What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

Originally Posted by Stone
Josephus recollections

Greek Version
Josephus, Antiquities 18.63, probably in a Christian redaction
...Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning. ...

[Pakeha] For me, that's easily the most interesting evidence ofthe entire lot.
I'll be researching this particular data.
Thanks for bringing it up, Stone.

Actually, for me, almost as interesting a detail is this cite of a bigger Josephus passage in a source that predates any of the extant ANTIQUITIES manuscripts --

Arabic Version
Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63, dates earlier than any extant ms. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.

"Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Here we have, in this cite from a possibly pre-1000c.e. ms., an entirely noncommittal tone in an episode for which Josephus was a near contemporary and a compatriot. Moreover, its tone in this cite is far more typical of the tone found elsewhere in ANTIQUITIES. It would seem to affirm, even more strongly than the text of this passage in the later mss., that Josephus is the kind of disinterested witness most helpful of all in allowing us to distinguish real history from urban legend.

But I agree that the passage that you cite about James seems stronger yet. And there are no textual variants in that passage at all, while a pre-Constantine reference to the James passage in Origen brings the James account even closer to the time when the episode about James happened, to a time when Christianity hadn't even been "mainstreamed" yet!

Cheers,

Stone

 

[maximara]

This is the tiredest urban legend in the myther handbook. Totally wrong, and plenty of mythers and their fellow travelers know it. Paul gives plenty of references to a HUMAN bio.

BZZZ WRONG as I have pointed out before as demonstrated by Robin Hood, King Arthur, and John Frum Paul gives us NOTHING.

The John Frum cargo cult claims that John Frum is a White literate US Serviceman who based on the description of us uniform was in the Navy.

The Prince Phillip splinter faction saw John Frum's brother Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in 1974 and some of its follows claimed to have met and talked with him (which can be proved to NOT be true)

The mythical King Arthur and Robin Hood have references to "human" bios...doesn't mean those versions exist.

Sticking to the definitive Paul (Romans, First Corinthians Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, Philemon) answer these details regarding Jesus:

Who was Jesus mother?

Who was Jesus father?

When was Jesus born?

Where was Jesus born?

Who crucified Jesus?

How long did Jesus preach?

What are the names of all of Jesus Apostle's who with him?

THESE are the details we are looking for NOT the Robin Hood, King Arthur, and John Frum like stuff Paul gives us.

 

[maximara]

For me, that's easily the most interesting evidence ofthe entire lot.
I'll be researching this particular data.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 is old hat and there are some problems with it which the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article over at Rationalwiki sums up nicely:

1) Josephus was writing for a Roman audience...how many Romans c95 CE had a clue as to what "Christ" meant?

2) Nearly everybody puts James the Just's death near 70 CE but the James in Josephus is killed c64 CE.

3) The James in Josephus is simply stoned. James the Just by contrast supposedly got a Rasputin like death by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen (insert tasteless joke about clean death here )

4) Drews in The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus stated that, even if the passage was entirely genuine, "brother" could have just meant the James being referred to belonged to a sect that venerated a Messiah called Jesus.

5) "(t)he Bible uses the term "christ" or "messiah" for a variety of figures, including all of the high priests and kings of ancient Israel" (Wright, Stuart A. (1995) Armageddon in Waco University of Chicago Press pg 296)

6) "In a characteristic typological reading he asserts that Moses himself was the first to recognize the glory of the name of Christ because he applied this title (in Greek as in the Hebrew, mashiah means simply "the anointed one") to the High Priest" (Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim (1993) Freud's Moses Yale University Press pg 91)


So even if you take the tack the passage hasn't been tampered with (which there is good reason to suspect) it could still refer to the Jesus at the end of the passage: Jesus the son of Damneus who was made high priest by Agrippa.

For all we know the passage could have originally read:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, later called christ,..."

We know that Christians royally hosed over the Testimonium Flavianum to the point there are questions if any of it is genuine (based on flow I'd say the whole thing is a fake) so why not this passage?

The sad thing is is the Christians hadn't tampered with Josephus at all they wouldn't have this problem now.

 

[Stone]

BZZZ WRONG as I have pointed out before as demonstrated by Robin Hood, King Arthur, and John Frum Paul gives us NOTHING.

The John Frum cargo cult claims that John Frum is a White literate US Serviceman who based on the description of us uniform was in the Navy.

The Prince Phillip splinter faction saw John Frum's brother Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in 1974 and some of its follows claimed to have met and talked with him (which can be proved to NOT be true)

The mythical King Arthur and Robin Hood have references to "human" bios...doesn't mean those versions exist.

Sticking to the definitive Paul (Romans, First Corinthians Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, Philemon) answer these details regarding Jesus:

Who was Jesus mother?

Who was Jesus father?

When was Jesus born?

Where was Jesus born?

Who crucified Jesus?

How long did Jesus preach?

What are the names of all of Jesus Apostle's who with him?

THESE are the details we are looking for NOT the Robin Hood, King Arthur, and John Frum like stuff Paul gives us.

You're moving the goalposts. Mythers' stock in trade is pretending that Paul never gives any human bio references in the authentic Paulines. BZZZZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts by saying "Oh, but the details are so few............"

Let's look at Paul's details --

Who was Jesus mother?

A jew.

Who was Jesus father?

A Jew.

When was Jesus born?

In "this age".

Where was Jesus born?

He was a Jew. So born in Palestine.

Who crucified Jesus?

The authorities in "this age".

How long did Jesus preach?

Doesn't say -- so WHOOP-DE-DO.

What are the names of all of Jesus Apostle's who with him?

He doesn't give all -- so WHOOP-DE-DO. He gives Peter and Jesus's brother James.

I don't know how many more times amateurs like you need to be told that you're not going to get the kinds of details on an ancient rabbi who died as a criminal that we have for a Mandela or an Obama. The details in the authentic Paulines are a damn sight better than you get for half the other Messianic kooks in Josephus. Live with it.

Stone

 

[Stone]

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 is old hat and there are some problems with it which the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article over at Rationalwiki sums up nicely:

1) Josephus was writing for a Roman audience...how many Romans c95 CE had a clue as to what "Christ" meant?

2) Nearly everybody puts James the Just's death near 70 CE but the James in Josephus is killed c64 CE.

3) The James in Josephus is simply stoned. James the Just by contrast supposedly got a Rasputin like death by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen (insert tasteless joke about clean death here )

4) Drews in The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus stated that, even if the passage was entirely genuine, "brother" could have just meant the James being referred to belonged to a sect that venerated a Messiah called Jesus.

5) "(t)he Bible uses the term "christ" or "messiah" for a variety of figures, including all of the high priests and kings of ancient Israel" (Wright, Stuart A. (1995) Armageddon in Waco University of Chicago Press pg 296)

6) "In a characteristic typological reading he asserts that Moses himself was the first to recognize the glory of the name of Christ because he applied this title (in Greek as in the Hebrew, mashiah means simply "the anointed one") to the High Priest" (Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim (1993) Freud's Moses Yale University Press pg 91)


So even if you take the tack the passage hasn't been tampered with (which there is good reason to suspect) it could still refer to the Jesus at the end of the passage: Jesus the son of Damneus who was made high priest by Agrippa.

For all we know the passage could have originally read:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, later called christ,..."

We know that Christians royally hosed over the Testimonium Flavianum to the point there are questions if any of it is genuine (based on flow I'd say the whole thing is a fake) so why not this passage?

The sad thing is is the Christians hadn't tampered with Josephus at all they wouldn't have this problem now.

You're ignoring just how often notorious figures throughout history have acquired "titles" (like the Gipper for Reagan) with many feeling no obligation to explain such nicknames at all. Josephus didn't have to explain the title "Christ" to his readers

The discrepancy in the date of James's death only strengthens the case for Josephus having written this, since no Christian would have made such an association, given their variant tradition for James's end.

Drews is pathetically outdated, not to mention the fact that we have not one but two additional references to siblings of Jesus outside of Josephus. And those two refs. are in two independent textual strata. You're discarding the principle of Occam's Razor by ignoring such a telltale coincidence.

It's also ridiculous to suppose that without high-handed editing you can still wrench an association between Josephus's "Jesus the called Christ" and "Jesus Damneides". Never once does Josephus give two separate tags to one and the same person -- especially within one and the same paragraph!

And of course, you're totally ignoring the Origen reference to this very James passage FROM BEFORE THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE'S MAINSTREAMING OF CHRISTIANITY. So no Christian scribe would have even got their paws on 20.9.1. yet. Origen shows that the "Jesus the called Christ" string has to originate with Josephus, making it doubly ludicrous for "Jesus the called Christ" and "Jesus Damneides" to refer to one and the same person!

Stone

 

[IanS]

IanS

The disciple John is a good candidate for the Beloved Disciple. No disciple, however, is a leading candidate to be the evangelist John. So, when the evangelist says that BD was a witness to something, he is not (likely) speaking of himself.

Re the highlight - that appears to be simply because the anonymous author of g-John knew that he himself was not "John".


We have in hand an unsworn hearsay report, not anything filed in an Anglo-American civilian-system adversarial-subject-matter legal action. The reporter says he has a witness for each of two incidents. Believe him or don't, but it's pointless to guess what would have happened had the matter been litigated in jurisdictions that didn't exist when the report was written.

Ironically, what might happen is what actually happened in this thread. Somebody qualified as an "expert witness," and testified at legnth on all manner of surmise and conjecture, based entirely on just these documents. It is only slightly more difficult to qualify as an expert in a United States court than on an internet forum, and only slightly less prestigious.


That's not the point of my comparison to what happens when forming judgements in a modern-day democratic court.

The point of the court comparison is that here in this thread we have to consider the merits of “evidence” written in gospels in just the same way that a modern court would judge testimony given as “evidence”. Or, at least, that is what we should be doing. That is - the fact that this would never be accepted as a genuine eye-witness account in any democratic legal consideration today, is a very good indication of why we too should not consider such very late anonymous hearsay claims of unknown eye witnesses to be reliable in any measure at all.



Witness has two meanings: more broadly, any person who had sensory experience of some event, and more narrowly, a person who claims to be a broad-sense witness and who tells the reporter about the experience. I am not aware of any Gospel report of witnesses in the second narrow sense, except for the two cases I mentioned. In neither of those cases did the reporter claim that there were narrow-sense witnesses for all the events reported.

Well then we are not disagreeing, except that what you are calling the second sense is not a “narrow” meaning at all. What we are talking about here is, whether or not what was claimed in g-John as a eye-witness, was or was not an actual eye-witness who had told the author what he knew. That’s the point. And that’s the only value of any such gospel claim to having an eye witness …

… if on the other hand the author only means something to the effect of saying he believed that according to legend someone unnamed had seen Jesus on the cross “according to scripture”, then that is no eye witness account at all!


As an aside, I wouldn't assume that words attributed to a speaker in an ancient document were offered as verbatim, nor that they would have been taken as verbatim by the document's first readers. (Since you like legal documents, the same is true of the United States Congressional Record.)


Oh, my “verbatim” comment was only to point out that all the gospels are full of disciples and others recounting exactly the words that Jesus spoke in numerous situations. But nobody thinks those are eye witness accounts being reported by the author of each gospel (they might have thought that prior to say 1400AD or some such date, but nobody makes that claim today).



The Gospel of John places several survivng people at the crucifixion, some of them named (three Mary's), one nicknamed (the Beloved Disciple - whose identity plausibly was known to the first readers of the work), one identified by relationship (a sister of Jesus' mother) and functional characters (soldiers, plural, one of whom stabs Jesus).


The Gospel of John cites one witness-informant, male by the pronoun used, not necessarily any of those people, but the Beloved Disciple is a good candidate. Thus, at least six people are placed at the scene who are not proposed as witness-informants, along with one person who is claimed to be a witness-informant.


But in that case, that is emphatically not an eye-witness account being retold by the author of the gospel, is it!? That’s’ precisely an example of what I said earlier, ie - all the gospels are filled with stories of all sorts of named and unnamed people witnessing every single thing that Jesus ever said or did … but nobody today tries to claim that the gospel authors had all those individuals as real eye-witnesses whose testimony was being reported by the gospel writers.

The gospels are universally agreed not to be eye-witness accounts, and they are not genuinely reporting real eye-witness accounts in any of these scenes with Jesus … all scenes which are derived from OT writing dating back centuries before Jesus anyway.

In addition to the above general points, which are the same ones we have been over several times before, here is an important question we should ask when considering whether this should be claimed as an eye-witness statement or not - is this an eye witness telling what he actual “witnessed”, or does that description of the suffering Jesus actually come from other sources entirely ?

The answer to that is that it comes direct from OT scripture. First we have to appreciate that the whole crucifixion event is a fiction based on representing the Passover sacrifice of paschal Lambs led to the slaughter (see Helms, ch.6 and references therein). For the passage itself - g-John tells us that soldiers broke the legs of two victims crucified alongside Jesus but did not break the legs of Jesus because he was already dead, but instead pieced his side with spears. However, apparently (see G.A. Wells, The Jesus Legend, p82-94) that passage actually comes partly from Psalm 34:20 and partly also from Exodus 12:46 where it says that not a bone of any righteous man or of the Paschel Lamb shall be broken, … and the part with the spears comes from Zechariah 12:10 NEB where it says “they shall look on me, on him whom they have pierced” .

The eye-witness also apparently saw blood and water come out from the stabbing wounds. Though afaik, modern medicine agrees that cannot have happened because it is medically “impossible”.

Again, there is more in that same passage about Jesus being offered drugged or soured wine etc., which also comes from OT scripture.

So what are we left with from this claimed eye-witness in g-John? Well, what he says about the spears etc. comes not from any eye witness but from what was written long before in the OT. And the part about blood and water is medically impossible and could not have happened anyway.

That’s not an eye witness account of anything that really happened. That’s the anonymous author of g-John imploring faithful Christians to believe that he tells the "good news" of the Lord who the faithful must follow. No surprise there of course, because all the gospels are full of “witnesses” like that.

 

[pakeha]

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 is old hat and there are some problems with it which the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article over at Rationalwiki sums up nicely: ....

Thanks for the link, maximara!

Actually, for me, almost as interesting a detail is this cite of a bigger Josephus passage in a source that predates any of the extant ANTIQUITIES manuscripts --

Arabic Version
Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63, dates earlier than any extant ms. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.

"Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Here we have, in this cite from a possibly pre-1000c.e. ms., an entirely noncommittal tone in an episode for which Josephus was a near contemporary and a compatriot. Moreover, its tone in this cite is far more typical of the tone found elsewhere in ANTIQUITIES. It would seem to affirm, even more strongly than the text of this passage in the later mss., that Josephus is the kind of disinterested witness most helpful of all in allowing us to distinguish real history from urban legend.

But I agree that the passage that you cite about James seems stronger yet. And there are no textual variants in that passage at all, while a pre-Constantine reference to the James passage in Origen brings the James account even closer to the time when the episode about James happened, to a time when Christianity hadn't even been "mainstreamed" yet!

Cheers,

Stone

Hi, Stone.
The Arab text, possibly pre-10th century, is one I'm not familiar with.
It does seem to be a late source for information about an historic Jesus, though, don't you think.
We have a forum member who's a good source of information on this sort of source. I'll drop them a PM and ask their opinion about this.
Thanks for giving me something to mull over!

ETA
A little googling gave me a most interesting discussion of this very text here
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-19360.html

 

[maximara]

You're moving the goalposts. Mythers' stock in trade is pretending that Paul never gives any human bio references in the authentic Paulines. BZZZZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts by saying "Oh, but the details are so few............"

No I am not.,

Who was Jesus mother?

A jew.

That is what she was not who she was. Races and regions are whats not whos.

Who was Jesus father?

A Jew.

Again that is what he was not who he was. Races and regions are whats not whos.

When was Jesus born?

In "this age".

An age is an vague undefined term. You have the Gilded Age, Early Middle Age, and I think you get the idea. This is not a detail.

Where was Jesus born?

He was a Jew. So born in Palestine.

Logical fallacy. Not all Jews were born in Palestine:

"Jews have lived in Rome for over 2,000 years, longer than in any other European city.They originally went there from Alexandria, drawn by the lively commercial intercourse between those two cities." (1906 Jewish Encyclopedia)

Never mind Philo was a Jew but was born in Alexandria. Sure odds were Jesus might have been born in Palestine but it is not any thing one can assume.

Who crucified Jesus?

The authorities in "this age".

Again an age is an vague undefined term. Are we talking the Age of Nero, Age of Julio-Claudian dynasty, Age of the Roman Empire (opposed to the Age of the Roman Republic) or some other age here?

Heck, we could even be talking about the Age of Pisces the more extreme Christ mythers throw out. A 2,150 year long age that nobody actually knows when it will start. Wonderful detail there NOT.

As you see Paul doesn't give use real details. Pauls gives the semblance of details but when you really look at them you see them they are vague Oracle of Delphi meets Nostradamus stabs that could fit nearly anyone.

It's like that joke Terry Jones did in Medieval Live episode Philosopher we meet a recreation of Artedius (sp) a Philosopher who claimed 1025 years old.

Peasant: You mean you were alive at the time of Christ?
Artedius: Yes.
Peasant: Did you meet him?
Artedius: Yes.
Peasant: Well, what was He like?
Artedius: Just exactly as you would imagine.

And it is not that much of a joke:

Chief Isaac: John is a spirit. He knows everything. He’s even more powerful than Jesus.
Paul Raffaele: Have you ever seen him?
Chief Isaac: Yes, John comes very often from Yasur to advise me, or I go there to speak with John.
Paul Raffaele: What does he look like?
Chief Isaac: An American!

((2005) "In John They Trust" Smithsonian)


As you can Paul isn't given any real details. Just vague comments that lead nowhere.

 

[Belz...]

Doesn't say -- so WHOOP-DE-DO.

Stone, I do appreciate your efforts when you're not shouting at everybody, but this kind of attitude ("we don't have any evidence, so what ?") isn't doing the HJ hypothesis any favours.

 

[Bad vibe]

ETA
A little googling gave me a most interesting discussion of this very text here
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-19360.html

Very interesting indeed especially one participants rants, they seem somewhat familiar.

 

[pakeha]

^
Possibly, but style can be imitated

Anyway, the thread itself is the interesting thing, particularly this post
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-19400.html#p1129116

 

[maximara]

You're ignoring just how often notorious figures throughout history have acquired "titles" (like the Gipper for Reagan) with many feeling no obligation to explain such nicknames at all. Josephus didn't have to explain the title "Christ" to his readers

Uh, the "The Gipper" originally the nickname of a college football player who played for the University of Notre Dame. Real name George Gipp. Born February 18, 1895 died December 14, 1920.

It is the role Reagan played in Knute Rockne, All American (1940). While he used it a lot in his political campaign there is no evidence he had this as a nick name before then.

Louis Cannon's 1991 President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime claims "The article said that Reagan had told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, during his November 29, 1983 visit to the White House, that the roots of his concern for Israel could be traced to World War II when he photographed the Nazi death camps."

As "Blumenthal, Reagan, and the Big Lie" (May 30, 2010) American Thinker shows there are problems with the claim and we are not sure Reagan actually made it.

The discrepancy in the date of James's death only strengthens the case for Josephus having written this, since no Christian would have made such an association, given their variant tradition for James's end.

As I have said before this assumes Christians had a perfect understanding of history. As we have seen with Irenaeus spectacular blunders with the Jesus timeline in Against Heresies (50+ years in at best a 42 year time period) and Demonstration (wrong Herod and Caesar) they didn't.

In fact comparing Demonstration (74) and Against Heresies 1:27:2 (both written c180 CE) you can show even a scholar like Irenaeus had no clue as to when things happened:

"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))

"But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar"

Taken together Irenaeus is claiming Jesus came into Pontius Pilate under Tiberius and crucified by Pontius Pilate under Claudius...a span of 6 years.

Then you have Epiphanius going on a philosophical argument that Jesus "was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander (Jannaeus)" which given all the other markers he had putting Jesus a full century later was total insanity...but Epiphanius did it anyhow.

Let's face it Christians knowledge was on par with the stuff you get out of Star Trek Voyager where everything before the 21st century is "ancient" history and you wind up face palming on the total idiocy of it all.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

The point of the court comparison is that here in this thread we have to consider the merits of “evidence” written in gospels in just the same way that a modern court would judge testimony given as “evidence”.

And, as I have already said, I disagree that that is an appropriate standard of review. So, I have, in fact, addressed the point you actually made, contrary to your complaint.

But in that case, that is emphatically not an eye-witness account being retold by the author of the gospel, is it!?

I have already said, repeatedly, that I don't believe that that is the nature of either Luke or John, the only two Gospels which mention witnesses as potential sources of anything in the Gospel. Mentioning witness-informants also differs from saying that some people were present when an event occurred, without citing an informant, as I have also repeatedly explained.

The answer to that is that it comes direct from OT scripture.

Actually, it comes very indirectly, by means of a wholly personal way of reading the Tanakh. We already see this in Paul, before the Gospels, finding the timing of the resurrection in Hosea. There's nothing about Jesus rising from the dead on the third day in Hosea. There's a story in Paul's head, which most certainly doesn't come directly from any scripture, and a verse he remembers and can associate with some snippet from the story in his head, glued together in a Hail Mary pass that the two things have anything to do with each other.

This has nothing to do with John reading something from BD, or not, about the stabbing of Jesus or about what was said at a post mortem fish-fry in Galilee. Neither of those events are in the Jewish scripture, either.

(As to whether what happened at the stabbing is possible, pulmonary or pleural edema is most certainly possible, so I don't know what pathologist you consulted who says otherwise.)

 

[maximara]

Very interesting indeed especially one participants rants, they seem somewhat familiar.

Which particular one? There are so many to choose from.

 

[Bad vibe]

Which particular one? There are so many to choose from.

begins with "S" read a few pages you can't miss the style.

 

[pakeha]

As I have said before this assumes Christians had a perfect understanding of history. As we have seen with Irenaeus spectacular blunders with the Jesus timeline in Against Heresies (50+ years in at best a 42 year time period) and Demonstration (wrong Herod and Caesar) they didn't.

In fact comparing Demonstration (74) and Against Heresies 1:27:2 (both written c180 CE) you can show even a scholar like Irenaeus had no clue as to when things happened:

"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))

"But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar"

Taken together Irenaeus is claiming Jesus came into Pontius Pilate under Tiberius and crucified by Pontius Pilate under Claudius...a span of 6 years.

Then you have Epiphanius going on a philosophical argument that Jesus "was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander (Jannaeus)" which given all the other markers he had putting Jesus a full century later was total insanity...but Epiphanius did it anyhow. ...

Thanks for reminding me of the Claudius/Tiberius mix-up.

 

[IanS]

It is possible to reach a conclusion without certainty. What is required is an assessment of probability, just as is the case in a court of law, in a civil case. If high probability is attainable, the conclusion may indeed be "beyond reasonable doubt" as required in a criminal verdict. But it is never certain in any absolute sense.

I think the balance of probability favours HJ, as I have chosen to define him. Therefore, that is my "conclusion".

The problem I have with this, is - if we are obtaining any notion of “probability” from actual evidence, then what is this evidence that we are supposed to be using?

As far as I can see, what we have discovered in this thread, and indeed in every similar thread I’ve ever seen on any forum, is that there is actually no objective reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus.

There is of course plenty of evidence of peoples religious beliefs. And evidence of what they wrote about those beliefs. But there is no actual evidence that their beliefs about a living messiah called Jesus were true.

If people here put a tentative probability of greater than 50% on the likelihood of a real Jesus, then I think that can only be because, either because they think real valid evidence has in fact been produced here AND that it is so strong as to be providing greater than 50% likelihood. Or else, if they accept that no reliable evidence has been produced here, then they are obtaining the 50%+ idea more as a matter of faith of some kind, rather than any objective evidence.

Does that mean I am saying he was only mythical? No, not really. It means that I think there is no good evidence of his existence. On the other hand there is of course a whole mass of evidence to show that what was written about Jesus could not have been true.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You're moving the goalposts. Mythers' stock in trade is pretending that Paul never gives any human bio references in the authentic Paulines. BZZZZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts by saying "Oh, but the details are so few............"

Let's look at Paul's details --

Who was Jesus mother?

A jew.

...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.

Who was Jesus father?

A Jew.

...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.

When was Jesus born?

In "this age".

...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.

Where was Jesus born?

He was a Jew. So born in Palestine.

...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.

Who crucified Jesus?

The authorities in "this age".

...which detail Paul, who was not there, could only know by third-hand report.

How long did Jesus preach?

Doesn't say -- so WHOOP-DE-DO.

What are the names of all of Jesus Apostle's who with him?

He doesn't give all -- so WHOOP-DE-DO. He gives Peter and Jesus's brother James.

I don't know how many more times amateurs like you need to be told that you're not going to get the kinds of details on an ancient rabbi who died as a criminal that we have for a Mandela or an Obama. The details in the authentic Paulines are a damn sight better than you get for half the other Messianic kooks in Josephus. Live with it.

Stone

I am not sure how many times you are going to have to be told that an hallucination or vision of the " 'son' of a 'god' " is not an encounter with a human Jesus. Paul did not know a human Jesus. He only knew of the divine personage with whom he bragged of having met after the crucifiction (and that not in person, but in a hallucination or vision).

 

[IanS]

IanS


And, as I have already said, I disagree that that is an appropriate standard of review. So, I have, in fact, addressed the point you actually made, contrary to your complaint.


I have already said, repeatedly, that I don't believe that that is the nature of either Luke or John, the only two Gospels which mention witnesses as potential sources of anything in the Gospel. Mentioning witness-informants also differs from saying that some people were present when an event occurred, without citing an informant, as I have also repeatedly explained.


Actually, it comes very indirectly, by means of a wholly personal way of reading the Tanakh. We already see this in Paul, before the Gospels, finding the timing of the resurrection in Hosea. There's nothing about Jesus rising from the dead on the third day in Hosea. There's a story in Paul's head, which most certainly doesn't come directly from any scripture, and a verse he remembers and can associate with some snippet from the story in his head, glued together in a Hail Mary pass that the two things have anything to do with each other.

This has nothing to do with John reading something from BD, or not, about the stabbing of Jesus or about what was said at a post mortem fish-fry in Galilee. Neither of those events are in the Jewish scripture, either.

OK, we have been over the above several times now, and I have explained in detail why I think you are wrong, and why that cannot possibly be regarded as a genuine eye-witness account. I'll let others here read what has been repeatedly said on all sides, and decide for themselves.

(As to whether what happened at the stabbing is possible, pulmonary or pleural edema is most certainly possible, so I don't know what pathologist you consulted who says otherwise.)

Here is what Wells says about that (p85 … full ref in previous post) -


“ that water, together with blood, should issue from the side of someone who is already dead would indeed be miraculous, as a comprehensive article on the subject in a Berlin medical journal concluded in 1963 (ref 1). Some have said that the water was pericardial fluid; but not more than about half a thimble of fluid could have come from the pericardium. Fluid from a pleural effusion has also been invoked. But the lungs are at atmospheric pressure , so that if there is fluid in the pleural cavity, a perforation will cause air to go in, and not fluid to come out. To remove the fluid it has to sucked out under pressure. Even if water did issue with Jesus’s blood from a single wound, it could hardly have done so in a way that made it possible for an observer to distinguish the two. The water and the blood are probably meant as an allusion to the sacraments of the baptism and the Eucharist (see ref. 2 below) and the purpose of verse 35 which authenticates their issue from Jesus’ body is pretty clearly to combat doceticsm - the doctrine, expressly criticised in the first of the epistles ascribed to John (ref to p32 or Wells), that Jesus lived on earth with only a phantom body. “



1. K.J. Schultze, “Der Tod Jesu in der Sicht der modernen Medizin”, Berliner Medizin, 14, pp210-220 (1963)

2. 1-John. 5:6 : He “came not with the water only, but with the water and the blood”. The idea there, as in John 19:34 where water and blood issue form Jesus’s side, is that not only the Eucharist but also the baptism owes it’s efficacy to the Lords death:- it is in virtue of his death that sins are forgiven at baptism, the opening of a fountain of grace. Ignatius of Antioch expressed the idea when he wrote, early in the second century: “He submitted to baptisms so that by his Passion he might sanctify the water” (Letter to Ephesians, section 18).

 

[Craig B]

...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.
...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.
...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.
...which detail Paul, who had never met a human Jesus in person, but only through a vision or hallucination, could only know by third-hand report.
...which detail Paul, who was not there, could only know by third-hand report.

First hand report. He encountered a person, James, whom he identifies as Jesus' brother. And indeed the Gospls assign to Jesus a brother of that name.