The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Oh yes he does. He doesn't bring us a biography of Jesus, but that isn't the only possible evidence. He brings us a background that contains people we meet with in Jesus' biographical notices, and situations of time and place discussed here many times.

Of course all this can be explained away. Aretas is not Aretas. Brother of the Lord is not a brother. James is not James; Peter is not Peter etc etc. This may always and anywhere be done to any seeming evidence, but it is a laborious and piecemeal solution.

Why not therefore dispense with the whole lot by declaring Paul to be non existent, and pronouncing his alleged writings to be a forgery, fabricated centuries later for the purposes of deception? That makes life a lot easier for the Mythicists.

What a big joke!!! The Christian Bible claims Paul met the Apostles Peter and James so it must be true.

Craig B has completely forgotten that the same Christian Bible also claims Jesus met Satan in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple.

Craig B forgets that in the Christian Bible Mary met the Angel Gabriel in Galilee.

Craig B forgets that the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary in the Christian Bible.

Craig B forgets that in the Christian Bible it is claimed by Paul that Jesus was from heaven.

All those things can be easily explained away.

Satan is not Satan, the Angel Gabriel is not an Angel, the Holy Ghost was not real and heaven does not exist.

The HJ argument is the very worse known to mankind since those who argue for an HJ only attempt to explain away the FICTION and Mythology.

Christians of antiquity have already explained that THEIR JESUS was born of a Ghost, was God from the beginning, a Transfiguring Water walker, the Lord from heaven.

 

[tsig]

Edwin Judge is highly religious, as are most, if not all, of the academics in that Center.


False equivalence.

Yep, the HJers seem to lose all reason and start ranting and raving and calling those who do not think there is enough evidence for a HJ holocaust deniers, creationists and any other vile thing they can think of.

Strange behavior for atheists who one would think should have no skin in the game.


I noticed that Joey totally ignored my post and preferred to snark rather than talk.

 

[Craig B]

What a big joke!!! The Christian Bible claims Paul met the Apostles Peter and James so it must be true.

Craig B has completely forgotten that the same Christian Bible also claims Jesus met Satan in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple. <rest of repetition snipped>

This weird post illustrated, not for the first time, a peculiarity of dejudge's approach. The "Christian Bible" is perceived by him as a single integral source, so that no part of it can be examined individually, and because it is not the word of God, it is false. Therefore no part of it can be discussed, because, for example: "Paul met James" and "Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost" are equivalent statements because both are in "The Bible". And they are both false because "The Bible" is false.

 

[maximara]

Oh yes he does. He doesn't bring us a biography of Jesus, but that isn't the only possible evidence. He brings us a background that contains people we meet with in Jesus' biographical notices, and situations of time and place discussed here many times.

Yet despited meeting these people he still provides NO real historical details about Jesus

Of course all this can be explained away.

Not in the way you are summing it up though.

Aretas is not Aretas.

As explained before there is something wonked about Pauls escape in a basket.

Some scholars suggest that control of Damascus was gained by Aretas IV Philopatris of Nabatea between the death of Herod Phillip in 33/44 and the death of Aretas in 40 CE but there is substantial evidence against Aretas controlling the city before 37 CE and many reasons why it could not have been a gift from Caligula between 37 and 40 CE. (Riesner, Rainer (1998) Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing pg 73-89; Hengel, Martin (1997) Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years Westminster John Knox Press pg 130)

In fact, all these theories stem not from any actual evidence outside the New Testament but rather "a certain understanding 2 Cor. 11:32" and in reality "neither from archeological evidence, secular-historical sources, nor New Testament texts can Nabartean sovereignty over Damascus in the first century AD be proven." (Riesner, Rainer (1998) Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing pg 83-84, 89)

Brother of the Lord is not a brother.

Not a biological brother and even part of the PRO historical Jesus side goes this route. Never mind that Prince Philip is said to be the biological brother of John Frum despite him having NO brothers at all.

James is not James;

Again this shows up on the PRO historical Jesus side as the list of apostles in the Gospels or Acts neither James listed is stated as being a biological brother of Jesus.

Peter is not Peter etc etc.

Haven't seen this one

Why not therefore dispense with the whole lot by declaring Paul to be non existent, and pronouncing his alleged writings to be a forgery, fabricated centuries later for the purposes of deception? That makes life a lot easier for the Mythicists.

If it really "life a lot easier for the Mythicists" then more of them would have done it. But the reality is the Radical Dutch school was regarded as so of the wall bonkers that it was on the fringes of the Christ Myth theory even in the 19th century.

In Christ Myth Drews flat out stated "Without Jesus the rise of Christianity can be quite well understood, without Paul not so." and Drews writes about the idea of considering that all the Pauline writings were forgeries.

J T Robertson accepted Paul as existing. Joseph Wheless who saw forgeries everywhere still accepted there was a Paul.

GA Wells, Robert Price, and Carrier all accept Paul as having existed.

D.M. Murdock suggests not only did Paul exist but he was in reality Apollonius of Tyanna and she isn't the only one.

The majority of Christ Mythers accept Paul as having existed. Remsburg points out

"Admitting the authenticity of these books, however, is not admitting the historical existence of Christ and the divine origin of Christianity. Paul was not a witness of the alleged events upon which Christianity rests. He did not become a convert to Christianity until many years after the death of Christ. He did not see Christ (save in a vision); he did not listen to his teachings; he did not learn from his disciples. "The Gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it" (Gal. i, II, 12). Paul accepted only to a very small extent the religion of Christ's disciples. He professed to derive his knowledge from supernatural sources -- from trances and visions. Regarding the value of such testimony the author of Supernatural Religion (p. 970) says: "No one can deny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have been subject to visions and hallucinations which have never been seriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not one single valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of the Apostle Paul from this class.""

As I pointed out a while ago

If we take the argument to its logical conclusion there there is no "proof" Prophet Fred exists either. Paul Raffaele never personally met Prophet Fred and is getting his information from a man that claims to be Prophet Fred's brother-in-law and that Prophet Fred “raised his wife from the dead two weeks ago.” So using THIS criteria how can we even say Prophet Fred exists?

Also as I pointed out before a sizable number of Josephus would be messiahs were before Josephus himself was born in 37 CE and AFAIK Josephus is our only source for many of them. So using THIS criteria how can we even say any of these pre 37 CE would be messiahs actually existed?

By this loopy logic Prophet Fred (the John Frum movement's equivalent of Paul) doesn't exist even though there is a Smithsonian article that mentions him. How is Prophet Fred any different from Paul?

We only have believers in John Frum saying Prophet Fred existed
We only have believers in Jesus saying Paul existed

No non-believer in John Frum has actually met Prophet Fred
No non-believer in Jesus had actually met Paul

Seven epistles appear to be of one hand and based on internal evidence are earlier then other epistles under the name Paul.
Prophet Fred AFAWK hasn't written a single thing.

To keep it brain dead simple: John Frum is to Jesus what Prophet Fred is to Paul

So how can we accept Prophet Fred was an actual person by the loopy criteria we are being presented regarding Paul?

 

[Craig B]

If it really "life a lot easier for the Mythicists" then more of them would have done it. But the reality is the Radical Dutch school of was regarded as so of the wall bonkers that it was on the fringes of the Christ Myth theory.

If you aren't frightened of things that are "off the wall bonkers", and some people are not, then it makes life easier.

ETA Have a look at this, for example. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm

 

[Leumas]

Oh yes he does. He doesn't bring us a biography of Jesus, but that isn't the only possible evidence. He brings us a background that contains people we meet with in Jesus' biographical notices, and situations of time and place discussed here many times.

Of course all this can be explained away. Aretas is not Aretas. Brother of the Lord is not a brother. James is not James; Peter is not Peter etc etc. This may always and anywhere be done to any seeming evidence, but it is a laborious and piecemeal solution.

Why not therefore dispense with the whole lot by declaring Paul to be non existent, and pronouncing his alleged writings to be a forgery, fabricated centuries later for the purposes of deception? That makes life a lot easier for the Mythicists.

Every single one of the mountebanks on the list in this post claimed they had a VISION that gave them their flimflam and they were real human hucksters... yet no one has tried to claim that their VISIONS were real humans or exaggerations based on real humans.

Someone wrote the "Pauline" fables epistles whether his name was Paul or Joseph Smith or Muhammad or Jim Jones is utterly immaterial. However the VISION in those epistles was not a real human being nor based on the ghost of a delusional hoboing moron who blasphemed about his god and told people that he was going to sit on a throne in the clouds when the world ended pretty soon.

Visions that are brighter than the sun and that blind people and then miraculously cure them three days later are not real nor based on reality and especially more so when the claimer is a charlatan like "Paul" and the people like him that have existed throughout the annals of human folly and still exist whenever they find sufficient hordes of fools stupid enough to buy the snake oil they peddle.

Whoever fabricated the epistles was a real human being or a cadre of human beings.... just like whoever wrote the 1001 Arabian Nights was/were real human beings.

The epistles were real writings (although the contents were fables) written by real hands on real paper with real ink in a real language spoken by real people.... just like the 1001 Arabian Nights... the contents are fables and fairy tales and total fabrications, but whoever wrote them was real unlike the HEROES and VISIONS in the tall tales.

Neither the Angel Gabriel nor the Angel Macaroni nor Scheherazade ever existed... although the people who FABRICATED the fables about their exploits were real people regardless of their names.

Harry Potter is a figment of the imagination of whoever wrote the fairy tales about him. However, this fabricator was a real human being regardless of what one decides to call her... but Harry unlike the writer of his chronicles was not real NOR BASED ON A REAL HUMAN.

When one writes a FICTIVE TALE they might use real names of places and real names of people in an attempt to give their tales an air of reality especially if they are writing the tales with the EXPRESS PURPOSE OF BAMBOOZLING.

Sherlock Holmes did not exist despite the fact that Baker Street, Scotland Yard and Queen Victoria were all real.... and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle too was real.

Whoever "Homer" was, s/he must have by the dictates of reality been a real human or a succession of humans but by the very same dictates of the very same reality Athena was not real nor based upon anyone real.

REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY people and so called "scholars" there were for centuries thinking that Athena was real and that the Iliad was a real history, Athena was not real despite the writer of the Iliad being real and despite of him using names of real places and perhaps even names of real kings.

How many so called "scholars" today are so hot under the collar arguing that Achilles must have been based upon a real person albeit without Athena having really dipped him in a fire while dangling from his heel?

Do you know of any atheists recommending lobotomies to other atheists because they point out the illogic in believing that Sinbad The Sailor was based on a real person albeit not a sailor but just an observant Jew who liked to go fishing?

Do you know of atheists maligning and deriding and wrangling with other atheists that Thor was not really a god but just an observant Azgardian who got banished by a despotic King and his hammer was not really magical but it was so really really heavy that only he could lift it?

How many atheists do you see so often arguing so incessantly and indefatigably and acerbically with so much vitriol against other atheists that Robin Hood must have been an observant cobbler because otherwise why go to such efforts to write him as having been in the real forest of Sherwood and then having to go to Nottingham instead of Derby or Manchester United ... oops wrong kind of fight?

 

[Craig B]

When one writes a FICTIVE TALE they might use real names of places and real names of people in an attempt to give their tales an air of reality especially if they are writing the tales with the EXPRESS PURPOSE OF BAMBOOZLING.

Then you're saying that there's such a thing as a unitary-source "Bible", and this is what it is: a fictive tale created by mountebanks for the express purpose of bamboozling.

I think it's something far more complicated, both in structure and in the motivation and intent of its various writers. But if you keep repeating the same thing without ever addressing the contrary points made to you, there is no point in exploring this further.

 

[Elagabalus]

snip

Shorter leumas, look over there!

 

[Elagabalus]

...Yet despited meeting these people he still provides NO real historical details about Jesus ...

Bwaahhahahahahaha! You're kidding me, right?

 

[maximara]

If you aren't frightened of things that are "off the wall bonkers", and some people are not, then it makes life easier.

ETA Have a look at this, for example. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm

I touched on Kenneth Humphreys some time back:

Unlike Jesus we have what are the supposed writings of Paul. Also unlike Jesus we have one or perhaps two contemporaries (Ignatius of Antioch and perhaps Clement of Rome) write about Paul.

So a non historical Paul requires these works be forgeries as well. Which Kenneth Humphreys does regarding Ignatius with gusto and throws Polycarp (80 – 167) under the bus as well which given the age Polycarp would have been makes no sense (odds are anyone who knew Jesus or his followers would have long been dead by the time Polycarp became an adult). Clement of Rome is such a cypher that there is not indication how old he was and so is a maybe.

I have compared Jesus to Apollonius of Tyana but how does Paul compare? D.M. Murdock has a good quick reference chart comparing them but there there are key details she leaves out.

Both Paul and Apollonius left writings credited to them.

Both Paul and Apollonius had at least one contemporary write about them.

So why accept Apollonius of Tyana who was turned into as much of miracle working demi-god as Jesus as a historical person but throw out Paul?

Even the Christians didn't claim the pagans took Jesus exploits and slapped them on Apollonius of Tyana. Heck, the Christians don't even claim that Apollonius of Tyana as a fiction created by the Pagans to discredit the feats of Jesus.

No, the Christians brilliant explanation for the stories of Apollonius of Tyana was his feats of trickery and demons.

As I mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 is a little strange. If Paul as he claimed got his knowledge from no human agency there where did he get knowledge of the vision to 500+ people? Based on how much Paul harps on him getting his information regarding Jesus through revelation (ie vision) this sudden shift to eyewitnesses is strange. Also in the section regarding the supposed 500 witnesses Paul lists James separate from the apostles (both the 12 and others...who ever they are) but in Galatians 1:19 he is counting James as an apostle.

Paul can't seem to make up his mind as to James even being an apostle.

 

[Leumas]

Then you're saying that there's such a thing as a unitary-source "Bible", and this is what it is: a fictive tale created by mountebanks for the express purpose of bamboozling.

I think it's something far more complicated, both in structure and in the motivation and intent of its various writers. But if you keep repeating the same thing without ever addressing the contrary points made to you, there is no point in exploring this further.

You really really love building those straw men don't you?

Here are some more fairy tales written by real people dealing with the same mythical character.... much like there are hundreds of versions of tall tales about King Arthur (see here) and Robin Hood (see here) and just as there are hundreds of versions of Little Red Riding Hood (here is one) and Cinderella (see this one).

Do you think the earliest written Snow White fairy tale was about a real girl who choked on an apple and was given a heimlich maneuver by an observant prince because it was an earlier version written closer to the time of Snow White?

• The Gospel Of Peter
• The Gospel Of Mary
• The Infancy Gospels
• The Gospel Of Judas
• The Gospel Of Thomas
• The Gospel Of The Nazarenes
• The Gospel Of The Ebionites
• The Gospel Of The Hebrews
• The Apocalypse Of Peter
• The Apocalypse Of Paul
• The Coptic Apocalypse Of Paul
• The Acts Of Peter And The Twelve
• The Acts Of Peter And Paul
• The Acts Of Paul And Thecla
• HECK a trillion acts..... Acts of Andrew, Acts of Barnabas, Acts of John, Acts of the Martyrs, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Pilate, Acts of Philip. Acts of Thomas, Acts of Timothy, The Lost Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles

 

[maximara]

Bwaahhahahahahaha! You're kidding me, right?

No as I pointed out a LONG time ago sticking ONLY to Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon you can NOT answer these questions:

What was the name of Jesus father?
What was the name of Jesus mother?
When was Jesus crucified?
Who ruled Judea when Jesus crucified?
Who ruled the Roman Empire when Jesus crucified?
What miracles on Earth did Jesus perform?

Paul doesn't answer a single one of these questions in a straightforward manner but rather goes 'rulers of this age' and other vague nonsense.

 

[Craig B]

Here are some more fairy tales written by real people dealing with the same mythical character.... much like there are hundreds of versions of tall tales about King Arthur (see here) and Robin Hood (see here) and just as there are hundreds of versions of Little Red Riding Hood (here is one) and Cinderella (see this one).

Do you think the earliest written Snow White fairy tale was about a real girl who choked on an apple and was given a heimlich maneuver by an observant prince because it was an earlier version written closer to the time of Snow White?

<List snipped. What's this thing with huge lists of stuff?> No, not Snow White. But I do think that this "closer to time" reference to Arthur in an Ancient P-Celtic poem constitutes evidence for his existence. It doesn't prove his historicity by any means, but it is a piece of evidence. I give a wiki article citation below, but first can I get you to think about this? Not all things are the same. Snow White is not like the Synoptic Gospels; Christianity is not a Cargo Cult. Harry Potter is not like the Iliad, and so on. I could make a list of things that are not like other things, but I wont. Here's Arthur.

The Gododdin, known in Roman times as the Votadini, held territories in what is now southeast Scotland and Northumberland, part of the Hen Ogledd (Old North). The poem tells how a force of 300 (or 363) picked warriors were assembled, some from as far afield as Pictland and Gwynedd. After a year of feasting at Din Eidyn, now Edinburgh, they attacked Catraeth, which is usually identified with Catterick, North Yorkshire ... One stanza in particular has received attention because it mentions King Arthur in passing, which, if not an interpolation, would be the earliest known reference to that character.

 

[IanS]

Blather. Anyone who has ever studied the subject knows full well that the scholarly, academic consensus has been that Jesus was a real man. Would take anyone about 30 seconds to confirm this.

Keep in mind we are talking about scholars of history, professionals who devote their lives to answering such questions. You and your friends on reddit might have some arguing you're still interested in doing, that's not part of the claim being made.

Hitchens simply makes the argument really well about how the story seems put together to fit a real person, not invented whole cloth, if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you wouldn't be babbling about how I'm using Hitchens as a scholarly, historical source.

It's quite obvious to me that many people simply emotionally want the entire thing to be made up so they can justify their full-blown dismay and outrage at the fraud, it's all made up! When really, history didn't happen for you to have something to be outraged and skeptical about.

We are certainly NOT talking about "scholars of history".

The people who have been named as "scholars" in all of these HJ threads, both on this forum and on Rational-Scepticism and before that on the old Richard Dawkins forum, are almost all Biblical New Testament "Scholars", almost all of whom (virtually every last one of them), entered that profession purely and entirely because of their pre-existing extremely devout religious faith.

If you check the academic and personal background for any of those "scholars", then you will find that almost all of them are absolutely drowning in a huge history of religious study and religious belief, with virtually no other qualifications whatsoever. And those backgrounds have been quoted here many times and at great length for the most prominent and most frequently named "scholarly experts" such as Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan, E.P.Sanders etc.

Those "scholars" are rarely if ever employed in a normal secular university History department, teaching and researching mainstream non-religious history. Instead, if you check their employment details, you will find that apart from those who are simply Christian writers in general, and Theologians at theological seminaries, the ones who teach in genuine university departments, are actually in departments that are specifically for religious studies, or else a smaller number who are teaching from religious wings of otherwise genuine history departments.

 

[Belz...]

Really? You speak for the historian community? Has a poll been taken?

A poll? Is that how they determine consensus now?

There is no such consensus, there are arguments on both sides.

I'd like to point out that there are arguments on both sides of the Bigfoot debate, too.

 

[Belz...]

If there was a CONSENSUS then there would be NO arguments by Scholars that Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction.

What nonsense you write!!!!

There is a consensus that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity explain the physical workings of the universe, and yet there are quite a few scientists who propose alternatives.

YOU don't know what "consensus" means.

 

[maximara]

<List snipped. What's this thing with huge lists of stuff?> No, not Snow White. But I do think that this "closer to time" reference to Arthur in an Ancient P-Celtic poem constitutes evidence for his existence. It doesn't prove his historicity by any means, but it is a piece of evidence. I give a wiki article citation below, but first can I get you to think about this? Not all things are the same. Snow White is not like the Synoptic Gospels; Christianity is not a Cargo Cult. Harry Potter is not like the Iliad, and so on. I could make a list of things that are not like other things, but I wont. Here's Arthur.

"The Book of Aneirin manuscript is from the later 13th century, but Y Gododdin has been dated to anywhere between the 7th and the early 11th centuries. The text is partly written in Middle Welsh orthography and partly in Old Welsh. The early date would place its oral composition soon after the battle, presumably in the Hen Ogledd ("Old North"); as such it would have been written in the Cumbric dialect of Common Brittonic.[1][2] Others consider it the work of a poet from Wales in the 9th, 10th or 11th century. Even a 9th-century date would make it one of the oldest surviving Welsh works of poetry."

Gads the date for that is all over the place. Even paleographic dating with its 100 year range with 95% confidence interval has better dates than this.

The King Arthur article is a little more informative:

"Y Gododdin is known only from a 13th-century manuscript, so it is impossible to determine whether this passage is original or a later interpolation, but John Koch's view that the passage dates from a 7th-century or earlier version is regarded as unproven; 9th- or 10th-century dates are often proposed for it." (Charles-Edwards 1991, p. 15; Koch 1996, pp. 242–45; Green 2007b, pp. 13–15, 50–52.)

As the old song say "another one bites the dust"

 

[Craig B]

"The Book of Aneirin manuscript is from the later 13th century, but Y Gododdin has been dated to anywhere between the 7th and the early 11th centuries. The text is partly written in Middle Welsh orthography and partly in Old Welsh. The early date would place its oral composition soon after the battle, presumably in the Hen Ogledd ("Old North"); as such it would have been written in the Cumbric dialect of Common Brittonic.[1][2] Others consider it the work of a poet from Wales in the 9th, 10th or 11th century. Even a 9th-century date would make it one of the oldest surviving Welsh works of poetry."

Gads the date for that is all over the place. Even paleographic dating with its 100 year range with 95% confidence interval has better dates than this.

The King Arthur article is a little more informative:

"Y Gododdin is known only from a 13th-century manuscript, so it is impossible to determine whether this passage is original or a later interpolation, but John Koch's view that the passage dates from a 7th-century or earlier version is regarded as unproven; 9th- or 10th-century dates are often proposed for it." (Charles-Edwards 1991, p. 15; Koch 1996, pp. 242–45; Green 2007b, pp. 13–15, 50–52.)

As the old song say "another one bites the dust"

This is abject nonsense. The existence of the reference in the poem is evidence, not unchallengeable, but evidence,in a sense in which early manuscripts of Snow White are not. The date is indeed unproven as your link has suggested, and has not bitten the dust. It is a topic of discussion among commentators on the poem.

Now tell me if this is the same as Snow White. You think so?

 

[dejudge]

This weird post illustrated, not for the first time, a peculiarity of dejudge's approach. The "Christian Bible" is perceived by him as a single integral source, so that no part of it can be examined individually, and because it is not the word of God, it is false.

Therefore no part of it can be discussed, because, for example: "Paul met James" and "Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost" are equivalent statements because both are in "The Bible". And they are both false because "The Bible" is false.

Again, you post deliberate idiotic propaganda. You are just wasting time on this forum.

Your response demonstates that the HJ argument is an established farce.

People who argue for an HJ must explain away ALL myth and fictional accounts of Jesus in and out the NT from Conception to Ascension.

In fact, all versions of the Jesus story in the NT MUST be EXPLAINED AWAY in order to historicise Jesus of Nazareth.

Craig B how do you explain away the Ascension of Jesus in a cloud After the Resurrection?

See Acts 1.

 

[dejudge]

What nonsense you write!!!!

There is a consensus that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity explain the physical workings of the universe, and yet there are quite a few scientists who propose alternatives.

YOU don't know what "consensus" means.

What bizarre nonsense and intellectual dishonesty you post.

You don't like the meaning of "consensus" in the dictionary!!!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

consensus--a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group