Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Secret Alias »

New book:
But Celsus also reports about Jewish traditions that Jesus wandered about shamefully, and this cannot be traced entirely to reflections on Isaiah 53. Nothing can be proven, but in these vestiges perhaps we may get a distant image of a man who did not care about his appearance.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed ... Fc5mjLv.99 https://books.google.com/books?id=B5g8D ... us&f=false
But the section which Taylor cites can hardly be used as conclusive evidence regarding 'Jesus's appearance.' In fact Celsus is clearly summarizing popular beliefs about Jesus from contemporary Christians:
He next continues: You see how Plato, although maintaining that (the chief good) cannot be described in words, yet, to avoid the appearance of retreating to an irrefutable position, subjoins a reason in explanation of this difficulty, as even 'nothing' might perhaps be explained in words. But as Celsus adduces this to prove that we ought not to yield a simple assent, but to furnish a reason for our belief, we shall quote also the words of Paul, where he says, in censuring the hasty believer, unless you have believed inconsiderately. Now, through his practice of repeating himself, Celsus, so far as he can, forces us to be guilty of tautology, reiterating, after the boastful language which has been quoted, that Plato is not guilty of boasting and falsehood, giving out that he has made some new discovery, or that he has come down from heaven to announce it, but acknowledges whence these statements are derived. Now, if one wished to reply to Celsus, one might say in answer to such assertions, that even Plato is guilty of boasting, when in the Timæus he puts the following language in the month of Zeus: Gods of gods, whose creator and father I am, and so on. And if any one will defend such language on account of the meaning which is conveyed under the name of Zeus, thus speaking in the dialogue of Plato, why should not he who investigates the meaning of the words of the Son of God, or those of the Creator in the prophets, express a profounder meaning than any conveyed by the words of Zeus in the Timæus? For the characteristic of divinity is the announcement of future events, predicted not by human power, but shown by the result to be due to a divine spirit in him who made the announcement. Accordingly, we do not say to each of our hearers, Believe, first of all, that He whom I introduce to you is the Son of God; but we put the Gospel before each one, as his character and disposition may fit him to receive it, inasmuch as we have learned to know how we ought to answer every man. And there are some who are capable of receiving nothing more than an exhortation to believe, and to these we address that alone; while we approach others, again, as far as possible, in the way of demonstration, by means of question and answer. Nor do we at all say, as Celsus scoffingly alleges, Believe that he whom I introduce to you is the Son of God, although he was shamefully bound, and disgracefully punished, and very recently was most contumeliously treated before the eyes of all men; neither do we add, Believe it even the more (on that account). For it is our endeavour to state, on each individual point, arguments more numerous even than we have brought forward in the preceding pages.
Really this is conclusive evidence about Jesus's appearance outside of Isaiah 53? This book sounds like it'll be dreadful. And here is the second citation - coming as it does from a section of Celsus's book where he is citing a Jew:

Ἐγκαλοῦμεν δ' ὅτι καὶ τὸ φιλάνθρωπον αὐτοῦ, μὴ ὑπερορῶντος οὐ μόνον πόλιν ἀλλ' οὐδὲ κώμην τινὰ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, ἵνα πανταχοῦ ἀπαγγείλῃ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, διαβάλλοντες πλάνην κατηγοροῦσιν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀλωμένου καὶ ἀλύοντος ἐν ἀγεννεῖ σώματι

and we blame them because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in Judea, that He might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of leading the wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious existence in a disgraceful body.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Secret Alias »

Oh my God this book is horrible! Look at this ridiculous assault on the sources:
Did Celsus know how the Carpocratians depicted Jesus? This is very likely, because he did know Carpocratians: he knew of 'Marcellians who follow Marcellina' (Origen, Contra Celsum 5:62)
So let me get this straight - because Celsus mentioned a number of Christian groups THAT MEANS HE PERSONALLY WITNESSED EACH GROUP. He couldn't have picked up a copy of Irenaeus as many other less stupid scholars have suggested. No, of course not. HE HAD TO HAVE MET CARPOCRATIANS even though fucking Origen himself says that he never met a Carpocratian. Yes because she's writing a book on 'the way Jesus looked' and the Carpocratians made statues of famous people and she found a report that the Emperor Alexander Severus had a statue of Jesus THEREFORE (TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE) CELSUS MUST HAVE MET CARPOCRATIANS!!!! My fucking Lord this book is stupid. Carrier looks like rocket science compared to this level of banality.

The chapter which concludes that Jesus must have been plain BECAUSE Isaiah 53 says he was ugly and not everyone says Jesus was ugly AND SO plain is more reasonable and less dependent on Isaiah 53 BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO ATTRIBUTE ALL ATTRIBUTIONS OF JESUS APPEARANCE TO 'FULFILLMENT OF SCRIPTURE' TYPE ARGUMENTS (otherwise we'd have to admit that we don't know what Jesus looked like). Indeed because it is good for her thesis that we can know Jesus's appearance, she settles on Jesus being 'plain' rather than 'ugly.' :banghead: :banghead: Good for her!
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Secret Alias »

Don't people like people who write books like this realize that they are reaching conclusions which justify the commissioning of the book? If you end up concluding we can't know something or enough information doesn't exist in order to justify a book on this topic ---- YOU CAN'T WRITE A BOOK ON JESUS'S APPEARANCE. Project in the toilet. That's why you can't write a book on 'Jesus's favorite recipes' or the like. Maybe that's next.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Secret Alias »

It's like she only considered topics in relation to whether or not they would advance the thesis of her book and so arranged evidence to arrive at a conclusion - any conclusion - to arrive at a 'reasonable sounding' conclusion.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Secret Alias »

We should add a new post to Joe's proofs that Jesus existed:

No one mentioned what Jesus looked like
Jesus had to have had physical features because he existed.
Therefore we can be certain that Jesus was 'plain' - that's why no one mentioned his appearance.

He was so plain everyone forget to mention his appearance! Sheesh
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:25 pm We should add a new post to Joe's proofs that Jesus existed:

No one mentioned what Jesus looked like
Jesus had to have had physical features because he existed.
Therefore we can be certain that Jesus was 'plain' - that's why no one mentioned his appearance.

He was so plain everyone forget to mention his appearance! Sheesh
Huh. I thought we all knew what Jesus looked like:

Letter of Lentulus Publius: Lentulus, president of Jerusalem, to the senate and the people of Rome: There appeared in our times, and still is, a man of great power named Christ Jesus, who is said by the people to be a prophet of truth, whom his disciples call the son of God, since he resuscitates the dead and heals those who are sick. He is indeed a man of tall stature, notable, having a venerable countenance, whom those who gaze upon him can both love and dread; hair truly wavy and curly, considerably bluish and shining, fluttering from the shoulders; having a part in the middle of the head according to the custom of the Nazarenes; a flat and most serene forehead, with a face without any wrinkle or spot, which a moderate redness embellishes; nothing of his nose or mouth is at all reprehensible; having an abundant and reddish beard, the color of his hair, not long but bifurcated; his eyes being varying and bright. In his reproaches he is terrible, in his admonition placid and amiable, cheerful, but his gravity preserved, who no one has ever seen to laugh, but often to weep. He is extended in the stature of his body, having hands and arms delectable to see; grave in his eloquence, rare and modest, splendid among the sons of men. Be well.

Either that or...:

Image
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by rakovsky »

Andreas of Jerusalem (c. 660–740) write the following:

“But Josephus the Jew also records in the same way that the Lord appeared with joined eyebrows, beautiful eyes, a long countenance, humped over, well grown.”[194]

This is repeated in similar terms by, among others, the scholion to John of Damascus (c. 676-749)[195] and in the Greek lexicon Suda from the tenth century.[196]

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011 ... rt-eisler/
I can't find this in Josephus.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rakovsky wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:17 pm
Andreas of Jerusalem (c. 660–740) write the following:

“But Josephus the Jew also records in the same way that the Lord appeared with joined eyebrows, beautiful eyes, a long countenance, humped over, well grown.”[194]

This is repeated in similar terms by, among others, the scholion to John of Damascus (c. 676-749)[195] and in the Greek lexicon Suda from the tenth century.[196]

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011 ... rt-eisler/
I can't find this in Josephus.
There is nothing like it in Josephus. That happened a lot with the medieval commentators.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by arnoldo »

FWIW, depiction of Peter and Paul.
paul,peter.jpg
paul,peter.jpg (81.63 KiB) Viewed 4332 times
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Why Is Mythicism 'Unserious' But Joan Taylor's What Did Jesus Look Like Serious?

Post by Jax »

^ Who drew the penis' on their faces?
Post Reply