Toto

Paul refers to persecuting members of a church (I don't think he actually identifies them as Christians), but he doesn't say that they followed a historical Jesus, and he doesn't admit to learning anything about Jesus from them.

youngalexander

The original reference was to 'Earliest evidence', the gospels are some decades later at best, riddled with inconsistencies, and decidedly problematic in their own account.

I am not suggesting that the 'Jerusalem group is made up by Paul', but when a self-appointed apostle, who recieved his knowledge by divine revelation, is engaged in polemic concerning perceived rivals, we should tread warely in asserting 'anti-Pauline groups' and the content of 'existing' theology contributing to the gospels. This is particularly so if the reported 'existing groups' have left no records of their own.

jjramsey

That last part is only true in the brute sense that the question of whether Jesus was historical never was broached.

This is stretching the meaning of Paul's claim that he got his gospel from no man and ignores places like 1 Cor 15:3, where he refers to himself as having received a tradition, which he is passing on to the Corinthians.

So far, between you and spin, the scenario being sketched out is one where Paul is persecutes Christians and comes to think that they believe in a Jesus, which Paul mistakenly believes is historical. Are you suggesting that Paul came up with details like the crucifixion and Jesus' purported descendance from David on his own, or that the earliest Christians believed them "metaphorically" and that he took it too literally? :huh:

Toto

Why "brute?" So far, it is just missing data.

Unless, as Robert Price argues, 1 Cor 15 is an interpolation that cannot be reconciled with Paul's claim that he got his gospel from no man.

I can't speak for spin. Paul persecutes a sect of dissident Jews, and then gets a spiritual revelation that causes him to join them - but we don't know much about what any of them believed, or even if "belief" was the basis for the sect. I suggest that the crucifixion was a metaphor that got turned into a historical claim sometime after Paul wrote, and that Jesus' descendence from David might have been added even later. I don't see that anyone can pinpoint exactly where this happened, or if it happened at one particular time or place.

Solitary Man

You don't think that some of the material in the gospels could be earlier, perhaps even earlier than Christ? Are you familiar with Livius' use of Polybius? Therein, Livius directly quotes much of Polybius. That makes the Polybian material in Livius older than Livius himself. You see how that works?

Ah, but those gospels did leave records. Ben Smith has compiled much of it on his website. We might not have them in full, but we do have them indeed.

I've been careful to tread carefully on the issues surrounding the Pillars. It's not exceptional in Classical studies to try to understand the position of the one attacked through without the lens of the attacker. This is actually quite a common thing to do, as many groups throughout history only leave their traces behind in the words of the polemicist.

jjramsey

Because there is a tendency on this board to trump up silences as being louder than they really are.

And when Price convinces a good chunk of his scholarly peers that his argument is more than just a way to rationalize away an inconvenient text, I'll be more interested.

Ok.

But that leads one to ask why one would choose to center a religion around something so dishonorable and inviting of scorn. With an HJ, the reason for having the crucifixion as a doctrine is simple--there isn't much choice, and the followers are stuck with the crucifixion, so they try to rationalize it. The MJs offer nothing that straightforward.

JoeWallack

The Case For Bigfoot - Evidence That Demands A Verdict


Consider that the evidence for the existence of Bigfoot seems to be much stronger than evidence for the existence of Jesus as we have actual videotape in our lifetime of Bigfoot taken by believers in Bigfoot and their descriptions of Bigfoot are consistent with what one would expect of a creature living in the Great Northwest while the believers in Jesus traditionally have described him as brown haired, fair complexion and tall enough to play center on the Knicks even though he lived in a short, swarthy Mediterranean part of the world. Also, believers in Bigfoot have never had an official policy that it's okay to lie in order to promote belief in Bigfoot, have never burned books claiming that Bigfoot does not exist and have never killed anyone because they did not believe in Bigfoot.

spin

As you are trying to make this heavy going, let's just put it down to you wanting it that way by ignoring most of the debate. The kata sarka stuff you will only understand in the context of the specialised MJ debate. Bu it's fine if you want to talk about your slack definition of "mythical". You shouls realise though that it is different from the major discussion in the area here and you will not communicate too well without indicating your different usage from the major players.

By those who don't take notice of the debate.

Certainly not. He claims to have harassed messianic groups in Judea, tais ekklhssiais ths ioudaias tais en xristw.

You get there through eisegesis.

Being refractory won't change anything. You are merely sublimating differing analyses into the one term and losing meaning. A simple difference of intent should show you how different these terms are in the debate.

Hilarious... and deliberately obtuse. Why did you bother other than self-stimulation?

Once Origen wrote his first version in his commentary on Matthew where the phrase "Jesus called christ" originated, the commentary being where he first applied it to James, he copied his own statement a few times. Adding the wor "brother" to the genitive of Matthean "Jesus called christ" shouldn't have been difficult for Origen. Claiming Josephus used xristos for Jesus alone does seem exaggerately hopeful.

This makes as much sense as your previous statement, but without the deliberateness.

Josephus chooses not to use the term xristos where it would have some sense -- such as his reference to Vespasian fulfilling messianic prophecy--, but he makes an exception to his habit with Jesus.

If the Romans had long known about Jesus as you desire then Josephus would certainly have known more and would have been willing to deal substantively with the historical figure as he did with the others. Yet we are left with two passages, one plainly smelly to all scholars in the field and the other which is contorted and problematical in itself.

How many devout Jews got caught up in a war that they did not want. You jest. You have no case whatsoever other than by poisoning the well.

Shucks, that's how history now works. You work from solid data so that you can introduce the less solid. Without the solid you don't have anything.

It's not. Or it shouldn't be. It has little to do with the historical claim you might want to use it for.

(Agreed.)

As I've indicated earlier in this response, Origen's source for "Jesus called christ" is apparently Matthew which he was commenting on when he first used the phrase. Origen's novelty? Using "called christ" as a qualification of Jesus in "James the brother of Jesus". Now of course the passage in Josephus doesn't use the phrase "James the brother of Jesus", so your argument is an excursion into cherry-picking: you break the phrase because you like the bit which says "brother of Jesus called christ" and you don't like the fact that the passage doesn't say "James the brother of Jesus called christ".

It might suit you to lump all the different analyses of a non-realworld Jesus into the one easy and obscurant category, but that only seems to reflect a reluctance on your part to deal with the issues involved. The material about Josephus is a red herring and doesn't help get any earlier than Paul, whose Jesus is derived from a divine revelation. Of course Jesus may have existed, but he is more difficult to get at than Paul's revealed Jesus. The gospels were written long after Paul's time and reflect evolutionary changes in the Jesus they portray, even amongst themselves. This is what I've dubbed the Chinese whisper development of Jesus.


spin

youngalexander

Now you are opening a can of worms. In the first place you need to demonstrate that (whatever it is that you are referring to) is earlier than Paul/Christ whatever. Second that it relates to the specifics in Paul. Third that it actually demonstrates your point concerning 'early evidence'.

Have what?

Indeed, which still means that we are in receipt of only one side of the story.

jjramsey

Oh, brother. Now you are just being evasive.

Let's see now. Matthew uses "Jesus called christ" once in relation to his account of Jesus' genealogy. Origen transplants a phrase used in that context and uses it in very different context in regard to Josephus. Even though the three references to Josephus by Origen about James really aren't phrased all that alike, the presence of the phrase "brother of Jesus called Christ" is explained by copying rather than Origen's rough recall about Josephus.

Later on, a scribe transcribing Josephus happens to have had Origen on the brain while copying and inserts the phrase "brother of Jesus called Christ" into a passage that looks like what Origin quo ... oh, wait. Why would the passage even stand out as the one to which Origen referred? No reference to Damneus in Origen. No reference to the razing of Jerusalem in that part of Josephus' work (though Josephus tackles that topic later on). How is the scribe even supposed to be aware that this is the passage to which Origen alluded?

BTW, an old thread with your ideas on interpolation is here: http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206687

Not if the Romans knew little about Christians other than they were some annoying little sect.

Oh, please. You are table-banging. It's not poisoning the well to note that Josephus being a traitor is a sign that he wasn't that devout.