judge

I'll have to find the CD and put it in my car. I think it is Cd 4. But in that interview there is no fudging, he wasn't even asked the question specifically, but, for one reason or another he chooses to make the point that Jesus IHHO certainly did exist.
As I mention he doesn't explin why he believed this and no doubt was only privvy to the same data everyone else is, but it was interesting in that he, in the same set of interviews, goes on to explain how christians have misinterpreted the floood the red sea the garden of eden etc...

Fair enough.

mens_sana

:wave: Correct, no PhD in biblical studies (now my interest), just a long out-of-date ThM in philosophy of religion. But — my take on the HJ:

While none of the following points is the kind of “proof” some would like, I find them “evidential” for a Historical Jesus.

1.The Q sayings source, the Gospel of Thomas, and the sayings studies of John Dominic Crossan. Crossan's methodology leads him to a collection of Jesus sayings that are multiply attested in early documents which are independent of each other. This appears to point to a singular source, even though some of the thoughts are not particularly original. And the Q vocabulary indicates an agrarian, lower-class audience (nothing that would appeal to a Sadducee), which fits the background we have for Jesus. The Q sayings source itself, though some of the contents are debatable, appears to have been a written document — as demonstrated by James M Robinson in his article in the Harvard Theological Review 92:1 (1999), pp. 61-77. A possible setting which would allow for the recording of the sayings and which suggests who recorded them can be found in William Arnal's Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q. Elements of GThomas appear to date as early as Q, i.e., the 50s, and independently attest to a few of the sayings found in Q. Both Q and GThomas appear to show editorial layers, which would explain the late dating of the latter (and would appeal to those fond of finding interpolations).

2.The Gospels themselves. From our contemporary perspective, the Gospels seem to be providing historical information, but we know that they are agenda-driven, theological history — written by believers for believers or, at the least, for Godfearers (in the case of Matthew). However, they bear some resemblance to ancient biography, as well as to the ancient encomium, both of which contained historical elements from their subjects' lives. It is a mistake to view them as “historical” in the sense that we now use the word. Using the standard dating for the Gospels, neither Matthew nor John were firsthand witnesses. In any case both of those two Gospels describe some events in the “omniscient narrator” mode, which makes the eyewitness notion moot. The ancient historians were limited by their times. One of the many ancient "omniscient narrators" was the Greek historian Thucydides, who explained that he had "put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments appropriate for the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said" (History, 1.20.1). This same method of writing "history" was still being practiced centuries later by Lucian of Samosata (115-200 CE), How To Write History 58: "If some one has to be brought in to give a speech, above all let his language suit his person and his subject ... It is then, however, that you can exercise your rhetoric and show your eloquence." The authors of the gospels wrote in this tradition. Neither biography nor encomium were under the objective constraints to which we are accustomed, in their period.

3.The “theological embarrassments.” We've all seen defenders of the faith twist in the wind of their own convoluted arguments. Neither they, nor the church fathers, nor the Old Testament prophets preached against stuff that wasn't going on. Jesus' baptism by John Baptizer was a huge embarrassment. It meant that the Son of God joined the Baptizer's movement which stressed both purity and an imminent apocalyptic end to the age. Oops, Jesus was impure? So embarrassing was this event that in the Gospel of John, it doesn't even take place! And the imminent kingdom had to be rewritten from an arrival within the lifetime of the audience to an ever-postponed future, one that is still making money from the millions who don't want to be “left behind.” Another embarrassment was the betrayal by Judas, a trusted, loyal member of Jesus' inner circle — so embarrassing that the betrayal became God's will and Judas became a saint. The crucifixion itself was an incredible embarrassment. For Jews, an emissary from YHWH may be killed, as were the prophets, but he does NOT get hung upon a tree. And for the Romans, crucifixion was reserved for slaves, thieves, and non-citizen rabble-rousers — not a death conceivable for a universal savior.

4.The Judaizers and their spiritual heirs, the Ebionites. Both followed a carnal, historical Jesus and the Ebionite church lasted almost to the time of Augustine. Burton Mack speaks of Paul's encounters with the Judaizers and suggests that Acts' Council of Jerusalem was a whitewash of a serious split in the early church, a split between the Jews who followed Jesus (James and the Pillars of Jerusalem) and Paul's mission to the gentiles. A hint of this is found in the changeover of the head of the mission to the gentiles from Peter (who had backed down before the Judaizers in Antioch) to Paul, and that Paul never returned to Antioch after this fracas.

While each of these points might be argued away individually, where there's smoke one usually finds fire — and here we have a concatenation that suggests a historical Jesus. I may be reminded of some more points in your responses, but I've pretty much shot my wad here.

Antipope Innocent II

No need to apologise. That was one of the most sensible posts I've seen here in months.

Antipope Innocent II

When I said “there’s lots” I was talking about the overwhelming majority of professional scholars and other people qualified in appropriate fields who accept that there was a historical Jesus. Okay, if you were asking for the name of someone who has bothered to take the time to answer the Jesus Myth position and state the evidence this very reasonable acceptance is based on, they are far fewer. Because, as I’ve said, with only two modern scholars taking the Jesus Myth stance, why would anyone bother?

Back when there were a few more MJers in the scholarly sphere some people did, of course. So you could check out Shirley Jackson Case, “Is Jesus a Historical Character: Evidence for an Affirmative Opinion”, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (April 1911) pp. 205-227.

Sounds like it’s being ignored to me. Given that Price and Thompson are the only scholars who try to argue the MJ idea, why would anyone bother doing otherwise? I think we’re all pretty clear that this consensus on the historicity of Jesus is not acceptable to you Toto. Or to some others here. But – to be blunt – your outrage simply doesn’t matter. Neither does Doherty’s, for that matter. Neither will Carrier’s if he insists on following people like Price and publishing via Prometheus rather than in the academic sphere.

Toto

I have no outrage over this issue. I save my outrage for things that actually matter.

I have been reading Case. I keep waiting for a smoking gun, but I haven't found it yet.

And Prometheus is an academic publisher.

Antipope Innocent II

Pick some other noun then. My point stands.

Well colour me unsurprised!

Not exactly the OUP though, is it old chap? :wave:

mountainman

It is an interesting term this Godfearers.

Constantine used it alot around about the time of Nicaea.
He used it in the letter summoning attendees.
he used it again, giving it a precise meaning ...

the enemies of the fear of god

with respect to that Porphyrian Arius, and Porphyry
himself. For anyone after the source references.

Non christian scholars who believed Jesus existed
did so primary for a very good reason, because if
they did not they may be perceived, not as the
enemies of god, but as enemies of the fear of god.

It is this fear of god that seems to get
all the appropriate propaganda. Certainly, noone
before Constantine gave the meaning such an
authoritative kick-start.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

How can an unexamined postulate be ignored?

But my dear fellow, the consensus is hegemonic
within the "industry" of academic christianity and
the retiring field of "Biblical History".

Not only that, you ignore the consensus of ancient
historians, the very people who wish to shed some
reasonable light on this "unexamined postulate".
I've mentioned Michael Grant, and you've not seen
fit to include his opinion on your elite consensus.


I agree. This myth business is just beating around the bush.
What the industry needs it a good theory based on the
history of the invention of christianity through fiction,
forgery, wayward and out-of-control absolute power,
human greed, and the fear of being an enemy of the
fear of god.

A theory which incorporates the monumental and
epigraphic evidence available to us, which admits
the testimony of carbon dating and which is willing
to examine this un-examined postulate.

Namely, that Jesus had a history before Constantine.
We know he had one after the despot.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

spin

I do love this sort of thing. It's so entertaining in its naivety. "[T]he unmistakeable mark of Christ's personality," indeedie. We formulate some idea of "Christ's personality" from whatever desires we wish to inject into the person, then we find reflections of it where we look. This is a very convenient process, enabling one to leap tall obstacles in a single conjecture: "In fact, it may be the best evidence we have of a persistent oral Gospel." Oh, yeah, uh-huh-huh.

Later opinions. You start with the text you are analysing, not with the opinions that appeal to you. If it's an anomaly in the text, it may be because it wasn't part of the text originally or it may have been an anomalous record from the original tradition. Tendentiousness doesn't get you very far.


spin

mens_sana

I think Constantine's "kick-start" changed the meaning a bit. The Temple Scroll requires that the Jewish king's army consist of Godfearers. Acts and the Epistle of Barnabus seem to indicate that Godfearers are Gentiles sympathetic to Jewish religion but not ready to convert, presumably because of circumcision and kashrut requirements.