maryhelena

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com


Thirty Theses - to support a phantom everyman?

Toto

He says: "I provide the following for entertainment, serious but not mordant discussion, debate, and argumentation (above all, argumentation)."

dog-on

I would like to see this supported, a bit:

In fact, I would like to see it supported, at all...

Steven Carr

There were lots of people called Jesus, so Jesus existed?

I have met somebody called Harry Potter, and he was a typical Englishman, so Harry Potter exists?

We know there were Jews called Jesus and many of the Jews called Jesus were typical of their time and context.

Isn't this just a case of redefing Jesus to be somebody , anybody,who existed, and then saying that somebody existed who was Jesus?

Or am I not understanding Hoffman?

maryhelena

Hoffman’s approach seems to be very simplistic: that the gospel writers were either writing ‘true’ history or they were deceitful in what they wrote....

While interpolations in Josephus can be viewed as some later Christian trying to enhance the Josephan text to make it add more weight to the gospel storyline - I don’t get the follow on that Hoffman is trying to make.....i.e. that such interpolations cannot be used to ‘prove the deceit of gospel writers’. I don’t think its mythicists that are making this jump - a very unnecessary jump in any case.

Discrediting Josephus, i e acknowledging the interpolation in the TF, for instance, has nothing to do with whether the gospel writers were deceitful or truthful. Why would Hoffman want to make this connection?

It looks to me that the historical Jesus camp have a very strange opinion of the mythicist position i.e. that because it rejects the historical position, therefore, it must view the gospel writers as being deceitful! Such a position is truly nonsensical. It amounts to a failure to appreciate the intent of the gospel writers i.e. assuming them to be recording history when they are recording an interpretation of that history. We might not care for their interpretations - but we should not seek to slight their integrity by labelling them deceitful.

The problem is not with the gospel writers - the problem is the pre-conceptions that one brings to reading them....

maryhelena

I think you caught his drift..........pity he can't follow through and acknowledge where all that hot air is taking him.......

Solo

No question there.


I am ok with that if by 'reconstruction and growth' RJH means the tracking of internal differentiation, and relationships between the different cults and sects.

Thank you very much.


Watch that curve ball : 'probable genesis' IS 'strong support...for the BASIC historicity'. Perhaps, he could have said, 'their probable genesis and relationship to the other canonical documents establishes ground for arguing basic historicity.'

The Jewish polemical sources however begin to arrive two hundred years after Jesus and refer to him (if it is to him at all) in ambiguous terms.

How does that extend to Jesus ? Did he have 'inconspicuous' or say, secretive, nature ? The first gospel was Mark, wasn'it ?

The transparent motive for the TF (were there any other interpolations of this kind ?) was not 'enhancing the historicity' but the confirmation of the 'historical status' of Jesus as a man of renown and unimpeachable character.

What is he saying ? Does 'historicity of the gospels' mean the 'basic historicity of Jesus' or 'historicity of the gospel events around Jesus' ? Surely, the silence of classical writers such as Josephus, whose father was a priest in Jerusalem during the administration of Pontius Pilate, is an argument, at least against the scale and general familiarity of the contemporary Jerusalem residents with Jesus and the Easter events.


Paul declared his beliefs in crucified Jesus foolish. Who would argue with a self-declared fool ?

Correct.


Well, perhaps that is given by the social strata from which the gospel creativity issues, at least initially. Mark might have been an exceptionally gifted visionary and polemicist, but he was not a polished writer.

Perhaps, that was the creative purpose of their writers. It may resemble I]bioi[/I] in outward style but the stuffing is theological.

the value of synoptics as source of 'non-basic' historicity of Jesus ?

Agreed.

Agreed.

All of the above may be used to argue for syncretist origins of Christianity without a reference to a founder. This is essentially Morton Smith's position - Jesus existed because what is asserted about him is essentially the same thing as of any miracle worker in antiquity. I don't buy this argument. For one thing, the writings of Paul are not explainable on those terms.

True, and would be secondary accretions at any rate.

This is not particularly bright. Obviously, many of the later copy cats gave themselves latitude to write phantasies beyond the synoptic scope. John was admitted I suppose because the Johanine element in the church was very strong. But for the rest, they were not worth the trouble for a church which sought to define itself and propagate itself across cultural barriers. The selection of the canon was not based on its historical plausibility, unless one wishes to argue in circles, by extending the term to events like the feeding of a multitude and resurrection.

Hmmm....I also happen to think there is a historical core in the passion, as it asserts essentially quite a regular event of a temple assault by a religious reformer and his execution, followed by the reverence of him by a small faction. (cf. in our time the reverence for such household names as Juhayman al-Utaibi and Sant Bhindrenwale)
Christianity seems different only in that the idolatry of the martyr got out of hand.

Tend to agree with that.

Jesus was asserted as having posthumous function by both major strands of the movement from which Christianity issues. In the Palestinian Nazarene movement, Jesus was "cleansed" before God in heaven and made intercessor for the coming messianic age (as per Zech 3.) In the Pauline tradition, which initially rejected traditions of the earthly figure altogether, Jesus was sent to earth to transgress the law and for his faithful service of a servant of God was resurrected and made to enter the bodies of church saints, as a promise of the life to come.
Jesus teachings were likely never important for either movement. They were by and large crafted by the gospel writers from snippets of tradition about Jesus, Paul's revelations, wisdom sayings of the age, and their own visions.

Again, the same line of argumentation as in 18.-21. above. I do not see in it any historical 'markers' for an human individual. But I do see one for a general model, sculpted into a figure over time.


Jesus is presented as extraordinary human in Mark and the gospels after him. He is an extraordinary human suffering an ordinary human life. So, I would say the gospel thesis here had overtaken the individual human character and unfortunately all but destroyed the historical portrait of the man if any existed.

Agreed and strengthened by the evidence of the shorter Mark, which asserts resurrection in a quite a different form than the one which the religion settled through later revisions and theological disputes.


Jiri

Huon

1. The primary data for the beginning of Christianity are the documents of the New Testament.
1H. The primary data for the beginning of the belief in Heracles are the documents of the Greek Antiquity.

2. Secondary data including apocryphal and Gnostic sources and testimonia are primarily valuable for the reconstruction of the growth of the Christian movement
2H. Secondary data are primarily valuable for the reconstruction of the growth of the cult of Heracles.

3. The gospels are about the life of a man called Jesus of Nazareth.
3H. The legends are about the life of a hero called Heracles.

4. Their probable genesis before the end of the first century is strong support for the basic historicity of the events they portray.
4H. Their probable genesis before the end of the tenth century BC is strong support for the basic historicity of the events they portray.

5. Jewish polemical sources do not challenge the historicity of the life of Jesus, rather his messiahship and resurrection.
5H. No sources challenge the historicity of the life of Heracles, except modern sources, which are too late to be considered seriously.

6. The silence of classical writers concerning Christianity is explained by the inconspicuous nature of Christianity in the first two centuries of its existence.
6H. The silence of some greek pagan writers concerning Heracles… (not concerned ?)

7. The existence of interpolations in the work of non-Christian writers such as Josephus expresses an interest in enhancing the historicity of characters portrayed in the gospels and cannot be used to “prove” the deceit of gospel writers of an earlier generation.
7H. The existence of miscellaneous adventures in the works of various writers express an interest in enhancing the historicity of characters linked with Heracles …

8. The silence of classical writers with respect to Jesus cannot be used as an argument against the historicity of the gospels.
8H. The silence of classical writers with respect to Heracles cannot be used as an argument against the historicity of Heracles.

9. The ridicule of later pagan critics of Christianity does not include the premise that Jesus did not exist. Conversely, all pagan critics assumed the historical existence of Jesus.
9H. In Christian circles a Euhemerist reading of the widespread Heracles cult was attributed to a historical figure who had been offered cult status after his death. Thus Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel (10.12), reported that Clement could offer historical dates for Hercules as a king in Argos. Conversely, all pagan critics assumed the historical existence of Heracles.

10. The fact that early Christians worshipped Jesus [ap. Pliny jr.] does not suggest they denied his historicity.
10H. The fact that pagans worshipped Heracles does not suggest they denied his historicity.

16. The existence of myth and miracle in the gospels does not diminish the historical framework of the gospel story.
16H. The existence of myth and miracle in the legends about Heracles does not diminish the historical framework of the Heracles story.

17. The presence of healing stories and magic does not lessen the historicity of the subject of the gospels.
17H. The presence of magic does not lessen the historicity of the subject of the legends about Heracles.

22. The stories of cult gods, ranging from Dionysus to Mithras to Asclepius, bear only a superficial resemblance to the story of Jesus.
22H. The stories of cult gods, ranging from Dionysus to Mithras to Asclepius, bear only a superficial resemblance to the story of Jesus. Dangerous comparison.

28. The character of Jesus of Nazareth is not extraordinary but typical of his time and context.
28H. The character of Heracles is not extraordinary but typical of his time and context.

30. As a statement of belief, the resurrection is not a statement of something that happened to the historical Jesus but a statement of what was believed to happen to him. The existence of the resurrection tradition, which can be traced by literary evolution from Mark to John, is not a proof of the non-historicity of the pre-resurrection tradition.
30H. It is also said that when Heracles died he shed his mortal skin, which went down to the underworld and he went up to join the gods for being the greatest hero ever known.

aa5874

The Hoffmann "Thirty Theses" is fundamentally flawed as early as Theses 3. To see the error, look at Theses 1 and 2.

Once it is claimed that New Testament is the primary data, then the information supplied by NT must not be ignored.

Now what does the primary data say about Jesus Christ? Was he just a mere man?

No.

The primary data declared that Jesus Christ was both God and Man, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1.1

Theses 3 is false or erroneous.

It can also be shown that Thesis 3 is false or erroneous if the church writings are examined.

Look at "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, in this book the author brought forward a certain heretic called Cerinthus who claimed Jesus was born a mere man from natural production.

Against Heresies 26.1 So, again Thesis 3 is totally flawed once it is declared that the NT is the primary data, and bearing in mind that the church writers regarded an human only Jesus as heresy.

Now, once Jesus was introduced erroneously as being a man, as found in Thesis 3, then the rest of the 27 Theses are based on error.

The primary and secondary data does not support a human Jesus at all.

aa5874

Thesis 24 I find it distressingly alarming that people who seem to be acquainted with the Bible continue to make mis-leading claims about the crucifixion as found in the NT.

The claim that the crucifixion of Jesus is central to his historicity is just as absurd as claiming that the Holy Ghost conception as found in gMatthew or gLuke is central to the historicity of Jesus.

The crucifixion story was fundamentally derived from Hebrew Scripture or the LXX just as the virgin birth story was derived from Isaiah 7.14.

I have a KJV Bible, it is not even necessary to do any research, and if I just go to the chapters of the books of the NT where Jesus was crucified, many of the passages about the crucifixion that were derived or lifted from the OT are clearly shown.

The main themes from trial to crucifixion to death of Jesus Christ was lifted straight out the OT, even words from Pilate, the chief piest and the crowds can be found in the very OT.

See the words of Pilate at Matthew 27.24 Now the Psalmist declared Psalms 26.6 And the crowd replied in Matthew 27.25But, similar words are found in Joshua 2.19 Next Matthew 27.27-31 Now look at Isaiah 50.6When Jesus arrived at Golgotha, the soldiers gave Jesus vinegar and gall to drink.

Matthew 27.34But very similar words can be found in Psalms 69.21 The Jesus crucifixion story continues.

Matthew 27.35
Now, Psalms 22.18 As the crucifixion continued those who passed by reviled Jesus, but similar information can be found in Psalms 22.7


Matthew 27-38-39Psalms 22.7 Next the chief priests begin to mock Jesus.
Matthew 27.43 Psalms22.8
And finally Jesus died after saying these words.

Matthew 27.45-46These very words are in Psalms 22.1 Now these last words of Jesus “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?…, as found in gMatthew and gMark are very important to help to show that the Jesus of the NT was derived from Scripture and not of history.



The author of gLuke claimed his information about Jesus is from witnesses and ministers of the word.

Luke1.1-2So let’s see what the witnesses told the author of Luke about the last words of Jesus when he was crucified.

Luke 23.46 But these very words are from Psalms 31.5 The author of Luke did not really need any actual witnesses, he could have just looked in Psalms 31.

It now appears that the crucifixion of Jesus was not an historical event but a fabrication based on Scripture.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is no more credible than the Holy Ghost conception, they are all based on out-of-context Hebrew Scripture, not at all on history.

Thesis 24 is false.