What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[Mudhammam]

Tim are you dating the events they record by extra-biblical sources, such as Josephus' mention of JtB or something? Certainly you don't mean we should take their use of Pontius Pilate or anyone else as containing historical veracity amidst the teleportations and transmutations when the point of the story is the latter... right?

[TimOneill]

Tim are you dating the events they record by extra-biblical sources, such as Josephus' mention of JtB or something? Certainly you don't mean we should take their use of Pontius Pilate or anyone else as containing historical veracity amidst the teleportations and transmutations when the point of the story is the latter... right?

I'm using both. As I keep pointing out, the mere fact that elements in the story may not be historical is not good enough reason to reject them. And the references in Josephus and Tacitus to Pilate and in Josephus to James, the Baptist and Caiaphas all make the chronological setting pretty likely. It also fits with some of what Paul says about the timing of his conversion. So we have multiple vectors of evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, all supporting the idea that this stuff happened sometime in the late 20s or early to mid-30s AD.

[abaris]

And the references in Josephus and Tacitus to Pilate and in Josephus to James, the Baptist and Caiaphas all make the chronological setting pretty likely. It also fits with some of what Paul says about the timing of his conversion. So we have multiple vectors of evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, all supporting the idea that this stuff happened sometime in the late 20s or early to mid-30s AD.

Big fucking deal that educated people knew who was governor and high priest at a certain point in time. Even the common people, who probably provided these stories would have known. Everything else, at least as told in the bible, is seriously off. The story of Jesus and Caiaphas or Jesus and Pilate don't make any sense at all. The jewish priesthood were puppets installed by the Roman authorities and Jesus, if he really claimed to be king of the jews, wouldn't have gone before them for blasphemy, since he already commited the crime of high treason against Roman authority with this claim.

It's Pilate, who would have run the show from start to finish. And he certainly wouldn't have offered Jesus up for amnesty, if Jesus repeated the king claim before him. He would have been on the fast track to crucifixion. The Romans also weren't picky choosy when it came to insurgents. They would have crushed anyone even remotely connected to this Jesus character. So the apostles would be out of the picture or deep in hiding.

The grave story is also pretty much out the window, since it was Roman habit to leave the executed on the cross to rot and to ultimately toss the remains into some ditch.

[Pizza]

The likelihood of what, exactly?

This issue.

The nature of ancient history is that our sources make certainty difficult to impossible. We can still assess likelihood. Though with greater or lesser degrees of difficulty, depending on the sources.

No precise degree of likelihoods and reliability can be had on issues of ancient history. That is not a controversial claim. That's why I claimed hair splitting is all this. So all the chest beating you and others are doing is silly. So many bloated claims about high degrees reliability and probability of ancient sources are being made that it is like a bad parody of what historians do. These are ancient sources we are talking about low passion of belief is the way to go. You're being emotional.

What does "all this" mean in that sentence? If we're asking about the likelihood that Jesus was God in human form who walked on water and rose from the dead I'd say the likelihood was low to zero. If we're asking about the likelihood that the stories of this magic Jesus have their origin with a first century Jewish apocalyptic preacher from Galilee who got crucified by Pilate I would say that is by far the most likely explanation of those stories and the other evidence we have.

Which would lower the degree of reliability of the texts a bit.

[TimOneill]

Big fucking deal that educated people knew who was governor and high priest at a certain point in time. Even the common people, who probably provided these stories would have known. Everything else, at least as told in the bible, is seriously off. The story of Jesus and Caiaphas or Jesus and Pilate don't make any sense at all. The jewish priesthood were puppets installed by the Roman authorities and Jesus, if he really claimed to be king of the jews, wouldn't have gone before them for blasphemy, since he already commited the crime of high treason against Roman authority with this claim.

It's Pilate, who would have run the show from start to finish. And he certainly wouldn't have offered Jesus up for amnesty, if Jesus repeated the king claim before him. He would have been on the fast track to crucifixion. The Romans also weren't picky choosy when it came to insurgents. They would have crushed anyone even remotely connected to this Jesus character. So the apostles would be out of the picture or deep in hiding.

The grave story is also pretty much out the window, since it was Roman habit to leave the executed on the cross to rot and to ultimately toss the remains into some ditch.

I don't disagree with most of the above. But here we have another example of this "all or nothing approach" - the idea that if any of what is obviously a polemical story can be argued to probably be incorrect or historically unlikely, the whole thing has to be thrown out wholesale.

That doesn't follow logically at all.

Take your main points above. Those elements also make sense if a historical Jesus was seized by the Temple priesthood before he caused any more trouble and then handed over to Pilate. Which would leave the Christians later, after the failed Jewish Revolt, with a PR problem. After all, it would have been hard to sell a Jewish guy nailed up by a Roman prefect to Romans straight after a failed Jewish insurrection against Rome. The solution? Put the blame on the Jews. So we get this garbled fiction of the Jews being unable to execute him for blasphemy (why?) and so they hand him over to Pilate who reluctantly (why?) executes him while telling the Jews it's all their fault.

That accounts for not only all the things you mention, but a number of others as well.

But if there was no historical Jesus story to put this spin on, why did they invent a Messiah who dies? That was not in the Messianic tradition? And why crucified? That put him under a curse according to Jewish tradition. And it made the whole idea that he was some kind of exalted uber-man absurd to non-Jews.

So if these things aren't in the story because they happened, where did they come from? Why would someone make up a Messiah like that?

[Pizza]

I'm using both. As I keep pointing out, the mere fact that elements in the story may not be historical is not good enough reason to reject them.

Fair enough, but it's good reason to be agnostic about them.

And the references in Josephus and Tacitus to Pilate and in Josephus to James, the Baptist and Caiaphas all make the chronological setting pretty likely. It also fits with some of what Paul says about the timing of his conversion.

What is the oldest copy we have of Pauline writings and does it come after the oldest copies of these other sources? Don't have dog in this fight, I'm just interested now.

So we have multiple vectors of evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, all supporting the idea that this stuff happened sometime in the late 20s or early to mid-30s AD.

So something happened in between a broad point of time, okay. I can't disagree with that.

[TimOneill]

The likelihood of what, exactly?

This issue.

Sorry, - and I'm not trying to be difficult here - but what is "this issue"?

No precise degree of likelihoods and reliability can be had on issues of ancient history. That is not a controversial claim. That's why I claimed hair splitting is all this. So all the chest beating you and others are doing is silly.

Who said anything about "precise degrees of likelihood"?

So many bloated claims about high degrees reliability and probability of ancient sources are being made that it is like a bad parody of what historians do.

Sorry, but making assessments of what is likely to have happened in the face of biased, fragmentary and uncertain evidence is precisely what historians of the ancient world do. Anyone who wants precision should probably avoid the field altogether.

These are ancient sources we are talking about low passion of belief is the way to go. You're being emotional.

I am? How? I think I'm very calm and carefully considered. Show me where I have been in any way emotional.

What does "all this" mean in that sentence? If we're asking about the likelihood that Jesus was God in human form who walked on water and rose from the dead I'd say the likelihood was low to zero. If we're asking about the likelihood that the stories of this magic Jesus have their origin with a first century Jewish apocalyptic preacher from Galilee who got crucified by Pilate I would say that is by far the most likely explanation of those stories and the other evidence we have.

Which would lower the degree of reliability of the texts a bit.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying, by bolding the part about the magic stuff, that this lowers the reliability of the texts? Sure it does. But we find what we consider magic in all kinds of ancient sources, including quite sober ones. If we threw all ancient source material that had (to us) supernatural elements in them out the window we'd have barely any sources left.

This is why the high degree of hyperscepticism which I often come across in these discussions only works if your only aim is to hit Christianity on the head with a big emotional stick. If you want to treat this question calmly and use the sources the way all ancient sources are used, this degree of hyperscepticism is unwarranted.

[Pizza]

But if there was no historical Jesus story to put this spin on, why did they invent a Messiah who dies? That was not in the Messianic tradition? And why crucified? That put him under a curse according to Jewish tradition. And it made the whole idea that he was some kind of exalted uber-man absurd to non-Jews.

So if these things aren't in the story because they happened, where did they come from? Why would someone make up a Messiah like that?

What are you claiming here? That Jesus was based on historical figure(s?) similar in some unspecified way to the one in the Bible? Okay.

[TimOneill]

I'm using both. As I keep pointing out, the mere fact that elements in the story may not be historical is not good enough reason to reject them.

Fair enough, but it's good reason to be agnostic about them.

What does "be agnostic about them" mean here? Because if it means "don't try to assess anything based on them at all" then we would have to "be agnostic" about most ancient sources. And the whole enterprise of ancient historical study would be totally untenable. Does that strike you as reasonable?

And the references in Josephus and Tacitus to Pilate and in Josephus to James, the Baptist and Caiaphas all make the chronological setting pretty likely. It also fits with some of what Paul says about the timing of his conversion.

What is the oldest copy we have of Pauline writings and does it come after the oldest copies of these other sources? Don't have dog in this fight, I'm just interested now.

The oldest manuscripts we have of the Pauline material are older than any manuscripts of Josephus or Tacitus by about 700 years. Why?

[Pizza]

"Sorry, - and I'm not trying to be difficult here - but what is "this issue"?"
I don't know anymore since you seem to be making more modest claims than I thought.