The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

Christ's existence was not in doubt by the Second Century, so there would need to be a good reason why we would expect Tertullian to mention those things, and have those writings survive.

Actually this passage from Justin Martyr's (100-165) "Dialogue with Trypho" suggest their may have been doubt regarding the existence of Christ in the Second Century:

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 CE) is late Second to early Third Century.

Also we need to remember no work critical of Christianity was preserved by the Christian copyists themselves. As I said before we have a Swastika Night situation where history has been rewritten somewhat but the problems is we don't know how much.

 

[Craig B]

It is most bizarre that CraigB claims to be atheist but still believe the word of God according to the Church. It is documented that Jesus the son of the ghost was baptized by John yet CraigB still believes Jesus was really baptized.

Baptism is more probable than bring the son of a ghost. Mark has nothing about the son of a ghost, but relates the baptism. The later Synoptics dilute the story of the baptism, but give us two versions of the birth story. John has neither.

It is most fascinating that people today still accept the Christian Bible as an historical source.

You can't be made to understand that, can you? We've tried, but it's hopeless.

 

[Mcreal]

Oh they knew about the Annales well before the 14th century.

Do we have evidence people knew about Annales before the 14th century?

What parts did they know about?

Annales 1-6 date from 850 CE (MS. plut. 68.1).

Yes -

Annales 1-6
This MS was written around 850AD in Germany. The distinctive type of script suggests the event took place in the scriptorium of the Benedictine abbey of Fulda, and this is supported by an explicit reference to Tacitus in the Annales Fuldenses for 852 (Cornelius Tacitus, scriptor rerum a Romanis in ea gente gestarum) which seems to show knowledge of Ann. 2,9.

The script is a pre-carolingian hand which the scribe is changing to Carolingian minuscule, together with occasional small plain majuscules (a 9th century derivative of rustic capitals), a more ornamental version of these letters with decorative shading and some uncial elements, and also a few much larger and heavier capitals of essentially rustic form. It is generally agreed that it was copied from a text written in 'insular' script which was copied from a manuscript in 'rustic capitals', and it has been suggested that this latter was at least 4th and probably 3rd century, based on an analysis of errors made in copying the titulature and colophons of each book, which are most easily explained if these errors occurred in copying a volume written in the early period in which prose texts were normally written in comparatively large letters and very narrow columns, and the colophons were not laid out in the manner common in 5th century and later books.²
At some time after it was written, the MS was transferred to the monastery of Corvey, in Saxony. There it remained, apparently without ever being copied.

In 1508 the volume was removed from the library. A letter of Pope Leo X of December 1, 1517 indicates that it had been stolen, and that Leo had paid a large amount of money for it⁴. At all events it passed into the hands of Pope Leo X.³
Leo gave the MS to Filippo Beraldo the Younger, who used it to produce the first edition in 1515, and left numerous annotations in the margins of the MS. The monks of Corvey, who petitioned the Pope for the return of their treasure, were instead sent a copy of the printed volume together with an indulgence to make up the balance.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

.

The Annales 11-16 and Historiae are what are later and this is where that matter about Chrestians exist.

Yes -

Annales 11-16, Historiae
This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD). It derives from an ancestor written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier,⁸ but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand.⁹
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

 

[dejudge]

It is most fascinating that CraigB continues to spout the nonsense that gMark does not depict Jesus as a ghost.
GMark does state that Jesus of Nazareth was a transfiguring water walker before he was raised from the dead.
In fact, gMark is the fundamental source for the ghost stories of the synoptics.
It is most probable that the ghost stories of gMark are fiction and that Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence.
The ghost stories of gMark are no different to the ghost stories of Romulus.

 

[GDon]

Actually this passage from Justin Martyr's (100-165) "Dialogue with Trypho" suggest their may have been doubt regarding the existence of Christ in the Second Century:

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

I think it is pretty clear that this is not questioning the existence of Jesus, but rather whether Jesus was the Christ. I know that both Doherty and Carrier propose that this suggests that there was a belief in the non-existence of Jesus, but this is far-fetched, since the Trypho character clearly has no problem with the existence of a Jesus. The controversy is whether that Jesus was the Christ.

Also we need to remember no work critical of Christianity was preserved by the Christian copyists themselves. As I said before we have a Swastika Night situation where history has been rewritten somewhat but the problems is we don't know how much.

I agree, and this makes it hard to determine what actually happened at the start of Christianity. Still, there is an onus to ensure that there is evidence to support people's views. Hints for alternate explanations need to be examined carefully.

 

[Craig B]

It is most fascinating that CraigB continues to spout the nonsense that gMark does not depict Jesus as a ghost.

Don't start your deceptive shenanigans again dejudge. You're kidding nobody. Here's your orevious words that I cited and commented on.

It is most bizarre that CraigB claims to be atheist but still believe the word of God according to the Church. It is documented that Jesus the son of the ghost was baptized by John yet CraigB still believes Jesus was really baptized.

I take the trouble to point out that Mark says nothing about Jesus' birth. So what do you do? Thank me? No, you shamelessly pretend that you didn't say "son of a ghost", but start referring to different things in a vain attempt to divert attention from the fact that your argument has been reduced to a heap of smouldering garbage.

GMark does state that Jesus of Nazareth was a transfiguring water walker before he was raised from the dead. In fact, gMark is the fundamental source for the ghost stories of the synoptics. It is most probable that the ghost stories of gMark are fiction and that Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence.

The ghost stories of gMark are no different to the ghost stories of Romulus.

I see. So Jesus and his twin brother were suckled by a she-wolf. News to me.

 

[dejudge]

Again, GDon spouts his absurdities. He forgets that Justin's Jesus is said to have existed without sexual union.
Justin's Jesus was no different to Trypho's God.
In fact it is admitted by Justin that the Jesus stories were no different to the myth fables of the Greeks.
The stories of Jesus were similar to the stories of Romulus or the sons of Jupiter.

 

[dejudge]

CraigB there were multiple versions of the myth fables about Romulus.
Please read Plutarch Romulus.
Romulus was born of a ghost and a virgin like Jesus in the myth fables called the new testament.

 

[Craig B]

CraigB there were multiple versions of the myth fables about Romulus.
Please read Plutarch Romulus.
Romulus was born of a ghost and a virgin like Jesus in the myth fables called the new testament.

Yes but in reality Jesus was not born of any Virgin. This is derived by the later Synoptics from a notorious mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. It is unknown to Paul, Mark, and the Synoptic Sayings; and is seemingly denied by gJohn.

Are you unable to imagine a real person who is reputedly fathered by a God? Not only Romulus, who almost certainly never existed: his name is derived from the name of the city, but Alexander who did exist: the city name is derived from the person: were given Gods as fathers to underline their importance.

Inventing people to account for place names was common in ancient times. Here's a Scottish example. The early Pictish king list gives the name Cruithne to the first of the Kings. But that is merely the Gaelic name for the Pictish people. It is not a personal name at all. Cruithne is supposed to have had seven sons Fib, Fidach, Floclaid, Fortrenn, Cait, Ce, but these are simply ancient names for regions of Scotland. "Fib" is Fife, for example.

That sort of name myth is a different kind of myth from the Jesus myth. But it is very similar to the Romulus=Rome myth.

 

[Leumas]

...
Are you unable to imagine a real person who is reputedly fathered by a God? ....

Inventing people to account for ....

Precisely the things YOU are doing....

That sort of name myth is a different kind of myth from the Jesus myth. But it is very similar to the Romulus=Rome myth.

And then you compound your INVENTIVE IMAGINATION with special pleading and wishful thinking and hand waving with absolutely no bases in logic or reality whatsoever trying to confound people into believing your "Jesus myth" was a reality.... preposterous confusions and illogic!!!

 

[Craig B]

Precisely the things YOU are doing....




And then in your mind you compound your INVENTIVE IMAGINATION with special pleading... wishful thinking... hand waving... with absolutely no bases in logic or reality whatsoever to make the "Jesus myth" into a reality.... ridiculous.

If there was substantive material among that vituperation I would comment on it.

 

[IanS]

Yes but in reality Jesus was not born of any Virgin. This is derived by the later Synoptics from a notorious mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. It is unknown to Paul, Mark, and the Synoptic Sayings; and is seemingly denied by gJohn.

.

Craig - there is no evidence that Jesus was ever born to anyone!

The only original source with any mention of Jesus, is as far as anyone can honestly tell, the earliest manuscripts that we have as Paul's letters and the four gospels. And as far as anyone can honestly tell, all later writing about Jesus came from that. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone ever knew anything about Jesus except for what they got from that writing and/or preaching in the NT biblical material.

But there is actually no evidence in any of that biblical writing that any of it's authors had ever known a human Jesus. In fact, even according to the most Christian of bible scholars it's quite certain that none of them had ever known Jesus.

If none of the gospel writers (nor Paul) had ever known Jesus, then at very best they could only be writing about their belief in Jesus from what other unnamed people had told them (but see footnote).

Though in fact Paul does name the person who told him about Jesus! ...... and he says that person was God!


footnote - though as Randel Helms and other authors have shown, the gospel writers were certainly creating their Jesus stories by "fulfillment citation" from the OT.

 

[maximara]

I think it is pretty clear that this is not questioning the existence of Jesus, but rather whether Jesus was the Christ. I know that both Doherty and Carrier propose that this suggests that there was a belief in the non-existence of Jesus, but this is far-fetched, since the Trypho character clearly has no problem with the existence of a Jesus. The controversy is whether that Jesus was the Christ.

Any more far fetched then the Euhemerism inspired idea that Zeus, Osiris, Heracles or about any other mythical character one could name was based on an actual living person?

"Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." is the general mentality we are dealing with here. But there had to be those even back then who question the idea that where living people behind these gods. Wouldn't such people also question Jesus especially as has been shown the Chrestians were playing what's the year with the ministry?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - credited to Epicurean (341–270 BCE)

Modern Christians do a lot of tap dancing to address this question. Also to rephrase a quote form a certain movie: "Why does God need Angels?" If you really look at Judaism and Christianity they are weak tea polytheistic systems and if we don't believe Zeus was an actual many then why do so for Jesus especially when Ned Ludd and John Frum show that potentially non-existent leaders can be created within a few years.

CraigB likes to bash my pointing to John Frum but that is likely because John Frum is the best argument for Jesus starting out as an imaginary being. Guiart's 1952 Oceania paper "John Frum Movement in Tanna" gives an excellent snapshot of the John Frum movement and even at that early date there is much confusion about just what John Frum actually was.

Guiart writes about "A man named Manehevi had posed as a supernatural being by means of ingenious stage management. " but later Guiart states "From elsewhere rail the rumour that, in spite of the Administration statement, Manehevi was not John Frum, and that the latter was still at liberty."

But if John Frum was strictly "a supernatural being" as the article stated earlier then logically Manehevi could NOT be John Frum nor could there be a 'real' (ie human) John Frum "still at liberty" Yet even later the article states "John Frum, alias Karaperamun, is always the god of Mount Tukosmoru, which will shelter the planes, then the soldiers."

So a mere 11 years after the movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun, the High god of the region or a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult.

Paul is thought to be writing some 20 years later and if this kind of confusion can happen in half that time then why assume Jesus was originally a human being by default?

Sure you had the Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson Cargo Cults which turned actual people into their leader and founder when in reality those people had nothing to do with those cults. But those people were really famous which why the cults latched on to them as their leader-founder; Jesus if he did exist as an actual singular person seems to be the man no one of the time noticed.

 

[Leumas]

I think it is pretty clear that this is not questioning the existence of Jesus, but rather whether Jesus was the Christ. I know that both Doherty and Carrier propose that this suggests that there was a belief in the non-existence of Jesus, but this is far-fetched, since the Trypho character clearly has no problem with the existence of a Jesus. The controversy is whether that Jesus was the Christ.

...I converted from agnosticism to theism, and then to a liberal Christianity (I won't go into reasons why here). Even though I'd never thought the Bible was anything other than a collection of myths and fables, ...

Any more far fetched than WORSHIPING Jesus as GOD despite admitting that the Buybull is nothing but a collection of fables and myths?

You yourself admitted that the Buybull is nothing but a collection of myths and fables.

Yet you turn around and admit that you are a liberal Christian.

This is like someone worshiping Batman as GOD despite knowing very well that the comic books where the man Batman was invented right out of the imaginations of the writers are just children's cartoon-comic-books written for entertainment.

Why are you even trying to argue that Jesus was a real historical man... you admitted that you worship him despite knowing very well that the only sources of knowledge about him are nothing but a collection of myths and fables.

It is the most laughable thing I have ever seen for Carrier's and Doherty's notions to be called far fetched by a person who worships a man right out of books of myths and fairy tales and then tries to argue that this GOD of his is in fact a real flesh and blood human despite him having been a fictional character in a book of fairy tales.

...I converted from agnosticism to theism, and then to a liberal Christianity (I won't go into reasons why here). Even though I'd never thought the Bible was anything other than a collection of myths and fables, ...

So are those reasons the fact that you think that Jesus was a historical flesh and blood man?

What are we in the 21st century to think of people who WORSHIP a protagonist right out of fairy tales whom they want to convince other people was a real historical man?

What's the next step... to try to convince people that this historical man was in fact the bastard son of a holy phantasm who was the 1/3 of a god in three parts or a whole god a member of a trinity of gods?

 

[Mcreal]

... this passage from Justin Martyr's (100-165) "Dialogue with Trypho" suggest theer may have been doubt regarding the existence of Christ in the Second Century:

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."​

Trypho would not have had any more information about Jesus than anyone else at the time of Trypho and Justin.

This reads like one side of a debate about a gnostic celestial figure.

 

[GDon]

Any more far fetched then the Euhemerism inspired idea that Zeus, Osiris, Heracles or about any other mythical character one could name was based on an actual living person?

Yes, definitely. We have writings that show Euhemerism was a well-known concept at the time: "The gods were really men!" But we have nothing where people question that Jesus Christ didn't exist at all. The Trypho quote only shows that there were people who questioned whether Jesus was the Christ.

"Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." is the general mentality we are dealing with here. But there had to be those even back then who question the idea that where living people behind these gods. Wouldn't such people also question Jesus especially as has been shown the Chrestians were playing what's the year with the ministry?

I think it is reasonable to propose that some people back then thought that those gods didn't exist at all, much less as men. But since the idea that "the gods were just men" was prevalent then, you'd need to have good evidence that a particular god like Christ was thought to not exist rather than was just a man. That is one reason why the Trypho passage is unlikely to be referring to a non-existent person.

Given the prevalence of Euhemerism, wouldn't most educated pagans think that Jesus was just a man, rather than Jesus didn't exist?

CraigB likes to bash my pointing to John Frum but that is likely because John Frum is the best argument for Jesus starting out as an imaginary being. Guiart's 1952 Oceania paper "John Frum Movement in Tanna" gives an excellent snapshot of the John Frum movement and even at that early date there is much confusion about just what John Frum actually was.

John Frum is "the best argument for Jesus starting out as an imaginary being"? No, that is wrong as stated. John Frum provides a good example of how Jesus might have started out as an imaginary being, I'll grant you that; but it is not an argument for that. It is a hypothesis without data.

So a mere 11 years after the movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun, the High god of the region or a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult.

Paul is thought to be writing some 20 years later and if this kind of confusion can happen in half that time then why assume Jesus was originally a human being by default?

I agree. John Frum does answer the criticism that "it is impossible for a non-existent being to be thought existing within a short time span."

But when you think of the proportion of people written about within 20 years who had been thought to exist versus those who didn't exist, then you have to agree that the percentages seem to go with the 'existing' side. Even John Frum was thought to have existed. It wasn't until evidence was collated that it became less likely.

Let's assume the percentages for non-existing people and existing is 10% and 90% respectively. Using John Frum as an example is like saying "My 10% probability matches your 90% probability", which of course is illogical. So just pointing to John Frum means it is 'game over' for the 'non-existing Jesus' side. That side needs to support that with evidence, otherwise why assume that the 10% side should be selected? Is there evidence for a 'John Frum' style Jesus?

 

[GDon]

Trypho would not have had any more information about Jesus than anyone else at the time of Trypho and Justin.

This reads like one side of a debate about a gnostic celestial figure.

No, nothing like that. Justin's Trypho character's point is that the office of Christ can only be given by Elijah. Since Elijah had not come to do that, then the man Jesus could not be Christ. As Trypho says in Ch 49 of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ]."​

There's nowhere in the text that suggests the Trypho character thought there was no historical Jesus, only that the Christ had not yet come.

 

[Leumas]

...
John Frum is "the best argument for Jesus starting out as an imaginary being"? No, that is wrong as stated. John Frum provides a good example of how Jesus might have started out as an imaginary being, I'll grant you that; but it is not an argument for that. It is a hypothesis without data.

I agree. John Frum does answer the criticism that "it is impossible for a non-existent being to be thought existing within a short time span."
...

How would that compare to hypothesizing a GOD for oneself and then worshiping it even though one knows that the collection of fables and myths (the only source of data about this god) say this god was just a flesh and blood pathetic deluded man who thought he was the bastard son of his virgin mother who committed adultery and then lied to her husband it was a ghostly phantasmal impregnation.

You are asking people to utilize logic and evidence while you utilize laughable illogic by worshiping Batman Jesus despite knowing full well that the cartoon comic-book Buybull in which he is the hero is nothing but a fairy tale.

Why are you even trying to argue that Jesus was a man... do you really think that intelligent educated people in the 21st century would ever start worshiping Batman as their GOD.

Would liberal Christians keep worshiping Jesus knowing that he was just a pathetic deluded blaspheming moron?

...I converted from agnosticism to theism, and then to a liberal Christianity (I won't go into reasons why here). Even though I'd never thought the Bible was anything other than a collection of myths and fables, ...

 

[maximara]

John Frum is "the best argument for Jesus starting out as an imaginary being"? No, that is wrong as stated. John Frum provides a good example of how Jesus might have started out as an imaginary being, I'll grant you that; but it is not an argument for that. It is a hypothesis without data.


I agree. John Frum does answer the criticism that "it is impossible for a non-existent being to be thought existing within a short time span."

But when you think of the proportion of people written about within 20 years who had been thought to exist versus those who didn't exist, then you have to agree that the percentages seem to go with the 'existing' side. Even John Frum was thought to have existed. It wasn't until evidence was collated that it became less likely.

But John Frum was thought to have existed in various different ways...just like Jesus was.

Depending on the sect you asked in 1957 John Frum was a dark skinned native, or a dark skinned serviceman, or a white skinned serviceman, or a white skinned navyman. One sect held we was the god Karaperamun made manifest (sound familiar?), other held he was the son of a ruler of a faraway land and has Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as his brother (can you James the Just? I knew you could )

Thanks to Paul's vague description it isn't until the Gospels (written after Paul's death by most accounts) that we get a time table for when Jesus preached on earth. If we use Paul seven epistles on their own (remembering they were edited into this form) the "within 20 years" falls apart.

Heck, Mead who had only the Talmud to work with put out Did Jesus Live 100 B.C. in 1903 but decades later the Dead Sea Scrolls and their Teacher of Righteousness showed up and we got stronger evidence for a messiah like figure c 100 BCE.

As I have mentioned before there is a 1947 letter which talks of "origin of the movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago" with regards to John Frum which would push the movement back to 50 years.

There is nothing in Paul's writings that really suggest that Jesus had been on Earth recently (heck because they are all visions there is nothing to say Jesus was on Earth at all). It is only those who write in Paul's name later that put Jesus in a specific time.

 

[Leumas]

Yes but in reality Jesus was not born of any Virgin. This is derived by the later Synoptics from a notorious mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. It is unknown to Paul, Mark, and the Synoptic Sayings; and is seemingly denied by gJohn.

So was Jesus the man just the illegitimate product of a rape or of an adultery committed by a young girl who cuckolded poor Joseph?

Why didn't the fabricators of the NT myths not just say he was the son of Joseph?

Why did they have to go to all that trouble to make it look like he was the result of the rape of a young married virgin girl by the Holy Casper?

You once asked me the below and I responded with what I thought... so can you tell me what you think is the answer to the above question!

...Although Jesus is depicted in some of the ways you describe, he is also depicted as an observant Jew. It is only too likely that later hands introduced the anti-Jewish material into the NT, but why would they then depict him as a Jew, attending the Temple? Or being immersed in the Jordan by John for the atonement of sins. There seems here to be a core of material identifying him as a Jewish preacher.

Well... let's see!

If my consulting company were to be employed by a new startup company aiming at drawing customers from among the customer base of say IBM as well as new and young customers who despite being young happen to respect and revere the well-established technology and technological knowhow of IBM... what would be my advice for an ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN?

Could it be?

Our product is every bit as good as the IBM product....but cheaper and easier to use and anyone can afford it.

Our CEO is an ex-IMB top engineer who decided that our company is THE FUTURE.

His executives too are ex-IBM executives who share his vision for a BETTER FUTURE where our product can be afforded by all people instead of just the ELITE BRIGANDS!
​

Imagine if the above new startup company later became dissatisfied with my consultations and went to another consultants who did not see exactly my point of view on how best to advertise... maybe they might copy some of my better ideas and then modify some of the lesser ones and throw away the really bad ones that would not quite work for the new demographic they are aiming at.

What might be their modifications and entirely new ideas of their own new advertising campaign I wonder?

Say they repeat the same again and again along the development of the company and its expansion into new and unexplored demographics and geographic zones.... how would their advertising campaigns reflect this EVOLUTION?

Could they one day grow big enough to become OSSIFIED TOO just like IBM?

Could one of their engineers one day decide to start his own startup new company that claims similarity in product… say they even call it ComeBack?