Rick Sumner

Hi Andrew,

Heh. I've argued at length, on this very board, that the biblical historian is fundamentally no different from any other ancient historian. I used to think this justified the biblical historian, since he's doing what other branches of history do. I've since been convinced that it actually condemns them all, since they're all making the same mistakes.

Thompson is the fruit, not the tree. He's the application of what critics have been shouting from the rooftops for decades: The historian, as generally understood, is indistinguishable from the rhetor. History certainly claims to be more than that, and I think it should be more than that. If that requires a dramatic revaluation of what History has accomplished, I'm okay with that price.

That's not to say that I agree with everything Thompson says on theory. But he at least takes theory seriously, while most historians will go their entire careers without publishing a single word discussing the theory that informs their work. Most of those that are left will call themselves informed by theory because they drop the word "positivist" in from time to time and include Carr in their bibliography.

That these last two sentences are accurate is shameful, and correcting it should be the first order of business for historians at large, regardless of how drastic the impact is.

The dating isn't a problem for me as much. If it could be demonstrated that Mark relied on earlier (ideally first-hand, or at least born from first-hand interviews) sources a date of 135 would be fine for me. Problematic, but evidence can be problematic and still be evidence.

Internal evidence that he intended it as biography is, in the case of Mark, easily cancelled out by the contrary argument; that he intended it above all else to be a theological treatise (or any other genre one can defend). But that's not really the nail in the coffin either.

It's that it is anonymous, no sources are cited for his information, and we cannot reasonably conclude that it represents anything like a firsthand account. We don't know who wrote it, why they wrote it, or when they wrote it. We don't have any known link between our source and the events described.

The question of genre would help, but not definitively so. It's an important question, and should perhaps be among the first questions asked of a source. But it doesn't change a source to evidence by itself. Luke seems to think he is writing a biography. But his known source sucks, and his other source is either just as bad (Matthew) or unavailable and uncited by him (Q). I don't think anyone, even the traditional historian, would give Luke pride of place based on intended genre these days. Even if he intends to write a biography, he doesn't constitute meaningful evidence.

andrewcriddle

Hi Rick

That you for expanding and clarifying your position.

I think we differ on the general problem of truth claims in Ancient history at least as much as we do on the specific problems raised by Christian origins.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

Heh. I suspect you're on a very long list of people who can say that. While it wasn't always the case, and while it was neither a comfortable nor easy position for me to end up taking, I'm okay with that too.

No Robots

Absolutely. And thus the further and greater irony is that it is the mythicists who are keeping traditional Christian religion alive. As long as there is hope that he was just a myth, there is hope that he was not just a man.

GakuseiDon

That is so true. One thing that Doherty stresses in his book is "how can all these things be thought by the early Christians like Paul about a human being in such a short amount of time?" The choice Doherty offers is "divine being/Gospel Jesus" or "myth".

maryhelena

And I'll support that!

A normal flesh and blood figure, a normal crucified man, is a far bigger disaster for christian theology than a crucified spiritual figure. That the gospel JC figure is not historical does not rule out the possibility that a historically crucified figure was relevant to the gospel writers. That is the possibility that the ahistoricists/mythicists position needs to address. A spirit figure crucified in a spiritual realm was never, is never, going to dislodge the assumption that the gospel JC was a historical figure. Telling christians there was nothing 'there' but 'Paul's imagination is, at it's basic level, nothing more than telling small children fairy stories.

For all its contradictions and mythical trappings, the gospel pseudo-historical JC story sought to root christian spirituality within a specific historical context. Remove or deny that context and it's the world of imagination that one enters.

J-D

There are multiple credible sources for the biography of several different human beings called Jesus. You don't seem to understand that 'Jesus' is just a name, no more, no less--or else you don't understand how names work.

J-D

So apparently, on your own account (if I've understood it), on one side there's practically the whole historical profession, and on the other side there's Rick Sumner.

Should I pick a side? But how?

aa5874

So, HJers are really the ones who are attempting to destroy the Faith and have blamed everyone else but themselves.

The HJ argument suggests that the NT is a compilation of Embellishments, fiction, and implausibilities, false hope.

It is most obvious that the argument by HJers that Jesus was human with a human father, could NOT remit sins, was NOT the Lord, Messiah and Savior and was hardly known has destroyed the credibilty of supposed early Christians.

HJers are fully IMMERSED in logical fallacies.

maryhelena

Before someone suggests that my mention of a crucified historical figure, a figure that could be relevant to the gospel writers, that this historical figure could be viewed as the crucified gospel JC (with regard to the OP) - here is a chart detailing why this is not possible. The gospel JC was crucified under Pilate. The historical figure that was bound to a cross, flogged and slain, Antigonus, was killed by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

When considering the chart keep in mind the 70 year interval between the two crucifixions. History at the start of the 70 years period - and pseudo-history, or mythologized history, at the conclusion of those 70 years. In other words, the historical 'tape' of 40 - 37 b.c. has been re-run within a different time slot.

Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a cross, flogged and slain. (37 b.c.) Cassius Dio.	70 year Anniversary of the killing of Antigonus, 33 c.e.
JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.) Antiquities: (about 94 c.e.) Antigonus enters Jerusalem in 40 b.c.	The 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 c.e., is 70 years from 40 b.c. and the rule of Lysanias of Abilene. Luke 3:1.
Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.)	John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear the High Priest's servant.
Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared all enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16	gJohn indicates a three year ministy for JC
Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody.......	The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilinqual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
... but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...)	Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3
Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1	Acts: 11:16. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.