The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8518
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:50 am Quite apart from the evidence for Philostratus's sources being fabricated, imagine how different the discussion over the historicity of Jesus would be if we had even a late source claiming to be relying upon identifiable written reports of eyewitnesses throughout his biography!
Not so very different. Unlike with Apollonius of Tyana, we have the alleged "written reports of eyewitnesses" in the form of the Gospels of Matthew and John. I don't suppose the haze of uncertainty over the exact form of Philostratus's sources should be a boon for the man of Tyana, relatively, over the man of Nazareth.
neilgodfrey wrote:If our earliest evidence for Jesus were in fact as straightforward and relatively consistent as we have for Hillel I can imagine the debate would be of a different nature than it is today.
The "earliest evidence" for Hillel could also be more consistent because it simply doesn't exist anymore. In the chronological place where in the case of Jesus we usually put things like Paul's letters, for Hillel we have a gaping chasm of nothing.
neilgodfrey wrote:Do you mean that "we" accept these persons as having a certain historical existence?
No. I didn't mean for my comment to force a conclusion. If anything, I mean that historians who touch upon these subjects do not generally show any great angst regarding their status as historical persons, despite the epistemological gap to having true certainty.
neilgodfrey wrote:Do we do "histories" of any of those as founders of religious cults?
For Apollonius and Hillel, in some sense (ignoring a lot of possible nit-picking and, particularly, discounting any interpretation of your phrase "founders of religious cults" that would be inconsistent with Apollonius or Hillel) my eight ball is saying that the answer is "yes".

There's relatively little information on Apsethus the Libyan. You could substitute Pythagoras there if you want.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Charles Wilson »

outhouse wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:44 amIf a Galilean was crucified at Passover and people martyred his perceived sacrifice and made him a god, as Hellenist divorced cultural Judaism, what religious evidence would they leave?

Exactly what we possess is the exact progression we see it in. 100% exact fit like a glove.
Outhouse --

Ya' noe Ah lue'ya bebbe-

But the entire question is wrapped up in the word "who". First person singular or...?

John 11: 49 - 53 (RSV):

[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,
[52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
[53] So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.

The entire Program is here - RIGHT HERE!

It is Political and Historical.

Luke 16: 16 (RSV):

[16] "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently."

What does this mean? That Jesus has "Done Away" with the Law? NO! Has the Kingdom of God been breached and to this day people are entering the Kingdom of God VIOLENTLY? That would only be true if the Kingdom of God had been a real, physical Place! You are being told what is to happen - The (Hasmonean) Ordering of the Temple Service will be eliminated, as will the Settlements in Galilee reserved for the Priests. They will be replaced as will the Religion it represented.

'N that changes the Story entirely. In fact, it did, from the Story of a GROUP of Galileans (Priests of the Mishmarot Group Immer) to a created character who had the Powers to teach in the Temple unmolested daily and wander the countryside spounting aphorisms.

Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):

[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...

How do you stand as though you had been slain? If you are a member of a Group which survives being Slaughtered. Your Group name survives as a Word-Play: The 15th Service Group (Immer) is the identical word to the "Lamb" that is Sacrificed on Passover ("Immar"). The Objectified Group becomes a name of a savior/god and that name is then given in Greek where the pun is lost.

Outhouse, as usual you are so correct. Remember only that Existence is not a Predicate! I may speak of spaceships and unicorns but that does not mean that they exist. There WAS a person who fits all of the criteria for the NT and that person was Peter. He, however could not have been a savior/god.

"...you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."

Numbers 19: 11 - 20 (RSV):

[11] "He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days;

[12] he shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean.
[13] Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.
[14] "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
[15] And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.
[16] Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
[17] For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel;
[18] then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave;
[19] and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.
[20] "But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; because the water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.

John 12: 1 - 2 (RSV):

[1] Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Laz'arus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
[2] There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Laz'arus was one of those at table with him.

It ain't Peter. It ain't this guy either. There may have been someone who lived in Galilee and the rest of the Story fits 100% as you say. It just wasn't anyone that we are looking at today.

All the best to you my friend,

CW
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Neil,
None of the above quotations are evidence for either Paul or Mark being in any way the least embarrassed by the crucifixion. If they were embarrassed by those quotes they would have suppressed them -- as biblical scholars continue to argue about the way subsequent evangelists suppressed details about the story of John the Baptist until finally John removes the baptism altogether. Mark demonstrates no embarrassment -- the later evangelists are embarrassed by Mark's lack of embarrassment.

Hebrews speaks of despising the shame. That's not embarrassment. That's glorying in the death of a classical hero, the one who is unjustly rejected and punished, like Socrates, or Plato's wise man who sees what's outside the cave.

Who reads the crucifixion scene in Mark and feels inclined to hide what they have just read, or deny it, or put it out of mind, because they are so darn embarrassed that they just read about Jesus being crucified. Nobody. The tale is a glorification of the "shame" -- that is the way of salvation, after all.
I think you are twisting the evidence. The Crucifixion being an apparent (at first look) embarrassment and shameful event not only appears first in Paul's epistles & Hebrews & gMark, but also much later in Octavius of Minucius Felix (Ch XXIX).
The fact that Paul & 'Hebrews" & gMark glorified that Crucifixion and brought to it a magnificent salvatic meaning does not cancel what underlays below all these goody speculations.
You don't side with them but beginning with Mahlon Smith they compliment your work and your work is a more detailed repeat of theirs.
Malhon Smith offered me support when my website was very embryonic. Actually the email I received from him was mostly to have me to become an associate of the Jesus Seminar. From that, I concluded the compliments I got from him were probably in part to butter me up.
Since that time, after further research, I debated him on the XTalk forum and was expelled by him & other scholars.
The Jesus Seminar conclusions and my reconstruction are very different because they saw Jesus as mostly as a teacher and not as an apocalyptic preacher. I found out the opposite, plus other significant things not among the JS conclusions.
They are very few elements I would agree with the Jesus Seminar or Bart Ehrman. And I think they are wrong on very important points.
I'm not talking about atheism; I'm talking about the way historical inquiry is done among historians and classicists --
I don't see, because of the nature of the evidence, any valid study on the very origin of Christianity as a historical inquiry, but rather as investigative work similar as the one of detectives on a cold case about a crime done in a far past.
On the subject of early Christianity, using a historical inquiry approach is naive & doomed to utter failure.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by hakeem »

There is no historical and archaeological evidence to support the argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pilate. In addition, all the existing stories of Jesus are all non-contemporary fiction which make the argument for an HJ extremely weak.

Christianity is based on belief in a non-historical character called Jesus---the resurrected son of God and a Virgin.

Examine the Nicene Creed.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:20 am
It is Political and Historical.
100% agreed.


The whole political landscape changed, these were not the oppressed Galilean Aramaic jews that started trouble in the temple, that factually ended up causing the destruction often eluded to.

The authors were Koine speaking Roman citizens who did not want to be identified as rebellious Jews. So you do see the hiding of this fact in text covered up with spiritual rhetoric.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:20 amIt ain't Peter. It ain't this guy either. There may have been someone who lived in Galilee and the rest of the Story fits 100% as you say. It just wasn't anyone that we are looking at today.


CW

I believe John the Baptist was historical. I believe his murder was political to some extent, even if just an order to stop the guy who gathers large crowds by the river.

I also believe he was popular enough that someone picked up the reigns and ran with it to keep Johns message alive, this also hidden in text.

No reason Isho could not have been the one, also meeting the same fate as John with a different punishment due to Romans instead of Herods style.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by hakeem »

The belief that John the Baptist existed is of no use to determine whether or not there was an actual person called Jesus of Nazareth. In addition, Christian writings declare Jesus of Nazareth was the resurrected son of God.

People in the time of Pilate [even today] believed that mythological figures like Jesus were real.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by hakeem »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:06 am .... Unlike with Apollonius of Tyana, we have the alleged "written reports of eyewitnesses" in the form of the Gospels of Matthew and John. I don't suppose the haze of uncertainty over the exact form of Philostratus's sources should be a boon for the man of Tyana, relatively, over the man of Nazareth.
The authors of gMatthew and gJohn do not claim that their stories are written reports of eyewitnesses. Such a claim is found in gLuke. Anyone reading gMatthew, gJohn and gLuke would easily see that those stories were implausible non-historical accounts.

In gMatthew,the resurrected Jesus is born of a virgin without a human father.
In gJohn, Jesus is the resurrected Logos, God Creator.
In gLuke, the resurrected Jesus is also born of a Virgin.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Charles Wilson »

outhouse wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:24 pm I believe John the Baptist was historical. I believe his murder was political to some extent...
I'm posting from a smart phone/dumb fingers device so i might have to.reformat this tmmrw
1. Of all the characters in this collection John may be the best candidate for historicity.
2. JC is a Construct. See: 50 pages posts on this.
3. Peter is a CHARACTER who is realistic down to his hometown of Jabnit/Meiron but his Story is LITERARY!
4. The writers knew and left clues that the Romans did not see (zakkai, perhaps).

5. The Story HAD Characters and even if the Story was fictional the supporting characters may have been REAL.

6. John is such a Character and his "Realness" may have come from the actions of a member of the Mishmarot Group Bilgah.

7. Assume Zakkai or his followers are doing a Contract. They know that Bilgah is deprecated in the eyes of the Priesthood. This datum is more Arcana to those outside the Priesthood but makes a terrific Passage explaining the newly created Jesus character. It leaves a clue.

8. "This One comes after me (Immer follows Bilgah) but is ahead of me (Bilgah) in stature".

9. Tremendous Word-Play.

10. Therefore, John existed.

11. Now tell if there was only one John or 2...

Thank you outhouse.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8518
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Peter Kirby »

hakeem wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:02 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:06 am .... Unlike with Apollonius of Tyana, we have the alleged "written reports of eyewitnesses" in the form of the Gospels of Matthew and John. I don't suppose the haze of uncertainty over the exact form of Philostratus's sources should be a boon for the man of Tyana, relatively, over the man of Nazareth.
The authors of gMatthew and gJohn do not claim that their stories are written reports of eyewitnesses. Such a claim is found in gLuke. Anyone reading gMatthew, gJohn and gLuke would easily see that those stories were implausible non-historical accounts.

In gMatthew,the resurrected Jesus is born of a virgin without a human father.
In gJohn, Jesus is the resurrected Logos, God Creator.
In gLuke, the resurrected Jesus is also born of a Virgin.
You're not keeping track of what the conversation was about. Your response is not relevant. This interjection is not on point.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply