The Historical Jesus III

[Leumas]

... speaking about the birth and ascendants of Jesus and Julios Caesar...

Another modern myth making stratagem is to EQUIVOCATE left right and center.

By the above utter illogic we can argue that Adam must have also been a real historical human being.

By your above EQUIVOCATION we can argue for the historicity of every and all mythological and fictive characters ever.

The Jesus that you are arguing for is a pathetic nobody of a meaningless no one who did nothing and achieved nothing and was nothing.

There were and are billions of people like that throughout the history of humanity... proving the historical existence of a NOBODY is just as useless as proving the existence of anyone of the billions of humans who lived and struggled and suffered and succumbed to the millions of things that have been snuffing out the lives of billions of people for millions of years.

Julius Caesar and the other historical characters with whom you are trying to EQUIVOCATE the pathetic nobody you are arguing for, were not nobodies and they did things that changed history and the trajectory of the human race... for the better or worse.

Unless you want to argue that Jesus did change the history of human kind then you have no right to EQUIVOCATE him with people like Julius Caesar.

Is that what you are aiming at?

Is this what you are wrangling for so incessantly and indefatigably?

Is this what you want to prove.... that Jesus, the mere nothing of a man, did change the course of human kind?

..."Jesus cults"? What are these?

Do you know what a cult is? Christianity is one major one with many sub-cults and sub-sub-cults... much like the thousands upon thousands of cults that emanated out of the hyperactive hyper-attributive benighted imaginations of superstitious peoples who extolled hallucinations and hearing voices in the head and quaked and trembled with dread and fear of the endless list of things they had no idea how to explain.

[imgw=450]http://i.imgur.com/vrMcQ8p.jpg[/imgw]

 

[maximara]

You cheat. We are speaking about the birth and ascendants of Jesus and Julios Caesar and now you change to the historical data.

Well, there are not "historical data" about Heraclitus. Was he a ghost? Speaking about Heraclitus as a real existent man is a "blatant absurdity"?

I had to look this guy up...which kind of proves the point that's been made. The fact one has to go to someone that to our modern world is on par with Denis Papin and Nicolas Appert as a comparison to Jesus shows the problem. If you have to go that far afield doesn't that show the evidence for Jesus is insanely weak?

"Jesus cults"? What are these?

A whole mess of cults ranging from somewhat rational to Jack Chick on on overdose of LSD ie a smaller version of the dysfunctional conglomeration that is the main religion of the Western world.

 

[IanS]

I agree. We have already looked at Psalms 2. That is a plain statement of the power of a Messiah sustained by divine favour. It is completely inconsistent with the idea of a crucified Messiah. The Christians would not have invented that, but once obliged by the facts to confront it, they sought "prophetic" passages that might make sense of it.

As everyone here must know by now, there are a number of passages in the OT which Christians & Christian writers themselves have long pointed to as possible coded prophecies of a crucified messiah.

These include -

Daniel 9:24-27
Isaiah 53:5
Psalm 16
Psalm 22
Psalm 34
Psalm 69
Zechariah 12:10
Deuteronomy 21:23
Deuteronomy 18:15
Psalm 118:22
Isaiah 6:1


Wikipedia gives quotes from each of theses sources, as shown below.

But before anyone is so silly and disingenuous as to say that none of these OT quotes actually name Jesus, or actually say the messiah will be crucified, the point is (as everyone here must actually know), that much later writers such as Paul and the authors of the canonical gospels, may have thought that passages such as these were coded prophecies meaning that the messiah would be crucified.

Indeed, as is pointed out below in reference to Daniel 9:24-27, the authors of both g-Mark and g-Mathew actually quote from Daniel as if they thought the words should apply to Jesus (even though in Daniel the passage is apparently referring to a high priest named Onias III around 167 BC).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy
Verses Christians cite as fulfilled prophecies
Daniel 9:24-27
Main article: Prophecy of Seventy Weeks

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" -

Daniel 9:24-27 (Authorized Version 1611)

References to "most holy", "anointed" ("Messiah") and "prince" have been interpreted as speaking of Jesus, and the phrase "anointed shall be cut off" as pointing to his crucifixion, the "people of the prince who is to come" being taken to refer to the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.[2]

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus refers to the “horrible abomination” or “abomination of desolation,” (Mark 13:14) and the Gospel of Matthew adds a direct reference to this as being from the Book of Daniel, "So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel…" (Matt 24:15)
The general scholarly view[3][4] is that the author of Daniel is writing a contemporaneous account of the Maccabean Revolt c. 167 BCE and the "cutting off of an anointed one" (9:26)— refers to the murder of the high priest Onias III; the "abomination that causes desolation" refers to Antiochus IV erecting a statue of Zeus in the Temple, the final straw breaking the uneasy coexistence of the traditionalist Jews and the more Hellenized Jews.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy
Isaiah 53:5
Main article: Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53 is probably the most famous example claimed by Christians to be a messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. It speaks of one known as the "suffering servant," who suffers because of the sins of others. Jesus is said to fulfill this prophecy through his death on the cross.[29] The following verse from Isaiah 53:5 is understood by many Christians to speak of Jesus as the Messiah:
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5 (King James Version)

"But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed." Isaiah 53:5 (JPS The Judaica Press Tanach with Rashi's commentary



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy
Psalm 16
The interpretation of Psalm 16 as a messanic prophecy is common among Christian evangelical hermeneutics.[46] “I bless the Lord who has given me understanding, because even in the night, my heart warns me. I keep the Lord always within my sight; for he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. For this reason my heart is glad and my soul rejoices; moreover, my body also will rest secure, for thou wilt not leave my soul in the abode of the dead, nor permit thy holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life, the fullness of joys in thy presence, and delights at thy right hand forever” (verses 7-11).

According to the preaching of Peter, this prophecy is about the messiah’s triumph over death, i.e., the resurrection of Jesus.
“God raised Jesus up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken… For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption… Thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’ Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it” (Acts 2: 24-32).

Also of note is what Paul said in the synagogue at Antioch. “And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore he also says in another psalm, ‘Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.’ For David, after he had served the counsel of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and saw corruption; but he whom God raised up saw no corruption” (Acts 13: 34-37).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy
Psalm 22
See also: Sayings of Jesus on the cross and They have pierced my hands and my feet. Two of the Gospels (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34) quote Jesus as speaking these words from the cross;[47]

"From the cross, Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

The other two canonical Gospels give different accounts of the words of Jesus. Luke 23:46 quotes Psalm 31:5 ("Into your hands I commit my spirit") while John has Jesus say "It is finished" (John 19:30). Some scholars see this as evidence that the words of Jesus were not part of a pre-Gospel Passion narrative, but were added later by the Gospel writers.[48]

In most Hebrew manuscripts, such as the Masoretic, Psalm 22:16 (verse 17 in the Hebrew verse numbering) reads כארי ידי ורגלי ("like a lion my hands and my feet").[49][unreliable source?] Many Modern English translations render this as "they have pierced my hands and my feet", starting with the Coverdale Bible which translated Luther's durchgraben (dig through, penetrate) as pearsed, with durchgraben being a variation of the Septuagint's ωρυξαν "dug". This translation is highly controversial. It is asserted in Christian apologetics that the Dead Sea Scrolls lend weight to the translation as "They have pierced my hands and my feet", by lengthening the yud in the Hebrew word כארי (like a lion) into a vav כארו "Kaaru", which is not a word in the Hebrew language but when the aleph is omitted becomes כרו, dig, similar to the Septaguint translation.[50] However this view is contested considering the Nahal Hever scribe's other numerous misspellings, such as one in the very same sentence, where ידיה is written instead of the correct ידי, making the Hebrew word ידי yadai "hands" into ידיה yadehah, “her hands".[51] Christian apologists argue that this passage refers to Jesus of Nazareth.[52]


Psalm 34
"Many are the afflictions of the just man; but the Lord delivers him from all of them. He guards all his bones: not even one of them shall be broken." (Psalms 34:20)

Ray Pritchard has described Psalm 34:20 as a messianic prophecy.[53] In its account of the crucifixion of Jesus, the Gospel of John interprets it as a prophecy (John 19:36) and presents some of the details as fulfillment.
“So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with Jesus; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water… For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of him shall be broken.’ And again another scripture says, ‘They shall look on him whom they have pierced’” (John 19:32-37)


Psalm 69
"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink"
Christians believe that this verse refers to Jesus' time on the cross in which he was given a sponge soaked in vinegar to drink, as seen in Matthew 27:34, Mark 15:23, and John 19:29.[54]


See Also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_have_pierced_my_hands_and_my_feet


See also this and it’s various references -

http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentev...ed-the-crucifixion-and-resurrection-of-jesus/
Q: What Old Testament passages prophesied the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus?
Therefore, prophecies of Jesus’ crucifixion include being “wounded for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5), “hung on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:23), “looked upon as pierced” (Zechariah 12:10), and “the stone that was rejected” (Psalm 118:22). Prophecies of resurrection include “became the chief cornerstone” (the continuation of Psalm 118:22), “a prophet raised up” (Deuteronomy 18:15), “high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1), and “seated at God’s right hand” (Psalm 110:1). Of course, there are many, many more prophecies (promises) in both categories (suffering and glory)

Isaiah 53:5 : "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed."
Zechariah 12:10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn."


All the above took literally 10 seconds or less to find by a Google search. If anyone took the time to go carefully through the OT and through other early writing that Paul may have regarded as scripture (such as “The Ascent of Isaiah”) then of course it’s likely that you might find many more passages that seemed to talk in coded language of the messiah or someone very like a messiah, being put to death in some such way such as “pierced hands and feet”.


And of course the above is all apart from the fact that -

1. It is only being said that Paul came to believe that such scripture contained verses that foretold of the messiah being put to death. It is not claimed that Paul was correct to interpret whatever he read or heard in that way.

2. We do not know what Paul himself originally wrote about any “crucifixion” of Christ. Because we have no such words ever written by Paul. Instead we only have what much later Christian copyists produced as the writing of Paul.

3. This is a subject where there are so many mistaken translations, and so many disputes about what various translated words really meant (e.g. in ancient Hebrew), that it’s actually impossible ever to be sure what was really first written and what was really meant in those specific words, or to be sure what Paul believed was there in the scriptures to be interpreted about any death of any Messiah, or any death or crucifixion of a “Christ”.

 

[dejudge]

Christian writers claimed Paul knew and used gLuke and that the Pauline Corpus was written AFTER Revelation by John which was also known to him.

See Church History 6 attributed to Eusebius, Commentary on Matthew 1 attributed to Origen and the Muratorian Canon.

It is virtually impossible to show the Pauline writers used ONLY OT Scriptures when Christians of antiquity admitted the Pauline writers KNEW the gLuke Jesus story.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever from antiquity to show that the Pauline writers did not known of gLuke.

The Pauline writers mentioned a character called Luke, a physician.

Colossians 4:14---

Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

Church History 37.

But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them........

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.

Since at least the 3rd century Christians claimed Paul knew of and used gLuke so it cannot be ASSUMED that the Pauline writers used ONLY OT.

Commentary on Matthew 1

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first .......third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.

It is extremely significant that Christians of antiquity claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke and Revelation were composed because such information help to explain why Paul and the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN by Christian and Non-Christian writers up to at least the last quarter of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr knew of the writing called Revelation [the Apocalypse of John] but NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus is both historically and theologically bogus.

In essence, the Pauline writings do not reflect the history of the Jesus cult. There were NO Pauline Churches before the Fall of the Temple and his supposed revealed Gospel from the resurrected Jesus was fabricated--a resurrected dead is fiction.

 

[Leumas]

...
But before anyone is so silly and disingenuous as to say that none of these OT quotes actually name Jesus, or actually say the messiah will be crucified, ....

I don't know about that... look how I was treated for my efforts.

That is nonsense. The Torah says nothing about Jesus.

gJohn contains little or no genuine historical material, but is late and elaborated.

No process at all of that kind.

There are reasons for supposing that some gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material.

Your ad hominem remarks are absurd and unworthy of considered response.

You very evidently have a "thing" about this, which inhibits you from rational consideration of the subject.

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal

it's not Raskin's falsification: it's Raskin's proposition that Christians either falsified the text that Tacitus had written; or falsified the whole text.

To make my 'meaning'^* absolutely clear. Raskin is suggesting (for whatever reason) that words found in the text of Annals should be set aside and replaced with other words which are not in the text as we have it. I call that his falsification of the text. But if you want to call it something else, go ahead.

You seem intent on misrepresenting the primary proposition.

* Your 'meaning' is meaningless, literally.

To reiterate: the proposition, using your terminology Craig B, is that Christian copyists or redactors set words aside and replaced them, giving us the text "as we have it".

We also have Arthur Drews' arguments in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus that Annals 15.44 is suspect on several grounds, including the proposition that "the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness" ie. Tacitus.

"The first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century. A fuller account is then given in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died 403 A.D.), but it is mixed with the most transparent Christian legends, such as the story of the death of Simon Magus, the bishopric and sojourn of Peter at Rome, etc. The expressions of Sulpicius agree, in part, almost word for word with those of Tacitus. It is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of the other Christian authors who used Tacitus, if the manuscript of Tacitus which Sulpicius used contained the passage in question. We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness."

Drews makes other arguments about why Annals 15.44 is suspect; and notes others' arguments, too.

The text is available here - link to 'Tacitus' in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus

 

[Craig B]

To say that Tacitus' passage is "suspect" is one thing. To replace words in it with other words is rather different.

On another point. Paul, the Mythicists tell us, derived his christology from the OT. He started with no reality whatsoever, spent time perusing the Tanakh, and concocted an elaborate Jesus character entirely from this source.

Very well. But what's this? Dear me, when the OT really talks about the Messiah, it says things completely different from what Paul says about Christ.

So the intrepid MJ fans have to say, well it's not there really, but Paul made it all up, and he thought he was seeing a crucified Messiah in the OT, when he wasn't. So he not only made something up out of nothing, but the material he used to make the something from the nothing was delusional. Very convincing indeed. (Joke)

Now look at Ps 22. It says nothing about crucifixion by the powers that be. And even the "pierced" in it is a peculiarity of LXX and not in the Hebrew sources, which give "a Lion" instead.

Why is this sort of thing touted as a prophecy of Christ? Because looking at it, a reader would say, gosh this looks like a prophecy of a crucified messiah? Of course not.

What has happened is obviously this. There was a crucified person. People who believed him to be the messiah then started "explaining" the crucifixion by finding any sort of OT passage that might conceivably be taken as referring to it. And the stuff they dredged up was feeble indeed, compared to what, in Ps 2 and Isaiah 45, any real messiah - the Anointed of the Lord - really is in the Tanakh.

BTW, I have asked already. This Raskin. Has anyone got the dope on his academic credentials? Like for Carrier.

 

[Mcreal]

On another point. Paul, the Mythicists tell us, derived his christology from the OT. He started with no reality whatsoever, spent time perusing the Tanakh, and concocted an elaborate Jesus character entirely from this source.

Very well. But what's this? Dear me, when the OT really talks about the Messiah, it says things completely different from what Paul says about Christ.

So the intrepid MJ fans have to say, well it's not there really, but Paul made it all up, and he thought he was seeing a crucified Messiah in the OT, when he wasn't. So he not only made something up out of nothing, but the material he used to make the something from the nothing was delusional. Very convincing indeed. (Joke)

...​

What has happened is obviously this. There was a crucified person. People who believed him to be the messiah then started "explaining" the crucifixion by finding any sort of OT passage that might conceivably be taken as referring to it. And the stuff they dredged up was feeble indeed, compared to what, in Ps 2 and Isaiah 45, any real messiah - the Anointed of the Lord - really is in the Tanakh ...

When you say -

"People who believed him to be the messiah then started "explaining" the crucifixion by finding any sort of OT passage that might conceivably be taken as referring to it" -​

are you referring to Paul or other people in antiquity doing that?

btw - there is no evidence of crucifixions between 4 BC/BCE and 46 AD/CE

CRUCIFIXIONS​

... Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46 C.E.,
except in Testimonium Flavianum. He mentions them, however, under Varus (4 B.C.E.),
Tiberius Alexander (46 to 48 C.E.), Cumanus (48 to 52 C.E.), Felix (52 to ca. 59 C.E.), and
Florus (64 to 66 C.E.), as well as during the Jewish War (66 to 73 C.E.).

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf

 

[Mcreal]

To say that Tacitus' passage is "suspect" is one thing. To replace words in it with other words is rather different.

lol. To replace words with other words - as the Christian copyists, redactors, or forgers likely did - is suspect.

 

[Craig B]

When you say -

"People who believed him to be the messiah then started "explaining" the crucifixion by finding any sort of OT passage that might conceivably be taken as referring to it" -​

are you referring to Paul or other people in antiquity doing that?

btw - there is no evidence of crucifixions between 4 BC/BCE and 46 AD/CE

I'm referring to anyone the MJ people say derived Jesus entirely from OT prophecy.

Are you really giving us this to indicate that Jesus was not crucified between 4 BCE and 46 CE?

CRUCIFIXIONS
... Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46
C.E., except in Testimonium Flavianum. He mentions them, however, under Varus (4 B.C.E.),
Tiberius Alexander (46 to 48 C.E.), Cumanus (48 to 52 C.E.), Felix (52 to ca. 59 C.E.), and
Florus (64 to 66 C.E.), as well as during the Jewish War (66 to 73 C.E.).​

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upl...t-12.11.25.pdf

A Google search on the author of that - Lena Einhorn - shows me where you're getting a lot of stuff.

Einhorn’s lengthy SBL paper ... bears careful examination by open-minded readers, for it offers a refreshingly original view which also happens to align in significant ways with Jesus mythicism. Her overall thesis is that an artificial “time shift” from the 50s CE to the 30s CE was introduced by the evangelists and (to a lesser extent) by the writer(s) of the Pauline corpus. Einhorn has presented papers on this subject at each of the last three annual SBL meetings. This development and reiteration have now produced an unusually well researched paper. Einhorn maintains that the New Testament writers made “Jesus of Nazareth” contemporary with Pilate but, in so doing, inevitably introduced a number of chronological anomalies—some of which have been previously noted in the scholarly literature. Einhorn writes (p. 29): “As a rule, when people in authority are introduced in the Gospels, their names match with those of people active during [the time of] Pilate. Their actions, however, do not.” She attempts to show that those actions match people active in the 50s CE—and, IMO, she largely succeeds.​

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/12/13/dr-lena-einhorns-time-shift-hypothesis/

This explains Raskin. He simply says OK let's change the words in the texts to conform to this hypothesis.

BTW, expressions like this usually mean, the writer in question is a nut job.

Einhorn’s lengthy SBL paper ... bears careful examination by open-minded readers, for it offers a refreshingly original view​

Unlike for Raskin, we have a note of Einhorn's intellectual background.

Not the typical New Testament scholar

Lena Einhorn is a medical doctor with a PhD in Virology and Tumor Biology from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. In the 1980s she changed course and began working as a medical consultant and editor for television in the U.S. She wrote and produced medical documentaries for independent production companies as well as for PBS until 1994, when Einhorn returned home to Sweden and became an independent filmmaker, branching out to non-medical subjects and producing dramas such as Stateless, Arrogant, and Lunatic which won the Prix Europe in 1999. She also produced the biography Loving Greta Garbo, as well as a feature film Nina’s Journey (about her mother’s experiences during the Holocaust) which won awards for Best Film and Best Screenplay.

From Einhorn’s biography page: “In 2005, more or less by chance, Lena returned to more scholarly work when in the process of writing the book What Happened on the Road to Damascus? (2006), she came upon some hitherto undocumented parallels between the New Testament and other first century historical sources, a finding that took her back to Academia, and a new hypothesis on the Historical Jesus.”​

Here is another of her productions.

Lena Einhorn’s book The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul (2007) made two arguments: (1) the standard chronology of the New Testament is about twenty years too early (this is Einhorn’s “time shift” theory); and (2) that Jesus and Paul were one and the same person.​

I see. Even Robert M Price is a bit iffy about that one.

It is a fascinating, albeit speculative thesis. The sheer novelty of it ought not to count against it, though most will laugh it off for no better reason. It is good that Lena Einhorn has contributed her theory to the debate.​

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/einhorn_jesus_mysteries.htm

 

[Mcreal]

Are you really giving us this to indicate that Jesus was not crucified between 4 BCE and 46 CE?

CRUCIFIXIONS
... Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46
C.E., except in Testimonium Flavianum. He mentions them, however, under Varus (4 B.C.E.),
Tiberius Alexander (46 to 48 C.E.), Cumanus (48 to 52 C.E.), Felix (52 to ca. 59 C.E.), and
Florus (64 to 66 C.E.), as well as during the Jewish War (66 to 73 C.E.).​

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upl...t-12.11.25.pdf

Yes. Tacitus' Histories 5:9 and Tertullian's Ad Nationes also supports that (as I have outlined in this thread recently).

 

[Mcreal]

A Google search on the author of that - Lena Einhorn - shows me where you're getting a lot of stuff.

Einhorn’s lengthy SBL paper ... bears careful examination by open-minded readers, for it offers a refreshingly original view which also happens to align in significant ways with Jesus mythicism. Her overall thesis is that an artificial “time shift” from the 50s CE to the 30s CE was introduced by the evangelists and (to a lesser extent) by the writer(s) of the Pauline corpus.

Einhorn has presented papers on this subject at each of the last three annual SBL meetings.

This development and reiteration have now produced an unusually well researched paper.

Einhorn maintains that the New Testament writers made “Jesus of Nazareth” contemporary with Pilate but, in so doing, inevitably introduced a number of chronological anomalies —some of which have been previously noted in the scholarly literature.

Einhorn writes (p. 29): “As a rule, when people in authority are introduced in the Gospels, their names match with those of people active during [the time of] Pilate. Their actions, however, do not.” She attempts to show that those actions match people active in the 50s CE—and, IMO, she largely succeeds.​

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/12/13/dr-lena-einhorns-time-shift-hypothesis/

BTW, expressions like this usually mean, the writer in question is a nut job.

Einhorn’s lengthy SBL paper ... bears careful examination by open-minded readers, for it offers a refreshingly original view​

I disagree. I think that 'expression' means, as stated, that

"Einhorn’s lengthy SBL paper ... offers a refreshingly original view"

so, it "bears careful examination by open-minded readers".​

Yes, " ... we have a note of Einhorn's intellectual background."

Not the typical New Testament scholar

Lena Einhorn is a medical doctor with a PhD in Virology and Tumor Biology from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. In the 1980s she changed course and began working as a medical consultant and editor for television in the U.S. She wrote and produced medical documentaries for independent production companies as well as for PBS until 1994, when Einhorn returned home to Sweden and became an independent filmmaker, branching out to non-medical subjects and producing dramas such as Stateless, Arrogant, and Lunatic which won the Prix Europe in 1999. She also produced the biography Loving Greta Garbo, as well as a feature film 'Nina’s Journey' (about her mother’s experiences during the Holocaust) which won awards for Best Film and Best Screenplay.

From Einhorn’s biography page: “In 2005, more or less by chance, Lena returned to more scholarly work when in the process of writing the book What Happened on the Road to Damascus? (2006), she came upon some hitherto undocumented parallels between the New Testament and other first century historical sources, a finding that took her back to Academia, and a new hypothesis on the Historical Jesus.”​

You seem to focus on people's "authority" rather than the merits of their propositions and arguments.

 

[Craig B]

I disagree. I think that 'expression' means, as stated, that

"Einhorn’s lengthy SBL paper ... offers a refreshingly original view"

so, it "bears careful examination by open-minded readers".​

Yes, " ... we have a note of Einhorn's intellectual background."

You seem to focus on people's "authority" rather than the merits of their propositions and arguments.

In Einhorn's case that's doing her a favour, however unimpressive her authority may be. According to your link, she also says that Jesus and the Egyptian were one and the same. And this is Paul too. Everyone is the same person as everyone else!

I found this the best crit of her work.

Step-by-step, starting with the question of whether Jesus ever existed, she brings together all the known (and little-known) clues about the Jesus story and follows them to what she finds a logical conclusion – that Jesus and Paul were one and the same… this Swedish import does a remarkable job of pulling the evidence together and presenting it in a way that should garner a good chunk of the seemingly insatiable Da Vinci Code audience.”
Booklist (American Library Association)​

That's exactly what it is designed to garner, I have no doubt. The audience - and its dosh too.

 

[Mcreal]

... According to your link, she also says that Jesus and the Egyptian were one and the same. And this is Paul too ...

I found this the best crit of her work.

Step-by-step, starting with the question of whether Jesus ever existed, she brings together all the known (and little-known) clues about the Jesus story and follows them to what she finds a logical conclusion – that Jesus and Paul were one and the same…​

That is a interesting proposition.
Given the narrative that Paul died in Rome in the early 60s AD/CE, it is feasible.

 

[Mcreal]

So Paul might be the 'Chrestus' that Suetonius refers to?

 

[Craig B]

That is a interesting proposition.
Given the narrative that Paul died in Rome in the early 60s AD/CE, it is feasible.

Jesus, Paul and the Egyptian all the same. Maybe Paul experienced a vision of himself talking to himself from Heaven?

Also then Jesus WAS in Rome causing trouble, as Suetonius relates of "Chrestus"! Not many people know that.

Was Theudas the same person too?

 

[Mcreal]

Jesus, Paul and the Egyptian all the same. ...

Also then Jesus WAS in Rome causing trouble, as Suetonius relates of "Chrestus"! Not many people know that.

Well, Paul in Rome causing trouble; then narrated as Jesus.

Re Theudas, Einhorn's argument answers the The Theudas problem

 

[Mcreal]

I missed this -

Here is another of [Einhorn's] productions.

Lena Einhorn’s book The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul (2007) made two arguments:

• (1) the standard chronology of the New Testament is about twenty years too early (this is Einhorn’s “time shift” theory); and
• (2) that Jesus and Paul were one and the same person.

I see. Even Robert M Price is a bit iffy about that one.

It is a fascinating, albeit speculative thesis. The sheer novelty of it ought not to count against it, though most will laugh it off for no better reason. It is good that Lena Einhorn has contributed her theory to the debate.​

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/einhorn_jesus_mysteries.htm

Yet Price gave a good outline, viz. -

Lena Einhorn, The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul. Lyons Press (Globe Pequot Press), 2007.

Reviewed by Robert M. Price.

" ... let’s cut to the chase. The secret if the true identities of Jesus and Paul are that they are identical to one another.

"Jesus is the Talmudic character Ben Stada, just as most Talmudic authorities surmise. Both are said to have emerged from Egypt carrying magic sigils inscribed in their flesh. Jesus is also said in the Toledoth Jeschu to have hidden a paper note containing the magically potent Tetragammaton beneath a flap of his flesh. Others have theorized that Ben Stada is the Egyptian messiah mentioned by both Josephus (Jewish War 2:13.5; Jewish Antiquities 20:8:6) and Acts.

"According to Einhorn, both guesses are correct. Paul is rightly taken for him in Acts 21:38, because Paul was Jesus was the Egyptian was Ben Stada.

"Along the same lines, John the Baptist was, in realty, the same man as Theudas the Magician. Both as linked to the Jordan, and both were beheaded by the authorities. In the gospels and Acts, the historical events have been retrojected to an earlier decade.

"Einhorn thus makes sense of the extensive parallels between the Passion journeys of both Jesus and Paul in Luke-Acts, not that it all happened twice, but that the second telling of the story in Paul’s case is a hint that Paul is the same character who underwent the process in Luke.

....​

"Einhorn notes other, smaller parallels including the Galilean birthplace of Paul according to Jerome and the similarity of Paul’s being trained as a youth by Gamaliel and Jesus engaged in dialectic with the elders and scribes in the Temple at age 12.

"She suggests that Pilate’s uncharacteristic urgency to have Jesus acquitted might be explained as another version of Acts 22:25-29, in which the Roman official, about to flog Paul, stands down when he discovers the object of his wrath is a Roman citizen.

"The Talmud says, cryptically, that Jesus, too, had some connection with the government."

.

 

[maximara]

You seem intent on misrepresenting the primary proposition.

* Your 'meaning' is meaningless, literally.

To reiterate: the proposition, using your terminology Craig B, is that Christian copyists or redactors set words aside and replaced them, giving us the text "as we have it".

We also have Arthur Drews' arguments in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus that Annals 15.44 is suspect on several grounds, including the proposition that "the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness" ie. Tacitus.

Drews makes other arguments about why Annals 15.44 is suspect; and notes others' arguments, too.

The text is available here - link to 'Tacitus' in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus

It wasn't just Drews who had issues with Tacitus; As mentioned before Remsburg had issues with the work as well.

C. Dennis McKinsey in Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide gives an even longer list of issues with the passage then Remsburg did totaling 28.

William Benjamin Smith's 1910 The silence of Josephus & Tacitus "Here at the outset it may be well to observe that the general hypothesis of Christian interpolation needs no vindication and involves no improbability. For that it is a fact in countless cases is admitted on all hands. "

Joseph McCabe's 1925 The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays states "It sounds like a Christian interpolation. On the other hand, Tacitus has one of the most distinctive and difficult styles in Latin literature, and, if this whole passage is a forgery, it is a perfect imitation."

The funny thing is all of these works avoid the key question: Why do the Christians themselves give such wildly different accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE)?

The apocryphal Acts of Paul is really weird as it has Nero reacting to talk of sedition rather then using the Christians as a patsy for the Great Fire.

 

[dejudge]

That is a interesting proposition.
Given the narrative that Paul died in Rome in the early 60s AD/CE, it is feasible.

Which Paul died in Rome in the early 60s AD/CE. There are narratives that Paul was alive after gLuke and Revelation were written.

There were multiple persons called Paul who wrote Epistles according to Scholars.

Not even Christians of antiquity knew who Paul really was, when he really lived, what he really wrote or when he really died.

There is total confusion among Christians of antiquity about Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Celsus show zero awareness that there were people called Paul who lived and wrote Epistles to Churches about Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles, although it mentions Paul over a hundred times, mention not even a verse from the Pauline Corpus.

None of the persons called Paul of the tribe of Benjamin have ever been found in any accepted historical source of antiquity.

And most laughable, a character called Paul claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Paul and the Pauline Corpus are the flagships of fiction and false attribution.