Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 07-13-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Trouble is, it's not a very useful correlation in the MJ/HJ debate, unless one wants to deal in Rube-Goldbergesque theories.

I don't view this discussion as strictly HJ/MJ. I allow for a historical core to Jesus, I just don't think the typical claims of who he was follow from the evidence, but instead are simply traditions slowly being whittled down.

If Jesus was historical, it seems he would had to have been a high priest rather than a poor wandering sage.

If you go through the various Jesuses in Josephus, you find striking similarities between many of them and the Gospel Jesus - too much to be coincidence I think.

It's not my original idea that the Gospel used Josephus as a source from which to construct Jesus (along with bits and pieces of Jewish scripture), but I think it holds water.

aa5874 · 07-13-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The only thing that I have come to believe - truly and without any secret embrace of a religious dogma - is that the Cross came to represent to Paul the purpose of his own suffering in which he recognized the universal Weltschmerz of humanity.

Jiri

So, you do have faith. It was mis-leading of you to claim you have no faith. A person must use faith to believe Jesus existed.

aa5874 · 07-13-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If Jesus was historical, it seems he would had to have been a high priest rather than a poor wandering sage.

Are you implying that HJers don't even know their HJ?

I always thought HJers knew who the real Jesus was.

Apparently they don't.

By the way, where can I find information about the poor wandering sage independent of the NT? Who saw him alive or wrote about him?

Toto · 07-13-2008, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But this gets to the heart of the matter: how can you decide that a historical core is likely?

We've discussed this, already, ad nauseum.

Historicists have been challenged ad nauseum to give some criteria for a historical core, but I don't recall an answer.

Quote:

You are forgetting 1 Cor. 9:5, where "brothers of the Lord" is plural. Josephus, of course, only refers to one brother.

OK, but in that context do you think Paul is clearly using the term brothers as biological brothers?

Quote:

...
If Jesus is doing the ranting while the followers are in amongst the crowds, then it is a heck of a lot easier to arrest him than his followers. It's not as if his followers are portrayed as some sort of insurrectionist armed group that would stand out or reach the notice of someone like Josephus, who did write about such insurrectionists.

These are your idea of kludgy explanations?

Kludgy in the extreme. If Jesus is just ranting like Jesus son of Ananais, with no organized group of followers, why is he dangerous enough to arrest and put on trial? If he is that dangerous, why don't the Romans just execute him on the spot? If they did that, why did his followers later claim that he was crucified? And how does the Sanhedrin fit into your explanation? If Jesus were a blasphemer, why not stone him?

You have just repeated this to yourself so often that you don't see how contrived it is. But the improbabilities have spawned a lot of academic literature, none of which has a convincing solution.

andrewcriddle · 07-13-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Kludgy in the extreme. If Jesus is just ranting like Jesus son of Ananais, with no organized group of followers, why is he dangerous enough to arrest and put on trial? If he is that dangerous, why don't the Romans just execute him on the spot? If they did that, why did his followers later claim that he was crucified?

Unless we are talking about taking out a ringleader during the actual course of a riot, it seems much more likely that the soldiers on the spot would hand the agitator over to a superior who would order some form of execution (probably crucifixion for a non-citizen.)

Having soldiers summarily kill putative troublemakers at their own private discretion would be a recipe for causing riots not preventing them.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-13-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Kludgy in the extreme. If Jesus is just ranting like Jesus son of Ananais, with no organized group of followers, why is he dangerous enough to arrest and put on trial? If he is that dangerous, why don't the Romans just execute him on the spot? If they did that, why did his followers later claim that he was crucified?

Unless we are talking about taking out a ringleader during the actual course of a riot, it seems much more likely that the soldiers on the spot would hand the agitator over to a superior who would order some form of execution (probably crucifixion for a non-citizen.)

Having soldiers summarily kill putative troublemakers at their own private discretion would be a recipe for causing riots not preventing them.

Andrew Criddle

But Pilate used that method of having soldiers kill trouble makers and agitators on the spot and was extremely successful. The riot was quelled. See Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2.

After the soldiers started killing people, many of them fled after being wounded. And there were many tens of thousands people in the crowd, according to Josephus.

gstafleu · 07-14-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

We know that the process of humans making stuff up can lead to legends can accrue in the reported histories of real people.
We also know that process of humans making stuff up can lead to accounts about people who never existed.
Trying to explain the contents of the NT and related documents as the by-product of the process in item #2 of this list leads to very forced or convoluted scenarios, often involving fallacies and distortions of fact.
Therefore, the contents of the NT and related documents are probably the by-product of the process in item #1.

That is a good summary. The question now is: what leads you to state point 3? IOW, which data require "very forced or convoluted scenarios" to explain without an HJ? Aren't we then back to an oft-discussed list, where people simply do not agree on the likelihood of HJ vs MJ?

Gerard Stafleu

jjramsey · 07-14-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But Pilate used that method of having soldiers kill trouble makers and agitators on the spot and was extremely successful. The riot was quelled. See Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2.

After the soldiers started killing people, many of them fled after being wounded. And there were many tens of thousands people in the crowd, according to Josephus.

Here's Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2:

Quote:

But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

There is a huge difference between letting soldiers kill unarmed agitators on their own private initiative and having a superior--in this case, Pilate--give the go-ahead for soldiers to use lethal force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The question now is: what leads you to state point 3? IOW, which data require "very forced or convoluted scenarios" to explain without an HJ?

As I've pointed out to Toto, we've discussed this ad nauseum. (And sorry, Toto, but your reply is nebulous. "Criteria for a historical core" looks more like a reference to criteria that HJers use for determining what bits of the NT are part of the historical core, rather than anything related to the reasoning about whether there is a historical core in the first place. :huh

Toto · 07-14-2008, 03:28 PM

Well, let me rephrase it then.

Historicists have been challenged ad nauseum to give some reason to believe that there is a historical core to any given legend, but I don't recall a satisfactory answer.

aa5874 · 07-14-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

There is a huge difference between letting soldiers kill unarmed agitators on their own private initiative and having a superior--in this case, Pilate--give the go-ahead for soldiers to use lethal force.

You not making sense.

During a riot, a soldier must you use his own initiative after being given the go-ahead to use lethal force. The soldier alone decides who to attack on his own private initiative, he does not consult with or ask Pilate for permission about who to kill or injure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2008, 03:28 PM	#219
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Well, let me rephrase it then. Historicists have been challenged ad nauseum to give some reason to believe that there is a historical core to any given legend, but I don't recall a satisfactory answer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.