What counts as a historical Jesus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good and well. But at #4072 you said this: So did the change in the understanding of the Messiah take place post 70 - in consequence of the War, as you say? Or later, in the 2nd century, as you also say? Or was it in fact already present prior to the outbreak of the War, as one of its major causes, as we have seen that Josephus says?

Fair point. I was trying to avoid a long comment to begin with.

We don't have any specific appellation of "messiah" applied to a contemporary until Bar Kochba in the second century.

What Josephus refers to is a widespread expectation of a fulfillment of a messianic prophecy at the time Judea/Jerusalem were directly threatened by Roman armies.

I don't know of any evidence for messianic expectations prior to this time -- though many have surmised that various bandit leaders and other (even unarmed) nonconformists were "messianic" hopefuls. (At the same time scholars often tell us that a messiah was expected to conquer, and the idea of an unarmed messiah was unthinkable to Jews -- hence the radical nature of Christianity.)

I am not betting my house on this. We may one day discover new evidence. But till then I think we can only mount a justifiable case that addresses the evidence we have. And Thompson, Green, et al do in the meantime give us cogent rationales for understanding that the messiah concept was a theological term that had no relevance to living people -- until from the time of the Jewish Wars.
 
Post the URL as text, with extra spaces, and some kind soul will put it up for you...

On the chance there is a kind soul passing by . . . posts covering in some detail questions of the date of Acts:

http and all that followed by vridar.org/?s=%22Dating+the+book+of+Acts%22
 
Last edited:
We may one day discover new evidence.

If it risks being handled as badly as the James Ossuary was I think we are better of if no new evidence is found.

Let's face reality, Middle East archeology is effectively a bad joke. The economic climate in the region encourages the locals to go and find artifacts...destroying much needed provenance in the process.

If the James Ossuary had been found in situ by professional archeologist there wouldn't have been an issue with the inscription. But as with many discoveries it was found by an amateur and got sold around the private market before coming to light in professional circles.
 
Fair point. I was trying to avoid a long comment to begin with.

We don't have any specific appellation of "messiah" applied to a contemporary until Bar Kochba in the second century.

What Josephus refers to is a widespread expectation of a fulfillment of a messianic prophecy at the time Judea/Jerusalem were directly threatened by Roman armies.

I don't know of any evidence for messianic expectations prior to this time -- though many have surmised that various bandit leaders and other (even unarmed) nonconformists were "messianic" hopefuls. (At the same time scholars often tell us that a messiah was expected to conquer, and the idea of an unarmed messiah was unthinkable to Jews -- hence the radical nature of Christianity.)

I am not betting my house on this. We may one day discover new evidence. But till then I think we can only mount a justifiable case that addresses the evidence we have. And Thompson, Green, et al do in the meantime give us cogent rationales for understanding that the messiah concept was a theological term that had no relevance to living people -- until from the time of the Jewish Wars.

Really?
Josephus "Antiquities..." Book 18 Chapter 1 :
...Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

...
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

This is Judas the Galilean starting a revolt at the time of Quirinius' Census, you know, when Luke says Jesus was born...

Josephus goes on to describe how Judas founded a new "Philosophy" which eventually led to all of the destruction of the revolt against Rome. Because it spread amongst the young because they were Zealous for it...

He describes this fourth philosophy as the Messiah Prophecy that drove the population mad. He says it started with a popular revolt in 6-7 CE, quite early in the 1st Century really...

I don't know how anyone can honestly argue Josephus says otherwise.
 
If it risks being handled as badly as the James Ossuary was I think we are better of if no new evidence is found.

Let's face reality, Middle East archeology is effectively a bad joke. The economic climate in the region encourages the locals to go and find artifacts...destroying much needed provenance in the process.

If the James Ossuary had been found in situ by professional archeologist there wouldn't have been an issue with the inscription. But as with many discoveries it was found by an amateur and got sold around the private market before coming to light in professional circles.
And it was phoney. You forgot to mention that. See http://archive.archaeology.org/ossuary/.
 
From the Book of Moderation, Chapter 1, Verses 4-7

4. And Lo, It was said to keepth the discussion upon the topic of the OP. 5. Those who do not follow this are doomed to have their posts delivered unto Abandon All Hope. 6. The topic is not the other posters, nay! I say unto you that the topic is NOT the other posters. 7. Keepth the discussion civil, for that is pleasing unto the Moderators.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
And it was phoney. You forgot to mention that. See http://archive.archaeology.org/ossuary/.

The reason that I didn't mention the phoney part is this:

"We looked over the box very carefully, and subjected it to analytical testing using a light polarizing microscope, ultraviolet light, a microscope with 60 times the magnification, and electron microscopy. [...]

"I'm very comfortable saying that the ossuary itself and the inscription are totally genuine and everything we found was consistent with considerable age. It's obvious someone had scrubbed the James part of the inscription.

But it's like when you brush your teeth, no matter how hard you try to do a good job, there are always bits and pieces left. And that's true with the inscription; there are still bits and pieces left in the nooks and crannies, and they are consistent with the rest of the encrustation."

(Ed Keall, director of the Near Eastern and Ancient Civilization department of the Royal Ontario Museum quoted in "Jesus' Brother's "Bone Box" Closer to Being Authenticated (Mayell, Hillary (April 18, 2003) National Geographic News)

The Discovery Channel's 2004 documentary James, Brother of Jesus showed part of the Royal Ontario Museum as well as part of the Israeli Antiquities Authority examination (its currently on youtube in four parts; just look for "James Brother of Jesus Discovery Channel")

So you have the Israeli Antiquities Authority saying it is a forgery while the Royal Ontario Museum says it is the real deal. In short a variant of mess you have with Josephus.

This is why I said "if the James Ossuary had been found in situ by professional archeologist there wouldn't have been an issue with the inscription."
 
Last edited:
max

Given the size of the most likely provinces involved ...
Most likely provinces? As in, you don't know which ones?

I've never read you citing any source for your mantra that Paul the Persecutor was active in three Roman provinces. Perhaps now would be a good time.

(Rational wiki makes the same claims you do, like you, they don't bother to name the provinces nor do they give a source.)
 
Really?
Josephus "Antiquities..." Book 18 Chapter 1 :

This is Judas the Galilean starting a revolt at the time of Quirinius' Census, you know, when Luke says Jesus was born...

Josephus goes on to describe how Judas founded a new "Philosophy" which eventually led to all of the destruction of the revolt against Rome. Because it spread amongst the young because they were Zealous for it...

He describes this fourth philosophy as the Messiah Prophecy that drove the population mad. He says it started with a popular revolt in 6-7 CE, quite early in the 1st Century really...

I don't know how anyone can honestly argue Josephus says otherwise.

Well I hope you don't assume I am dishonest when I do argue otherwise. There is nothing in passage you quoted that supports the claim you are making. The messianic expectation Josephus speaks of was part of the scene of the Jewish War as you yourself seem to acknowledge. The revolt you are discussing was about taxes, not messiahs.

By the way, you will find few scholars accept Josephus's neat four-fold depiction of Jewish "philosophies" as historical. Josephus was artificially presenting the Jewish culture as a reputable alternative to Hellenistic culture with its four major philosophies.
 
Well I hope you don't assume I am dishonest when I do argue otherwise. There is nothing in passage you quoted that supports the claim you are making. The messianic expectation Josephus speaks of was part of the scene of the Jewish War as you yourself seem to acknowledge. The revolt you are discussing was about taxes, not messiahs.

By the way, you will find few scholars accept Josephus's neat four-fold depiction of Jewish "philosophies" as historical. Josephus was artificially presenting the Jewish culture as a reputable alternative to Hellenistic culture with its four major philosophies.

He is specifically making the point that the Messianic Movement which was ultimately responsible for the Jewish Revolt and all of the "endless turmoil", assasinations and banditry inbetween, was founded by Judas the Galilean at the time of his revolt in 6-7 CE.

This philosophy "which was previously unknown" concerned a great leader who would arise from Palestine and rule the world, but you contend that this isn't the "Messiah Prophecy". Can you explain that?
 
max


Most likely provinces? As in, you don't know which ones?

Take a look at the maps there are for the area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Augusto_30aC_-_6dC_55%25CS_jpg.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_century_palestine.gif

http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/images/assault_maps/assault-map_israel_01.jpg

http://wilsonancientrome.wikispaces.com/file/view/Judean_Rome.gif/229193146/Judean_Rome.gif

http://www.vsubhash.com/img/MAP_Palestine_First_Century.gif

http://www.enterthebible.org/media/maps/source/NT3_1c_Judea.jpg

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/files/2011/08/map-40-01-190x268.jpg

http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/palestine-under-the-herods.jpg

Some maps show the area Christianity was in Judaea or Palaestina-Judaea provinces with Syria and Perea being other possible areas but most of the maps show Galilee, Samaria, and Judea as separate provinces and this is what I mean by the "most likely" provinces. (The Catholic Comparative New Testament Oxford University Press Page 853 expressly names two of the provinces Saul was persecuting in: Samaria and Judea. Their source is Acts 8)

I suspect what these maps are showing is how the area fluxed in the time between Herod the Great (4 BCE) and Herod Agrippa I (42 CE)-it makes no sense for one unified kingdom some to have three provinces but it does make sense given the way the kingdom was broken up in the time between these two rulers (which is when Saul would have been persecuting Christians) and again after Herod Agrippa I.
 
Last edited:
He is specifically making the point that the Messianic Movement which was ultimately responsible for the Jewish Revolt and all of the "endless turmoil", assasinations and banditry inbetween, was founded by Judas the Galilean at the time of his revolt in 6-7 CE.

This philosophy "which was previously unknown" concerned a great leader who would arise from Palestine and rule the world, but you contend that this isn't the "Messiah Prophecy". Can you explain that?

I know of no evidence that a messianic movement supposedly founded around 6-7 CE was ultimately responsible for the Jewish Revolt. It is simply nonexistent.

The Messiah Prophecy is something Josephus only refers to as of interest during the time of the Jewish Revolt.

There is simply no evidence for a popular expectation of an imminent arrival of a messiah until the time of the Jewish War. None.
 
max

Take a look at the maps there are for the area:
You meant Galilee, Samaria and Judea. Those are indeed sometimes referred to as "provinces" in English. How long would it take to tour these compact subdivisions on foot?

Modern Israel subtends about 8000 square miles. New Hampshire, with a similar aspect, is bigger. A leisurely hiker can visit each of the three main public college campuses in New Hampshire (Plymouth in the north, Keene in the southwest, and Durham in the southeast0 in under a month (~ 77 hours time on foot, according to Google maps.)

Your cited source is Acts 8. That doesn't help you much. The chapter begins with Paul approving of the stoning of Stephen in or near Jerusalem, in Judea. According to 7:58, Paul's role in the stoning was to watch the cloaks of the pitchers while they killed the deacon.

Then chapter 8 says that Way-people fled to locations in Judea (outside of Jerusalem) and Samaria. There's nothing about a third province, and there's nothing about Paul or anybody else pursuing anybody outside of Judea, where Paul already was, watching the cloaks.

However, Judea isn't a province where Paul was "notiorious." What does Paul say? "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ." (Galatians 1: 22, emphasis added). "They only heard the report: 'The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.'"(1: 23).

The only additional scrap of information about Paul in Acts 8 is that Paul entered an unspecified number of houses, dragged out of those houses an unspecified number of people, and handed them over to unspecified prison authorities (8: 3).

There is action set in Samaria in chapter 8, but none of it involves persecution, much less persecution by Paul. There appear to be no churches to persecute yet, and the involuntary flight away from Jerusalem may have introduced Wayism into the area. There's nothing about the preachers in Samaria being harassed by anybody.

Acts 8, then, shakily documents what can be accomplished in an afternoon, and none of Paul's busy afternoon is set anywhere except Judea. No wonder, then, that few in the pews of the Judean churches had heard of Paul until his few deeds, but mighty intentions, were explained to them.

With Chapter 8 in the bag, then, we are two provinces light of places where Paul performed any acts of persecution, and three provinces light of Paul being notorious there as a persecutor. You have yet to produce a source for your statement "Saul Paul became infamous across three Roman provenances (sic) for his persecution of Christians. "
 
Back to the topic for a minute, here is an interesting quote from Robert Price:

"For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." (Price, Robert (2012) The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems pg 387-8)

This shows what I have been saying all along--the criteria for "historical Jesus" differs and Price makes it clear as crystal that as far as he is concerned a Jesus a century earlier then when the Gospel put him would still be a "historical Jesus".
 
Last edited:
Well we've already established the difference between "hard HJ" and "soft HJ", so to speak: one that ressembles the biblical Jesus, and one who is merely a temporal inspiration for the cult and the story.
 
max

The topic is a historical Jesus who counts. As Belz has ably summarized, for some who have posted here, counting would be influenced by whether a candidate Jesus is the same man featured in the Gospels, the man who is presented in Acts as being Paul's Jesus. A necessary condition for that identification is that the candidate Jesus lived in the more recent First Century.

To identify in which First Century Paul's Jesus lived, it is useful to estimate whether or not there was already a sizeable, dispersed or long-lived church devoted to the man for Paul to persecute before Paul changed sides. That is the significance, for this topic, of your claim that "Saul Paul became infamous across three Roman provenances (sic) for his persecution of Christians."

So, let's begin at the beginning. Who told you, or where did you read, that Paul became infamous across three Roman provinces for his persecution of Christians?
 
Back to the topic for a minute, here is an interesting quote from Robert Price:

"For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." (Price, Robert (2012) The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems pg 387-8)

This shows what I have been saying all along--the criteria for "historical Jesus" differs and Price makes it clear as crystal that as far as he is concerned a Jesus a century earlier then when the Gospel put him would still be a "historical Jesus".


Max - I don't know who Jesus ben Pandera was. But I think there is an obvious problem if Price says that the biblical Jesus might have been the Essene Teacher of Righteousness c.100BC.

The problem with that is - we know almost nothing about who the Teacher was supposed to be. We don't even know if he was ever supposed to be one real individual.

He might have been a real individual person. Or, the title "Teacher-o-R" may have been generic passing from one highest priestly figure to the next. Or he may have been a completely legendary figure from many centuries earlier, such as the person named Melchizedek c. 600BC, who may or may not have been only mythical anyway. See this wiki link -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek



I think it's fine to say that if Jesus never existed as the person described by most of the events in the bible, the biblical figure of Jesus may still have been based on some real person of a more distant past. But it has to be someone who can be identified as a real individual doing and saying at least some of the things described in the bible ...

... otherwise all that's being said is that the bible writers got their messiah ideas from completely mistaken beliefs about a preacher who may or may not have lived at any time anywhere in the infinite past. I would not regard that as a “real historical Jesus” equated with the messiah described in the bible …

… to me that’s becoming like the idea of some modern day theists/Chrstians who accept evolution (instead of divine creation) and accept the physics of Big Bang etc. , and who start to say that their “God” is really just a name they are giving to the scientifically explained cause of everything in the universe … well that’s not really a "God" at all, is it!
 
Last edited:
max

The topic is a historical Jesus who counts. As Belz has ably summarized, for some who have posted here, counting would be influenced by whether a candidate Jesus is the same man featured in the Gospels, the man who is presented in Acts as being Paul's Jesus. A necessary condition for that identification is that the candidate Jesus lived in the more recent First Century.



I don’t see a problem accepting that a real Christian Jesus could have lived and died in the 1st century BC (or even much earlier).

That would just mean the biblical writers were mistaken mainly about the time when Jesus lived, and about some of the named individuals involved at the time (eg Pilate!).

However, the essential thing is surely that any much earlier Jesus would need to have said & done at least some of things claimed in the bible.

If an earlier Jesus was never known to have said or done any of the things in the bible, then we are talking about a completely different individual who is by definition not the same person described in the bible.

That’s why I think the Teacher of Righteousness cannot count as Jesus … unless of course we one day discover that he did in fact do various things described in the bible under the name “Yehoshua”.

Maybe the whole thing goes right back to belief in Melchizedek anyway … Jesus/Yehoshua, the Teacher, and the whole can of theologically "imagined" visonary worms. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom