angelo wrote:There are reasons why many historians construct a Jesus for all seasons. They all tackle the subject with pre-concieved ideas of their Jesus and of the early christians.

This begs the question of why they do it at all.

Cito di Pense wrote:

angelo wrote:There are reasons why many historians construct a Jesus for all seasons. They all tackle the subject with pre-concieved ideas of their Jesus and of the early christians.

This begs the question of why they do it at all.

Because they want to be remembered as the ones who were right and everyone else was wrong.

GakuseiDon wrote:.....Maybe Pilate just initially dismissed our Jesus for a madman (until forced to crucify him later), so didn't care about the disciples. But it is all just speculation.

Your Jesus was the Son of a Ghost. Don't you remember that the same source that claimed there was a trial with Pilate also claimed your Jesus was a product of a Ghost and a Transfiguring Sea Water Walker.

You cannot ignore the details of your Jesus--the Myth--the Logos and God the Creator.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:if it became accepted that Pilate was ruthless they are not likely to give any examples of him behaving otherwise.

Really! If an idea becomes 'accepted' then it is less likely to be contradicted. This may have wide applicability in the general area of bible scholarship. Tell me more!

Your ability to misrepresent a point has not diminished one jot

What point was that, and how was it misrepresented? For my money, the ruthlessness of Pilate is neither here nor there. If you want to explain how bible historians go about their business, it behooves you to keep as much as possible a fascination with tautology out of your description of the methodology, and just stick to delectable speculations:

GakuseiDon wrote:Maybe Pilate just initially dismissed our Jesus for a madman (until forced to crucify him later), so didn't care about the disciples. But it is all just speculation.

Your tautology about the ruthlessness of Pilate is simply an elaboration of what began as a pointless speculation. Why you are replying to angelo instead of to Gakusei Don is anyone's guess, such as that you agree with Don and disagree with angelo. My only chance to misrepresent a point is whether I misrepresent how partisan is the discussion.

Its that old genre thing again. Say only 3 historical references to John Major survive, one an admiring piece of journalism, two in cartoon form- one by Steve Bell! Which would you think was likely to be closer to the truth? You would be confident that all were, to a degree, biased but you would have to weigh hagiographical tendencies against satirical ones.
With ancient sources about Pilate your choice is between the rhetoric of theology and the rhetoric of moralistic historians, who frequently dish up caricatures- in which bad men are consistently bad. My point was not to plump for the biblical accounts, as they conflict quite a lot with each other, but simply to question the wisdom of choosing decisively for the accounts of Josephus et al, who had good reason to paint Pilate as a villain- but one, who if I remember correctly, was also a bit inconsistant!

Ian Tattum wrote:
Its that old genre thing again. Say only 3 historical references to John Major survive, one an admiring piece of journalism, two in cartoon form- one by Steve Bell! Which would you think was likely to be closer to the truth? You would be confident that all were, to a degree, biased but you would have to weigh hagiographical tendencies against satirical ones.
With ancient sources about Pilate your choice is between the rhetoric of theology and the rhetoric of moralistic historians, who frequently dish up caricatures- in which bad men are consistently bad. My point was not to plump for the biblical accounts, as they conflict quite a lot with each other, but simply to question the wisdom of choosing decisively for the accounts of Josephus et al, who had good reason to paint Pilate as a villain- but one, who if I remember correctly, was also a bit inconsistant!

The John Major analogy is worthless, because I can imagine a future in which there is no historical information at all about John Major. I asked you how I was misrepresenting your point, which wasn't in what I originally quoted from you:

Ian Tattum wrote:

angelo wrote:We do know that Pilate was ruthless and that because of this ruthlessness he was recalled to Rome. Doubt he would have needed any goading to execute anyone.

But bearing in mind the way Roman historians construct their narratives, often with emphasis on character traits, if it became accepted that Pilate was ruthless they are not likely to give any examples of him behaving otherwise.

Historical personalities are thin on the ground in scripture. That Pilate is a historical figure won't help to sway anyone to historicism who isn't already in camp. The people who come into the historicist camp from someplace other than a bible college have lots of interesting anecdotes to tell about how they decided Jesus was a historical person.

spin wrote:It is unable to explain the evidence that exists in any meaningful way and is falsified by the clear existence of gospel frescoes at Dura Europos.

Interesting! Thanks for this, Spin.

GakuseiDon wrote:
If the gospel story did indeed happen, then Pilate was willing to let Jesus go. But Carr's argument assumes some parts of the gospel story is true, and some are not. Who is his argument actually directed against? That's what makes it a strawman.

But GDon, isn't that what Theologians do all the time? Isn't that what Jefferson did with his Bible Version? They strip out parts they don't believe are correct or are distortions of some kernel of truth that underlies them, but continue forward with parts of the Gospel Stories they believe have plausibility.

If Carr's argument is strawmanning, aren't arguments that center on a there being kernel(s) of truth, say about Jesus upsetting the money lenders at the temple, but that he didn't walk on water, also flawed arguments?

I'm having a hard time understanding why Carr's is a strawman argument but, a typical mainstream theological argument about a Social Reformer Jesus isn't. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?

Maybe Pilate just initially dismissed our Jesus for a madman (until forced to crucify him later), so didn't care about the disciples. But it is all just speculation.

It seems to me that all interpretations (regardless of who is doing it and their bias) of the NT is speculation, which is why I get irritated when Ehrman and Hoffman and the rest of the gang start swinging the "Certainty" Hammer.

Epicure wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote:
If the gospel story did indeed happen, then Pilate was willing to let Jesus go. But Carr's argument assumes some parts of the gospel story is true, and some are not. Who is his argument actually directed against? That's what makes it a strawman.

But GDon, isn't that what Theologians do all the time? Isn't that what Jefferson did with his Bible Version? They strip out parts they don't believe are correct or are distortions of some kernel of truth that underlies them, but continue forward with parts of the Gospel Stories they believe have plausibility.

If Carr's argument is strawmanning, aren't arguments that center on a there being kernel(s) of truth, say about Jesus upsetting the money lenders at the temple, but that he didn't walk on water, also flawed arguments?

I'm having a hard time understanding why Carr's is a strawman argument but, a typical mainstream theological argument about a Social Reformer Jesus isn't. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?

Maybe Pilate just initially dismissed our Jesus for a madman (until forced to crucify him later), so didn't care about the disciples. But it is all just speculation.

It seems to me that all interpretations (regardless of who is doing it and their bias) of the NT is speculation, which is why I get irritated when Ehrman and Hoffman and the rest of the gang start swinging the "Certainty" Hammer.

And this is exactly what modern day people do - 'scholars' and 'amateurs' alike: write new interpretations on an old classic by creating chimerical mash-ups of old christian literature. We've seen the gStein reproduced several times in this thread stitched together from the Nine Irrefutables and the Thirteen Inexplicables.

This seems to be how the authors of gMatthew, amd gLuke and gJohn treated the gospel narrative they received - cut out bits they didn't like, added bits they thought should be there, and seemed to act pretty freely with something that's now considered 'history'.

proudfootz wrote:
And this is exactly what modern day people do - 'scholars' and 'amateurs' alike: write new interpretations on an old classic by creating chimerical mash-ups of old christian literature. We've seen the gStein reproduced several times in this thread stitched together from the Nine Irrefutables and the Thirteen Inexplicables.

According to the theory of Claude Levi-Strauss, any retelling of a myth is really a new version of the myth. It is futile to speak of the authenticity or "the earliest textual witness" of a myth, like our good Biblical scholars constantly do. The gospel of Stein, the gospel of Ehrman, and the gospel of Pat Robertson are all simply new versions of the Christ myth, contextualized by the constraints of their time, place, and imaginations. None is more or less authentic than the gospel of John, because "authenticity" is meaningless when discussing or evaluating myth.

Blood wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
And this is exactly what modern day people do - 'scholars' and 'amateurs' alike: write new interpretations on an old classic by creating chimerical mash-ups of old christian literature. We've seen the gStein reproduced several times in this thread stitched together from the Nine Irrefutables and the Thirteen Inexplicables.

According to the theory of Claude Levi-Strauss, any retelling of a myth is really a new version of the myth. It is futile to speak of the authenticity or "the earliest textual witness" of a myth, like our good Biblical scholars constantly do. The gospel of Stein, the gospel of Ehrman, and the gospel of Pat Robertson are all simply new versions of the Christ myth, contextualized by the constraints of their time, place, and imaginations. None is more or less authentic than the gospel of John, because "authenticity" is meaningless when discussing or evaluating myth.

Yes, just as the authors of gMatthew or gJohn retold the story to suit their audiences, modern day story tellers tailor the tale to be acceptable to their 'communities'.

Blood wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
And this is exactly what modern day people do - 'scholars' and 'amateurs' alike: write new interpretations on an old classic by creating chimerical mash-ups of old christian literature. We've seen the gStein reproduced several times in this thread stitched together from the Nine Irrefutables and the Thirteen Inexplicables.

According to the theory of Claude Levi-Strauss, any retelling of a myth is really a new version of the myth. It is futile to speak of the authenticity or "the earliest textual witness" of a myth, like our good Biblical scholars constantly do. The gospel of Stein, the gospel of Ehrman, and the gospel of Pat Robertson are all simply new versions of the Christ myth, contextualized by the constraints of their time, place, and imaginations. None is more or less authentic than the gospel of John, because "authenticity" is meaningless when discussing or evaluating myth.

There is truth in that but although the theory works well for myths such as all the ancient flood stories,which can not possibly be anchored in any specific historical events, it might not be so applicable to others. Cleopatra for example is an almost entirely mythical figure, in that the details of her life have been wreathed in Roman fears and projections which scholars rightly enjoy studying, but they also make a stab at reconstructing the historical core.The results, of course are always contentious.
Your argument works best if you begin with the certainty that Jesus and all the other early testimonies to christianity's origins were imagined!

Ian Tattum wrote:

Blood wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
And this is exactly what modern day people do - 'scholars' and 'amateurs' alike: write new interpretations on an old classic by creating chimerical mash-ups of old christian literature. We've seen the gStein reproduced several times in this thread stitched together from the Nine Irrefutables and the Thirteen Inexplicables.

According to the theory of Claude Levi-Strauss, any retelling of a myth is really a new version of the myth. It is futile to speak of the authenticity or "the earliest textual witness" of a myth, like our good Biblical scholars constantly do. The gospel of Stein, the gospel of Ehrman, and the gospel of Pat Robertson are all simply new versions of the Christ myth, contextualized by the constraints of their time, place, and imaginations. None is more or less authentic than the gospel of John, because "authenticity" is meaningless when discussing or evaluating myth.

There is truth in that but although the theory works well for myths such as all the ancient flood stories,which can not possibly be anchored in any specific historical events, it might not be so applicable to others. Cleopatra for example is an almost entirely mythical figure, in that the details of her life have been wreathed in Roman fears and projections which scholars rightly enjoy studying, but they also make a stab at reconstructing the historical core.The results, of course are always contentious.
Your argument works best if you begin with the certainty that Jesus and all the other early testimonies to christianity's origins were imagined!

The myth of Jesus is that he was crucified by order of the Jews to take away the sins of the world. He was sent by YHWH expressly for this purpose, because YHWH loves the world and knows that only blood can expiate man's sinful ways. But the good news is that Jesus didn't really die, and now he lives mystically as your personal best friend, and will embrace you after your death.

Any retelling of that story is a new version of the myth.

The myth of Jesus is separate from the question of Jesus's existence, though the two are intimately connected, because our main sources for information about Jesus (the gospels) are narrative theology, and are probably entirely mythical themselves.

The life of "the historic Jesus" has only become relevant to the myth in modern times, since skepticism about magic stories became impossible to control as religious authorities lost their power to enforce conformity. The whole concept of a "quest for the historical Jesus" was simply inconceivable prior to the 19th Century.

Blood wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Blood wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
And this is exactly what modern day people do - 'scholars' and 'amateurs' alike: write new interpretations on an old classic by creating chimerical mash-ups of old christian literature. We've seen the gStein reproduced several times in this thread stitched together from the Nine Irrefutables and the Thirteen Inexplicables.

According to the theory of Claude Levi-Strauss, any retelling of a myth is really a new version of the myth. It is futile to speak of the authenticity or "the earliest textual witness" of a myth, like our good Biblical scholars constantly do. The gospel of Stein, the gospel of Ehrman, and the gospel of Pat Robertson are all simply new versions of the Christ myth, contextualized by the constraints of their time, place, and imaginations. None is more or less authentic than the gospel of John, because "authenticity" is meaningless when discussing or evaluating myth.

There is truth in that but although the theory works well for myths such as all the ancient flood stories,which can not possibly be anchored in any specific historical events, it might not be so applicable to others. Cleopatra for example is an almost entirely mythical figure, in that the details of her life have been wreathed in Roman fears and projections which scholars rightly enjoy studying, but they also make a stab at reconstructing the historical core.The results, of course are always contentious.
Your argument works best if you begin with the certainty that Jesus and all the other early testimonies to christianity's origins were imagined!

The myth of Jesus is that he was crucified by order of the Jews to take away the sins of the world. He was sent by YHWH expressly for this purpose, because YHWH loves the world and knows that only blood can expiate man's sinful ways. But the good news is that Jesus didn't really die, and now he lives mystically as your personal best friend, and will embrace you after your death.

Any retelling of that story is a new version of the myth.

The myth of Jesus is separate from the question of Jesus's existence, though the two are intimately connected, because our main sources for information about Jesus (the gospels) are narrative theology, and are probably entirely mythical themselves.

The life of "the historic Jesus" has only become relevant to the myth in modern times, since skepticism about magic stories became impossible to control as religious authorities lost their power to enforce conformity. The whole concept of a "quest for the historical Jesus" was simply inconceivable prior to the 19th Century.

Have you not noticed that you are claiming there was an identifiable ur myth? How on earth can you work that out without using the same procedures as those looking for a historical core? From there you simply pile one assertion on another. They are interesting possibilities, but that is all.
You conclude with a somewhat tautological remark that the hj only became a possibility at the time when history first became a distinct discipline! I can agree with you entirely, but really nothing much is being said. When do you think that it first became possible to treat much of the past as a mythical or a literary construct? Surely that does not entirely negate such as valuable and interesting methods?

Blood wrote:

The myth of Jesus is that he was crucified by order of the Jews to take away the sins of the world. He was sent by YHWH expressly for this purpose, because YHWH loves the world and knows that only blood can expiate man's sinful ways. But the good news is that Jesus didn't really die, and now he lives mystically as your personal best friend, and will embrace you after your death.

Any retelling of that story is a new version of the myth.

The myth of Jesus is separate from the question of Jesus's existence, though the two are intimately connected, because our main sources for information about Jesus (the gospels) are narrative theology, and are probably entirely mythical themselves.

The life of "the historic Jesus" has only become relevant to the myth in modern times, since skepticism about magic stories became impossible to control as religious authorities lost their power to enforce conformity. The whole concept of a "quest for the historical Jesus" was simply inconceivable prior to the 19th Century.

Ian Tattum wrote:
Have you not noticed that you are claiming there was an identifiable ur myth? How on earth can you work that out without using the same procedures as those looking for a historical core?

Because I'm not assuming that the historical core absolutely must consist of a historical Jesus. The historical core may actually be religious sects using their imagination to first compose densely-written narrative theology and then popularizing their theological constructs through sermons, public debates, missionary work, etc. After a couple of generations of this, the historicity of the theology simply is assumed.

Ian Tattum wrote:
You conclude with a somewhat tautological remark that the hj only became a possibility at the time when history first became a distinct discipline! I can agree with you entirely, but really nothing much is being said. When do you think that it first became possible to treat much of the past as a mythical or a literary construct? Surely that does not entirely negate such as valuable and interesting methods?

That's a very broad question. The point is that "the historical Jesus" only became a real issue in the 19th Century, when it was no longer possible for most educated men to simply accept the holy scriptures as 100% historical. What has happened since is the creation of a new Jesus for this skeptical age -- a rationalization of the myth to suit the emotional and intellectual needs of a critical and educated public. This supposedly has delivered "the real Jesus" to us finally, but it's really just a new version of the same myth.

Ian Tattum wrote:When do you think that it first became possible to treat much of the past as a mythical or a literary construct? Surely that does not entirely negate such as valuable and interesting methods?

About the same time that treating the past as a literary construct became vaguely threatening to those trying to establish history as a discipline, with methodology. Perhaps out of that emerged the more-threatening notion that dismissing using the myths of the past to warn us away from the dangers of the present favours empiricism a little too much for some tastes.

Naturally, the antidote for that is to treat history as an empirical discipline even when it is not dealing with artifacts.

Treating history as empirical discipline is not possible in the HJ case because of all the supernatural nonsense associated with the fable. Why, it's very similar to the Isis, Horus and many other fables of the ancient world which have no basis whatsoever in history except as myth.

epicure wrote:

spin wrote:
It is unable to explain the evidence that exists in any meaningful way and is falsified by the clear existence of gospel frescoes at Dura Europos.

Interesting! Thanks for this, Spin.

1. The "clear existence" is debatable. It is unclear to me, that Clark Hopkins and his colleagues properly excavated the site.
The Discovery of Dura-Europos Clark Hopkins 1979 Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

On the contrary, I think the evidence, i.e. Hopkins' book, suggests the contrary, the site was sloppily, and carelessly excavated. Look at the photo on page 97, of a man sitting on the excavation site. Look at the photo on page 135, of Susan Hopkins, Clark's wife, "seated in the niche before it had been identified and the walls on either side excavated." That excavation had been performed in wretched disarray: "mother and child", page 33, "workers" page 35, "basket boys at work", page 50, method of excavation, page 66, "view of the excavation", page 82, attempting to free the expedition's station wagon from the mud, during the 1932-33 season", page 118 (Hey, spin, what does WATER do, to papyrus fragments like the one conveniently found by Susan Hopkins, of the diatessaron?)
page 93: "...with the discovery at Dura of a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron, ..."

2. It is unclear whether these crude paintings, spin describes, (page 110 for example, "the Samaritan woman at the well") could not as easily refer to something else entirely-- (compare to those of the Jewish synagogue, for example, Aron, on page 136). It is also a matter of FAITH, to assume, that these paintings were in fact, made BEFORE the stunning defeat of the Roman garrison in 256 CE, or whether, AS I BELIEVE, the paintings were made by Roman Soldiers accompanying Emperor Julian on his fateful voyage to Ctensiphon, one century later.

3. The paintings, even if genuine, (i.e proving that New Testament influence existed in the middle of the third century, and was not created de novo, as mountainman has alleged, the idea which earned spin's wrath in his quote above), could not possibly "FALSIFY" mountainman's theory that Constantine created Christianity.

FALSIFY ALWAYS, no exceptions, ALWAYS, is associated with FRAUD.

Now, in spin's opinion, mountainman's theory is BOGUS. His theory, according to spin, is FALSE. It is UNTRUE, having been refuted by evidence, including, in spin's opinion, the amateurish paintings at Dura Europos. But, in my opinion, EVEN spin, does not claim, so far as I am aware, that there is any attempt by mountainman to commit FRAUD, here. Mountainman, in my opinion, is simply challenging the status quo, a perfectly reasonable, scholarly activity. He does not present his theory for financial gain. He does not present his theory to gain adherents to his philosophy. He receives no contributions, so far as I am aware. So, I cannot understand why anyone would imply FRAUD, in describing mountainman's theory. Hence, use of the English word "falsify" is streng verbotten, for thems that seems unduly fond of the Germanic idea of "falschung", i.e. a word that has TWO meanings, refute (in reality, "widerlegen"), and falsify-->fraud/forgery. This problem exists because post world war II, the influx of German Yiddish speaking Jews entered British academia, and imported, like a disease, the notion that FALSIFY can equally mean, REFUTE.

NO. It does not. In English FALSIFY always means "FRAUD" or "FORGERY". Yes perhaps, in German, "falschung" means BOTH refute, and fraudulent misrepresentation/forgery. NO, "falsify" in English, does not, correspond to "refute". It means, exclusively, FORGERY/FRAUDULENT misrepresentation. We know, that spin here means to indicate "refute", but, the problem is, spin is ALSO arguing, forcefully, that mountainman's theory is utter crap, hence, not far removed, at least in spin's mind, from FRAUD. At what point, does a theory turn from bogus, to fraudulent? spin is misusing the English language to argue his point.

Why is this issue relevant to a topic devoted to "historical Jesus"? spin is contesting a theory, one he argues is utterly FALSE. OK, we understand he disputes mountainman's theory that Constantine elaborated Christianity in the fourth century,i.e. absence of ANY historical basis. No problem, there. spin is certainly entitled to express his opinion. But neither spin, nor anyone else, is entitled to suggest that mountainman's theory that Constantine fabricated Christianity de novo, represents something akin to forgery, by writing "falsify". spin needs to change that word, to "refute".

The paintings at Dura Europos, IF GENUINELY created, in 256CE, or earlier, would REFUTE, moutainman's theory, they would not, "falsify" that theory.

It would be as egregious, if I were to write, (based on Clark Hopkins' book, page 91:
"TON CHN IN UMEIN MNESKESTHE PROKLOU" (English: Your chn, remember Proklou)

aha! here is the text, on the wall in the "Christian House Church", which "FALSIFIES" spin's idea that Dura Europos lay untouched for 1700 years, buried in the sand. NO. OF course NOT. This phrase on the wall, doesn't "falsify" anything.

This is the phrase, that suggests encouragement of the possibility that one, or more, of Julian's christian soldiers, (40 years, after Constantine proclaimed Christianity the state religion) not only elaborated the crude paintings, seen in this house, a block from the Jewish synagogue, but then, signed his name to the paintings, as he hastened to rejoin his comrades on their death march to Ctesiphon. Julian's troops were in that specific area, within a kilometer of Dura Europos, for several days. The Imperial Roman Army had numerous supply ships, running up and down the Euphrates. The ships easily could have transported soldiers back and forth across the river, to visit the former imperial outpost, the resting place of honor, of one of Rome's most valiant legions, destroyed by the VERY ENEMY they were preparing to confront.

Is it so difficult to imagine that soldiers, including officers, under Julian's command, would have felt an inclination to visit their entombed compatriots, buried under one century of blowing sand? I frankly cannot imagine the army deliberately ignoring Rome's most famous outpost, on the eve of the army's attempt to even the score, by attacking those very same opponents, who had slaughtered and enslaved their fellow soldiers. Of course the army visited Dura Europos, and of course, one of the soldiers painted his name on the wall. Can anyone on this forum imagine a real painter, BEFORE the siege, putting his name on the painting? Who would pay someone to create these images, and then tolerate a graffito prominently displayed upon them? Dura Europos was not undisturbed for 1700 years. It was molested, excavated, painted, and revered, during Julian's futile attempt to gain revenge.

tanya wrote:This problem exists because post world war II, the influx of German Yiddish speaking Jews entered British academia, and imported, like a disease, the notion that FALSIFY can equally mean, REFUTE.

Interesting: So you're another one of those mythers who are also anti-Semitic as well...........

Real charming,

Stein

Location: Stein's house, early evening, after dinner.
Occasion: Evening news;
Situation: Stein is sprawled out on the couch, sticky fingers eating desert, flipping channels with his "good" hand;

Announcer: Story A tonight: 10,000 rebels killed in a Sarin gas attack;
Story B tonight, 100,000 more unemployed;
Story C tonight, Trade imbalance with Japan continues as in previous decades;
Story D tonight, 100 little girls have been abducted during the past three months in a border town in Minnesota;
Finally: Story E: a Calico cat gave birth to triplets today, in Springfield, Missouri.

Noise from the kitchen:

"Stein, dear, what's new on the tv?"

Stein: "Unbelievable good news: A calico cat gave birth to triplets today."

Stein wrote:

tanya wrote:This problem exists because post world war II, the influx of German Yiddish speaking Jews entered British academia, and imported, like a disease, the notion that FALSIFY can equally mean, REFUTE.

Interesting: So you're another one of those mythers who are also anti-Semitic as well...........

Real charming,

Stein

Give me the shovel Stein, you know it makes sense.