The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Theophilus' Apology to Autolycus, written around 180 CE, does seem to refer to Jesus Christ, though the name "Jesus" is not used.

Why use "To Autolycus" written around 180 CE which does not identify a character called Jesus of Nazareth to argue that Jesus did exist??

You are only exposing the bankruptcy of your HJ argument.

It should be obvious that "To Autolycus" is completely useless to argue that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

What is even more significant in "To Autolycus" is that the author did not mention the birth or lifetime of Jesus when he computed the age of the world from creation to Aurelius.

"To Autoloycus"

And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned.

From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years.

And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years.

And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years.

And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days.

And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.

The supposed Jesus of Nazareth is missing in "To Autolycus".

 

[Craig B]

You don't want to address the question put to you as usual.

I'm not doing anything at all, until you sort out your gander issue. If you've "gone there", you may "stay there" until you do.

 

[GDon]

Irenaeus was born early in the Second Century, and as a boy he actually meet (or claimed to meet) Polycarp, who was born in the 60s CE. So from a timing perspective, Polycarp may well have met apostles who had met Jesus.

Irenaeus claims to have met Polycarp, whom claims to have met some of the apostles who met Jesus. Papias claims to have met elders whom knew the apostles who met Jesus. These are interesting claims.

Irenaeus ALSO claims "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." (Demonstration (74)) and that Jesus was at least 40 if not 50 when he was crucified (Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 22)

The difference is that in the first case he is talking about his personal experience, while in the latter he is talking on traditions handed down to him.

It's certainly plausible for Irenaeus to have met someone who knew the elders whom attended on Jesus' apostles. What this means for the question of historicity I'm not sure. (I believe that the NT is enough to establish that anyway so not concerned one way or the other.)

 

[IanS]

Bible Studiers and theologian are NOT secular historians

Constantin-François Volney - historian
Bruno Bauer - philosopher and historian
Edwin Johnson - historian
Richard Carrier - historian

W. H. C. Frend is one of the few actual historians I could find for the other side and the only reason he shows up is due to his review of one of GA Wells earlier books.

R. Joseph Hoffmann is in the we simply don't know camp.

Just to pick up a little further on what Max says -

Apart from the "fact" that biblical studies lecturers and theologians are of course not secular academic historians in any normal honest sense of the meaning of that word in academia, the HJ side here ought to be very mindful of the fact that in the USA particularly (but in many parts of Europe too), academics in all sorts of fields may be devout Christians who believe in Jesus and the truth of the bible for entirely religious reasons no matter how much objective analysis, science, and honest enquiry should persuade them to the contrary.

So if you find academics outside of Biblical Studies (and outside of theology, if you can call that a proper university subject), who profess a strong belief in Jesus, then after ascertaining that are actually aware of how weak and corrupted the biblical evidence actually is, then if they still insist that Jesus was real and that anyone suggesting otherwise is a mythicist moron, you should check what religious faith beliefs they hold.

No doubt there are genuine historians who profess a very assured and certain belief in Jesus, just as you can find a far smaller number of scientists who profess belief not only in Jesus but also in a creator God (albeit, the number of genuine research scientists within core sciences of physics, chemistry, maths, and biology who believe in a literal God is a very much smaller number than in any other branches of academia).

And there are of course a very large number of university academics in the world, many hundreds of thousands in fact. So even in the USA alone, it would be astonishing if you could not find at least a few hundred real historians who claimed to know all about mythicists and claimed to have investigated the subject and found that Jesus was indeed real ... but in those cases, as I say, the very first thing you should do is check whether such historians are practicing Christians.

 

[IanS]

Eh? My very point has been that you don't even have Richard Carrier on your side. He treats the texts in the same way as other scholars do. Weird that you got that twisted around so quickly. It's the kind of an attention span that even a goldfish might be embarrassed by.


I see. We really need a better "rolling eyes" icon.


The New Testament itself; see below. But we've gone over this before. There is an epistemological disagreement between us that can't be overcome. Time for both of us to acknowledge that and move on, I think.

The best short answer to your question is the one I've reproduced before from Internet Infidel co-founder Jeffery Jay Lowder:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html

Second, independent confirmation is not necessary to establish the mere existence of the Jesus of the New Testament. There simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus. (Just because Jesus existed does not mean that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, etc.) Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material,"[19] we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed.​

So you can count yet another skeptic on my side. You do have Mcreal, Leumas and dejudge on your side, if that means anything. But the idea that the NT itself is prima facie evidence for the historical existence of a Jesus Christ seems to be as well supported among skeptics. You may want to consider the implications of that.

We have been through all of this before. You do not have anything credible to add in this subject. And now you are reduced to blatant personalised deliberate insults saying that people do not have the attention span of a Goldfish.

Your posts on this, like those of most HJ people here, just get more and more revealing as a constant stream of abusive remarks. Which is almost always a dead sure give-away of a hopelessly weak position with no credible argument left.

 

[Craig B]

Deleted.

 

[tsig]

Thanks for finally admitting that your opinion on this topic isn't based on evidence and reason but ideology. You've decided that Jesus never existed and that's that. It's no different from a religious belief.

Not believing in HJ = religious belief

Believing in HJ = religious belief

Therefore

Believing = not believing.

Gee, why am I not surprised that you latched onto a part of my post, made a snarky reply and completely missed the point?

If the point of your post wasn't to equate not believing in an HJ to religious belief then what was it?

If people keep missing your point then maybe you are not making it sharp enough.

 

[Belz...]

If the point of your post wasn't to equate not believing in an HJ to religious belief then what was it?

If you were concerned with actually understanding my point rather than being snarky I might make the extra effort to explain it to you, but then you would've followed the thread closely enough to understand it on your own.

 

[tsig]

We have been through all of this before. You do not have anything credible to add in this subject. And now you are reduced to blatant personalised deliberate insults saying that people do not have the attention span of a Goldfish.

Your posts on this, like those of most HJ people here, just get more and more revealing as a constant stream of abusive remarks. Which is almost always a dead sure give-away of a hopelessly weak position with no credible argument left.

When someone compares you to a Holocaust denier they automatically lose the argument, there should be a rule.

 

[Belz...]

Your posts on this, like those of most HJ people here, just get more and more revealing as a constant stream of abusive remarks.

Do you have Dejudge, tsig, mcreal and Leumas on ignore or something?

 

[IanS]

I don't see this as a problem. It's something that can be agreed to disagree upon. I like Carrier's use of Bayes' Theorem there, since I think that may have something to add to the topic.


I agree that Second Century literature may help. But why say we can use 2nd and 3rd century Christian literature on the question of historicity, and at the same time rule out the NT? It seems there is an inconsistency there. Can you explain this?


Theophilus' Apology to Autolycus, written around 180 CE, does seem to refer to Jesus Christ, though the name "Jesus" is not used. From here:

And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.​

What is your interpretation of that passage, if it isn't a reference to Jesus Christ?

And Papias certainly refers to Jesus Christ, as reported by Irenaeus and Eusebius, though again the name of "Jesus" is not used. From the Fragments of Papias: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory... If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples...​

The "Lord" in this context can only be Jesus Christ. Not only that, Papias claims to have met people who knew Jesus' disciples!

Similarly, Irenaeus reports that Polycarp, a contemporary of Papias, also met people who knew Jesus' apostles. From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles...

For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp... I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out... Whatsoever things he had heard from them [apostles] respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.​

Irenaeus was born early in the Second Century, and as a boy he actually meet (or claimed to meet) Polycarp, who was born in the 60s CE. So from a timing perspective, Polycarp may well have met apostles who had met Jesus.

Irenaeus claims to have met Polycarp, whom claims to have met some of the apostles who met Jesus. Papias claims to have met elders whom knew the apostles who met Jesus. These are interesting claims.

I'm afraid this just shows how gullible you are in your Christian faith beliefs.

You are quoting what are probably translations of much later Christian copyist writing that says the original authors did not claim ever to have met anyone called Jesus, but instead they said that they had been taught by other people who said they had met apostles who had stories of witnessing the Christ or Jesus. That is a later Christian copyist tale of a chain of people saying that others had said things about what yet others had said about things.

And that is apart from the fact that, as we saw here recently with a load of discussion about so-called “Nomina Sacra”, where these texts (mostly 11th century copies and later, in Greek) are translated, there are not only various possible translations for crucial words including various words and abbreviations for words like “lord”, “god”, “christ”, etc., but also apparently various different meaning for such words. So you have to be extremely careful and very critically wary, of taking at face value any translations presented in modern biblical studies books or Christian books in general, or indeed on internet websites.

Again, if you actually wanted to become more aware of why the profession of biblical studies that you are almost entirely dependent upon, is by no means trustworthy or even serious objective historical study, and why things such as their translations and methods such a Textural Criticism are often open to error & confusion, then if you have not already read it (and since apparently you actually spent money on Carrier’s book, which is an openly mythicist book), you should get hold of a copy of the book I recommended a few pages back to Craig (and others), about which he was typically completely dismissive, although he had never even heard of the book and it’s author until I drew his attention to it in another post here a couple of years ago, and that is the properly academic and fully referenced book by US Biblical studies professor Hector Avalos titled “The End of Biblical Studies” (Prometheus Books, New York, 2007), here I’ll even give you a link where you can buy it on Amazon ... you will also find that particular book is very well and clearly written (and it’s not about any Jesus myth claims).

http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-...&qid=1439392597&sr=1-4&keywords=hector+avalos

 

[Leumas]

... What this means for the question of historicity I'm not sure. (I believe that the NT is enough to establish that anyway so not concerned one way or the other.)

So despite you averring that the NT is nothing but a collection of myths and fables you still believe it establishes the historicity of the magical protagonist of this collection of fairy tales.

Accordingly, you incessantly wrangle for the validity of extruding a human being out of the ill begotten son of a ghostly 1/3rd of a magical sky daddy who in the fairy tales walks on water and cures blindness by mixing spittle with dirt from the ground under his feet and maligns and curses fig trees to death for not bearing fruit out of season and demeans and humiliates poor pathetic women groveling at his feet and cowers in servile obeisance at the commands of a Roman Centurion and gets properly educated in how gods should practice their magic from this enslaver.

Yet, after all that, you turn around and worship this mere human you have downgraded from a vile cowardly moron of a demi-god to a mere pathetic nothing of meaningless man.

You have wrung a template of a man out of what you yourself admit is nothing but a collection of myths and fables and then you proceeded to worship this man as a god all over again.

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier for liberal Christians to have just shunted over this process of euhemerization followed by deification and just gone directly to worshiping the demi-god protagonist of the mythical fairy tales?

Why bother with the euhemerization at all if all you are going to do afterwards is to then turn around and deify the euhemerized pathetic shell of a man?

The collection of myths and fairy tales already had a perfectly insane collection of gods to worship... what is the point of all this additional astounding preposterousness of making the god a man and then a god again.... oh wait...wait... isn't that what the NT actually does in its narrative.... now I understand.... all this is just a modern day reenactment of the myth-making process ... oh well ... do carry on?

... not long after 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,...

 

[Craig B]

things such as their translations and methods such a Textural Criticism

Never heard of it.

 

[Leumas]

Not believing in HJ = religious belief

Believing in HJ = religious belief

Therefore

Believing = not believing.

Aahh...The artful legerdemain of shoving god during a dense puff of ad hominem smoke right through the trapdoor of illogic back onto the stage of magical sophistry.

 

[dejudge]

The difference is that in the first case he is talking about his personal experience, while in the latter he is talking on traditions handed down to him.

It's certainly plausible for Irenaeus to have met someone who knew the elders whom attended on Jesus' apostles. What this means for the question of historicity I'm not sure. (I believe that the NT is enough to establish that anyway so not concerned one way or the other.)

What absurdities you post.

You have admitted the Bible is nothing but a "collection of myths and fables."

Myths and fables cannot be enough to establish the historicity of Jesus.

In fact, writings attributed to Irenaeus stated or implied Jesus died when he was an old man at about 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tibrius or around 50 years of age.

The NT establishes that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth God.

 

[Leumas]

I'm afraid this just shows how gullible you are in your Christian faith beliefs.

You are quoting what are probably translations of much later Christian copyist writing that says the original authors did not claim ever to have met anyone called Jesus, but instead they said that they had been taught by other people who said they had met apostles who had stories of witnessing the Christ or Jesus. That is a later Christian copyist tale of a chain of people saying that others had said things about what yet others had said about things.

And that is apart from the fact that, as we saw here recently with a load of discussion about so-called “Nomina Sacra”, where these texts (mostly 11th century copies and later, in Greek) are translated, there are not only various possible translations for crucial words including various words and abbreviations for words like “lord”, “god”, “christ”, etc., but also apparently various different meaning for such words. So you have to be extremely careful and very critically wary, of taking at face value any translations presented in modern biblical studies books or Christian books in general, or indeed on internet websites.

Again, if you actually wanted to become more aware of why the profession of biblical studies that you are almost entirely dependent upon, is by no means trustworthy or even serious objective historical study, and why things such as their translations and methods such a Textural Criticism are often open to error & confusion, then if you have not already read it (and since apparently you actually spent money on Carrier’s book, which is an openly mythicist book), you should get hold of a copy of the book I recommended a few pages back to Craig (and others), about which he was typically completely dismissive, although he had never even heard of the book and it’s author until I drew his attention to it in another post here a couple of years ago, and that is the properly academic and fully referenced book by US Biblical studies professor Hector Avalos titled “The End of Biblical Studies” (Prometheus Books, New York, 2007), here I’ll even give you a link where you can buy it on Amazon ... you will also find that particular book is very well and clearly written (and it’s not about any Jesus myth claims).

http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-...&qid=1439392597&sr=1-4&keywords=hector+avalos

And for those who do not like reading, here is a lecture (and part 2) by Avalos about the topic of the book and more... the second part is the Q&A session and is really important to watch too.

 

[Craig B]

Aahh...The artful legerdemain of shoving god during a dense puff of ad hominem smoke right through the trapdoor of illogic back onto the stage of magical sophistry.

Yes, the legerdemain of shoving god during a dense puff of ad hominem smoke right through the trapdoor of illogic back onto the stage of magical sophistry is indeed artful. Too artful for me to know how to do it.

 

[Mcreal]

Theophilus' Apology to Autolycus, written around 180 CE, does seem to refer to Jesus Christ, though the name "Jesus" is not used.

And Papias certainly refers to Jesus Christ, as reported by Irenaeus and Eusebius, though again the name of "Jesus" is not used. From the Fragments of Papias: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Do you not see the profound contradictions here: claiming each text refers to Jesus Christ even though the monikers 'Jesus Christs' or 'Jesus' are not used ??!

In reality -

Theophilus' Apology to Autolycus, written around 180 CE, does not seem to refer to Jesus Christ, because the name "Jesus" is not used.

The "Lord" in this context can only be Jesus Christ.

Nonsense.

These texts show the Jesus story was hardly developed in the mid-late 2nd century, in some places at least.

These texts show a nebulous Lord or celestial 'Christ' was part of a prominent non-Jesus theology in the mid-late 2nd century

 

[Mcreal]

From the Fragments of Papias: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory... If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples...​

The "Lord" in this context can only be Jesus Christ. Not only that, Papias claims to have met people who knew Jesus' disciples!

Similarly, Irenaeus reports that Polycarp, a contemporary of Papias, also met people who knew Jesus' [a] Christ's apostles. From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles...

For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp... I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out... Whatsoever things he had heard from them [apostles] respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of "the Word of life", would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.​

Irenaeus was born early in the Second Century, and as a boy he actually meet (or claimed to [have met] Polycarp, who was born in the 60s CE. So from a timing perspective, Polycarp may well have met apostles who had met Jesus preached 'The Word' or preached 'the Lord' or merely preached 'Christ'.

Irenaeus claims to have met Polycarp, whom claims to have met some of the apostles who met Jesus. Papias claims to have met elders whom knew the apostles who met Jesus "respected the Lord". These are interesting claims.

Who says these 'apostles' or 'disciples' were early 1st century?!

"the eye-witnesses of 'the Word of life' " are not necessarily apostles or disciples of Jesus the Christ !!!

ie. they could easily be people telling & selling a pre-Synoptic message in the 2nd century.

"the Lord" and "the word of life" are not necessarily Jesus Christ.

 

[GDon]

Do you not see the profound contradictions here: claiming each text refers to Jesus Christ even though the monikers 'Jesus Christs' or 'Jesus' are not used ??!

No, that's not a contradiction, neither profound nor mundane. Check out Tertullian's "Ad nationes" for example. There is no doubt that Tertullian believed in a historical Jesus, yet he avoids the names "Jesus" AND "Christ", preferring the word "founder" instead which he uses multiple times. What do you think? Is this another example of contradiction?

Nonsense.

These texts show the Jesus story was hardly developed in the mid-late 2nd century, in some places at least.

These texts show a nebulous Lord or celestial 'Christ' was part of a prominent non-Jesus theology in the mid-late 2nd century

Hmmm. Proposing that someone writing around 180 CE, who calls himself a "Christian" multiple times and complains about being persecuted with other Christians, and who quotes from the Gospel of John, is NOT an orthodox Christian -- you've got a bit of a mountain to climb. But I'd be interested in hearing your case.

The fact is that from about the middle of the Second Century CE Christianity was trying to establish a reputation as a philosophical school. You can see references to Greek philosophers and philosophy all over the place in apologies. This is the time when the "Logos" was imported into Christianity. Saying "we got our stuff from the Logos" would have sounded much better to pagan ears than "we got our stuff from some Hebrew guy called 'Joshua'". But as I said, I'd like to hear your case.