mens_sana

Religious loon? Just because he thought and preached that God's reign was imminent, within the lifetime of those in audience? In the context of 1st century Palestine, with two revolts against the Romans in the offing, how is an apocalyptic worldview loony? From our context, it is loony. In the first century, it wasn't. And being wrong doesn't make one a loon — though I suspect that the "being wrong" is part of why the Jesus Seminar didn't buy Jesus as an apocalypticist.

We also do not know that Jesus' apocalyptic view included anything like the disasters later laid out in Revelation, which, of course, is loony.

gstafleu

Who are the "they"? If they are in anyway conected to things Pauline, might Josephus not just be using their terminology here? In which case this passage does not show that kata sarka means anything else than the meaning "they" gave it.

No Robots

Apocalpytic imagery is one dimension of Christ's rhetoric. To call him an apocalyptic prophet is to yet again mistake his tropes for his essential meaning.

gstafleu

But isn't that the problem this debate keeps running into? Christianity is based on the embellished version. The reason the historicity of Jesus is so interesting is Christianity. And that means the interesting candidate for historicity is Christianity's Jesus, not some diminished version that fits the available evidence. So you may call straw man, but I call shifting of the goal posts.


When it comes to a HJ, cherry-picking the gospels to manufacture an HJ that works is the no-no.

That's begging the question (given the above). The whole idea is that according to Christianity Paul's Jesus is the same as the gospel Jesus. And both Paul and the gospels are supposed to be accurate versions. At the very least we would expect, given the enormous importance (according to the Christians) of the subject, that Paul and the gospels would be a much closer match. That, I think is what Doherety is after. And showing that this isn't so is a legitimate form of casting doubt on the Christian claims.

So here are some points I think the debate should address:

1) Does everyone (except apologists) agree that the gospel Jesus is not historical?

2) Given this, what is the maximal Jesus supported by the Gospel+Acts evidence? Is this something like what the Jesus Seminar came up with?

3) Can we rhyme what we find in 2) with what we find in Paul?

To get a little ahead of the conclusions, I suspect the answer to 1) is by and large: yes. Let's assume that the answer to 2) is at best something like a cult leader, an itinerant priest, something along those lines (the answer may be MJ, but let's assume HJ for the moment). I then suspect that the answer for 3) is: no, we cannot rhyme the gospel HJ with what we find in Paul. If so, we end up with at least two HJ's, assuming we can derive an HJ from Paul. That would put an end to the HJ, we now have a collection of at least two.

--------------
Gerard Stafleu

Chris Weimer

Sorry, I was in a hurry and, not thinking, used the BibleWorks versification.

Christ was a mortal being, unless you assume a priori that he's not. Kata sarka is evidence of his mortality, and likewise is "born of a woman, under the Law." Paul made it very clear that Jesus died - thus mortal.

Born of a woman, under the Law? What, does the Law extend to the heavens too?

The Gospel is not needed. Not only is Jesus of the flesh (kata sarka), born of a woman (genomenon ek gunaikos), born under the Law (genomenon upo nomon), but also visited, post resurrection, James, Cephas, John, the Twelve, and 500 people. Why 500 people? Why would a spirit need to see 500 people? It makes far more sense as an apologetic tactic of Paul having Jesus witnessed by 500 people to make his story more credible. There's no reason why a resurrected spirit would need to see 500 people.

First of all, not all Gnostics believed that Jesus was not also human. Gnosticism, like the rest of Christianity, is a broad category. Marcion was only a type of Gnostic. Other Gnostics, like perhaps they who used the Gospel of Thomas, or the various Infancy Gospels, most likely believed in a real flesh and blood leader. However, like Paul, that he lived is secondary. His teachings, or for Paul that he rose from the dead, far outweigh his mortal life.

This should be addressed elsewhere. The arguments look like no arguments to me. I don't see how any of them are applicable to this discussion. If you would like to show how any of them are relevant, go for it. But I'm not going to respond to someone merely pointing to a link. Bring the arguments here and show how they're relevant.

Once again, we're taking the gospels at face value. How do you know that he had made the dramatic entry into Jerusalem, or that he did indeed perform miracles? Where does Paul say that Jesus performed miracles?

But Paul himself says that his teachings do not come from man, as those of the Pillars do. His teachings are a revelation from Jesus himself. To him, what Jesus said and did while alive is secondary to Paul. What's far more important is that he died and was risen.

?

Paul, and via the gospels (if you know how to look), earliest Christian traditions should also provide some enlightenment.

This thread is not the place for my methodology. If you want, you can browse my blog where I explain much.

Indeed I have. I read it as soon as he posted it here. I read it before he even had his website up. I am familiar with Michael's work, why?

Whenever Mark happens to present his narrative in a manner that imitates Old Testamental themes, Michael takes it as Mark creating a narrative from the OT. This actually is rather valid, but only as a rule of thumb.

I'm not understanding the claim here. I've never said that Jesus was capable of "supernatural feats". I was pointing out that half (a number I pulled out of my ass, yes) of the HJ's on the list overlapped with the other half. I was showing that it is misleading to think that all those HJs you mentioned were totally different from the each and every one of the others. They were not, in fact. The list, then, is convulated and misleading, packed to make others think that there is no common ground. It has nothing to do with my atheism or that some of the scholars were Christians.

King Arthur, Achilles, Confucius.

Read my blog for some introductory material.

Actually, it's simpler than that. The methodology for figuring out that there must be an HJ is that there is no tenable theory which accounts for Jesus' ahistoricity. Doherty is probably the only one who has actually a full theory which is based on evidence, yet his is still unconvincing.

Do you really think that there's no history in either Beowulf or the Iliad? None?

Speaking of faulty analogies...

Oh yes, when you can't deal with the evidence, resort to ad hom attacks. Way to go! I've been here a lot longer than I've been engaged in the HJ quest. I'm a freaking mod of EoG and PA&SA. Do you seriously question my atheism? More to the point, does it even matter?

Seeing your relentless ad hominem attacks, I don't think I should argue with you any further.

Go back and reread the thread.

Chris Weimer

Chris Weimer

It would only be a problem for a Christian. As for Jesus, my interests in this "quest" is roughly the same as my interest in the historicity of any other dubious character from history. It seems aptly applied to Jesus merely because of my backgroud - Latin and Greek, and learning Hebrew and Coptic. Perhaps when I get a good grasp of Chinese, I can devote the time to Kong Fu Zi, Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi, Sun Zi, Sun Ping, etc...

You're right, but that's not being done here. Another blatant strawman.

That's begging the question (given the above). The whole idea is that according to Christianity Paul's Jesus is the same as the gospel Jesus. And both Paul and the gospels are supposed to be accurate versions. At the very least we would expect, given the enormous importance (according to the Christians) of the subject, that Paul and the gospels would be a much closer match. That, I think is what Doherety is after. And showing that this isn't so is a legitimate form of casting doubt on the Christian claims.[/quote]
But who gives a flying fuck what Christians think? The standard Christian claims are laughable in the academic world, and very few respected scholars still hold on to them, and when they do, there's usually controversy surrounding those prejudices. When you learn that not everyone is a Christian, then you can come back and join in the discussion. Until then, keep your anti-Christian rants and raves out of academia.

I don't know. I can only speak for myself. And no, the gospel Jesus is not historical.

I never found the Jesus Seminar too enthrilling. For me, it is very little. We don't know much about the HJ, and we never will. But I don't see that as a problem.

No. Paul's an attestation to the fact that Jesus lived, not what he was like.

Faulty conclusion. Paul's Jesus does not conflict with the gospel Jesus stripped down to what we can know about him. In fact, Paul's Jesus is entirely consistent with virtually any scholar's ideas on the gospel Jesus. Paul does not give a version of Jesus, he gives an attestation to his existence.

It's like saying that I own a computer. There's no way that statement will ever tell you which computer I have. Paul says there was a Jesus - the gospels try to describe him.

jjramsey

"They" are the Essenes. The thing is that the meaning they gave it implied that kata sarka was in reference to souls being incarnate in human bodies, so indeed, the phrase can be used in reference to "earthly incarnation." Now the earthly incarnation that Paul had in mind is somewhat different; unlike the souls of the Essenes, the spirit of Christ was supposed to be preexistent (like Moses). Nonetheless, both Josephus and Paul are talking of an earthly incarnation.

Fair point. However, what I was trying to get at is while one could accuse scholars who come up with a Jesus-as-a-moral-sage of trying to come up with a Jesus that flatters modern sensibilities, one could hardly make the same accusation to scholars who come up with an apocalpytic Jesus. Moderns can all too easily see such a Jesus as a "religious loon."

Knife

Can someone provide a bulleted list of reasons to conclude that there was an HJ?

Llyricist

• "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law" Galations 4:4
• "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" Romans 1:3

There you have it.

Doug Shaver

Excuse me? Since when do I have to justify not believing what others assume?
I'm sure that whoever produced the extant copies were done with them whenever they stopped writing. That doesn't say anything about when the original autographs were produced or how closely they matched the originals.