The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

NOPE.

Where did Mark obtain the name, because Mark wrote first, as we know from reading Justin Martyr, who cites, without reference, several passages that correspond most closely to Matthew, the writer who in turn, used Mark as a source.

"Paul" doesn't appear on the scene until the late second century, when his epistles are referenced by the Bishop of Lugdunum, who conveniently had traveled to Rome, on that very day, when the Roman army captured Irenaeus' predecessor, Pothinus, and executed him, for having committed the crime of practicing Christianity. Was Irenaeus not guilty of the same practices as Pothinus?

Actually that is not entirely true as we have other references to Paul before 180 CE:

"By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed..."
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle." - First Clement (c80-c140)

The seven writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d 98 to 117 CE) contain references to Paul

"In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus. Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them. Indeed, it seems that the Dialogue provides a perfect occasion for him to employ Paul because in it he addresses the relationship between Judaism and the church, a central topic in both Romans and Galatians. Besides the appearance of Pauline quotations, several of Justin's arguments directly rely on Paul's thinking. For example, Justin probably has Galatians 3 before him as he composes Dialogue 95–96. Oskar Skarsaune's analysis of Justin's writing also indicates that Romans is one of Justin's preferred sources for quotations of the Jewish scriptures; that is, he sometimes quotes the Jewish scriptures as they appear in Paul rather the LXX. He draws especially from the Jewish scriptures quoted in Romans 2–4 and 9–11 because the chapters examine the problem of Torah and the Jews' rejection of the gospel, also two important issues in the Dialogue." - Rodney Werline (1999). The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Harvard Theological Review, 92, pp 79-93. doi:10.1017/S0017816000017867.

Marcion of Sinope's heretical bible of c140 supposedly used Paul's writings and credited what came to be known as Luke to Paul.

So we have possible references to Paul way before the "late second century" date presented.

 

[Craig B]

Actually that is not entirely true as we have other references to Paul before 180 CE:

"By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed..."
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle." - First Clement (c80-c140)

The seven writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d 98 to 117 CE) contain references to Paul

Unless you can produce manuscripts of these works datable to the first-early second century, the Paulino-mythicists will simply do a Hardouin and declare these compositions to be later forgeries, perpetrated for unknown purposes by unidentifiable packs of madmen.

It's not easy to argue with that.

 

[Craig B]

This is like some bizarre cult. Not since Khrushchev denounced Stalin have we seen exaltation of the wisdom of a great Thinker carried to such fantastic lengths. I'm glad at least that these effusions are now concentrated in a single thread.

Moreover, there is absolutely no need for them. If we want bombastic promotion of Carrier's supreme wisdom, and the unworthiness of his opponents, we need only look at Carrier's own work. Here, for example.

 

[dejudge]

Actually that is not entirely true as we have other references to Paul before 180 CE..

Actually, your statement is not true. You don't know who actually wrote any of the Epistles under the name of Paul.

The Pauline Corpus was a product of multiple authors pretending to be Paul AND ALL manuscripts which make references to "Paul" are actually DATED AFTER Papyri 46 or AFTER 175-225 CE.

The earliest manuscripts or Codex of Clement and Ignatius are from the 4th century or later.

In addition, the writings attributed to Ignatius and Clement do not claim anywhere that their Paul wrote letters to Churches c 50-60 CE.

Essentially, the writings attributed to Ignatius and Clement are completely useless to date any letter in the Pauline Corpus before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

 

[dejudge]

"In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus. Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them.

Justin quotes the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels--NOT the Pauline Corpus.

In fact, the writings attributed to Justin show no knowledge of Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Corpus and ALL other Epistles.

It is not only the writings attributed to Justin which show the Pauline Corpus were not composed in the 1st century.

The short gMark, the Apocalypse of John [Revelation], the Muratorian Canon, Celsus' "True Discourse", Municius Felix, Hippolytus' Refutation Against All Heresies and Ephraem's "Against Marcion" are evidence against early Pauline Corpus.

In Ephraem's "Against Marcion" not one verse from the Pauline Corpus was mentioned.

The Pauline Corpus is a product of fiction, forgery or false attribution and is historically bogus.

 

[Craig B]

@ maximara

What did I predict? I must have supernatural powers vouchsafed unto me by Divine Providence! I foresaw that

Unless you can produce manuscripts of these works datable to the first-early second century, the Paulino-mythicists will simply do a Hardouin and declare these compositions to be later forgeries, perpetrated for unknown purposes by unidentifiable packs of madmen.

Verily it came to pass even as I spake unto you.

The Pauline Corpus was a product of multiple authors pretending to be Paul AND ALL manuscripts which make references to "Paul" are actually DATED AFTER Papyri 46 or AFTER 175-225 CE.

The earliest manuscripts or Codex of Clement and Ignatius are from the 4th century or later.

 

[dejudge]

@ maximara

What did I predict? I must have supernatural powers vouchsafed unto me by Divine Providence! I foresaw that Verily it came to pass even as I spake unto you.

It is most fascinating that you claim to have supernatural powers after having read my previous posts.

It would appear that Pauline writers did the same thing.

It was REVEALED to Paul that Jesus, the Lord from heaven and God Creator, supped with his disciples.

There is a problem.

Jesus the Lord from heaven and God Creator is a fiction character.

Most Atheists argue that God Creator is a MYTH.

Jesus is a myth/fiction character based on the Ghost stories called the New Testament.

Craig B if you are a prophet tell us when you will find evidence for YOUR HJ?

 

[IanS]

@ maximara

What did I predict? I must have supernatural powers vouchsafed unto me by Divine Providence! I foresaw that Verily it came to pass even as I spake unto you.

You did not need, and do not have, any supernatural powers, or even any unusual insight into anything others might say here.

Dejudge has already said here 100's of times that Paul's letters date from after 175-225AD. And also said that writing under the names of Clement and Ignatius dates from 4th century and later, and does not in any case say that Paul wrote letters around 50-60AD

Dejudge has said that many hundreds of times here already. So you were not exactly showing any special talent to predict that he would say that in reply to Max effectively saying the opposite.

I don't know if dejudge is right about those dates or not. But what is apparently agreed even by Christian bible scholars, is that little if any of that non-biblical writing which has historically been said to date from as early as the late 1st or early 2nd century, is in in fact actually known from anywhere near such early dates. Instead in it's extant forms, i.e. the only form where we can possibly know what was actually written, it is invariably many centuries later than the early dates that were almost always quoted.

The very late appearance of those extant copies might not have been a problem and might not have raised suspicions, except for the fact that it was subsequently discovered, and agreed even by Christian bible scholars and theologians, that (1)the very late copyists were invariably Christians themselves, and (2)those late copyists (almost certainly a very long chain of very many different anonymous copyists), were apparently in the frequent habit of altering any passages about Jesus wherever they decided they did not like what was originally written ....

.... which renders all of that very late anonymous Christian copying virtually worthless, and certainly completely unreliably, for what very little it ever had to say about early Jesus beliefs (i.e. the belief in a figure that none of those writers, biblical or otherwise, had even known).

 

[Craig B]

It is most fascinating that you claim to have supernatural powers after having read my previous posts.

It would appear that Pauline writers did the same thing.

Pauline writers claimed to have supernatural powers after having read your previous posts?

 

[dejudge]

Pauline writers claimed to have supernatural powers after having read your previous posts?

You write fiction.

 

[Mcreal]

We have fragments of some actual documents from the mid-late 2nd century; how long the narratives in the text on those documents were around before that is not really known, or what any previous versions of the narratives said.

Some of the narratives may have had various contexts; some may derived from the 'mystery'/pagan religions, too

 

[dejudge]

I don't know if dejudge is right about those dates or not. But what is apparently agreed even by Christian bible scholars, is that little if any of that non-biblical writing which has historically been said to date from as early as the late 1st or early 2nd century, is in in fact actually known from anywhere near such early dates. Instead in it's extant forms, i.e. the only form where we can possibly know what was actually written, it is invariably many centuries later than the early dates that were almost always quoted.

You don't know if Christian bible scholars are right about their dates.

The dates I present are those of Paleographers.

Paleographers DATE Ancient manuscripts NOT Christians, Fundamentalists, and Christian Bible Scholars.

Christians and Fundamentalists [Bible scholars or not] must tell people Jesus existed and that Paul wrote Epistles in the Pauline Corpus or else they will be DENIED entrance to heaven by Jesus himself.

Matthew 10:33

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

 

[dejudge]

Maximara seems to think that the abundance of evidence from antiquity which shows the Pauline Corpus are late writings will MAGICALLY disappear.

The writings attributed to the author of the short gMark, gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Celsus and Ephraem have completely destroyed the hopelessly flawed baseless argument that the Pauline Corpus was composed since 50-60 CE.

It is so easy.

As soon as it was claimed in the Pauline Corpus that OVER 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus then it is readily recognised that such post resurrection story was UNKNOWN in writings attributed to 2nd century Christians and Non-Christians.

As soon as it was stated that "Paul" persecuted the Faith he now preached it was immediately that Paul the Persecutor LIVED AFTER the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Christians writings CONFIRM that Paul LIVED AFTER gLuke and Revelation were written.

See Origen's Commentary on Matthew, the Muratorian Canon and Eusebius' Church History.

The Pauline writers most likely LIVED AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and after at least c 110 CE.

All manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are DATED in the 2nd century or later.

 

[tsig]

Do you really think this? That Paul originated as a celestial myth, and was only later reinterpreted as a human character? I find that quite impossible to believe.

Why do you find it impossible to believe? Should your ability to believe something determine the truth of that thing?

 

[maximara]

You did not need, and do not have, any supernatural powers, or even any unusual insight into anything others might say here.

Dejudge has already said here 100's of times that Paul's letters date from after 175-225AD.

P46 is dated only through palaeography and as been pointed out here numerous times a 50 years range is the barest tolerable range with ranges 100 year range more acceptable for a 95% confidence interval.

So that 175-225 CE date range should be more honestly 150-250 CE with a 95% confidence interval. But such normal ranges follow the 68–95–99.7 rule. So for a 99.7% confidence interval you have to add another 50 years to the range kicking it up to a somewhat useless 125-275 CE.

As I have pointed out before palaeographic dates just are not up to the kind of fine tune dating required to assess which document came first. So we are left with textual and historical criticism to determine when these works were original written.

As I have said before, if someone in the 1990s hand copied a work from the 19th century then paleographic dating would say it came from the 20th century but Textual and Historical criticism would show the work the copyist used was from the 19th.

Dejudge has to date not produced anything out of Textual or Historical criticism that shows Paul is as late he claims it is. Based on the date ranges we have for the Gospels 40 to perhaps 30 years is the best you can get out of this type of dating. And Textual or Historical criticism dating give a 50-60 low end for what were edited into seven of Paul's epistles so a 90-110 is possible but then you have to figure that any documents showing an earlier date would also be tampered with.

Dejudge is like a person who presents a C14 date as "proof" while ignoring what the stratigraphy is telling him (which shows that date to be wonked)

 

[IanS]

We have fragments of some actual documents from the mid-late 2nd century; how long the narratives in the text on those documents were around before that is not really known, or what any previous versions of the narratives said.

Some of the narratives may have had various contexts; some may derived from the 'mystery'/pagan religions, too

Even if the palaeographically determined dates are anywhere near correct for such early fragments as P52 (and palaeography is a highly subjective method, which afaik has been used at the request of bible scholars, theologians and Christian groups themselves), the fact that 99% of the manuscript is completely missing (only the fragment exists), means that you cannot possibly have any idea at all of what was written about the authors Jesus beliefs in the 99% that is missing!

And the same really applies to more extensive pages of gospels that are thought to date from earlier than about the 4th century, but where in fact those more extensive remains are in every case afaik mostly in a poor state of preservation and only partially legible. I.e., even in those cases we cannot possibly know what most of the original manuscript actually said about Jesus.

Now you may think that is "not picking" and that surely all the vast mass which is missing (i.e. most of it is actually missing!) would surely have said the same about Jesus as we find in the earliest relatively complete and more-or-less readable extant copies which actually date from 4th-6th century (and mostly in fact from later than the 6th century). But if you do think that then you are making an absolutely whopping error. Because -

- (a) it would only take a few words of difference to entirely change our understanding of what the authors were originally saying about their Jesus belief in the earliest gospel writing. I.e. just a couple of different words here and there might very easily show that they were originally writing only about a spiritual Jesus and not about a real human figure. And (b) it is apparently agreed even by Christian bible scholars and theologians, that all of that Christian gospel copying was subject to alterations by the copyists wherever they decided that the original writing needed to be changed to fall into line with their later beliefs.

And we might also add that in respect of "a" above, i.e. the fact that the earliest fragmented or damaged partial remains of gospels might have shown Jesus to be originally only a spiritual belief, notice that, that is exactly the description given in Paul's letters. That is - according to all bible scholars, theologians, and Christian writers in general, and according to all HJ posters here, Paul's letters pre date all of the gospels, but in those letters Paul never describes a human Jesus ever known to anyone. Instead Paul's description is always of a spiritual Jesus known to him only through scripture and revelation from Yahweh. For example - Paul himself "witnessed" Jesus, but he only "witnessed" him as a spiritual belief. And Paul says that 500+ others inc James, Cephas and "the twelve" had also witnessed "the Christ", but if you read that passage carefully then it is clearly and unarguably describing only their "witnessing" of spiritual vision of what he called "the Christ" ... that is, just to emphasise that point - nobody ever witnessed Jesus except as a visionary belief of a spirit in the heavens ...

... and the point of that (in case it's not obvious) is that the earliest gospel fragments and damaged partial remains, may quite easily and quite obviously, have described only a spiritual belief in Jesus just as we find in Paul's description.

 

[Craig B]

You write fiction.

I wrote exactly what you wrote, adding only a question mark. The fiction is yours.

 

[Craig B]

[/HILITE]

Why do you find it impossible to believe? Should your ability to believe something determine the truth of that thing?

It's the other way round. The plausibility of a thing determines my ability to believe it.

 

[dejudge]

P46 is dated only through palaeography and as been pointed out here numerous times a 50 years range is the barest tolerable range with ranges 100 year range more acceptable for a 95% confidence interval.

ALL ancient handwritten TEXTS are dated by PALEOGRAPHY.

There is NO OTHER Method.

So that 175-225 CE date range should be more honestly 150-250 CE with a 95% confidence interval. But such normal ranges follow the 68–95–99.7 rule. So for a 99.7% confidence interval you have to add another 50 years to the range kicking it up to a somewhat useless 125-275 CE.

Everybody who is familiar with PALEOGRAPHY knows that there is a tolerance of +/- 50 years.

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to date existing manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus to a mere 10 year period c 50-60 CE.

The dating of the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE is a FARCE using Acts of the Apostles which YOU have ADMITTED is an historical TRAIN WRECK.

Dejudge has to date not produced anything out of Textual or Historical criticism that shows Paul is as late he claims it is.

You write established fiction.

Dejudge is like a person who presents a C14 date as "proof" while ignoring what the stratigraphy is telling him (which shows that date to be wonked)...

Again, you write well-known fiction.

You don't even know that C-14 does NOT date the ancient handwritten text but ONLY dates a BLANK SAMPLE [without text] of the MATERIAL.

You have written so much fiction that that you did not even realise that I do not ever use C-14 as "proof" for dates of ancient hand-written text.

By the way, Stratigraphy is the STUDY OF ROCK LAYERS.


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

Stratigraphy is a branch of geology which studies rock layers (strata) and layering (stratification). It is primarily used in the study of sedimentary and layered volcanic rocks.

Please TELL US the date for Papyri 46 using STRATIGRAPHY.

Maximara, you are really wasting time.

It is already known that you cannot and is INCAPABLE of presenting evidence to date the Pauline Corpus to the ridiculously narrow 10 year period c 50-60 CE.

 

[dejudge]

I wrote exactly what you wrote, adding only a question mark. The fiction is yours.

You now admit that you added a question mark. You did not write exactly what I wrote.

You have confirmed you are a fiction writer.