Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Where agnostics and atheists can freely discuss

Moderator: Moderators

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #1

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #31

Post by Cathar1950 »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote: Finally, how does one explain the Ebionites and 'Judaizers' if one wishes to claim the Jerusalem sect as fiction?

By the way, are you familiar with G.A. Wells?
I am familar with Wells.
From Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories site:
  • Wells argues that most of what is said of Jesus in the canonical gospels is put in question by the fact that it is not confirmed by extant Christian documents which are either earlier than the gospels or early enough to have been written independently of them, i.e. composed before they or the traditions underlying them had become generally known in Christian circles. Paul, for instance, wrote before any gospel existed, and his Jesus lived on earth as a shadowy figure of the indefinite past. Such early Christians developed their beliefs in the tradition of Jewish Wisdom speculation about a supernatural personage who sought an abode on earth but was rejected by man and who then returned to heaven.

    However, in his latest books, Wells allows that such a complex of tradition as we have in the synoptic gospels could not have developed so quickly (by the end of the first century) without some historical basis; and so some elements ascribed there to the life of Jesus presumably derive ultimately from the life of a first century Galilean preacher. The essential point, as Wells sees it, is that this personage is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the Pauline and other early documents, and that the two have quite separate origins. The Jesus of the earliest Christians did not, on this view, preach and work miracles (or what were taken for such) in Galilee, and was not crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem.
I would agree with this.
Cathar1950 wrote: I think historically it is more of a case of Gentilizers(I think Wells might have used this term) then 'Judaizers'.
Perhaps the more accurate term would be "Hellenizer".
Historically I tend to gravitate towards the Ebonite tradition but the problem is that there is a great distance between "Someone" historical and any sources that can give us a clear picture as to the distortions that were natural given their development outside Jerusalem and the areas including Samaria and Galilee. Some groups seem to gravitate towards a teacher and his teachings while others like Paul show little interest in his teachings or any historical Jesus.
It is often hard to distinguish between various Hellenistic influences.
The people responsible for some of the Dead Sea Scrolls show various influences.
Many scholars make a case for a mythical Christ unrelated to any historical person while there is no reason within the Roman-Grecian world for not having borrowings and influence there is no reason to think the gospels are historical accounts even if there were a man named Jesus that had a brother named James and died or not. If we knew more maybe there wouldn't be so many opinions or maybe there would be more.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #32

Post by Goat »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
Rathpig wrote:The default position given the complete lack of contemporary evidence must be doubt.
Nonsense. The default approach of historiography (and, for that matter, science), is abduction, i.e., inference to best explanation (IBE). While one can and should question the accuracy and objectivity of Acts, there is no basis to claim that the Torah-observant Jerusalem sect depicted in Acts is a literary fiction. And this presumption of historicity is reinforced, no matter how modestly, by the Josephus reference and, perhaps, the Ebionites.
So, the default position would be that Hercules existed, based on the illiad, and that the world wide flood happened.
That was a remarkably stupid statement that in no way flows from my comments.
goat wrote:As for Josephus's, antiquities 18 is an out right interposition from the 4th century.
You meant 'outright interpolation'. While the adjective 'outright' is redundant here, I agree that the TF is a likely interpolation.
goat wrote:I would also ask you to explain why the phrase used in antiques 20 is a word for word copy of from the gospels.
From Kirby:
  • If we assume that there was originally a note in the margin identifying this James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" and that this note was later incorporated into the text, then there would be no intentional interpolation, and the idea that the interpolator would have wanted to more definitely assert messiahship collapses.

    On the other hand, if we assume that the passage was intentionally modified, it could have been modified by a slightly sophisticated interpolater. It has often been suggested that Jerome, whose quotation has "Credabatur esse Christus" in a place in the Testimonium, altered the original "He was the Christ" -- he knew that Josephus wouldn't think so. This interpolator would have inserted the reference to "Jesus who is called the Messiah" on the same basis; the interpolator realized that Josephus would not actually consider call Jesus the Christ. The plausibility of this suggestion is also seen from the reference in Matthew 27:17, in which the author of Matthew puts words on the lips of Pilate that refer to Jesus as "Jesus who is called Messiah."

    While the argument concerning the non-commital nature of the reference isn't quite conclusive, it is certainly quite suggestive. The significance of the references to "called Christ" in the New Testament is exaggerated. Van Voorst observes:
    • For the few occurences of the phrase "called Christ" in the New Testament, see Matt 1:16 (Matthew's genealogy, where it breaks the long pattern of only personal names); Matt 27:17, 22 (by Pontius Pilate); John 4:25 (by the Samaritan woman). Twelftree, "Jesus in Jewish Traditions," 300, argues from these instances that "called Christ" is "a construction Christians used when speaking of Jesus" and therefore an indication that this passage is not genuine. He also cites John 9:11, but there the phrase is "called Jesus" and so does not apply to this issue. But if these passages are indicative of wider usage outside the New Testament, "called Christ" tends to come form non-Christians and is not at all typical of Christian usage. Christians would not be inclined to use a neutral or descriptive term like "called Christ"; for them, Jesus is (the) Christ.
    Furthermore, I note that no extracanonical works in the second century use the phrase "Jesus who is called Christ," even though this would be the period when an interpolation would have to have been made. [source]
goat wrote:To further say about Acts, assuming that the writer of Acts did travel with Paul (big assumption considering it is very probably that the author of luke/acts used antiquities as a source for historical references), is that they believed the stories told about Jesus from someone who even act will admit 'saw Jesus in a vision'.
No, nor have I asked you to do so. The question that I ask is whether or not you claim that the Torah-observant sect depicted in Acts is a complete fiction or, as you so cleverly suggest, an "out right interposition". Nothing else. If you have trouble understanding or answering the question, feel free to ignore it.

By the way, John P. Meier's point (item 5 in Kirby's discussion referenced above) is a strong one to which should be added Whealey's argument concerning:
  • ... the implausibility of a second or third century Christian at all forging a passage about one of Jesus' brothers. Already by the mid to late second century the mere fact that Jesus had brothers or even half-brothers was becoming highly problematic in Christian circles ... because they are concerned to maintain the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, without contradicting Luke 2:7 that Jesus was her first-born son. ... Given the reluctance of many Christians to affirm openly that Jesus had brothers or half-brothers even as early as the middle to late second century, the idea that Josephus' passage about "James the brother of Jesus called Christ" was composed by some ancient Christian can be safely laid to rest.
While Whealey may overstate the case, there seems sufficient reason to provisionally accept the authenticity of the reference (as does Kirby).

Also, it should be remembered that nascent Christianity was not the most popular theory on the block. So where are the 2nd and 3rd century mythicists? Certainly folks back then would be in a far better position than you or I to attack the Jerusalem sect as a total fabrication.

Finally, how does one explain the Ebionites and 'Judaizers' if one wishes to claim the Jerusalem sect as fiction?

By the way, are you familiar with G.A. Wells?
Well, I disagree with Kirby. The case for Antiquities 20 being a copiers gloss, since it is word for word from the gospels is too suspect for it to be taken as a source for a historical Jesus. If that phrase is not there, then it follows that James was the brother of the High priest.. which makes perfect sense. It has been pointed out by
Crossan that Josephus would have avoided the messanic term, since it would not have made sense to the roman/Greek audiences not familiar with Jewish terms.
However, it WOULD make sense to a Christian copier.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #33

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

goat wrote:Well, I disagree with Kirby.
Not all opinions are created equal.
goat wrote:The case for Antiquities 20 being a copiers gloss, since it is word for word from the gospels is too suspect for it to be taken as a source for a historical Jesus.
If you intend on mouthing mantra, the very least you could do is render them as coherent sentences.

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #34

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

Cathar1950 wrote:Historically I tend to gravitate towards the Ebonite tradition but the problem is that there is a great distance between "Someone" historical and any sources that can give us a clear picture as to the distortions that were natural given their development outside Jerusalem and the areas including Samaria and Galilee.
Agreed.
Cathar1950 wrote:It is often hard to distinguish between various Hellenistic influences. The people responsible for some of the Dead Sea Scrolls show various influences.
Have you read Schiffman's Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls? He's an interesting guy.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #35

Post by Cathar1950 »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:Historically I tend to gravitate towards the Ebonite tradition but the problem is that there is a great distance between "Someone" historical and any sources that can give us a clear picture as to the distortions that were natural given their development outside Jerusalem and the areas including Samaria and Galilee.
Agreed.
Cathar1950 wrote:It is often hard to distinguish between various Hellenistic influences. The people responsible for some of the Dead Sea Scrolls show various influences.
Have you read Schiffman's Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls? He's an interesting guy.
Yes I have read it. I got it right here from my local library. It was one I got when the Dead Sea Scrolls was coming to Grand Rapids. By the time I got done reading about them I didn't care to go see then. Of course I have had a long time interest in them as well as the Gnostic gospels. Variety is the spice of life.
Which brings up the Acts variety.
goat wrote:


Rathpig wrote:The default position given the complete lack of contemporary evidence must be doubt.
goat wrote: So, the default position would be that Hercules existed, based on the illiad, and that the world wide flood happened.
Jayhawker Soule wrote: That was a remarkably stupid statement that in no way flows from my comments.
I disagree and from your statements I think you over-reach where what the default position should be is doubt and possibility”. It is possible that Hercules may have had some bases in a ancient king, hero or warrior. The cult of Augustus had his ancestors coming from Troy and the off-spring of some god.
We might assume Augustus was real and I am sure some do doubt but how many do not doubt the reality of the god.
Even some of the early church fathers questioned Acts. It is a matter of church record.
There wasn't much that wasn't questioned at one time or another and it is still not finished.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #36

Post by Goat »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:Well, I disagree with Kirby.
Not all opinions are created equal.
goat wrote:The case for Antiquities 20 being a copiers gloss, since it is word for word from the gospels is too suspect for it to be taken as a source for a historical Jesus.
If you intend on mouthing mantra, the very least you could do is render them as coherent sentences.

Make your case. You are just repeating 'They are evidence' without acknowledging the counter arguments.

If you are going to just parrot 'they are evidence', I am sorry, but that doesn't really make your credibility very high.

Which of the issues do you want to address first.

1) The chain of 'evidence' in acts?
2) Antiquities 18?
3) Antiquities 20?

ASSUMING that the author of Luke/Acts DID travel with Paul for a time, explain to me how 30 year old memories of someone who got his information from someone who got his concept of "Jesus" from a hallucination would be evidence for a historical Jesus.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply