Why didn't Jesus write anything down?

[maximara]

@maximara

It is bad enough to accuse people of being equivalent to holocaust deniers because they read an obscure passage differently from you (other clearer passages from the pen of the same author contradict your reading) but what can you possibly mean by? By going "past" Holocaust denial, does one cease to perpetrate it? Or does one continue to do so, with the further addition of some even worse act? Also, apart from being inhabited by Jack Chick, what is the nature of this ultra-Holocaust-denial "realm"? IYHO, of course.

As I said before is it is not just my reading but those of Massey (1884), Mead (1903), The Theosophical Review, Volume 34 (1904), Carpenter (1906), Case (1912), Robertson (1917), Larned (1923), Kuhn (1944), American Council for Judaism Issues (1967), Efrón (1978), Daleiden (1994), Wells (1995), Pratt (2001), Price (2003), Thomas (2011), and Carrier (2012) as well.

As for what I mean regarding going past (beyond) Holocaust denial in to Jack Chick's realm I explained that back in post 222 of this thread showing that one of the very passages Chick cites says the opposite of what he claims it does.

Again I successfully refuted Eight-bits claim "The existence of such a sect cannot be successfully inferred from what epiphanius wrote" by presenting several works of the mid to late 20th century as well a couple of the 21st who read the passage that way Nevermind that HansMustermann had pointed out Eight-bit's reading was off the wall bizarre back in post 100 of that thread (hence the comparison with Jack Chick).

Also you yet to answer my point of post 140 of that thread which I modify to this:

Your Ad hominem attack doesn't detract from the fact that Helena Blavatsky's view on this matter is supported by Brill Academic Pub and American Council for Judaism Issues so if you have proof that these publishers are charlatan or insane publications I think we would all love to see it.

As for the original Greek according to wikipedia is the original Greek text is available online but I don't get Greek letters on the computer I am at now so I don't know how good it is.

The argument to authority claim doesn't wash either as as far as I can see the scholars agree the passage is read that way but have different arguments as to why it is there. As I showed back in post 207 Case made the most convincing argument: "Epiphanius clearly was trapped by the logic of his dogmatic into suggesting that Jesus was born under Alexander."

 

[Craig B]

@maximara

Re your

Your Ad hominem attack doesn't detract from the fact that Helena Blavatsky's view on this matter is supported by Brill Academic Pub and American Council for Judaism Issues so if you have proof that these publishers are charlatan or insane publications I think we would all love to see it.

Please let me know if these publications cite Blavatsky as a source or authority for any particular theory or observation. (As you see fit to do.) If they do, they are nuts. I have already demonstrated Blavatsky's irrationality by quoting from her utterances on the topic of Races.

 

[Toontown]

He did. He wrote someithing in the dirt when they asked him what he had to say about their plan to stone an adulteress.

Him being The Messiah and all, I am sure his writing is still there in the dirt to this very day, if only anyone knew where to look. It would be interesting to know what Jesus wrote in the dirt.

My guess is, "Beam me up, Dad, and then nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

And then Jehovah answered, "No, I still want to try having you crucified so I can see my way clear to forgive them. If that doesn't work, we'll have Satan lead them to the Plain of Megiddo in a couple of thousand years, and you can rain down fire on them and consume them."

And then Jesus thought, "Rats. He's forgotten He can see the future again. Hell, I don't even have to be prescient to see where this is headed. I get crucified, they keep sinning, Armageddon. 1-2-3. It's academic. Oh well. Maybe I can talk them into not bashing this woman's skull in with rocks."

 

[eight bits]

So, why didn't Jesus write anything down?

In that pericope, I think Jesus is buying time, and lowering the mob's temperature. Maybe you've seen well-executed quiet "special business" in the theater, or had a class with a teacher who knows about the "coffee cup trick." A question directs audience attention to the performer, and the performer stalls. Special business (like sipping from a coffee cup) fills the time while retaining the audience's attention. Tension builds at first, but focused attention elicits ease, and the performer owns the audience.

In other words, I doubt Jesus wrote anything of interest on this occasion. It's schtick.

As to the larger question, I don't think there was any reason why Jesus would write anything down. To accomplish what, that he didn't do anyway? His mission profile was to offer his candidacy as Messaiah, based on an apprenticeship with the popular (and now sliightly better attested) John the Baptist, to Second Temple Jews, take it or leave it.

He did that. They left it. End of Jesus' active participation in "his" story. About a generation later, there was no Second Temple anyway. Jesus' personal constituency didn't exist anymore.

Writing appears in the Christian record just when some Christian, a class to which Jesus did not belong, had a problem which writing could solve. In particular, Paul needs to administer geographically dispersed devotees of his own vision-exorcism-healing ministry, derivative ("in the name") of Jesus. So Paul writes letters.

Although the sample we have is small, what we have suggests two things: Paul had competitors for using Jesus as a tent-show brand name, and one of Paul's weaknesses as a brand manager was that he didn't know much about the career of Jesus. You don't need a historian to tell you what happens next, ask an economist instead: product differentiation.

That is, it is predictable that a competitor will emerge whose strategy emphasizes what the other guy doesn't have: in this case, biographical-based teaching, allegedly received from somebody who saw Jesus when he still had a face. Writing will serve that competitor's interest, so the competitor will write Jesus stories.

Would our world be different if we had writing attributed to Jesus? The Muslims have writing which is attributed verbatim to God through Gabriel. Is their behavior all that different, whether towards others or each other, from Christians' who have their God only second-hand?

The United States has a written Constitution. The original was composed by some of the most talented English-language prose stylists, ever. Many living Americans can read English, and can read that variety of English (as opposed to the "English" in which Beowulf was composed, much more recently than the New Testament was composed in an exotic langauge).

And we still have fights about what the Constitution says, currently about civilians keeping and bearing firearms. There have been plenty of other fights, too. One of the fights was the Civil War, a prominent and protracted armed conflict.

In other words, politicians with an uncontestedly authoritative piece of writing behave pretty much like religious leaders, who in turn behave pretty much the same whether their writings are first-hand or derivative. Writing elicits not consensus alone, but artful reading as well. When push comes to shove, it is easy enough to kill the reader, and chalk it up to preserving the integrity of the venerated text.

Summing up, then, writing is a solution for which Jesus himself had no known problem. Even looking at his problems anachronistically (that a First Century Jew would have concerned himself with Twenty-first Century Gentiles' quarrels or doubts about him), a hypothetical "Gospel of Jesus" would be a counterapologists' field day. Start with authenticity (as if nobody has questioned Gabriel's dictation of the Koran), and stay for the implausibility (wasn't Jesus supposed to be back already? For whom was this Gospel written, then?).

 

[Brainache]

...
Summing up, then, writing is a solution for which Jesus himself had no known problem. Even looking at his problems anachronistically (that a First Century Jew would have concerned himself with Twenty-first Century Gentiles' quarrels or doubts about him), a hypothetical "Gospel of Jesus" would be a counterapologists' field day. Start with authenticity (as if nobody has questioned Gabriel's dictation of the Koran), and stay for the implausibility (wasn't Jesus supposed to be back already? For whom was this Gospel written, then?).

I'd like to think he kept a diary. That would make interesting reading. The following is an excerpt from "The Jesus Diaries, or There and Nearly Back Again":

Day one: I'm chucking this carpentry lark. I hate it. There has to be an easier way to make a shekel, a way that doesn't involve me bashing my thumb or stabbing myself with a chisel...

...

Day Ten: Finally! I'm off to the big city. Not sure how I'm going to pay for food and stuff along the way...My cousin Johnny says he'll put me up when I get to Jerusalem, but that's a long way away. Hmmm, what would Johnny do?... Maybe people will feed me if I put on a bit of a show, people love magic tricks...

I should probably add a bit of preachy patter to the act, so the bloody Romans don't think I'm avoiding tax...

Day Thirty: Wow! I knew some people were gullible, but this is ridiculous. I don't even have to advertise, they're lining up to give me food, boat rides, housing, even donkeys FFS!...

I should be meeting up with Johnny soon, I think he lives around here somewhere... Think I might go for a swim...

Day Thirty-One: Well that was fun. I met up with Johnny, he calls himself John these days and has a business dunking people in the river. I was a bit worried he was going to mess up my schtick, but he's a pro. He played it perfectly and now the rubes see me as some kind of Prophet. Damn he's good...

Day Fifty: I think Johnny has gone too far. It's all very well telling the rubes how to behave, they love that "Voice Of Authority" stuff and the more outrageous the better, usually, but I don't see how insulting the King (Ethnarch, Roman Puppet, whatever) can end well. He basically called the guy a kiddy fiddler and said his wife was a slut... I see trouble ahead...

Day Sixty: I knew this would happen. They chopped off Johnny's head and served it up on a plate. I better watch what I say... The crowds keep coming and I can't stop them. I tell them not to grovel, but they do... Lately I've been adding a bit of "Social Justice" material to my act, nothing too anti-Roman, just a bit of anti-Rich - Man stuff, everybody hates fatcats, I think I'm on a winner here... Might have a bit of a dig at the Temple as well, those guys couldn't organise a swordfight in a Gladiator School, what are they gonna do?

Day Seventy: I think I'll take my show on the road, get out of the city for a while, fresh crowds, smaller venues, could be fun. Maybe after passover...

Here the diary ends.

 

[maximara]

@maximara

Re your Please let me know if these publications cite Blavatsky as a source or authority for any particular theory or observation. (As you see fit to do.) If they do, they are nuts. I have already demonstrated Blavatsky's irrationality by quoting from her utterances on the topic of Races.

You're dodging the real issue of Epiphanius' 29:3:3 putting Jesus in the time of Alexander as documented by Massey (1884), Mead (1903), The Theosophical Review, Volume 34 (1904), Carpenter (1906), Case (1912), Robertson (1917), Larned (1923), Kuhn (1944), American Council for Judaism Issues (1967), Efrón (1978), Daleiden (1994), Wells (1995), Pratt (2001), Price (2003), Thomas (2011), and Carrier (2012)


"For, Epiphanius in the fourth century actually traces the pedigree of his Jesus the Christ to Pandira, who was the father of that Jehoshua who lived and died at least a century too soon to be the Christ of our Canonical Gospels." (Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna (1960) Collected writings, Volume 8 Philosophical Research Society.


"...identification of the first (Essenic) Jesus of the gospels with Jesus ben Pandera is suggested by a surprising statement of the fourth-century orthodox Christian bishop Epiphanius of Salamis who says in his work against heresies that "Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the reign of Alexander [Jannaeus]" (American Council for Judaism Issues (1967) Volumes 21-22 - Page 8)


"Perahia's pupil, relying on the support of Epiphanius, who sets the birth of Jesus in the reign of Alexander (Jannaeus) and Alexandra, that is, in the time of Ben Perahia or Ben Tabai." (Efrón, Joshua (1987) Studies on the Hasmonean Period - Brill Academic Pub Page 158)

Anyone can see that Blavatsky, American Council for Judaism Issues, and Brill Academic Pub are independently arguing essentially the same thing on 29:3:3 and trying to claim otherwise IMHO goes beyond the kind of delusional denial of facts needed for Holocaust denial and enters in the realm of Jack Chick.

As I said all three of these source support Mead's old statement of "Nevertheless here we have the Bishop of Salamis categorically asserting, with detailed reiteration, so that there is no possibility of escape, that Jesus was born in the days of Alexander and Salina, that is of Jannai and Salome".

Case who tried to explain the mess in 1912 accepted the 29:3:3 passage was read that way:

"In this argument Epiphanius' chief interest clearly is dogmatical rather than historical. Thinking, as he does, that Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.) was the last of the Jewish kings to combine in one person the offices of both king and high priest, he is led by his Old Testament proof-texts to assume that Jesus was the immediate successor of Alexander. Then Jesus must have been born during Alexander's reign. This is the logic of dogma. But with magnificent inconsistency Epiphanius returns to history and speaks of a gap extending from the time of Alexander to the time of Herod. (...) Epiphanius clearly was trapped by the logic of his dogmatic into suggesting that Jesus was born under Alexander. "

Much the same is true of Irenaeus putting Jesus crucifixion during the reign of Claudius. Luke sets the start of Jesus ministry (c29 CE per Luke 3:1) and his age (about 30 per Luke 3:23) and so to get Jesus to the required 50+ years Irenaeus had to say Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius Caesar as any other Emperor would have made Jesus too young for the argument to work.

Again no matter how you slice it and whatever else Epiphanius says his 29:3:3 passage puts Jesus as living during the time of Alexander (Jannaeus) Deal with it.

 

[maximara]

In that pericope, I think Jesus is buying time, and lowering the mob's temperature. Maybe you've seen well-executed quiet "special business" in the theater, or had a class with a teacher who knows about the "coffee cup trick." A question directs audience attention to the performer, and the performer stalls. Special business (like sipping from a coffee cup) fills the time while retaining the audience's attention. Tension builds at first, but focused attention elicits ease, and the performer owns the audience.

In other words, I doubt Jesus wrote anything of interest on this occasion. It's schtick.

As to the larger question, I don't think there was any reason why Jesus would write anything down. To accomplish what, that he didn't do anyway? His mission profile was to offer his candidacy as Messaiah, based on an apprenticeship with the popular (and now sliightly better attested) John the Baptist, to Second Temple Jews, take it or leave it.

He did that. They left it. End of Jesus' active participation in "his" story. About a generation later, there was no Second Temple anyway. Jesus' personal constituency didn't exist anymore.

Writing appears in the Christian record just when some Christian, a class to which Jesus did not belong, had a problem which writing could solve. In particular, Paul needs to administer geographically dispersed devotees of his own vision-exorcism-healing ministry, derivative ("in the name") of Jesus. So Paul writes letters.

Although the sample we have is small, what we have suggests two things: Paul had competitors for using Jesus as a tent-show brand name, and one of Paul's weaknesses as a brand manager was that he didn't know much about the career of Jesus. You don't need a historian to tell you what happens next, ask an economist instead: product differentiation.

That is, it is predictable that a competitor will emerge whose strategy emphasizes what the other guy doesn't have: in this case, biographical-based teaching, allegedly received from somebody who saw Jesus when he still had a face. Writing will serve that competitor's interest, so the competitor will write Jesus stories.

Would our world be different if we had writing attributed to Jesus? The Muslims have writing which is attributed verbatim to God through Gabriel. Is their behavior all that different, whether towards others or each other, from Christians' who have their God only second-hand?

The United States has a written Constitution. The original was composed by some of the most talented English-language prose stylists, ever. Many living Americans can read English, and can read that variety of English (as opposed to the "English" in which Beowulf was composed, much more recently than the New Testament was composed in an exotic langauge).

And we still have fights about what the Constitution says, currently about civilians keeping and bearing firearms. There have been plenty of other fights, too. One of the fights was the Civil War, a prominent and protracted armed conflict.

In other words, politicians with an uncontestedly authoritative piece of writing behave pretty much like religious leaders, who in turn behave pretty much the same whether their writings are first-hand or derivative. Writing elicits not consensus alone, but artful reading as well. When push comes to shove, it is easy enough to kill the reader, and chalk it up to preserving the integrity of the venerated text.

Summing up, then, writing is a solution for which Jesus himself had no known problem. Even looking at his problems anachronistically (that a First Century Jew would have concerned himself with Twenty-first Century Gentiles' quarrels or doubts about him), a hypothetical "Gospel of Jesus" would be a counterapologists' field day. Start with authenticity (as if nobody has questioned Gabriel's dictation of the Koran), and stay for the implausibility (wasn't Jesus supposed to be back already? For whom was this Gospel written, then?).

Furthermore if Jesus was preaching some form of Doomsday message (Matthew 16:28) then what would the point be to write anything down other then 'oh look its another cult that thinks the world (as we know it) is going to end tomorrow. That's the twelfth today.' kind of response. Josephus tells us of several would be Messiahs so it seems that there were the these cults all over the place many with leaders who went off and got themselves (and any followers they had) killed.

 

[Craig B]

I ask

@maximara

Re your Please let me know if these publications cite Blavatsky as a source or authority for any particular theory or observation. (As you see fit to do.) If they do, they are nuts. I have already demonstrated Blavatsky's irrationality by quoting from her utterances on the topic of Races.

and you respond

Anyone can see that Blavatsky, American Council for Judaism Issues, and Brill Academic Pub are independently arguing essentially the same thing on 29:3:3 and trying to claim otherwise IMHO goes beyond the kind of delusional denial of facts needed for Holocaust denial and enters in the realm of Jack Chick.

I think it's better to leave things there in case your concern for Jack Chick becomes a debilitating obsession.

 

[maximara]

I ask and you respond I think it's better to leave things there in case your concern for Jack Chick becomes a debilitating obsession.

To date all you have done is produced Ad hominem arguments against Blavatsky to try and rescue the historical mess Epiphanius made in 29:3:3.

The reality is you have Massey (1884), Mead (1903), The Theosophical Review, Volume 34 (1904), Carpenter (1906), Case (1912), Robertson (1917), Larned (1923), Kuhn (1944), American Council for Judaism Issues (1967), Efrón (1978), Daleiden (1994), Wells (1995), Pratt (2001), Price (2003), Thomas (2011), Carrier (2012), as well as a few other I have likely missed all agreeing the 29:3:3 passage makes Jesus a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus.

The denial that the passage puts Jesus in the time of Alexander Jannaeus when so many people (scholar and non-scholar) agree that is what its says (even if they then later try to explain it away) is IMHO on par with the sort of off the wall nonsense one sees with Jack Chick.

Again we are left with the elephant in the room of if Jesus was such a well known historical figure why would there this story that he lived during the time of Jannaeus in the 4th century.

I should point out the way Christians read Epiphanius boggles the mind:

The Chronology Of The Old Testament Floyd Nolen Jones by New Leaf Publishing Group (a "leading Christian book publisher") states "In addition to these, Epiphanius (about AD 315-403, born in Palestine, became bishop of Salamis on the island of Cyprus in AD 357) wrote that Jesus was born in the 42nd year of Augustus [Epiphanius Panarion haereses, 20, 2] (pg 209)

Epiphanius in his Treatise on Weight and Measures states "Afterward the kings of the Romans: Augustus, fifty-six years and six months. In the forty-second year of the days of this Augustus our Lord Jesus Christ was born in the flesh. Tiberius, twenty-three years. And in his eighteenth year Christ was crucified"

Ok Octavian ruled from 44 to 14 CE changing his name to Augustus in 27 BC but 44 BCE + 42 years gets us to 2 BCE...two AFTER Herod the Great died!

More over the date of John the Baptist's death seems to be a game with Christians ranging from 28 - 36 CE. However there are temporal markers in Josephus that seem to indicate a 36 CE death date. So not only does Epiphanius do a spectacular temporal FUBAR in 29:3:3 but he does another one by having Jesus being born two years too early and being crucified four years too early.

Christians still seem to have issues crosschecking things to make sure they match historical reality.