Was Jesus an Historical Person?

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Or it may not be. Therefore?

My point is that we cannot necessarily assume that the fully completed extant copies are the same as the original MSS. We know that redactions occcur and the longer the time period between the time when original docs were written and extant full copies emerge allows for greater opportunites for editing. In other words, we cannot necessarily trust extant copies to be faithful copies of the originals.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My point is that we cannot necessarily assume that the fully completed extant copies are the same as the original MSS.

Therefore?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Therefore?

The original gospel docs may contain stories of a 'Jesus' who was not nearly as godly as the one in the extant gospels we have today. He may have been a mere teacher or perhaps a failed messiah claimant, but over time the stories were embellished and exagerated. Note that the earliest extant gospel, Mark, contains the least amount of hyperbole. Note also that in gJohn Jesus said he had finished the work God gave him to do prior to his crucifixion, and that job were merely to preach the truth and not to be a Lamb to atone for the sins of the world. Note also that John 3:16 has a different view of the world than his other statements about the world. This is why I think John 3:16 is Pauline style interpolation. This may need a new thread to explore these issues more thoroughly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The original gospel docs may contain stories of a 'Jesus' who was not nearly as godly as the one in the extant gospels we have today.

Or they may not have contained such stories. Or ...

or ...

or ...​

Again: therefore? Historiography is heavily inferential when dealing with that period. Bemoaning the lack of certainty and wallowing in what 'may' have been is little more than amateurish sophistry.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Or they may not have contained such stories. Or ...

or ...

or ...
​

Again: therefore? Historiography is heavily inferential when dealing with that period. Bemoaning the lack of certainty and wallowing in what 'may' have been is little more than amateurish sophistry.

Please do not characterize my discussion as 'wallowing'.

No need for harsh words to inject emotion and undermine the dignity of our dialogue, please. Though I am not a Christian, I do believe in the Golden Rule.

But to your point: I already pointed out that the earliest gospel, Mark, contains the least hyperbole and therefore suggests earlier accounts of Jesus may be less dramatic that later accounts. And we all know how fish stories grow over time! There is often a desire to add grander accounts to an original story. Note also the Ebionites had a more modest appraisal of Jesus' mission.

I will soon open a new thread to introduce some textual criticism as a means of deconstructing the gospel along these lines. I will welcome an academic discussion from all interested people.

 

[outhouse]

The original gospel docs may contain stories of a 'Jesus' who was not nearly as godly as the one in the extant gospels we have today. He may have been a mere teacher or perhaps a failed messiah claimant, but over time the stories were embellished and exagerated. Note that the earliest extant gospel, Mark, contains the least amount of hyperbole. Note also that in gJohn Jesus said he had finished the work God gave him to do prior to his crucifixion, and that job were merely to preach the truth and not to be a Lamb to atone for the sins of the world. Note also that John 3:16 has a different view of the world than his other statements about the world. This is why I think John 3:16 is Pauline style interpolation. This may need a new thread to explore these issues more thoroughly.

How much mythology they used does not change the historicity of a man. It only goes to show how important a man was to some people.

The fact early on his divnity was competing with another mortal mans divinity, mean anything to you?

You had writers purposely sensationalizing their deities divinity to compete against another living mans divinity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Note also the Ebionites had a more modest appraisal of Jesus' mission.

A well established and well documented source indeed.

Schiffman suggested Maccoby as the best source on the Ebionites and Maccoby, who I rather like, is nonetheless somewhat idiosyncratic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are a great many things today about which theoretical physics and "plain ole" physics butt heads and yet amicably and arguably "agree to disagree", but the voodoo of "metaphysics" and spinoff reality shows in hunting down Bigfoot, ancient Aliens, ghosts, astral alignments as insights to impending apocalyptic events, etc...are not science, scientific, methodologically sound, or even presentable for any credible peer review.

Fantastic. Only I didn't bring up "voodoo" or "spinoff reality shows", but quoted a paper from a volume put together by experts in the field for other experts in the field based primarily on an academic conference on the subject.

Forgive my saying so, but interjections of "metaphysics" in this dialogue is nearly the equivalent of shouting "Hitler! and Nazis!" in supposed counterpoint.

Here's what you said:

However… what physicists can offer is an established set of purely objective scientific rules and guidelines to drill down to elemental facts

In response, I gave you a criticism of not just the work of some physicist or physicists, but a theory popular among phycists and cosmologists today which was written off by other physicists as "metaphysics". It isn't supposed to be metaphysics. The use of that word was a criticism of the theory. So why are physicists and cosmologists arguing over whether a theory in physics should even be considered science? Perhaps because your evaluation of physics literature is incredibly naive.

Yes, of course there are a goodly amount of "hard-core" scientists that claim some sort of foundation or rooted belief in some ethereal entity, spirit, Cosmologic force, or "Intelligent Design"

Did you not read what I quoted, or not understand it? It's hard to tell. This is mainstream cosmology and physics. It's part of the peer-reviewed literature. Bousso & Susskind recently published an paper in Physical Review D arguing that multiverse cosmology is necessary to understanding quantum physics and resolving the measurement problem. It is against this theory that the criticism of "metaphysics" was directed, along with the comparison to faith and religion.

so spare me any quotes of "testimonies" that cite "metaphysical" uncertainties as legitimate or compelling rebuttal.

Funny. You hold physics on so high a pedestal on the one hand, yet wish to be spared some of the most important work in the field because other physicists call it metaphysics?

Albert Einstein remains arguably one of the most compelling scientists of the modern age, yet his stubborn resistance to the notion of a chaotic cosmos that he personally felt utterly impossible to fathom, much less accept as veritable or validation of his very own initially proposed conclusions, are known today disproved and experimentally established evidential fact.

The problem Einstein had was with the idea that quantum physics was complete. In his work with Podesky and Rosen, now usually called EPR, he successfully argued that the theory entailed nonlocality. He did this to show it must be incomplete, as did Bell. What experiments have shown is that classical causality is indeed flawed or violated. However, physicists have yet to agree on what this means. Hence the measurement problem and the interpretation of QM.

 

[steeltoes]

How much mythology they used does not change the historicity of a man. It only goes to show how important a man was to some people.

The fact early on his divnity was competing with another mortal mans divinity, mean anything to you?

You had writers purposely sensationalizing their deities divinity to compete against another living mans divinity.

The story is important to this day to those that read it as something important, even though someone claimed there is history in that mythology, it makes no difference. John the Baptist was used to introduce Jesus, that's how it works in the entertainment world, you just don't walk onto the world stage and start performing by parting the heavens and have a dove land on your shoulder, someone has to introduce you. And now, what you've all been waiting for, The Beatles...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My point is that we cannot necessarily assume that the fully completed extant copies are the same as the original MSS.

No one does. It's why we have textual criticism. When you look at your Greek editions of Euripides, Plato, etc., at the bottom of each page there is probably a little section with a bunch of weird abbreviations. It's there to tell you the variations among the manuscripts. With these texts, we can do that for all manuscripts no problem, because there are only a handful. For the N.T., we have thousands and thousands, so instead even a very thorough critical edition will only list major variant readings among manuscript traditions or in our best texts. Our evidence for and knowledge of N.T. textual transmission is unrivaled. If we had only the attestation of the "church fathers", we could put together the N.T. without any manuscripts at all.

 

[outhouse]

The story is important to this day to those that read it as something important, even though someone claimed there is history in that mythology, it makes no difference. John the Baptist was used to introduce Jesus, that's how it works in the entertainment world, you just don't walk onto the world stage and start performing by parting the heavens and have a dove land on your shoulder, someone has to introduce you. And now, what you've all been waiting for, The Beatles...

Why pick a homeless man eating bugs to teach you religion, and introduce you?

 

[steeltoes]

Why pick a homeless man eating bugs to teach you religion, and introduce you?

A divine homeless man eating bugs, now that's entertainment.

 

[outhouse]

A divine homeless man eating bugs, now that's entertainment.

Its exactly how JtB was written in.

He was homeless and ate grasshoppers and honey. A wildman so to speak, wearing something worse then a burlap sack .

 

[steeltoes]

Its exactly how JtB was written in.

He was homeless and ate grasshoppers and honey. A wildman so to speak, wearing something worse then a burlap sack .

Homeless? Isn't that an American thang?

 

[steeltoes]

Its exactly how JtB was written in.

He was homeless and ate grasshoppers and honey. A wildman so to speak, wearing something worse then a burlap sack .

Let's read this in context, Mark1:

As it is written in the prophetIsaiah, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” ’,John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’


Malachi 3:
1 "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.
2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears?



And here is this paraphrase from 2 Kings 1:8, "They replied, 'He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist.' The king said, 'That was Elijah the Tishbite."

 

[outhouse]

Good work


I understand the OT refferences and influence.


But he is still a homeless bug eater, and Jesus placed in a dump like Nazareth who was less then a peasant, ended up being a Roman deity. One of their oppressed subjects, is now in direct competition with the living emporers divinity.

Do you think Johns message is the same as OT or does it fit the time and place, more accurately?

 

[steeltoes]

Good work


I understand the OT refferences and influence.


But he is still a homeless bug eater, and Jesus placed in a dump like Nazareth who was less then a peasant, ended up being a Roman deity. One of their oppressed subjects, is now in direct competition with the living emporers divinity.

Yes, that makes for a great movie.

Do you think Johns message is the same as OT or does it fit the time and place, more accurately?

I don't know, what is John's message?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know, what is John's message?

Have you read Josephus' account of John the Baptist?

 

[steeltoes]

Have you read Josephus' account of John the Baptist?

Yes, I have.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, I have.

So what exactly are you two arguing about?