archibald

Yes, it seems there was a cult of Chrestians and a cult of Christians running around Rome at around the same time, both having had a Judean leader who was killed by Pilate. Nice work, Tanya. I believe you need some further speculations before letting the ink dry on that particular one. :]

archibald

I would if I thought I had, but I can't see it. I agree entirely with Andrew Criddle's suggestion. If one actually reads the passage, and sees the question in context, there is clearly no good reason for Tacitus to be mentioned. This is not 'some reason'. It is reading material in its actual context.

Given that, there is, IMO, no real weight in the remainder of your post, other than a post-hoc speculations based on a preference for thinking that Julian 'should have' mentioned Tacitus when in fact there is no good reason in the text itself. I think you are trying to read the writer's mind with your own subjective agenda, and in doing so impose something on a selected part of the text retrospectively.

maryhelena

Maybe I should go have a look.....what was the topic?

Archibald, there needs to be a middle way. The mythicists are not going to be convinced re any historical gospel JC. The historicists will not give up on a historical gospel JC. So, what is left? Both these sides have something to say - hence neither side is going to 'win' the debate. Consider what anthropologist Scott Atran has to say re conflict resolution/negotiations.

Resolving this historical/ahistorical/mythicist debate is going to have to be a win/win situation. And that is why I strive for history - what we know from history, what can be recovered from the relevant historical time frame. That's the middle ground here: History.

archibald

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...g-messiah.html

In my opinion (and I think that you, at least, understand that I am open to various possibilities) if the matter and the evidence is viewed with objective, rational skepticism and those considering it try to stay consistent with the ways in which similar material is assessed, the HJ explanation is a more coherent, parsimonius overall explanation.



Sure, but even you don't have 'history' to call upon. You have a possibly interesting historical precedent. That is only background history. It might be reasonable to say that those times were so ripe for messianic claimants and the like (possibly for reasons linked to your Antigonus example) that several appeared to have cropped up, and I think (unless I am mistaken) that Carrier has suggested that some of them may even appear as if they were trying to risk getting themselves killed, as if perhaps that was part of an expectation. That the followers of one of them thought that this is what had happened to their particular leader is quite plausible, I think.

aa5874

You are wrong.

HJ is an argument from SILENCE.

There is no credible source, NO DATA, for HJ of Nazareth

You have consistently PROVEN that there is ZERO credible sources for HJ by repeating the same unsubstantiated assertion.

HJ cannot be parsimonious when the actual evidence shows that Jesus of the Gospels was a PHANTOM.

HJers MUST first REJECT and DISCREDIT the Gospels and then INVENT their OWN HJ.

It is logically FALSE that HJ is parsimonious.

The MOST Parsimonious explanation for the Jesus of the NT is MYTHOLOGY.

Myth Jesus does NOT require any additional evidence or AD HOC inventions.

1. In Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35 Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

No ad hoc explanation is needed for MYTH Jesus.

2. In John 1 Jesus was GOD and the creator of heaven and earth.

No ad hoc explanation is needed for MYTH Jesus.

3. In Mark 6.49, Matthew 14.26, and John 6.19 Jesus WALKED on the sea.

No ad hoc explanation is needed for Myth Jesus.

4. In Mark 9.2, Matthew 17.1-3 and Luke 9.28-30 Jesus Transfigured.

No ad hoc explanation is needed for Myth Jesus.

5. In Mark 16.6, Matthew 28, Luke 24 and John 20 Jesus Resurrected.

No ad hoc explanation is needed for MYTH Jesus.

Mythological Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the Gospels based on the WRITTEN evidence.

maryhelena

Thanks for the link, archibald.

My Antigonus theory relates only to the crucifixion element of the gospel JC story. That story is set down around the 15th year of Tiberius - long after the death of Antigonus. In actuality, around 70 years from when Antigonus became King and High Priest, around 40 b.c. Consequently, Antigonus is not the historical figure that is relevant for the non-crucified elements in the gospel JC story. Remember the position of Wells - that his itinerate preacher was not crucified. So, if, as I think is the case, Antigonus was the historical model for the crucifixion element in the gospel JC story - that leaves us looking for a historical figure, living around the 15th year of Tiberius - who was not crucified. ie the gospel crucifixion element is one layer that has to be removed if one is seeking a historical figure around the time of the 15th year of Tiberius.

The gospels, themselves, do give some clues here.....Bethsaida, from which came the early disciples. Casearea Philippi where JC is asking his disciples who do they say he is. The historical figure associated with both these places is Philip the Tetrarch. A ruler who had a very long reign and who, according to Josephus, travelled around his territory with a few chosen friends. Indeed, there is a mystery regarding Philip - one only has to consider the marriage question in gMark and gMatthew and the Josephan contradiction. In other words - the life of this historical figure is a life that could do with some serious investigating...

And as for messianic ideas:

Three ideas are relevant.
The Davidic model
The Joseph model
The Moses model.

Philip the Tetrarch fits well with the Joseph model. A ruler under Rome as Joseph was ruler under Pharaoh. And if, as I think is the case, Philip became Agrippa I - then we are face to face with the Josephan use of the Joseph model with his storyline re Agrippa I. And with Josephus using the Joseph parallel with Agrippa I - then has he not moved on from the Davidic messiah model of a man of war - and switched to a model of a messiah of peace....

tanya

Let me make sure, here, that I have not misunderstood you.

It is easy to misread things on the forum.

You state that I am mistaken, "wrong", about my opinion, that a description of a god descending to earth is "unusual". For me, it is unusual.

Umm, Archibald, it is my opinion, not a fact. How can my opinion be "wrong"? Why does it annoy you, that I adhere to an opinion that mythological descriptions are not commonplace in society? Apart from this forum, I never encounter such thoughts, ideas, or discussions. In real life I am talking and writing about a variety of subjects, covering the spectrum from science to philosophy, from humanities to the arts, from technology to agriculture, but nowhere do I encounter banal silliness about mythological characters, except on this forum.

Am I then obliged to change my opinion, and consider that descriptions of mythological creatures are widespread, ordinary, and typical of notions held by ordinary folks in society, so that you will not be offended by my obtuseness?

Eh, what? I guess one, or both of us, have misunderstood the other.

I was trying, maybe with insufficient clarity, to ask you, what evidence you may possess, to support the (widely accepted) hypothesis that Paul's letters predate the Gospels. I deny that such evidence exists. If you have some, please teach me.

Quite a lot here.

May I break it down, a bit?

I have no idea what paul and the gospel writers believed.

I lack confidence that the documents which we claim to have been written by those authors, represent the documents which they had constructed, in their first editions (that is, widespread interpolations)

I am not following you, at all. I don't judge the mythical character of Mark 1:1 based on so much as a single cristou from Paul.

If you, instead, meant that in your opinion, Paul preceded the gospel writers, then, that's fine, but, if you want me to accept that (widely held) opinion, then, I need some evidence, supporting this idea.

What I have is 1 Corinthians 15:3, which we have discussed endlessly, on this forum, but, unless it is an interpolation (which seems quite likely, to me), then, it offers evidence that Paul differentiated between "writings" and "sacred writings", that is: between new and old testaments, respectively. I have seen nothing comparable in Mark, that points to one of Paul's epistles. Jiri has a nice web site, which he offers, to illustrate his own conviction that Paul preceded Mark, and Mark copied from Paul. I remain unconvinced.

Well, you write it, again and again. That's fine. You should be able to repeat yourself, for emphasis. It is good that you have a definite awareness of an issue. You certainly don't lack conviction. That's fine.

However, if you seek to persuade another, it is often more appropriate to explain, rather than simply repeat, over and over again, the same refrain.

Mythicism, according to you, requires "unevidenced" speculations.

I cannot agree with this sentiment. Let us ask about, for example, Mormonism, or any other group, but one in which you have no particular vested interest.

There is no evidence of the Angel Moroni, right?

Now, am I guilty of "unevidenced speculation" to regard Mormonism as mythical?

Is not a written attestation to the veracity of the Angel Moroni's existence, evidence, definite evidence, of mythical thinking?

I fail to understand what is "unevidenced" about Mark 1:1. It is a written passage, Archibald. How can you identify my citation of Mark 1:1 as "unevidenced speculation"?

My interpretation, claiming that Mark 1:1 demonstrates conclusively, that your OP is wrong, is not based on "unevidenced" speculation, it is based on the evidence right in front of my nose, Mark 1:1.

This process, Archibald, this discussion we are having, this controversy, is NOT "speculation".

It is simply an examination of the data. Real data. Now, yes, I agree, if you wish to point out that the data we are examining is corrupt, forged, fraudulent, ok, no problem there. I do agree with that sentiment. I do not know what Mark 1:1 contained as text, the day it was first composed.

But, I don't think that is what forms the basis of your dispute with me. You seem to claim, at least that is how I understand your reply, that I am engaged in:

"unevidenced speculation",

despite my reliance upon Mark's gospel, that is, upon "evidence", to repudiate your OP.

archibald

It certainly is. No offence, but you appear to have misread so much of what I said that I'm not sure I have the stamina to try to sort it all out.

Maybe I misread you too but at one point it seemed you wanted me to convince you that Paul predates the gospels. If that was what you are asking then I am not up to the task and you will have to have that discussion with someone else.

The angel Moroni is not actually a bad example of the sort of thing Paul might have had a vision of, an apparition of a supposed dead person, in Moroni's case, supposedly dead for over a thousand years.

J-D

That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'HJ', 'argument from silence', 'credible source', 'data', 'HJ of Nazareth', 'parsimonious', 'Jesus of the Gospels', 'mythology', 'Myth Jesus', and 'Mythological Jesus'.

Toto

May I point out that this response is not helpful? This thread is approaching 10,000 replies and is going in circles. The moderators are about to stick a fork in it and put an end to its misery.

If you think that there is some disagreement over the meaning of these terms that would clarify or resolve any issue, please expand on your reply, preferably in a new thread.