What counts as a historical Jesus?

[maximara]

This is by far the best explication of the Josephus/Origen association found in this thread. I'm hardly surprised at not a single myther here addressing it -- and no, I'm not talking about addressing the Josephus/Origen association; I'm talking about addressing _this_ _explication_ of it.

TimONeill2's points are nonsense even by modern language standards

1) The claim Χριστοῦ would have been "unintelligible" fails - it was understood by Greek speakers to mean "Anointed".

But without the culture context would a Roman Greek speaker know what that meant?

Here is a modern example using British-Canadian-Australian English:

After the banger knocked out the lights I grabbed the torch on the table so I could use the lift to go to the loo in the water closet.

The average US English speaker would look at that and go huh?

Now here is the same sentence in US English:

After the firework knocked out the lights I grabbed the flashlight on the table so I could use the elevator to go to the toilet in the washroom.

Living languages have what is known as drift; words and even meanings change both with time an distance. The printing press slows this down and increases the distances the change happens but Josephus wrote well before the printing press.

The Heroïdes (c43 BC - c17CE) states "The 'palaestra' is here called 'uncta,
from the ' ceroma' or oil with which the wrestler was anointed." (XIX. 1 HEEO TO LEAHUER; 31)

As I jokingly said the average Roman saw the term christ would have gone "Ok he was Anointed; so this Jesus guy was a wrestler"

Again Josephus was writing on the behalf of Romans to other Romans. Why use a term that the average Roman reader would misread without explaining it?

 

[Brainache]

TimONeill2's points are nonsense even by modern language standards

1) The claim Χριστοῦ would have been "unintelligible" fails - it was understood by Greek speakers to mean "Anointed".

But without the culture context would a Roman Greek speaker know what that meant?

Here is a modern example using British-Canadian-Australian English:

After the banger knocked out the lights I grabbed the torch on the table so I could use the lift to go to the loo in the water closet.

The average US English speaker would look at that and go huh?

Now here is the same sentence in US English:

After the firework/I] knocked out the lights I grabbed the flashlight on the table so I could use the elevator to go to the toilet in the washroom.

Living languages have what is known as drift; words and even meanings change both with time an distance.

Really?

I thought annointing was fairly widespread. They did it to wrestlers in Rome and Greece didn't they?
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/olympics/p/OlympicEvents.htm

Wrestling:
In the 18th Olympiad, the pentathlon and wrestling were added. Wrestlers were anointed with oil, dusted with powder, and forbidden to bite or gouge. Wrestling was looked upon as a weapon-free military exercise. Weight and strength were especially important since there were no weight categories. Kyle (p.120) says that in 708 wrestling (pale) was introduced to the Olympics. This was also the year the Pentathlon was introduced. In 648 the pankration ("all-in wrestling") was introduced.

Did they use a different word for rubbing oil on wrestlers as they did for priests?

 

[IanS]

You will note that I said "in a story allegedly about the Messiah". There is a problem here.

Grahbudd, you are constantly taking your replies off into vague remarks as if speaking in riddles. Look, here is the post which you are referring to (it's your own post!) -

On the contrary, I think the two stand together, and their very existence in a story allegedly about the messiah is very telling.

Well what on earth are you supposed to be hinting at in the above? Why don't you just say clearly whatever it is that you are claiming? Which story is this that you think is only "allegedly" about Jesus?

Your sentence actually refers to Mark where you say " in e.g. Mark, then one is indeed left with not that much: one is left with a guy from Galilee who got crucified " ...

... do you mean to say that you regard Mark as only making a doubtful "allegation" (i.e. you doubt his "allegation") where Mark say's "Jesus was a guy who was crucified"?

Your are way off topic by the way.

Where in any of this is the genuine evidence showing Jesus to be a real historical figure?

 

[catsmate]

This is rather an unpleasant thread, like any arguing for WTC conspiracy or against the evolution theory.

There is a scholarly expert consensus on this matter.

If you want to change it, go and publish and be accepted by the experts. That's the only way to do it. No crank posting on an internet forum will be able to change this. Go and publish. (And, please, require the necessary skills to read and interprete these texts in the original - in the study of history, that's pretty much a basic requirement for any authority in the field.)

Go and publish.

This is utter rubbish and goes against the most basic principles of skepticism; in fact it's almost a textbook quality of Argument from Authority seasoned with Appeal to Popularity.

The arguments in favour of Evolution and the explanations of the mechanism of the collapse of the WTC towers are based on verifiable facts and evidence. The case for a historical Jesus has no such foundations.

 

[Stone]

Few if any here are actual historians.

LOLOL!!! Truer words were never spoken of any myther!

Stone

 

[Stone]

This is rather an unpleasant thread, like any arguing for WTC conspiracy or against the evolution theory.

There is a scholarly expert consensus on this matter.

If you want to change it, go and publish and be accepted by the experts. That's the only way to do it. No crank posting on an internet forum will be able to change this. Go and publish. (And, please, require the necessary skills to read and interprete these texts in the original - in the study of history, that's pretty much a basic requirement for any authority in the field.)

Go and publish.

B-I-N-G-O!!! -- Five stars!!!!!

Stone

 

[Stone]

This is utter rubbish and goes against the most basic principles of skepticism; in fact it's almost a textbook quality of Argument from Authority seasoned with Appeal to Popularity.

The arguments in favour of Evolution and the explanations of the mechanism of the collapse of the WTC towers are based on verifiable facts and evidence. The case for a historical Jesus has no such foundations.

Anyone who can say that after TimONeill2 supplied this link --

http://www.quora.com/Jesus/Do-credi...e-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

scarcely a day ago(!) is obviously not following this thread at all. You're just spouting kool-aid propaganda.

Stone

 

[pakeha]

Anyone who can say that after TimONeill2 supplied this link --

http://www.quora.com/Jesus/Do-credi...e-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

scarcely a day ago(!) is obviously not following this thread at all. You're just spouting kool-aid propaganda.

Stone

Yeah!
Which of the pretty pictures in the article did you like best?

 

[llwyd]

This is utter rubbish and goes against the most basic principles of skepticism; in fact it's almost a textbook quality of Argument from Authority seasoned with Appeal to Popularity.

The arguments in favour of Evolution and the explanations of the mechanism of the collapse of the WTC towers are based on verifiable facts and evidence. The case for a historical Jesus has no such foundations.

There is a scholarly consensus of published, peer reviewed experts. The people arguing on this internet site appear to be unpublished laymen. So, how is this different from unpublished cranks "proving" that professional physicists are wrong in case of the WTC? Do you read these manuscripts in the original, do you know how to interprete them in the context of the era? If not, how are you to judge? Really, how?

 

[Belz...]

LOLOL!!! Truer words were never spoken of any myther!

Maybe you should take a break or a deep breath because you are just randomly posting stuff, now.

I am not a "myther".

 

[Stone]

There is a scholarly consensus of published, peer reviewed experts. The people arguing on this internet site appear to be unpublished laymen. So, how is this different from unpublished cranks "proving" that professional physicists are wrong in case of the WTC? Do you read these manuscripts in the original, do you know how to interprete them in the context of the era? If not, how are you to judge? Really, how?

Answer: They're not.

Helpfully,

Stone

 

[Belz...]

Yeah!
Which of the pretty pictures in the article did you like best?

What pretty pictures ?

 

[Bad vibe]

There is a scholarly consensus of published, peer reviewed experts. The people arguing on this internet site appear to be unpublished laymen. So, how is this different from unpublished cranks "proving" that professional physicists are wrong in case of the WTC? Do you read these manuscripts in the original, do you know how to interprete them in the context of the era? If not, how are you to judge? Really, how?

Tims arguement seemed to be against a totally mythical J which isn't a position I would agree with nor I suspect would most participating here. We're argueing the degree of historicity and how it can be justified from the little evidence we have. If you don't like or wish to participate maybe you should try another thread? What are your qualifications to judge the merit or lack of in this thread?

 

[tsig]

There is a scholarly consensus of published, peer reviewed experts. The people arguing on this internet site appear to be unpublished laymen. So, how is this different from unpublished cranks "proving" that professional physicists are wrong in case of the WTC? Do you read these manuscripts in the original, do you know how to interprete them in the context of the era? If not, how are you to judge? Really, how?

The bible isn't a physics textbook so that's an invalid comparison.

 

[llwyd]

Tims arguement seemed to be against a totally mythical J which isn't a position I would agree with nor I suspect would most participating here. We're argueing the degree of historicity and how it can be justified from the little evidence we have. If you don't like or wish to participate maybe you should try another thread? What are your qualifications to judge the merit or lack of in this thread?

To my mind Tim is actually explaining how the discipline works to the laymen here, how the evidence is used when we don't have access to such unequivocal data and possibility to test it as in natural science. And it seems to me that most people just don't get it and seem to think that they are as qualified as professional historians to make authoritive pronouncements on these matters without even having direct access to the sources (that is an ability to read and inteprete the originals first hand).

Someone said here that I have blind faith in authority. No, I don't, but I have great trust in the self-correctiveness of the scientific method as it is applied in the study of history. If the present scholarly expert consensus is wrong, it will get corrected by new published studies. That's why I said to these people, three times, actually, I guess: go and publish. Go and publish.

(I have a master's degree in history from Helsinki University, but don't consider myself any sort of an expert in this era.)

 

[Bad vibe]

To my mind Tim is actually explaining how the discipline works to the laymen here, how the evidence is used when we don't have access to such unequivocal data and possibility to test it as in natural science. And it seems to me that most people just don't get it and seem to think that they are as qualified as professional historians to make authoritive pronouncements on these matters without even having direct access to the sources (that is an ability to read and inteprete the originals first hand).

Someone said here that I have blind faith in authority. No, I don't, but I have great trust in the self-correctiveness of the scientific method as it is applied in the study of history. If the present scholarly expert consensus is wrong, it will get corrected by new published studies. That's why I said to these people, three times, actually, I guess: go and publish. Go and publish.

(I have a master's degree in history from Helsinki University, but don't consider myself any sort of an expert in this era.)

I think Tim got carried away by his own ego addressing a non-existant arguement had he actually read the posts he'd have seen that,
1. "Historical" is poorly defined if at all. I think most people reading this would vote Gospel HJ = Myth, a living human that became HJ = probable
2. The evidence is anything but a slam dunk and there are few facts the whole interpretation of the evidence is pretty subjective and the most honest conclusion at best can be stated as "probable" there are no absolutes, right / wrong.
3. Most "mythers" do not dispute a living human as the basis for Christianity to say otherwise is stupid.
4. All the information/ data is freely available to anyone expert or amatuer, Tim describes himself AS an amatuer so by your measure and Stones we can safely dismiss his posts too?

 

[llwyd]

4. All the information/ data is freely available to anyone expert or amatuer, Tim describes himself AS an amatuer so by your measure and Stones we can safely dismiss his posts too?

Well, to my mind he has got the method nailed pretty well, so if he is not a professional historian, then he at least knows how the discipline works. In my view the direct access to the source data is the key. The minimum requirement for scientific handling would be to have the ability to read and interprete these languages and manuscripts first hand along with the historical-cultural context of them. Without that, you are not doing original research - of course there are review articles that can give new understanding, but those also are based on first hand understanding of their interpretations.

As I don't have such direct access, I simply cannot have an authoritative opinion on the question, and neither can anyone else who is similarly lacking direct access to the source data. Anyway, I am very confident on relying on the current understanding of the experts that do have that access, ability and training. They are not infallible though and there can be new publications that can change this consensus, so anyone having new insights on the sources (in the original) is welcome to publish their findings.

 

[Bad vibe]

I admit my knowledge of the scholarship is non-existant but reading the posts often gives me information and sources I would have trouble finding unaided or be in any position to evaluate fairly. So for me and I'm sure many lurkers on this site these discussions provide an invaluable education I'd otherwise miss on a daunting but incredibly interesting topic.
They may not always be pretty or civil but I'd sooner have them than not.

 

[Bad vibe]

*deleted double post

 

[pakeha]

I'm with Bad vibe. I'm here to learn.

Yeah!
Which of the pretty pictures in the article did you like best?

What pretty pictures ?

Here, at the link Stone posted :

Anyone who can say that after TimONeill2 supplied this link --

http://www.quora.com/Jesus/Do-credi...e-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

scarcely a day ago(!) is obviously not following this thread at all. You're just spouting kool-aid propaganda.

Stone