How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[steeltoes]

That's correct. I gave that link in the post you replied to. However, you should read the article I linked to, because it describes Knohl's actual position in more detail. He has only rejected his earlier interpretation of the word "live", which he now thinks is better interpreted as "sign". Other than that, he retains his position on the dates, meaning, and significance of the stone. He still thinks that it is relevant to the development of Christianity. Not all scholars agree with all of his conclusions, but he does seem to be highly respected by his peers for his work on this subject.

"Where traditionalists see history, Brodie sees textual imitation and rewriting—going all the way back to Jewish scripture. The growth of the tradition is entirely literary."

Thomas Brodie, mythicist priest:Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus


It appears that Jewish scripture can be a reliable source for the gospels, dispelling myths of oral tradition filling the gap between 30CE and the time that the gospels were written, 80-100CE.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I even doubt an early authorship for the gospels. Early dates are mostly an argument based on certain premises more than evidence.

 

[fallingblood]

I even doubt an early authorship for the gospels. Early dates are mostly an argument based on certain premises more than evidence.

So basically then, you just dismiss the evidence, the arguments behind the evidence, and everything else that supports the evidence, and come to your own conclusion?

What about Josephus? Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Josephus places Jesus in the very recent past, names James (a contemporary of Josephus), as the brother of Jesus, and gives us a basic outline.

 

[steeltoes]

So basically then, you just dismiss the evidence, the arguments behind the evidence, and everything else that supports the evidence, and come to your own conclusion?

What about Josephus? Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Josephus places Jesus in the very recent past, names James (a contemporary of Josephus), as the brother of Jesus, and gives us a basic outline.

What makes Josephus reliable?

Besides, read in context this James appears to be the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, who became high priest. There is nothing that suggests that this brother was otherwise dead for over 30 years at the time of the event that Josephus is writing of.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So basically then, you just dismiss the evidence, the arguments behind the evidence, and everything else that supports the evidence, and come to your own conclusion?

What about Josephus? Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Josephus places Jesus in the very recent past, names James (a contemporary of Josephus), as the brother of Jesus, and gives us a basic outline.

Josephus mentions Jesus once with certainty, and it does nothing to prove the Jesus of the gospels, this highly exaggerated mythical figure.

That's if you want to count the passage as proof of Jesus since its more about James, who Josephus says was CALLED brother of the Christ.

I may as well say some call Muhammad al Mahdi the descendant of St. Peter. It must be true if he's called that?

 

[Copernicus]

So basically then, you just dismiss the evidence, the arguments behind the evidence, and everything else that supports the evidence,

What about Josephus? Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Josephus places Jesus in the very recent past, names James (a contemporary of Josephus), as the brother of Jesus, and gives us a basic outline.

Josephus has nothing to do with the dating the early Gospels, which was what Egyptian Phoenix was doubting. We already know that Josephus was tainted by some interpolation, but many scholars feel strongly that it isn't all interpolation. Since what he wrote was based on unsourced information that he got from other people, it is hard to use Josephus as clear evidence for historicity, even if it were completely unaltered from the original. All it would mean was that Josephus, writing decades after the facts, had concluded that Jesus was a real person.

The evidence from Paul that he had visited James, "brother of Jesus", seems to be the strongest evidence we have for the historicity of Jesus. There are other arguments, but this one appears prominently in defense of historicism. It is still a very weak reed to hang an argument on, because Paul says nothing else at all about the relationship. Carrier and other mythicists have taken the position that there are a number of ways to interpret that statement that do not support historicity. He seems to favor the claim that Christians routinely called each other "brother", that this practice is well-documented, and that he may have used that rubric because he considered James not to be an Apostle, unlike Peter. Carrier claims that the Greek could be translated to mean that he had not met another Apostle except Peter and Brother James, the implication being that James was a Christian, but not an Apostle. Not being able to read the original Greek, I can't judge Carrier's argument, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to claim that James was not an Apostle. Peter, James, and John were names of the three "pillars" of the movement, although a lot of people were named "James".

Ehrman asks why Paul did not also refer to "Brother Peter", as it were. He thinks that the correct expression would have been "brother in Christ", not "brother of Christ", if Carrier's meaning were correct. Carrier has argued that brother of in Greek is actually ambiguous between biological and adoptive interpretations, and that all Christians were regarded as having been adopted by God. They called each other "brother" all the time. So I don't see that quote as having quite the significance that historicists think it does, but it still has significance as evidence.

Having read different English versions of Galatians a few times now, I am struck by the extent to which Paul considered Peter a rival and, quite possibly, hated him. Paul saw himself as in charge of bringing the Gospel to Gentiles, and Peter to Jews. So he seemed insulted that Peter deigned to eat with Gentiles, but changed his friendly tune when other Jews showed up. Peter seemed to want to convert Gentiles to Judaism, whereas Paul felt they were free to violate Jewish laws and still remain Christians. Hence, another interpretation of the passage could be that Paul pointedly would not call Peter a "brother of Jesus", because he did not respect Peter's attempt to preach a false Gospel to Gentiles, who were, after all, supposed to accept Paul's teachings on such matters.

 

[fallingblood]

What makes Josephus reliable?

Besides, read in context this James appears to be the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, who became high priest. There is nothing that suggests that this brother was otherwise dead for over 30 years at the time of the event that Josephus is writing of.

Josephus is reliable as he is historian.

And no, the Jesus mentioned was not the son of Damneus. In fact, it simply states that James is the brother of Jesus. Damneus is not mentioned at all.

 

[outhouse]

Its not like the dating of the gospels was just started yesterday.

While its fine to question the dating, or study it for a better understanding of why the dates are placed when they are.

There is no real reason to question them beyond the general ranges given.

 

[fallingblood]

Josephus mentions Jesus once with certainty, and it does nothing to prove the Jesus of the gospels, this highly exaggerated mythical figure.

That's if you want to count the passage as proof of Jesus since its more about James, who Josephus says was CALLED brother of the Christ.

I may as well say some call Muhammad al Mahdi the descendant of St. Peter. It must be true if he's called that?

The so called Christ. Josephus does not call Jesus the Christ. And it was an identifier. Josephus would have lived close enough to the event that he would have known that James had a brother, who a group called the Christ. It was thus a way to identify Jesus.

And Josephus mentions Jesus twice with certainty. Yes, the larger passage does contain some interpolations; however, it is accepted that the basic outline was by Josephus.

It may not prove the exaggerated mythical figure, but it does give us a basic outline of this figure.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Outhouse if you read Misquoting Jesus you'd know there's quite good reason to doubt an early authorship. Lack of textual evidence that far back for most of the NT's books is one of the first things Ehrman mentioned.

 

[outhouse]

Josephus is reliable as he is historian.

.

That's opinion



He is far from reliable on certain matters such as numbers in events, and much of his work can be questioned due to his bias.

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century AD and the First Jewish–Roman War, including the Siege of Masada, but the imperial patronage of his work has sometimes caused it to be characterized as pro-Roman propaganda.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse if you read Misquoting Jesus you'd know there's quite good reason to doubt an early authorship. Lack of textual evidence that far back for most of the NT's books is one of the first things Ehrman mentioned.

How early?

I run with
70 ce for mark
80-90 luke and matthew
90-100 for john

Certain people who follow mythicism claim anything before 150-200 is earl, amnd they have no credibility.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood I think Shlomo Pines tried making that argument in his book An Arabic Version of Testimonium. I'm still not sure honestly where I stand on that, rather it was interpolated or not.

Many seem to attribute it a forgery to Eusebius.

 

[steeltoes]

Josephus is reliable as he is historian.

And no, the Jesus mentioned was not the son of Damneus. In fact, it simply states that James is the brother of Jesus. Damneus is not mentioned at all.

How well of an historian was Josephus?

You might want to read the passage for yourself if you are going to claim that Damneus is not mentioned at all. Context is a bugger for believers, I know, but Jesus, son of Danmeus was made high priest as a result of this event, and since a high priest would have been anointed it would have been only fitting to call him Christ, since Christ means anointed, in case you didn't know.

Concerning another Jesus, "Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ", meaning "Jesus the Christos", by his followers after his death and believed resurrection." wiki

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Outhouse- Ehrman isn't a mythicist. Most who make later date arguments aren't like Crossan. They have no agenda in pointing out the gospels are likely later than traditionally thought.

 

[steeltoes]

How early?

I run with
70 ce for mark
80-90 luke and matthew
90-100 for john

Certain people who follow mythicism claim anything before 150-200 is earl, amnd they have no credibility.

Most people that consider Jesus may be mythical accept the dates you provide, besides, it makes little to no difference in either case what the dates were since there is no attestation to an actual reference to what may have been a gospel until 150CE.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

How early? For me I accept Mark is probably 70-90 CE

Matthew is 80 to 120

Luke is 90 to 130

John oh boy about 180?

 

[fallingblood]

Josephus has nothing to do with the dating the early Gospels, which was what Egyptian Phoenix was doubting. We already know that Josephus was tainted by some interpolation, but many scholars feel strongly that it isn't all interpolation. Since what he wrote was based on unsourced information that he got from other people, it is hard to use Josephus as clear evidence for historicity, even if it were completely unaltered from the original. All it would mean was that Josephus, writing decades after the facts, had concluded that Jesus was a real person.

I agree that Josephus does not do anything with the dating of the Gospels; however, when someone continually throws out the Gospels, without any logical argument behind it, I figure Josephus, who is dated pretty securely, is a good source.

I would argue that if the Gospels did not exist, if Christianity hadn't taken off, no one would doubt that the Jesus the Josephus mentions existed. The doubt only comes because their is a religion behind Jesus.

Now, Josephus may not be 100% evidence for the existence of a figure; however, it does raise the probability. That Josephus would mention that Jesus had a brother, who was a contemporary of Josephus, would suggest that it was a widely accepted idea. Josephus would have been living when James was killed, and by that time he was already known as the brother of Jesus, the so called Christ. I would put that as very probable then that there was such a Jesus.

The evidence from Paul that he had visited James, "brother of Jesus", seems to be the strongest evidence we have for the historicity of Jesus. There are other arguments, but this one appears prominently in defense of historicism. It is still a very weak reed to hang an argument on, because Paul says nothing else at all about the relationship. Carrier and other mythicists have taken the position that there are a number of ways to interpret that statement that do not support historicity. He seems to favor the claim that Christians routinely called each other "brother", that this practice is well-documented, and that he may have used that rubric because he considered James not to be an Apostle, unlike Peter. Carrier claims that the Greek could be translated to mean that he had not met another Apostle except Peter and Brother James, the implication being that James was a Christian, but not an Apostle. Not being able to read the original Greek, I can't judge Carrier's argument, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to claim that James was not an Apostle. Peter, James, and John were names of the three "pillars" of the movement, although a lot of people were named "James".

The Greek really doesn't lend itself to be brother James. The manner in which it is phrased does necessitate it to be something like brother of the Lord or Lord's brother (I'm sure my Greek is not at the level of Carrier's, but I did minor in Greek, and did focus on Koine Greek, and the New Testament. It is possible that I am missing something, but the manner in which it is constructed (I can give the Greek if you would want), to me implies that it has to be possessive).

I agree, that this passage is weak, as it doesn't say much. It also appears at odds with the Gospel accounts in which states that the family of Jesus thought he was insane.

Having read different English versions of Galatians a few times now, I am struck by the extent to which Paul considered Peter a rival and, quite possibly, hated him. Paul saw himself as in charge of bringing the Gospel to Gentiles, and Peter to Jews. So he seemed insulted that Peter deigned to eat with Gentiles, but changed his friendly tune when other Jews showed up. Peter seemed to want to convert Gentiles to Judaism, whereas Paul felt they were free to violate Jewish laws and still remain Christians. Hence, another interpretation of the passage could be that Paul pointedly would not call Peter a "brother of Jesus", because he did not respect Peter's attempt to preach a false Gospel to Gentiles, who were, after all, supposed to accept Paul's teachings on such matters.

A problem with this view though is that Paul also seems to have a strained relationship with James as well. In the Antioch incident, it appears that James sent people to see what Paul was doing.

As a whole though, Paul, while never actually attacking the three pillars (he more often then not speaks as James, John, and Peter as a whole), does voice problems he has with them.

 

[Copernicus]

That's opinion

He is far from reliable on certain matters such as numbers in events, and much of his work can be questioned due to his bias.

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century AD and the First Jewish–Roman War, including the Siege of Masada, but the imperial patronage of his work has sometimes caused it to be characterized as pro-Roman propaganda.

This is a good point. It is debatable whether Josephus, or even Suetonius, deserve to be called "historians". Tacitus was the major historian of that age and is considered a pioneer of historical methodology. He relied on source materials and seems to have researched most of his claims. Suetonius and Josephus must certainly have consulted other sources to validate their claims, but they were not as meticulous as Tacitus in naming sources. The references to Jesus in Tacitus's writings are unsourced, and some suspect them of being interpolations. But the fact remains that he, like Josephus, had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus or his brother. I doubt that Josephus was in a position to know for sure that James existed or even had a brother. He was a Roman citizen living in Rome when he wrote his histories, and he was giving a Roman perspective on history.

It should also be noted that Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and commentator who never mentioned Jesus or his movement. Philo was Jewish and a Roman citizen whose native language was Latin, although he wrote in Greek and came from a wealthy aristrocratic background. He probably did not know Hebrew. Philo was certainly aware of Events in Judea and probably would have written about any prominent preacher like Jesus. Hence, many historicists seem to believe that Jesus was a fairly obscure individual, who only came to be noticed when his posthumous cult following began to promote him as a martyred messiah.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'll tell you what would convince me FB. If they find something from Philo about Jesus. That'd do it.