The Historical Jesus III

[The Greater Fool]

We are debating the existence of a character called Jesus of Nazareth found in the Christian Bible.

We are debating whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of Faith or a figure of history.



You obviously have problems seeing.

You should have seen people here using the Ghost stories of Jesus in Christian Bible in order to salvage evidence for their HJ.

If people here were discussing an historical Jesus then why they are using myth fables of character who was born of a Ghost and was from heaven as a primary historical source?

It is obvious that there was no historical Jesus so myth fables of Bible Jesus were multilated as a substitue for lack of historical data.

Every single story of Jesus in the Christian Bible is fiction yet it is the Christian Bible which is the primary source for HJ.

HJ must be a modern fiction character derived from the mutilated myth/fiction fables called the New Testament.

I'll just quietly close the door on your echo chamber. Do enjoy.

 

[Elagabalus]

You are debating the actual existence of a Mythical Jesus. No one here believes the Mythical Jesus exists.

The Historical Jesus discussion, at least the discussion I see being attempted, is about a human that may have been the seed for the myth.

As the rest of the post you replied to indicates, simply because the biblical writers bought into, even helped create, the Jesus Myth, doesn't mean we need to buy their story about a demigod to see that a person may have been the source.

Your claim is that to discuss a HJ, we must accept the myth. This is why you are arguing with no one but your echo.

For your edification, here is the rest of the post:

Since you're new to this thread ( perhaps you've been lurking) you might be interested in this thread over on RatSkep:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-1980.html

The link should take you to page 100 where no other than Earl Doherty ( basically the precursor to Richard Carrier) shows up to explain the Myth Jesus side of things. It gets a bit heated at times but it will provide, I think, a good overview. You might also recognize some posters over there and their posting style and note how long they've been at this ....

 

[The Greater Fool]

Since you're new to this thread ( perhaps you've been lurking) you might be interested in this thread over on RatSkep:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-1980.html

The link should take you to page 100 where no other than Earl Doherty ( basically the precursor to Richard Carrier) shows up to explain the Myth Jesus side of things. It gets a bit heated at times but it will provide, I think, a good overview. You might also recognize some posters over there and their posting style and note how long they've been at this ....

Thank you. I have audited this from at least the beginning of II, but a concise overview would be helpful.

I was lurking here for a few years before I registered, then more years before my first post.

Thanks again.

 

[Mcreal]

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.

So Jesus was a mere mortal man? ie. not born of a virgin? not able to perform miracles? unable to be resurrected after having been dead for a couple of days?

 

[dejudge]

.... And can you show me where in the letters of Paul he describes Jesus as "a supernatural spiritual scion of Yahweh in the heavens"?

How much longer can we continue with this sort of nonsense from GDon?

A Christian is attempting to claim that the Pauline Corpus does not describe Jesus as Supernatural!!!

The Pauline writers stated Jesus was the Son of God yet this Christian wants us to believe his heresy that Jesus in the Pauline Corpus in the Canon of the Church was the son of a man.

What complete nonsense!!!

The Pauline writer states Jesus was from heaven--NOT earth.

The Pauline writer states Jesus was God's Son!!!



1 Corinthians 15:47--- The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Galatians 4:4 ---- But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


The Pauline Jesus is SUPERNATURAL.

The Pauline Jesus is a figure of Faith.

The Pauline Jesus is a myth.

 

[Leumas]

So Jesus was a mere mortal man? ie. not born of a virgin? not able to perform miracles? unable to be resurrected after having been dead for a couple of days?

Yet evidently this nothing of a meaningless useless man wrung and extruded out of nothing but a collection of myths and fables is the object of worship by liberal Christianity?

... not long after I converted from agnosticism to theism, and then to a liberal Christianity (I won't go into reasons why here). Even though I'd never thought the Bible was anything other than a collection of myths and fables,...

 

[dejudge]

I really don't know who GDon wants to fool here.

This Christian poster must know that there are HUNDREDS of Christian writings of antiquity which make references to the Pauline Corpus and that none of them ever claim that the Pauline Jesus was not supernatural but just a mere man with a human father.

The Jesus cult do not worship men as Gods so it is virtually impossible that Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was a known human being.

GDon seems to have forgotten what Christians of antiquity stated about the WORSHIP of men as Gods.

Municius Felix "Octavius"

...For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man.

The HJ argument is the very worst kind since it is based on mis-representation of the teachings of the Church in Pauline Corpus that Jesus was from heaven and God's Son.

 

[Mcreal]

Since you're new to this thread ( perhaps you've been lurking) you might be interested in this thread over on RatSkep:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-1980.html

The link should take you to page 100 where no other than Earl Doherty ( basically the precursor to Richard Carrier) shows up to explain the Myth Jesus side of things. It gets a bit heated at times but it will provide, I think, a good overview. You might also recognize some posters over there and their posting style and note how long they've been at this ....

And Doherty gave a good account of his arguments.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

And Doherty gave a good account of his arguments.

The whole "sublunar means 'in a mythical world' instead of 'on earth' "-argument is ridiculous.

 

[maximara]

That is simply false, Maximara. It is only the Mythicists who keep claiming this.

No, it isn't. Christians who believe Jesus was an only child argue that "brother" could also mean cousin. Other point to the fact "In the new Gnostic context, James was considered a spiritual brother of Jesus" (Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus )

"he [Jude] might have style himself a near kinsman of Jesus Christ or brother of the lord but mentions not his natural , but his spiritual relation to Christ" - Expository Notes, with Practical Observations, on the New Testament William Burkitt - 1844

And if that was true of Jude when why can't it also be true of James?

In fact, the First Apocalypse of James (part of the "Nag Hammadi library") clearly states that James the Just was Jesus spiritual NOT biological brother. To claim the First Apocalypse of James is a mythist work is insane.

 

[maximara]

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.

Given that the term 'Christ" was a title and the Christians themselves stated that at least two others used this title Josephus would have been more clear on just who this Jesus 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.

Note the number of assumptions you have to make to get this to fly. Per Occam's razor saying it is an interpolation is the "one with the fewest assumptions".

The reality is NO non believer record of Christianity in the 1st century exists. Either they weren't written in the first place or the Christians scribes for what ever reason didn't preserve them.

Also you have the issue of why these same Christians scribes did not preserve works that would have helped support the existence of Jesus.

Why was the volume of Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE) which covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail and therefore Jesus exploits NOT preserved?

Why was Pliny the Elder's history of Rome which should at the very least have covered the martyrdom of Peter and Paul NOT preserved?

Why did Augustine in the 4th century complained about Seneca the Younger's On Superstition (c40 - c62) not talking about Christianity when it could have been written as early as 40 CE?

Why are the sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE of Cassius Dio's Roman History missing?

Why is the entire section covering 29-31 CE of Tacitus Annals missing a matter “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence"?

ANY theory about a historical Jesus MUST explain why would Christians not preserve the works that could have far better showed Jesus existed and rather stuck to what amounted to sound bites.

 

[maximara]

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.

Remember what the Triumphalist and Reductive Jesus are:

Triumphalist Jesus: 'The Gospels are totally or almost totally true, rather than being works of imagination like those of King Arthur.'

Reductive Jesus: 'Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him, rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who.'

The Jesus of the Gospels is NOT obscure in that he attracted hundreds if not thousands listeners and-or followers.

If Jesus in reality was NOT that popular only gaining a handful of listeners and-or followers (perhaps 100 total) that you are in the land of the Reductive Jesus which logically means Josephus would have missed Jesus.

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.

Except the Jesus of the Gospels is NOT a relative nobody but this wildly popular teacher attracting hundreds if not thousands. Given how nervous the historical Pontius Pilate was about large groups of Jews he would have reacted much as he did with with Samaritan prophet c36...which was such a bungled PR mess that Pilate was called back to Rome to justify to Tiberius this disaster.

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

The same is true of those who put ALL of Christ Mythism in the same boats as Holocaust denialists and Moon Hoax believers. Look of the concept of goose and gander some time or rocks and glass houses.

 

[Mcreal]

The whole "sublunar means 'in a mythical world' instead of 'on earth' "-argument is ridiculous.

I agree it's silly semantics; but the underlying principle is still celestial-mythical

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is a farce.

When asked why Jesus was not mentioned in non-apologetic sources those who argue for an historical Jesus claim HJ was an obscure nobody.

But, the same people who say Jesus was an obscure nobody want us to believe Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is THEIR OBSCURE Jesus.

The Christus in Annals was anything but an obscure nobody.

Christus had to be KILLED at the hands of Pilate to control the spread of an EVIL MISCHIEVOUS superstitition which was breaking out in Judea.

At one time HJ is an obscure nobody and another time he is the well known founder of an EVIL Superstition which broke out in Judea.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular

Those who argue for an HJ forgot their own story.

They did not remember their OBSCURE HJ could not have been the well known Christus who was KILLED at the hands of Pilate to stop the spread of an EVIL, SHAMEFUL, HIDEOUS Superstition in Judea.

Obscure HJ is a modern fiction character in and out the Bible.

The argument for Obscure HJ is an established farce.

How much longer can this CHAMELEON HJ argument continue?

Obscure HJ was some kind of a CHAMELEON.

 

[GDon]

What? A late anonymous Christian copy of something called the gospel of Mark is supposed to be genuine evidence showing that Jesus was believed to be a normal human? I do not think so.

If you mean the so-called “short g-Mark” then afaik that still describes Jesus as constantly miraculous, i.e. supernatural non-human.

Ah! Then what do you regard as the earliest Christian writings?

But if Paul describes Jesus as a “man”, it is not a ordinary “human” man, is it?

Paul describes this “man” as the supernatural Son of God, whom he knew according to “divine revelation” of the true meaning of messiah prophecies “according to scripture”. This was not an ordinary human preacher that Paul was describing, was it!

Paul is describing an unknown figure who he (Paul) thinks has been revealed to him by God “according to scripture”, as a supernatural messiah who rises from the dead. That is not a description of a normal person!

It's like you read what I write, and then apply it through some filter so that it means something different. Why this sudden emphasis on "normal person"?

The earliest writings (at least what scholars regard as the earliest writings, I acknowledge you may think the scholars are wrong) we have in Paul and the Gospel of Mark show that the earliest Christians thought that Jesus was a man, not a supernatural creature, nor born miraculously of a virgin.

Well the only “seed” statements I recall being discussed in these threads, are the very frequent claims (Craig has claimed it many times) that Jesus must have been real because he was “the seed of David” ... well king David, supposedly living around 1000BC, is afaik one of several principal figures of ancient OT legend who is now widely regarded by modern biblical scholars as quite likely no more than a fictional figure himself!

And that’s apart from the fact that people in Paul’s time would have no credible way of actually knowing who truly were the ancestral relatives of anyone from over 1000 years in the past.

Yes, but so what? Seriously, how does your statement interact in any logical way with the point that I'm trying to make?

But even apart from all of that, as stated above, the fact of the matter in Paul’s letters is that Paul had never known anyone called Jesus, but instead believed in him purely through a divine revelation “according to scripture” and where he described that figure as the supernatural Son of Yahweh.

That’s how Paul described this unknown figure of divine revelation. And supernatural figures are certainly not normal humans!

You are now preaching, not arguing. No references to texts, just reciting a screed.

Okay, I get it. I give references, you give speeches. I won't continue on this topic any more. Let's move on.

... have you read what I described before from Carrier's 2015 book where he says that “Jesus” is actually named and described described in the book of Zechariah supposedly written circa. 520 BC (i.e. over 500 years before Paul)? From rough memory, but we can easily check it - Carrier says those passages in the book of Zechariah, describe a figure actually named there as “Jesus”, who is a celestial being and described as the Son of God, sent in some sort of act to save the people of the Jewish nation, but where in the process of doing that he is killed in some sort of tussle possibly with “the devil”, but then rises again to return to heaven ... Carrier interprets that in the same way that Doherty had previously done, saying that it is a description of a legendary OT scriptural prophecy just like the picture that was painted by Paul 500 years later, and where of course Paul actually says that his belief in Jesus was “according to scripture” ....

... now, as I said before, I am not in a position to check the earliest most original versions of the book of Zechariah, and to translate those in a genuinely objective way, such as to confirm or deny what Carrier gave as his interpretation of those passages. However, as we know, that description is contained in a book which has apparently been endorsed by what passes as “peer review” in this subject (it would not be what is known as “peer review” in research science). So it does have some proper academic agreed authority in what it says.

But if that is what Paul meant by repeatedly insisting that his beliefs about Jesus were known to him “according to scripture”, then it would appear to be a likely source of where Paul got the idea that the name of the messiah prophesised “according to scripture” was the name “Jesus” (i.e. Joshua, or in Greek Iesous), and where the description given by Paul appears to be virtually identical to that given 500 years earlier in the book of Zechariah.

But that description, either in Zechariah or in Paul, is not of a normal human person ever known to anyone. It’s a description of a heavenly spiritual supernatural being.

That is absolutely not correct. As you note, it is easy to check. Let's check it! (One of us should.)

The Jesus figure described in Zechariah that you say is a celestial being, is someone who was a man on earth, a high priest, in fact. Here is the Wiki entry on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_the_High_Priest

Joshua (Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁוּעַ) or Yeshua (Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ) the High Priest was, according to the Bible, the first person chosen to be the High Priest for the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity (See Zechariah 6:9-14 in the Bible). While the name Yeshua is used in Ezra–Nehemiah for the High Priest,[1] he is called Joshua son of Yehozadak in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.​

The article goes on to say:

In the Book of Zechariah 3:6-10, Zechariah the prophet experiences a vision given to him by an angel of the Lord in which the restoration and cleansing of Joshua's priestly duties are affirmed. Included in the visions were requirements in which Joshua was expected to uphold.​

And here is the cite from Zech 6 that Carrier uses for his "Jesus the celestial being" argument:

Zec 6:10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD​

As you can CLEARLY see, this Jesus the high priest is a man on earth. Carrier's argument is much more convoluted than you seem to realise. The fact that you haven't investigated his interpretation is clear. Not a good habit to get into, IanS.

This sounds to me as if it’s an example of a phrase that we commonly hear from early religious writing which says something like “and the Word was made Flesh”, apparently meaning that God or his heavenly messenger, is made to assume a human-like fleshy form in order to interact with people on the earth, but of course the figure only “assumes" that fleshy form ... the figure is not actually a normal human, but is instead truly a celestial being who really resides with God in the heavens.

Here is the problem. You haven't even checked the validity of the argument by Carrier, yet somehow -- without looking at or reciting references -- you seem to find it convincing.

This is not good, IanS. It doesn't differentiate you from the creationist who heard that some scholar somewhere had an argument against evolution, and that's good enough for him! You don't need no stinkin' scholarship, because you know it is built on nothing but bias!

I'm not arguing with you to try to change your mind. I'm arguing with you so that people can clearly see the bankruptcy in the thought put into the mythicist position. (The ironic thing is that I agree with the mythicists that the historicist side has done a poor job in laying out the case for a historical Jesus. But that is a separate question.)

On the point that our extant texts are copies of copies of copies: yes, that's true. But no-one in scholarship throws them out for that reason. Read Ehrman on this in his "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". It is an accepted part of the limitations on the text. Just to recite that problem as though no-one has ever considered it, is simply anti-intellectual.

Anyway, fun as always.

 

[Craig B]

In .... and round and round you go with nary a pause to look outside the circle of appeal to biased invested authority and appeal to majority encircled by straw men all around to obscure any possibility of seeing anything that might aggravate a throbbing cognitive dissonance.

These encircling straw men, are they the same ones as this?

What a pathetic straw man standing on a slippery slope ending in a poisoned well full of foul dissimulation and illogical fallacies.

Dear me; no wonder my cognitive dissonance is throbbing.

 

[GDon]

Given that the term 'Christ" was a title and the Christians themselves stated that at least two others used this title Josephus would have been more clear on just who this Jesus was.

James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ"? How much clearer would he have to be? Were the other two called "Jesus"?

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.

Note the number of assumptions you have to make to get this to fly. Per Occam's razor saying it is an interpolation is the "one with the fewest assumptions".

The reality is NO non believer record of Christianity in the 1st century exists. Either they weren't written in the first place or the Christians scribes for what ever reason didn't preserve them.

Also you have the issue of why these same Christians scribes did not preserve works that would have helped support the existence of Jesus.

Why was the volume of Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE) which covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail and therefore Jesus exploits NOT preserved?

Why was Pliny the Elder's history of Rome which should at the very least have covered the martyrdom of Peter and Paul NOT preserved?

Why did Augustine in the 4th century complained about Seneca the Younger's On Superstition (c40 - c62) not talking about Christianity when it could have been written as early as 40 CE?

Why are the sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE of Cassius Dio's Roman History missing?

Why is the entire section covering 29-31 CE of Tacitus Annals missing a matter “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence"?

I don't know. What are the answers?

You know, I'd really love to see you answer your own questions above and how it interacts with the actual point, with references to primary sources and secondary scholarship. It would be a lot of work I know, and I know you'd want to push this onto someone else to do, but this is the sort of thing I'm interested in reading about. I'd be more than happy to read any argument that is backed up with references and scholarship, rather than argument by incredulity.

But just asking a bunch of questions does not make an argument.

ANY theory about a historical Jesus MUST explain why would Christians not preserve the works that could have far better showed Jesus existed and rather stuck to what amounted to sound bites.

How about the standard response of modern scholarship:

"Historical Jesus was not important to the shakers and movers of that time, so no-one thought to record his existence. He only became important when Christianity started to make an impact several generations later."

This to me is very likely, and seems supported by the evidence. What issues do you see with that response?

 

[GDon]

Thank you. I have audited this from at least the beginning of II, but a concise overview would be helpful.

I was lurking here for a few years before I registered, then more years before my first post.

You can see me posting over there as "GakuseiDon". You might find my reviews on Doherty's and Carrier's theories interesting also:
1. Review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man": http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/JNGNM_Review1.html
2. Review of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus": http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html

I'm very critical of the "celestial incarnated Jesus" elements of both theories. There appears to be no evidence for such a belief, in early Christian writings, Jewish writings or pagan writings of the time. In fact, a "celestial incarnated being" is a contradictory concept based on the beliefs of that time as we understand them.

 

[dejudge]

James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ"? How much clearer would he have to be? Were the other two called "Jesus"?

What illogical nonsense!!!

Jesus called the anointed [christos] is Jesus the High Priest the son of Damneus.

Jesus called the anointed [christos] was ALIVE in the reign of Nero.

Christians of antiquity have already admitted their Jesus had no brother called James.
John Chrysostom on Galatians 1.19

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.

This is not Sunday School.

We know the writings of antiquity.

You are making your Christian brothers of antiquity appear like liars.

Your Christian brothers of antiquity have already admitted their James was ALIVE around c 68-69 CE which is around 5 years after James in "Antiquities" was dead.

Have you forgotten that a Christian of antiquity under the name of Clement wrote to James AFTER the death of Peter the bishop of Rome c 68-69 CE?

The Preface to the Recognitions

The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work...

Please, can someone tell GDon that he can't fool anyone here!!!

Jesus called the anointed the brother of James in Antiquities of the Jews is NOT James the Apostle in the Christian Bible.

 

[dejudge]

...I'm very critical of the "celestial incarnated Jesus" elements of both theories. There appears to be no evidence for such a belief, in early Christian writings, Jewish writings or pagan writings of the time. In fact, a "celestial incarnated being" is a contradictory concept based on the beliefs of that time as we understand them.

Of course, you are not critical of Bart Ehrman who claimed Jesus of Nazareth was a obscure nobody.

I am very critical of HJ the obscure nobody from Nazareth . There is no evidence for such a character in Christian, Jewish or pagan writings of the time.

Jesus of Nazareth as an obscure nobody is a contradictory concept based on the belief of that time as we understand them.

Christians argued their Jesus was extremely well known and was a Transfiguring Water Walking Son of a God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

Obscure HJ is modern fiction.

A DEAD Obscure HJ makes no sense for a COMPETING new religion.

There is EVIDENCE in Christian writings that Jesus of Nazareth was a MYTH character. See Papyri 46 and 75.