What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

Interestingly there is a book coming out in 2014 that may help:

Casey, Maurice (2014) Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? Bloomsbury T&T Clark

Table of contents

Chapter 1. Introduction. From Fundamentalism to Mythicism. Issues, ‘Scholars' and Bloggers

Chapter 2. Historical Method

Chapter 3. The Date and Reliability of the Canonical Gospels

Chapter 4. What is not in the Gospels, or not in ‘Q'

Chapter 5. What Is Not in the Epistles, Especially Those of Paul

Chapter 6. What Is in the Epistles, Especially Those of Paul

Chapter 7. It's All Happened Before, in Egypt, India, or Wherever You Fancy, But There Was Nowhere for it to Happen in Israel

Chapter 8. Conclusions

Perhaps it is hoping for too much but I want this to give us some kind of baseline with regards to the Historical Jesus position as to the logic to concepts such as where the dates for the Gospels come from.

Maurice Casey has also submitted one of the best summations of the daffy world of mythicism that I've yet read --

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...cess-maurice-casey/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Please note that this is a snapshot of a Google cache, since Wordpress pages themselves are apparently risky for certain PCs.

Stone

 

[davefoc]

...

OK, for the moment let's accept that the purpose of the interpolation was to build up Peter*.

Any thoughts on who this Peter was? Any thoughts on who was doing the interpolating and what they had to gain from building up Peter? Might it have been the same person that wrote the epistles of Peter (at least one of them)? What do you think of the possibility that there was a Greek speaking Peter/Cephas fellow out and about at roughly the time of Paul competing with Paul but that had no direct knowledge or interaction with Jesus? Maybe this is the Peter getting puffed up? ETA: Do you think there is any relationship between the people doing the interpolating and the people that create the story about Peter having come to Rome and being crucified?

*Because I don't have enough knowledge to discuss this issue and because I am interested on the ramifications of your theory as you see them.

 

[davefoc]

Although, I addressed the above to eight bits I would be interested in anybody's view on this that felt like making a comment.

 

[davefoc]

...

You're looking at "on this rock." I think the money passage is "I will build my church." What Peter can do, his peers can do just as well: consecrate successors. The Roman see was a nice gig and all, and you get to walk first in any church procession, but it wasn't unusually important in a practical way to be Bishop of Rome instead of some other richer see or bigger community until long afterwards.

...

The followup line seems a little more explicit. i.e. Peter is the guy:
Matthew 16:19

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[maximara]

I don't think we are disagreeing much (are we?).

I just think that, as a reliable source of evidence, something written as a copy 1000 years after the original writer is thought to have died, via. a chain of presumably countless missing copies, and where we have nothing earlier from the original author to compare with, cannot under any objective consideration be worth anything much at all.

But in the writing of Josephus and Tacitus, and afaik all the other early non-biblical historians of the time, that already hopeless situation of elapsed time, is made even worse by the fact that none of them make more than minimal mention of Jesus anyway. So it's not as if 1000 years of constant copying would need to change large sections of their books ...

... all that's required to render the extant copies thoroughly misleading, is for very small "corrections" to have been made at various times, by what afaik were mainly Christian copyists anyway? (.shrugs)

We are using different methodology.

My methodology is a variation of that the phrase: cut off the head (of the argument) and the body (of the argument) dies.

Your methodology risks getting tied up in the apologist tar baby of 'but they were faithful copyists even retaining mistakes' and all that nonsense which diverts the argument from accuracy of the account itself.

Heck, with John Frum as your benchmark you can argue that Paul's account is not all that useful given how fast things happened with John Frum.

 

[Brainache]

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Ooooh, I bet Jesus is gonna freak when he sees what Pete did to his place while he was away...

Seriously though, "binding and "loosing"" on Earth and in Heaven: What does that even mean?

 

[davefoc]

...

Seriously though, "binding and "loosing"" on Earth and in Heaven: What does that even mean?

To be completely honest when I posted that I didn't even think about it. It just sounded like some impressive stuff and if Peter could do it he must be the guy.

I just looked up an interpretation and now I know less than what I knew when I knew nothing about what it means.

 

[Craig B]

Ooooh, I bet Jesus is gonna freak when he sees what Pete did to his place while he was away...

Seriously though, "binding and "loosing"" on Earth and in Heaven: What does that even mean?

Without looking anything up, it suggests to me that Peter is being put in charge, like a magistrate on earth who has the power to constrain people, or free them.

 

[pakeha]

Maurice Casey has also submitted one of the best summations of the daffy world of mythicism that I've yet read --

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...cess-maurice-casey/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Please note that this is a snapshot of a Google cache, since Wordpress pages themselves are apparently risky for certain PCs.

Stone

Could you give us some idea about why this article has anything to do with the historicity of Jesus?

 

[Brainache]

To be completely honest when I posted that I didn't even think about it. It just sounded like some impressive stuff and if Peter could do it he must be the guy.

I just looked up an interpretation and now I know less than what I knew when I knew nothing about what it means.

Without looking anything up, it suggests to me that Peter is being put in charge, like a magistrate on earth who has the power to constrain people, or free them.

Yes, of course silly me. It's St Peter at the Pearly Gates deciding who gets in or not. So he is God's door-bitch with the added power of actually binding people to his will.

I don't like the sound of this "Rocky" guy much...

 

[IanS]

Thanks. And also it is intrinsically possible that if Jesus was crucified - an entirely plausible event - that this fact could have been noted, remembered and transmitted to others over a period of some decades. So if you ask: how could people possibly know two generations or more later that their leader had been executed? the answer is that that is the sort of information - striking, simple and important - that lends itself to transmission of that kind.

And indeed, that is what we are told happened.

It's not "plausible" if he never existed. And what we are first trying to decide here, is whether or not there is any evidence for that existence. So far, despite all these pages, no evidence at all has been produced.

 

[Craig B]

It's not "plausible" if he never existed. And what we are first trying to decide here, is whether or not there is any evidence for that existence. So far, despite all these pages, no evidence at all has been produced.

Yes it is plausible whether it happened or not. However I may not have made myself sufficiently clear, and I will strive to explain my meaning better.

It has been urged against the historicity of Jesus that there are no sources pre Mark on the execution of Jesus by Pilate. Or at least none can be cited by name as an extant written work. I leave out the controversy about Paul, for the sake of simplicity. Now, I contend the following points
- If there was an HJ, he was crucified by Pilate. That is one of the necessary attributes of such a person. Otherwise, there was no HJ.
- It is plausible that Jesus was executed by Pilate, since Pilate was a murderous tyrant given to the practice of executing people. And if Jesus had done and said even a few of the things attributed to him, Pilate would have whacked him without the least doubt.
- A plausible story is not necessarily a true story. But an implausible story is unlikely to be a true story.
- The absence (leaving Paul aside again) of an extant pre Markan text relating Jesus' execution is not fatal to the idea that Jesus was a victim of Pilate. Such a simple fact as that Jesus died in that way would have been noted by his followers on the occasion of its occurrence, and could most easily have been transmitted for a few decades, either orally or in casual texts now lost. It is simple, striking and - to followers of Jesus - important. Its absence from the surviving public record would merely reflect the fact that this event was of less importance to people who were not Jesus' followers.

So to the question: why did Jesus' later followers believe he had been executed by Pilate? I think the most plausible (see definition of this term above) answer is that it really happened. That is not of course the most plausible explanation, by contrast, of why some of them believed he had been born to a virgin mother. Now, if indeed Paul also said Jesus had been executed by Pilate, why there is the very pre Markan text we have been looking for!

Contra the "strong" mythicists, I don't accept that Paul or Philo or anyone else believed Jesus was a purely spiritual figure. These mythicists have made no good case that anyone thought this in reality. Moreover Jesus looks not like a mythical figure, but like a peripatetic apocalypticist, of whom we know there were many at the time. To his name and deeds, if he existed, have been added many mythical features, incorporated into the beliefs surrounding him. But I stress that this is probability, and not proof that there was an HJ. My point to you is that the supposition of a non recorded pre Markan source for the story of the crucifixion doesn't seriously militate against the probability of its truth.

 

[eight bits]

davefoc

i.e. Peter is the guy

You and I have no disagreement that the intent of the dicey passage(s) is to inflate Peter specifically. We also seem to agree that the point of inflating Peter would be to promote some later group that would claim Peter as its founding member.

Our disagreement is whether that group is all bishops, or only bishops of Rome. Peter is the legendary first member of both groups. I don't think we can ever settle that from the text of Matthew. I appeal to a circumstantial case, based on motive, opportunity, timing, reception and effect, but it goes without saying that even the best circumstantial case may be wrong.

As to your other questions, about the proper identification of Peter, etc., of course, I don't know. It's funny (or maybe we should cry instead of laugh) that so much of the historicity of Jesus hangs on whether Paul thought some guy he met two or three times had met Jesus - and we can't even say for sure whether Paul is talking about one guy or two guys.

People have died over this, and killed other people over this. It is simply amazing.

 

[Craig B]

... It's funny (or maybe we should cry instead of laugh) that so much of the historicity of Jesus hangs on whether Paul thought some guy he met two or three times had met Jesus - and we can't even say for sure whether Paul is talking about one guy or two guys.

People have died over this, and killed other people over this. It is simply amazing.

It may be funny, but its the sort of thing that historical data sometimes consist of. However, there are also James and John, whom Paul met too, and people who came from James, and James pronouncing on doctrinal matters, and a community of "saints" or "poor" in Jerusalem whom Paul considered so important that he collected money on their behalf. So it's more than simply Peter (or Cephas).

 

[IanS]

Yes it is plausible whether it happened or not. However I may not have made myself sufficiently clear, and I will strive to explain my meaning better.

It has been urged against the historicity of Jesus that there are no sources pre Mark on the execution of Jesus by Pilate. Or at least none can be cited by name as an extant written work. I leave out the controversy about Paul, for the sake of simplicity. Now, I contend the following points
- If there was an HJ, he was crucified by Pilate. That is one of the necessary attributes of such a person. Otherwise, there was no HJ.
- It is plausible that Jesus was executed by Pilate, since Pilate was a murderous tyrant given to the practice of executing people. And if Jesus had done and said even a few of the things attributed to him, Pilate would have whacked him without the least doubt.
- A plausible story is not necessarily a true story. But an implausible story is unlikely to be a true story.
.

OK, well what you are doing is simply making a misuse of language, leading to a confusion in your thinking on this.

Look at the necessity of your word "IF", right the start of your explanation. That's the key to why what you are saying is a simple linguistic mistake.

IF, Jesus did not exist. Then it is NOT plausible that he was executed by anyone.

An actual execution only becomes plausible, in any scenario, if you first assume that he definitely existed.

I didn't read past that point.

 

[pakeha]

... It's funny (or maybe we should cry instead of laugh) that so much of the historicity of Jesus hangs on whether Paul thought some guy he met two or three times had met Jesus - and we can't even say for sure whether Paul is talking about one guy or two guys.

People have died over this, and killed other people over this. It is simply amazing.

Yes, it IS simply amazing.

 

[Craig B]

OK, well what you are doing is simply making a misuse of language, leading to a confusion in your thinking on this.

Look at the necessity of your word "IF", right the start of your explanation. That's the key to why what you are saying is a simple linguistic mistake.

IF, Jesus did not exist. Then it is NOT plausible that he was executed by anyone.

An actual execution only becomes plausible, in any scenario, if you first assume that he definitely existed.

I didn't read past that point.

Pity. Obviously there's no point in my addressing you any further, except to refer you to the free dictionary website:

plausible [ˈplɔːzəbəl]
adj
1. apparently reasonable, valid, truthful, etc. a plausible excuse
2. apparently trustworthy or believable a plausible speaker

You will observe that "definitely existing" is not an element of these definitions. I assert that the Pilate crucifixion story is apparently reasonable, that's all. Therefore it requires less evidence in its support than, say, the virgin birth in Bethlehem.

 

[clayflingythingy]

davefoc



As to your other questions, about the proper identification of Peter, etc., of course, I don't know. It's funny (or maybe we should cry instead of laugh) that so much of the historicity of Jesus hangs on whether Paul thought some guy he met two or three times had met Jesus - and we can't even say for sure whether Paul is talking about one guy or two guys.

People have died over this, and killed other people over this. It is simply amazing.

What's the mainstream view consensus on Peter/Cephas/Simon Peter, since Piggy insists we must worship @ their alter?

If those three are not the same guy then it seems another strike against an HJ to me.

If the early church was unsure about HJ's chief flunky (or second flunky since James seems to have authority over Cephas) then the whole foundation has started crumbling.

 

[Belz...]

- The absence (leaving Paul aside again) of an extant pre Markan text relating Jesus' execution is not fatal to the idea that Jesus was a victim of Pilate.

No but the total absence of any evidence outside of the fictional Markan narrative is.

 

[maximara]

Yes it is plausible whether it happened or not. However I may not have made myself sufficiently clear, and I will strive to explain my meaning better.

It has been urged against the historicity of Jesus that there are no sources pre Mark on the execution of Jesus by Pilate. Or at least none can be cited by name as an extant written work. I leave out the controversy about Paul, for the sake of simplicity.

Now, I contend the following points
- If there was an HJ, he was crucified by Pilate. That is one of the necessary attributes of such a person. Otherwise, there was no HJ.

Why?

We are willing to accept historical "sources" for Robin Hood well outside the reigns of King Richard I and King John and historical "sources" for King Arthur as much as 300 years before the traditional late 5th earth 6th century the stories put him so why doesn't Jesus have to joined to Pilate like they are Siamese twins?

Since all your other points depend on this point we can dispense with them.

Moreover Jesus looks not like a mythical figure, but like a peripatetic apocalypticist, of whom we know there were many at the time. To his name and deeds, if he existed, have been added many mythical features, incorporated into the beliefs surrounding him. But I stress that this is probability, and not proof that there was an HJ. My point to you is that the supposition of a non recorded pre Markan source for the story of the crucifixion doesn't seriously militate against the probability of its truth.

Just what does "looks not like a mythical figure" mean?

Robin Hood's stories are firmly grounded in reality in there is no magic no supernatural. William Tell and John Henry are other examples of no magic no supernatural "mythical figures".