care if we bowed and demeaned ourselves with worship.

In one of Sherri Tepper's books the protagonist meets god. He knows her, but not her name. She challenges him on how he can claim to know her; he responds that he 'made' her and thus 'knows' her but, "I did not know you called yourself Margery." I liked that.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

On the other hand?

If there are consequences for believing in this deity versus not-believing?  Any kind of consequences, no matter how small?

Then... they most certainly do have an obligation to make clear what they want from us.

Ayuh.  I don't hold much truck with the idea that we are obligated to believe, personally.

Oh, me neither.   And I rather liked your river analogy-- does the river know or care that we may slake our thirst from it's waters?



Or appreciate the beauty of the canyon it has so patently carved over millennia?  Unlikely.

But our appreciation for the river's gifts does not make the river sentient or spiritual or magical...

... apart from any of these that may be created from within our own minds ... of course.



Sometimes metaphysical is that which we clever self-aware beings have fabricated out of the ordinary, the mundane, into a tapestry of mystery and imagination:  only existing in the imaginary realm of our own inner visions--

-- which some even more cleverer (_{is that even a word?} ) are able to impart to others with mere words in a row...

Whereas I do not, on one had, believe there is some sort of mystical "out there" entities (such as fairies, gods, intentional-bumps-in-the-night-beings), on the other had I fully recognize that within the realm of the imagination?  There certainly do exist dragons, and fairy queens, and invisible pink unicorns, and wish-granting, and the occasional rescue of the orphaned child into a realm where she or he is a long-lost king or queen (_{depending on their individual proclivities-- why couldn't a girl become king in imagination-land?  Especially since boys regularly become queens even in real life...} ).

These realms can be easily as profound, nay, more profound than that humble river carving out the canyon-- for one day, the river may be damed up, it may be diverted, it may become polluted.

But the art that is fiction?  That flows from clever monkeys' imaginations?   That may well live forever*-- for we clever monkeys have even beamed some of this into the outer darkness.  Unwittingly, of course.

Okay, that's my 3 and a half cents worth...

__________

_{* well... not exactly forever, as eventually the universe will wind down one way or another.  Or else some greater force--perhaps from some supra-universe? -- may interefere and cause it to collapse back on itself.  Just like some clever monkeys who work in really clever monkey-laboratories, have surmised is what caused the current rapid expansive state to begin.  But 'forever' in the sense of the life-scale within the universe itself, in that life began in our neck of the woods roughly 4 billion years ago-- and to a clever monkey who's average lifespan is measured in microscopic fractions of that, 'forever' could be considered anything of a similar timespan.}

[Aggie]

Great post!



I've posted a reply over in Snark and Rant....  because it's a bit of a rant, and a bit long for this thread. 

[Roland Deschain]

Great thread with a nice evolution. I'll stick my nose in here and give my thoughts:-

I do not believe in the existence of any god(s). The nearest I would ever get to our race being created is in an alien race, who evolved through natural selection, influencing our evolution some time in the past, kind of like 2001: A Space Odyssey. The nearest i'll ever come to believing that a being created our universe is that this being also evolved through natural selection, developed/evolved to the stage where their power was large enough to create universes, created one, then left it alone. We may one day have the power to do either ourselves, and hence become "like gods". I find the idea of a personal god to be somewhat elitist.

The make-up of the human mind is such that we feel the need to anthropomorphise everything, from plants to animals to the sun, and this is evident wherever you go, and whatever your culture. The god of the Bible is very much a human one, showing fear, jealousy, love, hate, etc, as is plain to see if you read it in any depth. People have always wanted to know "why", and without the scientific means to answer this question, we turn to an otherworldly being to explain this.

As to the historicity of Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua/Joseph/whatever name he may or may not have had, I believe that these teachings came from somewhere. Obviously they had to come from someone originally, and I will echo what many in this thread have said, and conclude that the gospels most likely came from many sources, and people embellished them over time. Look at how people innocently embellish things now, and for the reason that they are trying to help out, and think how much more that may have gone on in the past.

Then we come to the arbitrary books in the Bible, and how they were cherry-picked at the council of Nicea. The creation of the Roman Catholic Church was a political and philosophical manoeuvre, and not strictly a religious one. The story had to be reasonably familiar to the Roman people, who were used to many gods with many aspects, so a trinity was a nice compromise, not to mention omitting anything which questioned the divinity of Jesus. There were a large number of gospels floating around, many of which belonged to the Gnostics. Some of them were so esoteric as to be worthy of the base beliefs of the Mormons or the Scientologists (Jesus as an alien, or aliens bringing us here as slaves, etc), and some had Jesus performing miracles as a child and being very mischievous (like killing other kids). It's no wonder most didn't make it into canon, as they were frankly considered too bizarre for most people to accept, or gave over the "wrong" impression of Jesus. I come once again to people thinking that they're "doing the right thing" by embellishing stories to prove their authenticity, but who just end up causing issues hundreds or thousands of years down the line.

How much more different would Christianity have been if a slightly different set of books were included? And why weren't more books/letters from Peter included, considering he was the first bishop of Rome (Pope)? I think the Gospel of Peter was one of the ones which questioned the divinity of Jesus, so its authenticity was called into question (nothing new in that attitude).

Judaism has survived because it is very insular, and traditionally promotes a strong sense of "in-crowd" membership, where once you join, you are automatically "one of them". Islam has survived for similar reasons, but also through war and the occupation of foreign lands. Although proselytising isn't a requirement, it is a given when invading another country to occupy, dependent upon the local religions. Apostasy being a punishable offence is also a strong reason to stay within the religion once you are there. With Christianity, it has a little of both of the above. It was virtually forced upon the Roman people by decree of the Emperor, but done in such a way that it was like giving up all the other gods for just one (or three) instead of taking them away altogether, but we mustn't forget the way Christianity was integrated with the different forms of Paganism throughout the Roman Empire at the time, so that it once again wasn't too much of a change. Christianity was also forced upon people in bloody ways from time to time.

Saying this, any religion will change over time, and in 2,000 years, maybe one like Mormonism will be in the same situation that Christianity is today. Who knows? As to the question of records, have you seen the depth of truth distortion on the internet? What if opinion pieces are the only things that survive to that time, and these same opinion pieces are pro-Joseph Smith or anti-Joseph Smith? What a huge difference that will make, not to mention if a site such as The Onion or its ilk were to survive in its entirety with no contextual basis existing alongside it!