The Historical Jesus II

[Craig B]

Also, yes.
Carrier regularly reviews other scholars' works.
Check his blog, there are several.

As a more diligent student than I am of Carrier's works, can you give me a specific citation? That would be most helpful.

 

[Craig B]

The fact such twaddle as criterion of embarrassment and over 5000 Greek manuscripts appears in a work published by Baker Academic shows that HJ scholarship is a total joke.

Eh? I just noticed that. Astounding argument.

 

[JaysonR]

Unlike personal feeling, it can be shown from the text. Jesus is without sin, according to later Christian doctrine. A text relating that he underwent baptism in a form designed to remit sin is "embarrassing" in this technical sense, regardless of what people might have thought about it.

[/QUOTE]
Right...according to LATER Christian doctrine.
Is 3rd and 4th c CE doctrine identical to any of the authoring culture's doctrine?

 

[Craig B]

Right...according to LATER Christian doctrine.
Is 3rd and 4th c CE doctrine identical to any of the authoring culture's doctrine?

Yes it is. You may want to assign Matthew to a period no earlier than the third or fourth century. But I think Matthew is much earlier, and in Matthew 3

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

So Matthew makes John state that it is Jesus and not himself who should be baptising.

gJohn makes the Baptist proclaim himself to be a mere forerunner of Jesus. Indeed, the doctrine that Jesus was without sin even predates Mark, for it is explicit in Paul.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It is Christian (i.e. Pauline) doctrine from the very beginning.

So why is Jesus reported as submitting to a ceremony designed to remit sin? Perhaps because in fact he did just that. Of course even in Mark we already have expressions deprecating himself and exalting Jesus

1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8 I indeed have baptised you with water: but he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost.

Nevertheless there is Jesus in Mark accepting his baptism among a crowd of people

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptised of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

[JaysonR]

I do not want to assign Matthew any given date other than before 3rd and 4th c CE divisions of Christianity.
As such that it was before them and not their authorship, how can we know what Matthew's authoring culture doctrinally held in interpretation when we do not know who or where that culture was.

We have what is written and we have a later culture's understanding and value of it doctrinally.
We have a giant absence of contextual value and an entire array, not just one, of doctrines unknown to us that were at one time held to these various texts, and to each variously.

And yet we are able to determine what was doctrinally inconvenient for all of these unknown various groups?
And by our own uninformed decisions we can therefore declare actual events from non-actual events?

 

[Craig B]

I do not want to assign Matthew any given date other than before 3rd and 4th c CE divisions of Christianity.

So it was before the third century. But you don't want to say if it was even in the second century?

As such that it was before them and not their authorship, how can we know what Matthew's authoring culture doctrinally held in interpretation when we do not know who or where that culture was.

We have no idea what doctrines were held by Matthew? Why don't we read him then? (We have already read Paul and we know that Paul believed Jesus to be exempt from sin.)

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

A Jesus being ministered unto by a baptism designed to remit sins, as in Mark, is inconsistent with Matthew's understanding of Jesus' nature. That understanding is what was in Matthew's time, or became later, the dogma of the Church. It would be absurd to deny that.

 

[dejudge]

In fact I think the wording of that verse may be a bit loose, so that I prefer to think that nowhere at all is it stated that the brother of The Lord was an apostle. But since I have never believed, said or implied that he was an apostle, I don't really care.

Let us agree, because it's a fundamental part of my argument, that James was not an Apostle. Let us agree that the sources don't say he was an apostle. Then you'll stop having to prove to me that James wasn't an apostle. Then we can agree that "brother of The Lord" doesn't mean apostle or anything else except sibling. This is what I am trying to show so thanks for helping me and supporting my case that James was a physical sibling, not an apostle.

Again, you write more fiction. Why do you insist on writing fiction when the writings of antiquity are readily available?

The mere fact that you openly make known fallacious claims which is directly contrary to the statements of Christian writers of antiquity show that you really don't care about the evidence from antiquity.

Apologetic writers who made reference to Galatians 1.19 also claimed James the brother of the Lord was an APOSTLE.

"Church History" attributed to Eusebius

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.


But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

In the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles there are TWO Jameses called Apostles.

James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alpheaus.


Matthew 10

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus

James in Galatians 1.19 is the character who was called James the son of Alphaeus, the so-called brother of the Lord, if there were TWO apostles called James.


Chrysostom not only claimed James in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of Jesus but also claimed he was an Apostle.


Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians

" But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James".

I saw him merely, I did not learn from him, he means. But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not James merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does.

But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him the Lord's brother, although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed. Yet this did not deter him from giving the title; and in many other instances he displays towards all the Apostles that noble disposition, which beseemed him.

Origen in "Commentary on MATTHEW" also claimed that Jesus the Son of God had NO siblings.

Galatians 1.19 is completely useless in the argument for an HJ.

Jesus the son of God had NO siblings.

Galatians 1.19 is confirmed Fiction or fallacy based on Apologetics of antiquity.

 

[Craig B]

Apologetic writers who made reference to Galatians 1.19 also claimed James the brother of the Lord was an APOSTLE.

Well I don't.

Anyway, these apologetic writers, or the mediaeval copyists who preserved their writings, were (for all you know) a PACK of liars who were OFF their nut, and WERE writing fiction for the purposes OF hoax.

ETA so when I state "nowhere at all" does a source tell us James was an apostle, I mean in any NT source, not gibberish spouted hundreds of years later. Dear me, you believe that Paul was made up by these NUTCASES (I don't believe they invented Paul cos it's NUTS) and you're telling me that they are right about James being a apostle, not a brother, when they were only trying to defend the DOCTRINE of the virginity of Mary.

Why do you agree with MANIACS writing RUBBISH TO support the Virgin Ghost story? Do you now believe Jesus was a virgin born Ghost because Epiphanius or Billy Graham say so?

 

[dejudge]

.... A Jesus being ministered unto by a baptism designed to remit sins, as in Mark, is inconsistent with Matthew's understanding of Jesus' nature. That understanding is what was in Matthew's time, or became later, the dogma of the Church. It would be absurd to deny that.

It is absurd for you to deny that the author of gMatthew also claimed the voice from heaven was WELL PLEASED with Jesus the Son of God AFTER the Baptism.

It is fiction that gMark's baptism even is inconsistent with gMatthew's version when the author of gMatthew copied almost WORD for Word the very chronology for the Baptism story in gMark or a similar source.

Matthew 3

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mark 1

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The Baptism of Jesus in the NT was to IDENTIFY him as the Son of God when the SPIRIT of God in the form of a dove descended upon him.

In addition, there is ZERO evidence that gMark and gMatthew are historical accounts, ZERO evidence that they are eyewitness accounts and ZERO evidence that the authors of gMark and gMatthew were even contemporaries of Pontius Pilate.

gMark and gMatthew are ridldled with historical problems, fiction, forgeries or false attribution, contradictions, discrepancies and events that did NOT and could NOT have happened.

All manuscripts and Codices with gMark and gMatthew are dated to the 2nd century or later.

gMark and gMatthew are completely useless in the argument for an historical Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

It gMark and gMatthew are ridldled with historical problems, fiction, forgeries or false attribution, contradictions, discrepancies and events that did NOT and could NOT have happened.

But what COULD have happened is John baptising people for the remission of sins. However, that couldn't happen to a virgin born ghost Godman. And Mark tells us about the remission of sins but not about the virgin story. None of this implies anything to you of course. It is of no interest to you at all.

All manuscripts and Codices with gMark and gMatthew are dated to the 2nd century or later.

Caesar's Gallic War survives in a ninth century text, so he must have been a Viking with horns growing out of his helmet. Or maybe he never existed in the first c BCE and the monkish chroniclers of the ninth century made up the story that he invaded Britain because Britain was being invaded in their day, so Caesar's invasion was invented using Erik Bloodaxe as a model, according to your school of textual criticism.

 

[dejudge]

Apologetic writers who made reference to Galatians 1.19 also claimed James the brother of the Lord was an APOSTLE.

Well I don't.

Anyway, these apologetic writers, or the mediaeval copyists who preserved their writings, were (for all you know) a PACK of liars who were OFF their nut, and WERE writing fiction for the purposes OF hoax.

Now, you are writing what you imagine.

You believe your own invented fiction story.

You too is writing a pack of fiction [imagination stories derived from fiction sources].

ETA so when I state "nowhere at all" does a source tell us James was an apostle, I mean in any NT source, not gibberish spouted hundreds of years later. Dear me, you believe that Paul was made up by these NUTCASES (I don't believe they invented Paul cos it's NUTS) and you're telling me that they are right about James being a apostle, not a brother, when they were only trying to defend the DOCTRINE of the virginity of Mary.

What fiction you write!!
Did not the Pauline Corpus state Jesus was the Lord from heaven?

Did not the Pauline Corpus claim that Jesus was God's Own Son?

Did NOT the Pauline Corpus claim that Jesus was made a Spirit?

Did NOT the Pauline Corpus state Jesus was God Creator.

Did NOT a Pauline writer claim he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead?

Did NOT a Pauline writer claim he had CONFERENCE WITHOUT Flesh and blood?

Your Paul was trying to DEFEND Mythology.

Your Paul was trying to DEFEND Fiction.

]Why do you agree with MANIACS writing RUBBISH TO support the Virgin Ghost story? Do you now believe Jesus was a virgin born Ghost because Epiphanius or Billy Graham say so?

Again, you write fiction.

My argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology was not derived from Billy Graham.

My argument is based on the HUNDREDS of manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus.

Jesus of Nazareth was a transfiguring sea water walker, the son of God, God Creator, born of a Ghost without a human father.

 

[Craig B]

Now, you are writing what you imagine. <snip>

As I thought. Higher Criticism just isn't your thing, is it?

 

[dejudge]

But what COULD have happened is John baptising people for the remission of sins. However, that couldn't happen to a virgin born ghost Godman. And Mark tells us about the remission of sins but not about the virgin story.

How could the author of gMark write about the virgin story if his Jesus came DOWN directly from heaven WITHOUT birth?

There were Christians who believed Jesus was NOT born.

Examine Augustine Reply to Faustus.

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not.

It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born. This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with Christ's preaching...

Marcion's Son of God had NO virgin birth and came down directly from heaven into Capernaum according to Tertullian.

It does NOT logically follow that Jesus had a human father because there is no birth narrartive in gMark.


"Against Marcion 4

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own.

 

[Craig B]

How could the author of gMark write about the virgin story if his Jesus came DOWN directly from heaven WITHOUT birth?
There were Christians who believed Jesus was NOT born.

Examine Augustine Reply to Faustus.

Marcion's Son of God had NO virgin birth and came down directly from heaven into Capernaum according to Tertullian.

It does NOT logically follow that Jesus had a human father because there is no birth narrartive in gMark.

Yes it most certainly does. If Mark says nothing about Jesus' birth that means Mark thought it a normal one, as long as he doesn't say otherwise. If Augustine and Marcion thought otherwise, they said so. Mark says nothing.

John says nothing about the birth. We know that means he thought it was a normal one, because he twice calls Jesus the son of Joseph.

Why do you quote only madmen like Marcion and much later apologists like Augustine? Anyone who believes these people must be off their NUT, or perpetrating a HOAX.

 

[JaysonR]

So it was before the third century. But you don't want to say if it was even in the second century?

For this tangent, it is only of importance that the text and its author's doctrine, and the doctrine of those who adhered to it, are prior to the 3rd and 4th c CE doctrines that were developed after the texts formation.
For this tangent, it doesn't matter if it was written 19th c BCE or 2nd c CE; just that it was prior to the later doctrinal bodies (plural).

We have no idea what doctrines were held by Matthew? Why don't we read him then? (We have already read Paul and we know that Paul believed Jesus to be exempt from sin.)

So we know for a fact that there are no other possible doctrinal reasons for Matthew's elaborations upon the baptism?
There are absolutely no doctrines which are not explicit in the text which could understand the text differently than how you are understanding them?
There's no possibility at all for Jesus to have been understood as being cleansed in any manner at all in Matthew?

A Jesus being ministered unto by a baptism designed to remit sins, as in Mark, is inconsistent with Matthew's understanding of Jesus' nature.

Is it?

That understanding is what was in Matthew's time, or became later, the dogma of the Church.

OR?
That's kind of the point here - you just wrote that this was how Matthew was understood by the author and those immediately picking it up OR it was understood this way later.

So if we don't know if it was one OR the other, how can we then declare that we know for a fact what the author held doctrinally regarding the Christology of Jesus when we can't even determine if it was understood by the author this way OR understood only later this way?

To really put back the context of the conversation:
If we are correct about Matthew's hiding of the embarrassing aspects of the baptism and Mark has the original form of the story where Jesus is being baptized for his sins, can we conclude that Mark's motive for Jesus having sin was because Jesus actually had sin and that therefore the baptism actually happened, and that therefore Jesus actually existed?

If we accept all listed axioms, can we conclude that Mark had no other doctrinal motive for including the baptism other than fact?



Let's get back on track:

Now; again, let's just step back a moment, because I would really much more appreciate staying true to the original point of this discussion.
The original point was in regards to the doctrinal inconvenience of the crucifixion indicating that the event actually happened, and that therefore Jesus was actually extant.

The point was about this element and how it is not possible to determine that it was doctrinally inconvenient for the authors of any of the texts or for those following them initially.

The criterion is as follows:

The assumption of the criterion of embarrassment is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create or falsify historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition.

- wiki

So the question is; does the crucifixion in each of the texts in which it appears ONLY emotionally embarrass each of the authors, or weaken the author's position regarding Jesus?

While we can build an argument, as you have done Craig, to argue that Jesus' baptism appears to have been possibly embarrassing and required retraction and re-writing to hide incompatible constructs (which is only a possibility; assuming the chronology is accurate), accepting the same chronology we accepted for the texts when discussing the Baptism, the crucifixion does exactly the opposite of what you present as an argument for the Baptism.

The crucifixion doesn't become removed, hidden, lessened or otherwise.
No one wipes it out and hides things - instead, the crucifixion is elaborated upon heavily and practically bragged about repeatedly; praised indeed in many cases.

Clearly there are ideas expressed which have a narrative constructed into a sort of remorse and gratitude in tonality regarding the crucifixion in some of the texts, and clearly there is a repeated mantra regarding a sacrificial savior messiah.

Yet when we come to the moment of crucifying that sacrifice, suddenly it is ONLY possible that it is an inconvenience for the doctrine of each of the texts?
Not one of these text's author could have possibly valued the doctrinal importance of the crucifixion without ever personally knowing if it did or did not actually happen?

That's not at all a possibility?
The only possibility is that the crucifixion is always inconvenient to any possible form of Christian doctrine and therefore must be true since there are absolutely no doctrinal reasons for the crucifixion to be included?

 

[dejudge]

Yes it most certainly does. If Mark says nothing about Jesus' birth that means Mark thought it a normal one, as long as he doesn't say otherwise. If Augustine and Marcion thought otherwise, they said so. Mark says nothing.

Again, you write more fiction. The author of gMark says nothing about a normal birth. Why would the author of the Canonised gMark write about the birth of Jesus as normal?

In gMark Jesus was specifically identified as the Son of God who walked on sea water before he Transfigured.

People born normally do not walk on water or instantly transfigure.

Based on the logically fallacious C of E, Jesus was probably born of a Ghost because the Ghost birth story may have been embarrassing to gMark and gJohn since they omitted his miraculous conception by a Ghost.

John says nothing about the birth. We know that means he thought it was a normal one, because he twice calls Jesus the son of Joseph.

Why do insist on writing open fiction?

Jesus was GOD INCARNATE from the start of gJohn 1.

John 1--1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

John 1--3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made .


John 1--14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 10.30 I and my Father are one.

The Canonised gJohn is in agreement with the teachings of the Church that Jesus was GOD of GOD who became flesh.

Why do you quote only madmen like Marcion and much later apologists like Augustine? Anyone who believes these people must be off their NUT, or perpetrating a HOAX.

You have confirmed that you do not care about the evidence from antiquity.

You don't want me to quote THE CONTENTS of the manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century or later but want me to accept what you IMAGINE in the 21st century.

Now, why do you quote gMark, gMatthew and the Pauline Corpus?

Did you not claim that your Paul had AUDITORY hallucinations and may be off his NUT in reality?

You believe the Auditory Hallucinator?

The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

You believe that John baptised Jesus even though it is clearly stated that he Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found WITHCHILD by a Ghost.

I argue that Jesus of Nazareth is fiction/mythology from the 2nd century or later but you still believe Bible stories of Jesus.

Why do you believe gMatthew's Ghost character had a human brother called James?

 

[Craig B]

I argue that Jesus of Nazareth is fiction/mythology from the 2nd century or later but you still believe Bible stories of Jesus.

That is the false alternative touted by the Mythicists. Either accept my ridiculous dating and preposterous analysis of the sources, or I will declare you to be a Bible-thumping fundie. We are used to this absurd trick.

 

[maximara]

That is the false alternative touted by the Mythicists. Either accept my ridiculous dating and preposterous analysis of the sources, or I will declare you to be a Bible-thumping fundie. We are used to this absurd trick.

It's not an absurd trick as has been explained before and is a point of the Rationalwiki Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article:

So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

To make Jesus more than that a researcher has to assume some parts of the Gospels narrative is essentially true. But which parts? In answering that question all supporters of a "historical Jesus" get into the confirmation bias problem of effectively turning Jesus into a Tabula Rasa on which they overlay their own views.


That said as I have pointed out dejudge's argument boils down to using the absurdity of the triumphalist theory to refute the reductive theory which Carrier says is a nonsense argument.

Again look at what Carrier says would qualify as a minimal historical Jesus:

1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an an identifiable movement after his death
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."

"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade then Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite) ... My point at present is that even if we proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped."

Carrier is giving a lot of flexibility here.

 

[Craig B]

... the reductive theory which Carrier says is a nonsense argument ... Again look at what Carrier says would qualify as a minimal historical Jesus ... Carrier is giving a lot of flexibility here.

That's very kind of him. Well anyway it's obvious that you don't regard the NT as an infallible fount of truth. Unfortunately Carrier isn't infallible either. As I have tried to show, a lot of what he says is rubbish.

Would you like to tackle the "embarrassment" issue which I have discussed above, where I dismiss Carrier's arguments as utterly ludicrous? Obviously there's no point in continually referring to him when you know I simply don't accept his reasoning. I have attacked him. So defend him; don't just keep quoting his words.

Suppose I tell a Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep that I don't accept the Bible as the word of God, but he keeps saying, as his only argument, "But the Bible says ... ". That's silly, isn't it?

 

[JaysonR]

Just for the record, I do not rely on Carrier for my contention with the criteria of embarrassment.

I admire Carrier's pursuits in academia, but I do not always agree (not that I agree greatly with many on the subject).