The Best Case for Jesus

[MrMacSon]

Josephus wrote about several 'Jesus's'. The tiny portions of his work that are allegedly (according to Christian claims) about 'Jesus of Nazareth' are extremely suspicious, in light of Josephus's normal working method of providing vivid and detailed accounts of even notable minor personages among the Jews.

I agree

Same thing. You really think Josephus' reference to James is below 33.3% for being authentic ? Is it really that implausible that it does go back to Josephus?

What goes back to Josephus? What is the "it" you're referring to?

I think your confidence in the inauthenticity of these passages is not called for and exposes your bias.

Crapping on about bias is disingenuous; calling someone taking an opposing view to you 'biased', and reasoning that opposing view, is nonsense.

[Sheshbazzar]

to Sheshbazzar,

With a beginning like that 'Mark' has already in the first three verses established that his tale is based on what he found "written in the prophets". After that intro there really remains no need to provide much in the way of direct quotations. 'Mark' therefore thereafter mostly just relates his narrative and allows the reader to make any connections.

"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," is only relative to John the Baptist's preaching, not the whole gospel.

Go get yourself a real Bible Bernard.

Mark 1:2.

Ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, Ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου,

Where are you reading "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," in this verse Bernard?

Are you even aware that the Greek προφήταις, means 'prophets' plural?

And that the entire context in Malachi 3:1-3 is an understood referent to the working of Messiah himself, and not to John the Baptist?

2. "But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appears? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto Yahweh an offering in righteousness. (see also Isa 66:15-16, and Matt 3:11-12, Lu 3:16-17, 12:49, and 2 Thess 1:7-9)

Mark 1:2 is to be understood in the context of the Prophecies, AND these further NT texts.

These NT verses are NOT about John the Baptist,

The context of Mark 1:2 covers the entire ministry and 'Second Coming', and judgment by <sic >'Jesus', not "only relative to John the Baptist's preaching, not the whole gospel."

Sloppy research Bernard. Wrong, and very very sloppy.

[toejam]

That you so uncritically accept and believe the 'words of Paul' you found in your Bible shows your own bias.

That's not what I've done. That I suspect Paul wrote Galatians and the "James the brother" line does not mean I have "accepted and believed this" uncritically. As expected, your response is an attempt to paint me as having the same confidence as a fundamentalist evangelical who does assume the veracity of "the Bible". Not my position. Personally, I could care less whether or not Galatians is in or out of "the Bible". I don't argue from "the Bible". Personally, I see it about 50% as to whether the reference does go back to Paul. I've been lenient (to cover my own potential biases) in assigning it a 33.3% chance of authenticity. But to you, this is somehow an example of being uncritical

I expect Josephus mentioned 'James' (actually 'Y'acob' ). and if he spoke of a 'Jesus', it was not the fictional 'Jesus of Nazareth', but rather an 'anointed' priest of the Aaronic Temple priesthood, of which there were a great many.

That's fine. You have your beliefs. But this has yet to be demonstrated with certainty. Until it has so, then there remains some degree of chance that the "James brother of the one called Christ" is authentic to Josephus' hand and is referring to the instigator of Christianity. In my view, that's about 50/50. But I've even been lenient - assigning it a 33.3% probability of authenticity. And again, this is considered from you not being critical

In both these instances, I submit that it is more uncritical to assume that both cannot be authentic. I have not assumed their authenticity as you do their inauthenticity. Indeed, my doubt is built into my assigned percentages.

I think your confidence in the authenticity of these passages is not called for and exposes your bias.

I'm not all that confident though. I only put them both down at about 50% each. And for the analogy, I've put them even lower to cover my own potential biases - something which you seem unable to do for your own beliefs.

and with your bias you seem to want to assume credibility....of course limiting it to whatever tiny bits of the texts it is that you wish to 'cherry pick'.

What do you think my bias is? What do you think I "want" to assume? It is not my desire to assume credibility.

Your response is nonsensical. I don't believe there ever was any such "historical crucified cult leader from whom Christianity emerged", so there is no way the non-existent storybook 'Christ Jesus' character of the Christian religion ever had a living human brother.

We're not talking about "Christ Jesus" though. We're talking about the instigator of the superstitio - the crucified Jewish cult leader from whom Christianity emerged. He couldn't have existed and had a brother who became his heir? Why couldn't he? You have your beliefs...

'James' (Y'acob) of Jerusalem existed and was once a living breathing human, Torah observant Jew. James was no relative of the Christ cults fictional NT "Jesus of Nazareth".

How do you know he wasn't a relative of a historical Jesus?

Of course I'm in an anti-theist mode. And I'll stay there.
If I don't believe in theist horse shit why in the fuck would I ever be 'IN the theist mode'???
Are you nuts? or just plain stupid?

I submit that your hatred of theism and Christianity is clouding your judgement when attempting to explain the origins of Christianity. This has you refusing to allow any possibility that there is some historical core of founders - a historical Jesus, a historical brother James, and a historical Galatians-writing Paul.

And I think your Bible based beliefs are clouding your judgment, and making you post dumb-ass statements. So we are even.

Bible-based beliefs? The texts of the Bible are sources, sure. But my suspicions about the historical Jesus and Paul are not exclusively "Bible based". The texts that were later included in "the Bible" are part of the bigger picture.

Unfortunately your: "Paul says this right here in my Bible,... and I believe it because Paul says this right here in my Bible", form of argument is not reasonable nor logically acceptable. It is the identical same 'circular argument' method employed in the most base and ignorant form of Christian apologetics.

I've never said this though, that "I believe it because it says so right here in my Bible". It makes no difference to me whether Galatians is in the Bible or not. Not my concern.

It is perhaps difficult to get through your noggin, that not every atheist believes every claim that 'Paul' makes.

How is this difficult when it's something I already accept? I've read Price. I've read Thomas Whittaker. I'm well aware that some scholars through the centuries have doubted Pauline authenticity.

That something is written about 'James' in 'Paul', is no slam-dunk indication that what is there written is any fact.

When have I ever claimed a "slam dunk"? In fact several times on this board I've acknowledged there is no "slam dunk". There is no "slam dunk" that Paul wrote Galatians. There is no "slam dunk" that the Josephus reference to James' brother is authentic. You will never see me arguing this. So what's your point here? That there is no slam dunk does not mean we pretend that they cannot have been authentic - which is what you do to support your own beliefs that there was no historical Jesus.

Not ever atheist believes that Josephus was anywhere referring to 'Jesus of Nazareth'.

I know. What's your point?

[Bernard Muller]

to Sheshbazzar,

"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," is only relative to John the Baptist's preaching, not the whole gospel.

Go get yourself a real Bible Bernard.

Where are you reading "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," in this verse Bernard?

This is from the RSV and according to the Alexandrian text-type Greek, considered by most scholars as the closest to the original text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
"Most textual critics of the New Testament favor the Alexandrian text-type as the closest representative of the autographs for many reasons. One reason is that Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest found; some of the earliest church fathers used readings found in the Alexandrian text. Another is that the Alexandrian readings are adjudged more often to be the ones that can best explain the origin of all the variant readings found in other text-types."

Now from this other website http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay04mrk.htm:
Mark 1:2:
TEXT: "Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet"
EVIDENCE: S B D L Delta Theta f1 33 565 700 892 1241 lat vg syr(p,pal) syr(h)margin cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A
NOTES: "Just as it is written in the prophets"
EVIDENCE: A K P W Pi f13 28 1010 Byz Lect syr(h)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn

COMMENTS: The quotation in verses 2 and 3 is from two scriptures: the first part is from Malachi 3:1 and the second part is from Isaiah 40:3. Thus it is likely that copyists changed the reference to make it more general. The reading in the text is found in several types of ancient text.

It makes sense that later copyists, knowing that the quote was in fact made of two different OT passages, with one not from Isaiah, made the change.

Go get yourself a real Bible Bernard.

Go get yourself a real Bible whatever is your real name.

And that the entire context in Malachi 3:1-3 is an understood referent to the working of Messiah himself, and not to John the Baptist?

The messenger in Mal 3:1 is just that (not a Messiah) and was meant to be understood as John the Baptist in Mk 1:2-3.
In Mal 3:1 that messenger will prepare God's coming (in his temple), but in Mark 1:2-3, that messenger (John) will prepare the way for Jesus Christ.

Mark 1:2 is to be understood in the context of the Prophecies, AND these further NT texts.

Now you are talking like a theologian.
Mk 1:2-3 is to be understood into its immediate context (Mk 1:1-8).
After "Mark" could not have known about Matt 3:11-12, Luk 3:16-17, 12:49.

Sloppy research Bernard. Wrong, and very very sloppy.

Really?

Cordially, Bernard

[Sheshbazzar]

Really.

The further NT texts indicate how the actual NT writers and early believers interpreted these texts. And so composed they were accepted by those that had so received them, for acceptance -as written- into their Cannon of Holy Scripture as the authoritative 'Textus Receptus'.

A latter revision, rewording, modification, and recombination of the once given and accepted 'Received' text was not part of that plan.
You want to employ a variant text that you know has been diddled with and revised. I'm not buying it.

To effectively argue the content of the gospels and epistles, and intent of various texts, they must be based upon the stable and accepted exemplars.
Even today there are still theologians trying to wiggle around words so as to make them appear to say something other than what they were commonly understood to say by believers of previous generations, from the beginning. So many snakes in a nest mthat wiggle and slide, pin their evil weaving, bobbing, forked tongue, double-speaking heads to the ground, and hold them there.

[Sheshbazzar]

In Mal 3:1 that messenger will prepare God's coming (in his temple),

And in Malachi 3:2-3

2. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appears? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto Yahweh an offering in righteousness.

I note you did not comment at all on these verses.
You believe that one written of in these verses is supposed to be the messenger John the Baptist? ....The guy that lost his head without ever accomplishing diddly-squat as far as purifying the sons of Levi?

Sheshbazzar

[neilgodfrey]

So perhaps this use of the gospels as 'prima facie' evidence must currently be struck.

Good luck selling that one with the mainstream academy!

It's not easy to say "Yes, I think so" but I do think so.

And this is why I've thought that the nature of our sources only allows us to attempt an inquiry into Christianity's origins, not any "historical Jesus". If an investigation into Christian origins involves interdisciplinary studies, theoretical models from anthropology, group origins etc, that lead us to believe a personal charismatic figure is the best explanation for how it all got started then we have our evidence for a historical Jesus.

Interdisciplinary studies are inevitable, I think, to "find" a historical Jesus. In their absence almost all "historical" studies into HJ are based on assumption combined with a simplistic history of ideas, and the ideas are entirely theological (e.g. resurrection). And to explain how these theological ideas took hold of people and grew into a movement we find ahistorical explanations or appeals to something unique or inexplicable or lost to us now. And out of this "extraordinary event" that produced this theological concept Christianity emerged.

That might sound as if it is getting off the topic of making a best case for an HJ, but unless we have some plausible historical link between Jesus and Christianity then I think that establishing the historicity of a Jesus is as meaningless as discovering any one of the thousands of Jews we know must have had the name of Jesus or Joshua. Yes?

This probably leaves works of only a handful of researchers who can contribute anything that's really historically worthwhile. I'm reading James C. Hanges at the moment and I think he would be one; I'm sure there are others.

However, Tacitus' Annals do not present any very serious qualms either in terms of there provenance/authorship or intended genre. It is a 'historical source' from antiquity much like any other used by modern historians.

So perhaps at least that part of the arguments regarding prima facie evidence still stands?

I'd feel way too mean if I don't allow at least Tacitus to one side of the debate. Otherwise I'd feel like I'd be asking one of the contestants to enter the ring with both hands tied behind his back. I already feel cruel enough over the gospels.

A best case would be strengthened if it could also account for the slightness of the impression Nero's scapegoating appears to have left in the Christian (or even Pliny's) record.

[Sheshbazzar]

I submit that your hatred of theism and Christianity is clouding your judgement when attempting to explain the origins of Christianity. This has you refusing to allow any possibility that there is some historical core of founders - a historical Jesus, a historical brother James, and a historical Galatians-writing Paul.

That may be what you submit. But it simply is not accurate. My rejection of the claims of Christianity is based upon my long time intensive study and personal familiarity with the foundational content of the underlying Hebrew texts upon which all of this woo was constructed.
Not boasting, but the fact is that I am engaged in arguing the meanings and substance of these texts with persons who commonly have not yet managed to even read through the Pentatuch one time in their own native language. Whereas I completed my first reading through of the entire Hebrew Torah (The Five 'Books of Moses', commonly called ' The Law ') every last word of it, and in the original Hebrew language, some 37 years ago, and normally consult and do readings and searches of the Hebrew and Greek texts on an almost daily basis.
With that background of personal knowledge, ability, and experience, I do not need to derive my information concerning the content of these texts at second hand from poor translations and biased 'expert opinions'.

Experts on history I do consult for information, but as the history of the Christian religion has been so compromised and distorted by religious tyranny, whatever I hear on the subject needs be taken with a grain of salt in regards to its likelihood of being true rather than Christian fabrication.
I simply do not find the Christian religion or its proponents to have ever been composed og very honest or trustworthy persons.
And I have had so many bad personal experiences with unethical Christians that like an encounter with a pit of vipers they make my skin crawl, and I have learned the hard and painful way, to never to trust any professed Christian any further than I can throw them, particularly not family members.

As anyone who has followed my posts here for any length of time might be aware, I never cite, nor provide quotations from any 'authority figure', not even if their positions or views on any matter coincide 100% with my own.
The only books that I ever provide any quotations from are the common books of the Bible, and on rare occasions the writings of The Church Fathers, or pertinent bits from the major Apocryphal texts.

[Bernard Muller]

to Sheshbazzar,

The further NT texts indicate how the actual NT writers and early believers interpreted these texts. And so composed they were accepted by those that had so received them, for acceptance -as written- into their Cannon of Holy Scripture as the authoritative 'Textus Receptus'.

A latter revision, rewording, modification, and recombination of the once given and accepted 'Received' text was not part of that plan.
You want to employ a variant text that you know has been diddled with and revised. I'm not buying it.

For your education:
The Textus Receptus is a variant text, as compared with the Alexandrian text-type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
Here is an extract:
The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text-type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. In later manuscripts (from the 9th century onwards), the Byzantine text-type became far more common and remains as the standard text in the Greek Orthodox church and also underlies most Protestant translations of the Reformation era.

The Textus Receptus is mostly drawn from late Byzantine text-type, written (& corrupted) well after the Alexandrian text-type. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
Here is an extract:
Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.[6]

Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[5] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil Godfrey,

... a personal charismatic figure is the best explanation for how it all got started then we have our evidence for a historical Jesus.

Why did he have to be charismatic? The Jesus I got from my research is not charismatic, just an accidental healer and admirer of John the Baptist.
That is the problem with most, if not all, historicist scholars who assume, before beginning their study, that Jesus had to be charismatic.
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard