Justin70

I did some seaches on the Josephus passage and found this info:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

It talks about the reasons that the Josephus passage has problems and the reasons why one might consider it authentic.

It also talks of the 'highlights' in history from 95 C.E. all the way to 1995 about major information with regards to the passage. If you're interested in the passage, definately take a look. Quite good. =)

Vinnie

Justin, let me be the first to congratulate you on an oustanding achievement. You've managed to successfully critique fundamentalism. Bravo!

Unfortunately, this is something many village skeptics on the internet need to learn. Critiquing the fundamentalist Jesus is not an argument against the historicity of Jesus. As E.P. Sander's wrote:

Can we leave the refuting of fundibots and go back to the historicity of Jesus now?

And if you are looking for info on Josephus' alleged references to Jesus, the best online resource is Peter Kirby's article. I would also recommend taking a look at Meier's case in v. 1 of A Marginal Jew.

Vinnie

Justin70

I fail to see the difference. Don't ALL variations of Christianity in existence right now see that Jesus was a LITERAL person that HISTORICALLY existed in the 1st century C.E. and walked the planet? How is this ONLY fundamentalist? A historical reading of the gospels? Is that also ONLY fundamentalist? We're talking about the same things. Or perhaps you're referring to something else?

The only variant of Christianity (that I'm aware of) that had a NON-historical view of Jesus was Gnostisism.

Could you clarify?

Ted Hoffman

The corpse of the "man" Paul was talking about walked around for 40 days and was seen by over 500 people? That sounds historical to you?

More to the point, you missed the gist of the exchange between me and Kirby - I wasnt demanding for ANY evidence. I believe the writings of Paul are consistent with a Christ Logos.
You cannot conflate the Galilean tradition and the Jerusalem tradition and maintain consistency simply because they were two very different trajectories.
Thje Galilean tradition emphasized the bodily resurrection of christ which flies in the face of common sence if put in the context of Pauls epistles.

Quote:

To read Paul's writings as mythical constructs seems to be special pleading.

You need to demonstrate it if you believe that.

Quote:

I agree with Vinnie for the most part, I think there is sufficient evidence from Paul, the gospels, and the smaller Josephus reference, to conclude that Jesus existed. I understand why many are agnostic on the question, but I think the mythicist position is not particularly well supported. But that's just my opinion.

Its an okay opinion. I have no problem with it. I simply don't share it. You might want to formulate an argument to support it though.

Ted Hoffman

Weve discussed (with Kirby et al) Antiquities 20 and related verses concerning James and the word "brother". "Open to interpretation" is the fact.

A finer argument, a la Doherty, is that at the time the fall of Jerusalem was attributed to the killing of James the Just, a historical Jesus and a historical crucifiction had not yet been invented and thats why we later see Origen bringing up the "lost reference" to criticize Josephus Jewish War (66-70) for failing to mention that it was the death of Jesus rather than that of James that God unleashed calamities upon the Jews.

Hegessipus, thro Eusebius, witnesses to a Christian view of his time (mid-second century) that the calamities befell the Jews due to the killing of James the Just and not Jesus. (yeah, yeah, I know Eusebius is not one of our reliable people ) but the point remains that at the time a HJ, replete with a resurrection had not yet been formulated and widely disseminated. So the death of James the Just was the most significant Jewish death. At that time.

Second century christian apologists such as Theophilus, Athenagoras and Tatian, do not speak of a historical Jesus. They all refer to a christ Logos. Meaning they wrote at a time a HJ had not yet been fabricated.

Ted Hoffman

My argument is that (1) Paul could not have failed to mention these events if he had known them.
(2) there is no way he could have failed to know them.

The conclusion, from the above two, is obvious - they never took place.

How do you arrive at the idea that its only one half of the equation?
You havent addressed Cable's arguments - Pauls ignorance on significant issues is unbeleivable and I do not think its acceptable to simply dismiss Wade's incredulity at Pauls apparent ignorance as half of it. It is, indeed the whole of it and these were significant events - if he knew about them, there is no way he could have failed to mention them.
We need to account for Pauls ignorance.

I agree - but what about the rest of the story - Pontius Pilate - did he exist?
It sounds rather arbitrary to dismiss some parts and retain others - care to give us an insight to the methodology you are using?

We are not talking about a few people in Jerusalem.

Strawman? He never heard of a HJ - thats more like it. The common encounter that is known is that he met Jesus on the Journey to Damascus. Unless you want to provide another story about how Paul cam to meet Jesus. I havent found time to read about the "abortion" concept and sophis mythus. Perharps it could help me make a finer argument concerning Pauls encounter and relationship with Christ vis a vis the Gospel disciples.


I am coming to the rest of your post shortly...

Vorkosigan

One calibrates a methodology or a technique by using it on a known sample. Regis Hastur is a fictional character created by Marilyn Zimmer Bradley and subsequently written about by several other authors. By applying Meier's criteria, we should be able to find out that Regis is entirely ficitional, and all events associated with him are fictional as well.

But the fact is that Meier's criteria do not address historicity. Indeed, the assumption of historicity is built into them; they will turn Hastur into history <snap> like that.

Or, if you like, you can pick any other piece of known historical or science fiction with a multi-author origin, and the effect would be the same.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

No.
Like I said earlier, whether or not something is common is of no probative value as far as the veracity of a story is concerned.
I eat food everyday - does that mean I ate my brothers food today?
Each case must be proven irrespective of whether its ordinary or otherwise. And the evidence must be examined on its won merit.

Thats my point. That commonness does not lend veracity to a story.
No. For the reasons given above.

Dionysos was the only olympian god born of woman. His mother was Semele. His father was Zeus.
Powell, Barry B. Myths of Fertility: Dionysus, Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1998.

Platonic symbolism and midrash (from the Isiah passage) combined. Thats what it is.
The relevance is, "born of woman" as a phrase, confers no historical quality the the nature of christ precisely because other saviour figures were also born of woman and they remained mythical.
To consider christ historical on the grounds of born of woman would be a case of special pleading.

(I found that "I will not allow you" part very funny )

We are not discussing about most women. In the absence of a name, we have no specific woman in mind (we can argue that Paul didnt have a specific woman in mind either just like Isiah). And based on my arguments above, he must have been speaking figuratively in the Platonic framework - born of woman means he appeared in a lower sphere.

The birth of Dionysos and Attis did not take place on earth. To the ancients, specifically platonists, there were many realmns other than the earth. Up to seven if I remember correctly.

I do not get the import of the question because I do not believe in prophecies. I however believe that Paul, and the gospel writers, believed it was a Messianic Prophecy.

I have - above. I have used proof of concept PLUS Pauls failure to name the woman (same as Isiah) or locate her anywhere on earth. If you find my attempts are inadequate, Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle would be a better source.

Yeah, that was a bit tangential, but the point remains the biblical partriarchs were not necessarily historical. They werent writing about their history - they were writing history about their great heritage. Associating a figure with them, does not arrogate that figure historical qualities. Just gives its descent some form of holiness.

It doesnt matter what Paul thought of Abraham. Unless we want to use Paul as an authority on ancient Jewish history.
Paul, I daresay was just parotting what was believed by the Jews who believed (from Genesis 17 and 18) that the Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham.

This site for example provides some common christian interpretation about messianic prophecies from the pentateuch.

That may well be so. With respect to his physical nature. But the question is - what was nature of christ?

How come Paul never visited Christs burial place, never even mentioned it? He never even mentioned the name of Christs mother? Arent you aware that Paul was also ready to tell people anything they wanted to hear so long as he got more converts?

The onus is upon you to demonstrate that Paul knew that. Because you are arguing, in part, that there is evidence that Paul believed a HJ existed. I have exposed your earlier argument as open to interpretation and hence of no probative value as far as Paul believing in a HJ is concerned.
All I need to show is that Paul believed in Christ Logos. I believe I have erased all "tips" that could mislead someone into believing a HJ existed.
If you agree that its open to interpretation, then you neednt posit is as evidence that Paul embraced a HJ.

May have? What is your argument? With Pauls ambiguous use of the word brother, I dont think any hope of retrieving a HJ lies in that direction.

Check Doherty's site/book. Specifically Does Paul Speak of Jesus as an Historical Person?

Unless you want to argue that there was no Hellenistic influence in 1st century Palestine and that specifically Paul's messages did not have Platonic concepts.
It is from what Paul (and others) wrote that, with Midrash, a HJ could have been constructed. Doherty says:
There is no evidence that it was not disputed. Gnostics, I believe, maintained that God could never take human form. And Paul himself, is supposed to have been one (a gnostic).

Others who did not embrace the idea of a HJ considered those who did as heretics. And of course we have those who remained in Judaism and insisted that the messiah had not yet come (even to this day).
And then there is the question of the Parousia...

Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) said that Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155) had personal association with the apostle John, and with others who “had seen the Lord” (Eusebius V.XX).

The fact that there was a certain clique that had seen the lord means it was not common knowledge that Jesus had existed and that he was not "seen" in the ordinary sense of the word "see" - this is in conformity with the idea that Xstianity started as a mystery cult.

Not exactly but I have pointed out the objections I have with the way you handled it.
I was using it to make a different point than the author was making. You addressed my questions quite well thank you.

I will address the 1 Cor 11 passage later.

Ted Hoffman

Peter, thanks for that quote from Maurice Goguel.
On what reason does the author base his argument that it was Paul's judgement that the Lords supper was celebrated in a "defective" manner at Corinth?
Does "different" necessarily mean "better"?
Does inclusion of other elements in Pauls version render the other versions inferior?
What were the Corinthians using as a guide on how to conduct the ceremony?
It would be most charitable of you if you shared your insights into this.
Was the Lords resurrection also narrated in a defective manner hence Paul feeling compelled to add the 40 days and 500 people seeing Jesus?

I think that the fact that Paul said "I have received..." and not "we have received..." is full of meaning and I am not satisfied that the author has put up an adequate case against the idea that Paul did not rely on his visions.

Paul, if he did indeed rely on the Gospels/ scriptures (and I can see Goguel uses the term "historical tradition" - a sneaky phrase instead of either "Gospels" or "scripture" - and this smacks of deviousness), must have been pretty arrogant to make statements among people who had the gospels too, that he had "received from the lord".
The statement assumes exclusive ownership of the knowledge he was sharing IMO.
The author would have to explain from whence Paul got the info concerning the 40 days and the 500 people seeing Jesus. Otherwise, his explanation raises more questions than it provide answers.

The author says:
What is this historical tradition? Where was it preserved? in the OT or in the Gospels?

Doherty explains in The source of Pauls Gospel that Paul relied on revelatory sources for his messages.
As for "seeing" the Lord above (in my previous post), Doherty says:

Paul said he was aware of what was written the "scriptures" .
Paul says in 1 Cor 15:3-8:

His use of the word "according to" means that the "scriptures" in question did not say that it actually took place, but that it would take place (like in a prophecy) and Paul is telling the people that through his visions, he has come to know that those things that were written in the scriptures have actually taken place.

Doherty says:
Meaning "seeing" as in Cephas and others, merely experienced christ - like Paul himself did.

Please share your take on this.

Gooch's dad

Justin70,

I'm not wet behind the ears. I know all about the controversy surrounding the Testimonium Flavianum. I was referring to the smaller reference to Jesus in Josephus, that of Antiquities 20.9.1. It refers to James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ. That passage is somewhat disputed also, but much less so than the TF.