Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by pakeha » Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:28 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
pakeha wrote:Curiously enough, I leaned recently that Theophilus of Antioch, one of our earlier Christian writers, claimed the word Christian had an entirely different meaning:
And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first anointed? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God. — Theophilus, To Autolycus, third book.
Also, Tertullian in "Ad nationes":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html
  • The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness.
Is this a sign my Sunday reading should include Tertullian?
I think so.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:43 am

pakeha wrote:Is this a sign my Sunday reading should include Tertullian?
I think so.
Might pay to try to determine to what extent writings attributed to Tertullian are considered authentic ...

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:46 am

Also, Tertullian in "Ad nationes":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html
There's not one mention of Jesus in that passage.

User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Tenorikuma » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:37 am

It was pointed out in another thread once that "Christos" does not mean "anointed" in Greek. It means "ointment".

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:14 am

to Neil,
The Gospel of John starts with "In beginning" -- there is no article "the". Does that mean the author leaves it open for any beginning to be considered the meaning? I think the context tells us he means what we would express as "in the beginning". Context, context, context.
But both "brothers of the Lord" (1 Cor) and "brother of the Lord" (Gal) have "the" in front. Context, context, context.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
hjalti
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:28 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by hjalti » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:21 am

Bernard Muller wrote:But that's what he did in case of familial relationship. But you are right in case of non-familial relationship.
But just because he often said stuff like "brother of X" and "my brother" it doesn't mean that he should always use constructions like that (with the genitive) when speaking of familial relationships. There's no reason to think that.

I mean, if Paul were to say "Diana is the prettiest among the sisters", he would use the dative, right?
There is no "the" in Ro 8:29 (many brothers).
So, to make your example similar, we have now "Diana is the prettiest among sisters". That's awkward and even bad syntax. "Diana is the prettiest among her sisters" or "Diana is the prettiest of sisters" (here with "sisters" in the genitive case) would be much better.
Sure, you need something in there in the english. But why does it matter that the article is there or not? The point is that when you have this "X is the A among Y" then X is a member of group Y. And in Rom 8:29 it means that Jesus is one of the brothers (the first-born among them).

And if you look at the examples given in the blog-post I linked to you'll find similar examples without the article:
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. (Mt 11:11)

blessed art thou among women (Lk 1:28)

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:05 am

to hjalti,
But just because he often said stuff like "brother of X" and "my brother" it doesn't mean that he should always use constructions like that (with the genitive) when speaking of familial relationships. There's no reason to think that.
But Paul used that construction all the times when talking about familial relationship. Prove me wrong. Show me one or more exceptions. If you do, I'll analyse them graciously.
Sure, you need something in there in the english. But why does it matter that the article is there or not? The point is that when you have this "X is the A among Y" then X is a member of group Y.
I agree the missing "the" is not too important. I wanted to be accurate.
And in Rom 8:29 it means that Jesus is one of the brothers (the first-born among them).
Yes, with "brothers" meaning "Christians".
Carrier contends that all "brother(s) in the Pauline epistles mean "Christian(s)". In element 12, he does not use Ro 8:29 specifically to make a point.
And if you look at the examples given in the blog-post I linked to you'll find similar examples without the article:
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. (Mt 11:11)
blessed art thou among women (Lk 1:28)
No familial relationship here.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3578
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by neilgodfrey » Sun Jul 06, 2014 1:45 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,
The Gospel of John starts with "In beginning" -- there is no article "the". Does that mean the author leaves it open for any beginning to be considered the meaning? I think the context tells us he means what we would express as "in the beginning". Context, context, context.
But both "brothers of the Lord" (1 Cor) and "brother of the Lord" (Gal) have "the" in front. Context, context, context.

Cordially, Bernard
Er, the context is Romans 8 . . . .
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:02 pm

to Neil,
Er, the context is Romans 8 . . . .
But you quoted gJohn for your context. 1 Cor and Gal were written by Paul. That's a closer context than gJohn regarding 'Romans'.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3578
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by neilgodfrey » Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:07 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,
Er, the context is Romans 8 . . . .
But you quoted gJohn for your context. 1 Cor and Gal were written by Paul. That's a closer context than gJohn regarding 'Romans'.
Cordially, Bernard
No I did not quote John for the context of Romans at all. Again you appear to be reading with hostile intent rather than trying to grasp the flow of an argument. I quoted a well known passage from a gospel to alert you to something fundamental about the use of the definite article in the Greek text. I expected you to be reminded of a standard bit of Greek usage. But you are so intent on arguing quibbles you missed the point.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Post Reply