Who existed ? When ? Where ?

[Secret Alias]

Thanks, glad you agree

And the idea that the reason we post here is to get people to 'agree' with us is a wretched motivation to post here. We should participate in this forum to float ideas or ask questions and be as rigorous as possible with the outcomes for the sake of the truth or truthfulness. Nothing more, nothing less.

[perseusomega9]

George Polya's book abstracts most of what's useful in Bayes outside of statistics using very few numbers and relatively tight English words .

The book is readable, short, has only one known technical lapse (on a peripheral point), and the progress of knowledge since Polya died has been kind to it (mainly that he didn't distinguish between the truth of a hypothesis and its "usefulness," but then a lot of people still don't).

And now it's free online:

https://archive.org/details/Patterns_Of ... nference_2_

Thanks for the book recommendation.

[Bernard Muller]

The fact that the Marcionites did not know him

John the Baptist was in Marcion's gospel.

literary figures - hence are not historical figures.

Literary figures can also be historical figures.

he stumbled across a historical Jesus with no idea of his lineage or origin

Paul indicated Jesus' ancestors were Israelites.
Paul also wrote Jesus was a descendant of Abraham, Jesse & David. That's some HUMAN lineage, even if the specifics of that lineage were dictated by theology & faith, rather than facts.

The reason Jesus is not given a background is because the original author (Paul?) did not believe he had a birth mother.

In Galatians, Paul wrote Jesus became/was_born from a woman. And since Paul implied Jesus had a human father, a human woman was certainly needed in order for Jesus to be incarnated.

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

Where is there evidence the Marcionite knew of Jesus's baptism by John?

[Secret Alias]

Paul indicated Jesus' ancestors were Israelites.
In Galatians, Paul wrote Jesus became/was_born from a woman. [and the rest of this nonsense]

The existence of a thing called Marcion or Marcionites challenges the sweeping claims that Paul said anything with any degree of certainty. Yes the orthodox recension of Paul says a number of plausible and implausible things - which are which are matter of interpretation.

[Secret Alias]

To argue that the 'New Testament' or 'the gospel(s)' or 'the Pauline writings' can be used as evidence to prove or deny Jesus's existence necessarily requires us to believe that the copies of these documents which have come down to us have survived in a form that resembles the earliest (and lost) MSS - something that no reasonable person can agree with given the instability of parallel documents from the second century viz. the Ignatian correspondences which survive in various recensions and lengths. We are always a discovery away from uncovering new information about the gospels and the Pauline writings and related Patristic literature. I don't believe it is reasonable to have any firm conclusions about the historicity of Jesus based on the uncertainty of the core documents from early Christianity.

[MrMacSon]

I would actually argue that Jesus has a greater chance of being historical than John the Baptist. At least the Jewish sources know who Jesus is.

What Jewish sources are you referring to? The Talmud?


This is pertinent -

It is very odd that someone who apparently baptized 'all of Judea' is complete unknown to Jews. Also it is unclear what value 'baptism' has or could have had in Judaism. As I said John the Baptist has never made sense to me. The fact that the Marcionites did not know him either seems to add to my suspicion that 'John' was the very well known figure of John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted (and likely baptized) the neighbors of Judea to some sort of Jewish proselyte status including Samaritans. The original gospel perhaps made reference to 'John's baptism' in a self-evident manner which later Gentiles couldn't explain hence the invention of a 'John the baptist.'

If the original form of the gospel was known to the Marcionites and that gospel did not make reference to a historical 'John the baptist' - likely just to a 'John baptism' or 'baptism of John' - then the case for a historical John the Baptist is weakened immensely. Josephus is hardly a reliable witness given the likelihood, as Cohen and others have noted, that the core of Jewish War developed out of an 'outline' -perhaps written in Aramaic- which roughly corresponds to the material held in common with Vita.

In other words both the gospel and Josephus existed in ur-formats that had no reference to John the Baptist - an allusion which was added later as other Christianized elements were added.

---

Moreover Antiquities as a project does not seem to fit within the interests of the historical Josephus. Why an Aramaic speaking Pharasaic Jewish rebel commander would have wanted to set out to imitate a thoroughly Hellenized 'art project' viz. a conscious imitation of Dionysius's Roman Antiquities is a laughable claim. Clearly the synergoi had this as their (or perhaps 'his' i.e. the editor's) art project. Josephus was a puppet of a later Hellenized Jew of the second century which a purpose to reshape the history of Judaism along the lines acceptable to greater Roman society likely around 147 CE.

When you say "Josephus was a puppet of a later Hellenized Jew of the second century" are you saying his texts were embellished or re-worked by Hellenized Jew of the second century ??

and, I presume you mean "a thoroughly Hellenized 'art project' " is a "laughable claim" (??) -viz. (parentheses added to emphasise) -

Why an Aramaic speaking Pharasaic Jewish rebel commander would have wanted to set out to imitate a thoroughly Hellenized 'art project' (viz. a conscious imitation of Dionysius's Roman Antiquities) is a laughable claim.

[MrMacSon]

'Paul'. 98%
Someone wrote several letters in mid 1st century which have come down to us as seven letters by 'Paul' - from primary evidence¹, although corrupt. Various cities around the North Eastern Mediterranean.

¹ I think better terminology is to say something like " 'first source' information", if it is not contemporaneous, primary source information.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Which Paul?

The Paul of Acts of the Apostles or the Paul of the Acts of Paul and Thecla? The Paul of Galatians? The Paul of 2 Thessalonians? The Paul of 2 Timothy? The Paul of Ephesians? The Paul of Valentinus? The Paul of Marcion? The Paul of Tertullian? The Paul of Robert M. Price? The Paul of Herman Detering? The Paul of Roger Parvus? The Paul of Stanley Porter? The Paul of Hyam Maccoby? The Paul of Alan Segal? . . . .

Whoops.
I really missed the point there

Paul is rather less certain than I had appreciated. I'll check up on Price etc. today.


Kapyong

[DCHindley]

George Polya's book abstracts most of what's useful in Bayes outside of statistics using very few numbers and relatively tight English words .

The book is readable, short, has only one known technical lapse (on a peripheral point), and the progress of knowledge since Polya died has been kind to it (mainly that he didn't distinguish between the truth of a hypothesis and its "usefulness," but then a lot of people still don't).

And now it's free online:

https://archive.org/details/Patterns_Of ... nference_2_

Thanks for the book recommendation.

Has anyone noticed that it does not seem to be a good url?