What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Greediguts]

Well Josephus and Tacitus are the best non biblical sources of HJ...which just goes to show how weak the evidence really is. Even if both were genuine they are so late that per John Frum they don't prove anything.

Nevermind that everything points to the Testimonium Flavianum being an out and out forgery:

1) No one referencing Josephus before Eusebius makes reference to anything even resembling the Testimonium Flavianum.

2) Right after the Testimonium Flavianum Josephus states "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder," which structurally makes no sense....unless you having it come right after the "And thus an end was put to this sedition." passage before the Testimonium Flavianum.

3) The Greek in the passage has 4th century elements. For example poietes (the doer in "doer of wonderful works") is NOT used in this manner anywhere else in Josephus: everywhere else Josephus uses poietes to mean "poet". But Eusebius does use poietes to mean "doer" (Mason, Steve (2003) Josephus and the New Testament ISBN 1-56563-795-X page 231)

4) "Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus." (Drews, Arthur, (1912) Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus)

5) Eusebius states very clearly the Testimonium Flavianum he saw came after Josephus' description of John the Baptist...yet in every copy we have it comes BEFORE! (Mason, Steve (2003) Josephus and the New Testament ISBN 1-56563-795-X page 231)

6) Also if Jesus and John the Baptist had even been rumored to have met certainly Josephus would have mentioned it...he doesn't.

Strangely in the early 1900s even pro-HJ scholars held the Testimonium Flavianum was a total fake and I don't understand how the Schlomo Pines changed anything as it is an 10th century document.

maximara,

I am familiar with Steve Mason's book Josephus and the New Testament. On page 231, he never says the passage has 4th century elements. Granted, he does mention that by the time of Josephus the word's meaning/usage had changed from "one who does" to having "a special reference to literary poets"(with Josephus using it to describe Homer elsewhere), but again, there is no mention of the 4th century. Perhaps you are combining a different source with him? You are also leaving out much of page 233 where he points out "...if some of the vocabulary and phrasing sound peculiar for Josephus, much of the rest is perfectly normal". And then shows in detail how much of the language used in the passage "fits" Josephus's style.

Your use of him for #5 is also misleading. Steve had this to say (on page 230, not 231) when discussing minor variants of the passage in Eusebius's various works: "Furthermore, Eusebius erroneously places it after Josephus's discussion of John the Baptist." The author places the error on Eusebius not on the text itself. There is no declaration like "yet in every copy we have it comes BEFORE! "

The book is pretty good for anyone interested, but it is hardly in agreement with the idea of the passage being a complete fabrication. You will find that the mainstream view (Josephus wrote something about Jesus and later Christians edited the text) is more-or-less what Steve supports.

Again, maximara I wonder if you are bothering to study/read what you source (did we not go through this with the book Just James near the beginning of the thread?!?).

 

[Acleron]

After over three thousand posts it appears the answer to the OP is not much and what there is, is not firm evidence.

With so little data then either an HJ or an MJ or any variant between can be hypothesised and made to fit by emphasising the accuracy of any particular datum. This is just a mess and the correct conclusion should be that we simply don't know. To rely on the consensus in this area is merely to rely on the roll of a die.

 

[IanS]

If you…with your superior scholarship…can present some reason to doubt the accepted conclusion of an entire international academic community…please lay it on us!

If not…STFU!

Ian has also hurled invective and vitriol at the academic consensus. A tale of two arguments…it appears.

On the one hand…Ian has consistently and vehemently proclaimed that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support the HJ position! Wow! I’d say Ian is a guy for whom substantial evidence really matters when arguing an important issue.

When presented with the academic consensus….Ian scoffs and accuses those who support the HJ of fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, etc. Ian claims they’re all stupid, cowering, zealots…or something like that (feel free to correct me if I have mischaracterized your slander Ian). Others have expressed support for this position.

….but…and this is what is interesting…Ian provides not a shred of evidence to support his dismissal of an entire academic community. All Ian has said…is that this is his opinion. Apparently there are vigilant and astute individuals following this thread (…well spotted…etc. etc.). Where else have the words ‘not a shred of evidence’ appeared?

Why don’t we ask Norseman…or Belz…or TSIG…or one of the attendant chorus. Is Ian’s opinion sufficient to dismiss the acknowledged consensus of an entire academic community? Or should we expect some actual evidence to support his contention that they’re all biased religious idiots?

That's not what I said at all (the first highlighted part above). Show me where I ever said any of those things? If you can find me saying any such thing, then just quote it.

What I actually said, is that this is not a typical area of mainstream academic study.

The people you and Piggy are referring to as "expert biblical scholars" (or any other description of them that you wish to use), are in general not ordinary academic historians teaching and researching in mainstream university history departments.

Instead they appear to be overwhelmingly either theists writing about their belief in Jesus and the history of Christianity and Judaism. Or else theologians, who may or may not also be theists (and I expect most theologians are, or have been, deeply theist for much if not all of their lives) writing on that same subject, or other graduates in the broader field of Biblical Studies (who again may or may not be theists, and for whom I think it's fairly obviously a reasonable assumption that most are in fact theists or have been strongly theist for much of their lives), or in what I suspect is the remaining small minority of cases, actually genuine historians who for some reason which we can only guess at, have chosen to take a special lifelong interest in Jesus and Judeo-Christian history, and invariably seem to be working in specifically religious wings of university history departments.

That is not at all like any other typical field of academic study. It’s a field which seems to be populated by people with a life-long interest (often inc. theistic belief) in a subject which is at it’s core entirely concerned with religious belief in Jesus and God.

If you are asking for evidence on that issue, then I have previously discussed several of the scholars that Piggy himself produced, and shown that their qualifications are in fact not as mainstream historians, but are instead qualifications in religious studies of various forms. So far, out of what must be hundreds of thousands of “scholars” writing in this field, I don’t recall anyone here naming even one genuine neutral historian who just happens to be writing about Jesus. Out of numbers like that it would be amazing if there were no genuine neutral historians, so I don’t doubt that there are some. But I think it’s also perfectly clear that the overwhelming majority of so-called “scholars” are in this case, as I said before, either straightforward theists writing from religious institutes, or else theologians writing from both religious institutes and from religious wings of various university dept’s, or bible studies graduates in various institutes.

 

[Belz...]

Why don’t we ask Norseman…or Belz…or TSIG…or one of the attendant chorus. Is Ian’s opinion sufficient to dismiss the acknowledged consensus of an entire academic community? Or should we expect some actual evidence to support his contention that they’re all biased religious idiots?

I don't think anyone's an idiot on this thread, religious or otherwise.

But consensus is not evidence, it's supposed to be the end result of evidence. I already said: I'm aware of the consensus, I just want to know how it was reached, because based on what I've seen there's not much evidence to work with.

Sometimes you just gotta opt out of the woo.

You, however, have no problem labeling your opponents. Woo ? How does that even make sense in context ?

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

I wouldn't consider it a conclusive argument point, Norseman, but it shouldn't be dismissed outright that if such is the case, it would be the only such instance of this demographic sample whereby such occurred.

And the only instance where any story set in that time and place has three billion living adherents, the latest in an unbroken chain of adherents which stretches back to the very first records of the story being told. That is, it was written for a purpose, and the purpose was to attract and manage adherents. Not just readers, not just retellers, but active dues-paying adherents.

We have chosen the instance because it is unusual, and unusual on a global millennial scale. Perhaps we ought not swoon away if we find the story exhibits some smattering of originality.

It would be up there with the advent of historical literature tradition in Polybius.

There are weekly gatherings where selected scenes from Polybius are re-enacted?

On the matter of burden: while you will encounter many theories on the wild wild web about where the burden of proof lies, I place it where American (and other "English") legal systems do. The burden falls on the party seeking a change, and the extent of the burden is roughly commensurate with the gravity of the change sought.

There is no burden whatsoever on any party who simply explains what they believe, and no burden on any party who reports being unpersuaded by another person's argument.

Piggy

I mean, what do you do with that?

Claim credit for it whenever possible, and flatly deny you ever did it when asked.

yet they believe that it makes more sense to look to "cargo cults" centuries later and thousands of miles away in order to understand this group rather than to look at the actual time and place and culture in which these people actually lived.

And you proposed Festinger's work on modern failed-prophecy cults "in order to understand this group." Like "certainty," this is another issue where you apparently can't keep track of what your teaching is.

 

[maximara]

And the only instance where any story set in that time and place has three billion living adherents, the latest in an unbroken chain of adherents which stretches back to the very first records of the story being told. That is, it was written for a purpose, and the purpose was to attract and manage adherents. Not just readers, not just retellers, but active dues-paying adherents.

That is the purpose of propaganda. It doesn't mean a lick of it is true.

 

[IanS]

In the same light; within the historical society, the "Jesus did not exist" side actually doesn't just sit back and shoot holes in the "Jesus did exist" side.
Instead, just like the Q theory example, the "Jesus did not exist" side has to show how all known material could have occurred without the existence of Jesus and produce a more convincing argument anthropologically than the "Jesus did exist" side's presented proposition.

This is why, before, I stated that taking logic courses is a good idea for anyone going into History or Anthropology; because the field works more like a philosophical debate infrastructure than an empirical science infrastructure..

Well that’s just not true here. There is no obligation for anyone in this thread to propose any specific theory of a mythical Jesus … because nobody here has said quote “Jesus did not exist”.

All that has been said is that, what has been produced here as overwhelming evidence (comparable to the evidence supporting evolution!) is not reliable or credible evidence of Jesus at all.

People here are expressing a perfectly reasonable degree of doubt about the existence of Jesus as anything much like the biblical figure, because the evidence for that belief is simply never produced.

Instead of a one-way system of propositions that is common in empirical fields; history and anthropology work on a two-way proposition like many court cases do, and the best supplied proposition (for or against) is the one that will gain the accepted consensus within the academic circles.


So even if the best proposition is only 65% likely; if it's the best proposition, then it is the position that is held as historically accurate.


I hope this may aid in clearing up some confusion.

I don’t think that does clear anything up. Because, apart from anything else, it is again, simply untrue.

For example - in science there are almost always numerous competing models to explain any given phenomena. There are, for example, currently all sorts of models to explain how our universe might have originally come into existence, and similarly there have been quite a few different models of abiogenisis. We have been through all sorts of variations and refinements in the course of explaining the atomic structure of “matter”.

So there is no quote “one way system of propositions there” either.

Also, as I said several times above, this does not actually appear to be any typical mainstream branch of academic history. Instead what we are talking about is a very unusual field of study concerned entirely with ancient documents describing 2000 year old and earlier religious beliefs in the supernatural.

It’s not an area where other academics want to publish. Eg, there is no attraction here for scientists to get involved in this sort of field for two very obvious reasons - (1)there is actually no reliable evidence to study, so any scientific investigation wouldn’t last 5 min. before concluding there was no reliable evidence for Jesus as a real figure (all the "evidence" appears to come from the biblical writing itself, and that writing is nowhere near reliable or credible for numerous reasons). And (2)very few scientists want to waste their time being dragged into a field as argumentative and contentious as this one … for precisely the same reasons that they rarely bother to publish academic papers showing why claims of supernatural gods and miracles are unlikely to be true.

 

[eight bits]

max

That is the purpose of propaganda. It doesn't mean a lick of it is true.

Agreed. Where the truth resides is a whole 'nother subject. I was just addressing the idea that being false, in some particular fashion, would be unprecedented, as if originality might bear on any uncertain question.

My idea is that originality bears not a lot, if at all. Not when we wouldn't be talking about this singular example except for the unusual effectiveness of the propaganda (which the Gospels are, and two of the four explicitly acknowledge themselves as such, Luke and John) which passes for evidence.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Consensus can change over time. Look how the scientific consensus regarding Neandtals has changed since the 19th century from sub-human brutes to acknowledging some Europeans have some Neandertal DNA.

Newer crops of scholars, spurred by Carrier, Doherty, and others, may in time change the consensus view on HJ to "not likely".

I think the honest answer, at this point, is "we don't know".

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for reading it.

Btw, did you ever get back to me on the quotes from Paul? You said you were wondering about a contradiction, and I wasn't sure exactly what you thought the contradiction was.

No, I didn't get back to you.
I took a minibreak from the thread because I was reading the NT for more time on a daily basis than is prolly healthy.

But to business.

Piggy, I'm reading Galatians and am struck by something in chapter 5

Quote:
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.



and then just a bit later, this


Quote:
11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

It seemed odd to me than in verse 2-4 Paul appears to say circumcision is even counterproductive for an aspiring convert, yet in verse 11, from what I can understand, he says the contrary.

I thought you'd be able to point me to a better understanding of the text.

 

[JaysonR]

Jayson
And the only instance where any story set in that time and place has three billion living adherents, the latest in an unbroken chain of adherents which stretches back to the very first records of the story being told. That is, it was written for a purpose, and the purpose was to attract and manage adherents. Not just readers, not just retellers, but active dues-paying adherents.

There are other religions, so I don't know that this aspect is unique.

We have chosen the instance because it is unusual, and unusual on a global millennial scale. Perhaps we ought not swoon away if we find the story exhibits some smattering of originality.

It's not a matter of originality; it's a matter - at least to me - of social anthropological record.

If it was absolute fiction entirely, purely; then that really needs to be documented and culturally (their culture) defined accurately, as otherwise we are suffocating a very big and radical change in their literary culture.

There are weekly gatherings where selected scenes from Polybius are re-enacted?

No; was this a coy question? I'm not good at catching humor in text very well I'm afraid, so if it was...I'm sorry in advance.
What the comparison being drawn was, is that as Polybius marks a literary threshold, a divergence from the standard literary culture; so to would the event be regarding a complete fabrication of Jesus.
Exaggeration and embellishments were par for the course, but a complete imagining and fabrication would be something radically new.

On the matter of burden: while you will encounter many theories on the wild wild web about where the burden of proof lies, I place it where American (and other "English") legal systems do. The burden falls on the party seeking a change, and the extent of the burden is roughly commensurate with the gravity of the change sought.

There is no burden whatsoever on any party who simply explains what they believe, and no burden on any party who reports being unpersuaded by another person's argument.

That's fine.
I was only explaining that such isn't the way that the historical society functions; dictionary or not.

And that's mostly done due to the terrible condition of what physical material for most of history is in.


If Jesus did not exist in any way possible, then the fault would lie in the bias of history proper and its force methodology for trying at all odds to not rest on "we don't know" as a final point due to the majority of history falling earnestly into that category by empirical evidence standards.

 

[JaysonR]

Ians;

History does indeed function differently than empirical sciences.
If you don't like history's methods; I'm not faulting you for it. Allot of folks don't - Napoleon was one such famous individual, for example.

The one-way and two-way discussion doesn't mean that other models fail to exist in empirical sciences; not at all.
It is instead that, say, to accept Higgs, we don't have to prove String Theory is errant.

However, in History; that's the kind of thing that regularly happens.
And that's because there is so little material evidence to aid in building new models.
The only thing that can often be done is a reinterpretation of the same physical material (until an archaeologist somewhere finds a new piece of material to add to the list).

As such, by two-way, what I am referring to is that to offer a new model, the constituent proposition has to address the leading model head on and show how it fails to satisfy as many portions as the new model; using essentially the same exact material evidence.

Empirical sciences have an additional support line of being able to propose a position and then physically test the possibility in many cases (i.e. Higgs).

There's no such possibility for History.
It's all a giant debate class.


Regarding your consideration regarding the academics' studying Jesus.
Firstly, I have no patience for theologians and dismiss, immediately, anything any such individual offers to history.
Why they exist tampering with history is beyond me; they are not belonging in the field hardly more than astrologists belong in the astronomy department.


As to the rest, where you are bothered by people devoting their career to studying Jesus; that's normal in history.
Some people devout to Maya, some to a specific region of Africa, I myself am interested in Near East Asia in general, but this is normal.

History is compiled by obsessive people; people that don't just do some average job and just happen to look at a Maya case, or a Jesus case that comes across their desk.
That is more the rare instance, and more something of a Museum Historian than just a typical Historian.

A typical historian is a specialist in one topic of history; be that a region (Europe, Near East Asia, Asia, etc...), a culture (Ancient Hebrews, Maya, Ancient Egypt, Medieval Europe, etc...), a period (Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc... ), event (WWI, WWII historians), or person (President Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, King George, Shakespeare, etc... historians).

There's really not a ton of general historians sitting around universities just parsing through material that is passed out among the academic community email for the daily work load.
Again, that's more a museum historian.


I won't be able to agree with you on the specialist tangent.
That isn't odd at all for history, and rather par for the course.

In fact, I'd rather this than the idea of generalized historians being the majority as we'd know far less and have a much less filled in picture as there is just so much material that humans leave behind that it's really difficult to be aware of all of the pieces unless you do spend a ton of time specializing in one specific avenue.


The majority aren't actually focused just on Jesus; that's those books that a person can read on shelves that come off that way.
Its more that people that specialize in the anthropology of early Christianity and late BCE Hebraic culture, and Roman culture that get involved in the mix with some folks who specialize in Jesus (and some of these latter folks write books, and because Jesus is ever so popular, everyone reads them; etc...).

 

[IanS]

Exaggeration and embellishments were par for the course, but a complete imagining and fabrication would be something radically new.


.

Why would it be something new? There have been loads of claims about all sorts of named gods doing all sorts of supernatural things, since long before Jesus, and long after right up to the present day. But nobody (except the faithful) believes any of those stories were true. Why is Jesus the exception?

 

[JaysonR]

Why would it be something new? There have been loads of claims about all sorts of named gods doing all sorts of supernatural things, since long before Jesus, and long after right up to the present day. But nobody (except the faithful) believes any of those stories were true. Why is Jesus the exception?

It would be new because there isn't a recorded instance of either of the following:
1) Hellenistic fictional literature category that involved using Hebrew culture for the literary setting and figures
2) Hebrew precedent for writing about a figure completely fictional and reporting that they lived immediately within the timeline of those reading the material

If the Hellenistic culture started everything, then that would be really interesting and fascinating.
If such were the case, that should really be taken note of and examined as to how that occurred in much greater detail, as it would be the only such instance.

If the Hebrew culture created Jesus as fiction entirely, then this would stand as the only known case where a complete non-existence messianic or prophet claimed individual of the rough period of first century CE was entirely made up, rather than the individual existing and the claims about them heavily exaggerated and politically biased.

 

[Piggy]

Consensus can change over time. Look how the scientific consensus regarding Neandtals has changed since the 19th century from sub-human brutes to acknowledging some Europeans have some Neandertal DNA.

Newer crops of scholars, spurred by Carrier, Doherty, and others, may in time change the consensus view on HJ to "not likely".

I think the honest answer, at this point, is "we don't know".

Carrier and Doherty aren't going to change jack.

Look, we can't have discussions of imaginary future worlds in which highly marginal speculations somehow become mainstream.

If you want to use that kind of thinking, you can literally argue anything at all. Perhaps the proponents of perpetual motion will be proved right. Does that mean we should take the idea seriously now? Of course not.

Let's stick to actual scholarship, not imaginary scholarship of an imaginary future world.

 

[Piggy]

No, I didn't get back to you.
I took a minibreak from the thread because I was reading the NT for more time on a daily basis than is prolly healthy.

But to business.




It seemed odd to me than in verse 2-4 Paul appears to say circumcision is even counterproductive for an aspiring convert, yet in verse 11, from what I can understand, he says the contrary.

I thought you'd be able to point me to a better understanding of the text.

OK, i'll give you a review once I'm back home in a bit.

But one thing I'll note now is that Paul still felt Jews should keep the law, because God gave them the law. It's just that the Law can't save anyone from the coming wrath of God. And gentiles should not keep the law, because then they would be converts, and to fulfill scripture, non-Jews must be saved.

More in a bit....

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, I'm reading Galatians and am struck by something in chapter 5

Quote:
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.


and then just a bit later, this

Quote:
11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

It seemed odd to me than in verse 2-4 Paul appears to say circumcision is even counterproductive for an aspiring convert, yet in verse 11, from what I can understand, he says the contrary.

I thought you'd be able to point me to a better understanding of the text.

Let me give you the rendering from my translation first:

Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourself off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.

You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision?

OK, let's put this into context.

Paul is in an argument with some from Jerusalem who believe that the Law was commanded by God, and therefore if you're not keeping the Law, you're not right with God, so how could you possibly be among those counted righteous when Jesus returns at the Day of the Lord?

Paul says, no, the Law was an agreement between God and the Jews only. In his view, the Law was a gift to the Jews to help them live correctly, but the Law can't save anybody from the wrath of God -- many who keep the Law will be wiped out.

Paul still maintains that Jews, including himself, should keep the Law. Elsewhere, he calls himself "blameless" before the Law.

So he is still "preaching circumcision", for those to whom it is commanded -- the Jews.

So if he's still preaching circumcision, for those whom God commanded to be circumcised, then why is he being persecuted?

No, he says, he is only preaching uncircumcision to the gentiles, because -- as we'll see more fully as we continue to examine his letters -- scripture says that not only Jews but also those among "the nations" (the gentiles) will worship the one true God.

So if these gentile believers convert to Judaism, the scriptures have not been fulfilled.

The gentiles weren't converted on the basis of the Law, which isn't for them anyway. They were converted because God chose them.

They believed in the resurrection of Jesus as the first fruits of the greater resurrection, and for their faith they were rewarded by the Holy Spirit, and as long as they keep themselves blameless through loving others, then God will find them righteous when Jesus returns and they will be saved from destruction.

But if they start thinking that they need to keep the Law -- and if they get circumcised, which is to say if they convert, then they're obliged to keep all the Law -- then they're rejecting God's power to save not just Jews but everyone.

This is of critical importance to Paul, because according to his reading of scripture, the number of the "saints" among the nations must be fulfilled.

So yes, he is "preaching circumcision" -- to those of whom it is scripturally required.

To him, it makes no sense for the "Judaizers" to say that gentiles should be circumcised, because the Law was not a covenant with gentiles, only with Jews. Yet per his reading of scripture, both the circumcised and the uncircumcised will be among those saved from destruction by Jesus.

So to his gentile readers in Galatia, he says "you" are turning your back on the grace of God if you believe the Judaizers and think that, no, it's really the Law that saves you, not the direct grace of God himself through the Holy Spirit because of your faith in the resurrection of Jesus.

And yet, he still preaches circumcision for Jews, including himself, because God's law for the Jews… and the Jews alone… commands it.

So, he says, given the fact that he's still insisting that those "under the Law", as he puts it elsewhere, be circumcised, why does anyone have a problem?

To his mind, an insistence on outright conversion of the gentiles is a sign of misunderstanding of the gospel, and an insistence on circumcision by the gentiles themselves demonstrates a lack of faith in the direct power of the Holy Spirit which is what converted them in the first place.

 

[maximara]

Consensus can change over time. Look how the scientific consensus regarding Neandtals has changed since the 19th century from sub-human brutes to acknowledging some Europeans have some Neandertal DNA.

Newer crops of scholars, spurred by Carrier, Doherty, and others, may in time change the consensus view on HJ to "not likely".

I think the honest answer, at this point, is "we don't know".

It doesn't help that the Jesus of tradition get thrown in with the Gospel Jesus to the point they become one mudding the water even more.

The pro-HJ site Jesus Police (archived on Internet archive) curb stomped many of these.

The Gospel Jesus was NOT born on Dec 25--that is a fourth century addon

The earliest depictions of Jesus are without long hair or a beard...and we see this version clear into the 10th century

Jesus' Ministry was not only 1 to 3 Years: "If Christ began his ministry between 23 and 26 A.D., and was still preaching in 35 or 36 A.D., it means that his ministry lasted at least 9 years, and possibly as many as 13 years at the time of John the Baptist’s death." The 23 and 26 A.D comes from Luke 3:23's "about 30 years of age". They do the year 0 goof (saying 6 BCE to 24 CE is 30 years when in fact it is only 29) but in assuming that the Gospels are reasonably historically accurate documents and trying to fit them into known history they do show interesting concepts missed by many pro-HJ people.

There are many more and they make for interesting reading separating the traditional Jesus from the one the Gospels describe.

 

[Craig B]

It doesn't help that the Jesus of tradition get thrown in with the Gospel Jesus to the point they become one mudding the water even more.

The pro-HJ site Jesus Police (archived on Internet archive) curb stomped many of these.

The Gospel Jesus was NOT born on Dec 25--that is a fourth century addon

The earliest depictions of Jesus are without long hair or a beard...and we see this version clear into the 10th century ...

The Jesus Police's "evidence" about Jesus' appearance doesn't inspire much confidence. The credulity they bring to their sources of information is bizarre.

The Gospel of Luke (19:3) describes Zaccheus’ attempt to see Jesus while he preached in a crowd: “And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and he could not for the crowd, because he was low of stature.” Of course, Luke may be referring to Zaccheus rather than Jesus, but the idea that Jesus was slight can be seen again in the Acts of John: “…I was afraid and cried out, and he, turning about, appeared as a man of small stature…” (v. 90)

We have another clue to Jesus’ appearance in the Qur’an. One night, a winged snow-white beast takes the prophet Muhammad to Jerusalem to the Temple where he meets Moses and Jesus, and Jesus is the smaller of the two.

The Slavonic copy of Josephus’s Capture of Jerusalem, contains the following description of a man wanted by Pontius Pilate for claiming that he was the King of the Jews: “a man of simply appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three cubits high, hunchbacked with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows…with scanty hair with a parting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazarites, and with an undeveloped beard (Quoted in Knight & Lomas, 1996, p. 230).” This description is curiously like that of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla: “…a man small in size, bald-headed…with eyebrows meeting, rather hook-nosed…” (v. 3)

Thus, from a variety of sources we see that Jesus was small in stature.

Slavonic Josephus! Acts of Paul and Thecla! The Quran! A winged beast took Muhammad on a trip to Jerusalem where he met Moses and Jesus, and Jesus was shorter. This is evidence?

 

[pakeha]

...To his mind, an insistence on outright conversion of the gentiles is a sign of misunderstanding of the gospel, and an insistence on circumcision by the gentiles themselves demonstrates a lack of faith in the direct power of the Holy Spirit which is what converted them in the first place.

Thanks, Piggy! I'm grateful for the time you take to answer me.
Yes, indeed, that sounds like a scammer's classic advice to ignore anyone else's take on the subject/spiel/storyline but his.
I'm fascinated by the similarities to Paul's preaching and text-book scams based on religious structures.
You'd mentioned this idea has been explored and rejected by the academic consensus. At some later point I'd be interested in knowing why, if you'd care to point me towards the specific studies and papers which deal with debunking the resemblance.

Which gospel(s)do you reckon the Galatians had access to in Paul's time?
If you prefer to answer that when it's time to treat the gospels, no worries!