Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

Why do you say predictably? Did the Romans routinely put messianic pretenders to death (much less, by crucifixion)? Because it's not like there weren't a ton of them running around, right? Doesn't Josephus list a bunch of messiah-wannabees? What did the Romans do with them?

Theudas is a good example. He gathered his followers together on the east bank of the Jordan river, believing, as a messianic pretender, that the river would dry up at that point and he, like Joshua, would cross the river dry-shod. All the Romans had to do was wait for this fool to get his feet wet. He would have been totally discredited. However, Cuspius Fadas, who was procurator of Judea at the time, sent out a detachment of cavalry, dispersed or killed Theudas' followers, cot off his head and brought it back to Jerusalem.

Josephus also mentions an Egyptian false prophet who managed to get a following of 30,000 before he was defeated by the Romans (Wars 2:13:5). Nero was emperor when this happened. I don't know whether or not the Romans caught him.

Then, of course, there was the Bar Kochba revolt. So messianic pretenders were an endemic problem in Judea, and the Romans put them to death.

As to crucifixion, when Jesus tell people, "Take up your cross and follow me," of words to that effect, the Greek word translated as "cross" is stauros, which actually means a stake. The verb translated into English as "to crucify" is, in the original Greek, staurosai, which means, literally, "to impale." While this can be construed as to tie to a stake, rather than driving the stake through the body, it doesn't necessarily mean that the instrument of death would be either "T" shaped or a cross. This Wikipedia article mentions a number of different shapes of crucifixion devices, including a simple stake (from the article):

At times the gibbet was only one vertical stake, called in Latin crux simplex.[25] This was the simplest available construction for torturing and killing the condemned. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a T (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa)

 

[pgwenthold]

Theudas is a good example. He gathered his followers together on the east bank of the Jordan river, believing, as a messianic pretender, that the river would dry up at that point and he, like Joshua, would cross the river dry-shod. All the Romans had to do was wait for this fool to get his feet wet. He would have been totally discredited. However, Cuspius Fadas, who was procurator of Judea at the time, sent out a detachment of cavalry, dispersed or killed Theudas' followers, cot off his head and brought it back to Jerusalem.

Josephus also mentions an Egyptian false prophet who managed to get a following of 30,000 before he was defeated by the Romans (Wars 2:13:5). Nero was emperor when this happened. I don't know whether or not the Romans caught him.

Then, of course, there was the Bar Kochba revolt. So messianic pretenders were an endemic problem in Judea, and the Romans put them to death.

As to crucifixion, when Jesus tell people, "Take up your cross and follow me," of words to that effect, the Greek word translated as "cross" is stauros, which actually means a stake. The verb translated into English as "to crucify" is, in the original Greek, staurosai, which means, literally, "to impale." While this can be construed as to tie to a stake, rather than driving the stake through the body, it doesn't necessarily mean that the instrument of death would be either "T" shaped or a cross. This Wikipedia article mentions a number of different shapes of crucifixion devices, including a simple stake (from the article):

At times the gibbet was only one vertical stake, called in Latin crux simplex.[25] This was the simplest available construction for torturing and killing the condemned. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a T (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa)

Thanks.

Of course, that merely begs the question of, if all these other sources are telling us about whacked messiahs, why didn't they say anything about Jesus? But that's a different question.

 

[TimCallahan]

Thanks.

Of course, that merely begs the question of, if all these other sources are telling us about whacked messiahs, why didn't they say anything about Jesus? But that's a different question.

There are two possible answers to that question:

1) Jesus was such small potatoes, compared to the others, that he didn't rate much of a comment. It's quite possible that he went to Jerusalem to proclaim himself the Messiah, caused a disruption in the temple, was arrested by the temple authorities and turned over to the Romans. He may have even had complicity in his own arrest, owing to the deluded belief that he was the "Son of man" character from the Book of Daniel, and thus thought he would be raised from the dead. He might well have only had the 12 and a few others following him, as opposed to the Egyptian false messiah Josephus speak of, who had 30,000 followers.

2) He is, at best, an amalgam of different guys with the gaps filled in by liberal layerings of myth, and may have never existed.

 

[Stone]

Thanks.

Of course, that merely begs the question of, if all these other sources are telling us about whacked messiahs, why didn't they say anything about Jesus?

Are you trying to be deliberately provoking? Like some kind of Republican fanatic, you're putting out there a blatant partisan assertion as an established fact. It is not an established fact that "they" say nothing about Jesus. Half the threads on this board circle around the very controversies associated with non-Biblical references to Jesus in Antiquities XX, Tacitus and elsewhere -- and BTW, Antiquities XX happens to be the Josephan reference to James, not the T.F., so don't go all cute and pretend that this references the T.F. when you know it doesn't.

Any and all controversies around these and more such extra-Biblical references remain pathetically irrelevant to what you're doing here: turning a partisan assertion into a "fact". That is a deliberately provoking gambit, more typical of some Republican Jihadist, and you know it.

I'm not addressing either the validity or lack thereof for any extra-Biblical reference. I'm actually calling you on your unscrupulously ignoring the controversy around such references altogether, by pretending there is no controversy around these extra-Biblical references at all and airily pronouncing such references to be nonexistent instead. Nonexistent? After umpteen threads here have spent considerable time arguing over precisely such references?! Whatever those references may be like is irrelevant to what you're doing: You're just pretending there are no such references at all, controversial or not. Now, that is sheer underhanded misinformation; and considering that these references have only been discussed umpteen times here already(!), it's hard to believe that such misinformation isn't deliberate, both as deliberate misinformation and as fanatical propaganda.

Do us a favor: If you want to respond pertinently to what I'm saying here, Don't argue how valid or not these references may be. That's been argued ad nauseum, and that's wholly and entirely irrelevant to what you're doing here. Here, any decent response will attempt to argue instead just how in hell these extra-Biblical references aren't objects of controversy in the first place. Are they or are they not objects of controversy? Obviously, they are. Duh! Since they are objects of controversy, any flat-out assertion that "they" don't say anything about Jesus is inexcusable.

There is controversy here, Mister, and don't you forget it. So stop peddling deliberate misdirection and pretending that one partisan interpretation is a fact. It isn't. It's one opinion.

This involves whether or not there is or isn't any controversy around these extra-Biblical references in the first place. It does not involve the degree of validity in the references themselves. Fact: There is controversy around these references. Your question assumes there's no controversy at all! How Republican can you get?!

Stone

 

[pakeha]

Are you trying to be deliberately provoking? Like some kind of Republican fanatic, you're putting out there a blatant partisan assertion as an established fact. (rant snipped)How Republican can you get?!

Stone

Thanks.

Of course, that merely begs the question of, if all these other sources are telling us about whacked messiahs, why didn't they say anything about Jesus? But that's a different question.

There are two possible answers to that question:

1) Jesus was such small potatoes, compared to the others, that he didn't rate much of a comment. It's quite possible that he went to Jerusalem to proclaim himself the Messiah, caused a disruption in the temple, was arrested by the temple authorities and turned over to the Romans. He may have even had complicity in his own arrest, owing to the deluded belief that he was the "Son of man" character from the Book of Daniel, and thus thought he would be raised from the dead. He might well have only had the 12 and a few others following him, as opposed to the Egyptian false messiah Josephus speak of, who had 30,000 followers.

2) He is, at best, an amalgam of different guys with the gaps filled in by liberal layerings of myth, and may have never existed.There are two possible answers to that question:

1) Jesus was such small potatoes, compared to the others, that he didn't rate much of a comment. It's quite possible that he went to Jerusalem to proclaim himself the Messiah, caused a disruption in the temple, was arrested by the temple authorities and turned over to the Romans. He may have even had complicity in his own arrest, owing to the deluded belief that he was the "Son of man" character from the Book of Daniel, and thus thought he would be raised from the dead. He might well have only had the 12 and a few others following him, as opposed to the Egyptian false messiah Josephus speak of, who had 30,000 followers.

2) He is, at best, an amalgam of different guys with the gaps filled in by liberal layerings of myth, and may have never existed.

Thanks, Tim, for putting those possibilities on the table.
See how it's possible to be courteous and informative, Stone?

 

[ddt]

Are you trying to be deliberately provoking? Like some kind of Republican fanatic, you're putting out there a blatant partisan assertion as an established fact. It is not an established fact that "they" say nothing about Jesus. Half the threads on this board circle around the very controversies associated with non-Biblical references to Jesus in Antiquities XX, Tacitus and elsewhere -- and BTW, Antiquities XX happens to be the Josephan reference to James, not the T.F., so don't go all cute and pretend that this references the T.F. when you know it doesn't.

Any and all controversies around these and more such extra-Biblical references remain pathetically irrelevant to what you're doing here: turning a partisan assertion into a "fact". That is a deliberately provoking gambit, more typical of some Republican Jihadist, and you know it.

I'm utterly confused what a "Republican Jihadist" would look like.

I also wonder why you explicitly exclude the Testimonium Flavianum from your argument. Are you afraid to discuss its authenticity?

As Tim explains, Josephus mentions interesting details about Theudas' ministry as well as that of the Egyptian (he doesn't mention Bar Kochba for obvious reasons). Judas of Galilee gets even more airtime with Josephus: he even mentions he is the founder of the fourth sect within Judaism.

Even if the "James the brother of Jesus" reference in Josephus is about Christ, it doesn't give us any information whatsoever about Jesus' actions and ministry. Even if there were a core of original Josephus writing in the Testimonium Flavianum, it only says Jesus was crucified, but doesn't tell us anything about his ministry, his followers etc. And if the part of the TF that "the tribe of Christians still exists to this day" were original, why doesn't Josephus tell us anything about their beliefs, it being another sect within or arising from Judaism?

Even with the most generous interpretation of the alleged Josephus references to Jesus, the lack of detail is interesting to say the least.

 

[TimCallahan]

Are you trying to be deliberately provoking? Like some kind of Republican fanatic, you're putting out there a blatant partisan assertion as an established fact. It is not an established fact that "they" say nothing about Jesus. Half the threads on this board circle around the very controversies associated with non-Biblical references to Jesus in Antiquities XX, Tacitus and elsewhere -- and BTW, Antiquities XX happens to be the Josephan reference to James, not the T.F., so don't go all cute and pretend that this references the T.F. when you know it doesn't. . . . (mega-snip) . . .

I don't know about any other non-biblical references specifically to Christ, other than Antiq. XX and Tacitus. Of the first, the reference to James as the brother of "Jesus, who was called the Christ," the clause, "who was called the Christ," might have been added, quite innocently, by a later scribe who "knew" this had to refer to Jesus Christ as opposed to any of the eight or more people named Jesus who appear in the writings of Josephus. We must remember that Jesus, i.e. Yeshua, meaning "Yahweh is salvation," was a common name among first century Jews.

As to Tacitus his passage in the Annals of Imperial Rome referring tangentially to Christ says (p. 365 of the Penguin Classics edition):

To suppress this rumor [that he had deliberately set the fire that burned Rome], Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.

So, there it is, a single sentence. This, to me, seems ample enough to point to some historical personage upon which Christianity was based. However, some have pointed out that Tacitus may only have been speaking of what the Christians themselves said of their origin and cite the fact that he got the office wrong - Pontius Pilate was procurator, not governor - as an indication that the information was second or third hand.

In any case, the Pauline form of Christianity may have had little to do with any historical Jesus. In fact, Paul explicitly tells us that his knowledge of Christ Jesus was from a personal revelation and that he did not even bother consulting with those who know Jesus while he was alive for any aspect of his gospel.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

As I've said before, ultimately, the historicity of Jesus may not be that important. Even the non-supernatural incidents in the narratives of the Christian scriptures - the gospels and the Book of Acts - are made up and based on one or more of four basic sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism and contemporary events seen through an apocalyptic lens, pagan mythology, and Greek literature.

About the only thing we can say with any certainty about a historical Jesus is that he was a messianic pretender who was, predictably, put to death by the Romans.

We can infer that, as one who thought himself to be the Messiah, he had an apocalyptic view and expected the end of the world in his generation. Assuming the teachings attributed to him at least somewhat approximate what he said, he also, in keeping with his apocalyptic views preached an anti-materialistic way of life, renunciation of the world and a severing of ties with it - including familial ties. However, these must remain inferences only. They are not corroborated by any non-Christian sources.


We also need to separate Jesus from the Christ or Christ Jesus of Paul. The latter is psychological / philosophical construct. Paul even says in Galatians that he didn't consult those who had known Jesus, but that his knowledge of Christ came through a direct revelation - one that could only have happened after the death of any historical Jesus.

Nice post.

To be clear on my position, the short version is:

Jesus was a dime-a-dozen apocalyptic preacher, charlatan healer and exorcist, small time cult leader, and rebel against the establishment (Romans and Jewish Priests). He believed religion is paramount, and is a personal endeavor not dependent on Priests or any other authority, and that the lower classes were closer to God because the ruling class always had alternative motives. Plus, the ruling class sucks anyway.

Evidence suggests there were many people leading small cults with the exact same ideas as Jesus at the time. Healing people. Showing signs. Performing miracles. Preaching new laws. Defying authority. As I said, he was a dime-a-dozen small time cult leader.

He would have been a nobody—except for Paul. Paul was keeping down all these crazy out-of-towner cult leaders. But as he did so, he slowly got suckered in. Maybe they had some good points. Paul, with his education, could very well have become sympathetic to their message.

Paul gets his noggin knocked good. He goes full flip to the other side. He has seen a vision of the messiah! Of course this is an amalgamation of all the nut-ball cult leader rebels he has been persecuting. Everybody thinks he has gone loony.

But, as it happens, Jesus has just recently dies. His followers are distraught and confused. They devoted their lives to Jesus. They believed he was the real deal. Then he ends up getting killed over some minor mischief. What a dud!

But now this Paul guy is saying he has seen the messiah. And to the followers of Jesus, the guy Paul is describing sounds a whole lot like Jesus! Of course Paul’s messiah sounds like Jesus because he was just talking about the many apocalyptic faith healing cult leader rebels of the time, of which Jesus was one. But the followers of Jesus don’t realize that and are excited that someone has seen Jesus after he died! Yay!

The followers of Jesus had some big cards in this game. They devoted their lives to Jesus. They thought he was the real deal. Then he got killed like a common criminal over some minor mischief. What a dud! What to do? Find another cult leader who also may be fake? Give up and change your whole world view and accept subjugation of the authorities? Or, maybe this Paul guy really saw Jesus after he died! Maybe Jesus was the real deal after all.

Some followers of Jesus meet with Paul. Paul is nuts. But he is also smart, ambitious, and persuasive. And Paul embraces these Jesus fully. Paul had a vision of some messiah like the crazy cult leaders he was dealing with. Everybody thinks he’s crazy. Now some people from a real life cult leader come to him thinking his vision may have been their leader--Jesus. Of course Paul runs with it. Yes, my vision must have been that Jesus guy. Paul has some validation of his vision! He has a name to put to his messiah! So Paul creates his own religion and hangs the name of Jesus all over it.

Paul’s new religion is selling lot hot cakes. The follower’s of Jesus don’t want to just give up everything they believe in, so they think maybe Paul is onto something. Maybe some people saw Jesus after he was dead. Maybe Jesus was the real deal. Maybe Paul’s spiritual version of Jesus is where it is at. So they embrace it. Well, some do.

Then is takes off. Paul sells his new religion, hanging it on this Jesus guy. The followers of Jesus ride along. Other apocalyptic cult members and rebels against authority are sympathetic and join the popular movement. It spreads. Stories get told in different land to different audiences. We end up with the New Testament.

 

[Stone]

Thanks, Tim, for putting those possibilities on the table.
See how it's possible to be courteous and informative, Stone?

Excuse me, that response does diddly-squat in addressing the deliberately misleading question I spotlighted: "why didn't they say anything about Jesus?" That very question assumes that "they" -- whoever "they" is -- say nothing about Jesus, as if their saying nothing about Jesus is somehow an established fact. It isn't. Instead, it's just about as established a "fact" as the "fact" that evolution and geology together say nothing about the age of the earth or "the missing link". Except they do. Plainly, they do indeed say plenty about both, and it's only die-hard propagandists and creationists who claim otherwise, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Obviously, these creeps go by the Hitlerian principle that if you say a lie often enough, it can turn into a truth.

When umpteen posts on this very board grapple -- on both sides -- with the question of how much the extra-Biblical sources say about Jesus, it is ignorant at best and a deliberate falsehood at worst to suddenly parade questions that imply that one partisan position on this issue "happens" to be a "fact". But that is precisely what this question does, and no one here has properly addressed that. Modern professional scholars -- plenty of them -- see distinct pieces of data on Jesus in the extra-Biblicals. Those claiming there is nothing of the kind make that claim solely as a matter of opinion on one side of a controversy. To pretend that that one opinion is suddenly an established fact(!), as this misleading question does, is of a piece with the constant denials made by creationists on the time line and the missing link, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Fact: There is a blatant controversy on this board surrounding the data on Jesus in the extra-Biblicals. But this question makes the provoking assumption that there is no controversy. That assumption is baloney.

Stone

 

[pakeha]

... Modern professional scholars -- plenty of them -- see distinct pieces of data on Jesus in the extra-Biblicals. Those claiming there is nothing of the kind make that claim solely as a matter of opinion on one side of a controversy. ...

I can see your point, Stone.
Tacitus points to a Christian community in Rome during Nero's reign.
Josephus, to Jesus' brother.

Obviously, though, neither of those sources allows us to imagine a physically-resurrected-from-the-dead Messiah, but rather a human being.
How relevant was this human to Christianity?
Are we discussing the possible/probable existence of a particular human or of the Redeemer of Mankind?

I never really get a feel for what is actually at stake, if anything, in these threads.
Can Jesus be separated from the miracles?

Earlier you posted up a list of what can be considered core teachings or sayings you feel can be reliably attributed to the historical Jesus.
My question is: how important is it to attribute those saying to Christ?
I'd meant to ask you that earlier, but the opportunity didn't show.

Sorry to be so muddled in this post. My only excuse is that I'm wading through the monster thread on the same subject at RatSkep, just 250 pages to go and those very strange arguments are taking their toll.

 

[calebprime]

I can see your point, Stone.
Tacitus points to a Christian community in Rome during Nero's reign.
Josephus, to Jesus' brother.

Obviously, though, neither of those sources allows us to imagine a physically-resurrected-from-the-dead Messiah, but rather a human being.
How relevant was this human to Christianity?
Are we discussing the possible/probable existence of a particular human or of the Redeemer of Mankind?

I never really get a feel for what is actually at stake, if anything, in these threads.Can Jesus be separated from the miracles?

Earlier you posted up a list of what can be considered core teachings or sayings you feel can be reliably attributed to the historical Jesus.
My question is: how important is it to attribute those saying to Christ?
I'd meant to ask you that earlier, but the opportunity didn't show.

Sorry to be so muddled in this post. My only excuse is that I'm wading through the monster thread on the same subject at RatSkep, just 250 pages to go and those very strange arguments are taking their toll.

Interesting question.

For me, I guess what's at stake is a worldview, and values relating to that.

The real is ultimately more interesting and worthy of respect than the mythical.

The idea of "ought" has in it the assumption that what we ought to do is possible.

So if a real wise man/woman existed, and walked the walk as much as he/she talked the talk, that would be more interesting than Paul Bunyon and his blue ox, or more interesting than Captain Picard.

Real events have lessons for psychology, which is more interesting than theology, which seems completely imaginary.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Can Jesus be separated from the miracles?

Yes. Paul tells no miracle stories except the resurrection, and his story about that it is that it's about to happen to everybody who's having his letter read to them, mostly one better than Jesus - never die at all. Top that. OK, I will: you'll be able to fly, too.

Later on, when all of that doesn't happen, miracle stories get told about Paul (in Acts). He's mistaken for a Roman god walking the Earth.

No problem separating the man who wrote the business letters from the man who's acclaimed a god. Why would there be a problem separating out the guy whose major lasting accomplishment was getting himself killed from later stories that before that, he too walked around doing woo? (Or, if you prefer Mark, knew that God did woo.)

 

[IanS]

pakeha


Yes. Paul tells no miracle stories except the resurrection, and his story about that it is that it's about to happen to everybody who's having his letter read to them, mostly one better than Jesus - never die at all. Top that. OK, I will: you'll be able to fly, too.

Doesn't Paul tell us that he saw a vision of Jesus after Jesus had died? And that the image of Jesus spoke to him? That would be a miracle if that actually happened, wouldn’t it?

Paul also says that various other named people had seen Jesus (as a vision in the air?) after Jesus had died. And then he says, Jesus also appeared to more than 500 people at once. That would be a miracle if Jesus was already dead, wouldn't it?

I think Paul also says that he travelled to the third heaven. That again would be a miracle if that actually happened.

The fact that Paul does not describe Jesus performing earthly miracles (as described in the gospels) is not really admissible, is it? Because afaik Paul not only never met Jesus, but tells us that instead all his information comes not from any living man, but from what he thought was written in OT scriptures in accordance with which he sees visions of, and hears messages from, Jesus and God.

 

[pgwenthold]

Doesn't Paul tell us that he saw a vision of Jesus after Jesus had died? And that the image of Jesus spoke to him? That would be a miracle if that actually happened, wouldn’t it?

Paul also says that various other named people had seen Jesus (as a vision in the air?) after Jesus had died. And then he says, Jesus also appeared to more than 500 people at once. That would be a miracle if Jesus was already dead, wouldn't it?

I think Paul also says that he travelled to the third heaven. That again would be a miracle if that actually happened.

The fact that Paul does not describe Jesus performing earthly miracles (as described in the gospels) is not really admissible, is it? Because afaik Paul not only never met Jesus, but tells us that instead all his information comes not from any living man, but from what he thought was written in OT scriptures in accordance with which he sees visions of, and hears messages from, Jesus and God.

I think what IanS is suggesting is that, far from Paul "separating the man from the miracles" without the miracles (particularly, visions), there is no Paul to talk about. At least according to Paul, pretty much everything he has originates miraculously.

The only way to separate Paul from miracles is to call him a liar.

 

[Stone]

I can see your point, Stone.
Tacitus points to a Christian community in Rome during Nero's reign.
Josephus, to Jesus' brother.

Obviously, though, neither of those sources allows us to imagine a physically-resurrected-from-the-dead Messiah, but rather a human being.
How relevant was this human to Christianity?
Are we discussing the possible/probable existence of a particular human or of the Redeemer of Mankind?

Oh, come on. We are only discussing a particular human here and have been for most of the threads on this topic throughout this board -- and that's what the most modern scholars address as well. Nine times out of ten, any references here to the "Redeemer of Mankind" have been made with deliberately snarky intent only, or as an underhanded attempt to distort what someone else is saying about the human being.

I never really get a feel for what is actually at stake, if anything, in these threads.
Can Jesus be separated from the miracles?

For starters, Antiquities XX, Serapios, Tacitus, Pliny and a few others already do that. So to pretend that's only a modern phenomenon is just as underhanded as putting "Redeemer" words into the mouths of those here who dare to be up on the latest secular scholarship.

Earlier you posted up a list of what can be considered core teachings or sayings you feel can be reliably attributed to the historical Jesus.
My question is: how important is it to attribute those saying to Christ?
I'd meant to ask you that earlier, but the opportunity didn't show.

Plenty of those sayings have impacted necessary institutions of today, such as the Red Cross ("Love your enemies" anyone?). So if one cares at all about knowing where the most essential tenets upholding modern civilization originate, then one cares about knowing when those tenets originate and from whom. And if one doesn't even care to know just why modern civilization yields an existence that is slightly less nasty, brutish and short today than it was centuries ago, than I guess it doesn't even matter that Jefferson introduced "pursuit of happiness"! :-(

Plainly, all of this matters. We stand on the shoulders of ethics giants going back thousands of years who have expanded human community and made it incrementally more inclusive era by era. Now, there's no way one can automatically make this overriding fact in human history of paramount importance to every individual today. But it's still deplorable for anyone not to view it that way, not to care just why most people can go to bed at night slightly more secure tonight than they would have been centuries ago. Ethics giants made staggering sacrifices for whatever social security we may have today -- and it's O.K. that we not even care?!

Sorry to be so muddled in this post. My only excuse is that I'm wading through the monster thread on the same subject at RatSkep, just 250 pages to go and those very strange arguments are taking their toll.

And you'll note that the HJ-ers pretty much leave the MJ-ers to their own devices by the end of the thread. The MJ-ers simply act as if they've invented the wheel -- umpteen pages after plenty of mythers have been there before them with the same "points" and have been soundly debunked by the HJ-ers. It is the act of a troll to continue to spout the same propaganda that's already been debunked -- something that nettie creationists do all the time -- and that's what the mythers are doing on that thread by the end.

Stone

 

[Stone]

Interesting question.

For me, I guess what's at stake is a worldview, and values relating to that.

The real is ultimately more interesting and worthy of respect than the mythical.

The idea of "ought" has in it the assumption that what we ought to do is possible.

So if a real wise man/woman existed, and walked the walk as much as he/she talked the talk, that would be more interesting than Paul Bunyon and his blue ox, or more interesting than Captain Picard.

Real events have lessons for psychology, which is more interesting than theology, which seems completely imaginary.

Excellent point. Thank you! I've bolded what is especially pertinent here. It's one thing to just talk generous aphorisms like "Love your enemies". It's another to walk that, because it shows that such a walk is humanly possible and expands human potentiality, which is always good.

Stone

 

[Stone]

I don't know about any other non-biblical references specifically to Christ, other than Antiq. XX and Tacitus. Of the first, the reference to James as the brother of "Jesus, who was called the Christ," the clause, "who was called the Christ," might have been added, quite innocently, by a later scribe who "knew" this had to refer to Jesus Christ as opposed to any of the eight or more people named Jesus who appear in the writings of Josephus. We must remember that Jesus, i.e. Yeshua, meaning "Yahweh is salvation," was a common name among first century Jews.

As to Tacitus his passage in the Annals of Imperial Rome referring tangentially to Christ says (p. 365 of the Penguin Classics edition):

To suppress this rumor [that he had deliberately set the fire that burned Rome], Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.

So, there it is, a single sentence. This, to me, seems ample enough to point to some historical personage upon which Christianity was based. However, some have pointed out that Tacitus may only have been speaking of what the Christians themselves said of their origin and cite the fact that he got the office wrong - Pontius Pilate was procurator, not governor - as an indication that the information was second or third hand.

In any case, the Pauline form of Christianity may have had little to do with any historical Jesus. In fact, Paul explicitly tells us that his knowledge of Christ Jesus was from a personal revelation and that he did not even bother consulting with those who know Jesus while he was alive for any aspect of his gospel.

Once again, you totally ignore that since the very assertion that "they" say nothing about Jesus is already up for discussion, a question like "why didn't they say anything about Jesus?" unscrupulously papers over the fact that there is a controversy around such an assertion in the first place. You carefully describe the nature of the controversy here but don't address the unscrupulous way that the poster's question effectively pretends there is no controversy at all! :-(

How convenient. Just using this "discussion" as another opportunity to air myther propaganda rather than address the poster's pretense, in his provoking question, that there is no controversy such as you've outlined here at all. The point at issue here is not the precise nature of the controversy; it's whether or not there is any controversy at all. Plainly, there bloody well is. The poster's question pretends there isn't! :-(

I have a feeling I've made this distinction bloody clear by now. If anyone can still veer over into a discussion of the literal nature of the controversy itself after that, and still assert that he's somehow addressing my own point in doing that(!) when he's not, he is obviously either monumentally stupid or indulging in an exercise of blatant evasion and continual moving of the goal-posts.

Stone

 

[ddt]

Can Jesus be separated from the miracles?

For starters, Antiquities XX, Serapios, Tacitus, Pliny and a few others already do that. So to pretend that's only a modern phenomenon is just as underhanded as putting "Redeemer" words into the mouths of those here who dare to be up on the latest secular scholarship.

This still leaves me puzzled why you meticulously leave out the Testimonium Flavianum. Pliny's Christ is all miracles, i.e., he only reports what Christians do in his letters to Trajan: they worship him like he were a god. Can't get more miraculous than godhood, I'd say.

And Serapios? I assume you mean Mara Bar-Serapion, the son of Serapios? Let's see what he wrote:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole[19] of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?

What kind of reference to Jesus is this? Yeah, if you're a Christian and you read this with Christian rose-tinted glasses, you might want to see Jesus in this reference to a "Jewish king". But why didn't he just write Yeshua ben Yusuf then? There have been plenty of real Jewish kings around, so why try to read this as a reference to someone who never was a king to begin with?

Let's do some math on it: Socrates died in 399BC, Pythagoras in 495BC, so linear extrapolation puts this Jewish king around 600BC. Let's say: Josiah, who died in 609BC. He was a reformer - many think Deuteronomy was written during his reign - he was violently killed, and within 22 years of his death, Jerusalem had been captured twice by the Babylonians. Fits the bill.

You might object that Josiah was not murdered by a Jewish mob, but by the Egyptian pharaoh, Necho II. Then I say: (a) the text above technically does not say the Jews themselves murdered Josiah; and (b) Mara Bar-Sarapion is being very liberal with the truth anyway. The stories about Socrates and Pythagoras don't line up either:
(1) There was no famine and pestilence in Athens at the time of Socrates' execution. The famine and pestilence was there towards the end of the Peloponnesian war, due to the siege by Sparta, and led to the surrender of Athens in 404BC, and that in turn led to the trial of Socrates.
(2) Pythagoras was born and raised in Samos, but died in Croton in Magna Graeca (southern Italy), so I'm not even going to bother with the "buried in sand".

So, really, taking this serious as a source referencing Jesus is laughable.

Plenty of those sayings have impacted necessary institutions of today, such as the Red Cross ("Love your enemies" anyone?).

Huh? Henry Dunant was Swiss, and he got the idea for the Red Cross when witnessing a battle between French and Austrians (Solferino). His concept of the Red Cross was to have a neutral force caring for the wounded. Where do you see "enemies" come into play here?

So if one cares at all about knowing where the most essential tenets upholding modern civilization originate, then one cares about knowing when those tenets originate and from whom. And if one doesn't even care to know just why modern civilization yields an existence that is slightly less nasty, brutish and short today than it was centuries ago, than I guess it doesn't even matter that Jefferson introduced "pursuit of happiness"! :-(

Who definitely was not a Christian, at most a deist. I fondly remember Dutch Cardinal Simonis explain on TV why allegedly Islam can't play nice with liberal western democracy but Christianity can: we had the Enlightenment. Yep, it's thanks to guys like Voltaire, Rousseau, Jefferson, Franklin etc. that we have those values, otherwise Christianity would still be ruled by the likes of Calvin, Savonarola and Torquemada who'd happily burn every heretic at the stake. (of course, Simonis didn't say the latter but it's the obvious implication of his own words).

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Doesn't Paul tell us that he saw a vision of Jesus after Jesus had died?

Yes.

And that the image of Jesus spoke to him?

What page are you on? You haven't drifted over to Acts by any chance? No image of Jesus for Paul there, either, but at least there's a voice. No voice in Paul, though.

That would be a miracle if that actually happened, wouldn’t it?

Jesus isn't doing anything, it's the 500+ people who are doing something, seeing a ghost. Alternatively, if we accept Paul's premise, that Jesus rose from the dead in a pneuma body, then it isn't a miracle that he could use his body. It's all the same miracle. The one I mentioned.

The question I was anwering was

Can Jesus be separated from the miracles?

To which you contribute, cutting to the chase

after Jesus had died.

Good answer. The only "miracle" of Jesus that Paul discusses is Jesus' resurrection. After he died. Jesus is the man who died. You and I should be in agreement that the answer to pakeha's question is yes. The dead guy who didn't do anything interesting to Paul except get killed is easily distinguishd from a ghost who interests Paul a lot.

I think Paul also says that he travelled to the third heaven. That again would be a miracle if that actually happened.

No, Paul specifically says he doesn't know whether it was physical or not. If it wasn't physical, it's just an OBE. The web's teeming with OBE reports. No miracle. Just get a lousy night's sleep and there's a fair chance that you can do it, too.

but tells us that instead all his information comes not from any living man, but from what he thought was written in OT scriptures in accordance with which he sees visions of, and hears messages from, Jesus and God.

Paul said he got his "gospel" from no man, and his "gospel" appears to be Galatians 2: 15 ff - which has no information about Jesus' life. "Gospels" in the sense of books about Jesus' life don't exist when Paul was writing. Paul's Gospel is Paul's distinctive preaching, not any kind of information about Jesus' earthly life.

Speaking of non-miracles, I have a sense of deja vu. I think you and I have already discussed this.

 

[Stone]

This still leaves me puzzled why you meticulously leave out the Testimonium Flavianum........

And Serapios?

No. Mind hiccup. Agapios, which is viewed by some as an earlier source for the T.F. than any extant ms.

[Jefferson] definitely was not a Christian, at most a deist.

What on Earth does that have to do with anything? I'm perfectly well aware that Jefferson's a deist. I was talking about ethics giants throughout history. They comprise every doctrine of the last 5,000 years! If some people are pathetically apathetic and bored with the who and the when of the great breakthroughs that have incrementally expanded cultural notions of human community, that's deplorable.

Stone