Johnny Skeptic

The consequences argument has become popular among some Christians. A particularly well thought out argument (for a Christian) is an article by James Holding that is titled 'The Impossible Faith'. You can find it at his web site at tektonics.org. Holding debates mainly, or only, at the Theology Web. I debated him there for over a year. You will not find Holding's article easy to refute, but it can be successfully refuted, and has been successfully refuted, a good example being Richard Carrier's refutation of Holding's article.

spamandham

Admittedly I am biased against authors who make critical logical errors early on.

I looked up this article and scanned the 1st page. The very first argument Mr. Holding uses is that the crucifixion is so absurd that no-one would believe it unless it had really happened. Uh, excuse me Mr. Holding, don't YOU believe it? Are you telling me you personally witnessed this crucifixion and resurrection?

He doesn't seem to realize that his own willingness to accept the story disproves the very point he is trying to make. If people living in a skeptical information society can buy such bollocks, how much more easily would the ignorant masses of a superstitious time period buy it?

Even Josephus, who was by all account highly educated and well informed, wrote about flying chariots as if they were real. In general, people in the first century had very little discernment regarding fantastic stories.

Roger Pearse

I think so too.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I was reading the letters of the Syriac author, Patriarch Timothy I (mid-8th century if I recall rightly) and he refers to a roll of Psalms being found in the same region in his time, including material quoted in the NT but not in the OT book of psalms.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Solo

Look, I am aware of the discussions, the view that Nazareth did not exist as a town until later, the similarity in the stem to the Nazarene/Nazorean (even nozrim) tag. Makes no difference: until there is a proof to the contrary, the identifying epithet is historically justifiable.

That is, if you arbitrarily discard everything else. I don't think you can present a historical case for discarding Jesus assault on the temple and his execution. At best, it will be a speculation.

You are free to believe that. I have maintained that a convincing case for non-existence can be made. But I will not be convinced by self-validating hypothetical statements. I have no reason to believe that the fictional reports originate in an invented character. In the tradition captured in the gospels, there appear to be elements which are historical, or for the occurences of which "history" is the best explanation. For example, on "mythical" grounds there was no reason for the authorities to seek Jesus' death for his "resuscitation" of Lazarus. Indeed the story, as told by John, contains a variant of itself, in which Jesus after placing Lazarus in the tomb, and after the latter's falling asleep, returns to him a day late, finding his hysterical sisters declaring their brother dead (for real) to the Pharisee neighbourhood, Jesus trying to hide from the hostile Jews (Judeans) and extract his novice away from them. However, as they follow Mary, they catch Jesus in the act and denounce him as a sorcerer to the authorities. The mythicist approach has no way of explaining the form that John 11 has taken, the historicist approach has.

Obviously, dealing with this sort of material, one needs to take certain latitude.

There are two issues here:

1) relationship with history: the imputed events are placed within a definite time frame. We can, based on the gospels, place Jesus of Nazareth within a decade or so. So the complaint here is mainly that the reference to this time frame occurs relatively late in the traditions. I agree there is an issue but don't see where this invalidates it historically.


2) supply of literary traditions: in the evolving set of beliefs around HJ, he grew in stature post-mortem into a Soter-god, and misnamed as Messiah, by the Hellenic-Jewish milieu where the process of deification occured. Consequently, both pagan mythological motifs and Jewish prophetic traditions were deployed in the build-up. The proof of sorts for this process was the early parallel existence of the Ebionite Jewish-Christianity in which Jesus was apprehended as a prophet and martyr, i.e. without the paraphernalia of a rising God (likely first) suggested by Paul.
To assume the Hellenic Saviour type was the point of origin for Jesus of Nazareth, would involve a hypothesis of the Jewish Jesus re-Judaized for the (otherwise) orthodox followers of James the Just. Such process AFAIK has never been demonstrated.

I never claimed that I have a way of producing a genuinely historical Jesus. Like everyone else here, I speculate where on earth or in human mind, this figure originates. Like yourself, I go by what makes sense to me, and have fun with exaggerated claims of knowledge where Jesus sprang to life.

The difference between us, I think is, that I don't have arguments with Christianity as such. For all his eschatological faults, and lack of intelligently reported-on existence, Jesus had no reported habit of sending his troopers to disembowel poets who had a different opinion on heaven and hell. I grew up in communist Eastern Europe. I learned that religion was the opium for the people, from the commies; alas they were offering bad acid as the alternative.

So what history we have makes a big difference in the world today.

Look, you can spin what I say any way you want, and supply any definition of history you deem appropriate. I don't claim someone is historical because he is referred to in literature. That is a silly misapprehension of what I am saying. And what I am saying is this: until a compelling case for the mythical origin of Jesus of Nazareth is made, the earthly existence of someone whom we came to identify as Jesus of Nazareth, is a better historical explanation for the religion that came in his name. In the original creed of Paul nothing of his earthly life mattered; only his death was real. So, to paraphrase a line from a great movie: even if all the gospel stories were fiction, if he died, he was an authentic human. All authentic humans deserve a history. That is my sense of the matter.

Jiri

ynquirer

That’s fine, thank you. Thus, according to Josephus Pilate was in the functions of a procurator but according to you he lacked the required appointment. Is it that?

epitrofos is used by Philo in Tês presbeias tos Gaion 1:38 in the following context: en oikia tôn epitropôn, which I translate into “in the residence of the procurators.” This appears to me clear indication that not only was Pilate a procurator, but so were governors of Judea prior to him.

He wrote Embassy to Gaius in behalf of the Jewish people. He gives detailed account of events to which he hadn’t been a witness; events, therefore, that had been told to him by fellow coreligionists. This was his source, reliable enough in my opinion.

Am I here under the erroneous impression that you are shifting your position? You began by saying that a procurator was a manager of the emperor’s property, but in the few last posts you have reduced its role to that of a mere bookkeeper. For - what would be left in for him if a prefect, a soldier in a subordinate position, could supersede his managing capacities by ruling as a full-fledged civil administrator?

Your position is based on the indication that the Samaritans knew who was Pilate’s superior, but I don’t see why you think them to know better than Philo. The opposite is likelier.

The question is obvious, but I must ask it. If Pilate was answerable to the Syrian legate, why was Pilate ordered to go to Rome to answer before the emperor about problems of his performance in the post instead of being called on to Antioch to answer before the Syrian legate, who, according to you, was responsible of the government of Judea?

Don’t waste your time flogging the straw man.

Your source for this is Josephus, isn’t it? Josephus calls Fadus eparchos (prefect) in AJ 19:363 and also epitropos (procurator) in AJ 20:2. This confirms, if you wish, that a prefect might as well be a procurator.

On the other hand, Josephus always calls Pilate hêgemôn, that is in context, “dictator” (AJ 18:55), but this seems too biased a label, for political reasons. His precedessor, Gratus, is called eparchos, too (AJ 18:33). But also a predecessor of both, Sabinus, is called epitropos AJ 17:250). The context is as interesting that I cannot help quoting it in full:

… letters came from Varus, the president [i.e. legate] of Syria, which informed Caesar of the revolt of the Jews; for after Archelaus was sailed, the whole nation was in a tumult. So Varus, since he was there himself, brought the authors of the disturbance to punishment; and when he had restrained them for the most part from this sedition, which was a great one, he took his journey to Antioch, leaving one legion of his army at Jerusalem to keep the Jews quiet, who were now very fond of innovation. Yet did not this at all avail to put an end to that their sedition; for after Varus was gone away, Sabinus, Caesar's procurator (ho epitropos tou Kaisaros), staid behind, and greatly distressed the Jews, relying on the forces that were left there that they would by their multitude protect him; for he made use of them, and armed them as his guards, thereby so oppressing the Jews, and giving them so great disturbance, that at length they rebelled… (AJ 17.10.1)

Sabinus is said to be “Caesar’s procurator,” which highlights the personal - did you say “private”? - relationship between them. And the text is full of information. Sabinus was in charge of Judea, but he relied on Varus’, the Syrian legions to keep peace. Far from being Varus’ subordinate, Sabinus was in an informal sense his superior, since the former had to back the latter without the right to question his political decisions. This suggests that the Syrian legate was always in a very uncomfortable position vis-ê-vis the government of Judea, and explain the intrigues of Vitiallis, years after, to deprive Pilate of his power. But the ultimate decision stayed with the emperor alone, as being the procurator his lieutenant, not the legate’s.

Sabinus was a governor of Judea under Augustus. Yet it was not any different under Tiberius:

And, as a further attestation to what I say of the dilatory nature of Tiberius, I appeal to this his practice itself; for although he was emperor twenty-two years, he sent in all but two procurators to govern the nation of the Jews, Gratus, and his successor in the government, Pilate. (AJ 18.6.5)

As you know, this is W. Whiston’s translation, who uses the word “procurator” quite freely, for the word actually used in here by Josephus is not epitropos. Even so, the meaning of the passage is clear: Tiberius appointed, maintained, and removed the governors of Judea at will, that is, they were answerable to him, not to the Syrian legate, whose position went on being the same uncomfortable one as revealed at the time of Sabinus, until Vitallius managed to have Pilate be removed and his friend Marcellus be appointed as a successor, both by Tiberius.

Now, Claudius restored Judea to the condition of a Roman province, as compared with the vassal kingdom it had grown under King Agrippa. Also Claudius extended the custom to appoint procurators to rule provinces other than Judea (and Egypt, for reasons you know better than I), such as both Mauritanias, Rhaetia, Noricum, Thrace and Belgica - according to Tacitus. Yet Claudius’ very novelty was the appointment of freedmen, in addition to equestrian knights, as procurators. As freedmen could never have belonged in the rank of curators, procuratorship was thus severed from the oldest traditions of the Republic.

Solo

Karl Marx, the rationalist prototype in Messianism, wrote to his son-in-law Paul Lafargue that he wasn't a Marxist. Do you think it is possible that the historical Jesus could have taken a similar view of the falsification and idolization of himself had he had the opportunity ?

Yes or no ?

Jiri

aa5874

Solo, if you know Jesus was historic , just produce the evidence. That is all I need at this stage. It is immaterial to try to determine the status of Karl Marx.

I am not interested in plausibilities, probabilities and beliefs. You know Jesus was historic, demonstrate that he was.

jakejonesiv

The earliest extant copies of the Pauline epistles date to the third century CE, some 150 years after they were allegedly written. Yet, it is assumed that they are in the same format and say substantially the same thing as they allegedly come from the pen of "St. Paul" circa 50 CE. No offense, but that view is naive in the extreme. I don't know how many times I have seen it argued that we must accept the Pauline epistles (or at least the seven so called authentic epistles) at face value, else we must admit we know nothing! Well duh! It is much better to admit that we don't know rather than make assumptions on what we hope is correct. This is faith masquerading as scholarship.

There is no recorded collection of the Pauline epistles before Marcion. Justin (and not just Justin!) is silent about Paul because he had not heard of him.

The proto-orthodox didn't see Paul as significant until the second half of the second century when "St. Paul" was coupled with "St. Peter" as the of Batman and Robin of the myth of harmonious Christian origins.

Until that time, Paul was the Apostle of the Heretics.
The Marcionites believed that " ... Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation...". This is a claim of exclusivity by the Marcionites for their legendary leader, that is consitent with the Pauline epistles. "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:12. cf Gal. 1:8-9; Romans 2:16, 16:25.

"The Marcionites retrojected their theology into the
apostolic past, in order to provide themselves with a
pedigree and a precedent for their doctrines in the
theological conflicts of the second century."
HDetering, _The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline
Epistles_, http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

Can you imagine a Paul without his epistles? That is exactly what is found in Acts.

And yet acccording to traditional datings, Paul's alleged writings were the earliest, and for a period the only Christian writing.

For the theory of a first century Paul to work, Paul must have been known and influential in the first century, then neglected and forgetten in the second century, then revived in the middle of the second century in the possession of heretics, to come back around full circle to his original place in the second half of the second century. That is very unlikely. The simpliest explanation is that Paul is a second century creation.

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

The problem with this, however, is that if Catholic minded people created Paul, they would have done a better job of it, since the works of Paul clearly undermine the gospel story anyway.