No Robots

Malachi, your brand of mythicism has the virtue of at least trying to fit itself wholly within the context of Judaism, making it immeasurably less ridiculous than all the various pagan Christs, mythicist or not. However, you, like other mythicists, imagine that the man was created from the myth, rather than the other way 'round. Closer analysis shows that this is impossible, that it is precisely in the fact that Christ does not fit easily into the prevailing expectations of his culture that we see the best evidence for the truth of his personality and originality. The myth had to be cobbled together out of bits and pieces of the literary heritage in order to make sense of the man, to make him comprehensible to people who had no other means of understanding anything, let alone him.

Amaleq13

By joining No Robots in embracing Brunner's beliefs about Jesus.

It is only the "Genius Jesus" that is right.

No Robots

I am compiling a bibliography of Christology that demonstrates that my views are not unique to either myself or Brunner. For starters, I suggest A Jewish View of Jesus by Hyman Gerson Enelow, the full text of which is available at the Internet Archive.

I acknowledge that Brunner's book, Our Christ, is a tough nut to crack, but it should be borne in mind that none other than the Jesuit Christologist Xavier Tilliette refers to the book as "sa magnifique théorie du Christ" (Études v.367 1987, p. 423). And this despite the fact that Brunner calls Christ an atheist.

spin

Hi to you, Andrew!
I don't know where you got the notion that the ben Pandera material comes from early layers of rabbinical tradition. I've tried to date the passage without success. Have you got a functional set of criteria for doing so? And I don't really know how to relate Yeshu ben Pandera in the Tosefta to the christian Jesus: someone is healed in the name of Yeshu ben Pandera... does that sound like the material of history?


spin

Malachi151

I disagree, in fact I go to great lengths to show that the Christ of Paul and the Gospel is a complete archetype drawn from Jewish literary and religious traditions of the time.

ynquirer

I’m afraid you have understood very little, if anything, of the scholarly debate on the historicity of Jesus.

History results from a rational consensus about what happened in the past. Accordingly, rational people – or at any rate, people committed to rationality – try to agree in a minimum narrative of what happened without exacting from others a profession of faith.

On that account, Christian historians are ready to agree with atheists in a narrative that envisages a man Jesus that was crucified under Pilate and upon whose guidance a mass religion was incepted, while waiving Jesus-Christ that worked miracles. Jesus-Christ is for Christians an article of faith, and it would be unrealistic to expect acceptance thereof from atheistic historians.

The problem with Josephus is a different one. (Please read again my last post.) It seems that a Jew like him could hardly have spoken of Jesus in such favorable terms as said in the Testimonium Flavianum.

What I contend is that such reconstructions of what Josephus either might or might not have said are worth nothing before evidence.

Very briefly: Tacitus in penning his earlier work Histories extensively quotes Josephus’ War of the Jews. Compare H 5:13 with WJ6.5.3[/i]. Actually, Tacitus on the siege of Jerusalem (H 11:13) either quoted Josephus’ WJ books 1, 5 and 6.

There is also evidence that Tacitus’ later work Annals also quotes/summarizes passages from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. Thus, Vonones’ story, in Annals 2:1-4, which is a summary of AJ 18.2.4.

Therefore, there is ample evidence that Tacitus made use of Josephus works as a default source for history east of the Mediterranean (Judaea and Galilee, Armenia, and Partia). This was not unusual. Plutarch, for instance, can be shown to have used Josephus as a source, too.

Now, if you read the Testimonium Flavianum – and you ought to as soon as possible, if you wish to have a say on the issue – you will not fail to notice that Annals 15:44, where Tacitus mentions Christ – another text you ought to read – also follows the guidelines of the TF.

And if Tacitus drew information from the TF to explain the origin of the word ‘Christian’, then it is water-tight clear that later Christians, say, as of post Constantine times, could not have forged it.

andrewcriddle

Neusner in In Search of Talmudic Biography: the Problem of the Atributed Saying links the Eliezer b Hyrcanus account (Tosefta Shehitat Hullin 2:23) to other material which he argues come from the immediate disciples of Aqiba; IE from c 150 CE.

The Eleazar b Damah account (Tosefta Shehitat Hullin 2:22) IMVHO comes from the same period. One should note that although the account presupposes a belief that the name of Yeshu ben Pandera can be used in healing, no healing actually occurs. Eleazar refuses the offer of healing and dies.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But, what is the consensus?

Is not the consensus that it can ONLY be BELIEVED Jesus existed since there is NO known credible EVIDENCE to support his existence?

A theory, no matter how plausible, and believed to be acceptable by any person, whether a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or secular, cannot be used as evidence to claim the theory has been substantiated.

Only external information can corroborate a theory.

Jesus existed is a theory that is re-inforced with AVAILABILTY of credible non-apologetic information and weakened by the ABSENCE of credible non-apologetic information.

Jesus did NOT exist is a theory that is strenghtened by the ABSENCE of any credible non-apologetic source and diminished by credible non-apologetic information.

As it stands now, the theory that Jesus did NOT exist is extremely strong, there is no known credible non-apologetic information about Jesus of the NT, the theory Jesus existed is miniscule.

And, now, since you want to WAIVE Jesus-Christ, and claim Jesus-Christ is an article of faith, please WAIVE "CHRISTUS, in Tacitus, you say CHRISTUS means Christ, he MUST be an article of faith, too.

WAIVE "Jesus-Christ" in Josephus, WAIVE "Christ" in the Pliny-letters, they MUST be articles of faith.

All the external sources are articles of faith, Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny, just WAIVE them off.

Jesus existence is truly an article of faith.

Rick Sumner

I find this intriguing. Where, specifically, do you see an occasion to have mentioned Jesus in the Mishnah? Even better (and more appropriate to your claim), not simply an occasion for it to have happened, but a point at which we should both expect the speaker to be aware of Jesus, and we should reasonably expect him to have made such a mention?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Zaphod

I find it very curious that you respond to my admission that I am not a historian, and am not familiar with the TF by quoting Tacitus on the TF!

I have read quite a few posts here at IIDB which have included the relevant lines from the TF and Tacitus, etc which encompass every possible reference to the HJ.

And the words of Mike when describing Pat come to mind, although they must be taken as opposite:

"Not much meat on her, but what's there is cherce."

What lines exist are scanty, and they ain't choice, if I can believe what I perceive to be the consensus at this site - that the mentionings of Jesus in TF, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetinus etc are not reliable.

Scanty and nonreliable seems to sum up the historical evidence of the HJ.

As you are a self-described Josephus scholar - perhaps you could answer my question - did Josephus write about small men and events? Would we expect to see him write about any of the proposed historical versions of Jesus Christ?