hjalti

Chaucer, why don't we just make a list with the names of the non-christian sources, and have the information we get from the about Jesus under the names, and maybe add some subjective values to say how likely it is to be: a) authentic b) not just reporting what Christinas said. E.g.

1. Pliny
Some people worshipped him around 110 CE
Authenticity: 5/5
Derivative: 0/5 (says he's just repeating what some Christians told him)

Then we could really see how much we can know about Jesus by non-Christian sources.

Toto

2. Tacitus: Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and there were Christians in Rome under Nero

Authenticity: 2/5 ?
Derivative: 0/5

3. Josephus TF: Jesus was a wise man, performed surprising deeds (miracles?) and was a teacher, with Jewish and Greek followers. Pilate had condemned him to a cross; his followers did not desert him, and thought that he appeared to them.
Authenticity: 0/5
Derivative: 0/5

4. Josephus Ant 20: A certain James was the brother of Jesus called Christ.
Authenticity: 0/5
Derivative: 0/5

Vivisector

Definitely.

I can speak only for myself, and this has to be a somewhat incomplete answer in the interests of time, but my views do not depend on pagan sources alone. I instead regard (at least some of) them as, to varying degrees, playing something more of a confirmatory role.

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena

Well said, Vivisector...

So, first comes the gospel storyline. A storyline from which an interpretation is made by the JC historicists, ie that the gospel JC was a historical figure. Then, secondary, non-christian sources, are looked to in an attempt to support their historical JC interpretation of the gospel story.

Problem is - interpretations are a dime a dozen, interpretations are anyones game. If the historicists interpretation of the gospel story is in error - then what they read in non-christian sources is not, necessarily, in and of itself, support for a historical gospel JC. In other words - all they are doing is compounding their initial error - and digging themselves deeper and deeper into a quagmire of their own devising...

If one wants to understand the gospel story in a historical context - ie view it as having some historical relevance - then it's not the gospel story that one starts with; nor is it an interpretation of that story that one makes and then looks to history to support ones interpretation. The gospel story is what it is....Consequently, it's history that is first and foremost. With an accurate historical picture - which is not easy as Josephus has done his best to make a dog's dinner of Herodian/Hasmonean history - only then does one turn to the gospel storyline. No, not as a picture-postcard of that history - but as an interpretation of that history, a 'salvation' interpretation of that history.

In other words - the gospel story is an interpretation of history. Now, to start making an interpretation of an interpretation is nonsensical. And that is why historical Jesus research gets nowhere - round and round in circles - that's all that's possible once one is interpreting an interpretation. Attempts to find history within an interpretation of history can't be done. First get the historical ducks in a row - and then perhaps the gospel story, the interpretation, will fall into place all by itself....

aa5874

Pliny did NOT mention Jesus. Pliny had to TORTURE Christians to find out what they Believe.

And is NOT just absurd to think that in a time when there were possible very many messianic claimants that any person who claimed they were Christ must be Jesus of the NT?

Even if Jesus did exists it is reasonable to expect that there would have been other Messianic claimants.

The VERY SUPPOSED Jesus WARNS people that MANY shall be called CHRIST.

The mere mention of the word "CHRIST" cannot be ASSUMED to be Jesus based on the very Gospel stories.

People were ALREADY warned by the AUTHORS of the Gospels that they could be deceived.

Vivisector

Thank you.

I might quibble with a couple of words/terms, and please keep in mind, I speak only for myself. (1) The "storyline" that I infer from the gospels is very, very minimal. (2) Whether the non-Christian sources are secondary seems, at least in some cases, debatable, and reasonable people without inscrutable psychological motivations will arrive at different conclusions. (3) I don't personally "look to" these non-Christian sources to "attempt to support" anything. They are there, I'm aware of them, and I make sense of them as best I can, simply because it's an interest of mine. Of course, I always reserve the right to revise my assessments.

Just a few comments - I'm not sure the gospels are unique in the sense of representing interpretations on the authors' parts. And while interpretations of interpretations (like predictions, especially predictions about the future) can be tricky things, they're still done. You supply an excellent case in point with Josephus, who has provided historians with great food for thought by virtue of differences between Antiquities and Wars. Finally, I'd say you might be more of an optimist than I about the historical ducks ever forming something that we'd all agree to as being a straight line.

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena

Optimist - perhaps
But one has to be if one wants to forge ahead re trying to understand early christian origins. No giving up, no skepticism that it can't be achieved. A fool's errand? Doubt it - ideas might stay static for a very long time - but ideas are inherently vulnerable to being shot down. This idea, a historical gospel JC, is so implausible that it's a wonder it has stayed around so long...- ...however, it's glory days are over...

Anyway, I won't drag you into the HJ/MJ debate......at least you have shown Chaucer that a historicist does use the gospel story as a source......and once that is the case his arguments against the "historical gospel JC" statement are simply blowing in the wind....

Vivisector

Still not taking the bait, but thanks for understanding.

If I might be permitted to clarify somewhat ..."at least you have shown Chaucer that a historicist does use the gospel story (or relatively small elements thereof, and those virtually exclusively from GMk) as a source." As to the rest, Chaucer doesn't seem to need my help in carrying his water.

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena

The point is that even one little drop of poison does the job - contamination and compromised. Using anything, any little point, any little anything at all from the NT gospel story - and what you have is a historical gospel JC assumption......and not a historical JC. No sledge of hand, no cheating - once the gospels are involved - then the outcome will be a historical gospel JC.

Chaucer carrying his own water - in a bucket full of holes....:devil1:

Chaucer

Many thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated. I have now perused the rest of your postings here, and I would agree that you tally closest with Spin's Historical line.

I'd just like to ask then, if I may, if you would view the turn of phrase, "historical gospel JC idea", as a fair reflection of your point of view or a perhaps misleading one?

Again, thanks for your input here.

Chaucer