Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21901  Postby dejuror » Feb 13, 2012 3:44 am

Corky wrote:
Blood wrote:
Corky wrote:The thing is, the Jewish authorities were turning these "false" Messianic claimants over to the Romans (a betrayal) in an attempt to keep order.


What's our evidence of that? Josephus?

That, and because it would have been their jobs as the provisional government - or whatever they called it back then. The Jewish authorities (like the Herodians and underlings and tax/tribute collectors) worked for the Romans and even the high priest was Roman appointed. Yeah, they turned 'em in to the Romans - unless you think the whole country was covered up in Roman policemen.


Please name the JEWISH Messianic claimants that were turned over to the Romans in an attempt to keep order????

1.............

2..............

3..............
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21902  Postby proudfootz » Feb 13, 2012 4:04 am

Byron wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Don't know how you're getting hung up on this 'forgery' business.

It could easily be a marginal note by someone like Origen trying to identify a James in Josephus which later became integrated into the text when copied because some copyist imagined it belonged there.

Nope, it really can't, as it's fully integrated into the paragraph. Either it's a forgery, or it's authentic.

As for the hoary stuff about Josephus not matching Origen, that fails to differentiate interpretation from repetition.


It's 'hoary' stuff because what Origen writes is not the Josephus we have today.

NO 'James the Just', NO blaming destruction of Temple on death of James, etc.

So, yep, it goes back to Origen either having a different Josephus than we do or being a bad reporter.

Either way it's screwed.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21903  Postby proudfootz » Feb 13, 2012 4:09 am

dejuror wrote:
Corky wrote:
Blood wrote:
Corky wrote:The thing is, the Jewish authorities were turning these "false" Messianic claimants over to the Romans (a betrayal) in an attempt to keep order.


What's our evidence of that? Josephus?

That, and because it would have been their jobs as the provisional government - or whatever they called it back then. The Jewish authorities (like the Herodians and underlings and tax/tribute collectors) worked for the Romans and even the high priest was Roman appointed. Yeah, they turned 'em in to the Romans - unless you think the whole country was covered up in Roman policemen.


Please name the JEWISH Messianic claimants that were turned over to the Romans in an attempt to keep order????

1.............

2..............

3..............


Good luck getting anyone to fill in these blanks.

Apparently Jesus was the One and Only.

As He is in so many ways....
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21904  Postby dejuror » Feb 13, 2012 5:05 am

Evan Allen wrote:Just to be clear, if Damneus was named high priest, he was then anointed, which is the literal meaning of Christ. So there is really much less there than meets the eye, even if no hanky-panky took place with the text.


You mean "the son of Damneus was named high priest"???

In any event, you have put forward a most interesting point. The passage most likely should read "and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was ANOINTED, called James.....

Once the TF is a forgery then Jesus the brother of James in Antiquities 20.9.1 must be Jesus the Son of Damneus since there would be NO other passage in in ALL of Antiquities that would have mentioned Jesus the brother of James [ the Son of Damneus] who was ANOINTED High Priest.

And further, Once there was no TF, then the story in AJ 20.9.1 makes COMPLETE sense.
1. Ananus assembled the Sanehedrin without authority of Albinus

2. Ananus the High Priest caused James the Brother of Jesus to be stoned to death.

3. The Jews reported the matter to Albinus, the Governor and King Agrippa.

4. King Agrippa REMOVED Ananus as High Priest and Jesus was ANOINTED as High Priest, the very brother of James who was stoned to death under Ananus.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

(24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.


Without the TF, Jesus the brother of James is Jesus the Son of Damneus.
Last edited by dejuror on Feb 13, 2012 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21905  Postby angelo » Feb 13, 2012 7:24 am

The quest for the HJ has reached an impasse. In an article published by Christianity Today in April of 2010, professor of religion at North Park University in Chicago Scot McKnight, who has been intimately involve in Historical Jesus Research for the past several decades, describes how after years of passionate research the quest for the HJ has again reached an impasse. Illustrating this point in his classroom, he asks students to take a test about what kind of person they think Jesus was. Was he outgoing, shy, friendly, pensive, exciting, etc. Then they take the same test, only about themselves. The results show that people picture Jesus to be just like they are; and the same is true, McKnight concludes, of religious historians. McKnight quotes Dale Allison, one of America's top N/T scholars, who confesses: Professional historians are not bloodless templates passively registering the facts: we actively and imaginatively project. Our rationality cannot be extricated from our sentiments and feelings, our hopes and fears, our hunches and ambitions. Maybe we have unthinking reduced biography of Jesus to autobiography. The fragmentary and imperfict nature of the evidence as well as the limitations of our historical abilities should move us to confess, if we are conscientious, how hard it is to recover the past. We wield our criteria to get what we want. [Dale Allison]
If a historian such as this [Allison] confesses to not having reliable evidence to reach the viewpoint that there existed a HJ, and that the best they can do is project their interpretations of him, then what chance have amateurs?
User avatar
angelo
 
Name: angelo barbato
Posts: 22510
Age: 71
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21906  Postby Mus Ponticus » Feb 13, 2012 8:26 am

Byron wrote:
Mus Ponticus wrote:
Byron wrote: Outside this thread, I'm currently trying to integrate Jesus' eschatology into my theology, and the result, while possessing a modernist austerity that has its appeals, isn't my preferred option. Not by a long shot.
Intergrating Jesus' eschatology into your theology? Please elaborate.

Not much to elaborate on. My theology is simply my understanding of the god-concept. Not to be confused with personal belief, which is quite different.
Intergrating Jesus' eschatology into your understanding of the god-concept? :?
User avatar
Mus Ponticus
 
Posts: 137

Iceland (is)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21907  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 13, 2012 9:40 am

Mus Ponticus wrote:
Byron wrote:
Mus Ponticus wrote:
Byron wrote: Outside this thread, I'm currently trying to integrate Jesus' eschatology into my theology, and the result, while possessing a modernist austerity that has its appeals, isn't my preferred option. Not by a long shot.
Intergrating Jesus' eschatology into your theology? Please elaborate.

Not much to elaborate on. My theology is simply my understanding of the god-concept. Not to be confused with personal belief, which is quite different.
Intergrating Jesus' eschatology into your understanding of the god-concept? :?


A personal belief that Jesus is historical amounts to a personal belief that the historical facts support the general belief that Jesus is historical. This is so one can talk of "Jesus' eschatology" instead of 'the eschatology of First Century goat-roasters'. An anonymously-authored 1st Century eschatology (or, indeed, god concept) is just one step removed from complete nonsense. To propose that it was authored by a complete loony (and buoyed by 1st Century goat-roasting misunderstandings of looniness) helps to explain how an essentially loony eschatology and theology spread far and wide as incorporating a general belief that Jesus was historical.

The important thing is to explain it by some particular looniness instead of by some generalised kind of goat-roasting looniness. Somehow the fact (!) of Jesus' existence and the consequent loony goat-roasting eschatology based on his purported demise helps explain the subsequent fame of this particular eschatology. When you think about it, it is not necessary to stick Jesus in there as a middle man in the development of this goat-roasting eschatology if you simply imagine that the purported demise of this 'Jesus' was invented whole cloth (or even from a purported compendium of purportedly-existing messianic claimants) to fill a generalised vacuum of non-looniness into which 1st Century goat-roasters hawked a new religion. Voilá, you have one of the essential tenants :roll: of mythicism.

In that sense my theology (if I were to propose one) would be that the god concept as a personal belief rushes into a kind of generalised vacuum of non-looniness. In this sense, theology is the study of other people's god concepts (aka generalised looniness). All that is left at that point is how floridly and poetically one wishes to spin the details of other people's god concepts as a distraction from their general looniness. It's like being in it, but not of it.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Feb 13, 2012 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Germaine D. Scutcheon
Posts: 28874
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21908  Postby archibald » Feb 13, 2012 9:44 am

proudfootz wrote:

Good luck getting anyone to fill in these blanks.

Apparently Jesus was the One and Only.

As He is in so many ways....


Well, maybe it doesn't entirely qualify, but there is mention in Josephus of one (Menahem ben Judah) who was killed by rival Jewish zealots?

And another one (Theudas) who was executed by the Romans, though not described as betrayed.

Now, maybe Menahem ben Judah and Theudas don't have enough historiography to qualify for 'probably existed' either. :)
Last edited by archibald on Feb 13, 2012 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10288
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21909  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 13, 2012 9:51 am

archibald wrote:
Now, maybe Menahem ben Judah and Theudas don't have enough historiography to qualify for 'probably exised' either.


If one mention in the works of the redoubtable Josephus suffices, and the sandals fit, somebody has to wear them. Now, give us two mentions (TWO! Count 'em!) in the works of the redoubtable Josephus, and we are off to the races.

For many, 'what we can infer' that 'he probably existed'. The 'apocalyptic loony' stuff is all marketing hype. What's important is to distinguish this from a 'personal belief' that 'he probably existed' in order to favour 'what we can (generally) infer'. All of us.

It's a paean to the capacity of people immersed in concepts of a biblical Jesus to be hypnotised by any mention elsewhere. If it is not enough by itself, it is not enough. Unless, I suppose, you've had that ol' immersion.

Somehow, personal belief just does not quite cut it, any more. Jesus in a scientific age.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Feb 13, 2012 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Germaine D. Scutcheon
Posts: 28874
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21910  Postby archibald » Feb 13, 2012 10:00 am

Cito di Pense wrote:If one mention in the works of the redoubtable Josephus suffices, and the sandals fit, somebody has to wear them. Now, give us two mentions (TWO! Count 'em!) in the works of the redoubtable Josephus, and we are off to the races.


Josephus also tells a story of how a cow gave birth to a lamb in a temple, but the lamb is only mentioned once, in which case the story may not be reliable, as you say.

[/flippant comment]
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10288
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21911  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 13, 2012 10:04 am

archibald wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:If one mention in the works of the redoubtable Josephus suffices, and the sandals fit, somebody has to wear them. Now, give us two mentions (TWO! Count 'em!) in the works of the redoubtable Josephus, and we are off to the races.


Josephus also tells a story of how a cow gave birth to a lamb in a temple, but that lamb is only mentioned once, in which case the story may not be reliable, as you say.

[/flippant comment]


Everywhere they read 'lamb', I tend to read 'kid'. When they're recently-birthed it is just so hard to tell. Anyway, they didn't have a taxonomy precise enough at the time to tell the sheep from the goats.

God gave names to all the animals.... sing with me.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Germaine D. Scutcheon
Posts: 28874
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21912  Postby angelo » Feb 13, 2012 12:22 pm

Everywhere they read 'lamb', I tend to read 'kid'. When they're recently-birthed it is just so hard to tell. Anyway, they didn't have a taxonomy precise enough at the time to tell the sheep from the goat


Certainly knew how to turn myth into history.
User avatar
angelo
 
Name: angelo barbato
Posts: 22510
Age: 71
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21913  Postby dejuror » Feb 13, 2012 3:27 pm

archibald wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Good luck getting anyone to fill in these blanks.

Apparently Jesus was the One and Only.

As He is in so many ways....


Well, maybe it doesn't entirely qualify, but there is mention in Josephus of one (Menahem ben Judah) who was killed by rival Jewish zealots?

And another one (Theudas) who was executed by the Romans, though not described as betrayed.

Now, maybe Menahem ben Judah and Theudas don't have enough historiography to qualify for 'probably existed' either. :)


Theudas was NOT a Messianic claimant he was a MAGICIAN.

Antiquities of the Jews 20
1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan...


The HJ argument appears to be fueled by a massive amount of erroneous and mis-leading information.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21914  Postby Stein » Feb 13, 2012 8:34 pm

dejuror wrote:The HJ MJ argument appears to be fueled by a massive amount of erroneous and mis-leading information.


There, corrected it for you. Now say "Thank you".

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2411

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21915  Postby Corky » Feb 13, 2012 9:22 pm

By the 90's AD, there is no way in the world that Josephus had not heard of "Jesus called Christ" and from the "report" (which means that it's not first hand knowledge) that Josephus writes in Ant. 20:9:1 that he has also heard that James was a member of that sect called Christians (IOW, a "brother" of Jesus). So, yeah there is some misleading going on by the HJ people too.

Yeah, it gets left off that Josephus says in the third sentence of this passage "Now the report goes..." Which means it's an anonymous report or hearsay that he is repeating. It also gets left off that Gal. 1:19 may not, in fact, have existed until after Marcion. Irenaeus, who quotes all that part of Galatians does not quote that verse - just as if it wasn't there. This doesn't get mentioned by the HJers at all.

So, Josephus quotes an anonymous hearsay report and then Tacitus uses Josephus as his hearsay source. Mystery solved.
Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
User avatar
Corky
 
Posts: 1518
Age: 72
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21916  Postby dogsgod » Feb 14, 2012 12:48 am

Stein wrote:
dejuror wrote:The HJ MJ argument appears to be fueled by a massive amount of erroneous and mis-leading information.


There, corrected it for you. Now say "Thank you".

Stein



It may very well be but the HJ argument is not any better so there you go, Jesus is in a pickle, and you're welcome.
dogsgod
 
Posts: 1978

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21917  Postby dejuror » Feb 14, 2012 3:10 am

Stein wrote:
dejuror wrote:The HJ MJ argument appears to be fueled by a massive amount of erroneous and mis-leading information.


There, corrected it for you. Now say "Thank you".

Stein


Remarkably, you have CONFIRMED that the HJ argument is fueled by a massive amount of erroneous and mis-leading information. You have NOT corrected any thing but have introduce a Most blatant error.

You very well know that there is an ON GOING QUEST for the Historical Jesus of Nazareth for the last 250 years and that the QUEST for HJ of Nazareth was Initiated because a Non-historical Jesus, a Non-human Jesus, a Jesus of Faith, MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus was IDENTIFIED in the NT.

MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus of Nazareth is in the NT---GO LOOK for HJ of Nazareth.

MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John, well-known, and crucified by Pilate in the NT .

Tell me about your Unknown HJ of Nazareth when you find Him.

I will give you another two thousand years.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21918  Postby spin » Feb 14, 2012 3:42 am

spin wrote:
Evan Allen wrote:Spin, what is the natural qualifier for Jesus, brother of James if the Christ is a marginal note?

You tell me what the natural qualifier for this Jesus is, considering the Jesus son of Damneus needed "son of Damneus" and had not been appointed as high priest at the time of the James discussion.

As Evan Allen hasn't been back to me on this issue, perhaps there are others out there who'd like to champion the cause of "Jesus called christ" is actually Jesus son of Damneus.

Here is an old translation of the current state of AJ 20.200-203:

When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

The passage shows that the normal means of referring to this person who became high priest was "Jesus, son of Damneus", as can be seen later on when Josephus reports he was succeeded by Jesus, son of Gamaliel. However, the claim before us is that this Jesus, son of Damneus, was also the Jesus called Christ mentioned earlier in the passage. We've seen that the soon-to-be high priest is commonly referred to in the usual Jewish fashion, name plus father. Is there any reason at all to consider that Jesus, son of Damneus, was in fact the person previously referred to as Jesus, called Christ? It doesn't conform to usual naming conventions, when we see that the references to the son of Damneus do. So who thinks that Jesus called Christ is actually Jesus, son of Damneus and why?
Thanks for all the fish.
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1963

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21919  Postby Stein » Feb 14, 2012 5:21 am

spin wrote:
spin wrote:
Evan Allen wrote:Spin, what is the natural qualifier for Jesus, brother of James if the Christ is a marginal note?

You tell me what the natural qualifier for this Jesus is, considering the Jesus son of Damneus needed "son of Damneus" and had not been appointed as high priest at the time of the James discussion.

As Evan Allen hasn't been back to me on this issue, perhaps there are others out there who'd like to champion the cause of "Jesus called christ" is actually Jesus son of Damneus.

Here is an old translation of the current state of AJ 20.200-203:

When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

The passage shows that the normal means of referring to this person who became high priest was "Jesus, son of Damneus", as can be seen later on when Josephus reports he was succeeded by Jesus, son of Gamaliel. However, the claim before us is that this Jesus, son of Damneus, was also the Jesus called Christ mentioned earlier in the passage. We've seen that the soon-to-be high priest is commonly referred to in the usual Jewish fashion, name plus father. Is there any reason at all to consider that Jesus, son of Damneus, was in fact the person previously referred to as Jesus, called Christ? It doesn't conform to usual naming conventions, when we see that the references to the son of Damneus do. So who thinks that Jesus called Christ is actually Jesus, son of Damneus and why?


I don't think you're fully understanding Evan Allen's question: Since Josephus always has a "qualifier" for everyone he introduces, what was his real qualifier for the first James in the paragraph, if one dismisses "called Christ" as later marginalia?

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2411

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#21920  Postby Stein » Feb 14, 2012 5:46 am

angelo wrote:
Everywhere they read 'lamb', I tend to read 'kid'. When they're recently-birthed it is just so hard to tell. Anyway, they didn't have a taxonomy precise enough at the time to tell the sheep from the goat


Certainly knew how to turn myth into history.


Something really odd: Apparently, Angelo has been posting as a theist elsewhere on this board! --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1202855

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2411

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 8 guests