searchengineguy
Student
Can anyone else see that this is a very strong argument from silence?
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Ricardo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus jesus
- Status
I think the problem is that you are only reading modern Christian translations of the texts. Other versions vary. Scholars who study these things in the original Greek will disagree.
Maybe you should present your argument to an Historian of the Ancient Near East, I doubt they will agree with you.
Please don't try to tell me that an entire branch of Academia is in on some kind of conspiracy.
searchengineguy
Student
Even if you go to "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus the Nazorean" there remains a screaming silence, no-one external to the NT mentions this. Most NT scholars will say that the most historical part of Jesus of Nazareth's life was his crucifixion, but no-one external to the NT mentions this monicker in connection to a crucifixion or it appearing on his cross. No-one external to the NT mentions a "King of The Jews" either.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
I actually know a couple of those, can you explain what you think they'd believe?
And what conspiracy do you think he'd be suggesting? "Entire branch" suggests you think all historians agree on something. What do you think they agree on and can you substantiate it?
searchengineguy
Student
You mean like Bart Ehrman? He wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist?" and the sub heading was "The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" so this is the name that he is investigating and firmly believes that the character with this name existed.
The earliest readings would have been what was supposedly written on his cross: From Wiki - "The initialism INRI represents the Latin inscription IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM (Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum), which in English translates to "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews" (John 19:19). John 19:20 states that this was written in three languages–Hebrew, Latin and Greek–and was put on the cross of Jesus." So for the next 1,000 years, where else beyond the NT did these terms appear? If you can't find anything, then all of the "historic" mentions of these monikers appear ONLY in texts that are riddled with myth, magic, interpolation and outright lies. We don't even have originals or copies of originals. It's the WORST type of evidence for a character widely known as Jesus of Nazareth (or similar). I'll agree that other titles, like Christ, Lord or Messiah are found elsewhere, but if you want to get precisely specific, that character is totally unknown outside of the NT and SHOULD have been mentioned if he actually existed.
Well, every single one of them that has ever participated in any of these HJ threads (and there has been a few) has been of the opinion that there was most likely a preacher named Jesus at the start of Xtianity. They base that on years of study, not a couple of youtube videos or a few modern translations taken out of context.
The conspiracy pushed by people like Richard Carrier that everyone who studies the subject is a fundamentalist Christian sworn to uphold Xtian dogma.
searchengineguy
Student
I think that you are missing my point. I'm not talking about any old Jesus, I'm talking about the character named "Jesus of Nazareth". If every scholar that has appeared on these threads was of that opinion, it doesn't mean that it is true. It may even mean that the consensus of opinion is biased and acting on faulty assumptions. How do you say that the modern translations are taken out of context? Are you saying that they are NOT talking about a character named Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Nazarene or King of the Jews?
Whoa! Whence does that conspiracy cometh? Citation please? Have you heard of Robert Price, Raphael Lataster etc?
Last edited:
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
Well, if that name only appears once or twice in the whole book, then no, they're mostly not doing that. They're talking about lots of other things about a guy named Jesus but mostly ignoring the Nazarwhatever subject. The original authors or translators/transcribers somewhere along the line could have gotten that one irrelevant point wrong and still been right about practically everything about him.
searchengineguy
Student
Hi Delvo, no you missed what I said about that on the previous page. It wasn't just stated once or twice, "Jesus of Nazareth" was mentioned 17 times, including him referring to himself as such.
"1. Matthew 26:71
Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
2. Mark 1:24
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
3. Mark 10:47
When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
4. Luke 4:34
“Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
5. Luke 18:37
They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”
6. Luke 24:19
“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.
7. John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
8. John 18:5
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)
9. John 18:7
Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
10. John 19:19
Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
11. Acts 2:22
“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
12. Acts 3:6
Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
13. Acts 4:10
then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
14. Acts 6:14
For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
15. Acts 10:38
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
16. Acts 22:8
“‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.
17. Acts 26:9
“I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."
OK searchengineguy, maybe I'm missing your point. Can you explain to me why you expect to see references to "Jesus of Nazareth" in other texts?
As far as I can tell, he was an obscure preacher during his lifetime. His brother James was more famous because he led the Jesus movement for about 30 years. Look him up.
As far as I can tell, he was an obscure preacher during his lifetime. His brother James was more famous because he led the Jesus movement for about 30 years. Look him up.
searchengineguy
Student
Sure, according to the NT Jesus of Nazareth was wildly famous and followed by large crowds. If you don't believe that, what makes you think that it is false? I think it's false because there is no evidence beyond the NT.
How can you tell that? If he was so obscure, and came from the backwoods, then how did he gather followers?
Which James do you say is his brother and how do you know that beyond the NT?
Last edited:
It isn't just the silence but when we can compare the Gospels to known historical events they either are geographic train wrecks or present social-political nonsense. Gospels as history (Conflicts with known history) over on rationalwiki goes over the highlights.
Heck, Irenaeus citing the Gospels concludes Jesus had to be past the age of 46 when he was crucified (Against Heresies 2:22). More over his Demonstration (74) spastically states "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."
The key issue is the title "King of the Jews" (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ in Greek). At best only three Herods held this formal title: Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, and Herod Agrippa II When Herod the Great died, his kingdom was broken up between this three sons: Herod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judaea 4 BCE – 6 CE), Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee 4 BCE - 41 CE), and "Herod" Philip II (Tetrarch of Batanea 4 BCE – 34 CE). Archelaus was removed 6 CE with Judea governed by Roman prefects until Herod Agrippa I came to power in 41 CE. Furthermore, while some later books have called Herod Agrippa II "king of the Jews", he in truth never ruled over the Judea province.
In any case only one of these Herods ruled Judea during the reign of Claudius Caesar: Herod Agrippa I. Moreover, we know exactly when he had the title "King of the Jews": 42-44 CE. But this is long after Paul's vision, so why did Irenaeus make such a statement? Against Heresies 2:22 shows that Luke 3:23 locked him at Jesus being [about] 30 around 28/29 CE and John 8:56-57 as he states "such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period." Even you push Jesus's supposed birth date in Matthew to c6 BCE (Herod the Great killing children two years old and younger), putting Jesus at 34 in c29 CE (there is no year zero), you don't get to the required minimum 46 years of age until 41 CE, which requires the Caesar to be Claudius (41-54 CE) and the Herod "king of the Jews" to be Agrippa I (42-44 CE). The Gospel material Irenaeus was using effectively locked in the time period and he was forced throw in Pontius Pilate (who if there was a Herod "king of the Jews" in charge would not have been needed) to make everything fit.
Furthermore the old out of claiming Irenaeus was, for some insane reason, referring to Tiberius Claudius Nero (whose name had changed to Tiberius Julius Caesar when he was adopted by Julius Caeser in 44 BCE) takes a dirt nap thanks to this passage:
But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar - Against Heresies 1:27:2
The tap-dancing to explain "for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus" (i.e. 14 CE) - Against Heresies 2:21:3 is also a wonder to behold. And before anyone give the BS of the forty-first year being somewhen else:
Augustus Caesar, emperor and princeps of the Roman people, died in the forty-first year of his reign, at the age of seventy-six. In that same year, 14 CE,..." - Coogan, Michael D. (2001) The Oxford History of the Biblical World Oxford University Press pg 389
Lena Einhorn argues "The fact that Josephus describes two messianic claimants in the 40s and 50s, Theudas and the Egyptian, with significant similarities to John the Baptist and Jesus, and that he does so using distinctly negative terms, could be an argument for the time shift being deliberate. Those who put together the Gospels may have wanted to avoid an unfavorable comparison with established historical sources, and may have preferred to eliminate, or at least greatly diminish, Jesus as a historical person."
Last edited:
Acts of the Apostles is one of the worst books to use to argue for an HJ.
In Acts it is claimed Saul heard a voice after he was blinded by a light and that no-one travelling with him saw anyone at that time.
It is also claimed in Acts that Jesus had already been killed, resurrected and ascended in a cloud long before Saul was blinded by a bright light on his way to Damascus so it could not have been an actual person who said "I am Jesus of Nazareth".
Acts 22: 8 are the words of the author of Acts or his source.
Now, look at Acts 9:5 where the first version of the "bright light" event is found - the supposed voice does not mention Nazareth.
Acts 9:5
Look at Acts 26:15 -again no mention of Nazareth.
It is most fascinating that you would think implausible non-historical events in Acts represent the words of one who was already dead, buried, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.
There was no Jesus of Nazareth as claimed in the NT based on existing evidence of antiquity.
searchengineguy
Student
I agree! I am only being the devil's advocate.
Absolutely. I have no idea why any atheist would look for "kernels" of evidence to support it, whatever they are.
searchengineguy
Student
Also ancient Jewish people would not use the phrase, King of The Jews" they would use the designation "King of Israel".
Except that "Israel" did not exist in the time period we are talking about. In fact, "Israel" had stopped existing in 722 BCE when the Neo-Assyrian Empire conquered it. You had Syria, Judea, and Arabia in that area...no "Israel"; you can't have a king of a country that no longer exists. This is why past 1881 there were no more kings/princes of Wallachia - that country no longer existed being woven into the larger country of Romania.
searchengineguy
Student
John 1:49, NIV: "Then Nathanael declared, 'Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel. ... John 1:49, KJV: "Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel."
In GospJohn, those Jews who look favorably upon him *do* call him King of Israel (see also 12:13). His adversaries call him King of the Jews.
searchengineguy
Student
Maximara, these were rebel kings they were in denial about Roman power and in their own heads they were kings of an obviously non existent country.
These are English translations of the Greek; I go to Greek Bible as it reveals if any translation tinkering has gone on.
Here is John 1:49 in what I think is 2nd century Greek (miniscules ie lower case letters didn't appear until around the 8th century CE):
ΑΠΕΚΡΙΘΗ ΑΥΤΩ ΝΑΘΑΝΑΗΛ ΡΑΒΒΙ ΣΥ ΕΙ Ο ΥΙΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΣΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙ ΤΟΥ ΙΣΡΑΗΛ.
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ is a weird word in the Greek as it can mean leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land as well as "king". The EI means "to be, to exist, to happen, to be present". So the structure here is a little weird.
ΙΣΡΑΗΛ also has several meanings likely referring to the people of Israel rather than the nation of Israel. The modern equivalent would be a native born American saying they were Irish, Dutch, Asian, etc.
Never mind John is regarded as the latest Gospels post dating Luke which has a date as late as 130 CE among scholars.
That doesn't fly as Rome didn't conquer Judah 63 BCE about 6 centuries after the nation of Israel was gone. The "Israel" here likely refers to "people of Israel" rather to any nation of that name.
Last edited:
searchengineguy
Student
Ok, I'll go along with that, thanks for your insight and knowledge. What do you think about my Jesus of Nazareth argument? Btw, are you a Christian?
- Status