The Historical Jesus III

[GDon]

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.

I sincerely apologise if I have misrepresented you. I hate it when it is done to me, and I try hard not to do it myself.

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.

Carrier and Price have the same approach to early texts as the scholars that IanS (though maybe not you) criticize. The problem I am pointing out is that IanS (though maybe not you) do not seem to see this as a problem when it is done by Carrier and Price. That is a double-standard.

 

[Mcreal]

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.

That's a pretty good representation, and that's not sarcasm from me.

Though I'd set it out this -

Tacitus refers to "Christ". That can't be shown to be Jesus. Therefore it is less likely to be reference to Jesus. Therefore Tacitus is not evidence. Likewise Suetonius and Pliny.

In the same way, Paul calls James the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother, so he's not evidence.​

I think this is a bit of a stretch, though (ie. misrepresentation) -

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.

Besides, there's no evidence that Nazareth existed - as a place with that name - in the 1st C AD

 

[dejudge]

Couple of big problems there. 1. The "good god" suffering the extreme penalty under Pilate makes no sense.

You have a problem. You believe stories that don't make sense.

You have confirmed that you had NO idea of what you are talking about.

Mythology and fiction do not ever make sense.

Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and God Creator, the Lord from heaven.

Christians of antiquity did claim the Jews KILLED the Lord God from heaven


The Lord God from heaven suffered the ultimate penalty by the hands of the Jews in the Christian Bible.



Acts 2. 22 ----Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain

1 Thessalonians 2---14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets

The Jesus story in or out the Bible will not make sense because it is myth/fiction.

 

[Mcreal]

I sincerely apologise if I have misrepresented you. I hate it when it is done to me, and I try hard not to do it myself.

Thank you. My language was a bit harsh. I apologize for that.

Carrier and Price have the same approach to early texts as the scholars that IanS (though maybe not you) criticize. The problem I am pointing out is that IanS (though maybe not you) do not seem to see this as a problem when it is done by Carrier and Price. That is a double-standard.

I don't understand what approach they take, and how it is problematic.

 

[GDon]

But what I did say about it is - that in his YouTube films, and now in his book, Carrier does claim that in Zechariah there is talk of what Carrier describes as a "pre-existent celestial being, named Jesus, crowned king in heaven, and given supreme power over God's domain, who will somehow rise up from below to cleanse the world of all sin".

Right. And there Carrier is definitely wrong. Read Zech 6 for yourself. The Jesus there is NOT a "pre-existent celestial being". That Jesus is a man, who was high-priest of the Temple.

As I cautioned many times in those posts - I do not know if Carrier is correct in that interpretation, and I did not check further than to see what Bible Gateway said about those particular passages in the book of Zechariah, where I could not actually find a direct example of what Carrier was claiming and where there seemed to be some confusion about the actual translations of words apparently meaning "Rising" and/or "Branch", but that overall it seemed that you certainly can find the passages that Carrier is referring to, and that his overall interpretation may well be correct.

You "could not actually find a direct example of what Carrier was claiming" but "his overall interpretation may well be correct". Based on your first sentence, I would reword your second statement as "so his overall interpretation is probably not correct".

It demonstrates the highly speculative nature of Carrier's interpretation. I agree, he might be correct. Perhaps Paul looked at those texts and read them exactly as Carrier has read them. But once you start proposing "hey, no direct example of what Carrier is claiming, but he might still be right anyway" then you are doing apologetics, not analysis.

The point, as far as I was making it was, and is, only to say that passages such as that in Zechariah, in Isaiah, in Daniel, in The Ascent of Isaiah etc., do seem to be very obvious examples of what Paul described as "according to scripture", from which he may easily have got the idea that the scriptures had foretold a message "hidden so long" (iirc correctly, that is how Paul somewhere described it), by which he believed that the messiah was a figure named Jesus, who would be killed (perhaps by his own people, or by "the rulers of this age", eg see 1-Corinthians 2:8), but who would then be raised up again on the 3rd day in an act demonstrating to the faithful that they too would be raised up from death if they just kept the faith which Paul preached.

IOW - sources like that appear to be a likely place from which Paul got his Jesus belief, when he insisted that it was "according to scripture".

Maybe Paul got his idea of a human Jesus from Zech 6, which has Jesus as a man who was high priest. I may well be right!

Are you happy with that approach? This is what apologists do, I'm afraid.

Well you say that you agree with Doherty, but if you read the whole of Doherty's replies in your own link, he is not in fact disagreeing with Carrier, and he actually takes to task another poster there who implied that he (Doherty) was disagreeing with Carrier. Here is that exchange from your own link -

http://ntweblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/did-jesus-exist-with-richard-carrier.html

By the way, on Richard Carrier’s Logos as Jesus, I do feel he did stretch things a bit. One can make that link through rather indirect channels, but the difficulties compromise the specific connection he seemed to be trying to make. Which is not to say that he is not right in the general point that Philo’s Logos was a paternal grandparent to Paul’s Jesus.

Earl Doherty

Earl Doherty said...
BM: " '(Doherty)By the way, on Richard Carrier’s Logos as Jesus, I do feel he did stretch things a bit. One can make that link through rather indirect channels, but the difficulties compromise the specific connection he seemed to be trying to make."

It's a sweet way to say that Carrier is wrong on that matter."

I did not say that Carrier was wrong. What he seems to have done is make a deduction about what was in Philo's mind, something that would have been dependent on an (uncertain) implication in Zechariah. Perhaps Carrier was right, but the difficulties in demonstrating that compromise his claim. Perhaps he should have made the uncertainty clear.

I agree with Doherty there as well. No-one can say that Carrier is wrong in his interpretation (except on Jesus "the pre-existent celestial being" in Zech 6), because no-one can say that Carrier is right. "Perhaps Carrier was right!" Hardly a ringing endorsement for a ground-breaking new theory.

Also from those same posts in your link, I notice that you yourself appear to have been active there arguing this same stuff about Zechariah, and where that thread appears to be dated Dec. 2012 (also appears to be a "blogspot" run by a well known Biblical Scholar named Mark Goodacre?). E.g., as in this exchange -

Roo said...

Roo is a weird duck. I take no responsibility for what he writes about me. (He calls me a "Japanese-Australian" at one point. Just weird.)

But going back to what Carrier says in his book about Zechariah being a likely source for Paul, or at least my impression that Carrier is presenting this as quite obviously a likely source, what I had not noticed in my previous very quick skim through those passages in Carrier's book (also stated by him in his YouTube clips, so people can watch/listen to those for simplicity), is that he is tying all of that in with the writing of Philo circa 25 BC to 50 AD, i.e. writing at about the same time as Paul, or perhaps even a little earlier) where if I understand him correctly, Carrier says that Philo was partly misunderstanding, or if not actually misunderstanding then drawing a particular inference (see Carrier's quote below) from what was written in the translated Greek Septuagint copies of the book of Zechariah, and assuming that Jesus who is there referred to as Jesus ben Jehozadak, was a spiritual figure of prophecy rather than actually a real man.

Right. Carrier needs Philo to be assuming certain beliefs about Zech 6, things that aren't actually in Zech 6. As I said, the best way to describe this is apologetics, with a large side-salad of exegesis.

So that, according to Carrier, Philo then writes of this same "Jesus" as if he thinks that same Jesus in that same passage from Zechariah, most likely should be taken to mean a celestial firstborn "Logos" Son of Yahweh in the heavens. Though, crucially - Carrier appears to think that Philo is correct to interpret Zechariah in that way, because in his book Carrier actually says this about that passage in Zechariah (Carrier, p 82) -

"As I mentioned, an "esoteric" reading of Zechariah 3 and 6 would conclude the author originally meant the first high priest of the second temple, Jesus ben Jehozadak (Zech. 6.11: cf, Hag 1.1) who somehow came into an audience with God, in a coronation ceremony (one would presume in heaven , as it is in audience with God and his angels and attended by Satan) granting him supreme supernatural power over the universe (Zech. 3.7). But such a scene hardly seems descriptive of any living person, and would more readily be "esoterically" read as being about a celestial being named Jesus (as in fact we know it was. Philo of Alexandria having made exactly this inference: see Element 40), who was given by God supreme authority over the universe in defiance of Satan (Zech. 3.1-2). As it happens, the name Jehozadak means in Hebrew "Jehovah the Righteous", so one could also read this as "Jesus, the son of Jehovah the Righteous", and thereby conclude this is really "Jesus the son of God"."

Yep. It could be true! Who can say it isn't?

Do you want to write out and post the whole of Carrier pages 81 -83 (Element 6) & pages 200 to 205 (Element 40), or shall I do it?

Nope. I think we are done here, and I appreciate your long response.

 

[Craig B]

That's a pretty good representation, and that's not sarcasm from me.

It was sarcasm from me.

Though I'd set it out this -

Tacitus refers to "Christ". That can't be shown to be Jesus. Therefore it is less likely to be reference to Jesus. Therefore Tacitus is not evidence. Likewise Suetonius and Pliny.

In the same way, Paul calls James the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother, so he's not evidence.​

And of course that is what I was being sarcastic about. These things are evidence. Even if you think you can explain them away, they are still evidence. You interpret the references one way and I, for what seems to me to be good reason, disagree with you. But to say I have no evidence is absurd. My evidence is as good as yours.

I think this is a bit of a stretch, though (ie. misrepresentation).

You thinking something's "a bit of a stretch" is not the same as "misrepresentation" or snakes in the grass, or any other of these things. I wish you could convince yourself of that.

Besides, there's no evidence that Nazareth existed - as a place with that name - in the 1st C AD

That's not an important point. In any case I'm quoting dejudge who has observed that no apologetic writer has claimed that Tacitus wrote about "Jesus of Nazareth". I am giving you my opinion why dejudge should specify this detail.

I know the problems about Nazareth, and indeed I think it most likely that the original word was "Nazarene", meaning in fact "Nazirite".

But believe me, if I were to point to a reference to Jesus, eg Josephus:

"...Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..."

dejudge would I'm sure argue, what about Nazareth? And so on.

More on evidence, as regards a matter we have discussed here. Was Paul's "Lord" the same as Jesus? A source tells us he was. Acts 9:

"Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

Of course this evidence is open to challenge, because it comes from Acts, not Paul - who does, though, refer to Jesus by name in his laconic reference to the episode

"I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

- but it is still evidence because it may be interpreted in ways other than those you personally prefer.

End of dissertation on "evidence".

 

[Belz...]

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

This reveals much about your reasoning on this issue.

 

[Mcreal]

originally posted by McReal

Tacitus refers to "Christ". That can't be shown to be Jesus. Therefore it is less likely to be reference to Jesus. Therefore Tacitus is not evidence. Likewise Suetonius and Pliny.

In the same way, Paul calls James the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother, so he's not evidence.

And, of course, that is what I was being sarcastic about. These things are "evidence". Even if you think you can explain them away, they are still evidence.

Yes, they are evidence of at least one entity called Christ, or Chrestus.

Pagans and their various Gods were prominent during those times.

Especially in seaside ports and other seaside areas; especially in Asia Minor.

Roman Mithracism and the Egyptians cults were growing quite fast.

 

[The Big Dog]

You have a problem. You believe stories that don't make sense.

You have confirmed that you had NO idea of what you are talking about.

Mythology and fiction do not ever make sense.

Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and God Creator, the Lord from heaven.

Christians of antiquity did claim the Jews KILLED the Lord God from heaven


The Lord God from heaven suffered the ultimate penalty by the hands of the Jews in the Christian Bible.



Acts 2. 22 ----Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain

1 Thessalonians 2---14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets

The Jesus story in or out the Bible will not make sense because it is myth/fiction.

The amazing thing to me is that when someone comes out as aggressively as DeJudge does with his accusations that I have no idea what I am talking about, you'd think he would actually address what I was talking about (Tacitus/extreme penalty/Pilate destroying that silly good god argument, y'all know the drill).

But he doesn't. Not even remotely.

But he can type the **** out of personal attacks that I don't know what I am talking about, despite the overwhelming weight of authority that I do.

Type myth again, as Madonna says, it's like a prayer!

 

[Craig B]

Yes, they are evidence of at least one entity called Christ, or Chrestus.

Pagans and their various Gods were prominent during those times.

Especially in seaside ports and other seaside areas; especially in Asia Minor.

Roman Mithracism and the Egyptians cults were growing quite fast.

Yes, and you may include these factors in your interpretation of the evidence, but the evidence doesn't simply disappear because you choose to do that. I have extremely strong reason for not identifying Pliny's or Tacitus' "Christ" in that way, as I have argued before.

 

[tsig]

Exactly.

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

HJers treat this pagan writing as Holy Writ.

 

[Mcreal]

Hadrian, about his experiences in Egypt in the 2nd century, in a letter to Servianus, 134A.D -

"There, those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis"​

 

[dejudge]

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.

Your statement is extremely fallacious. You ALWAYS mis-represent what I posted.

You have been spouting Chinese Whispers.

Galatians 1.19 does NOT identify any character called OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth.

Galatians 1.19 is EVIDENCE that James the Apostle was NOT called the brother of Jesus.


Galatians 1.19 refers to the NOMINA SACRA KU [of the Lord][the Lord's].

"KU" is the NOMINA SACRA for "of the LORD GOD of the Jews".

"KU" is found HUNDREDS of times in the Christian Greek Bible.

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's κυ brother.

Examine the Greek Psalms. The Nomina Sacra "KU' is used for "of the LORD" who is the GOD of the Jews

1. Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord κυ

2. Psalm 12:6---The words of the Lord κυ are pure words

3. Psalm 18:21 ----For I have kept the ways of the Lord κυ

4. Psalm 18:30 -----As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord κυis tried

5. Psalm 19:7---The law of the Lord κυ is perfect

6.Psalms 19.7---the testimony of the Lord κυ is sure

7. Psalm 19:8----The statutes of the Lord κυ are right,

8. Psalms 19.8--- the commandment of the Lord κυ is pure,

9. Psalm 19:9The fear of the Lord κυ is clean, enduring for ever:

10. Psalms 19.9--- the judgments of the Lord κυ are true and righteous altogether.


Based on the EVIDENCE in the Greek Christian Bible , Galatians 1.19 refers to the LORD who is the God of the Jews.

Craig B please stop the Chinese Whispers--KU is the Nomina Sacra for "of the LORD" who is the God of the Jews.

 

[Mcreal]

And, there's all those other texts that also don't mention Jesus -

especially the 2nd century theological ones -

Fragment of Papias -

• mentions John/s, Mark, & Matthew; but not Luke or Paul.
  
• also mentions Peter, one of the James, Phillip, Thomas, Judas, Aristion, Revelation, himself (3rd person?), Irenaeus(?), Methodius, Hippolytus, the Alexandrians Pantaenus & Clement; Ammonius; Gregory Theologus, and Cyril.

No mention of Jesus! but 4 mentions of 'Christ'

by 'Papias of Hierapolis' (c. 70-163 AD/CE d. Smyrna); supposedly a student of the Apostle John

_____________________________________________

Apology to Autolycus in 3 Books by 'Theophilus of Antioch' (d. 181)

1st mention of the notion of the 'Trinity', but no mention of Jesus Christ

_____________________________________________

 

[Craig B]

There's nothing in the least surprising that some early texts mention "Christ" rather than Jesus. To everyone, pagan or Christian, who mentions Jesus, the important thing was the claim that Jesus was "the Christ". In those early days, additionally, Jesus was still an ordinary personal name.

And some sources don't even mention Christ. So what? Others do, as we have seen.

 

[Mcreal]

Macrobius, Saturnalia (I.20.13)

" Sarapis and Isis are worshiped with a reverence that is almost fanatical. Evidence that the sun, under the name of Sarapis, is the object of all this reverence is either the basket set on the head of the god, or the figure of a three-headed creature placed by his statue. The middle head of this figure, which is also the largest, represents a lion's; on the right a dog raises its head with a gentle and fawning air; and on the left the neck ends in the head of a ravening wolf. All three beasts are joined together by the coils of a serpent whose head returns to the god's right hand which keeps the monster in check."​

 

[Craig B]

Macrobius, Saturnalia (I.20.13)

" Sarapis and Isis are worshiped with a reverence that is almost fanatical. Evidence that the sun, under the name of Sarapis, is the object of all this reverence is either the basket set on the head of the god, or the figure of a three-headed creature placed by his statue. The middle head of this figure, which is also the largest, represents a lion's; on the right a dog raises its head with a gentle and fawning air; and on the left the neck ends in the head of a ravening wolf. All three beasts are joined together by the coils of a serpent whose head returns to the god's right hand which keeps the monster in check."​

This looks to you like a depiction of early Christianity?

 

[Mcreal]

No.

 

[Mcreal]

call Tacitus a pagan again. referring to Tacitus as a pagan in a thread about the historical Jesus might not actually be the smartest thing to do, know what I mean?

Say, anybody around here hear that Tacitus is a pagan?

He's bona fide.

Yep. Tacitus was a bone fide Roman pagan.

Some of his works were highly regarded; some, like Annals, less so.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, and you may include these factors in your interpretation of the evidence, but the evidence doesn't simply disappear because you choose to do that. I have extremely strong reason for not identifying Pliny's or Tacitus' "Christ" in that way, as I have argued before.

The evidence does not magically disappear.

Tacitus and Pliny were not eyewitnesses of your OBSCURE HJ.

Pliny did not even know what Christians believed he had to torture some of them.

Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius claimed Vespasian was the Messianic ruler so Tacitus Annals 15.44 must have been manipulated as was conclusively confirmed.


Many Jews were called anointed or christos hundreds of years before the myth/fiction fables called the New Testament.

The word 'anointed' [christos] is NOT evidence of an OBSCURE HJ who was killed because he made a disturbance at the Jewish Temple.

The greek work for anointed refers to a person who was physically anointed with oil.

Jewish Kings and High Priests were called anointed AFTER they were physically anointed with oil.

King Saul is called 'anointed' in 1 Sanuel.

1 Samuel16:6 ---και εγενηθη εν τω αυτους εισιεναι και ειδεν τον ελιαβ και ειπεν αλλα και ενωπιον κυριου χριστος αυτου

It is extremely void of logic to assume any mention of the word 'anointed' refers to a character who NEVER was.

When was your OBSCURE HJ anointed with oil ??

You can't remember!!!!