RE: What were Jesus and early Christians like?
March 11, 2015 at 2:40 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2015 at 4:34 am by TimOneill.)
(March 10, 2015 at 10:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(March 10, 2015 at 10:14 pm)TimOneill Wrote: As I find myself saying repeatedly in these discussions, people who want cases to be “proved” should avoid this subject altogether.
Fair enough. Actually, that fits with my identity as a Jesus Mooter.
If being a "Jesus Mooter" is defined by not being certain and accepting that things can only be argued to be more or less likely and not "proven", then pretty much every historian of the ancient world is an "ancient history mooter". That's simply the position on most things in the pre-modern past held by anyone with a more than high school level grasp of historiography.
Quote:I'll set aside my question of "what do we base this knowledge on?"
It's not "knowledge". These are things I say we can state are highly likely to be historical, nothing more.
Quote:1. Born in a town where lots of others were from.
"Lots"? Nazareth was a tiny village. Do you have any examples of other people called Jesus who came from there in the first century AD?
Quote:2. Had a brother. And hey, his brother had a common name.
Any other examples of a James who had a brother called Jesus who was called Messiah?
Quote:3. He was one of many apocalyptic preachers of that time.
We assume so. We actually know of very few.
Quote:4. He was one of many baptized by and inspired by JtB.
Probably. I'm not getting where you're going with this "one of many" stuff.
Quote:5. Did we mention he was one of many apocalyptic preachers of the time?
See above.
Quote:6. He was one of many Jews crucified by Pilate.
See above.
Quote:7. He was one of many claimed messiahs of that time.
We have knowledge of just one other who was declared Messiah in the same century. So, no actually.
Quote:Heck, there were probably a dozen or so Historical Jesuses (Jesusi?).
Really? You have evidence of some others that all of those things can be said about? That's remarkable. Let's see it.
Quote:Let me know if historians find anything of substance.
Tell me what evidence could we expect to find for someone like Jesus that fits the bill of your "of substance". Give me some examples of this evidence that we could expect to find for a peasant preacher that would satisfy you.
I've been asking people who claim to be agnostic on this issue this question for many years now and have yet to get a coherent answer. See how you go.
I'll assume this post is somehow aimed at me.
(March 10, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I do see that I am not getting through to you and, to make things perfectly clear, let me use this analogy. You keep trotting out "the gospels say" and "scholars say." I know what the gospels say. I've read them. There are sufficient contradictions for me to dismiss them as propaganda written for different people in different places. I do not care what they say.
You're rather more likely to "get through to me" if you present something coherent. That confused stuff earlier about how there may have been people in the first century who were Christians/Chrestians but weren't Christians (or something) and then Christians appeared from nowhere complete with an elaborate fantasy about how they had been around since the early first century (but hadn't, or something) was one of the most incoherent attempts at an alternative explanation for the origins of this sect I've seen in many years. And I've seen some pretty crazy ones.
And you seem to have some very odd knee jerk responses to trigger words, that mean you blurt things that have little to do with anything I've said. You see "Q" and blurt "Hypothesis!" Reject!" but fail to account for the clear textual overlap between gMatt and gLuke. You see me refer to the gospel material and what these texts may tell us about the traditions they arose out of and you blurt "Gospels! Fuck the gospels! Hit gospels with stick!" as though that is some kind of counter to anything I've said.
In fact, I'm beginning to think you aren't even reading my posts and are just spasmodically blurting at random words in them. It makes trying to engage with your strange ideas increasingly pointless.
(March 10, 2015 at 11:51 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: Any thoughts on the Testimonium Flavianum?
Was it a partial forgery or a total forgery?
If it was a partial forgery, any ideas what it said originally?
Also, I've heard some claim that Eusebius was the forger, but wouldn't he have been more clever?
The best founded case is the case for partial authenticity. It contains some language which is clearly not Josephan but that is mainly in the parts that are obviously things Josephus would not say. It also contains some language which is distinctively Josephan. Then we have three early variants in Jerome, Agapius and Michael the Syrian which don't only differ from the textus receptus, but differ in precisely the places we'd expect them to if they reflect an earlier, unaltered original - the parts that are things Josephus would not say.
All this indicates that these parts were added to an earlier original mention of Josephus. This also fits with the later reference to "that Jesus who was called Messiah" in Bk XX because (i) that reference makes more sense if it was referring back to the Bk XVIII account and (ii) the textual variants indicate that the "he was the Messiah" in the current text was originally "he was called the Messiah".
Vermes' reconstruction seems pretty likely to me:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man . . . For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him . . . And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Some of the language in the most likely interpolated parts is very similar to that used by Eusebius, but it is hard to say for sure. It's clear that the interpolations were added in the early fourth century though.
(March 11, 2015 at 1:53 am)Minimalist Wrote: Now, study the bolded part in this and compare the two. Origen bitches and moans 75 years earlier that Josephus did not state that the reason for the disasters which befell the jews was the conspiracy against jesus and instead invents a tale about how it was the death of James the Just which caused the diaster.
Unless Origen was the stupidest bastard who ever lived how could he have made this mistake unless there was nothing written there which gave him the slightest hint that Pilate HAD crucified jesus on the accusation of the ruling classes?
Another very strange argument. Origen complains that Josephus didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the execution of Jesus. And the TF ... doesn't.
So, huh?