How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[Rainbow Mage]

Its funny Philo can mention even a tiny following like the Qumran Essenes, which were much smaller than the gospels claim with Jesus' 500+ followers, yet not one word.

 

[steeltoes]

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.

The dates given are for the earliest possible year they could have been written. For example, the earliest possible date for gMark is about 70CE, but there is nothing that suggests gMark could not have been written as late as 90CE. The simple fact of the matter is that an exact year is not known so a range is left open.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Early authorship means nothing though if we are talking about an oral culture that passed along an oral tradition. L. Michael White, in his book Scripting Jesus, details how this process would have gone. The writings would have been primarily used as a script for public speaking.

Also, a few decades after the fact isn't that bad. Looking at Alexander the Great, we don't have biographies until much later.

 

[fallingblood]

Its funny Philo can mention even a tiny following like the Qumran Essenes, which were much smaller than the gospels claim with Jesus' 500+ followers, yet not one word.

Philo also doesn't mention John the Baptist, who had a larger following, or many other messianic claimants, who also had larger followings.

 

[fallingblood]

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.
.

And what does this have to do with Jesus? Yes, all historians have have biases, all are not always reliable on numbers in events (especially ancient historians).

It has nothing to do with the passage at hand, or with his reliability as a whole.

Oh, and Wikipedia is also just filled with opinions too.

 

[steeltoes]

Philo also doesn't mention John the Baptist, who had a larger following, or many other messianic claimants, who also had larger followings.

John the Baptist was not called the Son of God. Philo wrote an essay about the Son of God, but did not mention Jesus when writing of the ill treatment the Jews received from Pilate. See the difference?

 

[outhouse]

John the Baptist was not called the Son of God. Philo wrote an essay about the Son of God, but did not mention Jesus when writing of the ill treatment the Jews received from Pilate. See the difference?

Becausde John was never a Hellenistic deity, he was never called a son of god.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

However, Josephus was writing decades after those times, and he did not suggest he had any personal awareness of Jesus or James. He could still have been repeating what he had heard from Christians, who, I grant you, may have believed that James was the brother of Jesus. So I see this as really marginal evidence for historicity.

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've listened to an hour-long video in which Carrier laid out his defense of mythicism. He does appear to be a qualified expert in the Greek of those times, and he claimed support for his analysis from other specialists in the language. This translation of his still strikes me as odd phrasing, but "brother of Christ" could easily have been a small interpolation by a later scribe. That would render the whole argument moot. There is no way to tell. For that reason, I consider this reference in Galatians to be far weaker than historicists take it to be.

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.

I know. I was just speculating, like everyone else. What really stands out in Galatians, though, is the tension between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the movement. Paul was being challenged on at least his teaching about the requirement to follow Jewish law, and we don't know what else, if anything. Perhaps the Jerusalem contingent felt he was delusional about other points of doctrine, as well. We have no record of the other side of the story, and they surely must have produced written records of some kind, just as Paul did.

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.

That is what makes it all so interesting. We seem to be seeing a schism in progress.

 

[fallingblood]

John the Baptist was not called the Son of God. Philo wrote an essay about the Son of God, but did not mention Jesus when writing of the ill treatment the Jews received from Pilate. See the difference?

And Jesus probably wasn't called the son of God until after the fact. No real difference.

 

[outhouse]

What really stands out in Galatians, though, is the tension between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the movement.

.

I always wondered if Acts mythology on the different apostles/sects getting together after Jesus death, and they all start speaking every language

Was nothing more then people yelling at each other in Aramaic, Koine, and Hebrew debating these issues.

We know Acts sensationalized his work to keep his readers interested, but that could be a historical core.

 

[steeltoes]

And Jesus probably wasn't called the son of God until after the fact. No real difference.

No doubt, and we have no evidence of any Jesus of Nazareth followers until well after Josephus writes about Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. We have no reason to believe that Josephus was referring to a Bible Jesus that no one heard of yet. Our first non New Testament writer/follower, Iraneus, that mentions Jesus does not arrive on the scene until 117CE.

 

[outhouse]

No doubt, and we have no evidence of any Jesus of Nazareth followers until well after Josephus writes about Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. We have no reason to believe that Josephus was referring to a Bible Jesus that no one heard of yet. Our first non New Testament writer/follower, Iraneus, that mentions Jesus does not arrive on the scene until 117CE.

Its safe to say, since we know there was a evolution of text, that even with a 117 CE date, that the gospels go back much earlier then that.


Do you doubt Paul was writing about Jesus before the temple fell?

 

[steeltoes]

Its safe to say, since we know there was a evolution of text, that even with a 117 CE date, that the gospels go back much earlier then that.


Do you doubt Paul was writing about Jesus before the temple fell?

Did Paul write of a Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[outhouse]

Did Paul write of a Jesus of Nazareth?

Who was he writing about?

 

[steeltoes]

Who was he writing about?

Paul wrote of a heavenly Christ that may or may not have lived on earth at some time in his distant past. He drew from his ancient scriptures, and claimed to have visions, revelations of Christ.

 

[outhouse]

Paul wrote of a heavenly Christ that may or may not have lived on earth at some time in his distant past. He drew from his ancient scriptures, and claimed to have visions, revelations of Christ.

Paul spoke of a earthly Jesus, who died and went and lived in heaven.

No matter how you slice it paul viewed Jesus as a man who lived as a jew.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul spoke of a earthly Jesus, who died and went and lived in heaven.

No matter how you slice it paul viewed Jesus as a man who lived as a jew.

I am well aware of the traditional view.

 

[outhouse]

I am well aware of the traditional view.

I can pull up a verse from Paul that shows he believes in a earthly jesus.

Earl thinks the verse is a interpolation, but scholars are split on that issue.


I think using Carriers and Earls favorite verse is weak, "he recieved it from no man"

Paul cant tell the truth that he learned bout it murdering the leaders of the movement. hes trying to avoid the fact he was viewed by the original sect as once a very very bad person.

He is also building his own charactor as divine and more worthy to be a real apostle, Paul really, really, wanted to be a real apostle. The only way to be sent forth would be divine intervention since the man was dead.

 

[fallingblood]

However, Josephus was writing decades after those times, and he did not suggest he had any personal awareness of Jesus or James. He could still have been repeating what he had heard from Christians, who, I grant you, may have believed that James was the brother of Jesus. So I see this as really marginal evidence for historicity.

This is a very good point. If we take the assumption that Josephus was only repeating what he heard from people who truly believed that James was the brother of Jesus, I think that still gives us something. Josephus does place James into his own generation. This would mean that those who believed Jesus was the brother of James believed that Jesus had recently lived.

This gives a relative probability that Jesus existed. The reason being that it would be odd for individuals to create a mythical person within their own time, while claiming that he really existed. This is added to by Paul's writings. Even if we ignore the idea that he meant to call James the brother of Jesus, he does mention that Jesus had disciples, which implies that there were people living in the time of Paul's writings who also claimed to have seen Jesus. Which would mean that people could have actually sought out these people themselves.

While it is not solid evidence, it does raise the probability a bit.

I've listened to an hour-long video in which Carrier laid out his defense of mythicism. He does appear to be a qualified expert in the Greek of those times, and he claimed support for his analysis from other specialists in the language. This translation of his still strikes me as odd phrasing, but "brother of Christ" could easily have been a small interpolation by a later scribe. That would render the whole argument moot. There is no way to tell. For that reason, I consider this reference in Galatians to be far weaker than historicists take it to be.

I agree that Carrier is an expert in the Greek. It does surprise me that he would translate it such though, as I would assume that he should know better. It could be that he is using a different Greek text, or that my understanding is incorrect (I doubt that in this case as Galatians is one of the texts I had to translate for class, which was my choice).

It could be an interpolation. There are instances in Paul in which there were interpolations. I have never seen this suggestion before (which only means I haven't seen it. It would just mean that it isn't one of the big interpolations). I do doubt that it is an interpolation as it fits. If it is an interpolation, it is a very good one, as it doesn't interrupt the flow, and it is in all of the manuscripts that we have containing this chapter.

Standing along, this reference in Galatians is weak. That Jesus is the brother of James is multiply attested to though (here in Galatians, the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) and Josephus. So we can be sure that the idea was quite widespread.

I know. I was just speculating, like everyone else. What really stands out in Galatians, though, is the tension between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the movement. Paul was being challenged on at least his teaching about the requirement to follow Jewish law, and we don't know what else, if anything. Perhaps the Jerusalem contingent felt he was delusional about other points of doctrine, as well. We have no record of the other side of the story, and they surely must have produced written records of some kind, just as Paul did.

I agree. There definitely is some tension. I think this tension shows pretty good evidence that Paul was under the authority of the Jerusalem group. Paul is challenged, and he does have to argue his case. And when a decree is given by the Jerusalem group, he does agree with it.

The Jerusalem group may have questioned Paul a bit, and were critical, but I think the fact that they never actually expel him, or just push him away, suggests that they supported him to a point.

That is what makes it all so interesting. We seem to be seeing a schism in progress.

I agree. Paul tells us quite a few times of other missionaries who are trying to convert the followers to Judaism, or just other missionaries in general. So there were some sort of division even early on. It would be nice if something surfaced from the other side.

 

[oldbadger]

How could he despise something he had never seen?

From what I have read, I reckon that the working Jews of Galilee all despised the semi-Jews of the cities as traitors and betrayers of them and their God.

The Gospels place Jesus in Nazareth. They claim that he was a tekton. Sepphoris was only a few miles away, and if Jesus was going to make a living as an artisan, he almost would have had to visit Sepphoris. To work there, it would have pretty much required speaking Greek, as that the was language of commerce.

No..... they placed his upbringing in Nazareth. When he started his ministry he seems to have been based around Galilee and possibly living in Capernaum. He had plenty of work..... far far away from the cities.

Greek was spoken throughout Palestine, including Galilee. Greek was so important that we even see the OT, and other Hebrew scripture, being translated into Greek. We see this even among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The evidence that Greek was a common language is quite strong. And it would make sense that Jesus spoke Greek.

Yes..... long after Jesus had died, they wrote gentile scripture in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, so I'm told by most of the historians I have read and read about.

Working in Sepphoris also gives a reason as to why he would avoid cities. Sepphoris would have been very different then his home. The attitude would have been different. His exposure to Sepphoris would give him a reason to despise the city.

Yes.... it would have, but there is every possibility that he worked to supply the farming and fishing communities around Galilee.

Also, the fishing community of Capernaum, many probably had to speak Greek there as well. In order to do commerce, Greek would have been needed.

No....the publicans' manager's needed to speak Greek.

Yes, tekton has been used, however it is always accompanied by a translation. Now, I don't think Greek should be used unless the person knows Greek. Because honestly, unless the person knows Greek, they really can't argue Greek.

If the scriptures refer to Jesus as a Tekton (for Gentile readers) long after his death, does mean he spoke Greek?

In some instances, that is true. However, there is no reason to really dwell on the simple, as it is after all, simple.

We need to dwell on the simple, because the complicated is far beyond our reach within this subject, I propose. The historians (mostly) agree that Jesus was born, lived, caused a fracas in the Temple, and was executed. Full stop. Very simple. Now....... where would you like to go from there? Keep it simple!

I don't think I said that Jesus spoke Hebrew. If what I said seemed like that, I apologize. I really don't know if Jesus knew Hebrew, and if he did, he would not have generally used it while preaching.

I'm sorry..... I made a mistake. I think I meant Jesus would not have spoken to his people in .... GREEK! I'm sorry.

It was hardly straightforward. If he wanted to be straightforward, he wouldn't have used parables.

He could not afford to be 'clear-direct' about some issues. That could have got him killed much more quickly. But he was very clear about much of his worldly guidance.

His 11.5 month ministry, based mostly around his 'own', seems straightforward simple.......... once the ET is stripped away.