What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

Carrier's reply answer all the points to which Bernard Muller relies with a regurgitation of the points Carrier made with NO counter arguments which results in Carrier's "All fallacious arguments. You’re done." comment.

Uh where in chapter 9 does it even give a hint of "Jesus son of Damneus" later "joining up with Ananus"?

Josephus is online and I looked at Chapter 9 and Jesus son of Damneus is mentioned twice: in the James passage and in the following-

"And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other."

Johan Rönnblom provides a logical counter arguments to Bernard Muller's other arguments. Nothing here.

The friendship betw. Ananus and Jesus Damneides is in Josephus's Wars and explicitly cited by Bernard Muller --

Josephus’ Wars, IV, V, 2 “… they [the Idumeans] sought for the high priests [former high priests Ananus, son of Ananus and Jesus, son of Damneus], and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city , and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus [son of Damneus] was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men’s case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.”

So far, Carrier has not addressed this passage -- or this particular problem -- at all.

Stone

 

[Slowvehicle]

They are in the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_records_exception

Don't feel bad--reading the law is difficult. From your link:
"The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule... [r]ecords of regularly conducted activity...if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity..."

By definition, in your link, "business records" are not hearsay. Were they hearsay, but admissible hearsay, they would be "exceptions to the hearsay rules"; instead, they are "not excluded by" the rules that exclude hearsay.

(ETA: Ninja-ed by Maximara. That's what I get for posting before the coffee kicks in...)

The claim is yours,

To be precise, my claim is that Paul's hallucination does not provide evidence that a human HJ existed (which is the claim for which the writings that are said to be said by Paul were being offered as evidence).

I disagree with your description, and have said so. Doubting your statement does not shift your burden about the most that can be said, etc.

Here's a hint of one part of what you need to show. At Galatians 1: 18, Paul reportedly says that three years after his coversion, and several years before Paul is writing the letter, Paul conferred with Cephas for two weeks. Show, then, that the subject of Jesus' biography didn't come up at any time during the meeting.

You do not understand the burden of proof. My claim is that hallucinations of meeting a dead personage are not indications that said personage is human.

Your claim now appears to be that, since I did not show that "Cephas" did NOT show Jesus' baby pictures, and primary-school report cards, and bronzed baby sandals, to Paul, then, apparently, this amounts to evidence that Paul was talking about a human when he boasted that he only met "the Lord" in his hallucination.

Simply--your claim Paul and Cephas talked about Jesus' autobiography; your burden of proof. (You can't prove that they were not discussing the implications of extending the DH rule to both leagues...)

How much could Cephas have said in two weeks? By comparison, you might estimate how long it would take to recite the entire Gospel of Mark, which is about 11,000 words long and is traditionally associated with Paul's conferee. About 2 hours; the text has in fact been staged as a one-man show. Not two weeks, but two hours suffice to say what anybody thinks Peter-Cephas might ever have had to say about Jesus' life. Maybe they talked about football.

Which has...what...to do with refuting my statement that Paul's boast of only meeting "the Lord" in his vision demonstrates that the statements that are said to be said by Paul are not evidence that the Jesus Paul hallucinated of meeting was human?

After you're done with that meeting, we'll talk about Paul's reported statement that he had hostile contact with churches in Christ for an unspecified interval before his conversion. Let's use 1 Corinthians this time, 15: 9 for one instance. I await your showing that no information about Jesus' alleged biography made its way to Paul then.

Please demonstrate that Paul is said to have said that he met "the Lord" in person during those hostile contacts. Again: Paul's boast that he only met "the Lord" in his hallucinations is not evidence that Jesus was an historical human.

After that, we can discuss that Paul is reported to complain of his ongoing disagreement with competing preachers. Philippians 1: 15-18, is a very sporting example of its kind. You need only show that these disputes do not at all comcern Jesus' biography, or that they do, but Paul doesn't know what these other teachers have to say about Jesus, he just disagrees with them anyway.

Again: Please demonstrate that your unsupported insinuation that Paul is said to have talked about Jesus' "biography" (that Jesus about whom Paul bragged of only having met in his hallucinations, after the crucifiction), can be twisted in any way to indicate that the subject of Paul's hallucinations existed as an historical human.

That will keep us busy for a while. And impossible though it supposedly is, I have just said more than Paul is said to have said certain things about Jesus, things he learned in a hallucination or vision. The received text provides no support for such an hypothesis being a complete description of Paul's sources. It's just another thing that apologists made up, hoping that counters will take the bait instead of reading the book.

Even if you could demonstrate that Paul was, indeed, said to have said that he discussed the biography of "the Lord" at any point with any one, the fact remains that in the texts said to be said by Paul, Paul is said to brag that his message about "the Lord" came not from men, but from "the Lord" himself (in his hallucination). Discussing the details of someone met only as the subject of an hallucination does not convey existence upon the subject of the hallucination.

Discussing the life cycle of Bigfoot does not convey existence upon 'Squatch.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ah, well since we're making up definitions, I will be henceforth defining "cow" as "an article of furniture consisting of a flat, slablike top supported on one or more legs or other supports, and specifically used for serving food to those seated at it." There. That should make things easier when I say that I took the cows out for milking. And by milking, I mean "tea".

I believe we have a winner...

Can one sentence out of a post be nommed for pith? I shall go find out.

Right after I clean coffee off my laptop...

 

[maximara]

The friendship betw. Ananus and Jesus Damneides is in Josephus's Wars and explicitly cited by Bernard Muller --

Josephus’ Wars, IV, V, 2 “… they [the Idumeans] sought for the high priests [former high priests Ananus, son of Ananus and Jesus, son of Damneus], and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city , and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus [son of Damneus] was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men’s case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.”

So far, Carrier has not addressed this passage -- or this particular problem -- at all.

Because this problem is based on the poster inserting a load of extra stuff that is NOT in the actual passage. The Wars Of The Jews Or The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem chapter 4 is online.

If you go up to Chapter 3 paragraph 9 you run into this:

"The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots; for that was the name they went by, as if they were zealous in good undertakings, and were not rather zealous in the worst actions, and extravagant in them beyond the example of others."

The actual word "Damneus" appears NOWHERE in Book 4 (in fact the only reference to Jesus son of Damneus in this version is in the footnote to a sentence in Chapter 3 paragraph 6).

Since Josephus introduces Jesus the son of Gamalas and Ananus the son of Ananus together as high priests in Chapter 3 paragraph 9 and make NO mention of "Jesus the son of Damneus" this must be the Jesus and Ananus pair Josephus talks about Chapter 5 paragraph 2!

 

[eight bits]

Belz

Bits, under your definition EVERYTHING is hearsay.

Eyewitness testimony about some event isn't hearsay, if I'm hearing it from the eyewitness. The dead mouse on the kitchen floor certainly isn't hearsay. There's plenty of physical evidence of things in the ancient world where there's no language involved at all.

So far, though, a lot which is on-topic in this thread turns on hearsay. This apparently bothers you more than it bothers me. I wonder, then, how, on the key question, Was there a historical Jesus?, we end up with overlapping probability estimates.

Must be a coincidence.


Slowvehicle

Don't feel bad ...

Try to understand the difference between the two questions: What is hearsay? and What hearsay is admissible under some given rules of evidence?

But don't let it distract you from offering some evidence for your claims about Paul.

To be precise, my claim is that Paul's hallucination does not provide evidence that a human HJ existed ...

So far, so good. Unfortunately, it's not the only claim you made.

...(which is the claim for which the writings that are said to be said by Paul were being offered as evidence).

By Piggy maybe. Piggy toed a common Christian apologist line that hallucination is all that Paul says he has to offer for biographical Jesus lore. That simply isn't what Paul's text says.

Recall that Luke, who is plainly sympathetic to Paul, portrays the Galatians 1 rap as a "Bill Clinton" recital. Literally true, but conveniently misleading. Luke shows Paul with Ananais of Damascus, a disciple of Jesus, in Damascus. Not in Jerusalem, just as Paul says, and not dealing with "any man" except Jesus, because Jesus sent Ananias personally and directly to Paul, announced by a separate vision to Paul (9: 12), after the conversion event, according to Luke. (And maybe Paul is not talking with A of D about what Paul seems to say that he did get from Jesus, the abstruse propositions located towards the end of what is now the second chapter of Galatians.).

Even if you believe that Luke is being unfair to his hero, it is a fact that the only thing Paul specifically excludes is instruction in Jerusalem promptly after his conversion. By the time he's wriing the letter, he cops to having had two weeks consulting with the traditional source of Mark. There is no earthly reason to think that Paul, a decade or two after his conversion, knew any less Jesus lore than any other "apostle," or that he got it from any place other than the various disciples, teachers and apostles Paul talks about. Paul says nothing contrary to that in his surviving letters.

My claim is that hallucinations of meeting a dead personage are not indications that said personage is human.

Nobody disputes that. Your claim that needs support was that such experiences were the only source of Paul's information about Jesus, according to Paul. There is no support for your claim in anything Paul wrote, and there's a denial of it in Paul's fan literature.

Your claim now appears ...

I haven't made a claim. I am explaining what I expect you to prove about yours, and am providing guidance about the many textual impediments which your proofs will have to surmount.

Which has...what...to do with refuting my statement ...

I'm not refuting your statement. I am waiting for you to present your evidence so there is something to discuss. So far, though, there's nothing from you on the table to refute. Just loose talk. It's also a bad sign that your story about what you're claiming changes from post to post. Think about what you want to be claiming, and write it out clearly.

If you really have backed down from claiming that Paul's only source for biographical information about Jesus is, according to Paul, unnatural experience, then just say so.

Please demonstrate that Paul is said to have said that he met "the Lord" in person during those hostile contacts.

Why? I didn't say that he did. Neither did anybody else. Don't change the subject.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Try to understand the difference between the two questions: What is hearsay? and What hearsay is admissible under some given rules of evidence?

*From your own link*:

"The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule... [r]ecords of regularly conducted activity...if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity..."

"Not excluded by" does not mean that business records are a kind of hearsay that is allowed. The kinds of hearsay that are allowed are called "Exceptions to the hearsay rule". No matter how often you wave your hands.

But don't let it distract you from offering some evidence for your claims about Paul.

You mean, so that you can ignore it again? Consider reading the thread.

So far, so good. Unfortunately, it's not the only claim you made.

By Piggy maybe. Piggy toed a common Christian apologist line that hallucination is all that Paul says he has to offer for biographical Jesus lore. That simply isn't what Paul's text says.

Recall that Luke, who is plainly sympathetic to Paul, portrays the Galatians 1 rap as a "Bill Clinton" recital. Literally true, but conveniently misleading. Luke shows Paul with Ananais of Damascus, a disciple of Jesus, in Damascus. Not in Jerusalem, just as Paul says, and not dealing with "any man" except Jesus, because Jesus sent Ananias personally and directly to Paul, announced by a separate vision to Paul (9: 12), after the conversion event, according to Luke. (And maybe Paul is not talking with A of D about what Paul seems to say that he did get from Jesus, the abstruse propositions located towards the end of what is now the second chapter of Galatians.).

...none of which is something Paul is said to have said, in what are said to be Paul's writings...

Even if you believe that Luke is being unfair to his hero, it is a fact that the only thing Paul specifically excludes is instruction in Jerusalem promptly after his conversion. By the time he's wriing the letter, he cops to having had two weeks consulting with the traditional source of Mark. There is no earthly reason to think that Paul, a decade or two after his conversion, knew any less Jesus lore than any other "apostle," or that he got it from any place other than the various disciples, teachers and apostles Paul talks about. Paul says nothing contrary to that in his surviving letters.

How odd that you think that after being said to say that he boasted of receiving his knowledge of "the Lord" "not from men", hearing the "Jesus Lore" constitutes "knowledge" of a human Jesus.

Nobody disputes that. Your claim that needs support was that such experiences were the only source of Paul's information about Jesus, according to Paul. There is no support for your claim in anything Paul wrote, and there's a denial of it in Paul's fan literature.

Actually, apologists on this very forum do, indeed, do just that. Consider reading the threads.

I also find it laughable that you seem to claim that what is said to be things that are said in "Paul's fan literature" counts as evidence of reality. By that argument, Potter and Malfoy were Snape's LoveSlaves.

I haven't made a claim. I am explaining what I expect you to prove about yours, and am providing guidance about the many textual impediments which your proofs will have to surmount.

I'm not refuting your statement.

Thank you for restating the patent.

I am waiting for you to present your evidence so there is something to discuss. So far, though, there's nothing from you on the table to refute. Just loose talk. It's also a bad sign that your story about what you're claiming changes from post to post. Think about what you want to be claiming, and write it out clearly.

If you really have backed down from claiming that Paul's only source for biographical information about Jesus is, according to Paul, unnatural experience, then just say so.

Why? I didn't say that he did. Neither did anybody else. Don't change the subject.

Despite your handwaving, and special pleading, my only claim is, and has been, that what Paul is said to have said about encountering "the Lord" in his hallucinations is not, cannot be, evidence that Paul is said to have said that he encountered a human, historical person. Your claims that Paul "must have" known the "lore", or "would have" discussed the biography of "the Lord" are not supported by the things Paul is said to have said in what is said to be part of the New Testament.

You may construe the "off camera" action to your heart's content. What remains is what Paul is said to have said about the source of his information about "the Lord".

 

[eight bits]

Slowvehicle

Apparently you didn't bother to read the other link that I suppied, which explains the business records exception, using the specific vocabulary words which you prefer. But that's OK.

Meanwhile, back to Paul,

... my only claim is, and has been, that what Paul is said to have said about encountering "the Lord" in his hallucinations is not, cannot be, evidence that Paul is said to have said that he encountered a human, historical person.

Then you have, as I requested, backed off of your earlier and factually inaccurate claim

Instead, the most that can be said is that Paul is said to have said certain things about Jesus, things he learned in a hallucination or vision

That's what I asked for, if you couldn't provide evidence, which of course you can't, because Paul wrote no such thing.

Thank you for your cooperation and for a stimulating conversation. I look forward to future discussions with you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

]

Apparently you didn't bother to read the other link that I suppied, which explains the business records exception, using the specific vocabulary words which you prefer. But that's OK.

Right. It means what you want to say it means, unless you weant it to say it means somehting else...

Meanwhile, back to Paul,


Then you have, as I requested, backed off of your earlier and factually inaccurate claim

I would appreciate you substantiating this.

That's what I asked for, if you couldn't provide evidence, which of course you can't, because Paul wrote no such thing.

Thank you for your cooperation and for a stimulating conversation. I look forward to future discussions with you.

Suggestion. Read what are said to be the things Paul is said to have said about his sources...then argue with them.

PS: fanfic is not sources.

 

[eight bits]

I would appreciate you substantiating this.

Here, let me quote you again:

Instead, the most that can be said is that Paul is said to have said certain things about Jesus, things he learned in a hallucination or vision

Hope that clears things up for you.

Best wishes. And thanks again for a stumulating conversation.

 

[Belz...]

Eyewitness testimony about some event isn't hearsay, if I'm hearing it from the eyewitness.

Well that's at least that.

The dead mouse on the kitchen floor certainly isn't hearsay.

Ok so far.

There's plenty of physical evidence of things in the ancient world where there's no language involved at all.

Uh-huh.

So far, though, a lot which is on-topic in this thread turns on hearsay. This apparently bothers you more than it bothers me.

I see you stopped your list at "written records", though. Written records are hearsay only if what's written would be hearsay if said aloud. Noting the credit card number of a customer, etc. is not hearsay.

What bothers me is not that a lot of history relies on hearsay, it's the amount of certainty that is derived from the tentative conclusions reaches with that hearsay.

 

[maximara]

This is a link to a pdf of the paper that isn't behind a pay wall:
http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

Goldberg seems to have made the case that there are unequivocal similarities between a section of Luke and the TF. But what to make of that? Goldberg proposes three possibilities:
1. Coincidence
2. The TF was written and interpolated by somebody that had access to Luke.
3. The author of Luke and Josephus had similar sources

He provides evidence that seems to be convincing, Carrier at least thinks it is convincing, that the similarities that he has shown essentially eliminate possibility 1. Goldberg, favors possibility 3. He believes the case has been muddied because of interpolations added to what Josephus wrote, but he believes most of the TF was included in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus himself.

I would need to read his paper more carefully, but I didn't see where Goldberg dealt with some of the main objections to the authenticity of the TF in his paper. Goldberg does make the point that even if Josephus wrote part of the TF that he may be just incorporating something that was provided to him into his work and just because Josephus incorporated the TF into his work doesn't mean that that what it relates is true.

Well you still have the logic issue of why no one before Eusebius mentions the Testimonium Flavianum even if it was in their best interest to do so?

For example, Origen (c. 185-c. 254) in Against Celsus should have used the Testimonium Flavianum as it was his ace..but he didn't. Why?

In fact, as late as the 9th century we have Christians who cite Josephus but not this passage.

Then finally we have that comment about 16th century reference to copy of Josephus that didn't mention Jesus at all!

While this alone would not prove the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery it does provide circumstantial evidence that something is wonked about it.

The fact Josephus flows better without it is another red flag

Then you have the fact that if the traditional dates for the Gospels are to be believed Josephus should have had at least Mark (70-85 CE) to use as a reference so why is the Testimonium Flavianum so lacking in detail when compared to the accounts of Simon of Peraea and Athronges?

We are asked by apologists that Josephus had more information on two people who in the long term of history were obscure no bodies than the man who teachings had seemingly spread through the Empire like wildfire.

There is a interesting article that takes The Testimonium Flavianum apart and looks at each sentence in the thing and points out the unusual lack of information in the passage:

"why would the Jewish establishment (to whom Josephus belonged!) want such a good and extraordinary man executed? No reasons are provided; this would be unprecedented for Josephus, who simply had to explain it, and more so because of the oddity of the situation: the Jewish leaders sending to the cross (as a rebel/criminal) a popular teacher of truth"

Also given how Josephus was promoting Vespasian as the Messiah wouldn't Josephus have portrayed Jesus in a negative light as he did Simon of Peraea and Athronges? The temple tantrum (as Carrier puts it) certainly gives Josephus enough to work with and so does the whole brother against brother thing in Mark.

Even in its watered down (remove the "Christan" parts) the passage has huge logical problems as Josephus was on essentially an agenda...make any challenger to Vespasian as the Messiah look bad. The Testimonium Flavianum fails that agenda spectacularly (in fact, there have been suggestions that the "real" Testimonium Flavianum was totally negative...which would mean the version we have is still a forgery-but it does show how desperate people are to have Josephus have said something even negative things about Jesus)

 

[pakeha]

Here's some one who believes the TF is a reworking of the Emmaus incident in Luke
http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

 

[Brainache]

I posted this in the "Skeptics- Did Jesus Exist?" thread, but it is also on topic here, I hope this isn't spamming:

I think I might attempt here to put together a little simplified time-line. I hope any real Historians reading this will correct any glaring errors.

After Alexander The Great conquered the world and promptly died, his Generals set themselves up as Kings and founded various Dynasties. For the next couple of hundred years the region we are discussing was ruled by the Seleucid Dynasty in Syria, mostly. The Ptolemies in Egypt sometimes extended their rule there as well. The Ptolemies seem to have been more popular, the Seleucids were intolerant and wanted to Hellenize Judea.

<snipped stuff about Maccabeans, Herodians and Zealots>
...

During that period from the Census until the final destruction of the Temple there was almost constant unrest. Josephus goes into great detail if you are interested.
ETA: http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/

If HJ existed, it was during that time of popular unrest and he was most likely opposed to the Herodians and Romans, and on board with the Zealots. Later Pauline Christian traditions of Jesus as accomodating Romans and "rendering unto Ceasar" etc seem unlikely in this scenario.
...

I'd be interested to hear what the experts think of my little Eisenman summary.

 

[neilgodfrey]

If HJ existed, it was during that time of popular unrest and he was most likely opposed to the Herodians and Romans, and on board with the Zealots.

If we look at that "popular unrest" described by Josephus I think, from memory, that we it is not until the latter half of the first century that we find "popular unrest" led by would-be "kings" -- or possible messianic pretenders. My recollection is that before then there were many bandit movements -- but that was true of many areas of the Roman Empire. Brigands do not necessarily equate with popular support for political resistance movements.

Something to check.

Neil Godfrey

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

The problem in this thread, though, is what the historical Jesus would need to be like to "count." Most people who've given specific answers here, I think, have stayed away from requiring much soecificity in what Jesus taught. If the Jesus you described was historical, then it sounds like he could very well "count." I am unsure how strong a case can be made for that Jesus-agenda, though. On two particular points:

If HJ existed, it was during that time of popular unrest and he was most likely opposed to the Herodians and Romans, and on board with the Zealots. Later Pauline Christian traditions of Jesus as accomodating Romans and "rendering unto Ceasar" etc seem unlikely in this scenario.

Pauline Christianity

The "God says to obey to the Roman authorities" stuff is well after Paul, in the later faked epistles wrongly ascribed to him and other letters like 1 Peter. This is after Paul, Paul is well after Jesus. Maybe there is a bridge, but it's a long span.

Was that perspective retrojected onto Gospel Jesus?

Not written into the text, I don't think, but people reading the Gospel get out of it what they bring to it, like any other storybook. Later Christians who hear from fake-Peter and fake-Paul that they should be good slaves and underlings read the Gospels and think they see a Jesus who agreed with that. That's not necessarily the character as written.

In the "render unto" pericope, as written, Jesus simply is not advocating that you "should" pay your taxes. He is dancing out of a rhetorical trap set for him by his ideological opponents. That's a great story type - the bad guys think they are clever, "We've got him where he want him," and the hero dances out of danger. "Curses, foiled again," mutter the bad guys.

But it is Jesus' own brand of that story type: he shoves a a non-sequitur down the audience's gorge, and they swallow it (cue "Razzle Dazzle" from Chicago). Is anybody in Jesus' crowd so stupid as to think that a coin in their moneybag belongs to the guy whose picture is on it? Of course not. The speech is complete BS, a wall of noise so Jesus can slip out of the noose.

The Gospel doesn't "conflict" with any theory of Jesus in stories like this. The point is how clever Jesus was, not what agneda he advanced. Zealot-Jesus, Bandit-Jesus, Ghandi-Jesus...? Sure, we've got those in stock. How many would you like?

 

[Belz...]

Brainache

The problem in this thread, though, is what the historical Jesus would need to be like to "count."

Well that _is_ the topic, after all.

But it's hard to answer that in a way that is satisfactory, so the discussion shifted to "was there even a guy behind the myth ?", which everybody pretty much seems to think is more likely than not.

It's unfortunate that Piggy left before providing us with his vaunted evidence, though.

 

[maximara]

If we look at that "popular unrest" described by Josephus I think, from memory, that we it is not until the latter half of the first century that we find "popular unrest" led by would-be "kings" -- or possible messianic pretenders. My recollection is that before then there were many bandit movements -- but that was true of many areas of the Roman Empire. Brigands do not necessarily equate with popular support for political resistance movements.

Something to check.

Neil Godfrey

Here is a list of some of the would be messiahs Josephus mentions:


Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE) - Jewish War 2.57-59; Jewish Antiquities 17.273-277
Athronges (c 3 CE) - Jewish Antiquities 17.278-284
Judas of Galilee (6 CE) - Antiquities Book 18 Chapter 1; death of sons in Antiquities 20.5.2 102. Also refereed to in Acts 5:37
Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE) - Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98
Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) - Jewish War 2.259-263; Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171
Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE) -
John of Giscala (d c70 CE) - The Jewish War appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII.

 

[maximara]

Well that _is_ the topic, after all.

But it's hard to answer that in a way that is satisfactory, so the discussion shifted to "was there even a guy behind the myth ?", which everybody pretty much seems to think is more likely than not.

It's unfortunate that Piggy left before providing us with his vaunted evidence, though.

Unfortunate or predictable?

The "evidence" that generally gets presented is more predictable then the plot to an old EC comic: Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus (on a really bad day), and perhaps Irenaeus to show why we should trust the gospels as historical documents.

When Piggy actually started on his "evidence" we got a long rambling background followed by what amounted to the theology Paul is going on about. But Paul warning about another Jesus another Gospel and another Spirit in 2 Corinthians 11:4 raises the issue of where the teachings Paul is giving are coming from--the Jesus in his head or the Jesus who preached in Galilee.

We have have seen apologists do this before to the point it is a been there, done that, gotten another freaking T-shirt situation.

 

[TimCallahan]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but do most of those posting accept Paul as a historical person? If so, then his references in his epistle to the Galatians mentioning James and Peter would point to a historical Jesus, particularly since he refers to James as "the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19).

That said, Paul's own statements that his gospel came from a revelatory experience means that his Jesus is more made up than real. Also, just about everything in the gospels is taken from one or another of the following sources: the Jewish scriptures, contemporary politics seen through the lens Jewish apocalyptic thought, pagan myth and Greek literature.

So, while there's little that we can call history in the New Testament, I would take Paul's references to Peter and James as pointing to a real, if shadowy, Jesus.

 

[IanS]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but do most of those posting accept Paul as a historical person? If so, then his references in his epistle to the Galatians mentioning James and Peter would point to a historical Jesus, particularly since he refers to James as "the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19).

That said, Paul's own statements that his gospel came from a revelatory experience means that his Jesus is more made up than real. Also, just about everything in the gospels is taken from one or another of the following sources: the Jewish scriptures, contemporary politics seen through the lens Jewish apocalyptic thought, pagan myth and Greek literature.

So, while there's little that we can call history in the New Testament, I would take Paul's references to Peter and James as pointing to a real, if shadowy, Jesus.

Has it been raised before? Only about 100 times so far.

Question - who do you think wrote those 5 words at the end of an otherwise completed sentence in Paul’s letter " ... other apostles saw I none ... save James ... the Lords brother." ?

That sentence does not come to us from anything Paul wrote. Because we don't have anything Paul ever wrote.

It first appears, afaik, in copies made by Christian writers from about 200AD onwards.

Do we know if Paul ever wrote those words? Ans, no.

That's apart from any other questions about who this "James" person was, or whether he was ever the blood/family brother of anyone.