Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

[Giuseppe]

At any case, if the mythicist Couchoud has given his evidence to consider Jesus as ancestral, which are the reason given by the historicists to consider Jesus as recently and earthly lived? I mean, do we have an extra-gospel passage where it is said explicitly that Jesus is crucified recently on the earth? No

Imo, Jesus is described, in the epistles, as having been on earth and as having been crucified on earth.

As to when, recently just makes the more sense, imo. Otherwise he'd have arrived and then died 'for our sins', at the right time (Romans 5 v6) and heralded a new covenant and so on and there'd be an odd gap to explain.

Plus, there's the reference to his rising 3 days after being killed and being seen by people described as alive at the time of writing.

I don't deny that the Risen Christ is a recent affair. What I point out is the absolute absence, in the epistles, of a description of Jesus as of one "having been on earth and as having been crucified on earth". Rev 13:8 says that Jesus was killed *in heaven*, given that only the heaven can exist before the creation of the world (really, what Rev is implying is that the primordial death of Jesus *allowed* the creation of the world). Can you give me some passage similar to Rev 13:4 (as to relative clarity of the construct) but historicist? I doubt you can.

[archibald]

Can you give me some passage similar to Rev 13:4 (as to relative clarity of the construct) but historicist? I doubt you can.

Well if I'm allowed to give you something from the NT then I give you the gospels.

Other than that I'd have given you Josephus and Tacitus.

To add to what I said about implied and parsimonious in the epistles.

[Giuseppe]

Can you give me some passage similar to Rev 13:4 (as to relative clarity of the construct) but historicist? I doubt you can.

Well if I'm allowed to give you something from the NT then I give you the gospels.

Other than that I'd have given you Josephus and Tacitus.

To add to what I said about implied and parsimonious in the epistles.

well, if this is the approach, I can't hope that I may change your opinion in a more skeptical direction

[archibald]

Can you give me some passage similar to Rev 13:4 (as to relative clarity of the construct) but historicist? I doubt you can.

Well if I'm allowed to give you something from the NT then I give you the gospels.

Other than that I'd have given you Josephus and Tacitus.

To add to what I said about implied and parsimonious in the epistles.

well, if this is the approach, I can't hope that I may change your opinion in a more skeptical direction

Well, you did cite a fruitcake. So I cited the gospels.

Also my citing them was partly to do with parsimony. The not requiring a 180-degree turnaround (from non-earthly to earthly) or from the past to the recent.

Regarding scepticism, I am a sceptic, in all walks of life. But it comes with constraints. One has to try to apply it evenly and reasonably. You can have too much and you can have too little.

Can I just ask you one possibly dumb question? What would be so 'wrong' if there had been a 1st C Judean preacher who was the founder?

[MrMacSon]

Other than that I'd have given you Josephus and Tacitus.

Recent publications further and specifically question the veracity of Josephus.

As far as The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 18, chapter 3, 3 -

1. G.J. Goldberg. 1995. “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke.”

• Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13: 59–77.

2. Louis Feldman. 2012. “On the Authenticity of the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ Attributed to Josephus,”

• in New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations, eds. E Carlebach & J Schacter (Brill), pp. 13–30.

• “In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.” (p. 28)

3.a. Ken Olson. 2013. “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum”,

• in Eusebius of Caesarea:Tradition and Innovations, eds. A Johnson & J Schott (Harvard University Press), pp. 97–114.

3.b. Ken Olson. 2013. “The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus.” The Jesus Blog (August 13):

• http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot ... s-and.html

4. Paul Hopper (2014) “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers, (de Gruyter), pp. 147-169.

• Hopper notes that
  • " ..the uses of the Greek verb forms such as aorists and participles are distinct in the Jesus passage from those in the other Pilate episodes, and that these differences amount to a difference in genre."
  so
  • "It is suggested that the Jesus passage is close in style and content to the creeds that were composed two to three centuries after Josephus."

---

As far as Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 / 200 -

A. Tessa Rajak made a brief argument against its authenticity in a footnote in her 1983 Josephus: The Historian and his Society.

B. Carrier (2012) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.”

• Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4: 489–514

C. Allen, NPL (2017) 'Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1' Journal of Early Christian History, 7; 1-27.

• part Abstract: "...by highlighting a number of Origen’s key philosophical and theological refutations it becomes evident that, apart from the unlikelihood of Josephus ever writing about James, Origen must now be considered the primary suspect for what is possibly a third century CE Christian forgery."

---

Tacitus' Annals is also problematic.

---

[archibald]

I know all that and take it into account.

By the way, I don't rule anything out, not even outer space Jesus. I lean towards historicist, that's all.

[Giuseppe]

Can I just ask you one possibly dumb question? What would be so 'wrong' if there had been a 1st C Judean preacher who was the founder?

That the Silence of Paul and Hebrews about this person would be for me unbearable to bear, sincerely. Even sickening and disturbing, frankly. No problem if someone would like to see dressed the Naked Emperor, but I would like see here at least (!) a Naked Emperor

[archibald]

Can I just ask you one possibly dumb question? What would be so 'wrong' if there had been a 1st C Judean preacher who was the founder?

That the Silence of Paul and Hebrews about this person would be for me unbearable to bear, sincerely. Even sickening and disturbing, franky. No problem if someone would like to see dressed the Naked Emperor, but I would like see here at least (!) a Naked Emperor

Yes, the relative 'silence of Paul' seems to be the starting point. Added to which the gospels appear to have so much made-up stuff in them. I can see where the ahistorical theses come from and imo it's not unjustified, as a starting point.

I do think though, that an an eventual explanation, non-earthly Jesus, in particular, is weak. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't think I've read a thesis that is as convincing, when dissected, as any of the theses about a 1st C Judean figure.

Segueing into Baysesian probabilities for a second, it seems to me that new cults who say or said that they had a recent founder usually did or seemed to or are taken to, and this might be considered a relevant prior probability regarding both human group behaviour and religious cults generally.

[archibald]

No problem if someone would like to see dressed the Naked Emperor, but I would like see here at least (!) a Naked Emperor

Here's your naked emperor, or at least a skeleton:

A man, born a Jew, born of a woman, from Zion, descended from David, in the flesh, preached, ate bread, was killed, by Jews, hung on a tree, was buried, rose again, supposedly fulfilling prophecies about a Jewish messiah, proof that other men can cheat death too.

[archibald]

That the Silence of Paul and Hebrews about this person would be for me unbearable to bear, sincerely. Even sickening and disturbing, frankly.

Actual aversion nausea?

Over here, in Britain, there are many football supporters who say that one team they support is AB United (or ABU), which means 'anybody but (Manchester) United'.

I do sometimes get the feeling that a lot of people, especially on the internet, are supporters of anything but 1st C Judean Jesus.