mikem

Is Elfin a real language?? I see your point, but my argument is that if Jesus existed, at the time and place stated, he would have spoken Aramaic. At least some of his original voice might then be heard in the traditions that grew out of his life.

It is not just that Mark's gospel contains Aramaic words, but also as I perhaps did not make clear enough, there are passages of teaching that when translated back into Aramaic, take on a more poetic shape for easier memorisation, and memorisation is the engine that drives the transmission of a teaching tradition.

As far as I know, Jesus use of ABBA is unique. It is a familial term, and not one normally used by Jews in relation to God. If Mark, for example, was using Aramaic phrases to create the portrait of a Jewish Jesus, why would he undermine it by having his creation use a term of address that was so untypical?

(Incidentally, Paul seems to have some reference to the Gethsemani incident in Romans 8:15)

Thus it seems to me to make more sense within a HJ framework than an MJ one.

spin

What would make anyone think that the words you rightly indicate as of non-Greek origin stem from an oral tradition? What do they contribute to the understanding of the text?

Korban is a technical term and may have been used in Greek because of its technical content. Josephus uses the word in BJ 2.175 as the name of the temple treasury. It may just as easily have been Hebrew and derived directly from Hebrew.

Boanerges is a nickname of someone who is supposed to be of Hebrew descent, so you'd expect names applied to such people to be non-Greek, as in the case of Thomas, Matthew, and many others. It's no indication of an Aramaic speech community behind it.

Talitha Koum, "little girl come", an important piece of oral tradition to be kept, isn't it? The same can be said for ephphatha, "be opened". There is nothing useful in these phrases, nothing to hang any theology on, no deeply important ideas that are best remembered by the use of these phrases?

As to abba, Jesus says "father" so often, yet with one exception they are all in Greek. No coherent indication here. No theological content imparted. Nothing integral to the text or the religion.

We would expect however that a text set in Judea to feature a few lexical items from there. If I were to write a text set in Germany, I'd throw in a few Strassen or a few Dummkopfen. It gives colour and one can imagine the itinerant preacher spicing up his stories with a few cribbed Aramaic terms. (As Kosh indicates, a few odd words in a text doesn't necessarily tell you anything.)

However, I think Mark was written in Rome, or at least a Latin community (which makes Rome the most probable for finding Greek speakers). The reason for this is that

1. there are several words in Latin transliterated in Greek, some of them given as explanations for Greek terms, such as 15:16 where the writer explains that the palace is a praetorium.
2. There are a few Latin phrases literally translated into Greek such that they have little sense in Greek but a translation back into Latin makes them clear.
3. The term "Syro-phoenician" in 7:26 tells the reader which type of Phoenician, ie not Libo-phoenician from north Africa, but Syro-phoenician, ie from Palestine, a distinction which was naturally unhelpful in Palestine, but significant in Rome.
4. Errors in geography suggest that the gospel wasn't written in Palestine, allowing for other reasons for a Roman identification for the gospel.

All talk of an Aramaic oral tradition behind the gospel fails to explain the Latin observable in the text. Yet the presence of magic words in Aramaic are par for the course in a text ostensibly about Palestine.

This is by no means necessary. People spoke Greek in Palestine, while others spoke Hebrew (as three Hebrew dialects in the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Hebrew was a spoken tradition at the time).

Me? Why would I do a thing like that?


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

The name "Jesus" was not uncommon in the area at that time, therefore it is without question that at least one man named Jesus once existed.

Now that this utterly pointless, trivial fact has been established, who cares?

The only thing that matters is whether or not the claims attributed to a man named Jesus as depicted in "the New Testament" are fictional or non-fictional.

:huh:

jakejonesiv

To continue the the laudry list of "proofs" that Jesus existed. I am attempting to compile every argument in favor of HJ that I have ever encountered, stating them in the most pro-HJ manner, without examining the claims critically. I think this is a useful checklist for the skeptic to have.

#22. The ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus' arrest, was discovered at a dig in the Peace Forest outside of Jerusalem. Prof. tabor states that many tombs around Jerusalm are inscibed with Biblical names and crosses from the first century. Therefore, Jesus did exist.

#23. The James Ossuary is authentic. It contains the names of "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Therefore Jesus did exist.

#24. The actual bones of Jesus were discovered in a an Israeli museum warehouse owned by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Therefore Jesus did exist.

#25. Mara Bar-Serapion, in a letter to his son, testified that the Jews executed Jesus.
"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished."

#26. Paul also wrote that the Jews killed Christ. 1 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, Jesus did exist.

#27. The Talmud references Yeshu'a of Nazareth.

#28. Paul didn't get a scintilla of his Jesus stuff from Mystery Cults. He had never heard of them. In fact, they didn't exist until over 100 years latter, and copied from Chrsitianity.

#29. There is an unbroken chain of Popes all the way back to Pope Peter, the first Pope.
Every cause has an effect. Every Pope had to have a predecessor, or he would claim to be the First Pope! Irenaeus couldn't just make up twelve or thirteen popes before St. Eleutherius if there weren't any. This Apostolic Succession required an historical Jesus.

Jake Jones IV

PhilosopherJay

All the sayings and magical deeds are easily deconstructed as fiction and shown to have no basis in historical events. However the arrest, trial and execution does suggest unusual features. For example, Jesus shows fear and anger, certainly not the emotions one would expect of a son of a God with foreknowledge of his own death.

These sections seem to have been rewritten countless times with diverse elements thrown in. However one may see that at base it is a piece of theatrical drama. It is meant to be played out on a stage. Mime theater which was popular at this time was often based on real historical incidents. Therefore we can take it as probable that the theatrical piece is at least making reference to some kind of recent political-criminal case in which someone was executed.

My best guess is that it was the Samaritan Charlatan referred to by Josephus who led people to Mount Gerizzin at Passover. He is the only man apparently who Josephus says that Pilate ordered slain: (18:4.1 -- a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.) I would also guess his name was Simon and his followers formed the Simon Magus cult.

Therefore Jesus existed because the Passion text is referring to a real executed Samaritan man named Simon.

Or we can say that Jesus did not exist because the text is referring to a real executed Samaritan man named Simon.

It works either way.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

J-D

1. There was a first group of Christians.
2. If there was a first group of Christians, it must have had a historical origin.
3. Being the followers of a religious leader is a possible historical origin for any first group of Christians.
4. No other possible historical origin is known for any first group of Christians.
5. The name ‘Jesus’ is conventionally accepted as referring to a religious leader whose followers were the first group of Christians.
Therefore, Jesus did exist.

Tangent

Coming soon to iidb.org.

Therefore, Osiris did exist and it's exciting sequel Therefore, Socrates did not exist

Since it's pretty obvious that Jesus as described by the gospels did not exist, at what point does the HJ supporter draw the line? If the supposed "historical Jesus" is seemingly in constant flux adapting to what he "could be", where do you stop? If, for example, the idea of Jesus was inspired by other myths of the time, and eventually you find that those myths were based on a historic personage is that then Jesus? I'm sure there is a better definition that I am not aware of, but some boundaries would be helpful.

Otherwise...
There is a post on iidb.org about someone called Jesus.
The idea of Jesus had to come from somewhere.
At one point there was an actual flesh and blood person who can be considered as the basis for one or more of the properties of Jesus.
Regardless of his actual name, this person's name is now Jesus and therefore Jesus did exist.

spin

I'm sure you've read the book or seen the film, Frankenstein, a name which obviously refers to the young doctor, not the monster, who was never given a name. The monster was "manufactured" from bits and put together into something that didn't exist before. While I can't say that this was what happened with regard to the monster's comparison here, Jesus, it is a process that cannot be negated -- unless you are able to come up with a historical Jesus.

The important thing is that once the Jesus tradition is set in motion, it will have legs and arms grafted on and the monster will be neatened up as the process continues. The vision that the awaited messiah had already come, which Paul had on the road to Damascus, is the sort of kick-start that such a tradition would need, had come for a reconnaissance mission, to return to finish the job.

The notion that there had to be a one singular source for the start of Jesus is certainly not a given fact. Something happened in Sparta which revolutionized most aspects of the society, something that is extremely difficult to ascribe to a single generation, let alone a single person, so Lycurgus being reponsible for all the changes is obviously not likely. He is probably the amalgam of numerous people over numerous generations.

Argument that there has to be a carrier zero for a tradition is not a fortiori correct.


spin

spin

1. There was a first group of theists.
2. This group must have had a historical origin.
3. Being the followers of a deity is a possible historical origin for any first group of theists.
4. No other possible historical origin is known for any first group of theists.
5. The name of the deity is not important to understand that there was a deity whose followers were the first group of theists.
6. Therefore, the deity did exist.

spin

dongiovanni1976x

1. Given the limitations of historical personages who were not emperors or kings in antiquity, three independent sources confirming the existence of an individual should be sufficient evidence to establish that it is more proabable than not that that person existed.
2. If it can be established that it is more probable than not that a certain personage existed then for the sake of this historical argument we should be able to say that that person existed.
3. If Jesus had a brother named James who existed it is unlikely that Jesus was entirely mythical.
4. If it is unlikely that Jesus was entirely mythical then it is more probable than not that he existed.
5. If it is more proabable than not that Jesus existed, then Jesus existed (P2)
6. Three independent sources from antiquity stated that James the brother of Jesus existed.
(Paul Galatians 1:19, Mark 6:3, Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1)
7. James the brother of Jesus existed. (P1, P2, P6)
6. Therefore Jesus did exist. (P3, P4, P5 & P7)