The Historical Jesus II

[Kapyong]

Thanks GDon

I look forward to your comments on Carrier's view of the Ascension of Isaiah...

One more item :

Carrier on the Brother of the Lord :
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&p=14620#p14618

Kapyong

 

[dejudge]

The argument for or against an historical Jesus requires evidence not expert opinion.

When one goes to a court trial it is the evidence that is sought not just expert opinion.

We have the existing evidence and Jesus of Nazareth is described as a Myth Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

In addition, the existing evidence is no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

Effectively, there is simply no contemporary supporting historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, his supposed family, his disciples and apostles including Paul.

There are other problems associated with the HJ argument.

1. No supposed contemporary of the Jesus cult wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Existing writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are copies hundreds of years later.

3. Sources which mention Jesus of Nazareth are riddled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies and events that did not happen.

This means that any suggestion that Josephus, Tacitus, or Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth cannot be verified since the existing writings are extremely late copies [hundreds of years later] which may have been manipulated.

As it stands now, the abundance of existing evidence from antiquity which is 2nd century or later describe Jesus of Nazareth as a Myth.

The contemporary evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth has never been presented.

The HJ argument is unsustainable.

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,

It doesn't really matter what the chronology is, the point is there.
It's only a big problem if we try to force all texts in the NT canon to be of one running tangent, source and culture; which they are clearly not.

If we look at everything from Matthew to Revelation as a collection of disperate, yet related, versions of a similar form of religious ideology then the concern over Paulinist deviation from any other text is rather expected.

That said, Paulinism doesn't outright remove the idea either, it converts it to a different cultural sense.
I could say the same of John, Revelation or even Peter.

I can see your point, but at the same time the empowerment of Christianity is based on the acceptance (via baptism?) of the redemptive power of Jesus' sacrificial death. This empowerment doesn't seem to have any impact in a social/philosophical sense, especially considering what I see as the breakdown of the classic Roman religious system in the first and second centuries.

It doesn't appear Carrier is suggesting no one else has done it [dated New Testament and related materials]. I think it's more along the lines that in order to say something definitive it would take him some time to review the enormous amount of literature on the subject.

You're quite right.

[ . . . ]
pakeha


In the Magnificent Seven? What chapter and verse are we on? [ . . . ]

Touché!
Off to research the subject.

[ . . . ]
Had anything like the 'cleansing of the Temple' really occurred during the Passover, it's most likely Jesus and his followers would have been killed then and there by the mob and there's nothing authorities could do about it. [ . . . ]

This does seem a likely explanation - the characters are there to fulfill certain plot functions. Considered in the light of literary development, this is why it is insufficient to simply delete the 'miraculous' and then try to make a narrative out of the residue: the mundane details only there to be the stage upon which the miracle story plays out.

Good point about the lynching.
As for the hilited bit, my impression at the moment is that the NT narrative texts are basically scripts for miracle plays.
Even today, assisting a performance of a miracle play can be an extremely moving experience.

[ . . . ]
The entire field, on both sides of the debate, need to slow down and focus on actual anthropological work; not just deductive reasoning from a textual layer alone and crafting up more and more clever means of reasoning or measuring probability from the exact same level of information and hypothesis...repeatedly and endlessly.

I would actually prefer Jesus get yanked from the Historical record for no other reason than to ignite a fire to get work actually done - no official position accepted in either direction until the texts are rested upon regarding their cultural belonging and then a discernment can begin based on that knowledge.


Once you work on this angle, a large portion of these squabbles over Jesus (such as the Raglan scale) become simply meaningless - to me, the Raglan scale debate is like listening to people debate over the philosophical meanings of Romeo and Juliet when they've only watched the 1996 movie and have never read the play, know who Shakespeare is, nor understand what Elizabethan culture was and the role of theater and literature in social commentary and philosophy during that era.

These texts are not without context. [ . . . ]

Of course you're right, which is why reading up on other mystery cults of the same time period is so interesting.

[ . . .]
An important occasion when Paul addressed something from the "sayings tradition," is the teaching on divorce and remarriage (a mess for a tzedek since it is in conflict with Mosaic teaching), 1 Corithians 7: 10-16. Look at how Paul handles it. He makes damned sure he is not blamed for the demanding and counter-Mosaic teaching. He attributes it to the Lord, but does not quote Jesus.

Why should he? Jesus' words iin life are no more legislative than Paul's own words here and now. Paul's allusion to the teaching has the same authority as Jesus' statement at the time. Jesus can add nothing to Paul's saying that that is how it is - except that Paul wishes not to be blamed for it, probably because he's read Torah and besides, it's a pain in the butt. Maybe not as bad as trimming Mr Happy, but a lower-body pain all the same.

And then Paul goes on to make it equally clear that his own instruction (about when believer and unbeliever, in a "mixed marriage," divorce), is him speaking. He carves out an exception to what he just said that Jesus said. Paul needn't and doesn't explain. Paul's words are legislative, just as Jesus' were..Paul in life and Jesus in life are peers. They can both tell people what to do, 'cause they said so, and they're both speaking with God's commission.

[ . . . ]

Your comments on Paul remind irresistibly of Joseph Smith.

Greetings all,

Carrier has released his new book "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why we have reason to doubt".

I have read it through and posted some interesting excerpts over on the BC&H forums. [. . . ]

Thanks, Kapyong!

 

[maximara]

The further details of why that is an argument against the Raglan scale were subsequently posted in post 164, 166, and 171.

And yes, I agree on your point regarding the accuracy of the test itself (however, things like Harry Potter failing to score high on the test, or Tsar Nicholas II failing to score lower on the test aren't really critiques of the scale since the scale is only applicable during a finite window of History and a very large (and vague) cluster of Greco-Roman culture).

Actually Somerset's original scoring is more diverse then that (bolded people are outside Greco-Roman culture:

Oedipus 21
Theseus 20
Moses 20
Dionysus 19
King Arthur 19
Perseus 18
Romulus 18
Watu Gunung (of Java) 18
Heracles 17
Llew Llawgyffes 17
Bellerophon 16
Jason 15
Zeus 15
Nyikang (Shiluk cult hero) 14
Pelops 13
Robin Hood 13
Asclepius 12
Joseph (in Genesis) 12
Apollo 11
Sigurd or Siegfried 11
Elijah 9

Some 9 of these 22 names are NOT part of Greco-Roman culture which is nearly half so that debunks the "cluster of Greco-Roman culture" claim.

Joseph (in Genesis) could fit in the 1800 BCE to 1550 BCE timeframe and Robin Hood originally was dealing with King "Edward" or 1272 for King Edward I. That is some 2822 years of time. That is a fairly big "finite window of History".

 

[JaysonR]

That was not my primary issue, Maximira.

See the cited posts for details.

 

[maximara]

That was not my primary issue, Maximira.

See the cited posts for details.

I read the cited posts and they don't "cut to the chase".

As a hypothesis Lord' Raglan's Hero Pattern has major problems as there are exceptions such as Tsar Nicholas II and Harry Potter.

The variant story problem is also an issue not just with Heracles and Jesus but with King Arthur, Robin Hood, and pretty much every Greek and Roman deity hero out there.

 

[dejudge]

Don't you even remember that Brainache's is claiming that Jesus was a Rabbi and Paul was an Herodian?

If Jesus was a Rabbi and Paul was an Herodian then Brainache is implying Jesus the Son of God [God Creator] and Paul the Jew and Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin in the NT are products of Hoax Forgers.

What bizarre "reasoning" you exhibit. Being of the "Tribe of Benjamin" is a claim that Herod himself could make, whether or not he was a Pharisee in his attitude towards "The Law".

Your baseless hoax forger idea that Paul was an Herodian is completely contradicted in the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Jew in Galatians 2.

Galatians 2.

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified .

Your baseless hoax forger idea that Jesus was a Rabbi is completely contradicted in Galatians.

Jesus was God's Son--a Myth character.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

Jesus in the NT is no different to Romulus--a Son of God made of a woman.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. No supposed contemporary of the Jesus cult wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Existing writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are copies hundreds of years later.

3. Sources which mention Jesus of Nazareth are riddled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies and events that did not happen.b]

1. Nonsensical poisoning the well.
2. So?
3. The extant copies of Tacitus are almost universally considered authentic and authoritative.

I've explained this all before of course.

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz


Say what? Assuming we're at Galatians 4: 21-31 , Paul's audience is metaphorically born of the Biblical character Sarah, as is Paul himself. Or are you on another page?

As Paul explains, the whole thing about who is being made of which woman are things to be taken figuratively.

 

[dejudge]

1. No supposed contemporary of the Jesus cult wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Existing writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are copies hundreds of years later.

3. Sources which mention Jesus of Nazareth are riddled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies and events that did not happen.

1. Nonsensical poisoning the well.
2. So?
3. The extant copies of Tacitus are almost universally considered authentic and authoritative.

I've explained this all before of course.

It has been shown before that Tacitus' Annals does not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

It has been explained before that your statement is a fallacy. Scholars today REJECT Annals' 15.44 and consider it a forgery.

It has been explained before that the existing copy Tacitus' Annals 15.44 has been manipulated. Tacitus' Annals 15.44 never mentioned Christians but ChrEstians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Specific_references

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

It has been explained before that the existing Tacitus' Annals is 11th century copy which passed through the hands of the Church.

Please, get familiar with the facts.

It has already been explained that Tacitus' Annals with Christus was unknown up to the 5th century based on Eusebius "Church History and Sulpitius Severus' "Sacred History".

Tacitus' Annals is virtually useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Christian writers argued that their Christ was God Creator born of a Ghost.

 

[lpetrich]

Adding to maximara's point, I've scored some other non-Greco-Roman heroes: Krishna and the Buddha. They both score fairly high. Looking at JaysonR's arguments, I notice a lack of discussion of non-Greco-Roman heroes. Do they consistently score much lower than Greco-Roman ones?

I think that Lord Raglan's profile is very relevant, because it summarizes common features of legendary-hero biographies. Some of them often occur in the biographies of well-documented "real" heroes, but some of them rarely occur, and some of them never occur.

There is usually no hint of the coming of some well-documented hero, and nobody ever tries to kill him in his infancy. Plots like:

• Hardline royalists vs. George Washington
• Slave-plantation owners vs. Abraham Lincoln
• Fundamentalists vs. Charles Darwin
• Rabbis and Jewish bankers and Jewish Marxist revolutionaries vs. Adolf Hitler
• Oil-company executives vs. Muammar Khadafy
• Psychiatrists vs. L. Ron Hubbard

As to defeating some big enemy to become leader, some well-documented heroes have done so, but some have not. As for being repudiated, that has not been very common. In fact, one sometimes sees the opposite, as with Napoleon and Hitler. Likewise for dying an unusual death, and dying at some prominent place. It's much more common to die of old age.

 

[maximara]

There are other problems associated with the HJ argument.

1. No supposed contemporary of the Jesus cult wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Existing writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are copies hundreds of years later.

3. Sources which mention Jesus of Nazareth are riddled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies and events that did not happen.

1. Nonsensical poisoning the well.
2. So?
3. The extant copies of Tacitus are almost universally considered authentic and authoritative.

I've explained this all before of course.

1. No. it is NOT nonsensical poisoning the well if we take what, stripped of all the supernatural stuff, the Gospels and Acts are telling us as somewhat accurate.

2) I agree this is a weak argument on its own but we do know that Christians did alter or make up totally out of thin air works that supported their POV.

3) The issue was forgeries, false attribution, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies and events that did not happen. We know that Tacitus' little work on the early Germans is totally unauthoritative and that there are mistakes (such as the daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor being confused for on another due to them having the same name)

The discrepancies in Tacitus are that both Pliny the Elder and Josephus were in Rome c64 CE and neither mentions Christians. As Carrier notes Tacitus was in communication with Pliny the Younger and odds are his claim of Nero persecuting Christians came from the Christians Pliny was dealing with. Carrier even shows that Tacitus had no Nero era source to work with to verify such a claim. Also our oldest copy has the group was originally Chrestians and there are variants where they are the followers of Chrestus (not Christus) so who knows what Tacitus originally wrote.

Suetonius mentions Nero going after Christians but nothing about this being an effort to distract claims he set the fire himself. In fact there are nearly 16 paragraphs between these two events suggesting Nero went after Christians before the fire. Suetonius gives us even less to work with and given what happened with Tacitus he may have been writing about Chrestians who if a supposed 2nd century letter is to be believed were followers of Serapis (Osiris) who were described as "seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury".

 

[lpetrich]

As a hypothesis Lord' Raglan's Hero Pattern has major problems as there are exceptions such as Tsar Nicholas II and Harry Potter.

That only means that it is not *absolute*. But if exceptions are rare, then it's still useful for what is common.

List of Lord Raglan evaluations - Atheism contains several evaluations, mostly mine.

• George Washington: 6
• Napoleon Bonaparte: 8
• Abraham Lincoln: 6
• Charles Darwin: 5
• Winston Churchill: 5
• Adolf Hitler: 4 (a negative hero)
• John Fitzgerald Kennedy: 7 (with death conspiracies: 8)
• Muammar Gaddafi 5 1/2

I included that last one because it's hard to find some recent hero who had been repudiated by his followers or subjects. Some other ones would be Richard Nixon and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The variant story problem is also an issue not just with Heracles and Jesus but with King Arthur, Robin Hood, and pretty much every Greek and Roman deity hero out there.

Lord Raglan himself had used the most mythical variant.

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

As Paul explains, the whole thing about who is being made of which woman are things to be taken figuratively.

Yes, I can see that. The reason why I asked was that you wrote earlier

I agree that the differing narratives would merit individual investigation. Paul's Jesus being born of the allegorical woman Sarah stands in contrast to the gMatthew/gLuke tales of a literal birth to a real woman ...

There's nothing in Paul's allegory that says Jesus was born to Sarah, neither stadning "in contrast to...tales of a literal birth to a real woman," nor even expounding that Jesus belongs to one group rather than the other group (children of Sarah or Hagar) within the allegory. Paul says nothing there about Jesus' birth at all.

Anyway, we now seem to be in agreement, and thank you for clarifying.

 

[JaysonR]

Maximara,

I read the cited posts and they don't "cut to the chase".

I disagree.
The "chase" to me isn't the scale's validity as a scale; that is irrelevant.
It is, to me, since the approach of the concept of the scale is errant to begin with.

If we don't know what the cultures are to which these texts belong to, then in what manner are we valid in grading their texts according to any scope of literature?

It is rather irrelevant how nicely they score in any caliber on a scale in comparison to other heroic tales; especially if they are fictional and literary works.

Let me be explicit in that statement, for clarity.
If the texts in question are fictional and literary works, then their placement on the Raglan scale is even more-so irrelevant as what is of value specifically is the very information we sorely lack and spend nearly no effort or time attempting to solve - which cultures did these specific four texts (as well as the array of other texts as well, but let's just stick with the simple four to start with) arise from?

Who do we credit for the talent and work?

We know which cultures King Arthur comes from, as well as Hercules.
We haven't a clue as to the cultural origins of these texts, nor any real agreed upon explanation as to the reason for their differences and similarities.

The Raglan scale is a blind attempt, forgoing the first issue of cultural belonging to address the second issue of Historicity.

Historicity is rather benign in regards to Jesus; it makes next to no difference if he existed or not - the same exact events occur subsequently regardless of which way we decide.

If Jesus is fictional, which is rather likely, then our work has only just begun.
It opens a vast array of issues that need to be answered, and have remained in demand of solution since the earliest of inquiries.

We are at an entire loss of the context and belonging for these works.
The face of the peoples whom belonged to these varied traditions is quite nearly entirely absent on the official record and almost no one cares to bother to work on this overt eradication conducted by the Orthodox groups which followed.

So why is the Raglan scale not appreciated by me? Because it continues the choice of ignoring the recognition of peoples overtly erased.

I think that context rather matters quite a bit when one wishes to address anything to do with the central figure of a story, varied, from still yet unknown cultures and sub-cultures.

lpetrich,

Looking at JaysonR's arguments, I notice a lack of discussion of non-Greco-Roman heroes.

Because that's irrelevant to my point.

pakeha

I can see your point, but at the same time the empowerment of Christianity is based on the acceptance (via baptism?) of the redemptive power of Jesus' sacrificial death. This empowerment doesn't seem to have any impact in a social/philosophical sense, especially considering what I see as the breakdown of the classic Roman religious system in the first and second centuries.

Could you clarify this a bit; I'm not sure if I am understanding you fully correctly.

Of course you're right, which is why reading up on other mystery cults of the same time period is so interesting.

Absolutely!

 

[The Big Dog]

It has been shown before that Tacitus' Annals does not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

It has been explained before that your statement is a fallacy. Scholars today REJECT Annals' 15.44 and consider it a forgery.

It has been explained before that the existing copy Tacitus' Annals 15.44 has been manipulated. Tacitus' Annals 15.44 never mentioned Christians .[/u][/b]

Yeah, you mean the Chrestians that suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate? That is why your arguments against it are so absurd, because they make no sense whatsoever in context.

No serious scholar does not consider Tacitus authentic. This Chrestians nonsense is just silly and although I understand that you consider it gospel, I am an atheist on that point.

 

[dejudge]

There's nothing in Paul's allegory that says Jesus was born to Sarah, neither stadning "in contrast to...tales of a literal birth to a real woman," nor even expounding that Jesus belongs to one group rather than the other group (children of Sarah or Hagar) within the allegory. Paul says nothing there about Jesus' birth at all.

Anyway, we now seem to be in agreement, and thank you for clarifying.

The Pauline writers do not claim Jesus was born to Sarah but they did state he was the last Adam and from heaven.

Adam is a Myth character in Genesis created by God.

The Pauline Jesus was created a Spirit by God.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:47 KJV

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

The Pauline Jesus is the Lord from heaven--A Spirit.

It must be noted that Marcion's Son of God had no birth.

Marcion's Son of God came down from heaven into Capernaum in the 15th year of Tiberius according to Tertullian in "Against Marcion" 4.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Adam is a Myth character in Genesis created by God.

So are Sarah and Hagar. Your point?

The Pauline Jesus was created a Spirit by God.

As your own quote illustrates, Paul says Jesus was transformed by God. Turns out that that was on the occasion of Jesus being killed, not at his inception.

It must be noted that Marcion's Son of God had no birth.

Really? How interesting that Tertullian says that about Marcion. Paul says that Jesus was born to a Jewish woman. Different strokes, eh?

 

[pakeha]

pakeha

I can see your point, but at the same time the empowerment of Christianity is based on the acceptance (via baptism?) of the redemptive power of Jesus' sacrificial death. This empowerment doesn't seem to have any impact in a social/philosophical sense, especially considering what I see as the breakdown of the classic Roman religious system in the first and second centuries.

Could you clarify this a bit; I'm not sure if I am understanding you fully correctly.

Sorry to be unclear.
I'd understood you to claim that Christianity offered a powerful and innovative incentive to potential converts, that of personal moral authority, via the personal relation to the Saviour. Something rather akin to the 'burning in the bosom', now that I think of it.

My point is that mystery and/or ecstatic cults seemed to offer that 'up close and personal' experience as well. In the 1st Century Roman Empire there were plenty of such cults, some flourishing more than others.

Here's your original post that sparked my comment

[ . . . ]The story of Jesus, even in the slimmest - Mark, has an appeal that most everyone looking at it today entirely looks right over without ever considering it worth note.
"You have moral authority"

Fictionally or factually; it doesn't really matter - that is a huge political philosophy message around this time period.

My thought is that while that's an attractive idea, there's not a lot to show it was seen this way at that time, in fact, the history of the early church shows repeated purges and 'witch hunts' in the name of orthodoxy more than any exploration of personal moral authority.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

My thought is that while that's an attractive idea, there's not a lot to show it was seen this way at that time, in fact, the history of the early church shows repeated purges and 'witch hunts' in the name of orthodoxy more than any exploration of personal moral authority.

I think it depends on what you mean by "early." There does seem to be a serious "consolidation of power" (whatever that meant in a disreputable ragtag movement hiding on the edge of legality) in the Second Century, but before then? It seems like a "Wild, Wild East." Paul can't do anything about other preachers poaching in his churches, but they can't shut him down, either. Free markets at their finest; Microsoftian Order still lies in their future.

As to personal authority, I don't know that this is Jayson's specific point, but it is something that seems tenable to me. There appears to be a "core Thomas," a part of the sayings gospel that may be from the same general time of composition as the synoptics. If so, then the climax of the core would be what is now numbered as Saying 113 (the final one in the Coptic example, #114, is an obvious later Gnostic accretion).

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

Now, this is not Gnostic...just gnostic (there's more to reality than there appears). It is also not at all esoteric. The obvious remedy for not seing it is for people to look. They can do that for themselves, and what they are looking for is already there, present tense, everywhere, not in churches or books. There is nothing for priests to do, orthodox or heterodox, not even washing people or feeding them God in a bun. There it is. Come and get it.

Further, we have a second witness that there was a strand of Jesusism with a present tense Kingdom teaching in synoptic times. Our buddy Luke, at 17:20-21, reports that

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you

(Jesus then immediately turns to his disciples and preaches to them a future-tense kingdom instead. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.)

So, while I might not use Jayson's specific phrase for this, I think Jesus is selling some kind of radical personal autonomy here. That is, some early versions of Jesusism apparently took that to be his message. You cannot build a church on that rock, or at least not one with leaders and followers. Good grief, even sinners are awash in the Kingdom. Right now. This makes Paul look selective.