The Historical Jesus III

[The Big Dog]

Nice of you to say that I am the first person to think of cross-checking peoples claims, but I cannot actually take the credit for that - many people before me had thought of it.

But lets cut the crap now. Just post your evidence of anyone ever writing to claim they had met a human Jesus.

Where is that evidence please? Just post it without any more evasion.

No but you were indeed the first person to write "might very well be" and then chide me for writing "could." But you know that.

Lets indeed cut the crap, we were discussing Tacitus and his authentic and authoritative discussion of the followers of the man who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

 

[Craig B]

@ IanS

In #2192 I thought it appropriate to object to your self appointed authority , by writing this.

You have determined what evidence is. In your opinion it can only be the name of someone who knew Jesus.

Right, we don't have that. OK? Nobody is going to give you that. If you think that refutes HJ, fine. You've made your point. Good. Make it again if you want, a thousand times.

But no authority gives you the right to say we are certainly not going let you re-run the whole dammed argument all over again. Oh yes you are, unless you have been given the power to dictate to others how they are to conduct their arguments.

You will notice how I did not object to your making whatever point you liked, as long as you extend the same courtesy to others.
Now, however, you are being both extremely discourteous, and accusing people of bad faith.

But lets cut the crap now. Just post your evidence of anyone ever writing to claim they had met a human Jesus.

Where is that evidence please? Just post it without any more evasion.

I see no justification or excuse for expressions of this kind. Again, it is not obvious why the only acceptable evidence is personal acquaintance with Jesus, as has been pointed out to you. But even if you are right in this, your treatment of people who don't share your opinion is entirely unacceptable.

 

[Mcreal]

No reading of the passage supports such a thesis. It is ridiculous. The passage is series of rhetorical questions of the "who does this guy think he is?" variety. Here it is again.

Mark 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. 2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.​

Are you really trying to tell me that "are not his sisters here with us?" Is a real rather than a rhetorical question? That the answer us not clarified? That the locals didn't know if the sisters were with them; and in the incredible event that they didn't, could they not have gone at once and found out?

These are evident rhetorical questions; not attempts to discover unknown information.

Yes; they are rhetorical questions.

They do not provide answers. They do not provide any useful information.

 

[Craig B]

Yes; they are rhetorical questions.

They do not provide answers. They do not provide any useful information.

If they are rhetorical questions, they provide the information that the people in Jesus' home town believed that the father of Jesus was a carpenter; that his mother was called Mary; that he had four (named in the text) brothers and more than one (unnamed) sister, and that the sisters at least, and presumably all these people, lived in that town.

 

[Mcreal]

Probably worth giving the counter-point:

Scholars use sources like Tacitus and Suetonius to try to build a picture of what happened before those historians were born all the time. Often they have no choice: we only have available to us a small amount of literature from that period that is extant.

Nearly ALL literature -- pagan and Christian-- has come to us as copies of copies of copies. Most of the writings of Justin Martyr that are often used in mythicist debates today come from one source, in the year 1364:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.ii.ii.html

Justin would be known to us only by a few spasmodic quotations had not a Byzantine scribe copied an invaluable, if defective, MS., in the year 1364.​

But scholars of history accept this, because that is the reality of the situation. They understand the limitations. And that drives them to try to determine what corruptions and interpolations may have appeared within those texts over that long period. **

There is a hypocrisy among some mythicists that can be seen in this thread. Though they will eliminate texts as 'credible evidence' because the historian wasn't born at the time of the event they were recording, they are quite happy to use such texts to support mythicist readings, without pointing out that they are copies of copies.

If there is one thing that I think this thread demonstrates, it is that double-standard.

** Interestingly, mythicist scholars like Dr Richard Carrier and Dr Robert M Price also accept the limitations on the texts and use them in the same way as other scholars do. They don't make this point about 'the historian wasn't born then therefore it is hearsay' or 'we can't use copies of copies of copies'. Those anti-scholarly views are a feature of Internet forums. It is weird that Carrier and Price are not criticized for doing the same things. IanS, Mcreal: you need to teach Dr Carrier and Dr Price the truth about how to use those texts! Tell them where they are going wrong!

This is a very disingenuous post - it is highly spurious.

Yes many "try to determine what corruptions and interpolations may have appeared within those texts over that long period".

Which is largely the focus of my commentary. Not, as G'Don falsely states, to eliminate texts b/c 'the "historian" wasn't born at the time the event".

Moreover, to imply people like Tacitus & Suetonius were recording Christian-religion history with their mere one liners is laughable.

That G'Don seeks to misrepresent me by misrepresenting the dubious significance of these extant texts shows gutter tactics.

G'Dons tactic of elevating Carrier and Price in this post, while attacking them everywhere else (the primary focus of G'Don's approach to defending his pro-Jesus stance), in order to diss me and IanS, is snake-in-the-grass tactics.

But he won't exhibit any shame.

 

[Mcreal]

Lets indeed cut the crap, we were discussing Tacitus and his authentic and authoritative discussion of the followers of the man who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

Yes, let's cut the adamant crap. To fix your statment -

"Tacitus and his authentic and authoritative discussion single, unexplained statement [about] the followers of [an] alleged man who allegedly suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate."

 

[Mcreal]

If they are rhetorical questions, they provide the information that the people in Jesus' home town believed that the father of Jesus was a carpenter; that his mother was called Mary; that he had four (named in the text) brothers and more than one (unnamed) sister, and that the sisters at least, and presumably all these people, lived in that town.

lol. err, No. They are questions. that are unanswered.

So they don't answer themselves.

Your illogical special-pleading doesn't work.

 

[Mcreal]

The information used to support the pro-Jesus-historicity stance is dubious.

It is mostly dubious, disparate one-liners of nebulous significance.

 

[Craig B]

lol. err, No. They are questions. that are unanswered.

So they don't answer themselves.

Your illogical special-pleading doesn't work.

If they are rhetorical questions they don't require to be answered. They represent knowledge already possessed by the speakers, presented in interrogative form to achieve a rhetorical effect. They don't NEED answers. It's like some pompous ass asking you "Don't you know who I am?"

The ass is not unaware of who he himself is, and requiring you to inform him. He is making a point about his own importance. The people in Jesus' home town were - by this account - using the same tactic to stress Jesus' unimportance - his ordinariness. They already knew all the data they present in the form of "who does this guy think he is?" style questions.

 

[Mcreal]

Recent texts and discussions around Marcion have included propositions that some or all of the synoptic gospels developed after Marcion's writings.

* Joseph B Tyson (2006) 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle' University of South Carolina Press.

makes a case for not only Luke but also Acts being a response to Marcion, rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke.​

.

* Vincent M (2014) 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' Leuven: Peeters.

Summary: Are the Synoptic Gospels at odds with Early Christian art and archaeology? Art and archaeology cannot provide the material basis 'to secure the irrefutable inner continuity' of the Christian beginnings (Erich Dinkler); can the Synoptic Gospels step in? Their narratives, however, are as absent from the first hundred and fourty years of early Christianity as are their visual imageries. 'Many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents', especially the Gospels, rest 'on presuppositions rather than facts' (J.A.T. Robinson, 1976). The present volume is the first systematic study of all available early evidence that we have about the first witness to our Gospel narratives, Marcion of Sinope. It evaluates our commonly known arguments for dating the Synoptic Gospels, elaborates on Marcion's crucial role in the Gospel making and argues for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD.

"One of the most important insights of my 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (2014) was the discovery that Marcion’s Gospel existed in two different versions, first as a pre-published, presumably stand-alone draft, and secondly as a published edition with the framing of the Antitheses and the 10 Pauline Letters ... The key text in this respect is Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/marcions-two-recensions-of-his-gospel.html​

.

* In 'Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century' (2015, Cambridge University Press), Judith Lieu is highly skeptical of any reconstructions of Marcion's text and basically concludes that Tertullian and others didn't actually have any Marcionite texts in front of them when writing.

" ... this volume offers insight into second-century Christian intellectual debate and traces heresiological development. Judith M. Lieu analyses accounts of Marcion by the major early Christian polemicists who shaped the idea of heresy, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius of Salamis, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ephraem Syrus. She examines Marcion's Gospel, Apostolikon, and Antitheses in detail and compares his principles to those of contemporary Christian and non-Christian thinkers, covering a wide range of controversial issues: the nature of God, the relation of the divine to creation, the person of Jesus, the interpretation of Scripture, the nature of salvation, and the appropriate lifestyle of adherents. In this innovative study, Marcion emerges as a distinctive, creative figure who addressed widespread concerns within second-century Christian diversity." - from Amazon​

 

[tsig]

If they are rhetorical questions, they provide the information that the people in Jesus' home town believed that the father of Jesus was a carpenter; that his mother was called Mary; that he had four (named in the text) brothers and more than one (unnamed) sister, and that the sisters at least, and presumably all these people, lived in that town.

No. They provide evidence that the writer believed that Jesus was all those things, what the people in the town believed we haven't the vaguest notion and even if the people in the town believed it it does not prove it to be true.

 

[Mcreal]

From Lieu (2015) 'Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God & Scripture in the Second Century' (Cambridge University Press) -

"In hellenistic Judaism both Wisdom literature and apocalyptic sought solutions that would also distance the Creator from responsibility for human as well as for angelic evil, and such ideas, particularly of heavenly rebellion, were readily adopted by the early Christians " p.342

Separately, Lieu is highly skeptical of any reconstructions of Marcion's text and basically concludes that Tertullian and others didn't actually have any Marcionite texts in front of them when writing.

Has Marcion been used in the late 2nd or early 3rd century to push another view of theology?

 

[Craig B]

No. They provide evidence that the writer believed that Jesus was all those things, what the people in the town believed we haven't the vaguest notion and even if the people in the town believed it it does not prove it to be true.

To be sure. But this started with me staying that the Synoptics contain lists of the names of Jesus' brothers. And they do. One or more of the sources of these gospels asserts that Jesus had a human family.

That refutes the suggestion made ad nauseam by some of the Mythicists here, that Jesus is presented only and from the beginning as a Ghost-begotten water walker etc.

It also answers the abrupt question wtf is a list of Jesus' brothers? which someone asked. I have presented the lists and shown them to be statements and not unanswered questions or suchlike nonsense. Having done that, I have fulfilled the undertaking which I took upon myself as regards these lists.

 

[Mcreal]

Odd that the historicity of Jesus rests on a few doubtful sentences from a pagan.

Exactly.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 is a tenuous passage on which to hang one's faith in Jesus

 

[Mcreal]

Prior to Joseph B Tyson in 2006, in 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle' (University of South Carolina Press), making a case for not only Luke but also Acts being responses to Marcion, (rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke as more widely proposed); and Vincent, in 2014 in 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Leuven: Peeters), arguing "for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD" ...

.. in 1881 Charles B. Waite, in 'History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred', suggested that Marcion's Gospel may have preceded Luke's Gospel; and John Knox, in 'Marcion and the New Testament' (1942), also agreed with Waite's hypothesis.

There will be plenty to engage 'the scholars' for a while.

 

[dejudge]

Psalms. Yes, in Greek translations of Hebrew Scriptures the word "good" appears as "chrestos". But the word "Christos" is a different word with a similar spelling which means "anointed" not "good". Not the same word.

I am dealing with the Greek word χρηστος meaning 'Good'.

The Lord God of the Jews is χρηστος [chrestos] [GOOD].

Psalms 106.1 .....τω κυριω οτι χρηστος


ChrEstianos [ χρηϲτιανουϲ] is derived from chrEstos [χρηστος]

ChrEstianos [ χρηϲτιανουϲ] get their name from chrEstos [χρηστος]

The very early Greek NT Canon contains the word ChrEstianos.

The word ChrIstians [followers of Christ] was NOT originally written in Tacitus Annals 15.44.

It has been proven conclusively the Word ChrEstianos in Annals 15.44 was manipulated.

Tacitus wrote about followers of chrEstos [χρηστος] the Good God [ChrEstianos]---NOT followers of ChrIstos.

The Christos of the Jews has NOT yet come.

There were followers of the Good God [ChrEstianos] hundreds of years BEFORE the Jesus cult.

No Apologetic writer of antiquity for HUNDREDS of years since the 2nd century ever claimed that Tacitus wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Craig B]

Exactly.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 is a tenuous passage on which to hang one's faith in Jesus

Faith in Jesus? What on earth is that about? If I decide on the basis of a passage in Polybius that Hannibal existed, would you say that was me "hanging my faith in Hannibal".

As you know perfectly well, the topic being discussed here is the existence of Jesus as a historical person, an understanding to be sustained by rational analysis of sources; the topic is not the image of Jesus as an object of faith. It would be distressing to conclude that you have spent all that time on this thread and not understood what is meant by a historical Jesus.

I might thus perhaps be happier if I thought your post was wilfully provocative, but I don't impute that to it, however disquieting the alternative may be.

Tsig, on whose post you are commenting, expressed things better by opining that "it is odd that the historicity of Jesus rests on a few doubtful sentences from a pagan". I disagree that it does, but the expression addresses the subject correctly: resting historicity, not hanging faith.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am dealing with the Greek word χρηστος meaning 'Good'.

The Lord God of the Jews is χρηστος [chrestos] [GOOD].

Psalms 106.1 .....τω κυριω οτι χρηστος


ChrEstianos [ χρηϲτιανουϲ] is derived from chrEstos [χρηστος]

ChrEstianos [ χρηϲτιανουϲ] get their name from chrEstos [χρηστος]

The very early Greek NT Canon contains the word ChrEstianos.

The word ChrIstians [followers of Christ] was NOT originally written in Tacitus Annals 15.44.

It has been proven conclusively the Word ChrEstianos in Annals 15.44 was manipulated.

Tacitus wrote about followers of chrEstos [χρηστος] the Good God [ChrEstianos]---NOT followers of ChrIstos.

The Christos of the Jews has NOT yet come.

There were followers of the Good God [ChrEstianos] hundreds of years BEFORE the Jesus cult.

No Apologetic writer of antiquity for HUNDREDS of years since the 2nd century ever claimed that Tacitus wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

Couple of big problems there. 1. The "good god" suffering the extreme penalty under Pilate makes no sense. 2. Not to hard to figure out why fans of Christ would not cite Tacitus what with the accusations of evil superstition and what not.

I've covered point one in detail before, I don't think you have?

Give it a go!

 

[dejudge]

If they are rhetorical questions they don't require to be answered. They represent knowledge already possessed by the speakers, presented in interrogative form to achieve a rhetorical effect. They don't NEED answers. It's like some pompous ass asking you "Don't you know who I am?"

Again, you claim is a known established fallacy.

Origen admitted that Jesus had NO brother called James.

Origen did ANSWER the questions about the supposed siblings of Jesus.

See Origen's Commentary on Matthew.

Origen did admit that Jesus was NOT EVER described as a carpenter.

See Origen's Against Celsus 6

Please, cease your blatant fallacies!!!

 

[Craig B]

Couple of big problems there. 1. The "good god" suffering the extreme penalty under Pilate makes no sense. 2. Not to hard to figure out why fans of Christ would not cite Tacitus what with the accusations of evil superstition and what not.

You're missing dejudge's point. Tacitus refers to "Christ". That can't be shown to be Jesus. Therefore it is not Jesus. Therefore Tacitus is not evidence.

In the same way, Paul calls James the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother, so he's not evidence. Likewise Suetonius and Pliny. So there is no evidence. Now if they had all referred to Jesus, dejudge could nevertheless argue: but they didn't say "Jesus of Nazareth" so they're still not evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus, and so on.

That's how it works.