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
MrMacSon
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier's Background Elements to Christianity

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:10 am

These points are interesting ...
Kapyong wrote:
Carrier, OHJ, Background Elements to Christianity

"Element 2.
When Christianity began, Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.

Element 3.
When Christianity began, many Jews were expecting a Messiah.

Element 4.
Palestine in early 1st C. CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=170#p14594

Element 5.
Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed.

Element 6.
The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 (which may have been seen as the same person) have numerous logical connections with a man in Zechariah 3 and 6 named 'Jesus Rising' who is confronted by Satan in God's abode in heaven and there crowned king, given all of God's authority, holds the office of high priest, and will build up 'God's house'.

Element 7.
The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, predicting the messiah's arrival in early 1st C., even 30 CE.

Element 8.
Many messianic sects were searching the scriptures and extra-canonical texts for secret messages about the messiah.

Posted previously by Kapyong; p21 of this thread
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:15 am

MrMacSon wrote:
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 ...
Thanks for the heads-up.
Apparently 31 of his surviving works are considered authentic, so I think I have weeks of reading ahead of me.
A fascinating word-weaver, was Tertullian, even in translation.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:18 am

pakeha wrote:Apparently 31 of his surviving works are considered authentic
Cool
A fascinating word-weaver, was Tertullian, even in translation.
It was Tertullian who popularized the notion of the 'Trinity': I think he got the proposal from somewhere else.

User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Carrier on Acts as Historical Fiction, part1

Post by pakeha » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:59 am

Kapyong wrote: [ . . . ] Peter's escape from prison is constructed from Priam's escape from Achilles.9[ . . . ]
The tiniest nit-pick in an admirable work, one which will be shortly on my bookshelf.
I think the incident is Paris' escape from Menelaus, but I could be wrong, not for the first time.
Once again, kudos and gratitude to Kapyong.

@MrMacSon- Tertullian is said to have been a barrister (or rather, the Roman equivalent) and like any good speaker, he finds 'inspiration' everywhere.

angelo
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:26 am

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

Post by angelo » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:09 am

MrMacSon wrote:
pakeha wrote:Apparently 31 of his surviving works are considered authentic
Cool
A fascinating word-weaver, was Tertullian, even in translation.
It was Tertullian who popularized the notion of the 'Trinity': I think he got the proposal from somewhere else.
It was? I'm sure he heard hearsay. Probably the idea was floating around when gospel John was written. :popcorn:

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:32 am

"Trinitas" is itself a Latinization of the Greek "he trias" (the Triad), a term that was used earlier than Tertullian by Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.15 to refer to God, God's Logos ('Jesus'?), and God's Sophia (Holy Spirit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian#cite_note-6

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 » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:33 am

Bernard Muller wrote: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.
Bernard, even if an author only says stuff like "X the daughter/son/uncle of Y", it doesn't mean that he couldn't also say stuff like "Diana is the prettiest among the sisters."

If "Twilight" everywhere talked about familial relationships by using the genitive/possessive (e.g. "Bella was Renée's daugher") except for a single passage that said "Bella was the smartest among the sisters", would you argue that that passage wasn't talking about familiar relations, but was actually denying that Bella was one of the sisters?

But here you go: 2Co 6:18
and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
Bernard Muller wrote:
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.
Wait. So you agree that in Rom 8:29 Jesus is one of the "brothers"? That's the whole point. So in Rom 8:29 we have the view that Christians were fictive brothers of Jesus, right?
Bernard Muller wrote: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.[/quote]Right. My point was that even when there isn't an article in "X is A among Y", the X is still a member of Y.
Last edited by hjalti on Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Carrier on Pliny and Tacitus

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:11 pm

Kapyong wrote:Richard Carrier writes
"Indeed, even if we blow past all probability and imagine that some­how Tacitus is paraphrasing or adapting a story from an earlier historian of Nero, Christians could already have been preaching the exoteric myth (some form of proto-Mark, for example) in 64, as an allegory (an extended parable) whose real meaning (it's esoteric meaning, that of a cosmic event) would be explained only to initiates (see Elements 13 and 14). Thus even a mention of Christ being crucified by Pilate at that date, if such a detail was only learned from Christians, would not strongly confirm historicity. And even if Christians hadn't yet gelled this exoteric myth by then, their claims that Jesus was celestially crucified by the 'rulers of this world' during the reign of Pilate could easily be misunderstood by a half-interested Roman audience as crucified by Pilate. Thus, even the 'cosmic crucifixion' of mini­mal mythicism could so easily be misreported in a historicist fashion that our inability to rule that possibility out further complicates third-hand evi­dence such as this.
I'm taking out of context one paragraph from what is in many ways an impressive analysis of Pliny and Tacitus. But this passage does seem bizarre.

It seems obvious that IF Tacitus provides evidence that Christians in Rome c 64 CE were saying things that were understood by casual listeners as claiming that their founder Christ had been executed in Palestine by Pontius Pilate, then this is rather good evidence for a historical Christ.

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier on Pliny and Tacitus

Post by maryhelena » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:41 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
Kapyong wrote:Richard Carrier writes
"Indeed, even if we blow past all probability and imagine that some­how Tacitus is paraphrasing or adapting a story from an earlier historian of Nero, Christians could already have been preaching the exoteric myth (some form of proto-Mark, for example) in 64, as an allegory (an extended parable) whose real meaning (it's esoteric meaning, that of a cosmic event) would be explained only to initiates (see Elements 13 and 14). Thus even a mention of Christ being crucified by Pilate at that date, if such a detail was only learned from Christians, would not strongly confirm historicity. And even if Christians hadn't yet gelled this exoteric myth by then, their claims that Jesus was celestially crucified by the 'rulers of this world' during the reign of Pilate could easily be misunderstood by a half-interested Roman audience as crucified by Pilate. Thus, even the 'cosmic crucifixion' of mini­mal mythicism could so easily be misreported in a historicist fashion that our inability to rule that possibility out further complicates third-hand evi­dence such as this.
I'm taking out of context one paragraph from what is in many ways an impressive analysis of Pliny and Tacitus. But this passage does seem bizarre.

It seems obvious that IF Tacitus provides evidence that Christians in Rome c 64 CE were saying things that were understood by casual listeners as claiming that their founder Christ had been executed in Palestine by Pontius Pilate, then this is rather good evidence for a historical Christ.

Andrew Criddle
Yep, it is a bit bizarre:

And even if Christians hadn't yet gelled this exoteric myth by then, their claims that Jesus was celestially crucified by the 'rulers of this world' during the reign of Pilate could easily be misunderstood by a half-interested Roman audience as crucified by Pilate.

Does Carrier not realize what he is writing here? How on earth could such a claim be understood except as a historical claim. How on earth could early christians claim that Jesus was celestially crucified...in the "reign of Pilate"..and not be misunderstood. How on earth does one get a date for a celestial crucifixion?

Daniel ch.9? Once one goes that route then its Catch-22 for the Carrier-Doherty mythicists. Prophetic interpretations, to have any value whatsoever, have to relate, however arbitrary, to historical events. Pointing heavenwards towards that invisible celestial crucifixion allows the Jesus historicists a free ride.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Carrier on Pliny and Tacitus

Post by ghost » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:19 pm

maryhelena wrote:How on earth does one get a date for a celestial crucifixion?
Like this:

http://www.dailydawdle.com/2011/10/10-e ... s-and.html

Post Reply