Vivisector

I honestly couldn't say without understanding your meaning a bit better. On present balance, I think that the "gospel story" is based on a Jewish man named Jesus (well, in English, at least) who was active in the Judea/Galilee area, was crucified during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate, and came to be regarded by some as having been resurrected in some sense. I do not believe he actually worked miracles or that he was truly resurrected. Anything else (e.g., what he taught, disciples' names, when/where he was born) is even more uncertain to me. As I told MaryHelena, GMk is one basis for my current thinking, but then so are some of Paul's writings, some non-Christian documents and some Christian/non-canonical texts. I doubt if I could assign weights to any of these categories, let alone specific texts, in terms of my present assessment, perhaps partly because my thoughts are always being challenged and reshaped by comments from people in this forum.

Good luck and cheers,

V.

maryhelena

Wow, Vivisector - perfect gentleman - and a great diplomat...:thumbs:

Chaucer

Thank you. Succinctly put. You are clearly a long-standing non-believer HJ-er who sincerely looks at these pagan sources as largely confirmatory and not primary. Fine. Glad you wrote in.

To other participants in this thread: I suppose the wait for someone else of Spin's Historical line was not that long after all, was it? Consequently, I now withdraw my complaint against MaryHelena.

Personally, Vivisector, I happen to disagree with your implicit equalizing of the various, sometimes raggle-taggle, sources out there. As someone who also tallies closest with Spin's Historical line myself, I view Jesus the preacher as an historical and entirely human figure who did various things that got the authorities terribly riled up and that ultimately got him executed by the Roman authorities. And you'll note that all of that encapsulation is already there in the non-Biblical sources. One doesn't have to go outside them to find it.

In sum, I prioritize the sources from the Roman canon much higher than I do those from the Biblical canon. In fact, there are yards of Biblical material, including yards of gospel material, that I do not factor in at all. I view them as entirely a distraction.

However, you have stated very plainly that you view all these sources more or less equally, and I respect that, because you appear to do that in a thoughtful way, fully consonant with the perspective outlined in Spin's Historical line.

Best,

Chaucer

aa5874

But, this is EXTREMELY odd. You have PROVIDED nothing credible for your claims about Jesus and make mention of "BALANCE".

You have NOTHING "to balance" but what YOU THINK.

" I think that the "gospel story" is based on a Jewish man named Jesus..." is an ARTICLE of FAITH and does NOT even need any research or evidence and ONLY CONFIRMS that you are HJer. That is all.

Do you even REALIZE that ONCE you claim Jesus was NOT as described in the NT, considered the Word of God, that you have DISCREDITED the very Gospel writers?

You have BLATANTLY DISCREDITED the authors of the NT and still use the BOGUS information for history WITHOUT a single external corroborative of antiquity.

This is UNACCEPTABLE.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke claimed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and a Virgin and if you think the authors are NOT credible then YOU MUST find a CREDIBLE source that can show Jesus was JUST a man.

The authors of the Gospels claimed Jesus walked on water, transfigured and was RAISED from the dead and if you think that they are NOT credible then you MUST find a credible source for YOUR JESUS.

On BALANCE, what you have done is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. You have INVENTED a Jesus NOT found in the Gospels and WITHOUT the use of a single corroborative credible source of antiquity.

You cannot ALTER a single word in any version of any Gospel or ALTER the description of any character in any version of any Gospel.

Jesus was the OFFSPRING of the HOLY GHOST and a Virgin, the Creator of heaven and earth who walked on water, TRANSFIGURED, resurrected and Ascended to heaven.

You can't change the Jesus story. It is too late. Jesus was NOT a man in the Gospels regardless of what you believe.

The Jesus story of any version is CAST in STONE.

You MUST find a VERSION that show Jesus was a man if not you are STUCK with the Child of the Ghost.

Vivisector

Not to disagree with a fellow category sharer, but only in the interests of clarity ... I don't know how I would assign relative weights to the various sources, though I don't want to say I would weight them all equally. It could be an interesting exercise to develop a matrix of events, pencil in personal assessments of probability of occurrence, and link those to the various sources relevant to each of the probability assessments. Those sources could then be weighted for each event. Without having done it (and, frankly, I doubt I will), I can imagine that different sources might get weighted differently for different events. What that would tell us, in the end, I don't know. I suspect it would do nothing more than tell us something about how we, personally, interpret data to make decisions. Eh ... enough of that.

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena

OK Chaucer - here is what you need to do if you want to give the non-christian sources top priority:

"....Jesus the preacher as an historical and entirely human figure who did various things that got the authorities terribly riled up and that ultimately got him executed by the Roman authorities."

Firstly, notice that you left out Pilate - perhaps unintentionally - but see where this goes without the Pilate tag. The historical field is now wider. What we have here is a very simple account of a man who fell foul of Rome and got himself executed (by crucifixion as the non-christian sources maintain) This crucified man had followers who continued to ‘follow’ him after his execution. His ‘spirit’ lived on. His story lived on - and gets embellished along the way...Josephus saying that this dead man’s followers believed he appeared to them alive again on the 3rd day. Once embellishment sets in, well then, we have moved from history to historical interpretations.

And once in the realm of historical interpretation, the re-telling of that history within a non-historical time frame (as regards the original historical setting) is possible. Interpretation is not a picture-postcard. In other words, the new time frame, the interpretative time frame, includes Pilate as the Roman authority of that new time slot - and a new symbolic figure, with it's own name, that would retain a reflection of that historical crucified man. What the interpretation involves is a replaying of the historical tape within a new time-frame. Thus a developing interpretative story.

So, who is the historical figure that was crucified by Rome?


A sad end in 37 b.c. to the Hasmonean High Priest/King Antigonus - the anointed last King of the Jews.

A real historical figure, a Jewish King, an anointed messiah figure, executed by Rome. Interestingly, Joseph tells us that Herod the Great offered Mark Antony a large sum of money to have Antigonus executed.

The exchange of money, the bribe to have Antigonus executed - later re-told, interpreted, in connection with the Roman representative, Pilate, and the wonder-worker in Slavonic Josephus ie the 30 talents.

So, a historical event, the execution, the crucifixion and slaying of Antigonus, in 37 b.c. becomes the basis for a developing historical interpretation - all the way to the gospel time slot of 33 c.e. - 70 years later, when the gospel JC is crucified. The historical tape being replayed within an interpretative framework, a new pseudo-historical time frame.

Chaucer, there you have it - look to non-christian sources and you will find that Rome crucified, not a gospel nobody carpenter from Nazareth, or wherever, but an anointed, messiah figure, the last High Priest/King of the Jews, Antigonus.

Yes, that history has been embellished and developed beyond recognition and the gospel Jesus model is not just a reflection of Antigonus. But if one wants to try and understand the NT interest in crucifixion, then history needs to be considered.

(and as for Josephus giving the crucifixion job to Pilate - remember that he can also wear his other fancy hat - that of prophetic historian...so one needs to be very careful using him as an impartial secular source.....)

So, yes, history has priority over the gospel story - however, providing historical evidence for a man, named, Jesus, crucified under Pilate - is never going to happen.

Chaucer

You're right. It was unintentional. My regrets. And thanks for reminding me. And in any case, Pilate also appears in the pagan sources, so he certainly belongs in the encapsulation.

O.K.: I view Jesus the preacher as an historical and entirely human figure who did various things that got the authorities terribly riled up and that ultimately got him executed by Pontius Pilate.

There, that's better.

Cheers,

Chaucer

Vivisector

I'll send you my wife's telephone number via private message so you can tell her - she, inexplicably and to my enduring personal frustration, just can't see it.

Just kidding, of course (about the telephone number, at least).

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena

Perhaps better re stating your assumption - but thats all..... certainty not better as a worthwhile proposition for any historical inquiry.

The only interest that anyone could have for such a wild goose chase is biblical not historical. Who would care about any preacher Jesus crucified by Pilate - who would care?? Who would spend time and money embarking upon such a quest - for what exactly? Pilate probably crucified other men - and perhaps even another Jesus with followers. Oh, really - ones quest is the Jesus whose followers believed he was raised from the dead 3 days later. That's not history. History does not grant favors to what people believed. Seems to me that the holy grail in such a search is what people believed about the Jesus crucified under Pilate - and if that is the case - then it's not a historical search at all - it is a demonstration of some kind of faith position masquerading as a historical search.

If all one can identify about this particular Jesus crucified under Pilate is that his followers believed he was raised from the dead - then it's visions and aspirations and theology that one needs to investigate not historical realities. Ah, but people back then believed dead people could rise from the grave and walk the earth again - and we, today, know better. So, Christianity is based on nonsense? I'd much rather believe that there is no nonsense involved and that it is our lack of understanding that is at fault. In other words - if there were no Jesus followers believing he rose, physically, from the death in 3 days and walked among them on this earth - then, for heavens sake - the other half of the story - Jesus himself - has no more historical reality than does the resurrection in which he partakes. Once a physical resurrection belief by his followers is the identifier of Pilate's crucified Jesus - (Josephus: ....he appeared to them alive again the third day) then history is well and truly lost...and we are in the realm of superstition. How about giving those early christians a break - their story is not about physical resurrection but spiritual realities, intellectual reality. Yes, way ahead of its time and bound to be misunderstood back then - but we, today, have no excuse for any irrationality on our part when we seek to understand the story those early christians left behind.

Remove the resurrection identifier from Pilate's Jesus - and Pilate's crucified Jesus is a non-entity. Keep the resurrection identifier and one is dealing with superstition. Either way - no history in sight.....

And Antigonus - at least history is here in all it's blood and guts - and the coins that he left behind.

maryhelena

Oh, well, keyboard and computer screens - but methinks I'd take my chances on your ability to play nice.......