The Historical Jesus II

[Brainache]

As I have pointed out before in post 2829 and again in post 3456 there is "no evidence" that the Euhemeric view of history regarding the various gods and heroes was wrong either.

Remember both Herodotus and Euhemerus stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king (Euhemerus said he was buried on Crete), Plutarch (c46 – 120 CE) as seeking to pin "Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt", and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos


"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr, First Apology 21:30

"Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves" - Clement of Alexandria (d 217 CE) Cohortatio ad gentes

Remember that the demi-god heroes (and some of the gods themselves) of Greek and Roman mythology had adventures on Earth. So should we believe as the ancients did that they had once been living people?

Remember that the death and rebirth of Osiris also happened on Earth so are we to suppose Osiris was once a living person?

Romulus and Remus were born and raised by a she wolf on Earth so are to suppose Romulus and Remus were once living people?

This whole 'Jesus is stated to have interacted with people on Earth therefore was an actual person' idea is silly.

And as I said the last time you brought this up, Jesus was different to those Greek gods in that he supposedly lived in the recent past and interacted with known contemporaries like John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas, James and Peter etc. He wasn't a folkloric hero from the distant past to Paul.

 

[Craig B]

As I have pointed out before in post 2829 and again in post 3456 there is "no evidence" that the Euhemeric view of history regarding the various gods and heroes was wrong either.

Remember both Herodotus and Euhemerus stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king (Euhemerus said he was buried on Crete), Plutarch (c46 – 120 CE) as seeking to pin "Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt", and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king.

You've missed the essence of Brainache's argument.

the whole point of being "The Christ" was living down here on earth amongst mortal men

That's because "Christ" is not a divine title or attribute. It is the designation of a purely human status or vocation, attributed for example to Cyrus King of Persia in Isaiah 45:1.

Thus Pliny finds it necessary to note that adherents of the sect he was investigating "sing hymns to the christ as to a god". This was indeed a noteworthy peculiarity, distinguishing these people from messianic Jews or other messianists.

 

[tsig]

And as I said the last time you brought this up, Jesus was different to those Greek gods in that he supposedly lived in the recent past and interacted with known contemporaries like John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas, James and Peter etc. He wasn't a folkloric hero from the distant past to Paul.

He was special?

 

[tsig]

What on earth are you talking about? As we have shown, there is no unitary source called "the bible" but a collection of works, and even individual passages may be composite. Some of the statements it contains may be true. Traditionalist Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and all of it is true. But that doesn't mean that atheists have to say that every word in all of these books is necessarily false. Mythical histories and doctrinal works may on occasion be able to provide useful data.

Sounds like any Christian I have heard telling me that some of the bible is metaphor but the part they believe is true.

 

[maximara]

That's because "Christ" is not a divine title or attribute. It is the designation of a purely human status or vocation, attributed for example to Cyrus King of Persia in Isaiah 45:1.

Thus Pliny finds it necessary to note that adherents of the sect he was investigating "sing hymns to the christ as to a god". This was indeed a noteworthy peculiarity, distinguishing these people from messianic Jews or other messianists.

Carrier actually explains and alternative in his notes on OHJ 343 and points the reader to his own Not the Impossible Faith pg 418-22 and Knight Disciples of the Beloved One pg 34-36 and 209-12 for more detail on this passage.

"Note that Pliny's hesitant phrase 'as if to a God' (quasi deo) could reflect his response to the exoteric myth (if his Christian informants were simply repeating the Gospels in which Jesus allegorically presented as a historical man) or the esoteric one (Jesus then being confusingly explained to him as a celestial archangel or demigod they pray to, but not exactly to 'God'). It could also be a testual corruption, as there is some external evidence Pliny may have originally written Christo et Deo, 'to Christ and God' or Christo ut Deo 'to Christ as God' See Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man pg 640"

'As to a god' is NOT the same as 'as if to a god' and there is evidence that Carrier isn't just spouting nonsense here either:

"First, whatever the phrase carmen... dicere may have meant to Pliny (and we have no private access to his mind), it is indisputable that the earliest ‘commentator’ on this text, Tertullian, in his reference to it in Apol. ii. 6, believed that a hymnic composition was intended, as his use of the verb canere shows in his re-casting of the sentence as ad canendum Christo ut deo."

"In spite of many ingenious attempts to discover cryptic meanings in the text, the simplest translation seems the best. The Christians met ‘to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god’ [38]

38 This is the translation of B. Radice, The Letters of the Younger Pliny (Penguin ed.), 1963, 294. " - Ralph P. Martin, “A Footnote To Pliny’ Account of Christian Worship,” Vox Evangelica 3 (1964): 51-57.

So Tertullian shows there may be some transcriptional issues with Pliny and Radice shows the experts can't agree if the Christo quasi deo dicere we do have means 'as to a god' or 'as if to a god' (on par with a demi-god or angel).

As Meir Bar-Ilan's Prayers of Jews to Angels and Other Intermediaries during the First Centuries of the Common Era states "Extensive analysis of the various sources of Talmudic literature reveals that there is some substance to the polemical claims of early Christians that Jews at that time did pray to angels."

If Jesus was viewed as an celestial being ie angel (rather then God himself) then Pliny could still have be dealing with messianic Jews.

So with Pliny we have translation issues, possible transcription issues, and the possibly Pliny misunderstood what the Christians and-or Tacitus was telling him.

 

[Craig B]

Sounds like any Christian I have heard telling me that some of the bible is metaphor but the part they believe is true.

No it doesn't. You're talking nonsense. Where have I said anything about metaphor? The Bible is a collection of works containing all manner of stories, some contradictory. It is not the word of God, so it is not all true. But neither was all of it composed as fiction, so it may contain true statements.

Instead of silly provocation, which MJers indulge in copiously, perhaps you could tell me why every statement in the Bible is necessarily false, if that's what you're arguing. If that's not what you are arguing, I would be grateful to learn from you what point you are in fact making.

 

[IanS]

I think there was a HJ. I also think that the gospel stories are quite likely based on a conflation of more than one person (plus a fair bit of invention, OT "Prophecy" and sectarian propaganda).

As I have been stating for years on these threads, there are two kinds of "myth" scenarios. One states: we don't have much evidence for Jesus, so he was probably a myth (in the loose sense of a non-existent person). I have much sympathy for that. The evidence is indeed sparse.

The two HJ posters here have really just shot themselves in both feet. Look at their respective quotes above.

The first post has Brainache actually stating that he believes in a myth theory of Jesus (the "conflation of more than one person" is actually a mythical Jesus.

And the second post from Craig says that he has "much sympathy" for a myth theory that says the evidence is "indeed" so "sparse" that Jesus was probably a myth. Which is probably going much further towards the myth position that I have ever gone here.

E.g., I would not, and have not, claimed that "sparse" evidence alone means Jesus was probably a "myth".

And nor has anyone here proposed any specific myth theory saying that is the reason why there could never have been any living 1st century preacher named "Jesus". Far less, have, I, Max, or even dejudge, said that we specifically support and/or promote the Carrier-Doherty sub-lunar idea as proof that Jesus had to be entirely mythical.

But the evidence for Jesus is not merely "sparse", it's non-existent. There is no evidence of a human Jesus known to any of the biblical writers, or to any of the people named or mentioned in the bible. Nobody in the bible ever reliably claimed to have met Jesus. There is actually NO evidence of him.

And when there is absolutely no evidence at all (and there is not), and where all known evidence is actually to the contrary, then it's probably not an objectively credible position for HJ posters here to claim as they have, that the "evidence" (which is evidence only of religious beliefs) tells them that Jesus was "probably" real such that people here have put figures ranging from 60:40 to 90:10 upon it.

 

[tsig]

No it doesn't. You're talking nonsense. Where have I said anything about metaphor? The Bible is a collection of works containing all manner of stories, some contradictory. It is not the word of God, so it is not all true. But neither was all of it composed as fiction, so it may contain true statements.
Instead of silly provocation, which MJers indulge in copiously, perhaps you could tell me why every statement in the Bible is necessarily false, if that's what you're arguing. If that's not what you are arguing, I would be grateful to learn from you what point you are in fact making.

How do you know which statements are true?

(I'm feeling a bit deja vuish here)

 

[tsig]

The two HJ posters here have really just shot themselves in both feet. Look at their respective quotes above.

The first post has Brainache actually stating that he beliefs in a myth theory of Jesus (the "conflation of more than one person" is actually a mythical Jesus.

And the second post from Craig says that he has "much sympathy" for a myth theory that says the evidence is "indeed" so "sparse" that Jesus was probably a myth. Which is probably going much further towards the myth position that I have ever gone here.

E.g., I would not, and have not, claimed that "sparse" evidence alone means Jesus was probably a "myth".

And nor has anyone here proposed any specific myth theory saying that is the reason why there could never have been any living 1st century preacher named "Jesus". Far less, have, I, Max, or even dejudge, said that we specifically support and/or promote the Carrier-Doherty sub-lunar idea as proof that Jesus had to be entirely mythical.

But the evidence for Jesus is not merely "sparse", it's non-existent. There is no evidence of a human Jesus known to any of the biblical writers, or to any of the people named or mentioned in the bible. Nobody in the bible ever reliably claimed to have met Jesus. There is actually NO evidence of him.

And when there is absolutely no evidence at all (and there is not), and where all known evidence is actually to the contrary, then it's probably not an objectively credible position for HJ posters here to claim as they have, that the "evidence" (which is evidence only of religious beliefs) tells them that Jesus was "probably" real such that people here have put figures ranging from 60:40 to 90:10 upon it.

The HJers have watered down their Jesus to an unknown itinerant Jewish preacher more myth than reality yet still insist they believe in an historical Jesus as witnessed in the bible.

 

[jhunter1163]

The HJers have watered down their Jesus to an unknown itinerant Jewish preacher more myth than reality...

So far so good.

...yet still insist they believe in an historical Jesus as witnessed in the bible.

And here you go off the rails. No one on the HJ side accepts the Bible stories at face value. Just because the HJ side accepts "more myth than reality" doesn't mean that they accept the myth.

 

[waters]

And as I said the last time you brought this up, Jesus was different to those Greek gods in that he supposedly lived in the recent past and interacted with known contemporaries like John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas, James and Peter etc. He wasn't a folkloric hero from the distant past to Paul.

That's because "Christ" is not a divine title or attribute. It is the designation of a purely human status or vocation, attributed for example to Cyrus King of Persia in Isaiah 45:1.
Thus Pliny finds it necessary to note that adherents of the sect he was investigating "sing hymns to the christ as to a god". This was indeed a noteworthy peculiarity, distinguishing these people from messianic Jews or other messianists.

But the evidence for Jesus is not merely "sparse", it's non-existent. There is no evidence of a human Jesus known to any of the biblical writers, or to any of the people named or mentioned in the bible. Nobody in the bible ever reliably claimed to have met Jesus. There is actually NO evidence of him.

No contemporary evidence.

It is also noteworthy, that those living in his purported time frame did not mention him, despite mentioning many others with similar or even less dramatic claims of singularity.

Yang GuiFei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Guifei , who lived in the 8th century CE, was a genuine historical figure, murdered, despite having committed no offense, while still serving as consort to the Emperor, a service enacted via compulsion, rather than earnest application.

Kiritsubo Kōi, on the other hand, mother of Hikaru Genji, though possessing many of the attributes of Yang GuiFei, nevertheless is a purely fictional character, invented by Murasaki Shikibu, in tribute to Yang GuiFei's heroism and sacrifice.

Was Zeus a living person. I doubt it. Was the picture of Zeus, portrayed by writers for centuries, modeled after a living man? I doubt it. Was Herakles modeled after a living person, like Kiritsubo Koi? I doubt it. Was Jesus of Nazareth modeled after a living person?

I deny it. Jesus was modeled after the life story of a fictional character, Herakles. Where's the human model for Jesus? Where's the template? Like Jesus, Herakles shares an omnipotent supernatural deity as father: Zeus/YHWH. Herakles and Jesus share the following traits in common:

mother: human --check,
performed miracles, casually, in stride: --check,
basically good guy, not seeking to harm others: --check
lots of arduous tasks to accomplish before death: --check
encounters with wily, dangerous, supernatural foes: --check
resurrection following death: --check
ascension post mortem to mount Olympus to live with his father : check

None of this nonsense is historically documented, of course. It is simply elaborated in a fictional account--the gospels, in the best tradition of Homer's fables about the Trojan War. So, no, Jesus was not different from Greek mythological characters. And, no, Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan neither identifies Jesus, nor eliminates other messianists, of that era, since "christ" simply refers to anointment, a common procedure in that era. Do we know the provenance of Pliny's letters? How do we know that the reference to Christians does not reflect a change from "Chrestians", in Pliny's original letter?

Have you examined P45?
http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/zoomify/GA_P45?image=P45_005a_w.jpg&page=2#viewer

If you do, I think you may be impressed by the quantity of words encountered, without meeting the name, Ἰησοῦς, anywhere in the text.
For example, below is Mark 5:20, which is included among the handful of leaves comprising this precious, ancient papyrus text.

I have not yet actually located this particular passage, in searching the online images, so if someone does find it, please provide a link. The link here, above, is, instead to Mark 6.

Mark 5:20 Byzantine bible
Καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν ἐν τῇ Δεκαπόλει ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· καὶ πάντες ἐθαύμαζον.

You will not observe this text if you consult with our most ancient source, Codex Sinaiticus:

Mark 5:20
και απηλθεν και ηρξατο κηρυϲϲει εν τη δεκαπολι ο ϲα εποιηϲεν αυ
τω ο ιϲ και παντεϲ εθαυμαζον

Missing: Ἰησοῦς, replaced by ιϲ with a superscript. Is that nomen sacrum supposed to impress us, as being Jesus of Nazareth? Ok, fine, consider me impressed. However, I do not interpret that sentence as indicating Jesus of Nazareth.

Is it the same guy discussed in Pliny's letter to Trajan? I don't know, did Pliny write ιϲ with a superscript? How do we determine authenticity? Tradition? How do we know what Pliny really intended to communicate?

How do we know what Pliny had actually observed? Don't we rely on what Pliny has written? Well, then, who is this "Christ"? Does P45 contradict me? Does a document written a century before Codex Sinaiticus, refer to Ἰησοῦς? Does P45 describe ιϲ as having been born in Bethlehem? If not, what about Ἰησοῦς? How do we know that this is not two different folks?

 

[tsig]

No it doesn't. You're talking nonsense. Where have I said anything about metaphor? The Bible is a collection of works containing all manner of stories, some contradictory. It is not the word of God, so it is not all true. But neither was all of it composed as fiction, so it may contain true statements.
Instead of silly provocation, which MJers indulge in copiously, perhaps you could tell me why every statement in the Bible is necessarily false, if that's what you're arguing. If that's not what you are arguing, I would be grateful to learn from you what point you are in fact making.

So far so good.



And here you go off the rails. No one on the HJ side accepts the Bible stories at face value. Just because the HJ side accepts "more myth than reality" doesn't mean that they accept the myth.

One does.

 

[Brainache]

...
Do you have anything apart from snark to add to this discussion?

He was special?

Sounds like any Christian I have heard telling me that some of the bible is metaphor but the part they believe is true.

How do you know which statements are true?

(I'm feeling a bit deja vuish here)

The HJers have watered down their Jesus to an unknown itinerant Jewish preacher more myth than reality yet still insist they believe in an historical Jesus as witnessed in the bible.

One does.

So, the answer to my question is "no". OK it helps to know.

 

[Brainache]

The two HJ posters here have really just shot themselves in both feet. Look at their respective quotes above.

The first post has Brainache actually stating that he believes in a myth theory of Jesus (the "conflation of more than one person" is actually a mythical Jesus.

What I mean is that some of the stories in the gospels are stories about other people that were applied to Jesus, not that Jesus was solely a product of conflation.

And the second post from Craig says that he has "much sympathy" for a myth theory that says the evidence is "indeed" so "sparse" that Jesus was probably a myth. Which is probably going much further towards the myth position that I have ever gone here.

E.g., I would not, and have not, claimed that "sparse" evidence alone means Jesus was probably a "myth".

And nor has anyone here proposed any specific myth theory saying that is the reason why there could never have been any living 1st century preacher named "Jesus". Far less, have, I, Max, or even dejudge, said that we specifically support and/or promote the Carrier-Doherty sub-lunar idea as proof that Jesus had to be entirely mythical.

Then what are you arguing for? The minimal HJ position of modern Academia is what CraigB and I have been presenting. If you have only just come to understand that the HJ of modern Scholars isn't the same as the gospel Jesus of the Christian faith, you can't have been paying much attention all these years.

But the evidence for Jesus is not merely "sparse", it's non-existent. There is no evidence of a human Jesus known to any of the biblical writers, or to any of the people named or mentioned in the bible. Nobody in the bible ever reliably claimed to have met Jesus. There is actually NO evidence of him.

The things you list would not count as evidence, even if they did exist. All they would be evidence for is someone making the claim, not the truth of the claim itself.

And when there is absolutely no evidence at all (and there is not), and where all known evidence is actually to the contrary, then it's probably not an objectively credible position for HJ posters here to claim as they have, that the "evidence" (which is evidence only of religious beliefs) tells them that Jesus was "probably" real such that people here have put figures ranging from 60:40 to 90:10 upon it.

You say these things because you don't understand what the Historians use to reach their conclusions. You must think that Historians are pretty naive and that they would accept a statement in the bible to the effect "I met Jesus", as evidence for a HJ. That is not how Historical textual criticism works. Look it up.

 

[dejudge]

...And here you go off the rails. No one on the HJ side accepts the Bible stories at face value. Just because the HJ side accepts "more myth than reality" doesn't mean that they accept the myth.

Your statement is completely wrong and is an established fallacy.

Christians and Fundamentalists are on the HJ side and they accept virtually all the Bible stories at face value.

All persons, Christian or not, who argue that there was an historical Jesus MUST have accepted stories in the Bible at face value.

The Baptism of Jesus by John, the claim that Jesus was from Nazareth, the preaching of Jesus in Galilee and the crucifixion were accepted at face value WITHOUT any external contemporary corroboration.

The Christ myth theory thus goes beyond the mainstream view in Historical Jesus research, which accepts that many of the events described in the gospels are not historical but which still assumes that the gospels are founded on a basic historical core.

The HJ argument is still directly based on accepting stories of Jesus at face value because there are NO contemporary independent sources from antiquity to corroborate a single claim about Jesus in the Bible.

 

[dejudge]

The things you list would not count as evidence, even if they did exist. All they would be evidence for is someone making the claim, not the truth of the claim itself.

Your statement is really bizarre!! How can you now use Galatians 1.19 as evidence for an historical Jesus?

Based on your statement Galatians 1.19 is only evidence that someone claimed to have met the Apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother but NOT evidence of the truth of the claim.

You have confirmed [inadvertently] that Galatians 1.19 is useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

And as I said the last time you brought this up, Jesus was different to those Greek gods in that he supposedly lived in the recent past and interacted with known contemporaries like John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas, James and Peter etc. He wasn't a folkloric hero from the distant past to Paul.

Your claim is an established fallacy. You have no CONTEMPORARY manuscripts of the storiies of Jesus.

Your assumptions are worthless since we have asked you for EVIDENCE from antiquity.

The earliest manuscripts with stories of Jesus of Nazareth and characters called Caiaphas, Pilate, James and Peter are dated about 150 years AFTER the time of the Emperor Tiberius.

It is also extremely void to of logic to assume Jesus of Nazareth existed because it is claimed he interacted with accepted figues of history.

Satan interacted with Jesus in Jerusalem and the angel Gabriel interacted with Mary in Galilee.

Based on your bizarre logic Satan and the angel Gabriel existed because they interacted with Jesus or his mother.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is really bizarre!! How can you now use Galatians 1.19 as evidence for an historical Jesus?

Based on your statement Galatians 1.19 is only evidence that someone claimed to have met the Apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother but NOT evidence of the truth of the claim.

You have confirmed [inadvertently] that Galatians 1.19 is useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

Not at all. Having seen the claim, we now ask: "Why is Paul making this claim?" "To whom is he making the claim?" "Who is this 'Lord's brother' and why is he so important?" etc...

It isn't a case of just taking it at face value because even if it is false, the claim itself can teach us something.

 

[Craig B]

Not at all. Having seen the claim, we now ask: "Why is Paul making this claim?" "To whom is he making the claim?" "Who is this 'Lord's brother' and why is he so important?" etc...

It isn't a case of just taking it at face value because even if it is false, the claim itself can teach us something.

Not if the whole thing was invented as a hoax hundreds of years later, as dejudge proposes.

 

[dejudge]

Your statement is really bizarre!! How can you now use Galatians 1.19 as evidence for an historical Jesus?

Based on your statement Galatians 1.19 is only evidence that someone claimed to have met the Apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother but NOT evidence of the truth of the claim.

You have confirmed [inadvertently] that Galatians 1.19 is useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

Not at all. Having seen the claim, we now ask: "Why is Paul making this claim?" "To whom is he making the claim?" "Who is this 'Lord's brother' and why is he so important?" etc...

It isn't a case of just taking it at face value because even if it is false, the claim itself can teach us something.

Your post only confirms intellectual dishonesty.

You just made up that story.

It is already known that the HJ argument is STILL BASED on the ASSUMPTION that the NT contains the history of Jesus.

People who argue for an HJ must accept stories about Jesus at FACE VALUE because there is NO corroborative contemporary evidence.