dog-on

I have been off studying John (thanks to Ben), but in the meantime I thought that it might be interesting to create the best case this community can for a Historical Jesus.

I actually asked a similar question in the past, but only to HJ'ers themselves and it seems that they may need help in developing the case.

So I'll start with:

1. There is at least one ancient author (aka Mark) that may have believed Jesus to be an actual person. The other two synoptics appear to be embellishments of Mark's book, so should probably not be viewed as independent of Mark. (I believe that John also falls into this category, but will just skip him, unless anyone can put a good reason forward to view him as independent.)

2. Paul may have viewed his Christ as an actual person, but does not seem to interested in his Christ's human biography, if Paul did, in fact, believe Christ to have been a human being.

I guess that's it for me. Two, (possibly three), possibly independent writers, may have believed that Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, (as the case may be), actually existed as a human being in history. All other writings would presumably be based on either of those author's, (or possibly John's), writings, (unless someone has any other independent information, like Thomas (please make the case for independence) that I may have missed).

mountainman

What about the independent information revealed
in Constantine's Oration to the Saints at Antioch
where the claim is made that Jesus was prophecised
by an ancient Sybil, and that this was actually
reported in the writings of the two Latin poets
Cicero (106-43 BCE) and Virgil (70-19 BCE).

Are these further citations FOR the historicity of Jesus?
Or are these actually citations FOR the ahistoricity of Jesus?

Best wishes,



Pete

Quote for the Day

"They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.
These skeptics were already known to Origen

... (Constantine continues)

"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

--- Big Connie, Antioch 325 CE

dog-on

I really think that the Emporer's remarks would fall under the category of apologetics and, as such, would probably not add any meaningful evidence to our search...

mountainman

I think the Emperor's remarks would fall under the
category inventive and fraudulent misrepresentation
of the patristic literature. Apologetics be damned.

Constantine was not apologetic. History shows him
to be entirely and remotely otherwise.

At any rate, to balance the trade of ideas, in addition
to the authors unknown of the gospels and the unexamined
postulate of an historical Paul, which you mention, as
far as I know, noone else renders an opinion on the
historical life of the purported Jesus, except the
mass of writers in the second and third centuries
who are introduced by Eusebius in the fourth.

Finally, we have the handwritten letter of Jesus
tendered by Eusebius out of the Syriac in the
fourth century, which he mentions in his "history"
of the church. How is this letter to be regarded
in the assessment of the historical Jesus?

Does it carry any positive points of authenticity?
Does it carry zero points of authenticity?
Or in fact, does is suggest a negative penalty?

Is Jesus allowed to testify for his own existence
through this letter?

Did we in fact have a letter from god?



Pete

dog-on

Well, such a letter would probably not be of any lesser evidenciary value than that of those sources I listed, in fact it would be of much greater value. Of course, this would completely depend upon the veracity of our good friend Eusebius in the first place.

(....and we both know that goodly Eusebius had no reason to embellish or otherwise taint the existing evidence. Don't we? )

mountainman

"Yes Boss".

"Of course, Boss"

"How many copies Boss?"

dog-on

I am under the impression that Emperor Constantine's own mother went to the holy land to "discover" the specific sites where the god/man did his deeds, or so the story goes.

Is there any evidence, prior to this excursion, that there were any E-ticket rides in Disneyland, or any lines of people waiting to ride them, at all?

mountainman

Yes, actually there is another earlier "pilgrim".
Constantine's mother-in-law Eutropia.

But before Eutropia, as far I have been able
to research over the last few years, no
evidence before Constantine and external
to Eusebius appears to exist which unambiguously
supports the (unexamined postulate of the)
existence of pre-Constantinian "christianity".

Constantine was at war.
War was and is a racket.
He was the racketeer boss.
What's a fraudulent religion
between consenting bishops?

And so it went on.