---
title: Jesus FAQ
date: 2011-12-13
techne: :incomplete
episteme: :believed
---

Introduction
============

I'm totally biased.

## Higher Criticism

aka Historical Criticism

First rule of Higher Criticism: anything that survived in writing must have
served someone's purpose.[^writing] Because writing was so expensive and
time-consuming, no-one would've written anything down unless they saw a use in
it. Thus, there are no quotes or stories in any text unless someone *wanted*
them there.

[^writing]: This rule stops being true once we reach the modern times with
    ubiquitous writing. It's so cheap to document stuff now that we get a lot of
    unintentional or at least un-edited text.

## Conventions

I'm sticking to a few rules in this overview (and the rest of my writing).

1. Whenever I use a name, I'll stick to the most common English version, but
give original version the first time I mention them. There are a few exceptions.
Some characters vary dramatically depending on the community, so to untangle
them I'll use different names for different versions, either by using an obvious
alias (Chrestos for the Marcionite Jesus) or by using fanfic tags
(catholic!Jesus). 

2. Texts are always linked in both original and translated versions. If it's
unclear what the original language was, I'll mention all plausible candidates.

3. I often give probability estimates that reflect my own certainty in a
particular belief, like so: "(muflax: 50%)". I sometimes also give them for other
writers, but then typically without numerical estimates.

4. A "myth" is any kind of story, true or not. "Fiction" is not true, and
obvious as such to the reader. A person is "mythological" if it appears in myths
and "historical" if there is evidence to attest their existence outside of myth.
Someone can be both at the same time: [Adolf Hitler][] is historical, but
[Jetpack Hitler][] is mythological.

Dramatis personae
=================

Who are all these people?

TODO: Stammbaum

The groupings are a bit arbitrary and overlap somewhat, but I think they make
the most sense this way. I've ordered them roughly by importance, but that's not
a value judgment. I totally like Longinus too.

Prophets
--------

### Jesus

- Joshua (a jewish prophet)
- Yeshu (an evil prophet)
- the Son of God
- Christus (the messiah)
- Chrestos (the Marcionite version)
- Isa (the ascetic)

I'll use "Jesus" as a collective name for all these persons and otherwise use
the relevant specific version. This might be a bit confusing at first, but I do
this to separate the traditions and make it easier to see just how messed up the
modern myth is.

### John the Baptist

aka John the Baptizer

### James the Just

Apostles
--------

### Paul

- Paulus, St. Paul
- Saul of Tarsus, Saulus 
- Simon Magus
- 

### Peter

aka Simon Peter, St. Peter, Petrus

I'll typically just

### Judas Iscariot

aka Judas the False One

Church Fathers
--------------

(And "fathers?" No women? Well, honestly, not really. There is exactly one and
she is mythological.)
    
### Marcion

### Augustine of Hippo

Historians
----------

### Josephus

Others
------

### Herod


# Historicity

*But maybe there's a historical Jesus all the mythological accounts are based on?* 

I don't think so. (muflax: 70%) You may be able to reconstruct some plausible
minimalistic accounts, or reduce him to some other figure like Siddhattha
Gotama, but I think both of these approaches miss the point. Back in the old
Soviet Union, people told this Radio Yerevan joke:

> The Armenian Radio was asked: Is it true that Ivan Ivanovich from Moscow won a
> car in the lottery?
>
> The Armenian Radio answered: In principle yes, but it wasn't Ivan Ivanovich
> but Aleksander Aleksandrovich, he isn't from Moscow but from Odessa, it was
> not a car but a bicycle, and he didn't win it, but it was stolen from him.
> Everything else is correct.

At some point you just have to let go and say "he isn't real".