Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[Kapyong]

So JC was a minister of the circumcision - not very clear here - it does not necessarily mean he was a literal minister. Carrier says all it means is that Jesus had to be given a Jewish body (in the heavens) and appear first to Jews.

Quite a bit far-fetched: Jesus being given a Jewish body (that is instant, Docetist, without going through birth and childhood) to go in the lower heavens so he could be crucified by demons.
And how he would appears to Jews? Levitating a few feet above earth and preaching?

Which is exactly how the Ascension of Isaiah has it - Jesus is given a body ('garments') appropriate to each level - in the lower heavens of the Air Beneath the Moon he is given the body that is in the 'likeness of men' - the Jewish body of the circumcision.

As to how he would appear - he would SEEM normal - doesn't Docetic mean 'seems' ?


Kapyong

[neilgodfrey]

One aspect to the historicity question I have raised a few times but not yet seen answered is why a human character must be presumed historical. I suspect most fictional or mythical persons ever constructed have been earthly mortals. Sherlock Holmes was a man. So were Ned Ludd and William Tell. We can all name animals and monsters that have roamed regions populated by real people in the stories about them.

For a person to have historicity they need to be placed in a historical context and be confirmed to exist by some form of independent control. In the case of Jesus I think that comes down to the way we assess and interpret the passage "brother of the Lord".

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

And that makes a lot of sense!!! And we have no evidence a passage from 2 Samuel 7 was interpreted as such by anyone. Even Carrier admits it requires peshering and imagination to arrive at that conclusion:
Cordially, Bernard

Well, the passage in question :

When your days are done, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your sperm after you, which shall come from your belly, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build for me a house in my name, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son (2 Samuel 7.12-I4a).

Talks about raising up David's sperm after he has gone to make a new King who is his son - this sounds exactly like what Carrier says - that later on, at the appropriate juncture God would raise up a new King , a new son-of-God, from the sperm of David. This is not conjecture, it's right there in the text.

This could all happen in heaven, because God moved in heaven, and god-men came from heaven - so this sperm-bank could easily exist in heaven ready to impregnate the woman above and have a new son-of-god.

Kapyong

[neilgodfrey]

So JC was a minister of the circumcision - not very clear here - it does not necessarily mean he was a literal minister. Carrier says all it means is that Jesus had to be given a Jewish body (in the heavens) and appear first to Jews.

Quite a bit far-fetched: Jesus being given a Jewish body (that is instant, Docetist, without going through birth and childhood) to go in the lower heavens so he could be crucified by demons.

Jubilees 15:24-27 informs us that Second Temple Jews did indeed believe that God created spirit bodies in a circumcised state. Indeed, the same book explains that the reason Jews are circumcised is to emulate in their bodies the angels of the presence.

[maryhelena]

One aspect to the historicity question I have raised a few times but not yet seen answered is why a human character must be presumed historical.

It's just that the gospel story is bound up with theology and faith that many christians make this equation.

I suspect most fictional or mythical persons ever constructed have been earthly mortals. Sherlock Holmes was a man. So were Ned Ludd and William Tell. We can all name animals and monsters that have roamed regions populated by real people in the stories about them.

For a person to have historicity they need to be placed in a historical context and be confirmed to exist by some form of independent control. In the case of Jesus I think that comes down to the way we assess and interpret the passage "brother of the Lord".

Sure, on that basis the gospel figure of Jesus can't be proven to be a historical figure - could still have been a real flesh and blood figure though.

Surely not - the historicity question coming down to an interpretation of 'brother of the Lord'.

The gospel figure of Jesus is a literary construct. One does not need anything from Paul to come to that conclusion. The question is - what is the purpose of this literary construct. An answer that involves an interpretation of Paul is not the only possible answer. There can also be a political - i.e. an historical, as opposed to a theological, answer to this question.

[neilgodfrey]

The gospel figure of Jesus is a literary construct. One does not need anything from Paul to come to that conclusion. The question is - what is the purpose of this literary construct. An answer that involves an interpretation of Paul is not the only possible answer. There can also be a political - i.e. an historical, as opposed to a theological, answer to this question.

Every figure found in literature is by definition a literary figure, a construct of the literary process. The question is which of these constructs represents a real human in history.

Adam and Herod are both literary constructs in the Bible. Both are men. Only one is also historical.

[Kapyong]

Gday neilgodfrey,

In the case of Jesus I think that comes down to the way we assess and interpret the passage "brother of the Lord".

Indeed - that seems to be the most obvious sticking point, most other alleged evidences for Jesus are very weak.

For me - the so many times that Paul uses 'brother' in a non-literal sense clinches it - that 'brother of the Lord' is a title.

I can't see this one single example bearing the weight of historicity that some place on it.


Kapyong

[maryhelena]

The gospel figure of Jesus is a literary construct. One does not need anything from Paul to come to that conclusion. The question is - what is the purpose of this literary construct. An answer that involves an interpretation of Paul is not the only possible answer. There can also be a political - i.e. an historical, as opposed to a theological, answer to this question.

Every figure found in literature is by definition a literary figure, a construct of the literary process. The question is which of these constructs represents a real human in history.

Adam and Herod are both literary constructs in the Bible. Both are men. Only one is also historical.

Some literary constructs are composite constructs. The gospel Jesus construct has been interpreted in various ways - from a zealot to a turn the other cheek figure. Indicating a composite construct. James Bond, for instance. Thus, there would not be a direct equation that the gospel Jesus literary construct = such and such a historical figure. At the same time upholding Jewish sensibilities about turning men into gods. The gospel Jesus composite construct is a symbol; a symbol designed to reflect elements of Hasmonean/Jewish history.


[wiki]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond ... nspiration[/wiki]

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Carrier is very imaginative and convoluted on that one [Jesus being 'Made of Woman']:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p77.htm
A seed of David is not enough, a real woman is needed to make that Messiah. I suppose there are some in heaven!!!

I don't think it's far fetched at all, Paul states specifically that the women are allegories - what more do you want ?

Which things are said allegorically. for these [women] are the two testaments, the first being the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to slavery. That's Hagar—Hagar meaning Mount Sinai in Arabia, which corresponds to Jerusalem now. for she is enslaved with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother ... [as scripture says].
So now. [my] brothers, we are the children of the promise, like Isaac [the son of the free woman, i.e.. Sarah]. But as in those days the one born according to the flesh [i.e. Ishmael] persecuted the one according to the spirit [i.e. Isaac], so it is now. But what does the scripture say? Cast out the slave girl and her son, for the son of the slave girl will not be heir with the son of the free woman [= Genesis 21.10]. Accordingly, [my] brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free one. For freedom did Christ set us free [so don't go back to being a slave to the elements.]

There are two woman in the passage - the free woman and the slave woman - with both said to be allegories. There is no real woman in this passage - no Mary is in view, it's all an allegory. We are all born of the 'free woman'.


Kapyong

[bcedaifu]

For me - the so many times that Paul uses 'brother' in a non-literal sense clinches it - that 'brother of the Lord' is a title.

Bernard's list of references proclaiming the "historical" character of Jesus of Nazareth, comes down to a group of quotes from 'Paul's' epistles.

We know nothing about these texts. We don't know their authors, their origins, dates of publication, financial support underlying their appearance, method of distribution, or rationale for publication in the first place, let alone their history of redaction.

What we do "know", or think we "know", is that 'Paul' denies having ever known Jesus, apart from an hallucination--evidence of mental derangement.

I have never met Bernard Madoff. Would you then rely on my letters to someone regarding my opinions regarding facts about him?

Members of the Madoff family have served as leaders of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the primary securities industry organization. Bernard Madoff served on the Board of Directors of the Securities Industry Association, a precursor of SIFMA, and was Chairman of its Trading Committee. He was also a founding board member of the DTCC subsidiary in London, the International Securities Clearing Corporation.

Would you rely on Bernard Madoff's letters to other Board Members serving on the Board of Directors of SIFMA? Would you quote them, as authoritative? Is it not first, incumbent on us to verify the legitimacy of our sources, before commencing with a laborious and detailed assessment of this or that nuance, regarding a word, some word which an author may have expressed or which may have been inserted by a redactor? What is the provenance of 'Paul's' letters? Does anyone on planet earth know, with certainty, that 'Paul' even existed as a human being? I smell a ponzi scheme.