mountainman

The earliest Greek codices, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest Greek papryi, the earliest Coptic codices and manuscript and papyri ..... all of these things ... do not mention a name!. The evidence is such that only the CODED NAME, the "Nomina Sacra", is present.

The word "Jesus" is not present. The code "J_S" is present.

So you need to ALSO ask the question another way . Why the code "J_S". When was it invented, and by whom, and when is the full name ("Jesus") first attested independently of the code. For a recent treatment that mentions these codes have a look at the primary article referenced in the recent thread David Trobisch: The New Testament was published in the second century by Polycarp

Sheshbazzar

One's pro-religious bias may also cause them to reject the possibility.
Not everyone that is religious believes there was likely a historical figure, and not everyone religious is a 'Christian'.

jgoodguy

I think not. Perhaps if you were a bit more detailed.

aa5874

It appears to me that the HJ argument is really a non-issue and really has no basis since no contemporary of the supposed Jesus Christ claimed Jesus was an actual man.

ALL references to Jesus called Christ is the same Jesus in the NT, the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth.

All references to PILATE in or outside the Bible is the very same Pilate.

One MUST first find a credible historical source with some ALTERNATIVE description of Pilate to argue that Pilate was NOT a Governor.

If I found an historical source of antiquity which stated that Pilate was a FISHERMAN then I could argue that Pilate was NOT a Governor based on the source of antiquity.

I cannot just IMAGINE that Pilate was a FISHERMAN because I BELIEVE it is Plausible and WASTE YEARS arguing about an issue of which there is ZERO evidence.

Likewise, the HJ argument is rather pointless if there is NO actual credible historical source that described Jesus as a man anywhere in the world BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Who wants to WASTE TIME arguing against HJ when there was NO Details of HJ in antiquity.

Nobody will WASTE their time arguing against people who claimed Pilate was a Fisherman in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

Right now, the HJ argument appears to be a TOTAL WASTE of Time since there are NO DETAILS of HJ anywhere in antiquity.

When an HJer ASSERTS that HJ was an APOCALYPTIC preacher where did he GET that information from?

When an HJer ASSERTS that HJ had a human father where did he get that information from?

They SIMPLE MADE up their HJ story.

They have NO DETAILS from any sources of antiquity for HJ.

I can tell you where Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35.

I can tell you where Jesus TRANSFIGURED in Mark 9.2 but HJers can't tell me what source of antiquity DESCRIBED HJ as INSIGNIFICANT.

HJers apparently MADE up their insignificant HJ story without any input from a credible historical source of antiquity.

jgoodguy

I'd like a bit more info on code. Is this in Papyrus 90 in not where is the code found?

radius

I wonder then whether Jesus son of Ananias would count as a "historical Jesus"? He seems to meet more than the minimal criteria, and has a proper historical source.

He had the name 'Jesus', he was a country bumpkin ('idioton agroikos') who came to the big smoke, kicked up a storm in the Temple, preached and prophesied imminent apocalypse and the destruction of the Temple using material from scripture, was hauled up in front of the Roman procurator by the indignant Jewish religious authorities, and the procurator found no fault in the man.

Josephus also tells us that the reason the Jewish leadership brought Jesus to the Procurator rather than deal with him themselves was that they were concerned Jesus might actually be divinely inspired.

Now, Jesus ben Ananias didn't die during Tiberius' rule (and probably wasn't born during Herod's and Quirinius's ahistorical joint rule), but he was killed before the destruction of the Temple. And when it comes to HJ we're fairly flexible, right? Or is the timeframe given by the gospels one of the HJ's sine qua nons? Is the crucifixion? What are the criteria for picking HJ sine qua nons?

aa5874

You have shown the problems with the HJ argument.

Jesus Son of Ananus cannot be simply regarded as the historical Jesus because he made statements similar to Jesus of the NT.

As the NAME implies, Jesus was the SON OF ANANUS.

Whose Son was HJ? What DETAILS do we have of HJ?

In the "Life of Flavius Josephus" three of the acquaintances of Josephus were found Crucified and REMOVED from their crosses at the request of Josephus. One SURVIVED and two DIED.

CAN WE ASSUME that those three Crucified were the "historical Jesus" and the TWO "historical thieves"?

"The Life of Flavius Josephus" Once we have NO DETAILS of HJ from historical sources of antiquity then HJ IS BASELESS and cannot be examined.

We cannot examine the IMAGINATION of HJers and HJ was simply IMAGINED as a figure of history without a single DETAIL from any credible historical source.

What source of antiquity state that HJ ACTUALLY lived in Nazareth and was ACTUALLY crucified under Pilate?

In the NT, the crucifixion of Jesus is a FICTION story. Jesus was a Ghost and Pilate found NO FAULT with "him".

What is the Historical Source for Details of HJ?

aa5874

The historical source of antiquity WITH DETAILS of HJ appears to be EXTREMELY difficult to find.

If such a historical source of antiquity was AVAILABLE to HJers then MJers would be ridiculed but ALAS as expected there cannot be found any credible sources.

Consider the claim by HJers that HJ was from Nazareth.

Which book in ALL EXTANT antiquity claimed that there was an HJ and that he was from Nazareth?

The answer is NOT surprising. It is ZERO.

If we go through the Gospels it would SOON be REALIZED that it was the supposed Jesus the Child of the Ghost, the Creator that was God which LIVED in Nazareth.

The NT Canon could NOT be about the "historical Jesus".

1. The "historical Jesus" would be HERESY if he was in the NT.

2. The "historical Jesus" would be a BLASPHEMER if he was a Jewish man in Judea.


Again, where is the historical source of antiquity which shows HJ lived in Nazareth?

It was the Child of the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ, the Creator and God that was Born in Bethlehem and LIVED in NAZARETH in the NT.

Remember in the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost, Pilate was a Governor, Tiberius was an Emperor, Caiaphas was High Priest, Philip Herod was TETRARCH, John was the Baptist.

There is NOTHING for HJ.

What is the Historical source WITH DETAILS for HJ.

mountainman

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra


There does not appear to be an instance in that fragment.

Sheshbazzar

My thought is that the nomina sacra codes were a compromise reached early on and vigorously enforced to quell the disputations and superstitions over favored pronunciations or spellings (or NON-pronunciations) of the 'holy' names' and titles, which were by many believed to be imbued with true miracle working power.
(akin to a sorcerers invoking abilities through incantations 'In the Name of *****' )

This employment of nomina sacra exclusively -in writings- allowed for all of the various early individuals and factions to -pronounce- whatever form of name or title they were convinced of, or were the continuators of a 'tradition' received.
Eventually the pronunciations preferred by the majority orthodoxy and were publicly familiar (worldly) predominated, became accepted, and finally were catholicly enforced to the virtual exclusion of all others. So we ended up with those ersatz pronunciations and spellings that are standard today.
(Just try to get a Fundamentalist Christian to give up the form 'Jesus'. No matter how knowledgeable of the original languages they become, the ersatz 'Jesus' is the required mantra of all public exposition.
I have personally experienced being flatly told, I must use the form 'Jesus' only, or not be welcome within the church. Oh well, I don't go.)

Along this line it is to be noted that all of the Epistles were written to individuals and congregations that have all been -personally visited- and are already 'converted'.
None of these writings are directed towards any general audience, or to any 'outside' group in any attempt to persuade of, or to propagate the faith.
It required a -personal visit-, and a -personal face to face hearing- of 'The word of life' -directly from the lips of an Apostle or disciple- accompanied by 'baptism' into, and a laying on of hands "in the NAME of ******"

This 'secret' unwritten knowledge of the names of divine POWER, and of the formulas for their proper and effective invocation were what separated the nascent church from the 'worldly' and from all of the other competing 'pagan' religious groups.