What counts as a historical Jesus?

[maximara]

It comes from Theosophist writers active well over a hundred years ago. Yes as you admit here, Epiphanius did indeed have an orthodox 1st century view of Jesus' chronology. This was all discussed in a previous thread, and it was dealt with admirably by eight bits at http://www.internationalskeptics.co...l]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu In short, this material is worthless.

As I pointed out in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8814265&postcount=111 the Eight bit arguments is flawed.

The "The date of composition cannot be ascertained with certainty, but the earliest source is unlikely to be prior the 4th century, far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus" part in the wikipedia article is unrereferenced and therefor UNRELIABLE.

Robert Price expressly states Toledot Yeshu is "dependent on second-century Jewish-Christian gospel" (Price, Robert (2003) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man pg 40))


As I asked before this applies to Brill Academic Pub which says the same thing ("Perahia's pupil, relying on the support of Epiphanius, who sets the birth of Jesus in the reign of Alexander (Jannaeus) and Alexandra, that is, in the time of Ben Perahia or Ben Tabai.") how?

Your Ad hominem attact doesn't detract from the fact that Helena Blavatsky's view on this matter is supported by one of the most respected Academic Publications around--unless you have evidence that Brill Academic Pub is a Theosophist lunatic and-or charlatan publication which I think we would all love to see.

Never mind all the others that say the same thing:

"Epiphanius plumply asserts that Jesus ' was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Alexander, who was of high priestly and royal race.' (Alexander is Alexander Jannaeus, 104-78 B.C.) " (Carpenter, Joseph Estlin (1904) The first three Gospels: their origin and relations - Page 313)

"Yet the talmudic source places the flight of Jesus and his teacher in the time of King Alexander Jannaeus, who reigned from 103 to 76 B.C.E." (Schalom Ben-Chorin, Jared S. Klein, Robert J. Cottrol (2012) Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes - Page 11)

"The author (Mead) compares the Christian tradition with the Jewish, and finds in the latter a reminiscence of a Jesus who lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (104-76 B.C.). This person was transferred by the earliest evangelists to the later period, the attempt being facilitated by the fact that during the procuratorship of Pilate a false prophet had attracted some attention." (SCHWEITZER, Albert (1910) Quest for the historical Jesus pg 327)

Work after work shows Epiphanius passage exists as presented and with many stating it was part of the Jewish and-or Jewish-Christian traditions. This has been known for centuries so can we move on to why such a belief would have existed if Jesus was such a well documented figure?

 

[Brainache]

...
In short, this material is worthless.

Yes, but is it plausible?

 

[Craig B]

Yes, but is it plausible?

No. Maximara's favoured sources are antiquated Theosophical texts written by lunatics. He seems to think that the fact that some of this stuff is published by Brill Academic Pub guarantees its credibility. But Blavatsky was a lunatic regardless of who publishes her, and Brill has a spotty history as may be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Publishers

 

[eight bits]

max

Your Ad hominem attact doesn't detract from the fact that Helena Blavatsky's view on this matter is supported by one of the most respected Academic Publications around--unless you have evidence that Brill Academic Pub is a Theosophist lunatic and-or charlatan publication which I think we would all love to see.

Brill is a publisher, not a publication. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you before.

Brill publishes the works of many incompatible religious perspectives. There is ample scholarly reason to be interested in what Madame Blavatsky's historical views were, regardless of whether her views were well-founded or accurate on matters of fact which can be checked.

What Epiphanius wrote is a matter of fact that can be checked. He did not write that Jesus was born during the reign of anybody earlier than Herod the Great. Epiphanius did not report that anybody else believed that, either.

 

[maximara]

Yes, but is it plausible?

Well the Gospel account even stripped of supernatural elements is certainly NOT plausible

 

[maximara]

max


Brill is a publisher, not a publication. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you before.

Brill publishes the works of many incompatible religious perspectives. There is ample scholarly reason to be interested in what Madame Blavatsky's historical views were, regardless of whether her views were well-founded or accurate on matters of fact which can be checked.

What Epiphanius wrote is a matter of fact that can be checked. He did not write that Jesus was born during the reign of anybody earlier than Herod the Great. Epiphanius did not report that anybody else believed that, either.

You tried this song and dance before and got egg on your face, Eight bits.

Mead 1903 version of Epiphanius' passage: "Now the throne and kingly seat of David is the priestly office in Holy Church; for the Lord combined the kingly and high-priestly dignities into one and the same office, and bestowed them upon His Holy Church, transferring to her the throne of David, which ceases not as long as the world endues. The throne of David continued by succession up to that time - namely, till Christ Himself - without any failure from the princes of Judah, until it came unto Him for whom were 'the things that are stored up,' who is Himself 'the expectation of the nations.' For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race; and after this Alexander this lot failed, from the times of himself and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, for the times of Herod the King and Augustus Emperor of the Romans ; and this Alexander, one of the anointed (or Christs) and ruling princes placed the crown on his own head. . . . After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown." Epiphanius (Haer., 29)

Williams (Panarion 29:3:3): For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock.

Both Mean and Williams translations show that Epiphanius did indeed state that Jesus was born earlier then Herod. You can kick around why Epiphanius would claim such insanity when elsewhere he puts Jesus during Pilate's time but the FACT is he did indeed say such a thing.

 

[maximara]

No. Maximara's favoured sources are antiquated Theosophical texts written by lunatics. He seems to think that the fact that some of this stuff is published by Brill Academic Pub guarantees its credibility. But Blavatsky was a lunatic regardless of who publishes her, and Brill has a spotty history as may be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Publishers

Craig does the hat over the ears and go la la la song and dance again. Even in the wikipedia article he cites above ( ) it states "Brill's path in the post-war years was again marked by ups and downs, though the company remained faithful in its commitment to scholarly publishing."

The Brill book in question was published in 1987 so Craig's and Eight Bit's little tap dance around the issue can't save their position.

A straight reading of the passage shows Epiphanius did indeed state that Jesus was born "in the time of Alexander" and puts Herod's reign AFTER this event.

Scholars and non scholars pretty much agree that is what the passage says. So unless Craig or Eight bits have evidence that Brill Academic Pub is a Theosophist lunatic and-or charlatan publisher which I think we would all love to see they should address the question as had then avoiding it like the freaking plague.

 

[IanS]

No. Maximara's favoured sources are antiquated Theosophical texts written by lunatics. He seems to think that the fact that some of this stuff is published by Brill Academic Pub guarantees its credibility. But Blavatsky was a lunatic regardless of who publishes her, and Brill has a spotty history as may be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Publishers

I don’t think Ellegard was basing anything on Epiphanius as a source (I could check). His myth theory (which as I said, I am not promoting) is simply that he says Paul’s letters do not seem to be describing Jesus as a real figure who had recently died at the time of Paul’s vision. He points out (as I did earlier), that a careful reading of 1-Corinthians (the passage I quoted so many times re. Paul’s vision), could just as easily mean that Jesus had died at any time in the past, either a few days, or even centuries before (or any interval in-between) …

… on top of that, iirc - Ellegard argues that everything Paul says about Jesus is really theological rather than factual, and in only two passages where Paul appears to be giving details of Jesus’ earthly existence, those two passages are in fact again descriptions where Paul says he gets the information from the Lord and from scripture.

So, IOW, what Ellegard is saying is that Paul was in fact not describing a recently dead earthly figure in Jesus. But instead that Paul and other early Christian preachers had got the idea of a historic messiah from the earlier Essene sect in that region, where the Essene’s had written the Dead Sea Scrolls describing their belief in messianic type of leader named in their coded way only as their Teacher of Righteousness.

But as I say, most of Ellegard’s book is actually not about the Essene’s, the Scrolls or the Teacher of Righteousness. 95% of the book is just a very detailed analysis of the Gospels, Paul’s letters and various early non-biblical authors such as Clement, Philo etc. So it’s a very good source for all that general background.

But I don’t think we need specific myth theories anyway. Eg, if you read the short book by Randel Helms, that explains very clearly, and again in great detail, how almost everything said about Jesus in the Gospels has been “lifted” in one form or other from much earlier prophetic writing in the OT stretching back to at least 500BC. So that makes very clear where the gospel stories of Jesus came from (Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, Prometheus Books NY, 1988) … Helms is not suggesting Jesus was mythical, by the way.

 

[Craig B]

... unless Craig or Eight bits have evidence that Brill Academic Pub is a Theosophist lunatic and-or charlatan publisher which I think we would all love to see they should address the question as had then avoiding it like the freaking plague.

It is an academic publisher. It publishes works of interest to scholars. Blavatsky is of interest to students of the history of esoteric thought. So works by and about her get published, as eight bits has pointed out. That does not mean she wasn't a lunatic and almost certainly a charlatan.

So nobody is suggesting that Brill is motivated by lunacy or charlatanism. If a publisher brings out an edition of Münchhausen's tales, does that mean the publisher is a pathological liar?

 

[maximara]

I don’t think Ellegard was basing anything on Epiphanius as a source (I could check). His myth theory (which as I said, I am not promoting) is simply that he says Paul’s letters do not seem to be describing Jesus as a real figure who had recently died at the time of Paul’s vision. He points out (as I did earlier), that a careful reading of 1-Corinthians (the passage I quoted so many times re. Paul’s vision), could just as easily mean that Jesus had died at any time in the past, either a few days, or even centuries before (or any interval in-between) …

… on top of that, iirc - Ellegard argues that everything Paul says about Jesus is really theological rather than factual, and in only two passages where Paul appears to be giving details of Jesus’ earthly existence, those two passages are in fact again descriptions where Paul says he gets the information from the Lord and from scripture.

So, IOW, what Ellegard is saying is that Paul was in fact not describing a recently dead earthly figure in Jesus. But instead that Paul and other early Christian preachers had got the idea of a historic messiah from the earlier Essene sect in that region, where the Essene’s had written the Dead Sea Scrolls describing their belief in messianic type of leader named in their coded way only as their Teacher of Righteousness.

But as I say, most of Ellegard’s book is actually not about the Essene’s, the Scrolls or the Teacher of Righteousness. 95% of the book is just a very detailed analysis of the Gospels, Paul’s letters and various early non-biblical authors such as Clement, Philo etc. So it’s a very good source for all that general background.

But I don’t think we need specific myth theories anyway. Eg, if you read the short book by Randel Helms, that explains very clearly, and again in great detail, how almost everything said about Jesus in the Gospels has been “lifted” in one form or other from much earlier prophetic writing in the OT stretching back to at least 500BC. So that makes very clear where the gospel stories of Jesus came from (Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, Prometheus Books NY, 1988) … Helms is not suggesting Jesus was mythical, by the way.

Actually Helms is suggesting the Gospel Jesus was mythical... in the historical meaning of the word.

When we talk about the "Columbus myth" or the "Robin Hood myth or the "King Arthur myth" it is always about the stories of those people not if they ever existed. So why does "myth" suddenly change meaning the moment Jesus or Christ enter the picture?

 

[Craig B]

Actually Helms is suggesting the Gospel Jesus was mythical... in the historical meaning of the word.

When we talk about the "Columbus myth" or the "Robin Hood myth or the "King Arthur myth" it is always about the stories of those people not if they ever existed. So why does "myth" suddenly change meaning the moment Jesus or Christ enter the picture?

Because, and I deplore this, the expression "mythicism" has acquired two different meanings when applied to studies of Jesus. These I call "strong" and "weak" mythicism, and I discuss them at #3599 in this thread.

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.

 

[gsmonks]

Suppose that the true story of Jesus was that of a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in 1st century Palestine who angered the religious establishment and eventually became crucified under the supervision of Pontius Pilate.

If it could be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that this was in fact what gave rise to the Jesus story and eventually Christianity, would it count as the "historical Jesus"? I think it would be most uncharitable not to, as it is essentially what the Gospels tell, except for there being no miracles and supernatural mumbo-jumbo. And it really wouldn't be a particularly odd series of events (except for the crucifixion part), because there were plenty of Jewish Messiah claimants during this time. The whole idea of a Messiah is really rather childish, as it is basically the idea that one guy will fix all your problems.

Suppose instead that the Jesus-as-rebel hypothesis is true. That is, the idea that Jesus was really a rebel/bandit/revolutionary (who could well have claimed to be the Messiah as such, like ) who was crucified by the Romans, and the legends then remade him into a Messiah who preached peace. Would this be a close enough fit to talk about a historical Jesus?

What if the Jesus story sprung from the lives of several individuals whose life stories eventually merged into one story (plus the mythological stuff)? If that is the case, would it then be reasonable to talk about a historical Jesus?

In other words, how close to the Bible story would a historical individual's life have to be to be considered a (or the) historical Jesus?

The only real proof would be a body, a well-documented chain of custody, and historical records and documents.

None of these exist because Christ was not an historical figure.

Neither was Muhammad for that matter. Like the Christ story it'll all allegations, talk, old stories, and zero evidence.

 

[Craig B]

The only real proof would be a body, a well-documented chain of custody, and historical records and documents.

None of these exist because Christ was not an historical figure.

Neither was Muhammad for that matter. Like the Christ story it'll all allegations, talk, old stories, and zero evidence.

There's an element of confusion here. You are saying: the proof of proposition x would be a. We do not have a; therefore there is no evidence for x.

 

[gsmonks]

There's an element of confusion here. You are saying: the proof of proposition x would be a. We do not have a; therefore there is no evidence for x.

Ah, no, you're saying that, not me.

 

[Craig B]

gsmonks

No, you're saying it.

The only real proof would be a body, a well-documented chain of custody, and historical records and documents.

None of these exist because Christ was not an historical figure.

Neither was Muhammad for that matter. Like the Christ story it'll all allegations, talk, old stories, and zero evidence.

 

[Belz...]

In short, this material is worthless.

Kinda like the Gospels, in many ways, though.

Maximara's favoured sources are antiquated Theosophical texts written by lunatics.

Definitely like the Gospels, then.

 

[Belz...]

The only real proof would be a body, a well-documented chain of custody, and historical records and documents.

None of these exist because Christ was not an historical figure.

Wait, the whole point is that we don't know how much if any of the story is based on historical events. You can't conclude anything from bad or absent evidence.

 

[maximara]

The only real proof would be a body, a well-documented chain of custody, and historical records and documents.

In archeology and anthropology this is called provenance and you are right in terms of provenance the evidence for

None of these exist because Christ was not an historical figure.

No duh.

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist." (Remsburg (1903) The Christ)

Neither was Muhammad for that matter. Like the Christ story it'll all allegations, talk, old stories, and zero evidence.

Except in Muhammad's there are non-Muslim written sources by people truly contemporary to Muhammad. (Nigosian, Solomon Alexander (2004). Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21627-3.)

Furthermore the Qur'an was supposedly a contemporary document as well though it being collected into a book being contemporary is debated.

The best Christians have is Paul who seems more intent on the Jesus in his head then any flesh and blood teacher.

Then you have anonymous Gospels appearing c70 CE that have to wait until c140 before they start getting linked to the followers of Jesus.

Then you have St. Irenaeus c180 CE trying to shoe horn a 50+ year old Jesus into what at best is a 41 year span (6 BCE - 36 CE), claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius Caesar, and that the universe had four corners and that is why there were only four Gospels.

 

[maximara]

Since we know that elves don't exist but that persons of very slight stature exist, it's more likely that when the word "elf" is used, it is meant a "little person". Since we also know that people can very easily survive cold climates, it's reasonable to think that a people can survive at the North Pole. Of course, they couldn't really mean the real pole at the northern apex of the Earth; however, it's reasonable to conclude that since Canada is climatologically and geographically similar enough to the North Pole, that the early writers meant Canada. Everyone knows that reindeer are real animals and have been used for centuries as pack animals.

Thus, it's quite probable that Santa Claus was a real person based on historical records.

Well Santa Claus is based in part on a real person: Saint Nicholas (March 5, 270 – December 6, 343)

The transformation of Saint Nicholas into Santa Claus is reasonably well documented shows just how far a myth can go from the source material.

 

[The Norseman]

Well Santa Claus is based in part on a real person: Saint Nicholas (March 5, 270 – December 6, 343)

The transformation of Saint Nicholas into Santa Claus is reasonably well documented shows just how far a myth can go from the source material.

Exactly, based on other evidence other than what I just presented. What I presented, however, seems a reasonable (heh ) approximation for the level and quality of evidence for an historical Yeshua.