For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[SpuriusMaximus]

It's only included in definition 5. Which is just as well, since I wasn't claiming it was a legal fiction. Yeah, for it to be a LEGAL fiction, it must be for a LEGAL purpose. The clue is in the adjective. But Mark isn't writing a case to present in a court of law -- which is where those legal fictions were used -- so it should be obvious that we don't need to get fixated on LEGAL fictions.

BUT for a word to be used correctly, it only needs to fit one definition, not all definitions at the same time. And the fact is, there are 4 more definitions where there is no mention of needing a purpose to fit the definition.

So nice try, but eh... hardly surprising. You know, speaking of me not being nice.

 

[Brainache]

We don't know to what degree they were as reactionary and militant as the Essenes. I think we'd have at least heard of it if they were. When it came to overtly exclusivist sects, Hadrianus and later were kinda like the John Wayne toilet paper: rough, tough, and took no crap from the natives

I mean, sure, the Essenes took the Law seriously, but they weren't the only ones. They were just those who went full-tilt reactionary a-hole about it.

I think the Qumran Community are more properly described as "Zealots". The guys who Josephus blamed for inciting the revolt against Rome.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

...Howbeit, with the rest of them-that is, with those that held fast to His commandments-God ever made good His everlasting Covenant with Israel, revealing to them the hidden things concerning which Israel in general had gone astray-even His holy sabbaths and His glorious festivals, His righteous ordinances, the ways of His truth and the purposes of His will, 'the which, if a man do, he shall live' [Lev. 18.5]. He opened for them a well with water abounding,14 which they might dig...

...And these men 'dug the well'-that well whereof it is written, 'Princes digged it, nobles of the people delved it, with the aid of a mehoqeq' [Num. 21.18]. The 'well' in question is the Law. They that 'digged' are those of Israel who repented and departed from the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus'. * God called them all 'princes' because they went in search of Him, and their glory was never gainsaid (?) by any man's mouth.22 The term mehoqeq [which can mean 'lawgiver' as well as 'stave') refers to the man who expounds the Law. Isaiah has employed an analogous piece of imagery when in allusion to the Law he has spoken of God's 'producing a tool for His work' [cf. ISL 54.16). As for the 'nobles of the people', these are the men that come, throughout the Era of Wickedness, to delve the well, using as their staves [Heb. mehoqeq) the statutes [Heb. huq4m) which the Law-giver prescribed [Heb. haqaq ha-mehoqeq) for them to walk in. Without such 'implements', they would, indeed, never achieve their goal until such time as the true Expositor arises at the end of days...

Kind of like the way James describes his followers in the "We Document" section of Acts:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21&version=NIV

...Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law...

They were pretty keen on the Law...

It's possible, but that's what your Wiki page and your quote from it said. So that's what I was answering to and going along with. Remember, I was more like into taking Epiphanius at his word, at least for the scope of this discussion.

But I'm ok with it being not a harmonization too. You tell me what it was, and we'll take it from there.



Well, the problem is not why they added their own traditions. THAT part is fine.

The problem is: why did they need the fiction stories derived from Mark's fanfic as a base AT ALL? Mark doesn't seem very believable a source, and doubly so for some people who knew Jesus and knew what he actually did. Including knowing that he didn't walk on water, miraculously conjure food, attack the temple in spite of its having a full cohort of armed guards and win like a kung-fu master, etc.

Or if they had the disciples around, they'd know those didn't act like complete morons, and without a working memory to boot, to set the stage for Jesus to deliver his wisdom... twice. Those guys act like they haven't seen Jesus do the same thing before, and are amazed all over again, etc. Real people don't act like that.

And Matthew and Luke, same problem, they just fix Mark's story, but they don't seem to know what actually happened, or they wouldn't need Mark.

Plus at least half of it would be there just to form those literary sandwiches, and the rest probably out of order to fit that proto-monomyth. Real people's biographies don't tend to fall neatly into that pattern.

Etc.

You seem to be assuming that the Ebionite gospel included all that stuff. All we really know is that it was written in Hebrew, that it was said to be a much shorter version of Matthew and that it includes so called "heretical" teachings about Jesus as a vegetarian, prophet adopted by god at the baptism and taught the abolition of Temple sacrifice.

So we have the three synoptics writing wild fiction about Jesus.

WHY would some people who actually knew Jesus, or at least had people around who personally knew him, including his biological brother, need to start from some wildly wrong fanfic about Jesus instead of from those? I mean, sure, they fixed some parts of that fanfic, but why use it at all?

Because by about 70 CE all those first generation Jesus freaks were dead. The Romans did a pretty thorough job and the ones the Romans didn't get either fled east or killed themselves.

But seriously, just look incidents where Mark uses the narrator clairvoyance (i.e., there are no witnesses to tell him about it.) Look at the overwhelming majority of the scenes, all over the place, where he feels a need to cover his ass for making stuff up by making up a literal conspiracy theory. See, you didn't hear ANY of that, because Jesus asked the Jews to keep it a secret, and all the tens of thousands of people involved kept it a secret. And presumably they were so determined to keep the Messiah they just witnessed a secret that they didn't convert either. They'd rather go to hell, or see their friends and children go to hell, than break the conspiracy to keep it secret. Except Mark somehow knows the secret anyway.

Yeah, what kind of teacher would tell people not to talk to outsiders? Maybe this kind:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

With those, however, that have chosen the right path everyone is indeed to discuss matters pertaining to the apprehension (knowledge) of God's truth and of His righteous judgments. The purpose of such discussions is to guide the minds of the members of the community, to give them insight into God's inscrutable wonders and truth, and to bring them to walk blamelessly each with his neighbor in harmony with all that has been revealed to them. For this is the time when 'the way is being prepared in the wilderness', and it behooves them to understand all that is happening. It is also the time when they must needs keep apart from all other men and not turn aside from the way through any form of perversity...

That's The Way it goes...

He's making stuff up and he knows it. And then Matt and Luke keep that made up stuff too, because they don't know any better either.

So now here's the question: what are the ODDS that such a made up story would fit the real one so well -- minus a few bits like the virgin birth, and such -- would fit the real story so well, that actual people who knew Jesus would take it for a primary source?

Maybe there is some truth to that old Church tradition about gMark being a collection of the sermons of Peter:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

...but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings...

...

Same for Jesus. What are the ODDS that a Mark who can't even get geography, local customs, idioms, etc, right, would make up a story which is so uncannily matching the real ones that actual people who knew Jesus would take it as a primary source? (Directly, or via Matthew, or harmonized, or whatever.)

Unless you believe that Mark actually got it from the holy ghost or something, I guess.

I think the stories were written around the teachings and the author wasn't concerned with getting things like geography right. He wanted to convey specific religious teachings in a way that would be memorable for his audience. He wasn't trying to write an accurate historical/biographical account in the modern sense.

 

[Craig B]

BUT for a word to be used correctly, it only needs to fit one definition, not all definitions at the same time. And the fact is, there are 4 more definitions where there is no mention of needing a purpose to fit the definition.

So nice try, but eh... hardly surprising. You know, speaking of me not being nice.

For a word to be used incorrectly it must be entirely absent from everything it may be said not to be part of. And there is purpose in the other definitions, even if the word is not explicitly used. "Allegation ... to bring a case" and "works of imaginative narration" being only the most obvious.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think the Qumran Community are more properly described as "Zealots". The guys who Josephus blamed for inciting the revolt against Rome.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

That they were. I'm just saying we don't really know to what extent the Ebionites of the 2'nd century are the same. I'm thinking we'd have heard about it if there were some militant zealots in the area by then.

Kind of like the way James describes his followers in the "We Document" section of Acts:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21&version=NIV

Well, last I heard, you were taking Acts to be propagandistic fiction too. And especially 21 is already in the part where Luke has just dropped into first person.

Nevertheless, while it was the same word in greek, there kinda is a difference between just being zealous and being a Zealot. What we nowadays call a Zealot is, well, basically the fourth sect described in Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews", Book XVIII, chapter 1, last paragraph.

And therein lies the problem. The Zealots are described as very much NOT a subgroup of the Essenes. They're in fact a very different sect, an offshoot of the Pharisees, not of the Essenes. So it's kinda hard to have it both ways, both Zealot AND Essene. It's quite literally like being an anarcho-liberal conservative.

That said, I will agree that James in Acts 21 is quite plausible to be a Zealot. I don't think we'll know for sure, but asking Paul to perform a purification ritual is a Pharisee kind of thing. And, as Josephus tells us those guys were pretty much the anarcho-pharisee sect, so to speak, so it's possible.

They were pretty keen on the Law...

Well, all four sects were keen on the Law. They just understood it differently.

You seem to be assuming that the Ebionite gospel included all that stuff. All we really know is that it was written in Hebrew, that it was said to be a much shorter version of Matthew and that it includes so called "heretical" teachings about Jesus as a vegetarian, prophet adopted by god at the baptism and taught the abolition of Temple sacrifice.

Well, we have the word of Epiphanius that it's based on Matthew. And mind you, I'm all for taking Epiphanius as unreliable, but then what we're left with is that we really don't know pretty much anything about those guys. Certainly not enough to connect them directly to Jesus, any more than any other sect. (They ALL claimed apostolic sources, pretty much.)

Because by about 70 CE all those first generation Jesus freaks were dead. The Romans did a pretty thorough job and the ones the Romans didn't get either fled east or killed themselves.

Well, that and we're past the life expectancy for anyone old enough to have seen Jesus first hand anyway. So, yeah, sure. Quite right.

But then they're not better sources for a HJ than anyone else, either, if the best source they can find is in someone else's religious fiction.

Yeah, what kind of teacher would tell people not to talk to outsiders? Maybe this kind:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

Well, have you read Mark? (I know, I know, his beige prose is boring.)

He doesn't tell us about a teacher (Jesus) who tells his students to not talk to outsiders. He tells us of a teacher who actually SENDS his students to tell strangers all over the place about it, but then tell those outsiders to keep the secret. And of course, all those random strangers do keep the secret.

It's quite a different proposition, really. Your inner circle of initiates keeping your secret? Eh, it happens often enough. At least for a while, anyway. Telling your secret to thousands of strangers, asking them to keep the secret, and then all them actually keep your secret? Err, no. THAT is a literal conspiracy theory.

I think the stories were written around the teachings and the author wasn't concerned with getting things like geography right. He wanted to convey specific religious teachings in a way that would be memorable for his audience. He wasn't trying to write an accurate historical/biographical account in the modern sense.

I'll even agree with that, really. But then he's writing religious fiction, not the kind of thing that gets mistaken for the real history, by anyone who has a better source of what actually happened. Is all I'm saying.

 

[Brainache]

That they were. I'm just saying we don't really know to what extent the Ebionites of the 2'nd century are the same. I'm thinking we'd have heard about it if there were some militant zealots in the area by then.

Well, they wouldn't have been the original Zealots by then, would they? They would have been descendents.

Well, last I heard, you were taking Acts to be propagandistic fiction too. And especially 21 is already in the part where Luke has just dropped into first person.

I think it's probable that Acts had more than one Author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autho...we.22_passages_as_fragments_of_earlier_source

...In the "we" passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural but the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". Some[who?] regard the "we" passages as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts.[citation needed] Many modern scholars have expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.[17] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text...

Re the bold: I would say Robert Eisenman in "James The Brother Of Jesus" etc.

Nevertheless, while it was the same word in greek, there kinda is a difference between just being zealous and being a Zealot. What we nowadays call a Zealot is, well, basically the fourth sect described in Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews", Book XVIII, chapter 1, last paragraph.

And therein lies the problem. The Zealots are described as very much NOT a subgroup of the Essenes. They're in fact a very different sect, an offshoot of the Pharisees, not of the Essenes. So it's kinda hard to have it both ways, both Zealot AND Essene. It's quite literally like being an anarcho-liberal conservative.

I disagree with your interpretation. See here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/confusions-of-pharisees-a_b_4675877.html

...As Josephus portrays it: Herod, though he promoted “such men of the private men of the city as had been of his party, he never left off avenging and punishing every day those that had chosen to be of the party of his enemies.” Where “Pollio the Pharisee and Sameas, a Disciple of his” (sic — this now obviously “Shammai” but note the anachronism), were concerned Josephus unequivocally tells us that Herod “honored them above all the rest; for when Jerusalem was besieged by the Roman General Sossius and Herod (37 BC), they advised the citizens to open the gates to Herod” — here, of course, we have the key indicator and one should never take one’s eyes off it...

It epitomizes Pharisaic political conduct from the time of Alexander Jannaeus and the Demetrius affair (c. 70 BC) to that of R. Yohanan at the time of the fall of the Temple (70 CE). Even Talmudic Literature, just before the Temple was going to fall, portrays R. Yohanan b. Zacchai as “having himself smuggled out of Jerusalem in a coffin” (presumably the only way out at that time) and “having an arrow shot into the Emperor’s camp to inform him he was one of the Emperor’s friends”!...

In spite of the palpable hostility of the so-called “Essenes” at Qumran to “Law-breakers”, which would include, presumably, “foreigners” like “the Herodians” and everything “the Herodians” stood for (e.g., “niece marriage” which, as we have already observed above, was for “the Herodians” a matter of family policy, “Riches”, etc.), many scholars persist in believing Josephus’ stories about toadying soothsayers, where Herod’s regard for “the Essenes” is concerned (rather than a simple mix-up in terms — “Pharisee” meaning “break-away”, i.e., “Break-away Hassidaeans” as in 1 Macc 7:13: “the first among the Israelites to ask for peace were the Hassidaeans, etc.”, as opposed to 2 Macc 14:5 above and what should be called the “Purist Hassidaeans” or “Sadducees” of that time and the real Qumran “Essenes”) — nor is this to mention Josephus’ indications in the context of his more general testimony about “Essenes” of “spies set everywhere” and “many brought to the Fortress of Hyrcania (not far from Qumran), both openly and in secret, and there put to death”.
...
Let us now apply this idea of terminological confusions between “Pharisees” and “Essenes” to several other examples. In The Antiquities, Josephus tells us about one “Sadduk a Pharisee” — obviously “Zadok”, itself a contradiction in terms and by which he clearly means “Sadduk a Purist Essene” or, as we shall see, “Sadduk a Zealot”, a Leader of those he accuses of “Innovation” (i.e., “Revolution”) and who, along with Judas the Galilean (also c. 4 BC-7 CE) the son of that that “Hezekiah” mentioned above as being executed by Herod. Both of these are Founders of Josephus’ so-called “Fourth Philosophy”, a “Philosophy”, as just intimated, one must designate simply as “Zealot” or “Sicarii”, though Josephus never uses these actual terms until much later in his works (and which I would also designate “Messianic”).

And so on...

That said, I will agree that James in Acts 21 is quite plausible to be a Zealot. I don't think we'll know for sure, but asking Paul to perform a purification ritual is a Pharisee kind of thing. And, as Josephus tells us those guys were pretty much the anarcho-pharisee sect, so to speak, so it's possible.

It is a Nazirite thing, not Pharisee.

Well, all four sects were keen on the Law. They just understood it differently.



Well, we have the word of Epiphanius that it's based on Matthew. And mind you, I'm all for taking Epiphanius as unreliable, but then what we're left with is that we really don't know pretty much anything about those guys. Certainly not enough to connect them directly to Jesus, any more than any other sect. (They ALL claimed apostolic sources, pretty much.)

I'd say the fact that they were Jewish is significant.

Well, that and we're past the life expectancy for anyone old enough to have seen Jesus first hand anyway. So, yeah, sure. Quite right.

But then they're not better sources for a HJ than anyone else, either, if the best source they can find is in someone else's religious fiction.

Maybe their own religious writings looked enough like others to confuse someone like Epiphanius.

Well, have you read Mark? (I know, I know, his beige prose is boring.)

He doesn't tell us about a teacher (Jesus) who tells his students to not talk to outsiders. He tells us of a teacher who actually SENDS his students to tell strangers all over the place about it, but then tell those outsiders to keep the secret. And of course, all those random strangers do keep the secret.

It's quite a different proposition, really. Your inner circle of initiates keeping your secret? Eh, it happens often enough. At least for a while, anyway. Telling your secret to thousands of strangers, asking them to keep the secret, and then all them actually keep your secret? Err, no. THAT is a literal conspiracy theory.

Did you actually read this bit:

...With those, however, that have chosen the right path everyone is indeed to discuss matters pertaining to the apprehension (knowledge) of God's truth and of His righteous judgments. The purpose of such discussions is to guide the minds of the members of the community, to give them insight into God's inscrutable wonders and truth, and to bring them to walk blamelessly each with his neighbor in harmony with all that has been revealed to them. For this is the time when 'the way is being prepared in the wilderness', and it behooves them to understand all that is happening...

So once you have someone joining in, then you can tell them all about it. But they can't talk to anyone else, unless those others also join...

I would bet that they also took a big walking stick (stave) with them...

...The 'well' in question is the Law. They that 'digged' are those of Israel who repented and departed from the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus'. * God called them all 'princes' because they went in search of Him, and their glory was never gainsaid (?) by any man's mouth.22 The term mehoqeq [which can mean 'lawgiver' as well as 'stave') refers to the man who expounds the Law... As for the 'nobles of the people', these are the men that come, throughout the Era of Wickedness, to delve the well, using as their staves [Heb. mehoqeq) the statutes [Heb. huq4m) which the Law-giver prescribed [Heb. haqaq ha-mehoqeq) for them to walk in. Without such 'implements', they would, indeed, never achieve their goal until such time as the true Expositor arises at the end of days...

I'll even agree with that, really. But then he's writing religious fiction, not the kind of thing that gets mistaken for the real history, by anyone who has a better source of what actually happened. Is all I'm saying.

If their only other sources were oral traditions, then adapting a written source seems sensible to me.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think it's probable that Acts had more than one Author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autho...we.22_passages_as_fragments_of_earlier_source

Well, it's not clear WTH Luke used for sources, but yes, there's definitely the writing of more than one guy in Acts. The style changes abruptly all over the place. The trial records are another example where people talk nothing like they do out of court, often right on the previous or next page.

I disagree with your interpretation. See here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/confusions-of-pharisees-a_b_4675877.html

I don't see anything in there that contradicts Josephus about those guys being a fourth sect, or an offshoot of the Pharisees. Maybe some Essenes did switch camp to these guys, as people often do, and maybe some were even among the founders, but it's still a different sect.

It is a Nazirite thing, not Pharisee.

We don't really know WHAT the Nazirites were into, but the Pharisees were all about purification rituals too. So, since Josephus does tell us that the fourth group were agreeing with most of the Pharisee doctrine, I'm just saying, sure, it's POSSIBLE that James was a zealot.

I'd say the fact that they were Jewish is significant.

I'm not disputing that, but there's more than one group of Xian Jews that the early Xians regard as heretics. And we don't really know which came from which earlier sect, if any. It's not that easy to identify them with the Qumran Essenes just because they're Jewish

Did you actually read this bit:

So once you have someone joining in, then you can tell them all about it. But they can't talk to anyone else, unless those others also join...

I would bet that they also took a big walking stick (stave) with them...

But that's not what I'm talking about. And that's exactly the thing: Mark's Jesus talks to foreigners who don't join all the time, and even sends his apostles to talk to strangers who don't join. But he tells them to tell those strangers to keep the secret, and surprisingly enough they do.

I mean, it's not even just people who happened to see him do miracles on the street -- and also get told to keep the secret in Mark, for some weird reason -- but his Jesus actually sends his apostles to preach to total strangers.

Check out Mark 6:

7. Calling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.

8. These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.

9. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt.

10. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town.

11. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”

12. They went out and preached that people should repent.

13. They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.​

That's not exactly being secretive to strangers, is it?

If their only other sources were oral traditions, then adapting a written source seems sensible to me.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just write their oral traditions down? I mean, obviously they had at least one guy who isn't just literate enough to write stuff down, but he can even translate and adapt a gospel from Greek. Can't someone just dictate their own stories to that guy, if they actually have any? Just saying.

 

[Brainache]

Well, it's not clear WTH Luke used for sources, but yes, there's definitely the writing of more than one guy in Acts. The style changes abruptly all over the place. The trial records are another example where people talk nothing like they do out of court, often right on the previous or next page.



I don't see anything in there that contradicts Josephus about those guys being a fourth sect, or an offshoot of the Pharisees. Maybe some Essenes did switch camp to these guys, as people often do, and maybe some were even among the founders, but it's still a different sect.



We don't really know WHAT the Nazirites were into, but the Pharisees were all about purification rituals too. So, since Josephus does tell us that the fourth group were agreeing with most of the Pharisee doctrine, I'm just saying, sure, it's POSSIBLE that James was a zealot.



I'm not disputing that, but there's more than one group of Xian Jews that the early Xians regard as heretics. And we don't really know which came from which earlier sect, if any. It's not that easy to identify them with the Qumran Essenes just because they're Jewish



But that's not what I'm talking about. And that's exactly the thing: Mark's Jesus talks to foreigners who don't join all the time, and even sends his apostles to talk to strangers who don't join. But he tells them to tell those strangers to keep the secret, and surprisingly enough they do.

I mean, it's not even just people who happened to see him do miracles on the street -- and also get told to keep the secret in Mark, for some weird reason -- but his Jesus actually sends his apostles to preach to total strangers.

Check out Mark 6:

7. Calling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.

8. These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.

9. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt.

10. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town.

11. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”

12. They went out and preached that people should repent.

13. They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.​

That's not exactly being secretive to strangers, is it?



Wouldn't it make more sense to just write their oral traditions down? I mean, obviously they had at least one guy who isn't just literate enough to write stuff down, but he can even translate and adapt a gospel from Greek. Can't someone just dictate their own stories to that guy, if they actually have any? Just saying.

I think at this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not convincing you and you're not convincing me.

I'm tired now.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Fair enough.

 

[IanS]

So to repeat – what happened to the evidence for Jesus?

Why has the evidence still not been produced?

Instead of evidence, we get a load of “excellent” nonsense about imaginary non-existent gospels called Q, M and L.

Lets cut to the chase – the problem with the HJ case is that the claimed evidence really all derives from the bible. And the bible is just about as far from being a credible reliable source of any evidence of a human Jesus, as it's possible to imagine.

It needs something vastly better than the unarguably fictional beliefs of the bible.

But unfortunately it seems there is actually nothing else except the bible (see footnote).



Footnote – non-biblical writing such as that from Tacitus and Josephus cannot possibly be credible evidence of a human Jesus, because (1) none of those authors had ever known any such person as Jesus, (2) at best those authors could only have been writing hearsay from what Christians were preaching about their messiah beliefs, (3) there is no good reason to think that such writing is in any way independent of the bible and its preaching, (4) that writing is in any case 1000 years too late.

 

[Craig B]

... (see footnote)

OK I'll have a look.

Footnote – non-biblical writing such as that from Tacitus and Josephus cannot possibly be credible evidence of a human Jesus, because (1) none of those authors had ever known any such person as Jesus, (2) at best those authors could only have been writing hearsay from what Christians were preaching about their messiah beliefs, (3) there is no good reason to think that such writing is in any way independent of the bible and its preaching, (4) that writing is in any case 1000 years too late.

"Hearsay", eh? You mean the works of Josephus wouldn't be admitted as witness testimony in a court of law? How disappointing.

And the "writing" of Josephus dates to the eleventh century? Does that mean the composition is also of that date? You don't say, so nobody knows what you're talking about; but if you do mean that, then you have joined the Hardouinites, and I thought there was only one of them: dejudge. He'll be grateful for your help, no doubt.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, Josephus still has the problem that the only mention that can reasonably connected to Jesus Christ is a ridiculous interpolation. In fact, before the resurgence of MJ and needing SOME argument about it, the consensus even among the theologians was that the TF is a ridiculous interpolation.

So while we could learn something from Josephus, well, that doesn't apply to the parts that not only he didn't actually write, but even Xians who used Josephus (e.g., Origen) don't seem to have heard about until some 2 centuries later. That's not even just hearsay, that's a lie that someone put in there later.

Tacitus, well, what do you think were his sources? Maybe the Xians in Rome who were just repeating what was in gMark, also written in Rome? That's not really corroboration, since it leads to the same source.

 

[Craig B]

Well, Josephus still has the problem that the only mention that can reasonably connected to Jesus Christ is a ridiculous interpolation. In fact, before the resurgence of MJ and needing SOME argument about it, the consensus even among the theologians was that the TF is a ridiculous interpolation.

So while we could learn something from Josephus, well, that doesn't apply to the parts that not only he didn't actually write, but even Xians who used Josephus (e.g., Origen) don't seem to have heard about until some 2 centuries later. That's not even just hearsay, that's a lie that someone put in there later.

You are implying that the TF is the only reference in J's works?

Tacitus, well, what do you think were his sources? Maybe the Xians in Rome who were just repeating what was in gMark, also written in Rome? That's not really corroboration, since it leads to the same source.

Maybe? Maybe indeed. Does gMark have an account of the alleged Neronian persecution? So T must in addition have had another source for the existence of such a community, if indeed it did exist. "Maybe" that other source included an account of the origin of the movement. The non-Marcan information, as well as the extreme hostility towards Christianity exhibited by T, suggests the strong, but not of course conclusive, possibility of a non-Christian source for T's observations.

 

[IanS]

Apparently, the actual date of the earliest known writing that we actually have under the names Josephus and Tacitus, ie the material that anyone can actually read anything from, dates from about the 11th century ... and that is 1000 years too late to be considered even remotely credible as any evidence of a human Jesus that was entirely unknown to any such non-biblical authors.

So .... to repeat, because we are still waiting -

- where is the actual evidence of Jesus as a human person ever known to anyone?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You are implying that the TF is the only reference in J's works?

There's several other Jesuses in Josephus (it WAS a common name), but none of them can be linked too clearly to ours.

Maybe? Maybe indeed. Does gMark have an account of the alleged Neronian persecution? So T must in addition have had another source for the existence of such a community, if indeed it did exist. "Maybe" that other source included an account of the origin of the movement. The non-Marcan information, as well as the extreme hostility towards Christianity exhibited by T, suggests the strong, but not of course conclusive, possibility of a non-Christian source for T's observations.

Oh, Tacitus is a source for the existence of CHRISTIANS. Possibly even a primary source himself. In fact, we have plenty of corroboration around that time that CHRISTIANS existed. We also have Pliny The Elder's letter to Trajan for example, circa 112 CE.

Not so much an independent source for JESUS, though.

 

[Craig B]

Apparently, the actual date of the earliest known writing that we actually have under the names Josephus and Tacitus, ie the material that anyone can actually read anything from, dates from about the 11th century ... and that is 1000 years too late to be considered even remotely credible as any evidence of a human Jesus that was entirely unknown to any such non-biblical authors.

So .... to repeat, because we are still waiting -

- where is the actual evidence of Jesus as a human person ever known to anyone?

So you are indeed a Hardouinite. Excellent.

 

[dejudge]

....Tacitus, well, what do you think were his sources? Maybe the Xians in Rome who were just repeating what was in gMark, also written in Rome? That's not really corroboration, since it leads to the same source.

Tacitus could not have gotten anything from Christians because they were none at that time.

The word in the existing manuscripts of Tacitus Annals is CHRESTIANOS not Christianos.


It has been proven conclusively that Tacitus Annals 15.44 was manipulated,.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

All we have of the Jesus character, the disciples and Paul are 2nd century or later fiction, implausible fables, forgery and false attribution--never history.

 

[GDon]

Lets cut to the chase – the problem with the HJ case is that the claimed evidence really all derives from the bible. And the bible is just about as far from being a credible reliable source of any evidence of a human Jesus, as it's possible to imagine.

It needs something vastly better than the unarguably fictional beliefs of the bible.

But why is that? Obviously the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul had to come out from somewhere. They didn't spontaneously spring into being. Why isn't the best explanation for their existence is that they were a reaction to a crucified Jew called Jesus, whom was later thought to be resurrected by God?

Of course some other explanation may cover this, but simply saying "maybe something else" doesn't make that "something else" the best explanation. To repeat the comment from Lowder:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html

There simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus. (Just because Jesus existed does not mean that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, etc.) Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material," we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed.​

The comment that there is "nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus" is to me the starting point. Dr Carrier seems to have the only peer-reviewed theory to explain the origins of Christianity, and I personally think his theory can be rejected. And that leaves me with the low bar of the mere existence of a man named Jesus. Is there a better explanation for the origins of Christianity, IYO?

 

[David Mo]

Apparently, the actual date of the earliest known writing that we actually have under the names Josephus and Tacitus, ie the material that anyone can actually read anything from, dates from about the 11th century ... and that is 1000 years too late to be considered even remotely credible as any evidence of a human Jesus that was entirely unknown to any such non-biblical authors.

Are Josephus and Tacitus not "remotely credible" sources "as evidence" for Palestinian and Roman history? A little drastic argument.

How can we explain to IanS and dejudge that the date ante quem of a text is not necessarly the first manuscript dated? We cannot. It is their dogma.

Don't waste your time.

 

[Craig B]

But why is that? Obviously the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul had to come out from somewhere. They didn't spontaneously spring into being. Why isn't the best explanation for their existence is that they were a reaction to a crucified Jew called Jesus, whom was later thought to be resurrected by God?

The alternative is to suppose that the sources of information are all documents fabricated by gangs of forgers who invented the whole thing centuries later, for purposes known to themselves.

Paul is simply a forgery. He never wrote anything. Because he never existed. Mark is mere fiction, composed to deceive its readers. There never was an early Christian community, because "ChrEstus" appears in early sources.

Proof of all this:
If there never was any Jesus or Paul, Christianity would be proved false.
Christianity is false.
Therefore there never was any Jesus or Paul.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But why is that? Obviously the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul had to come out from somewhere. They didn't spontaneously spring into being. Why isn't the best explanation for their existence is that they were a reaction to a crucified Jew called Jesus, whom was later thought to be resurrected by God?

Why isn't the best explanation for this urban legend the existence of an actual driver who delivered a bus full of normal people to a mental hospital?

Because that explanation involves a LOT of extra entities, AND the least reliable source imaginable, short of consulting the spirits or something. Not just Jesus and his gang, or respectively the people on the crazy bus, but also a whole lot of people in the oral transmission chain have to (A) exist, and (B) not change the material.

It being maade up only needs one entity: the one who made it up.

Automatically assuming historicity in the absence of any coroboration simply fails Occam. Epically. Shaka when the walls fell, kind of epic fail.

But the even shorter version is that generally automatically believing that there's some historical event or person behind an urban legend -- because ultimately that's what "oral tradition" is -- is supported by nothing more than unwillingness to believe that people could make crap up. I.e., gullibility by any other name.

In practice, not only do we know that people have no trouble making crap up in general, but even in Christianity it's canon that we have whole gospels which are accepted as fiction. Hell, we have the whole infancy gospel genre, which is accepted even by theologians as ENTIRELY composed of fiction. Dozens of epistles making stuff up and signing it as some apostle or another. Copying a pagan text like Eugnostos into sayings of Jesus. Orally transmitted stories, like the ones in Papias, that are on top of that, because we can't find them in any gospel we know of. Etc.