The Historical Jesus III

[Belz...]

Sure. But that’s precisely why it comes down to that question of what their evidence is.

All the arguments can be short-circuited by just asking these experts what their evidence is ... but when you ask them, it turns out they can never produce any credible genuine evidence at all.

Yeah but you're forgetting the thing that I said which led to this conversation: are you or I qualified to determine what evidence is geuine or credible when it comes to historical research?

 

[GDon]

Where is this evidence that the earliest Christian writers said that Jesus was just an ordinary man?

To be clear: Just a man, rather than a virgin-born Son of the Holy Ghost. That was later.

The evidence is in the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark, which are the earliest Christian writings we have. I hope you will admit that the Gospel of Mark appears to portray Jesus as a man with a mother and brothers and sisters? So at least the Gospel of Mark supports this. Now on to Paul...

Paul's letters certainly say no such thing. As has often been pointed out here - Paul's letters describe Jesus as a supernatural spiritual scion of Yahweh in the heavens, who was known to Paul purely and entirely through divine revelation in the true meaning of ancient scripture.

Well, I'll show you mine and you show me yours.

(1) Paul calls Jesus "anthropos" (man) twice:

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man [anthropos], Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man [came] death, by man [anthropos] [came] also the resurrection of the dead.​

Paul uses "anthropos" many times in his letters, and it ALWAYS means "human person".

(2) There are quite a lot of "seed of" statements as well. I'm not aware of any literature that has a non-human being being called a "seed of" a presumably living person. I won't go into them, but how do you read them in light of the contents of Paul?

(3) Romans 9:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came...​

Again, the obvious reading is Christ is a descendent of Jews. What is your reading of the above?

If you mean "son of God", then note that Paul says that any human can be a son of God in Rom 8:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.​

So, over to you. How do you read the above? And can you show me where in the letters of Paul he describes Jesus as "a supernatural spiritual scion of Yahweh in the heavens"?

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is a well known established farce.

No actual historical data have ever been presented for Jesus as a mere man with a human father and it was known for hundreds of years that there was none.

The Consensus by the Roman Government and hundreds of Bishops that Jesus was God of God at the Council of Nicaea shows that Jesus of Nazareth NEVER EVER had any historical data.

If there was historical data for Jesus of Nazareth known by the Roman Government then we would expect the Roman Government to EXPOSE the fiction of the Jesus cults.

There was NO objection by the Emperor of Rome who was in attendance at the Council of Nicaea.

The Letter of Nicaea

4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements.

He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence...

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a figure of Faith--a God of God.

Papyri 46 and Papyri 75 is corroborated by the CONSENSUS at the Council of Nicaea by the Roman Government and Jesus cults.

Jesus of Nazareth was a known established Transfiguring WATER walking Son of a God, from heaven and God Creator myth character.

 

[Craig B]

Here are the references wiki gives to back up claim that the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium (yes that name fits it SO well) being genuine

Personally I think it probable that the TF is entirely interpolated, but I'm by no means certain either way. The other reference in Bk 20 is much more probably genuine.

But please examine your own mode of approach to this question.

First, you attach an insulting expression to the TF, which in no way enlightens anyone as to its authenticity or otherwise; then you say you have done that because, as you suggest, there is a consensus that it is authentic. The very fact of a consensus, if indeed there is one, draws forth your denial and scorn. In these comments you have not produced any evidence of your own as to the authenticity of the TF - instead you have indulged in mere name-calling.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Thank you for that contribution to this sapient colloquy. Do you have a video or images to illustrate a straw man standing on a slippery slope ending in a poisoned well? I'd like to see that.

:shudders:

 

[Craig B]

Footnote - if you (Craig) really wanted to know what is wrong with biblical studies as a profession, then by now you should have read Hector Avalos's book "The End of Biblical Studies".

Aha! I see from that you've read my post

Never do I accept invitations from people to read huge lists of books and videos. Give me your arguments. In your own words.Don't be lazy. Do I give you huge reading lists? No. Nor will I ever do so.

And this is your characteristic way of responding to it. I will withhold comment.

 

[IanS]

Nowhere, and you know perfectly well I didn't say that. I said I meant Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius; as must be obvious to you. I am baffled to understand how you can have misrepresented me to this degree, and I will return to my policy of leaving your comments aside, while I think about that. Have a nice day.

No it was not obvious to me who it was that you were claiming as people who had known that Jesus was an ordinary human around 30AD. But where do either Pliny, Suetonius or Tacitus ever say that they had themselves known Jesus to be a real man?

If you are again just assuming that authors like Tacitus would have personally known about Jesus, as opposed to the vastly more obvious likelihood of merely repeating what Christians themselves were preaching from their bible, then such references to these non-biblical writers as credible evidence of Jesus as a human man are utterly worthless.

 

[GDon]

And the problem which was unintentionally highlighted by Bart Ehrman in his 2013 book, is that despite all his protests, he was completely unable to show any credible evidence of a human Jesus as all.

Sure he did. In his book Ehrman mentions the following:
1. There are numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life in the sources lying behind the Gospels
2. There are extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.

Now I acknowledge that the above is not credible evidence to YOU, which is what you are really asking for. But if scholars like Ehrman believe that we do have numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life, and scholars like Ehrman believe that Paul actually knew first hand Jesus' closest disciple Peter and Jesus' own brother James, surely you'd agree that this would constitute credible evidence to them, wouldn't it?

So it isn't a matter of "there is no credible evidence". Because scholars like Ehrman have good reason to think that there is credible evidence. The issue is that YOU don't think the evidence stands up. Let's keep that straight, please.

 

[IanS]

Aha! I see from that you've read my post And this is your characteristic way of responding to it. I will withhold comment.

Well I’m not surprised you have not read it. Because I asked you a couple of years back whether you had had read certain books, to which you said that you had, but then when I asked you to tell me what was said on specific pages of those books, you corrected yourself and said that in fact you had not read any of those particular sceptical books.

But here I am just pointing out to you that a senior professor of biblical studies has written a book describing what he has seen first hand as the religious bias and the continuation of ancient allegiances to Christianity still continuing today in that profession, and explaining why he thinks the profession itself is not credible in what most of it's scholars still claim as evidence for truths in the bible. You can get the book free of charge on inter-library loans in the UK, of course.

If you, or any HJ posters in these threads, want to know why academic sceptic authors, like Avalos, are so critical of the profession of biblical studies, then instead of burying your head in the sand and persisting with your mistaken beliefs about these individuals as “expert historians”, you really do need to read why academics such as Avalos and many others in recent years are now so critical of biblical studies.

If instead, all you ever do is read the bible, read books by traditional biblical scholars like Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders and the rest, then you will never begin to understand why there is a very serious problem with the credibility, and even the actual veracity or truthfulness, of what has passed as expert knowledge of Jesus and the bible for so long ....

.... IOW, if you are going to argue that sceptics are wrong to distrust biblical scholars, then you really do need to read what sceptical academics say, and not what we all know has been said for generations by the Christian Church.

 

[maximara]

Personally I think it probable that the TF is entirely interpolated, but I'm by no means certain either way. The other reference in Bk 20 is much more probably genuine.

But please examine your own mode of approach to this question.

First, you attach an insulting expression to the TF, which in no way enlightens anyone as to its authenticity or otherwise; then you say you have done that because, as you suggest, there is a consensus that it is authentic. The very fact of a consensus, if indeed there is one, draws forth your denial and scorn. In these comments you have not produced any evidence of your own as to the authenticity of the TF - instead you have indulged in mere name-calling.

The reason for for my scorn regarding consensus that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium is there is no logic behind it.

If as the modern view now is Jesus was a relative nobody then WHY would Josephus even notice him? No, saying any of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium is real serves one and only one purpose--to support the existence of a Triumphal Jesus.

As has been pointed out by critics Christianity in the 1st century does NOT seem to have caught on like a wild fire as the Gospels imply but rather was relatively small mystery cult that few outside it even knew existed. The communities Paul was writing too were either groups he had started or were other messiah mystery cults he was trying to bring under the Jesus "brand".


As for the name calling the Pro-HJ crowd started it by denying the idea had ANY merit at all and eventually putting ALL who held to the idea in the same delusional tin foil hat box that the Holocaust denial Moon hoaxer people are in. The FACT the Pro-HJ crowd put Frazer in the myther box which they continue to shove into EVERY time they cite Albert Schweitzer shows just what Jesus they are really promoting and it is NOT a Reductive Jesus.

 

[IanS]

Sure he did. In his book Ehrman mentions the following:
1. There are numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life in the sources lying behind the Gospels
2. There are extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.

Now I acknowledge that the above is not credible evidence to YOU, which is what you are really asking for. But if scholars like Ehrman believe that we do have numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life, and scholars like Ehrman believe that Paul actually knew first hand Jesus' closest disciple Peter and Jesus' own brother James, surely you'd agree that this would constitute credible evidence to them, wouldn't it?

So it isn't a matter of "there is no credible evidence". Because scholars like Ehrman have good reason to think that there is credible evidence. The issue is that YOU don't think the evidence stands up. Let's keep that straight, please.

OK, so you claim that Ehrman has "good reason to think that there is credible evidence" for saying -

1. There are numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life in the sources lying behind the Gospels

2. There are extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.


He has good evidence for saying that does he?

Right, so please go ahead and post Ehrman's good evidence for believing that.

 

[GDon]

OK, so you claim that Ehrman has "good reason to think that there is credible evidence" for saying -

1. There are numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life in the sources lying behind the Gospels

2. There are extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.


He has good evidence for saying that does he?

Right, so please go ahead and post Ehrman's good evidence for believing that.

Not what I claimed. You wrote that Ehrman "was completely unable to show any credible evidence of a human Jesus as all". I responded that Ehrman has "good reason to think that there is credible evidence".

So let's start from the start. Ehrman thinks that the evidence points to Paul knowing Jesus' brother James. I acknowledge that YOU don't agree that this evidence is credible. But Ehrman does, and if he is correct then that is good reason to think that there is credible evidence for a historical Jesus.

Do you agree so far? If so, I'll continue.

 

[Craig B]

The reason for for my scorn regarding consensus that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium is there is no logic behind it.

If as the modern view now is Jesus was a relative nobody then WHY would Josephus even notice him? No, saying any of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium is real serves one and only one purpose--to support the existence of a Triumphal Jesus ... shows just what Jesus they are really promoting and it is NOT a Reductive Jesus.

Then the atheists who accept the historicity of Jesus are promoting a Triumphalist Jesus? Dawkins, Hitchens, Ehrman? You don't believe that yourself, I'm sure.

Personally I think that the TF reference is false, but the very reason why I think that - lack of attestation by early commentators - inclines me to accept the Bk 20 reference, which is attested.

You have said Jesus was a relative nobody, but even relative nobodies are noticed from time to time.

However, your innuendo and name calling add absolutely nothing to any understanding of this issue.

 

[maximara]

Sure he did. In his book Ehrman mentions the following:
1. There are numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life in the sources lying behind the Gospels

'They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.'

WHAT independent sources? There is NO WAY to show that ANYTHING is "independent".

The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus shows there is a HIGH correlation between the two. Gary J. Goldberg's conclusion is "Josephus and Luke may have used similar or identical sources in composing their passages."

But if this is true then the sources are NOT independent because they have a common source whatever that was. There were whose who said Josephus used Luke as his reference which would also shoot claims of independence down.


Goldberg tries to discount the forgery angle by saying the passage is "imitating Josephus’ style" ignoring that many of the challenges to it back in the 19th were because the thing did NOT follow Josephus style.

Also we know Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius were all good friends regularly corresponded with each other making their independence from each other iffy.

After then any claim of independence effectively goes out the window.

2. There are extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.

And yet manages not to provide one useful historical detail about Jesus. Exactly the sort of thing you would expect of somebody whose only knowledge was through visions.

Now I acknowledge that the above is not credible evidence to YOU, which is what you are really asking for.

Last time I checked Spectral Evidence (which is what Paul rambles on for seven letters) is not considered evidence by any rational person on the planet.

So it isn't a matter of "there is no credible evidence". Because scholars like Ehrman have good reason to think that there is credible evidence. The issue is that YOU don't think the evidence stands up. Let's keep that straight, please.

And there are scholar who think there is good arguments for young Earth creationism...hows that working out?

"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" - Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16

 

[GDon]

The reason for for my scorn regarding consensus that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium is there is no logic behind it.

If as the modern view now is Jesus was a relative nobody then WHY would Josephus even notice him?

For two good reasons:
1. Josephus was there at the time that James the brother of Jesus (assuming that is historically accurate) was killed. James' death contributed to the confrontation with the Romans. Read that section and you can see how tense the political situation was.
2. Josephus was writing to a Roman audience around the 90s CE. If Christianity had become infamous at that time, and there was some acknowledged link to the Jews, he may have thought to put something in there, possibly an originally negative version of the TF; or at least, negative enough that Origen knew that Josephus didn't recognise Jesus as the Christ.

 

[GDon]

WHAT independent sources? There is NO WAY to show that ANYTHING is "independent".

I acknowledge that for you there is no way to show that anything is "independent". But Ehrman goes through about 10 pages in Part 1 of 'Did Jesus Exist' explaining that Luke obviously knew Mark, but his added material shows independence to Mark, etc. What do you think? Are parts of Luke independent of Mark?

And yet manages not to provide one useful historical detail about Jesus. Exactly the sort of thing you would expect of somebody whose only knowledge was through visions.

Did you see my post to IanS above, about Paul calling Jesus a man, a descendent of presumably human beings, and a descendent of the Israelites? Aren't these historical details about a human being on earth?

And there are scholar who think there is good arguments for young Earth creationism...hows that working out?

Excellent, for them. No-one has been able to show them any credible evidence for evolution.

 

[maximara]

So let's start from the start. Ehrman thinks that the evidence points to Paul knowing Jesus' brother James. I acknowledge that YOU don't agree that this evidence is credible. But Ehrman does, and if he is correct then that is good reason to think that there is credible evidence for a historical Jesus.

Do you agree so far? If so, I'll continue.

No because one can point to the fact several members of the John Frum cargo cult who have actually met Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh still say he is John Frum's brother despite the fact the man has only sisters.

Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the Taiping Rebellion 1850 to 1864, said he was the younger brother of Jesus. Does this mean we have "credible evidence for a historical Jesus" in the 19th century? No so why in the name of logic should it be so for the 1st century?

We are not even sure if Paul men "brother" in the biological or spiritual sense.

There are so many say to show this premise full of holes and that is not even touch on the idea that the relevant passage may be an interpolation.

In fact a 1942 PRO-HJ book called Jesus Not A Myth by A. D. Howell Smith makes this very point:

"Unless the allusion is interpolated, Paul had an interview with a brother of Jesus, who was one of the three “pillars” of the Church of Jerusalem (Gal. i, 19). There is a critical case of some slight cogency against the authenticity of Gal. i, 18, 19, which was absent from Marcion’s Apostolicon; the word “again” in Gal. ii, 1, which presupposes the earlier passage, seems to have been interpolated as it is absent from Irenaeus’s full and accurate citation of this section of the Epistle to the Galatians in his treatise against Heretics. ... If, as has been surmised, Gal. i, 18, 19 is an interpolation, the principal object of which is to stress the pre-eminence of Peter, there is no other passage in this Epistle to throw light on his origin."

So when even PRO-HJers say Gal. i, 18:19 may be an Interpolation you know you have a problem

 

[Belz...]

No because one can point to the fact several members of the John Frum cargo cult who have actually met Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh still say he is John Frum's brother despite the fact the man has only sisters.

Max, do you admit that the fact that it's possible that the Jesus cult was a John Frum cult does not discount the possibility that it wasn't, and in fact doesn't change much about the probability that it was or wasn't? You keep bringing this up as if it somehow means that a historical Jesus isn't credible, but I don't see how the argument could support that.

 

[maximara]

Max, do you admit that the fact that it's possible that the Jesus cult was a John Frum cult does not discount the possibility that it wasn't, and in fact doesn't change much about the probability that it was or wasn't? You keep bringing this up as if it somehow means that a historical Jesus isn't credible, but I don't see how the argument could support that.

I am showing that simply because Paul called a guy name James "Brother of the Lord" that it is NOT evidence for an actual flesh and blood Jesus. Nothing more nothing less.

Never mind you seemed to have ignored all the other alternatives I presented:

Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the Taiping Rebellion 1850 to 1864, said he was the younger brother of Jesus. Does this mean we have "credible evidence for a historical Jesus" in the 19th century? No, so why in the name of logic should it be so for the 1st century?

We are not even sure if Paul men "brother" in the biological or spiritual sense.

There are so many say to show this premise full of holes and that is not even touch on the idea that the relevant passage may be an interpolation.

In fact a 1942 PRO-HJ book called Jesus Not A Myth by A. D. Howell Smith makes this very point:

"Unless the allusion is interpolated, Paul had an interview with a brother of Jesus, who was one of the three “pillars” of the Church of Jerusalem (Gal. i, 19). There is a critical case of some slight cogency against the authenticity of Gal. i, 18, 19, which was absent from Marcion’s Apostolicon; the word “again” in Gal. ii, 1, which presupposes the earlier passage, seems to have been interpolated as it is absent from Irenaeus’s full and accurate citation of this section of the Epistle to the Galatians in his treatise against Heretics. ... If, as has been surmised, Gal. i, 18, 19 is an interpolation, the principal object of which is to stress the pre-eminence of Peter, there is no other passage in this Epistle to throw light on his origin."

So when even PRO-HJers say Gal. i, 18:19 may be an Interpolation you know you have a problem

 

[maximara]

I acknowledge that for you there is no way to show that anything is "independent". But Ehrman goes through about 10 pages in Part 1 of 'Did Jesus Exist' explaining that Luke obviously knew Mark, but his added material shows independence to Mark, etc. What do you think? Are parts of Luke independent of Mark?

Is the core story independent of Mark? The cartoon series Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd century reworked many of Conan Doyle's post return stories with elements "independent" of what Sir Arthur wrote (some times to the point that resemblance to the original story other then the title was basically nil). That independence is not evidence Sherlock Holmes really existed so why in the name of sanity or logic should it be any evidence of Jesus?

Did you see my post to IanS above, about Paul calling Jesus a man, a descendent of presumably human beings, and a descendent of the Israelites? Aren't these historical details about a human being on earth?

And in that time period you could visit what was supposedly Zeus' tomb on Crete, somebody else was working to show Osiris had been an actual Pharaoh of Egypt, and as late as the 4th century Heracles was thought to have been a king in Argos. How any of that working for us today?

Euhemerism or the idea that deities had once been flesh and blood people was the go to for that time.



Never mind Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Ned Ludd had similarly human origins and were not sure if they existed.

As I pointed out before one of the earliest anthropological records of John Frum you have all these different views of John Frum floating around:

"Guiart's 1952 Oceania paper also shows the complexity involved regarding Jesus being a man or a celestial being as "A man named Manehevi had posed as a supernatural being by means of ingenious stage management. " but later Guiart states "From elsewhere rail the rumour that, in spite of the Administration statement, Manehevi was not John Frum, and that the latter was still at liberty." But if John Frum was strictly "a supernatural being" as the article stated earlier then logically Manehevi could NOT be John Frum nor could there be a 'real' (ie human) John Frum "still at liberty" Yet even later the article states "John Frum, alias Karaperamun, is always the god of Mount Tukosmoru, which will shelter the planes, then the soldiers." So a mere 12 years after the movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun, the High god of the region or a name that various actual people used as leader of the religious cult."