The Historical Jesus II

[maximara]

The good thing about the book is that Carrier acknowledges openly that the same methodology he employs to defend mythicism (Bayesianism) could very well give the opposite result* The bad thing is that he is not yet prepared to accept that Bayesianism may just not be applicable in the case of Jesus studies where "probabilities are small, data is low quality, possible reference classes abound, and statements are vague".

Finally it's not a rocket science to see that if one agrees that Paul talks about an earthly Jesus and that there is a weak connection with other mythical heroes (it's common sense I'd say, no need of tortuous, ad hoc, auxiliary hypotheses to explain away) then Bayesianism gives the obvious conclusion that Jesus actually existed. But then people arrive at opposite conclusions based on the same set of data, no improvement over the criterions of authenticity. Either Bayesianism cannot make a difference or if it does then one of the approaches is wrong.

Let me believe that if the latter is the case then Carrier is on the 'wrong branch' (given the numerous 'epicycles' one needs to add to explain away some crucial direct evidence for an earthly Jesus). Overall I really doubt he can tilt the balance toward mythicism in secular Academia (completely unpersuasive for me his lectures, see youtube).

I read over those numerous 'epicycles' and using the John Frum cargo cult as a baseline I find some fo them wanting.

(1) Evidence of other Christians with different conceptions of Jesus.

Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177 goes over the early history of the John Frum and we see a similar variance of conceptions of John Frum so this arguments dies.

(2) How did a heavenly Jesus acquire this title of Christos?

One of the strange things about Acts is in all copies we have until c 450 (Codex Alexandrinus) used the term Chrestians but use Christos to describe Jesus himself. But if the former is derived from the later how do they spell it right with the title but not with the derivative?

In fact, early Christian authorities like Tertullian went to great pains in explaining that Christian and Chrestian were two different words with entirely different meanings and were not variants of each other. But this begs the question of why does Acts itself use Chrestian until c450?

One variant of the Tacitus letter bouncing around the internet used by Pro historical Jesus people is "This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Chrestus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius." and we know that the oldest copy was tampered with--Christians was originally Chrestians.

In PGM IV. 3007-86 we read about "Jesus Chrestos, the Holy Spirit, the Son of the Father" Twelftree in his In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians states "Although it is generally agreed that this papyrus dates from the fourth century CE, its contents are more likely to come from the second century CE."

So was Paul's Jesus actual title Chrestos (a very common title going back to 5th century BCE) and latter copyists "fixed" the error making it Christos?

(3) James is attested as brother of Jesus in other sources apart from Gal. 1:18–19

In a variant of the John Frum cult c1957 John Frum acquired Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as a brother...even though he only has sisters. NEXT.

(4) The imminent apocalypticism of Paul

This doesn't mean anything. The Gospels which most scholars put 70-100 talk about an "imminent" apocalypse. Heck today some 2000 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified you get people claiming THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH, REPENT. Rendering this a nonsensical argument.

(5) 1 Corinthians 2:8: Jesus killed by “rulers of this age”

And what prey tell is meant "this age"? The age of the Roman Empire? The age of crazy Emperors like Nero (ie no earlier then 54 CE)? Paul never specifies what time frame is "this age". So another non argument.

(6) A crucial passage is Philippians 2.6–8

John Frum being a brother of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh must have been born...sheesh. NEXT.


As the above shows the "arguments" are rubbish.

 

[maximara]

The problem is that in dejudge's scenario, the whole thing was invented in the second to fourth centuries - The epistles, the early church historians with all their factionalism and in-fighting were all the product of some unnamed "Hoax Forgers".

If that is the case, they wouldn't have needed to include the Romans at all in the death of Jesus. They could just as well have him strangled by the High Priest on the Temple steps, if they really invented it all from scratch to blame "The Jews".

Which is why I don't take any stock in the mammoth Hoax Forger idea. The Cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular show you don't need "Hoax Forgers" running around to create a religious cult whose founder (it they had one) might as well be the Man Who Wasn't There.

 

[maximara]

Pakeha,

You are curious why the Romans even get involved if we are looking at a narrative construction.
The reasoning has to do with Law.

The Sanhedrin could not assemble in the absence of the Procurator of Judea, and a trial for the Death penalty could not be assigned without that gathering for conviction.

Except that is exactly what the Gospel account has happen.

The Sanhedrin assembles in the absence of the Procurator of Judea and has a trial for the Death penalty and afterword we have them bring Jesus in front of Pontius Pilate and the Jewish mob.

As I said before another interesting hiccup is the name of the man supposedly released by the mob: Jesus Barabbas. "The name “Barabbas” is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic “bar Abba” which means “son of the Father.” Thus “Jesus Barabbas” originally meant “Jesus the son of the Father;” in other words, the usual Christian Jesus.

So the Gospels have Pontius Pilate doing the equivalent magician's trick where they give you the illusion of a choice...and not follow through on it.

Here is how that should have gone down:

Pontius Pilate: I will release your King or Jesus Barabbas

Jewish Mob: We choose Jesus Barabbas

Pontius Pilate promptly releases Jesus of Nazareth

Jewish priests and mob: What in the name of Sheol just happened?!?

Pontius Pilate: Hmm? You do realize “Barabbas” is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic “bar Abba” which means “son of the Father.” which Jesus claims he is. Am I not totally brilliant?

Jewish priests and mob: then then then finally WHAT?!?

Pontius Pilate: Oh you didn't like my intelligent solution to your idea that you can dictate to Rome as how we run our affairs? Sigh. I guess we do this the usual way. Guards. (and then the killing of the mob begins)

Both trial accounts in the Gospels are blatant fictions.

 

[Brainache]

Which is why I don't take any stock in the mammoth Hoax Forger idea. The Cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular show you don't need "Hoax Forgers" running around to create a religious cult whose founder (it they had one) might as well be the Man Who Wasn't There.

But don't forget that according to Josephus, from about the time of the census of Quirinius up until the revolt against Rome there were lots of "Innovators" and "Deceivers" following the "Star Prophecy" and being proclaimed "Messiah" by their followers, so it isn't that unlikely that one of them could have been the one who formed the basis of the Jesus stories that became the Gospels.

I don't see why anyone would need to invent an entirely fictional Jesus, given that there were plenty of real ones to choose from.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I don't see why anyone would need to invent an entirely fictional Jesus, given that there were plenty of real ones to choose from.

Exactly. Just like the numerous documents we have referring to itinerant felons with names like 'Robbehod' in 13th century England allow us to confidently assert that Robin Hood, Maid Marion, Little John, Will Scarlett and Friar Tuck were all historical figures.

Or could it be that someone took a well known stereotype of the time, attached a good sounding fictitious name to it ('Jesus of Nazareth') and invented the whole story from scratch? No, that would be deceptive - and we all know that back then people always wrote the truth!

 

[maximara]

But don't forget that according to Josephus, from about the time of the census of Quirinius up until the revolt against Rome there were lots of "Innovators" and "Deceivers" following the "Star Prophecy" and being proclaimed "Messiah" by their followers, so it isn't that unlikely that one of them could have been the one who formed the basis of the Jesus stories that became the Gospels.

I don't see why anyone would need to invent an entirely fictional Jesus, given that there were plenty of real ones to choose from.

Actually Josephus gives use three that predate the census of Quirinius: Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE), Matthias, son of Margalothus (during time of Herod the Great), and Athronges (c 3 CE) so the census of Quirinius is more of a trigger to cause more of these guys to come out of the woodwork.

The problem is if it was one of these "Innovators" and "Deceivers" then their name wasn't "Jesus" and it brings us to John Roberson's 1900 defintion of CHrist Myth: "the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels"

 

[dejudge]

But don't forget that according to Josephus, from about the time of the census of Quirinius up until the revolt against Rome there were lots of "Innovators" and "Deceivers" following the "Star Prophecy" and being proclaimed "Messiah" by their followers, so it isn't that unlikely that one of them could have been the one who formed the basis of the Jesus stories that became the Gospels.

I don't see why anyone would need to invent an entirely fictional Jesus, given that there were plenty of real ones to choose from.

I don't see why anyone would think the stories in the NT about Jesus are historical accounts.

The authors clearly show that they were writing Myth Fables when they stated Jesus was the Son of a God born of a Ghost and God Creator, that he was with Satan the Devil on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, that he walked for MILES on the sea, instantly transfigured, resurrected on the THIRD day after he was buried, ate food and then ascended in a cloud.

If Jesus was a Myth would they not have written the stories in the NT?

What did Plutarch write about Romulus? See Plutarch's Romulus.

The Myth Fables of Romulus are similar to the Myth Fables of Jesus of Nazareth called Gospels.

 

[Brainache]

Exactly. Just like the numerous documents we have referring to itinerant felons with names like 'Robbehod' in 13th century England allow us to confidently assert that Robin Hood, Maid Marion, Little John, Will Scarlett and Friar Tuck were all historical figures.

Or could it be that someone took a well known stereotype of the time, attached a good sounding fictitious name to it ('Jesus of Nazareth') and invented the whole story from scratch? No, that would be deceptive - and we all know that back then people always wrote the truth!

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am arguing that the gospels are Historically accurate portrayals of the HJ, I'm not.

But by piecing together information from Josephus, the NT, the Talmud, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Cairo Genizah and the Apocrypha, I think we can get a fairly decent idea of what went on.

If you want to see my take on it, try reading this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

You'll see lots of arguments in there, but not many like your pathetic strawman, at least not from me.

Actually Josephus gives use three that predate the census of Quirinius: Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE), Matthias, son of Margalothus (during time of Herod the Great), and Athronges (c 3 CE) so the census of Quirinius is more of a trigger to cause more of these guys to come out of the woodwork.

The problem is if it was one of these "Innovators" and "Deceivers" then their name wasn't "Jesus" and it brings us to John Roberson's 1900 defintion of CHrist Myth: "the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels"

You can't be sure that one of these many "Deceivers" wasn't named Jesus. Josephus doesn't list all of them. He is a bit hit and miss with his History, but he is just one man, so that is understandable.

Tell me, what was John Robertson's opinion of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the texts from Nag Hammadi? They are very informative for modern Scholars, what did Robertson et al think of them?

That's right, they'd never even heard of them. Scholarship has moved on a bit since 1900, hasn't it?

 

[JaysonR]

Both trial accounts in the Gospels are blatant fictions.

I don't hold it as fact; just to be clear.

OK, to the rest...

Except that is exactly what the Gospel account has happen.

The Sanhedrin assembles in the absence of the Procurator of Judea and has a trial for the Death penalty and afterword we have them bring Jesus in front of Pontius Pilate and the Jewish mob.

The rule isn't that the Procurator be actively present; it is that he is present within the region.
In the case of Ananus ben Ananus, the Procurator wasn't in the region.

The point of involving the Romans is because to get someone crucified like that, you don't just have them toss in a stoning trial and be done with it (which could be done sometimes without the Procurator really minding terribly much, it would seem).

Instead, we have a grand crucifixion to articulate and three castes of society to portray.

The reason I think most sensible for Roman involvement in the story is the same reason for involving the upper caste of the Judean government; social commentary.

I think the symbolic nature of having a religious crime, which wouldn't call for a crucifixion in the Law (Torah), so inflated beyond warrant, while at the same time virtually pardoned and yet conducted regardless at an insistence of the populace, and their court, aids in representing a similar form of social insanity that Josephus also outlines somewhat (more factually) in regards to the extreme warping and unrest taking place in this early era.

I don't think we could craft a more concise scene to capture the notion of social injustice any more strongly than was outlined in these versions - if it wouldn't have damage to the image of things, I suppose we could have Osiris weigh his heart against a feather from that dove from the Baptism scene and find him innocent and the most pure of man to be found.
That's about the only means I know of to amplify the message that he was really wrongly killed any further.

 

[dejudge]

...You can't be sure that one of these many "Deceivers" wasn't named Jesus. Josephus doesn't list all of them. He is a bit hit and miss with his History, but he is just one man, so that is understandable.

You can't be sure one of those many "Deceivers" was named Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

You can't be sure one of those many "Deceivers" was named Jesus.

We can't be 100% sure of anything in Ancient History, it doesn't work that way.

 

[maximara]

You can't be sure that one of these many "Deceivers" wasn't named Jesus. Josephus doesn't list all of them. He is a bit hit and miss with his History, but he is just one man, so that is understandable.

Tell me, what was John Robertson's opinion of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the texts from Nag Hammadi? They are very informative for modern Scholars, what did Robertson et al think of them?

That's right, they'd never even heard of them. Scholarship has moved on a bit since 1900, hasn't it?

If we list the "Innovators" and "Deceivers" that others have noted with dates something interesting occurs:

Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE)

Matthias, son of Margalothus (during time of Herod the Great) - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

Athronges (c 3 CE)

Judas of Galilee (6 CE)

Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE)

Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE)

Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE)

John of Giscala (d c70 CE)

Between Judas of Galilee and Theudas the magician there is this gap. Even if we use dunker John to fill there is still this inverted normal curve.

As for the whole "Scholarship has moved on a bit since 1900, hasn't it?" here is a quote from 2012:

""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12)

Not all that different from Robertson's 1900 definition of Christ Myth: (what the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels") is it?

How about a quote from the 1982 and 1995 editions of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

And these are from Pro Historical Jesus supporters! As shown by the above at least some of the Pro Historical Jesus scholarship has NOT moved an inch since 1900 but rather is simply jumping around in the dusty rubble and claiming the clouds of dust it generates is "evidence".

 

[Brainache]

If we list the "Innovators" and "Deceivers" that others have noted with dates something interesting occurs:

Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE)

Matthias, son of Margalothus (during time of Herod the Great) - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

Athronges (c 3 CE)

Judas of Galilee (6 CE)

Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE)

Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE)

Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE)

John of Giscala (d c70 CE)

Between Judas of Galilee and Theudas the magician there is this gap. Even if we use dunker John to fill there is still this inverted normal curve.

What point are you making here? Is it possible that Josephus has been interfered with because he might have said uncomplimentary things about our hero Jesus? I think it is at least possible, although what Josephus originally said may be lost forever, barring some unforeseen discovery...

As for the whole "Scholarship has moved on a bit since 1900, hasn't it?" here is a quote from 2012:

""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12)

Not all that different from Robertson's 1900 definition of Christ Myth: (what the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels") is it?

How about a quote from the 1982 and 1995 editions of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

And these are from Pro Historical Jesus supporters! As shown by the above Pro Historical Jesus scholarship has NOT moved an inch since 1900 but rather is simply jumping around in the dusty rubble and claiming the clouds of dust is "evidence".

Again, what is your point? Is it that Richard Carrier's specific theory of a "Celestial Jesus" is different to other Scholars' definitions of "Mythical Jesus"?

Or is this an attempt to conflate Carrier and Doherty's particular "Celestial Jesus" ideas with other Scholars who acknowledge the impossibility of pinning all of the fanciful Gospel stories on one individual?

No serious Scholar is trying to argue for a HJ who did all the things attributed to the Jesus of the gospels, that notion died a long time ago. These days the most anyone expects of a HJ is some association with the movement surrounding "Dunker John", and later "James the Just".

You could try reading this guy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/sicarii-essenes-those-of-_b_5359338.html

Whatever.

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,

You are curious why the Romans even get involved if we are looking at a narrative construction.
The reasoning has to do with Law.

The Sanhedrin could not assemble in the absence of the Procurator of Judea, and a trial for the Death penalty could not be assigned without that gathering for conviction.

Josephus highlights this feature of legal knotting in accounting for the Ananus ben Ananus' removal from High Priest. [ . . . ]

And yet,as dejudge points out, this is precisely what happened to Stephen, isn't it?

[ . . . ] In Acts 7, a character called Stephen is STONED to death immediately after a trial with the Sanhedrin.

There is no Roman involvement with the killing of Stephen. [ . . . ]

Except that is exactly what the Gospel account has happen.

The Sanhedrin assembles in the absence of the Procurator of Judea and has a trial for the Death penalty and afterword we have them bring Jesus in front of Pontius Pilate and the Jewish mob.[ . . . ]

[ . . . ]The rule isn't that the Procurator be actively present; it is that he is present within the region.
In the case of Ananus ben Ananus, the Procurator wasn't in the region.

Yet in the Jesus narrative, the Procurator is present in the region, correct me if I'm wrong.
Still as you point out later, the trial makes excellent literary or dramatic sense.

[ . . . ]
The point of involving the Romans is because to get someone crucified like that, you don't just have them toss in a stoning trial and be done with it (which could be done sometimes without the Procurator really minding terribly much, it would seem).

Instead, we have a grand crucifixion to articulate and three castes of society to portray.

The reason I think most sensible for Roman involvement in the story is the same reason for involving the upper caste of the Judean government; social commentary.

I think the symbolic nature of having a religious crime, which wouldn't call for a crucifixion in the Law (Torah), so inflated beyond warrant, while at the same time virtually pardoned and yet conducted regardless at an insistence of the populace, and their court, aids in representing a similar form of social insanity that Josephus also outlines somewhat (more factually) in regards to the extreme warping and unrest taking place in this early era.

I don't think we could craft a more concise scene to capture the notion of social injustice any more strongly than was outlined in these versions - if it wouldn't have damage to the image of things, I suppose we could have Osiris weigh his heart against a feather from that dove from the Baptism scene and find him innocent and the most pure of man to be found.
That's about the only means I know of to amplify the message that he was really wrongly killed any further.

That makes literary and/or dramatic sense, even if not historically accurate.

As you say, as a literary devise it's sound, though I doubt the writers expected the audience of slaves, servants and labourers to catch the fine points of the Sahedrin's legal status, especially given the fact that after the destruction of the Temple, there was no such governing body, again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Your idea it's possibly a literary devise to underline the implacable hatred of the ebil joos towards mankind's saviour makes sense in terms of a mythic construction.

 

[pakeha]

I read over those numerous 'epicycles' and using the John Frum cargo cult as a baseline I find some fo them wanting.

(1) Evidence of other Christians with different conceptions of Jesus.

Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177 goes over the early history of the John Frum and we see a similar variance of conceptions of John Frum so this arguments dies.

(2) How did a heavenly Jesus acquire this title of Christos?

One of the strange things about Acts is in all copies we have until c 450 (Codex Alexandrinus) used the term Chrestians but use Christos to describe Jesus himself. But if the former is derived from the later how do they spell it right with the title but not with the derivative?

In fact, early Christian authorities like Tertullian went to great pains in explaining that Christian and Chrestian were two different words with entirely different meanings and were not variants of each other. But this begs the question of why does Acts itself use Chrestian until c450?

One variant of the Tacitus letter bouncing around the internet used by Pro historical Jesus people is "This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Chrestus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius." and we know that the oldest copy was tampered with--Christians was originally Chrestians.

In PGM IV. 3007-86 we read about "Jesus Chrestos, the Holy Spirit, the Son of the Father" Twelftree in his In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians states "Although it is generally agreed that this papyrus dates from the fourth century CE, its contents are more likely to come from the second century CE."

So was Paul's Jesus actual title Chrestos (a very common title going back to 5th century BCE) and latter copyists "fixed" the error making it Christos?

(3) James is attested as brother of Jesus in other sources apart from Gal. 1:18–19

In a variant of the John Frum cult c1957 John Frum acquired Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as a brother...even though he only has sisters. NEXT.

(4) The imminent apocalypticism of Paul

This doesn't mean anything. The Gospels which most scholars put 70-100 talk about an "imminent" apocalypse. Heck today some 2000 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified you get people claiming THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH, REPENT. Rendering this a nonsensical argument.

(5) 1 Corinthians 2:8: Jesus killed by “rulers of this age”

And what prey tell is meant "this age"? The age of the Roman Empire? The age of crazy Emperors like Nero (ie no earlier then 54 CE)? Paul never specifies what time frame is "this age". So another non argument.

(6) A crucial passage is Philippians 2.6–8

John Frum being a brother of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh must have been born...sheesh. NEXT.


As the above shows the "arguments" are rubbish.

Interesting points to think over on a lazy Sunday.
Here's something to add to the mix, maximara, when discussing the use of the term Chrestians and Christians.

A second century Patriarch, Theophilus of Antioch, in the only extant work of his that's survived til our days "Ad Autolychum", defined Christian thusly:

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

No mention of Chrestos/Christos whatever.
Enjoy!
ETA
I owe this find to dejuror over at RatSkep.

 

[dejudge]

We can't be 100% sure of anything in Ancient History, it doesn't work that way.

We are 100% sure Ancient History relies on recovered Data.

We are sure that Jesus is God Creator, the Logos, the Son of God born of a Holy Ghost in dated recovered manuscripts and Codices.

The Sinaiticus Codex was found and it surely states Jesus was God Creator.


Greek Sinaiticus John 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θν και θϲ ην ο λογοϲ

2 ουτοϲ ην εν αρχη προϲ τον θν

3 πατα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωριϲ αυτου εγενετο ουδεν ˙ ὁ γεγονεν ·


English translation of Sinaiticus John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was in the beginning with God.

3 All things came into being through him, and without him came into being not one thing that is in being.


Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was a Myth God Creator until NEW DATA is recovered.

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha,

Yet in the Jesus narrative, the Procurator is present in the region, correct me if I'm wrong.

This is the answer to both of your questions, as well as Dejudge's; that was the point - A) The Procurator must be around and B) If you want more than just a stoning (which technically the Procurator needs to be around for, but often enough it appears that it could be carried out in the absence periodically in minor figure cases [per Josephus' commentary]) and instead wanted to have someone crucified, then you are going to be forced to the Procurator to make your case as to why this individual belongs on the crucifixion rather than stoned to death as per your religious laws.

That makes literary and/or dramatic sense, even if not historically accurate.

As you say, as a literary devise it's sound, though I doubt the writers expected the audience of slaves, servants and labourers to catch the fine points of the Sahedrin's legal status, especially given the fact that after the destruction of the Temple, there was no such governing body, again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Your idea it's possibly a literary devise to underline the implacable hatred of the ebil joos towards mankind's saviour makes sense in terms of a mythic construction.

I really dislike this view (not that it's your view, mind you) that because the 'Jews are the killer of Jesus, they are being vilified' concept.
This is such a break of understanding the literary function and context of the people and the courts of Judah forcing Jesus to his unjust execution by Romans who saw him as without fault.

The Israelites are repeatedly scolded all through their own texts as being full of corruption, judging entirely incorrectly, abusing their position, being full of folly pride, and multiple times wrongly killing people who are blessed in some manner (Cane and Able are the biggest fame of this).

It would be entirely queer if the story didn't involve the people and courts of Judah choosing entirely incorrectly and being full of folly and injustice.

And by the way...this is somewhat ironic and amusing; to be even more specific.
The Israelites are not 1:1 as those from Judah.
Israelites were a specific inner grouping who are just pounded on repeatedly in many of the texts as folly and in error.
Judah, an early underdog in the texts, later comes out on top as practically remarking at the sad and poor truth of the falling of the Israelites and the betterment of the line of Judah to correct those errors and set the people straight.
In this view, then, this Jesus is rather interesting as you have a Galilean (which is in the Northern region of the former Kingdom of Israel) who is righteous and a Judah, this time, who is folly and in error.

As it has been said; what a twist!

Matthew is a brilliant iconographic piece of work in this regard, really.
Jesus is of the line of Judah's most prized King, and born from the Womb of Judah (a literal meaning of Bethlehem), flees and comes from Egypt from where the rightful will return (Zadok line - btw, also mirroring the actual instance of the original Zadok High Priest ousting by the Hellens), and comes from the spirit of the Northern Kingdom of Israel to Judah to unite the Nation symbolically and reverse the pattern (which, completes the cycle - Hebrew calender's were symbolically cyclical and counter-balanced; not a shocker there) for now Judah has made the critical error and Able is once again murdered by Cane (symbolically).

I think I need to flip on Eye of The Tiger for this story's soundtrack.

(btw - the above does not inherently indicate that a Hebrew wrote anything...there are others who would be aware of these considerations outside of their culture nearby, such as those in Antioch or Alexandria)

 

[lpetrich]

I was thinking of announcing the publication of Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, but maximara got there first. Here is its publisher's page on it. It has chapters like "Myth vs. History", "Myth from History", "The Minimal Theory of Historicity", "Heroes Who Never Existed", "Using the Rank-Raglan Reference Class", and "Rapid Legendary Development".

From the publisher's description, it seems like he advocates Earl Doherty's theory, that

the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically; such stories eventually came to be believed or promoted in the struggle for control of the Christian churches that survived the tribulations of the first century.

The historicity theory he considers most likely is, I think, the Haile Selassie theory. During his own lifetime as Emperor of Ethiopia, the Rastafarians of Jamaica turned him into a messiah figure, one who had little connection with the real him.

He'll be discussing Lord Raglan's mythic-hero profile, it seems, and Jesus Christ is very definitely on the mythic side there.

 

[lpetrich]

From the previous thread,

this post by Maximara

Richard Carrier addressed this kind of nonsense in one of his blogs:

...
Similarly, all experts agree no one person lies behind the writings of “Hippocrates” and we know nothing reliable about “Democritus,” only that he wrote some things that were later quoted and talked about–which entails someone wrote those things, regardless of their name, so “Democritus” is as good a stand-in term for them as anything.

this post by David Mo

This is an evident proof that Richard Carrier is an ignorant on History of the Philosophy or a “provocateur”. Right now, I could get up from my chair, go to my modest library and find easily more that ten books written by some relevant experts on the matter that affirm the contrary. From Jaeger to Cornford. I have recently finished a book about Democritus with 260 pp. You can say that we not know too much biographical data of Democritus, but not that we cannot attribute to him some of his main writings and discern what is the democritean thought. “Democritus” is more than a “stand-in-term”. I would like to know who are the experts that agree on this.

None of Democritus's works have survived, and all we have from him are quotes by later authors. So there is good reason to be skeptical about him.

More broadly, there was a certain problem with transmitting books before the invention of movable-type printing. Books had to be copied by hand, and some people made a career out of doing so. But how does one tell what books are worth copying? Often by checking on who wrote it or supposedly wrote it. Some ancient notable's works were clearly much worth copying than some nobody's works.

This provoked a form of literary fraudulence called pseudepigraphy, something which may be called inverse plagiarism. Instead of falsely claiming that one had written someone else's work, one falsely claims that one's work was written by someone else. Especially someone much more notable, someone whose works one might be willing to copy.

Numerous ancient authors had received that treatment: Moses, Enoch, Solomon, Peter, Paul, Orpheus, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, ... One of the writers of the Bible implicitly acknowledged that problem:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19, NASB)

In short: "Don't rewrite this book -- or else!"

So it is certainly possible that Democritus had suffered that fate.

 

[dejudge]

Matthew is a brilliant iconographic piece of work in this regard, really.
Jesus is of the line of Judah's most prized King, and born from the Womb of Judah (a literal meaning of Bethlehem), flees and comes from Egypt from where the rightful will return (Zadok line - btw, also mirroring the actual instance of the original Zadok High Priest ousting by the Hellens), and comes from the spirit of the Northern Kingdom of Israel to Judah to unite the Nation symbolically and reverse the pattern (which, completes the cycle - Hebrew calender's were symbolically cyclical and counter-balanced; not a shocker there) for now Judah has made the critical error and Able is once again murdered by Cane (symbolically).

gMatthew is probably the most ridiculous story in the NT Canon filled with total fiction, genealogy problems, historical discrepancies, contradictions and implausibility.

The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was fathered by a Holy Ghost yet absurdly gave the genealogy for Joseph to prove Jesus was the son of David.

The author of gMatthew did not give the genealogy of Mary.

In another absurd instance, the author of gMatthew claimed Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God but stated that the baby Jesus had to FLEE from Bethlehem with Mary and Joseph and go into hiding in Egypt to avoid being Killed by King Herod.

It is clear that the author gMatthew mutilated gMark and virtually destroyed the storyline of the earliest Marcan author.

Amazingly, all the supposed additional details in gMatthew, not found in gMark are complete fiction.

For example, the author of gMark wrote a SINGLE verse about the Temptation in Mark 1.13.

The author of gMatthew wrote 11 verses of total fiction about the Temptation of Jesus by Satan in Matthew 3.1-11.

gMatthew confirms that the Jesus story was not based on historical accounts.