Steven Carr

1 Thessalonians 2:14 ' You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.'

Chaucer

And what I was referencing in my remarks were extrabiblical sources and what they give us. You're citing here a biblical source instead.

Apples and oranges.

Chaucer

Toto

You have not actually given any evidence. The idea of "genre" is a modern attempt to find some historical value in the gospels, but there is no indication that they were originally treated as historical. Both Matt and Luke are based on Mark, and Mark has no indication of historicity. Mark is a theological document reinterpreting the Hebrew Scriptures; and the authors of Matthew and Luke did not treat Mark as if it contained real history. They both added details or changed events for their own theological purposes - and I would argue that this shows Mark was not treated as history by people who were closer to the events than we are.

There is no positive argument that the gospels were historical. Even the historical Jesus industry does not think that they are straight history, but some sort of puzzle from which a few historical facts can be extracted.

Notice, I am not playing your strawman. I am not asking for absolute knowledge. Just some knowledge and some indication of how firm it is. You have nothing by a contemporary of Jesus, I have an argument that I have never seen addressed that the gospels are not history.

There are no clear indications in Paul's letters that they were written in the first half of the 1st century - the standard dating of the letters is based on Acts. Paul met a few people with the same name as some of the gospel characters, but no other indications that they were the same person. (James in the gospels is a biological brother of Jesus who thinks he is crazy, but in the letters he is a leader of a faction of the church.)

If you hadn't read the gospels, you would not think that Paul was talking about a recently crucified person. You would have no idea that he did miracles or preached in Galilee. Paul only cares about the resurrected, spiritual Jesus.

As evidence, Paul's letters are fairly weak even without considering the probability that they were heavily edited and interpolated.

This is getting silly. You can't discuss evidence without considering the probability that an ancient document might be forged. There is too much forgery in Christian history to blythely ignore that possibility. Based on the amount of forgery, any given document should be treated as most likely forged if it passed through Christian hands.

I will grant you that any of these, if not forged, might be some evidence for a historical Jesus. But not the sort of overwhelming evidence you claim. None of them record eyewitness testimony or contain the sort of details that we would expect from a history.

NOT. The gospels may have been a form of bioi; but a bios could be written about a god. You cannot conclude anything about the historical content of the gospels from their genre.

Possibly true, but very weak evidence. Paul speaks metaphorically and cryptically about Jesus as a man, but none of his letters contain personal information about Jesus beyond a few doctrinal statements.

What do you base this assertion of "probability" on? One passage that is universally admitted to have been tampered with by a Christian editor, and a single phrase that could well have been a marginal note by a Christian?

I would disagree about the probability, but even if it were, it is too likely to have been hearsay based on something a Christian said, not based on knowledge of a historical Jesus.

You would do well to admit that this is not an "overwhelming" case. Overstating the evidence does nothing for your credibility.

Roger Pearse

I'm amazed at your patience with this nonsense, but well said.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

judge

Nothing cryptic here though.



Paul wrote he was a descendent of david, born of a woman.

maryhelena

Sure, there is “nothing impossible about a historical Jesus who was an itinerant preacher crucified by the Romans under Pilate” - but that is where you have to stop - because the next part “as the origin of Christianity” is doubtful in the extreme.

Christianity is about a sacrifice on a cross as the basis of it’s theology/philosophy. It’s the cross that is its symbol, the raison d'être for it’s existence. Now, to imagine that the early Christians were using a miscarriage of justice, as per a literal reading of the gospel JC storyline, on which to base their glorious theological premises is the height of absurdly. Remember these choice words of Dawkins:

Unlike Dawkins, I’m willing to give Paul a break here - that such a monstrous idea never entered his head. And for anyone, two thousand or so years later, to do so indicates a serious lack of moral comprehension. It’s time, methinks, to stop such mischaracterization of Paul. (and it’s here that Earl has much to offer....)

The best explanation for the origin of Christianity? Still in the works I would imagine.
To my mind, Earl only has half the story. The other half can be gleamed from the work of George Wells. No, not his proposed Galilean preacher (for which he has no historical evidence) but from the fact that he upholds the idea that there was a flesh and blood element in the gospel storyline. In other words, some historical reflection. The question then is what was the historical reality, the historical context, from which the early Christians developed their NT storyline - a storyline that incorporates a ‘body’, a pseudo-historical JC and a ‘spirit’, the dying and rising god of mythology that is the basis of Paul’s philosophising, of his intellectual ideas.

The only way that a crucifixion can be viewed as a positive value is in a purely intellectual context ie ideas can be ‘crucified’, ideas can be killed off, ideas can be re-born in some new intellectual context. Crucifixion in flesh and blood reality - well now, anyone seeking to turn that into a positive value instead of the non-value that it is - needs a quick appointment with the nearest psychiatrist.

So, yes, a flesh and blood crucifixion claimed as a moral victory, claimed as the salvation of the human race, is indeed a stumbling block - a stumbling block to anyone with any sense of morality - but, ah it’s not morality that is at issue here - it’s the freedom from such constraints that an intellectual context provides. Victory indeed!
Whatever started Christianity - if we are to grant it some relevance in people's lives - would be that it contains a core of morality. Without that, even Paul's adventures with philosophical speculations are futile, groundless. No Freedom without a Law. And if it's an interest in morality that we seek to reflect in our investigations into the origins of early christianity - then the gospel crucifixion storyline has to be considered as a spiritual, mythological, philosophical, intellectual value and not reduced to the 'moral depravity' that the Dawkins quote reflects.

GakuseiDon

"Everyone treated the Gospels as being about a historical person" is my claim. And that's true, AFAIK. There is no-one who ever claimed that the Gospels weren't about a historical person.

"Everyone treated the Gospels as being about a historical person" is my claim.

"Everyone treated the Gospels as being about a historical person" is my claim. You're not "Ned Ludding" here, but rather moving goalposts.

Surely you have read how ancient authors didn't mind moving things around, making up speeches, even events, about someone considered historical. Here is Papias:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.

So how Matthew and Luke treated Mark is not inconsistent with them treating the Gospel of Mark as being about a historical person. Luke starts off with:

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

It might be that Luke was writing fiction, but he seemed to be trying to pass it off as fact. Why?

Then you would be wrong. It doesn't show that at all.

What's your argument? The one that is above? The one which is consistent with how people wrote ancient works?

The references to Caesar and Aretas are good indicators. The reference to Caesar knocks out the First Century BCE Aretas, leaving the Aretas who ruled in the first half of the First Century. 1 Clement talks about Peter and Paul as being martyrs of "our generation" IIRC. No need for Acts. Any reason why that isn't suggestive of a First Century Paul?

Yes you would. "First-fruits", etc. Read my review where I use Ben C Smith's references. Remember, this is a cumulative case. Give me a better explanation for all those references and show me why it is a better explanation.

Yes, the man who came from the Israelites, was the descendant of David, descendant of Abraham. Can you name any other non-earthly person who had earthly descendants? If we found in some ancient text that X was a descendant of Y (where Y was someone they thought were historical), would we reasonably conclude that they thought X was historical also?

In a cumulative case, they are strong enough. And the letters are another source about a crucified Jew called Jesus, complementing the Gospels. I postulate that this is because they are both talking about the same person. What is your explanation? And what is your evidence?

What's the probability that they were forged? Give me a figure, and tell me how you arrived at that.

It is the cumulative case that is overwhelming.

Moving goal-posts. "Everyone treated the Gospels as being about a historical person" is my claim.

Yes.

What are some of the reasons why Christians told Tacitus that? If Mark and the other Gospel writers knew they were writing fiction, then why would Christians be telling Tacitus that Christ was crucified under Pilate? And where did those Christians get the idea that Christ was crucified under Pilate? From Paul? From the Gospels?

I think the best explanation, taking everything into account, is that Christianity had a historical Jesus at the core.

The cumulative case is overwhelming.

Let's see how your case looks:
1. Paul, writing at some unspecified time, wrote about a spiritual Jesus but didn't set his crucifixion at any time.
2. The Gospel writers, writing towards the end of the First Century, also wrote about a crucified Jew called Jesus who was crucified under Pilate. But they knew they weren't writing history. Mark wrote ? CE, and Matthew and Luke wrote ? CE. Luke appeared to be trying to pass off his fiction as fact.
3. Around 110 CE, Christians were telling Tacitus that they believed in a Christ who was crucified under Pilate. They can only have got that from the Gospels, I presume? Tacitus calls Christianity a 'pernicious superstition'. But maybe Christians put this in later, so maybe it was a forgery.

You tell me what the evidence for your cumulative case is, and then we can see which is stronger.

GakuseiDon

:blush: I'm a weak man. Weak I say! I kept telling myself that it's time to go onto other things, but they keep dragging me back in... But thanks for the kind words, Roger.

avi

How do you know what Clement of Rome wrote?

A tad vague for my taste.

1. Anytime someone points to a document written a millenium after an event, while concurrently asserting greater fidelity to an unknown original, than the document written only five centuries after the fact, then, I become suspicious.

2. Whenever, (and it applies here) I encounter a reference to Eusebius EH, as evidence attesting to the validity of someone or something, I pass beyond suspicion, to paranoia.

3. In this circumstance, uniquely, among the "patristic" sources, one has an acknowledged forgery, i.e. 2 Clement. What is the probability that 1 Clement is not wholly, or at least partially, forged as well?

GD, if a document with the same lineage as 1 Clement had been written in support of religion xyz, say Islam, or Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism, or whatever, would you regard such a document as representing "proof" of the integrity of whatever "gospel" those religions employed?

Sorry, GakuseiDon, I am not buying the idea that 1 Clement supports a first century Paul, or anything else. Evidence, to be credible, cannot be described as Lightfoot has described our extant copies of copies of the original correspondence, above......You do realize, right, that our OLDEST extant manuscript dates from a couple hundred years AFTER Eusebius put quill to papyrus....

Lest you imagine that Clement of Alexandria's citation of his brother in Rome is more convincing, let me disabuse you of such notions. We have only a single ancient copy of a manuscript of his, a thousand years old, (written several centuries after the original was created) and so full of lacunae and scribbles on the margins, that it is nearly illegible.

avi

avi

Did you intend to convey, in this sentence, the notion that TF is not a forgery?

In my opinion, the evidence we have, is that Josephus' work has been forged.

Are you (and, by implication, Roger) arguing, contrarily, that Josephus' work has NOT been forged, or, alternatively, that the consequences of forgery are irrelevant, and that, with, or without, the forgery, the text of Josephus "establishes the probability of an historical Jesus"?

avi