The Historical Jesus II

[Craig B]

It took you a long time to post EXACTLY what you said.

How naughty of me.

Again, what you said displays intellectual dishonesty.

In the Pliny letter to Trajan he TORTURED some of the Christians to find out what those Christians believed which demonstrates that he was interested in any detail the TORTURED victims would give.

It is intellectually dishonest to say Pliny "explicitly states he doesn't give a toss about such details"

The Tortured victims did not mention a character called Jesus of Nazareth and did not mention they worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as a God.

Your recording device has muddled up Pliny's letter too, it seems. Here's what he wrote

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.

So he was interested in the fact of their meetings to determine if they were an illegal association. He tells us in plain unmistakable words words that he tortured the deaconesses because the emperor had ordered him to suppress political associations, and he needed to find out if this movement fell into that category.

Now suppose they had told him they worshipped a peripatetic Galilean preacher and exorcist as God; would he have sent that detail of idiotic delusion to Trajan? Of course not. If the poor women had spouted balderdash of that order, Pliny would have told Trajan this, I think: "I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition". And that is what he did tell him.

 

[dejudge]

How naughty of me. Your recording device has muddled up Pliny's letter too, it seems. Here's what he wrote So he was interested in the fact of their meetings to determine if they were an illegal association. He tells us in plain unmistakable words words that he tortured the deaconesses because the emperor had ordered him to suppress political associations, and he needed to find out if this movement fell into that category.

You still display intellectual dishonesty. It is claimed that Pliny TORTURED some of the Christians to find out the REAL TRUTH.

I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.

The REAL TRUTH was "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition " but NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth [a man with a human father].

The Pliny letter is completely useless in the argument for an historical Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

You still display intellectual dishonesty. It is claimed that Pliny TORTURED some of the Christians to find out the REAL TRUTH.



The REAL TRUTH was "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition " but NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth [a man with a human father].

The Pliny letter is completely useless in the argument for an historical Jesus.

It is utterly pointless to waste time replying to such observations.

 

[dejudge]

It is utterly pointless to waste time replying to such observations.

You still display intellectual dishonesty. You deviate very far from the real truth

It is claimed in the letter that Pliny was interested in the REAL TRUTH and TORTURED some deaconesses.

The REAL TRUTH after Torture was "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition"

The REAL TRUTH after Torture is that the Pliny letter to Trajan is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Craig B]

The REAL TRUTH after Torture is that the Pliny letter to Trajan is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

You mean if people are tortured, they will admit that the Pliny letter is not evidence for a historical Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

You mean if people are tortured, they will admit that the Pliny letter is not evidence for a historical Jesus?

I mean that the Pliny letter to Trajan about Christians is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth BEFORE and AFTER EXECUTION and TORTURE.

The Pliny letter to Trajan does not mention Jesus of Nazareth and does not claim the Christians worshiped Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny discovered "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

 

[maximara]

What? Accepting that episodes in the gospels are not all authentically about Jesus is basic modern HJ thinking.

Not to the people who did the 1982 and 1995 editions of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

"The author of the section on Jesus expressly states "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

Not man but the story of and this is NOT some self published apologist writing near the dawn of the 20th century but a scholar writing for a supposedly scholar publisher for a book edited in 1982 and 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley who died in 2009!

From a scholarly point of view the passage under Jesus (starting page 1034 in the E-J volume) is just painful to read.

Not just because it throws things like Thallus (he is in fact listed as the first example of a "Roman witness") but because the section on Jesus effectively is a rambling mess moving from one topic to the next with little logic of concern to the reader until page 1049 when that part end...and then you get "Jesus, Arrest and Trial of" until 1055.

 

[IanS]

How naughty of me. Your recording device has muddled up Pliny's letter too, it seems. Here's what he wrote So he was interested in the fact of their meetings to determine if they were an illegal association. He tells us in plain unmistakable words words that he tortured the deaconesses because the emperor had ordered him to suppress political associations, and he needed to find out if this movement fell into that category.

Now suppose they had told him they worshipped a peripatetic Galilean preacher and exorcist as God; would he have sent that detail of idiotic delusion to Trajan? Of course not. If the poor women had spouted balderdash of that order, Pliny would have told Trajan this, I think: "I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition". And that is what he did tell him.

Craig - where on earth is there supposed to be any evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone in all this stuff about Pliny and Trajan?

There is zero evidence there of anyone knowing any human Jesus.

You are as usual completely wasting everyone's time with irrelevant diversions wittering on & on about people like Pliny and Trajan as if that would somehow miraculously conjure up your claimed evidence of Jesus.

 

[tsig]

Craig - where on earth is there supposed to be any evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone in all this stuff about Pliny and Trajan?

There is zero evidence there of anyone knowing any human Jesus.

You are as usual completely wasting everyone's time with irrelevant diversions wittering on & on about people like Pliny and Trajan as if that would somehow miraculously conjure up your claimed evidence of Jesus.

Apparently the evidence is in those parts of the bible the HJers say is true, unfortunately they don't tell us how to tell the true parts.

 

[Craig B]

I mean that the Pliny letter to Trajan about Christians is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth BEFORE and AFTER EXECUTION and TORTURE.

The Pliny letter to Trajan does not mention Jesus of Nazareth and does not claim the Christians worshiped Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny discovered "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

He claims THEY worshipped Christ. He knew what a "christ" was. He wasn't interested in who their version of Christ was. If they had told him ABOUT Jesus being the Christ he would HAVE dismissed that as depraved superstition. dejudge I hope this is the very last time I am GOING to have to repeat this elementary point.

The people under torture must HAVE said something that Pliny dismissed as excessive superstition. Do you imagine THAT they literally said to him: "Our religion consists of depraved and excessive superstition"? It seems you do imagine that, WHICH is very sad.

 

[Brainache]

...
From a scholarly point of view the passage under Jesus (starting page 1034 in the E-J volume) is just painful to read.

Not just because it throws things like Thallus (he is in fact listed as the first example of a "Roman witness") but because the section on Jesus effectively is a rambling mess moving from one topic to the next with little logic of concern to the reader until page 1049 when that part end...and then you get "Jesus, Arrest and Trial of" until 1055.

Well, I guess that's why I wouldn't use their definitions for anything. They obviously are more interested in propounding the truth of the gospels than investigating history.

At least The Jesus Seminar made an attempt to look like they were doing History as opposed to that kind of Apologetics.

In his day, Strauss had to offer evidence to question the historicity of any part of the gospels because his audience assumed that the gospels were historical. Today, the assumption is nearly the opposite, with the gospels understood to be so thoroughly embellished that one needs evidence to suppose that anything in them is historical...

The Fellows used a voting system to evaluate the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. For certain high-profile passages the votes were embodied in beads, the color of which represented the degree of confidence that a saying or act was or was not authentic:

Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)
A confidence value was determined from the voting using a weighted average of the points given for each bead; the text was color-coded from red to black (with the same significance as the bead colors) according to the outcome of the voting.[24]

...
The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes.[4]

Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1–14).

Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black".

Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17–19).

Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31–46) was voted black[clarification needed] because the fellows saw it as representing Matthew's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.

So were the Jesus Seminar Fellows Mythicists? They thought that the gospels contain material that was not Historical (Although I don't think a vote is the best way to decide these things). If your definition includes these guys as "Mythicists" it is useless.

 

[maximara]

The HJers have watered down their Jesus to an unknown itinerant Jewish preacher more myth than reality yet still insist they believe in an historical Jesus as witnessed in the bible.

More over the HJer crowd tends to gloss over the fact that much of the material we have was do to the efforts of Christian copyists so we aren't exactly getting an unbiased sampling of what was around at that time.

Another thing the HJer crowd avoid is the references to works the Christians didn't bother saving though copying. The stuff critical to their faith not getting copying makes sense but what of the other things?

Why were three of the five volumes of Philo's Embassy to Gaius not saved? It contained a detailed account of Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea and if Jesus was anywhere as popular as the Gospels claim he was Philo would have noted it.

In fact, Eusebius in the 4th century claimed "that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

The HJ crowd often derides the arguments of silence by saying a person like Philo would have no reason to know of Jesus...so why does Eusebius tell us Philo has a chat with Peter in Rome some time between 41 and 50 CE?

More over if Christianity was in Rome that early why doesn't Josephus or Pliny the Elder note it?

I tend to call the arguments of silence the problem of the dog in the night (after an incident in the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze) and it is a problem despite the way the HJ crowd tries to blow it off.

Everything we have point to Christianity in the 1st century being a very small and very secret movement. But if it was that clandecent why would anyone notice Jesus to the point of having him crucified? Greco-Roman mystery cults were a dime a dozen so what would draw the Roman's attention to this one over all the others in the area?

 

[dejudge]

He claims THEY worshipped Christ. He knew what a "christ" was. He wasn't interested in who their version of Christ was. If they had told him ABOUT Jesus being the Christ he would HAVE dismissed that as depraved superstition. dejudge I hope this is the very last time I am GOING to have to repeat this elementary point.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. It is claimed Pliny wanted to know the "REAL TRUTH".

Your assumption is worthless.

Tell us what you imagine would have happened if they told him Christ came down from heaven without birth?

Tell us what you speculate would have happened if they had told him the Christ was the Son of a Ghost?

Tell us what you believe would have happened if the TORTURED victims admitted they worshiped a man as a God?

By the way, I am obligated [it is mandatory] to expose your intellectual dishonesty without delay.

The people under torture must HAVE said something that Pliny dismissed as excessive superstition. Do you imagine THAT they literally said to him: "Our religion consists of depraved and excessive superstition"? It seems you do imagine that, WHICH is very sad.

What do you imagine?

In the Pliny letter, the REAL TRUTH after Torture was "depraved and excessive superstition".

 

[Brainache]

More over the HJer crowd tends to gloss over the fact that much of the material we have was do to the efforts of Christian copyists so we aren't exactly getting an unbiased sampling of what was around at that time.

Another thing the HJer crowd avoid is the references to works the Christians didn't bother saving though copying. The stuff critical to their faith not getting copying makes sense but what of the other things?

Why were three of the five volumes of Philo's Embassy to Gaius not saved? It contained a detailed account of Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea and if Jesus was anywhere as popular as the Gospels claim he was Philo would have noted it.

In fact, Eusebius in the 4th century claimed "that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

The HJ crowd often derides the arguments of silence by saying a person like Philo would have no reason to know of Jesus...so why does Eusebius tell us Philo has a chat with Peter in Rome some time between 41 and 50 CE?

More over if Christianity was in Rome that early why doesn't Josephus or Pliny the Elder note it?

I tend to call the arguments of silence the problem of the dog in the night (after an incident in the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze) and it is a problem despite the way the HJ crowd tries to blow it off.

Everything we have point to Christianity in the 1st century being a very small and very secret movement. But if it was that clandecent why would anyone notice Jesus to the point of having him crucified? Greco-Roman mystery cults were a dime a dozen so what would draw the Roman's attention to this one over all the others in the area?

I don't know who these HJ people are you are talking about, certainly not me. I've mentioned Philo several times. I think it's possible that those missing works of Philo contained material that was anathema to the later Church and that is why it wasn't preserved.

I mean if Philo had said that Jesus was a failed Apocalyptic false messiah, those books would have been destroyed.

I also think Josephus has been tampered with for the same reason. He calls all of these Messiah wannabes "Innovators" and "Deceivers" who brought about the destruction of the Temple etc. Any such reference to Jesus as a false Prophet would likewise have been destroyed as soon as the church had the power to do so.

So please don't lump me in with your straw HJ crowd.

 

[Craig B]

Why were three of the five volumes of Philo's Embassy to Gaius not saved? It contained a detailed account of Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea and if Jesus was anywhere as popular as the Gospels claim he was Philo would have noted it.

So the Gospel Jesus didn't exist? Wow!

In fact, Eusebius in the 4th century claimed "that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

Eusebius, eh? Wow!

The HJ crowd often derides the arguments of silence by saying a person like Philo would have no reason to know of Jesus...so why does Eusebius tell us Philo has a chat with Peter in Rome some time between 41 and 50 CE?

Wait, let me think ... OK, try this. Eusebius was a Christian trying to inflate the importance of Peter.

More over if Christianity was in Rome that early why doesn't Josephus or Pliny the Elder note it?

Because it wasn't there, or wasn't important, or still had the character of an obscure sect within the Jewish community. It is most improbable that Peter was ever in Rome, even though St Peter's and St John Lateran each have a skull belonging to him.

Everything we have point to Christianity in the 1st century being a very small and very secret movement. But if it was that clandecent why would anyone notice Jesus to the point of having him crucified? Greco-Roman mystery cults were a dime a dozen so what would draw the Roman's attention to this one over all the others in the area?

You've got to be kidding. If Jesus initiated any kind of disturbance in the Temple during Passover, he would have been nailed up pronto. Dime a dozen? The Romans executed people by more than dozens, and all but a tiny number of them have been completely forgotten.

 

[Brainache]

Craig - where on earth is there supposed to be any evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone in all this stuff about Pliny and Trajan?

There is zero evidence there of anyone knowing any human Jesus.

You are as usual completely wasting everyone's time with irrelevant diversions wittering on & on about people like Pliny and Trajan as if that would somehow miraculously conjure up your claimed evidence of Jesus.

This Pliny and Trajan stuff came up because Max said that Christianity didn't really get going until after the Bar Kokhba revolt (ca 130 CE). Pliny wrote his letter to Trajan about 20 years before that and mentioned ex-Christians who said they left the group 20 years earlier. So the point was that Christianity had already spread a long way 40 years before Bar Kokhba.

 

[Craig B]

This Pliny and Trajan stuff came up because Max said that Christianity didn't really get going until after the Bar Kokhba revolt (ca 130 CE). Pliny wrote his letter to Trajan about 20 years before that and mentioned ex-Christians who said they left the group 20 years earlier. So the point was that Christianity had already spread a long way 40 years before Bar Kokhba.

Thank you Brainache. The current point at issue is the early existence of the Church. Trajan's testimony pushes it back to the eighties, assuming his informants weren't deceiving him. That has implications for the date of Paul, for example. So, not second century. And not 100 BCE either, it seems to me.

 

[dejudge]

I don't know who these HJ people are you are talking about, certainly not me. I've mentioned Philo several times. I think it's possible that those missing works of Philo contained material that was anathema to the later Church and that is why it wasn't preserved.

I mean if Philo had said that Jesus was a failed Apocalyptic false messiah, those books would have been destroyed.

Your statement is logically fallacious.

Christian writings do contain arguments against Skeptics of antiquity and made references to non-apologetic writings which showed the Jesus stories were a pack of Lies.

For example, we have references to writings WHICH EXPOSED the Jesus story as fiction in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, "Against the Galileans" attributed to the Emperor Julian, "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius, Porphyry "Against the Christians, and the Apocritus attributed to Macarius Magnes.


Against the Galileans

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

I also think Josephus has been tampered with for the same reason. He calls all of these Messiah wannabes "Innovators" and "Deceivers" who brought about the destruction of the Temple etc. Any such reference to Jesus as a false Prophet would likewise have been destroyed as soon as the church had the power to do so.

So please don't lump me in with your straw HJ crowd.

We have reference to writings attributed to Hierocles where he wrote that the stories of Jesus were VAMPED up by men who were LIARS like Peter and Paul.

Against Hierocles

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards....

If Philo or Josephus made negative claims about Jesus of Nazareth then we would expect Church writers to address them and attempt to discredit Philo and Josephus.

 

[Brainache]

...
If Philo or Josephus made negative claims about Jesus of Nazareth then we would expect Church writers to address them and attempt to discredit Philo and Josephus.

I'm not so sure about that. These Christian Apologists only ever seem to address arguments that they think they can refute easily. It would be a lot harder for them to refute someone like Philo if he claimed to have personal contact with those "Pillars" of the early church. Philo knew enough about the state of the Jewish religion to put up some sophisticated rebuttals to the early Christians, if he wanted to.

Of course I don't know if he actually did that, because the books where any such arguments would have been written no longer exist.

 

[Craig B]

Philo knew enough about the state of the Jewish religion to put up some sophisticated rebuttals to the early Christians, if he wanted to.

Of course I don't know if he actually did that, because the books where any such arguments would have been written no longer exist.

Almost certainly he did not. Philo died in 50 CE. Too early for such works.