What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Craig B]

How is it more reliable without corroboration of any kind ? Please explain.

Because of the plausibility of the event which it relates. Because some of the persons in Mark are corroborated by Paul as having existed. Because the detail of Pilate and the execution do not appear to have been inserted to fulfil some alleged messianic prophecy.

 

[maximara]

Because of the plausibility of the event which it relates. Because some of the persons in Mark are corroborated by Paul as having existed. Because the detail of Pilate and the execution do not appear to have been inserted to fulfil some alleged messianic prophecy.

The logic here is flawed. In 1935 H. A. Calahan wrote Back to Treasure Island a sequel to Treasure Island but that doesn't mean any the characters in Treasure Island are real.

Besides even if the Pilate connection did originate with Paul (which is doubtful) there is nothing to say it wasn't on par with Eusebius claiming that Philo came to Rome and talked with Peter.

 

[Craig B]

The logic here is flawed. In 1935 H. A. Calahan wrote Back to Treasure Island a sequel to Treasure Island but that doesn't mean any the characters in Treasure Island are real.

I am really at a loss to understand this analogy. To what work of acknowledged fiction is Mark an acknowlegedly fictional sequel?

 

[IanS]

IanS


Thank you for answering my question. There is no survivng passage where Paul clearly describes his vision of Jesus, contrary to your claim.


No.


Yes, of course I disagree. Paul doesn't describe his principal vision in any of his surviving writing. I don't know any Bible scholar, or sceptical writer besides you, who disputes that.


No, I do not disagree about the acceptance, but what is accepted is that the source for a near-Damascus setting for the principal vision is not Paul, but Acts. Paul doesn't say where he was when the vision occurred. Paul's remark at Galatians 1: 17 that he "returned" to Damascus is consistent with Luke's account, but doesn't imply that the vision occurred there. CE 35 is fine as an inference from Paul's text, and its apparent approximate time of composition.


I gave the verse. Do I need to give a link as well?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 19:35&version=NIV


The issue I addressed was whether the idea that there were eyewitnesses was original with another poster here. The idea is not original with another poster here.

An eyewitness need not be named for an author to assert that he or she relies on an eyewitness. We see reliance on unnamed eyewitnesses all the time, for example in journalism.

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596

John claims to have had a primary source for at least two events he reports, one of them being the crucifixion. He does not claim to be a primary source himself. Luke claims that others had primary sources, but not that Luke consulted primary sources or was one himself. Acts contains the "we" passages for some of Paul's adventures, but it is unclear whether or not that actually was meant to claim that Luke was an eyewitness to those.

So, finally, yes, Paul is a primary source for several things, including that he had a vision which conferred apostolic status upon him. The contents, sensory modalities, and whereabouts of that experience come to us from other sources, however. These are not primary sources, but specifically the narrator of Acts, along with first-person public statements attributed to Paul elsewhere in that book, but without any description of how these statements came to Luke.

OK, well if all of that is true, then I will happily accept that I have been wrong in what I think about Paul as a source on this.

But what you say here is obviously crucial to the issue. So just to be clear - you are saying that bible scholars and sceptical writers alike have in fact not written to say that Paul’s letters describe his vision of the risen Jesus, and that there is not general agreement that this incident would have been around 35AD when Paul was travelling on the road to Damascus. That’s all completely untrue and entirety wrong, is it?

That is - nobody except me was ever under the impression that writers on this subject have commonly agreed that Paul’s letter describes his vision of the risen Jesus? That’s just my imagination?

And it’s just my mistaken belief that bible scholars and sceptical writers alike, say that the consensus is not really disputed in saying that Paul’s vision of Jesus would be close to 35AD on the road to Damascus?

That’s all complete fabrication from me?

I mean, seriously, I am willing to accept that I have completely understood what these writers have been saying about any of that. Really! But that was certainly the impression I had from anything I’ve ever read about this?

On the other issue re. claims of eye-witnesses - you’d need to show that the gospel writers actually say that their story of Pilate (or whichever story) came to them from a named eye witness, and that the writer was giving that eye-witness account.

Otherwise, as I say, it’s no use at all simply pointing out that the gospels are full of claims about numerous people seeing Jesus. That’s not an eye-witness account being re-told by the author.

The reason Paul’s letters are in a different evidential category are, as I said above, because they are supposed to be written by Paul himself (or by someone on his behalf), where Paul himself claims to be the eye-witness and the primary source. He is telling his readers what he himself saw and heard etc. He is not writing anonymously (like the gospel writers) at a much later date, recounting stories from unknown unnamed sources.

By the way, I just looked at your link to g-John, and your link says this -

John 19:35
New International Version (NIV)
35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

That is by no means a reliable (in any sense) eye-witness account re-told by the gospel author.

 

[IanS]

Then if Paul's letters, as you say, also tell us that Pilate killed Jesus, then that's all the more evidence that he did. I have no problem with that.

This point was already addressed in post #3457:

Actually we don't know that. The majority of modern scholarship says that First Timothy, Second Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul and are late 1st century to mid 2nd century creations ie later then the Gospels. (Collins, Raymond F. (2004) 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 4 ISBN 0-664-22247-1)

This means that the idea that Pilate was involved with the crucifixion of Jesus came after Paul's supposed martyrdom c67 and before the writing of the first Gospel, Mark sometime after 70 CE...we don't when and some have suggested as late as 85 CE for it.

----

Also it should be mentioned the epistles are NOT as Paul originally wrote them. Many are several letters woven together into a more cohesive text by an editor and the first reference to them is in regards to Marcion c140 CE bible. Somebody has even suggested that Marcion was the editor in question.

Furthermore P46 (175-225) is the earliest copy of Paul's Epistles and the seven missing leaves at the end (14 pages) are not enough to cover the missing Epistles: remainder of 2 Thessalonians (estimated 2 leaves or 4 pages); 1 Timothy (8.25 pages), 2 Timothy (6 pages), Titus (3.5 pages) and Philemon (1.5 pages).

So the key work that definitively has Pilate killing Jesus are not even in the oldest copy of Paul we have and there is not way to fit the Paul we know today into the missing space. So there is no way to know if the Pilate killing Jesus reference was even part of Paul's original writings.

Maximara

You'll need to take that up with IanS. I don't think Paul gives an account of Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate either. But if he does, then it's further evidence in favour of the crucifixion story

I don’t think I disagree with any of the above. But it just highlights once again how completely unreliable all of this claimed early writing from Paul and the gospel authors really is. And in particular how completely unreliable the quoted dates are.

For example, I agree P46 is supposed be the oldest surviving relatively complete copy of Paul’s writing, generally dated to around 200AD (with a fairly wide range around that date from various authors, some saying much earlier, some saying significantly later). And it’s also true that unfortunately the key relevant letters regarding Pilate and Paul’s vision etc. appear to be amongst the relatively few that are missing from P46. That really is most “unfortunate”.

However, if we are going to point that out re, the date of circa.200AD for extant relatively complete and readable copies of most of Paul’s letters, then we must also point out that there are no gospels known from anywhere near the 1st century AD.

As I’ve said several times on previous pages - apparently the fact of the matter is that the earliest surviving relatively complete and readable copies of any of the four canonical gospels date to the 4th century and later, and mostly from the 6th century onwards. Prior to those dates (4th to 6th century onwards), all that exists are fragments from what are thought to be the gospel writing, and various “quotations” (whatever “quotations” is meant to mean in that context).

And the same seems to apply to all of the non-biblical writing on this subject. That is - none of it is anywhere near the dates commonly given as the original lifetime of the authors. Eg, Tacitus and Josephus, who are probably the two best known and most often quoted sources re. Jesus, are known only from copies dated from the 11th century and not from anything earlier, ie 1000 years after those authors had died.

IOW - none of these sources really seem to be reliable in much if any useful sense at all. And certainly not as far as any detailed claims about Jesus are concerned (inc. his claimed execution under Pontius Pilate).

 

[eight bits]

IanS

But what you say here is obviously crucial to the issue. So just to be clear - you are saying that bible scholars and sceptical writers alike have in fact not written to say that Paul’s letters describe his vision of the risen Jesus, and that there is not general agreement that this incident would have been around 35AD when Paul was travelling on the road to Damascus. That’s all completely untrue and entirety wrong, is it?

No. The 35 CE estimate is fine. The near-Damascus location for the principal vision isn't contested, but it is Luke who says so, in Acts, not Paul in his surviving letters. Paul doesn't describe the contents of his principal vision, just that he interpreted it as an appearance of the risen Jesus.

That is - nobody except me was ever under the impression that writers on this subject have commonly agreed that Paul’s letter describes his vision of the risen Jesus?

I believe we have both quoted the single verse, 1 Corinthians 15: 8

Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

If that's what you meant by "He describes very clearly how he saw the vision of Jesus for himself," then Paul described very clearly, etc. Any reader can judge for themselves how clearly Paul described his experience in that verse.

As with this question, the rest of your questions have already been asked and answered. I sense your reason for asking them again is argumentative and not to seek new information. Regardless, my answering them again cannot produce any new information. So, I skip them.

That’s not an eye-witness account being re-told by the author.

I confined my remarks to two evangelists who discussed sources, and alluded to the existence of witnesses. By that, the evangelists meant people who were there, who told others or wrote about what they perceived, and whose reports the author states form part of the basis for what the author tells.

It's all very interesting whom you find reliable. The assertion I addressed, however, was the idea that eyewitnesses being available to evangelists was original with another poster in this thread. The idea is not original with the other poster; it is in the black-letter text of some Gospels.

 

[davefoc]

Yes sorry. The confusion was mine, I didn't read it carefully.


So g-Mark wasn't a native of Palestine. Does he have to be? He might have been a bilingual Hellenised Jew from Antioch or Corinth or somewhere employed as an interpreter.

I think this speculation falls into the class of ideas that are dependent on the fact that we know almost nothing for certain about the earliest phase of Christianity and therefore almost no speculation can be disproved.

If the HJ or his followers are Hellenized Jews (I think Piggy said it wasn't possible that the HJ was an Hellenized Jew above) then the transition into the Gentile world is more easily explained. That explains why the biblical references are to the Septuagint, that explains how Jesus' associates can move in gentile circles, and that explains why they might make errors about Jewish customs since they are somewhat distanced from the practitioners of the standard Jewish religion.

Still, it seems very unlikely to me that this is the case. Is there any published support for the idea? I don't think there are any descriptions of the HJ that would suggest something like this. I suppose one might imagine a Jewish Jesus that recruits some Hellenized Jews or even non Jewish apostles but I don't think there is anything in the NT to suggest that he did such a thing. Would a Jesus that was reaching out to potential gentile followers even count as the HJ?

I'm not sure why this [Mark's errors about what Peter would have theoretically known] rules out Peter as a source. Just because g-Mark doesn't know everything that Peter knows, doesn't mean Peter didn't teach him something.

Again, when almost nothing is known for certain almost anything can not be ruled out. Maybe the author of Mark is not John Mark an apparently Jewish guy that was a companion of Paul and that might be the cousin of Barnabas. Instead the author of Mark is another Mark that is only loosely associated with Peter and his writing is only loosely constrained by facts he gets from Peter. Or maybe, like I mentioned above the HJ and his associates were all Hellenized Jews that weren't as familiar with Jewish customs and Palestinian area geography as they would be if they were Jews from the area of Galilee. I don't think there is any kind of Geometric style proof that can rule out any of this speculation but right now I think it is very unlikely to be correct, if for no other reason I haven't seen any serious researcher/writer in this area defending the idea.

For me though, it looks like an unlikely idea just looking at the text of Mark. I'd expect Peter's secretary to be relating facts that Peter was a personal witness to from the viewpoint of Peter. I don't see that in Mark.

You mean like a collection of independent vignettes that might be more easily memorised by a preacher and told as sermons to new converts? Like a collection of some old Evangelist's Sermons? Maybe g-Mark got it all from a bloke named Kevin, but I doubt it...

There are two kinds of Peter described in the NT. One is this Jewish fisherman who becomes an apostle to Jesus and the other is this Greek speaking, Jesus proselytizer to perhaps Hellenized Jews. It occurs to me that there really was an early Jesus proselytizer named Peter or perhaps Cephas that was perhaps a competitor to Paul. I doubt that if such a guy existed that he is the same Simon/Peter that was an apostle to Jesus although Piggy is sure they are the same guy.

Regardless, your idea here is that Peter made up a lot of little vignettes as part of his preaching gig and Mark, an associate of Peter wrote them down. Accept the vignettes don't sound like something that an actual associate of HJ would be making up. If one is an actual associate of the HJ, I'd expect the stories to be told from the vantage of the associate and not include stuff that the associate couldn't know directly without some kind of an explanation as how the associate came to have this knowledge.

Again, I doubt that it is possible to completely rule out this kind of speculation but it looks to me to be some of the more unlikely ideas that have been put forth in this thread.

 

[IanS]

IanS


No. The 35 CE estimate is fine. The near-Damascus location for the principal vision isn't contested, ....

Oh. Well from your last post I thought you were contesting those two assertions (actually three assertions, because those two both refer to Paul’s vision of Jesus)?

So in fact you are not actually contesting any of that at all?

I must admit, I’m at a loss to know what you thought was worth making such an argument over.

.... but it is Luke who says so, in Acts, not Paul in his surviving letters. Paul doesn't describe the contents of his principal vision, just that he interpreted it as an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Well I’m pretty sure that I said several times that it was bible scholars and others who appear to have determined that the date must have beeen around 35AD when Paul was travelling on the road Damascus.

Though I may have sometimes been less careful about who actually said any of that, because as I just said to you, I did not think those three elements were in any dispute (the vision, the date, and the location), and now it seems that despite your previous few posts, you are not disputing it either!

I believe we have both quoted the single verse, 1 Corinthians 15: 8

Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

If that's what you meant by "He describes very clearly how he saw the vision of Jesus for himself," then Paul described very clearly, etc. Any reader can judge for themselves how clearly Paul described his experience in that verse.

I think there are various slightly different translations of what Paul's letter is supposed to actually say, but the Wiki quote which I gave is slightly different from what you have above. Wiki has it like this -

"and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born".

I also have somewhere (probably from Ellegard or Wells) a translation which they give as more like -

"Last of all he appeared to me also, as one born out of time".


But none of those translations seem very ambiguous to me. It seems quite clear that Paul says he saw a vision of the risen Jesus. And he adds something to the effect that Jesus was not born in the usual human way.

As I said several times before - that same short sentence also has Paul saying Jesus rose on the third day.

I confined my remarks to two evangelists who discussed sources, and alluded to the existence of witnesses. By that, the evangelists meant people who were there, who told others or wrote about what they perceived, and whose reports the author states form part of the basis for what the author tells.

It's all very interesting whom you find reliable. The assertion I addressed, however, was the idea that eyewitnesses being available to evangelists was original with another poster in this thread. The idea is not original with the other poster; it is in the black-letter text of some Gospels.

Same thing again - it’s not reporting testimony from actual eye-witnesses for gospel authors to say that various people had witnessed the events. The gospels are filled with named and unnamed people who are said to have witnessed almost everything Jesus ever did.

The point though, to repeat, is that Paul’s account is, in that respect, in a higher evidential category for the reasons explained several times before.

 

[pakeha]

Just so that folks don't have to wonder.
I'm dropping out of this discussion.

There's good conversation in here, and I could keep going on the tangent regarding contemporary fiction for more time as well, but ultimately...my position is that I really, really don't care much about Jesus either way.

I'm more interested in the ancient Hebrew peoples as a whole, far more than I am interested in Jesus, and I don't really think this conversation has an ending (at least; I've never seen it end so far in my life).

Also, for the record for those who didn't like my points regarding the Contemporary Fiction; that matter is actually in contested debate in literary anthropology right now and is rather heated and opinionated.
There's a push to change the timeline based on Greek Novels, but there is resistance because Greek Novels are not seen to fit the properties of contemporary fiction as we understand it later. Yet, this is a heated debate in anthropology that will continue on over the decade I'm sure.
Just a piece of info to show that I don't think it's ridiculous, for the record.
I just think it's far greater of difficulty, especially considering the above mentioned feud going on - which means such a proposition would draw all eyes and heat on it from two academic fields afire.

At any rate; it's been a good discussion, and I do thank you all truly.
Jesus is only so interesting, and 'my cup runneth over', so I need to leave the bar.

Hey, Jayson.
I hope to read more posts of yours in other threads-perhaps even one of your own?

 

[Belz...]

Because of the plausibility of the event which it relates. Because some of the persons in Mark are corroborated by Paul as having existed. Because the detail of Pilate and the execution do not appear to have been inserted to fulfil some alleged messianic prophecy.

I had pizza today.

Sounds plausible, right ? It's also completely false.

I understand what you mean about plausibility, but tons of things are plausible in historical fiction, and that doesn't tell us if they're true or not, which is the question: not whether they are plausible or possible or likely, but if they actually happened. That was Tsig's point, and it's my point. You seem to be arguing with me over a completely different one.

And about corroboration, if I write a new Gospel today, using Mark and Paul as references, would that be corroboration ? Mark could've been written in the 70s, 20 years after Paul, or a hundred, and wasn't very knowledgeable about the area he wrote about, leading me to suspect he didn't know squat about the story either. We have no idea whence Mark got his story. For all we know he either made it all up or took up copies of Paul and made the rest up. He'd interpret Peter as an eyewitness and James as an actual biological brother, and weave them into his story, etc. So yeah, he mentions the same characters. That's the easy part.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

I must admit, I’m at a loss to know what you thought was worth making such an argument over.

Let's review the chief complaints, then:

- The falsehood that another poster invented the idea of possible eyewitness sources for Gospels,

What ... is doing is actually inventing the idea of unknown and un-evidenced eye witnesses to a real Jesus being executed.

- The falsehood, dumped here earlier in a different formulation by Piggy, that Paul denied having any human sources for any parts of his teachings,

Well Paul says he got all his information from his own visions and from scripture, and not from any living man.

- The falsehood that Paul described his principal vision in any detail - not what he perceived, not where he was when it happened, and not when it happened, except that it was after some others'.

He describes very clearly how he saw the vision of Jesus for himself. So there's no getting away from that "fact".

Luke describes the event and says it happened near Damascus. He doesn't say that Paul saw Jesus' body, by the way. Few say differently from Luke about place and sensory modality, and Paul's letters don't say, period. 35 CE is an estimate that most people are comfortable with.

It seems quite clear that Paul says he saw a vision of the risen Jesus. And he adds something to the effect that Jesus was not born in the usual human way.

That certainly is an interesting reading. The claim was (see above) that Paul's description was very clear. Evidently it isn't. For example, I think you'll find some people think that Paul was referring to himself as the one untimely born, not Jesus.

Either way, the remark is cryptic, and not a clear description of any perceptual experience.

As I said several times before - that same short sentence also has Paul saying Jesus rose on the third day.

How nice. Alas, it's some other things you've "said several times before" that I diasgree with.

The point though, to repeat, is that Paul’s account is, in that respect, in a higher evidential category for the reasons explained several times before.

No, actually the point that divided us was that you said that another poster made up the idea of eyewitnesses informing the Gospel writers, and that isn't so.

 

[Brainache]

I think this speculation falls into the class of ideas that are dependent on the fact that we know almost nothing for certain about the earliest phase of Christianity and therefore almost no speculation can be disproved.

Yes. It cuts both ways unfortunately.

If the HJ or his followers are Hellenized Jews (I think Piggy said it wasn't possible that the HJ was an Hellenized Jew above) then the transition into the Gentile world is more easily explained. That explains why the biblical references are to the Septuagint, that explains how Jesus' associates can move in gentile circles, and that explains why they might make errors about Jewish customs since they are somewhat distanced from the practitioners of the standard Jewish religion.

I was only speculating about g-Mark as an early joiner of the Christ cult. An early joiner who spoke Greek as a first language. Who also didn't know too much about the goings on in The Temple.

Still, it seems very unlikely to me that this is the case. Is there any published support for the idea? I don't think there are any descriptions of the HJ that would suggest something like this. I suppose one might imagine a Jewish Jesus that recruits some Hellenized Jews or even non Jewish apostles but I don't think there is anything in the NT to suggest that he did such a thing. Would a Jesus that was reaching out to potential gentile followers even count as the HJ?

I'm only speculating about Peter and Paul picking up non-religious Jews in their travels. The published support I guess is the early Christian writers, but if this is a radical idea, I don't understand why.

Again, when almost nothing is known for certain almost anything can not be ruled out. Maybe the author of Mark is not John Mark an apparently Jewish guy that was a companion of Paul and that might be the cousin of Barnabas. Instead the author of Mark is another Mark that is only loosely associated with Peter and his writing is only loosely constrained by facts he gets from Peter. Or maybe, like I mentioned above the HJ and his associates were all Hellenized Jews that weren't as familiar with Jewish customs and Palestinian area geography as they would be if they were Jews from the area of Galilee. I don't think there is any kind of Geometric style proof that can rule out any of this speculation but right now I think it is very unlikely to be correct, if for no other reason I haven't seen any serious researcher/writer in this area defending the idea.

Why not John-Mark? Someone's cousin who isn't a part of the in-crowd gets roped in to guide this Jail-Bird Peter out of town because no one else in this family of religious Kooks speaks Greek or knows the right way to Antioch...

And yes this is all just me making stuff up and trying not to make it impossible. I'm trying to be the Anti-Hans Musterman.

For me though, it looks like an unlikely idea just looking at the text of Mark. I'd expect Peter's secretary to be relating facts that Peter was a personal witness to from the viewpoint of Peter. I don't see that in Mark.

OK, for this part I'm going to invent the idea that Peter's Schpeil wasn't unique to Peter. That Jesus's followers had a set of sermons that they all preached. These sermons were composed in the same way as other Oral Traditions with aids to memory built in. There will always be variations in Oral Traditions and this accounts for the differences (and similarities) between Mark and Matthew.

ETA: If Luke then takes a copy of both Mark and Mat. and tries to harmonise them using bridging material of his own invention in his role as "Historian" for "Theophilus" ... We can do away with Q as well. Pretty neat, huh?

Yay. I'm a Crackpot Genius! Next!

There are two kinds of Peter described in the NT. One is this Jewish fisherman who becomes an apostle to Jesus and the other is this Greek speaking, Jesus proselytizer to perhaps Hellenized Jews. It occurs to me that there really was an early Jesus proselytizer named Peter or perhaps Cephas that was perhaps a competitor to Paul. I doubt that if such a guy existed that he is the same Simon/Peter that was an apostle to Jesus although Piggy is sure they are the same guy.

I thought Peter wasn't so good at Greek, which was why he needed g-Mark as an interpreter...

Regardless, your idea here is that Peter made up a lot of little vignettes as part of his preaching gig and Mark, an associate of Peter wrote them down. Accept the vignettes don't sound like something that an actual associate of HJ would be making up. If one is an actual associate of the HJ, I'd expect the stories to be told from the vantage of the associate and not include stuff that the associate couldn't know directly without some kind of an explanation as how the associate came to have this knowledge.

But if these sermons were composed with the explicit agenda of converting people to the new cult-of-end-times-fun-and-laughter I'd expect them to be full of exactly that kind of thing and pretty much devoid of personal asides.

Again, I doubt that it is possible to completely rule out this kind of speculation but it looks to me to be some of the more unlikely ideas that have been put forth in this thread.

I'm just having fun, please don't feel obliged to take my speculations as anything more than me playing around with these ideas.

But really? Up there with "Jesus was a mushroom"? I doubt it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Instead they use a story where they directly stone "Jesus" to death as a way of distancing themselves from it?!?

It shouldn't be all that confusing if you're simply using the "Yeshu stoned and hung at Lud" story
as a parady of the biblical Jr.

Had to look that up and it seems to come form Michael H. Cohen's A Friend of All Faiths pg 42

"In Hebrew school, one of my teachers had explained that Yeshu (Hebrew for Jesus), rather than meaning "Saviour," in fact was an acronym that stood for yimach shemo ve-zichrono: "may his name and memory be erased""

Yimakh shemo is "May his name be obliterated"


However we have an Aramaic name (Yeshua) coming from the Hebrew (Yehoshua) which is translated into Greek as Iesous which is re-translated back into Hebrew as Yeshu which is actually an acronym. A Rube Goldberg machine is simpler.

Never mind that Flavius Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name "Jesus" so either there were a bucket load of people the Jews wished their name and memory were erased or this is the kind of retroactive silliness seen with the program Wine (originally WINdows Emulator but now Wine Is Not an Emulator)

That makes the whole tap dancing to make the Matthew and Luke birth stories look sane!

Indeed. It's an interesting idea, but not really needed due to how common junior's name may have been at the time.

 

[davefoc]

Perhaps this has been linked to previously:
http://ratiochristi.org/uncg/blog/p...sponse-to-richard-carrier-part-3#.Uczygqy-GQk

It is an analysis of Carrier's claims about Philo mentioning Jesus. Frankly I was confused by the claim and the subsequent discussion here and the discussion some place else that was linked to.

This seems to be a still confusing explanation of the claim and what seems like might be a reasonable refutation of the claim.

I don't know. The last time I thought there was an interesting claim in one of the posts that I didn't quite understand I think my discussion of it lead to the guy quitting this thread. So I'm treading lightly here. Still, is this claim by Carrier a stretch too far or a reasonable reach?

 

[davefoc]

...

But really? Up there with "Jesus was a mushroom"? I doubt it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276

A few comments:
1. I didn't know that's how you spell Schpeil. Cool. *
2. I have rather enjoyed the Brainache speculations with regard to the various issues in these threads. I particularly enjoyed Rebel leader Jesus.
3. Thanks for limiting the range of your speculation with regard to the author of Mark. I now understand your idea to be that Peter picked John Mark who had a way with the Gentiles to polish his message. And John Mark just went off the reservation and Peter's message got lost in John Mark's drive to write a good story.
4. Somehow mushroom Jesus had escaped my reading on this issue. I'm not sure why. As a crank (I am a proud bearer of Piggy's epithet) it certainly seems like the kind of thing I would have come across. As an aside from the comments on Amazon it sounds like the author was serious.

* apparently dictionary.com does not share Brainache's view of how the word should be spelled. That's OK. I like Brainache's better anyway.

 

[Brainache]

Perhaps this has been linked to previously:
http://ratiochristi.org/uncg/blog/p...sponse-to-richard-carrier-part-3#.Uczygqy-GQk

It is an analysis of Carrier's claims about Philo mentioning Jesus. Frankly I was confused by the claim and the subsequent discussion here and the discussion some place else that was linked to.

This seems to be a still confusing explanation of the claim and what seems like might be a reasonable refutation of the claim.

I don't know. The last time I thought there was an interesting claim in one of the posts that I didn't quite understand I think my discussion of it lead to the guy quitting this thread. So I'm treading lightly here. Still, is this claim by Carrier a stretch too far or a reasonable reach?

This quote from Zech. 6:12 :

You are to tell him: This is what the Lord of Hosts says: Here is a man whose name is Branch; He will branch out from His place and build the Lord’s temple. Yes, He will build the Lord’s temple; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule.

Stuck out at me because of all the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff I've read. The have stuff like this: (Caution! this is a 10mb PDF which I stupidly downloaded)http://www.documentacatholicaomnia...._Sea_Scrolls_[Texts_And_Translations],_EN.pdf

Col 14
...Listen and hear! You are the great cedar... standing in front of you in a dream on the mountain tops... truth. The willow that springs from it and rises high (these are) three sons... And the one that you did see, the first willow got attached to the stump of the cedar... and the wood from it... will never separate from you. And among it posterity... will be called... will grow a wonderful plant... will stand forever. And what you saw, the willow caught the stump... the last willow... part of their branch entered[10] the branch of the first tree, two sons... And what you saw, that part of their branch entered the branch of the first tree... I explained to him the mystery...

and:

1.
]Isaiah the prophet: [The thickets of the forest] will be cut [down
2.
with an axe and Lebanon by a majestic one will f]all. And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse [
3.
] the Branch of David and they will enter into judgement with [
4.
] and the Prince of the Congregation, the Bran[ch of David] will kill him [
5.
by stroke]s and by wounds. And a Priest [of renown (?)] will command [
6.
the s]lai[n] of the Kitti[m]
Transcription and translation by G. Vermes

The "Branch from the seed of Jesse" or David shows up a few times I think, so basically I'm still not sure about what Carrier is saying.

Bloody ambiguous Qumranis!

ETA: But I have to say it sounds like they are talking about a flesh-and-blood warrior type guy here though who will "command the slain of the Kittim". (Kittim is their code word for "Bloody Romans")

 

[HghrSymmetry]

It shouldn't be all that confusing if you're simply using the "Yeshu stoned and hung at Lud" story
as a parady of the biblical Jr.

Correction: the Lud narrative was for Ben Stada, not Yeshu.

Thanks,

-HS

 

[eight bits]

Carrier's slides are available here in pdf. Depending on how fast you read, these might possibly be reviewed faster than the talk on YouTube:

www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

The pertinent Philo is apparently here (in XIV, especially 62 and 63):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html

Philo seems to wresle with a Septuagint translation of Zechariah, using "east" (as in the direction from where celestial bodies rise) for the word we have seen in other postings as "branch," etc.

This angle bears more on the Christian idea that Jesus is the "Son of God," rather than on whether there was a historical Jesus who counts.

It is unclear that any of this adds much to Carrier's core teaching, that nothing happens in history that much depends, either way, on whether Paul's acknowledged phantasm ever really lived, as long as Paul thinks he did. Apparently, Carrier is fond of a particular way that history could do without a real Jesus. From his slide #2, under the "secular non-historicity" rubric:

Jesus was the name of a celestial being, subordinate to God, with whom some people hallucinated conversations. The Gospels began as a mythic allegory about the celestial Jesus, set on Earth, as most myths then were.

To be candid, of the various specific ways that there might not be a historical Jesus, which collectively add up to the "40" in my "60-40" in favor of a historical Jesus, this is not my favorite. It seems awfully elaborate for such a simple product: You can fly and never die. Now with bacon, and no unsightly alterations to Mr Happy.

 

[Craig B]

@eight bits

Thanks for citing Carrier:

Jesus was the name of a celestial being, subordinate to God, with whom some people hallucinated conversations. The Gospels began as a mythic allegory about the celestial Jesus, set on Earth, as most myths then were.

This is a clear statement of "strong" mythicism, which I find most unconvincing. There is a "weak" mythicism which holds that Paul and the Gospels are unreliable, and Jesus is not attested in other sources, so it is probable that he may not have existed, and things that are believed to exist but don't may be described as "myths".

To this latter doctrine I have no great aversion; and I acknowledge that in addressing it I bear the burden of proof, since I am asserting the existence of someone for whom evidence is sparse. But, to the contrary, the burden of proof is on the "strong" mythicists because these assert the pre-existence of an allegorical treatment of a supernatural Jesus dwelling in a spiritual and not at any time physical dimension. And they state that Paul and the earliest Jesus Group believed in such a Jesus, and in no way believed in a human Jesus, or even John's semi-divine but very material Jesus, whose wounds can be explored by hand and who can get up out of his tomb and cook a fish breakfast for his chums. I, for my part, think that the earliest Christians believed that (whatever else he may have been in addition) Jesus was a physical person who had recently been alive, and they remembered that they had been acquainted with him as a human being.

Above all, "strong" and "weak" mythicism must not be mixed up under a single rubric of mythicism because they state different things, one positively, and one negatively. And my objections are essentially aimed at the "strong" mythicist doctrine.

 

[davefoc]

I copied the texts that seem to be relevant to Carrier's claims of a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being named Jesus.

What is really required here is Carrier's explanation for how he came to this conclusion. It appears to me right now that the basis for his claim is a bit convoluted and overall I think his point may not be significant with regard to the idea that models existed in Judaism for non-historical Jesus type characters.

For one thing, if I understand the point he is trying to make this "Jesus" probably did exist. He was the first priest to oversee the building of the second temple in beginning after the rise to power of Cyrus in 538 BC.

I thought Craig B's comment above that Carrier's attempt to support strong mythicism might go too far was right. In the end, the conclusions about early Christianity might be the one that nobody is too happy with, that is that there is just too little information to make well supported claims about the events surrounding the earliest phase of Christianity.

From Carrier's Power Point presentation (reformatted for clarity)
http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf slide 18

There was a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being actually named “Jesus” who was

1. The first born son of a god
2. The celestial “image of God”
3. God's agent of creation

Basis of the first claim about “Jesus”

Philo believes man who is called east (translated as branch in Zechariah 6:12) in Philo XIV 62 and 63 is the same man as Joshua son of Jozadak in Zechariah 6:12. Philo says the Father of the Universe (presumably a reference to God) caused this man to spring up as the eldest son (presumably of the Father of the Universe).


Basis of the second claim
Maybe based on this line from Philo “… that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, ...”

Basis of the third claim
?


Philo 60-63 from a “Confusion of Tongues”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html

XIV. (60) But those who conspired to commit injustice, he says, "having come from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt There;"{16}{#ge 11:2.} speaking most strictly in accordance with nature. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth. (61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: "And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,"{17}{#ge 2:8.} not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable. (62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

Zechariah 6 9-15
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+6&version=NIV

A Crown for Joshua

9 The word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak.[d] 12 Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he[e] will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’ 14 The crown will be given to Heldai,[f] Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen[g] son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the temple of the Lord. 15 Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the Lord, and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the Lord your God.”