The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

There is no evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth on YOU-TUBE.

You have no idea how history is done.

You have no idea what historical data looks like.

We have no contemporary manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus so as soon as you admitted that Paul was a Liar and Conman then the Pauline Corpus was reduced to historical RUBBLE--IRRECONCILABLE GARBAGE.

Please, please, please stop your nonsense.

The NT and Pauline Corpus stories of Jesus are historically worthless.

Nope, still not any more convincing. Just the usual nonsense. Where do you get your authority to make such pronouncements?

You have nothing to contribute to the thread but links to YOU-TUBE.

Where do you get the authority to make your fallacious arguments?

Dr. Ryan Cragun has merely ASSUMED the BIBLE is a credible historical source and has ASSUMED without evidence that manuscripts of the NT were composed in the 1st century.

How in the world can manuscripts of the DSS dated to the 1st century be assumed to be about characters in the NT when there are NO actual manuscripts of the NT dated BEFORE the DSS or in the 1st century?

In addition, the DSS do not acknowledge characters called Apostles or Jesus the Christ.

Any person who is familiar with the NT would know that parts of the stories of Jesus appear to have been fabricated using writings attributed to Josephus especially Acts of the Apostles and gLuke.

gLuke and Acts of the Apostles were most likely composed AFTER at least c 93 CE or AFTER Antiquities of the Jews.

It is more likely that the authors of the Gospels used the DSS to fabricate parts of their story.

 

[maximara]

"The Pauline Corpus in the Canon are NOT HERESIES."

What of the Pauline writings which are now known to be forgeries?

First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Ephesians are thought to be pseudepigraphic (basically forged) in Paul's name by the majority of scholars


The verdict on Colossians and Second Thessalonians is split.

 

[Brainache]

...
It is more likely that the authors of the Gospels used the DSS to fabricate parts of their story.

What? And then put them back in the caves? Those scrolls were sitting there in the caves undisturbed since about 70 CE, how could the gospel writers (or anyone) have used them?

The DSS describe events and people in 1st century Palestine, but unlike the bible, they wren't subject to centuries of Roman editing and re-writing.

 

[maximara]

There are also other references to James that are not from Paul, or Acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

That's just wikipedia, but it has footnotes. Basically all of the early Church chroniclers acknowledge James as the leader of the movement after Jesus' death.

WHICH James? We have three of them. Irenaeus said Jesus was an only child while Tertullian accepted James and others as actual biological brothers of Jesus. Origen is one of those who held Jesus was the only child of Mary but had brothers of a previous marriage of Joseph.

If you have that out why go to all the trouble of creating other James? The logic here is really wonky.

 

[Brainache]

WHICH James? We have three of them. Irenaeus said Jesus was an only child while Tertullian accepted James and others as actual biological brothers of Jesus. Origen is one of those who held Jesus was the only child of Mary but had brothers of a previous marriage of Joseph.

If you have that out why go to all the trouble of creating other James? The logic here is really wonky.

Well, I don't know if you noticed, but the early church is full of differing opinions about lots of things. Different people at different times come up with their own rationalisations for all manner of things.

All of these other "James" appear to be later attempts to minimise the presence of the one and only James mentioned by Paul.

 

[maximara]

Well, I don't know if you noticed, but the early church is full of differing opinions about lots of things. Different people at different times come up with their own rationalisations for all manner of things.

All of these other "James" appear to be later attempts to minimise the presence of the one and only James mentioned by Paul.

That makes no sense it was said that all the early Church fathers said James as an early leader of the Church. Acts even has a James in that role...he just is stated to be NOT Jesus brother.

Why would they want to minimize James in this manner? Go back to Corinthians 15:3–8

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me"


Note the order Jesus supposedly appeared to people, Cephas, then to the twelve, then 500 brothers (ie followers), then James, then to all apostles, and finally to Paul. Paul denotes "the twelve" as being separate from James and all the apostles. So who are these "the twelve" and why did Jesus appear to them before his own biological brother? Better question why did Jesus appear to 500 brothers (ie followers) before his own own biological brother? From the order is seems that Cephas woudl ahve been the true head of the Church as Jesus appeared to hm first. So Paul himself is minimizing James as being the 514th person Jesus appeared to.

 

[IanS]

Please think about what you are writing there. An obscure preacher is less probable than an ethereal sub lunar Jesus, not noticed for sixty years?

If you had watched that video or read Carriers book, then I think you will find that Carrier explains how that idea of gods and their various agents such as angels, demons, devils, spirits etc., all have to operate in various levels of heaven between the highest level and the earth.

That was also described in Doherty's books before Carrier wrote about it. But iirc, Carrier has explained before in much earlier YouTube interviews how various earlier historians (real historians this time, not bible scholars) have written about how various religions and mystics at that time (say 300BC-300AD) believed that the gods acted in that way through the various levels of heaven, and that they had to adopt different forms in different levels in order to interact with others there, e.g. if they descended as far down as the earth then they had to adopt "fleshy form" so as to interact with people on earth.

In those earlier YouTube films Carrier referenced several books by neutral secular academic historians who had researched that subject and written about it. And I dare say Carrier gives references to those sources in his latest book.

So although you are apparently incredulous that anyone could suggest that Paul may have regarded the actions of Jesus as taking place in a so-called "sub lunar" level of heaven, that appears to be just a matter of your ignorance being unaware that such beliefs were apparently widespread at the time.

But neither does anyone notice the stories about the ethereal Jesus for the same sixty years. And when people do start talking about him, they locate him on earth, and attribute human characteristics to him. Like "flesh" and descent from the seed of David.

People do not "locate him on earth", that sounds as if they knew him and knew he was on the earth. They did not know Jesus. Nobody knew Jesus.

People like the later gospel writers may have believed that a Jesus of past religious legend once existed on the earth. But they got those beliefs from scriptural prophecies. None of them "located" him on earth as if to mean they really had known him to be alive on earth.

You need to watch that film and/or read the book in order to see why claims about James as a brother of Jesus, claims about descent from the seed of David, claims of Paul knowing that Jesus sat with human people taking supper, etc. etc., are shown to be without foundation in anything except biblical OT & NT fiction. And while you are at it, read also Helms on how the gospel stories of Jesus were taken from the OT.

 

[Brainache]

That makes no sense it was said that all the early Church fathers said James as an early leader of the Church. Acts even has a James in that role...he just is stated to be NOT Jesus brother.

Why would they want to minimize James in this manner? Go back to Corinthians 15:3–8

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me"


Note the order Jesus supposedly appeared to people, Cephas, then to the twelve, then 500 brothers (ie followers), then James, then to all apostles, and finally to Paul. Paul denotes "the twelve" as being separate from James and all the apostles. So who are these "the twelve" and why did Jesus appear to them before his own biological brother? Better question why did Jesus appear to 500 brothers (ie followers) before his own own biological brother? From the order is seems that Cephas woudl ahve been the true head of the Church as Jesus appeared to hm first. So Paul himself is minimizing James as being the 514th person Jesus appeared to.

Have you missed all of the stuff about Paul and his conflict with James? Have you missed the point that the surviving gospels that we have reflect the Pauline traditions of the Gentile church, not the Jamesian Jewish Church?

The Ebionite followers of James called Paul "anti-Christ" and "The Enemy". The Gentile Church just gradually wrote James out of the picture as much as they could. It was a battle of propaganda and Paul's side won, likely because the Jerusalem Jewish-Christians were mostly wiped out in the Jewish revolt. Some of them fled to the east and survived for a while in small pockets as Sabaeans, Nazarenes etc. (the various "Daily Bather" cults).

 

[Brainache]

If you had watched that video or read Carriers book, then I think you will find that Carrier explains how that idea of gods and their various agents such as angels, demons, devils, spirits etc., all have to operate in various levels of heaven between the highest level and the earth.

Not in the Jewish Messiah traditions. The Messiah was not a god. The Messiah was a human descendant of David who would defeat the enemies of Israel:

It is to this that allusion is also made in the statement: 'I will exile Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun your image, the star of your God. . . beyond Damascus' [cf. Amos 5.26).

The expression 'Sikkuth your king' refers to the Books of the Law, [for the word 'Sikkuth' is to be explained from the like-sounding sukkah, 'tabernacle')** as in the passage of Scripture which says: 'I will raise up the fallen sukkah [tabernacle] of David' [Amos 9.11].

The expression 'king' denotes the congregation;28 and the expression 'Kiyyun your image' refers to the books of the prophets29 whose words the House of Israel has de-spised.80

As for the 'star', that refers to every such interpreter of the Law as indeed repairs to 'Damascus',31 even as it is written: 'There shall step forth a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel' [Num. 24.17].82 The 'sceptre', it may be added, is the leader of the community, for in the exercise of his office he shall 'batter all the sons of pride',88 as the Scripture says.

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

The Messiah was definitely supposed to be a man, a "Son Of God", just like the legendary Kings of old, not an ethereal voice in their heads...

That was also described in Doherty's books before Carrier wrote about it. But iirc, Carrier has explained before in much earlier YouTube interviews how various earlier historians (real historians this time, not bible scholars) have written about how various religions and mystics at that time (say 300BC-300AD) believed that the gods acted in that way through the various levels of heaven, and that they had to adopt different forms in different levels in order to interact with others there, e.g. if they descended as far down as the earth then they had to adopt "fleshy form" so as to interact with people on earth.

In those earlier YouTube films Carrier referenced several books by neutral secular academic historians who had researched that subject and written about it. And I dare say Carrier gives references to those sources in his latest book.

So although you are apparently incredulous that anyone could suggest that Paul may have regarded the actions of Jesus as taking place in a so-called "sub lunar" level of heaven, that appears to be just a matter of your ignorance being unaware that such beliefs were apparently widespread at the time.

Not in Zealous Jewish circles.

People do not "locate him on earth", that sounds as if they knew him and knew he was on the earth. They did not know Jesus. Nobody knew Jesus.

People like the later gospel writers may have believed that a Jesus of past religious legend once existed on the earth. But they got those beliefs from scriptural prophecies. None of them "located" him on earth as if to mean they really had known him to be alive on earth.

Except that our earliest source (Paul) definitely says that Jesus was born of a woman and descended from David etc. That means Paul said he was on earth as a human being, despite what Carrier wants you to believe.

You need to watch that film and/or read the book in order to see why claims about James as a brother of Jesus, claims about descent from the seed of David, claims of Paul knowing that Jesus sat with human people taking supper, etc. etc., are shown to be without foundation in anything except biblical OT & NT fiction. And while you are at it, read also Helms on how the gospel stories of Jesus were taken from the OT.

Carrier is simply wrong in his assertions and Helms apparently didn't say what you are claiming.

You should read Eisenman instead, he at least paints a more realistic picture of early Christianity.

 

[Craig B]

Have you missed all of the stuff about Paul and his conflict with James? Have you missed the point that the surviving gospels that we have reflect the Pauline traditions of the Gentile church, not the Jamesian Jewish Church?

Indeed, Paul goes out of his way to "minimise" James, and other disciples because Paul never knew the living Jesus, and is forced to claim that his "revelations" are superior to the reminiscences that people who knew Jesus might have reported. Here he is doing all that in Galatians 2 (again)

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Does that mean, Paul was afraid his "revealed" message from Jesus might be rejected as inauthentic by the men of "reputation", so he tried it out on them in private?

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

But not necessarily with the leaders who had other sources of information about Jesus' real message.

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

He rejects what they have to say, in favour of his own revealed messages.

Two other things to be noticed.
1. James is still trying to circumcise everyone within reach. Paul refuses and protects his own companions from this attention.
2. Acts disagrees with Paul in the matter of his first visit to Jerusalem

Acts 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

So he went there from Damascus, and explained his conversion to the apostles. Paul himself claims to have been much more aloof. He gives the apostles no credit at all.

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

In every possible way - in innumerable passages - Paul "minimises" these people who were followers of Jesus before him.

 

[IanS]

Just regarding bogus claims that Helms book does not say what I have described as it's content (a bogus claim which we have had here before from Craig) - here for those who have clearly not read the book and think they can just make stuff up about it, is a link giving a quite extensive commentary on the contents of that book and explaining how in the contents Helms shows that the gospel writers used the OT as source of their stories about Jesus, the book is even titled “Gospel Fictions” as if you needed any more clue as to what it’s theses is -

http://www.deuceofclubs.com/books/228gospel_fictions.htm

Here is a small extract from the review in that link -


Gospel Fictions
and
Who Wrote the Gospels?

Randel Helms (1988 and 1997)

A few years earlier, Horace wrote an ode in honor of the same Caesar Augustus which presents him as an incarnation of the god Mercury and outlines the typical pattern of mythical biography:

Which of the Gods now shall the people summon
To prop Rome's reeling sovereignty? . . . .
Whom shall Jupiter appoint
As instrument of our atonement? . . .
thou, (Mercury), winged boy of gentle Maia.
Put on the mortal shape of a young Roman;
Descend, and well contented to be known
As Caesar's avenger,
Stay gladly and long with Romulus's people,
Delay thy homeward, skybound journey.

Descent as son of a god appointed by the chief deity to become incarnate as a man, atonement, restoration of a sovereignty, ascension to heaven—a gospel indeed, and so like the pattern of the Christian Gospels! (24-5)

We can see this in the way Mark began his Gospel: In the prophet Isaiah it stands written: "Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you, and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness, `Prepare a way for the Lord; clear a straight path for him.'" (Mark 1:2-3)
Mark uncritically used an already-composed account of John the Baptist (whether written or oral is unclear), which was, in a remarkably free fashion, based on the Old Testament. Typically, Mark did not consult directly the text of Isaiah, for he is clearly unaware that half his quotation, supposedly from Isa. 40:3, is not from Isaiah at all, but is a misquotation of Malachi 3:1, which actually reads, "I am sending my messenger who will clear a path before me." Mark's source has used Malachi as the basis for an interpretation of John the Baptist, changed Malachi to suit his needs, and composed in the process a piece of theological fiction. The ascription to Malachi probably dropped out during oral transmission (or through scribal carelessness), and Mark uncritically repeated the error. (28-9)

Mark had used his source uncritically, not bothering to check its scriptural accuracy; but Matthew used his source—the Gospel of Mark—with a close critical eye, almost always checking its references to the Old Testament and changing them when necessary, in this case dropping the verse from Malachi wrongly attributed to Isaiah and keeping only what was truly Isaianic. (35)
But interestingly, Luke also used Psalm 2:7 in a speech composed for Paul. In Paul's theology, Jesus "was declared Son of God by a mighty act in that he rose from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). Luke apparently knew of this Pauline teaching for he has Paul quoting Psalm 2:7 as a speech uttered to Jesus at his resurrection, not at his baptism. . . . For Luke and Paul, Psalm 2:7 is a resurrection prophecy, not a baptism prophecy. Thus, unlike Matthew, Luke has no qualms about reproducing the divine speech at the baptism exactly as he found it in Mark. (38)
In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr concedes that some of his co-religionists reject the divine fathering and Virgin Birth of Jesus because they sound too much like pagan myth (Justin mentions the myth of Danae, impregnated by Zeus). (48)

As Pharaoh wants to kill Moses, who then flees the country, so Herod wants to kill Jesus, who is then carried away by his parents. After a period of hiding for the hero in both stories, the wicked king dies:

And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, "Go, depart into Egypt, for all that sought thy life are dead" (tethnekasi gar pantes hoi zetountes sou ten psychen—Ex. 4:19 LXX). When Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead" (tethnekasin gar hoi zetountes ten psychen tou paidiou)—Matt. 2:20). (57)
Still, to Nazareth he must go, for "This was to fulfill the words spoken through the prophets: `He shall be called a Nazarene'" (Matt. 2:23). There is, however, no such passage in all the Old Testament. (58)

The opening of the pericope [Luke 17:11] is clearly Luke's own invention; there is no such place as the "midst of Samaria and Galilee" (meson Samarias kai Galilaias). (68)

Matthew enriches his account with a fascinating addition about Peter's effort to copy his Lord. After the disciples recognize the figure on the water as Jesus, the impetuous Peter called to him: "Lord, if it is you, tell me to come to you over the water." "Come," said Jesus. Peter stepped down from the boat, and walked over the water to Jesus. But when he saw the strength of the gale he was seized with fear; and beginning to sink, he cried, "Save me, Lord." Jesus at once reached out and caught hold of him and said, "Why did you hesitate? How little faith you have!" They then climbed into the boat; and the wind dropped. And the men in the boat fell at his feet, exclaiming, "Truly you are the Son of God." (Matt. 14:28-33) Matthew's embellishment was probably borrowed from a Buddhist legend which appears to have made its way into the Christian oral tradition. One of the stories told by Buddhist missionaries, who were in Syria and Egypt as early as the second century B.C., similarly concerns the power of faith granted to a disciple of Buddha: A disciple who wanted to visit Buddha one evening . . . found that the ferry boat was missing from the bank of the river Aciravati. In faithful trust in Buddha he stepped into the water and went as if on dry land to the very middle of the stream. Then he came out of his contented meditation on Buddha in which he had lost himself, and saw the waves and was frightened, and his feet began to sink. But he forced himself to become wrapt in his meditation again and by its power he reached the far bank safely and reached his master. (80-1)
One of the most puzzling aspects of this first miracle in the Fourth Gospel is Jesus' rudeness to his mother: "Woman, what have I to do with you? [Ti emoi kai soi, gunai]." As has been seen before, the statement is here not a historical report but an antitype of Elijah: for the women (gune) in need of food says to the prophet, "What have I to do with thee? [ti emoi kai soi]" (III Kings 17:18 LXX). (86) ...



On the other matter where a poster here rejects (again) what Carrier says about Paul probably regarding Jesus as a figure of prophetic scripture "crucified in a sub lunar region of heaven" ... that is a matter of opinion as to whether authors like Carrier and Doherty are right about that. But what is apparently not a matter of opinion but instead a matter of indisputable fact (according to Carrier and the references he gives), is that precisely that sort of belief about the heavens was common at that time, i.e. where people believed the heavens were composed of various layers where the gods & their agents descended to various levels and assumed various different physical or spiritual forms in each layer etc. The suggestion regarding Jesus is, afaik, that Paul probably regarded Jesus as descending to a layer called "the sub lunar" where Paul's beliefs about him are played out.

Whether anyone here believes that was or was not Paul's understanding of the messiah, is a matter for their own opinion. But what Carrier and Doherty have pointed out is that there is definitely evidence of that sort of belief system in the various religions and mystical practices of that time. So there is quite definite evidence for that as a current belief system in that region at the appropriate time.

 

[Brainache]

Just regarding bogus claims that Helms book does not say what I have described as it's content (a bogus claim which we have had here before from Craig) - here for those who have clearly not read the book and think they can just make stuff up about it, is a link giving a quite extensive commentary on the contents of that book and explaining how in the contents Helms shows that the gospel writers used the OT as source of their stories about Jesus, the book is even titled “Gospel Fictions” as if you needed any more clue as to what it’s theses is -

http://www.deuceofclubs.com/books/228gospel_fictions.htm

Here is a small extract from the review in that link -


Gospel Fictions
and
Who Wrote the Gospels?

Randel Helms (1988 and 1997)

A few years earlier, Horace wrote an ode in honor of the same Caesar Augustus which presents him as an incarnation of the god Mercury and outlines the typical pattern of mythical biography:

Which of the Gods now shall the people summon
To prop Rome's reeling sovereignty? . . . .
Whom shall Jupiter appoint
As instrument of our atonement? . . .
thou, (Mercury), winged boy of gentle Maia.
Put on the mortal shape of a young Roman;
Descend, and well contented to be known
As Caesar's avenger,
Stay gladly and long with Romulus's people,
Delay thy homeward, skybound journey.

Descent as son of a god appointed by the chief deity to become incarnate as a man, atonement, restoration of a sovereignty, ascension to heaven—a gospel indeed, and so like the pattern of the Christian Gospels! (24-5)

We can see this in the way Mark began his Gospel: In the prophet Isaiah it stands written: "Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you, and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness, `Prepare a way for the Lord; clear a straight path for him.'" (Mark 1:2-3)
Mark uncritically used an already-composed account of John the Baptist (whether written or oral is unclear), which was, in a remarkably free fashion, based on the Old Testament. Typically, Mark did not consult directly the text of Isaiah, for he is clearly unaware that half his quotation, supposedly from Isa. 40:3, is not from Isaiah at all, but is a misquotation of Malachi 3:1, which actually reads, "I am sending my messenger who will clear a path before me." Mark's source has used Malachi as the basis for an interpretation of John the Baptist, changed Malachi to suit his needs, and composed in the process a piece of theological fiction. The ascription to Malachi probably dropped out during oral transmission (or through scribal carelessness), and Mark uncritically repeated the error. (28-9)

Mark had used his source uncritically, not bothering to check its scriptural accuracy; but Matthew used his source—the Gospel of Mark—with a close critical eye, almost always checking its references to the Old Testament and changing them when necessary, in this case dropping the verse from Malachi wrongly attributed to Isaiah and keeping only what was truly Isaianic. (35)

Well now you see if Helms had been familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls, he might have seen it differently:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

In the deliberative council of the community there shall be twelve laymen and three priests schooled to perfection in all that has been revealed of the entire Law. their duty shall be to set the standard for the practice of truth, righteousness and justice, and for the exercise of charity and humility in human relations; and to show how, by control of impulse and contrition of spirit, faithfulness may be maintained on earth; how, by active performance of justice and passive submission to the trials of chastisement, iniquity may be cleared, and how one can walk with all men with the quality of truth and in conduct appropriate to every occasion.

So long as these men exist in Israel, the deliberative council of the community will rest securely on a basis of truth. It will become a plant evergreen. Insofar as the laymen are concerned, it will be indeed a sanctuary; and insofar as the priesthood is concerned, it will indeed constitute the basis for a true 'holy of holies'. The members of community will be in all justice the witnesses of God's truth and the elect of His favor, effecting atonement for the earth and ensuring the requital of the wicked. They will be, indeed, a 'tested bulwark' and 'precious cornerstone' (Isaiah 28:16], which shall never be shaken or moved from their place. As for the priesthood, they shall be a seat for the holy of holies, inasmuch as all of them will then have knowledge of the Covenant of justice and all of them be qualified to offer what will be indeed 'a pleasant savor' to the Lord. And as for the laity, they will constitute a household of integrity and truth, qualified to maintain the Covenant as an everlasting pact. they shall prove acceptable to God, so that He will shrive the earth of its guilt, bring final judgment upon wickedness, and perversity shall be no more.

...

When these men exist in Israel, these are the provision whereby they are to be kept apart from any consort with froward men, to the end that they may indeed 'go into the wilderness to prepare the way' i.e., do what Scripture enjoins when it says, 'Prepare in the wilderness...make it straight in the desert a highway for our God' [Isaiah 40:3]. (The reference is to the study of the Law which God commanded through Moses to the end that, an occasion arises, all things may be done in accordance with what is revealed therein and with what the prophets also have revealed through God's holy spirit.)

Making a straight way in the wilderness is what these guys called their mission. Yes, they got it from the OT, but it wasn't invented with the gospel of Mark. It was part of this Messianic Jewish tradition.

...
In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr concedes that some of his co-religionists reject the divine fathering and Virgin Birth of Jesus because they sound too much like pagan myth (Justin mentions the myth of Danae, impregnated by Zeus). (48)

Uh huh. Yep, there were Jewish Christians who claimed Jesus was just another Prophet, like Moses or Isaiah, or Jeremiah etc, not some ethereal demi-god. They were called Ebionites, just like the DSS community:

"The wicked borrow and do not repay; 9but the righteous give generously, for those whom God blesses will inherit the earth, but: those whom He curses will be exterminated" (37:21-22).

This refers to the company of the poor, w[ho will ge]t the possessions of all [ . . . ], who will inherit the lofty mount of Is[rael and] enjoy His holy mount. ["Those whom He curses] will be exterminated": these are the cruel Jews, the w]icked of Israel who will be exterminated and destroyed forever.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q171_pesher_psalms.html

See that "the company of the poor"? The Hebrew word used there is "Ebionim", it's what they called themselves. The Greek version of that word is "Ebionites", look them up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

You are still misrepresenting Helms if you think he is saying that there was no HJ.

...
On the other matter where a poster here rejects (again) what Carrier says about Paul probably regarding Jesus as a figure of prophetic scripture "crucified in a sub lunar region of heaven" ... that is a matter of opinion as to whether authors like Carrier and Doherty are right about that. But what is apparently not a matter of opinion but instead a matter of indisputable fact (according to Carrier and the references he gives), is that precisely that sort of belief about the heavens was common at that time, i.e. where people believed the heavens were composed of various layers where the gods & their agents descended to various levels and assumed various different physical or spiritual forms in each layer etc. The suggestion regarding Jesus is, afaik, that Paul probably regarded Jesus as descending to a layer called "the sub lunar" where Paul's beliefs about him are played out.

Whether anyone here believes that was or was not Paul's understanding of the messiah, is a matter for their own opinion. But what Carrier and Doherty have pointed out is that there is definitely evidence of that sort of belief system in the various religions and mystical practices of that time. So there is quite definite evidence for that as a current belief system in that region at the appropriate time.

They haven't provided any evidence of that kind of thing amongst the Messianic Judaism of the Second Temple period. There is lots of evidence for human Messiah claimants amongst that population, but no sub-lunar demigods. Sorry.

 

[waters]

Which is why I don't understand why there is this near (for lack of a better word) obsession with Paul being a fictional character. Paul doesn't bring anything really substantial to the historical Jesus table. So why in the name of sanity over complicate the Christ Myth theory by claiming Paul is a fictional character as well as Jesus?

First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Ephesians are thought to be pseudepigraphic (basically forged) in Paul's name by the majority of scholars

The verdict on Colossians and Second Thessalonians is split.

A link to one or more of these "authorities" would be appreciated.

Like Jimmy Olsen, the newspaper reporter, in Superman, Paul is a fictional character, a reporter/chronicler, in a work of utter fantasy, unless you have evidence to the contrary. So far as I am aware, and I may be wrong, and look forward to your correction, the first authority to comment on Paul's text is Irenaeus, writing at the end of the second century CE.

For all I know Irenaeus' own text may also be a complete fabrication. Do you have a link to Irenaeus' original Greek text, or just a link to some moth-eaten Latin translation of his? What, you are not going to cite P46 as evidence, universally contested, palaeographic assessment, that Paul's epistles existed before the end of the second century, are you?

http://www.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul/features.html

 

[Craig B]

A link to one or more of these "authorities" would be appreciated.

A description of this consensus is easily found. If you don't believe it exists, well fine.

Like Jimmy Olsen, the newspaper reporter, in Superman, Paul is a fictional character, a reporter/chronicler, in a work of utter fantasy, unless you have evidence to the contrary. So far as I am aware, and I may be wrong, and look forward to your correction, the first authority to comment on Paul's text is Irenaeus, writing at the end of the second century CE.

For all I know Irenaeus' own text may also be a complete fabrication. Do you have a link to Irenaeus' original Greek text, or just a link to some moth-eaten Latin translation of his? What, you are not going to cite P46 as evidence, universally contested, palaeographic assessment, that Paul's epistles existed before the end of the second century, are you?

http://www.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul/features.html

Your own ideas enjoy less consensus. Jesus didn't exist, he's merely invented by Paul; but wait, Paul was invented by Irenaeus, who didn't exist because we don't have his works in the original.

And of course there's no way of telling when a work was composed except palaeography. We've had great stuff here, like P46 having "K..g ...." in a lacuna, where later mss agree on "King Aretas". Not only can we not be confident, it is stated, that Aretas was named in P46 (which I think we can) but we can't even be sure of the "sil" in "ba...eos" and have to propose that a scribe wrote "ba ... eos" and then three centuries later another wrote in "Aretas ..sil...".

Absurdity can't be carried to a greater extreme, unless it were to assert that in the absence of early ms material corresponding to the internal evidence of its date, a text must necessarily be declared to be a fictional concoction of utter fantasy.

 

[dejudge]

A description of this consensus is easily found. If you don't believe it exists, well fine. Your own ideas enjoy less consensus. Jesus didn't exist, he's merely invented by Paul; but wait, Paul was invented by Irenaeus, who didn't exist because we don't have his works in the original.

What nonsense!!!

There is zero mention of Paul of Tarsus or Paul the Pharisee in all non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

All we have of Paul are fiction stories in manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

The existing Pauline Corpus are completely useless as evidence for an historical Jesus who supposedly lived in the time of Pilate.

In addition there are MULTIPLE variants of the Pauline Corpus so it would be virtually impossible to know which one is original or what the original contained.

 

[IanS]

As a final remark on both what Helms shows in his book, and what Carrier explains in his book where afaik Carrier agrees with what Doherty had written earlier, saying that Paul probably regarded the activities of Jesus inc. his death, as occurring in a sub-lunar level of the heavens -

First re. Helms - iirc in that book Helms says nothing about whether he regards Jesus as real or not. That is not the actual subject of the book. In fact, I said exactly that here when I first drew attention to Helms book, and iirc it was Max who replied to me saying that Helms had stated elsewhere that he is in fact doubtful of the existence of Jesus (though personally I don't know what Helms has said or what he thinks about the existence of Jesus) ...

... however, what that book, "Gospel Fictions", is about is showing that the gospel stories of Jesus were fictional inventions taken from various parts of the OT as well as (iirc) from other religious and "scriptural" writing of the pre-gospel era.

What the book shows, and what Helms is very clearly pointing out in that book, is that far from being any evidence of a living human Jesus, the gospel stories of Jesus are fictional constructs taken from the OT. That's really not deniable. And frankly anyone who tries to deny that such a book, actually entitled "Gospel Fictions", is anything other than a crystal clear demonstration of how the gospel stories of Jesus are "fictional", is not someone who has any credibility left in what they say.

Secondly re. Carrier and the so-called "sub lunar" - as I have said here countless times, I have not read Carriers book, so I don't know how he describes that sub-lunar explanation for Paul's visionary descriptions of Jesus. Max does have a copy of the book, so perhaps he can describe exactly what Carrier says about that. However, that particular book is a peer-reviewed university press publication in this field, so when Carrier gives that explanation in his book, that explanation and it's original-source references, have all been checked by academic reviewers in this field, so it is not a crazy idea, and it cannot be dismissed just by amateurs posting on the internet saying "well I have not heard of such ideas being part of Jewish belief before in that region", and especially it cannot be credibly dismissed like that by people who have not even read the book.

All I am saying about that is - in the book Carrier does explain why that idea is more than credible, and is, in his "expert" peer-reviewed and fully referenced submission, the most likely explanation for the way Paul in particular wrote about his visionary belief in Jesus. In which respect as Carrier and almost all other sceptical authors for the past 100 years have noticed; in Paul's letters there really is no description at all of Jesus as a figure that Paul clearly places on earth as a human preacher ...

... in fact as Ellegard pointed out in a much earlier book (which I have referenced here many times), on the two or three extremely brief occasions where Paul appears to describe Jesus in an earthly setting, such as the "Last Supper" which we just discussed, Paul always says that his account is known to him "according to scripture" or as "I received from the Lord". There is actually no account of an earthly human Jesus known to anyone in Paul's letters. And what Paul believed about that Jesus ", was that he was communicating only with a divine spirit from the heavens.

 

[waters]

Your own ideas enjoy less consensus. Jesus didn't exist, he's merely invented by Paul; but wait, Paul was invented by Irenaeus, who didn't exist because we don't have his works in the original.

I deny expressing the thought that a fictional character, "Paul" invented another fictional character, "Jesus of Nazareth".

I am suggesting that Mark wrote the first text. His work was modified by Matthew, whose text had been encountered by Justin Martyr, middle of first century CE.

Justin's quotes correspond very closely to those found in Matthew. I am unaware of any quotes in Justin's Apology or Dialogue with Trypho, that correspond to the quotes attributed to Paul, found in the Latin version of Irenaeus, (there being no Greek version extant today).

Had the epistles existed at the time of Justin Martyr, I believe he would have referenced them, as he referenced the incipient collection of gospels: Memoirs of the Apostles.

For "Paul" to have been a genuine living human being, and not a fictional character, one need only furnish an account of his life, from a source not affiliated with the church. There are several Greek and Latin historians of the first two centuries. Justin Martyr isn't the only one who fails to mention "Paul". I simply find it odd, that someone of such supposed significance, should have zero attestation from anyone, until the end of the second century.

 

[maximara]

A link to one or more of these "authorities" would be appreciated.

Wiki give this:
The Deutero-Pauline Letters by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

Carrier also gives physical books as references in OHJ for this which ironically two of which are authored by the person one of the original threads was about: Ehrman.

They are Forged 2011 and Forgery and Counterforgery 2014

There are also relevant chapters by Ehrman in The New Interpreter's Bible 2006

We also get I Michael White From Jesus to Christianity

These are just the tip of the general consensus.

For "Paul" to have been a genuine living human being, and not a fictional character, one need only furnish an account of his life, from a source not affiliated with the church. There are several Greek and Latin historians of the first two centuries. Justin Martyr isn't the only one who fails to mention "Paul". I simply find it odd, that someone of such supposed significance, should have zero attestation from anyone, until the end of the second century.

The problem with this as I pointed out before using material from James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed (1985) (as Carrier's book wasn't averrable at that time as a handy reference) is that Christians themselves were the ones preserving much of this material.

To be fair to the Christians the hand copying of works was a tedious process where just one book could take a year to copy. So they had to be selective about what they copied; they simply could NOT copy everything. Also what they had to copy varied from monastery to monastery.

Even when the Christians did bother to copy something you had the problems of actually knowing it was copied and where it was.

There wasn't enough knowledge in any one monastery to separate the works into separate subjects or categories. Texts had their titles inscribed on page edges or on the first page of the book, and those titles often said little about the contents of the text. Worst of all the "library" was more often then not a spare room where anything extra got dumped a "medieval Higgledy-piggledy" as Burke puts it. Burke's example, Sermones Bonventurae (Sermons of St. Bonaventure) shows just what kind of mess things were. This book could be

Sermons composed by St Bonaventure of Fidenza

Sermons composed by somebody called Bonaventure

Sermons copied by a Bonaventure

Sermons copied by somebody belonging to church of St. Bonaventure

Sermons preached by a Bonaventure

Sermons once owned by a Bonaventure

Sermons once owned by church of St. Bonaventure

Sermons by various people of whom the first or most important was by somebody called Bonaventure--the rest of the book? No clue.

In fact, things were such a mess than many works were "saved from the mildew and the rats" only because Renaissance got an interest in the Classical world and was going after any copy of Greek and Roman works they could get their hands on. One man (Aldus Manutius) made it his mission to publish every Greek classic known and it thanks to him that we have as much as we do regarding the ancient myths, stories, and accounts of the Greeks and Romans as we do.

Even with this mammoth endeavor the Renaissance publishers missed works that were found centuries later. For example, Books IV–X of Hippolytus' Refutation of all Heresies was found in a monastery of Mount Athos in 1842!


So even if some monastery had works regarding the mundane life of Paul and deciding copying it was a good idea you have the issue of them even knowing they had it to continue to preserve it. On top of that not all monasteries survived to the time of the Renaissance to be preserved via printing and as seen with Hippolytus even then they didn't get everything.

So this idea that 'there is nothing non Christian on Paul so he is fiction' is nonsense.

 

[IanS]

And just a bit more on the above, answering the question of why Carrier's description of a sub-lunar death of Jesus, as believed by Paul (in Carriers submission), is perfectly plausible, and explained by Carrier in his book with full academic references and academic peer-review publishing, and why it's absurdly ignorant for anyone here to claim that Carrier must be wrong because HJ believers here claim there is no history or example of Jews in that region having such beliefs about the gods and their messengers acting through the various levels of the heavens, here is a shorter YouTube film of a very recent talk by Carrier addressing precisely this point of how in that latest book he explains that there was in fact early Christian and pre-Christian Jewish belief of the gods acting in that way through their agents in the various sub-layers of heaven, and explaining how and why Paul's description of Jesus does in fact fit with that idea of Paul believing Jesus was a figure crucified in a sub-level of heaven and not actually crucified as a normal human preacher at any time on earth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo

 

[Brainache]

Wiki give this:
The Deutero-Pauline Letters by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

Carrier also gives physical books as references in OHJ for this which ironically two of which are authored by the person one of the original threads was about: Ehrman.

They are Forged 2011 and Forgery and Counterforgery 2014

There are also relevant chapters by Ehrman in The New Interpreter's Bible 2006

We also get I Michael White From Jesus to Christianity

These are just the tip of the general consensus.

If he's really interested he could contact the History Department of a big University and talk to a History Professor:
http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/2014/Units/PGUnit/ECJS853
http://sydney.edu.au/courses/uos/BBCL2609/historical-jesus-to-written-gospels
https://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=9172

A quick google would probably find a uni near you that teaches this stuff...