Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by DCHindley »

Ulan wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:50 amMy original idea was that this somewhat nitpicky story that "James wasn't killed this time" was based on the urge to make all the different stories about James that we know true, which cannot be if you take all of them literally.

Plus, I brought this up again as DCH is obviously not the first to suggest such a solution.
As I noted, I am not suggesting that James in Ant 20.200 got off scot free. Just the term "handed them over" usually means they are about to be executed. This is also implied in Pliny's letter to Trajan: "If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution [duci iussi, ordered to be led away, no mention of punishment ... yet] ... I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy should not go unpunished [pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri = should be punished].

I am simply disputing that the form of death was by stoning. The post that immediately preceded the one in question lists several passages where rabbinic tradition indicates they believed various forms of execution were performed, even without Roman approval, by means of "accidents" or by turning over the convicted party to the gentiles for them to execute. Not every Jew approved of the latter solution (there is a passage in one of the books of Maccabees that eludes me at the moment).

However, the fact that James is said to have been made to fall from a high place, which was sometimes a substitute for stoning after the city's destruction, suggests that he was indeed convicted of a stoning offense. Hegesippus, presenting the stories he says he heard on his way to Rome for business as a form of entertainment, may have - um - exaggerated a bit. He combines several traditions about how the convicted met their death *in Hegesippus' own day* to make James suffer *all* of them!

DCH (not a Greek expert)
Last edited by DCHindley on Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Peter Kirby »

DCHindley wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:31 am You are correct that there is a Greek verb λεύω in the L&S lexicon defined as meaning "to stone," probably from the root word λεύς (a stone).

I am not disputing that at all, but I was wondering aloud if this was actually supposed to be λυθησόμενους (future passive participle of λύω = "to be done away with" or "get their just deserts") rather than λευσθησομένους = to be stoned."
DCHindley wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:31 am I am of the opinion that Antiquities has been tampered with by Christians, possibly in Eusebius' time after the accession of Constantine as the single Augustus over all the Roman state, with the aim of removing inconsistencies with Christian traditions.
As long as we're clear that what is being suggested is a textual emendation, and also that its probability is contingent on this larger hypothesis of a broad-in-scope tampering session, everything's good. :cheers:
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by DCHindley »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:14 pm
DCHindley wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:31 am You are correct that there is a Greek verb λεύω in the L&S lexicon defined as meaning "to stone," probably from the root word λεύς (a stone).

I am not disputing that at all, but I was wondering aloud if this was actually supposed to be λυθησόμενους (future passive participle of λύω = "to be done away with" or "get their just deserts") rather than λευσθησομένους = to be stoned."
DCHindley wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:31 am I am of the opinion that Antiquities has been tampered with by Christians, possibly in Eusebius' time after the accession of Constantine as the single Augustus over all the Roman state, with the aim of removing inconsistencies with Christian traditions.
As long as we're clear that what is being suggested is a textual emendation, and also that its probability is contingent on this larger hypothesis of a broad-in-scope tampering session, everything's good. :cheers:
Let's just say that I wrote that with several cups of strong coffee in me :goodmorning: to counteract 3-4 beers :cheers: . It was, after all, the Thanksgiving holiday! We hosted about 20 people, including 4 young'uns, roasted two 21 pound turkeys, ate 4-6 pies plus whatever the others brought. For those who do not know traditions in the US, the secular Thanksgiving holiday is the #1 holiday for family to get together and have a good ol' time. More folks travel this holiday to visit relatives than any other (I think 21 million travelers were estimated this year, a record BTW), even Christmas.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:31 amYou are correct that there is a Greek verb λεύω in the L&S lexicon defined as meaning "to stone," probably from the root word λεύς (a stone).
Well, given that λεύς (Doric for λᾶς, according to Donnegan) both means "stone" and serves as the basis for λεύω, what exactly is the question? Frankly, Doric words which hail from such ancient times are not exactly my strong suit, but a bit of searching easily turns up examples of λεύω, both on its own and as part of a compound, meaning "to stone" without having to name the instrument (λίθοις, for instance, "by stones") as part of the construction. For example:

Thucydides, The Pelopponesian War 5.60.6: 6 τόν τε Θράσυλον ἀναχωρήσαντες ἐν τῷ Χαράδρῳ, οὗπερ τὰς ἀπὸ στρατείας δίκας πρὶν ἐσιέναι κρίνουσιν, ἤρξαντο λεύειν. ὁ δὲ καταφυγὼν ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν περιγίγνεται: τὰ μέντοι χρήματα ἐδήμευσαν αὐτοῦ. / [Benjamin Jowett:] And so, as they were retreating and had reached the bed of the Charadrus, where they hold military trials before they enter the city, they began to stone Thrasyllus. He saved his life by flying to the altar, but they confiscated his property. / [Thomas Hobbes:] And in their return they began to stone Thrasyllus at the Charadrum, the place where the soldiers, before they enter into the city from warfare, use to have their military causes heard. But he, flying to the altar, saved himself; nevertheless they confiscated his goods. / On their return accordingly they began to stone Thrasylus in the bed of the Charadrus, where they try all military causes before entering the city. Thrasylus fled to the altar, and so saved his life; his property however they confiscated.

Philo, Life of Moses 2.202: 202 And God commanded him to be stoned, considering, as I imagine, the punishment of stoning to be a suitable and appropriate one for a man who had a stony and hardened heart, and wishing at the same time that all his fellow countrymen should have a share in inflicting punishment on him, as he knew that they were very indignant and eager to slay him; and the only punishment which so many myriads of men could possibly join in was that which was inflicted by throwing stones. / ὁ δὲ προστάττει καταλευσθῆναι, προσήκουσαν οἶμαι δίκην ὑπολαβὼν τὴν διὰ λίθων κατ' ἀνδρὸς λιθίνην καὶ ἀπόκροτον ψυχὴν ἔχοντος καὶ ἅμα βουλόμενος πάντας τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔθνους συνεφάψασθαι τῆς κολάσεως, οὓς ᾔδει σφόδρα τραχέως ἐνεγκόντας καὶ φονῶντας· μόνης δ' ὡς ἔοικε τῆς διὰ βλημάτων ἔμελλον αἱ τοσαῦται μυριάδες ἐφάπτεσθαι.

Philo, Flaccus 174: 174 And I am thoroughly assured that even this is not the limit of my misfortunes, but that others are still in store for me, to fill up the measures as a requital for all the evils which I have done. I put many persons to death, and when some of them were put to death by others, I did not chastise their murderers. Some were stoned and some were burnt alive [κατελεύσθησάν τινες καὶ ζῶντες οἱ μὲν ἐνεπρήσθησαν]; others were dragged through the middle of the market-place till the whole of their bodies were torn to pieces.

Note that the L&S lexicon defines λεύω, fut. λεύσω (κατα-) Ar.Ach.285: aor. ἔλευσα (κατ-) Hdt.9.5 [They made a ring round Lycidas and stoned him to death = κατέλευσαν βάλλοντες] , Th.1.106: — Pass., fut.
A. “λευσθήσομαι” J.Ap.2.27 [Josephus' Against Apion, actually 2.28 = section 206]: aor. “ἐλεύσθην” S.OC (v. infr.), Hp.Ep.27: (λᾶας): — stone, Th.5.60; “πέτροις λ. μνῆμα” E.El. 328; “τὸ λευσθῆναι πέτροις” S.OC435, cf. E.IA1350.

In Herodotus the crowd surrounded Lycidas, but did they throw stones at him or threw him out of town = exiled him?
They threw stones at him. Philo uses the same compound, καταλεύω, in that passage from Flaccus above in a context which demands a mode of death, not an exile or an expulsion.

For whatever it may be worth, I just checked Rufinus' translation of Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.22, and he has tradidit lapidandos for this bit of the quote from Josephus. I doubt he even thought twice about it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

There's been a lot of discussion on this thread since I was online yesterday. DC's posts have been interesting and spurred me to check every Greek dictionary I could find online (all say "stone" like Perseus, but some appear to also say "to see" or "to shine a light"), and every translation of Ant. 20.200 I've ever seen says "stoned," but it looks like Ben has sorted this issue out and we are back to square one.

Stephan wrote:
Let's look at the two passages. In the story of James fullers come and take the sticks that they used to beat skins and hit James. In the Mishnah the priests took blocks of wood morning and afternoon to the fire for the sacrifices and apparently were to beat or beat a bad priest with these. No connection.
I agree. As I said earlier:
Sefaria gives the translation as "pieces of wood" instead of "clubs," which I assume means wood that was used on the altar, and if that is the case then this passage would not apply to James the Just because he is said to have been struck by a fuller's club ("with which he beat out clothes"), and that seems more in line with the servants of the High Priests who beat people with impunity in Ant. 20 and Pes. 57a.
To me the issue of James' identity in Ant. 20.200 comes down to the fact that he is called "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," and the arguments for interpolation or that "Christ" is Jesus ben Damneus or Jesus ben Gamaliel aren't convincing (though I would choose Gamaliel over Damneus if I had to, for the reasons I gave earlier).
Last edited by John2 on Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by MrMacSon »

outhouse wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:06 am
Kapyong wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm I explained how it could have started without a historical Jesus right here.
Not credible and unsubstantiated. It changes nothing.

It is not a working hypothesis. It has failed top gain any traction what so ever. It has always been A failed idea. You cannot keep something alive that never lived.
outhouse wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:09 am
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:42 pm A celestial angel ended up becoming fully humanised (ie. personified; reified as a human; anthropomorphized).
Unsubstantiated rhetoric. That's not what the text posit.

The text posits in context, A Galilean who was crucified under Pilate and Caiaphas at the temple, all historical times places and people.

That has been a failed hypothesis, that raises more questions then it answers, all while perverting the actual context written.

It has never been a working hypothesis
Yet,
outhouse wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:04 am
... we know they fictitiously plagiarized concepts building this deity.

.... They factually used fiction to build the deity of Christ/Jesus in which they plagiarized the previous text of Judaism they placed so much importance on.

They sold Jesus as deity and messiah
.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:58 pm
DCHindley wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:31 amYou are correct that there is a Greek verb λεύω in the L&S lexicon defined as meaning "to stone," probably from the root word λεύς (a stone).
Well, given that λεύς (Doric for λᾶς, according to Donnegan) both means "stone" and serves as the basis for λεύω, what exactly is the question? Frankly, Doric words which hail from such ancient times are not exactly my strong suit, but a bit of searching easily turns up examples of λεύω, both on its own and as part of a compound, meaning "to stone" without having to name the instrument (λίθοις, for instance, "by stones") as part of the construction. For example:

Thucydides, The Pelopponesian War 5.60.6: 6 τόν τε Θράσυλον ἀναχωρήσαντες ἐν τῷ Χαράδρῳ, οὗπερ τὰς ἀπὸ στρατείας δίκας πρὶν ἐσιέναι κρίνουσιν, ἤρξαντο λεύειν. ὁ δὲ καταφυγὼν ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν περιγίγνεται: τὰ μέντοι χρήματα ἐδήμευσαν αὐτοῦ. / [Benjamin Jowett:] And so, as they were retreating and had reached the bed of the Charadrus, where they hold military trials before they enter the city, they began to stone Thrasyllus. He saved his life by flying to the altar, but they confiscated his property. / [Thomas Hobbes:] And in their return they began to stone Thrasyllus at the Charadrum, the place where the soldiers, before they enter into the city from warfare, use to have their military causes heard. But he, flying to the altar, saved himself; nevertheless they confiscated his goods. / On their return accordingly they began to stone Thrasylus in the bed of the Charadrus, where they try all military causes before entering the city. Thrasylus fled to the altar, and so saved his life; his property however they confiscated.

Philo, Life of Moses 2.202: 202 And God commanded him to be stoned, considering, as I imagine, the punishment of stoning to be a suitable and appropriate one for a man who had a stony and hardened heart, and wishing at the same time that all his fellow countrymen should have a share in inflicting punishment on him, as he knew that they were very indignant and eager to slay him; and the only punishment which so many myriads of men could possibly join in was that which was inflicted by throwing stones. / ὁ δὲ προστάττει καταλευσθῆναι, προσήκουσαν οἶμαι δίκην ὑπολαβὼν τὴν διὰ λίθων κατ' ἀνδρὸς λιθίνην καὶ ἀπόκροτον ψυχὴν ἔχοντος καὶ ἅμα βουλόμενος πάντας τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔθνους συνεφάψασθαι τῆς κολάσεως, οὓς ᾔδει σφόδρα τραχέως ἐνεγκόντας καὶ φονῶντας· μόνης δ' ὡς ἔοικε τῆς διὰ βλημάτων ἔμελλον αἱ τοσαῦται μυριάδες ἐφάπτεσθαι.

Philo, Flaccus 174: 174 And I am thoroughly assured that even this is not the limit of my misfortunes, but that others are still in store for me, to fill up the measures as a requital for all the evils which I have done. I put many persons to death, and when some of them were put to death by others, I did not chastise their murderers. Some were stoned and some were burnt alive [κατελεύσθησάν τινες καὶ ζῶντες οἱ μὲν ἐνεπρήσθησαν]; others were dragged through the middle of the market-place till the whole of their bodies were torn to pieces.

Note that the L&S lexicon defines λεύω, fut. λεύσω (κατα-) Ar.Ach.285: aor. ἔλευσα (κατ-) Hdt.9.5 [They made a ring round Lycidas and stoned him to death = κατέλευσαν βάλλοντες] , Th.1.106: — Pass., fut.
A. “λευσθήσομαι” J.Ap.2.27 [Josephus' Against Apion, actually 2.28 = section 206]: aor. “ἐλεύσθην” S.OC (v. infr.), Hp.Ep.27: (λᾶας): — stone, Th.5.60; “πέτροις λ. μνῆμα” E.El. 328; “τὸ λευσθῆναι πέτροις” S.OC435, cf. E.IA1350.

In Herodotus the crowd surrounded Lycidas, but did they throw stones at him or threw him out of town = exiled him?
They threw stones at him. Philo uses the same compound, καταλεύω, in that passage from Flaccus above in a context which demands a mode of death, not an exile or an expulsion.

For whatever it may be worth, I just checked Rufinus' translation of Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.22, and he has tradidit lapidandos for this bit of the quote from Josephus. I doubt he even thought twice about it.
Oops! :whistling:

Well, heuristic mode is now set to "off" ... The James who was the brother of Jesus in Ant 20:9.1 (section 200) was stoned.

I do wonder, though, whether he was stoned with the "Stygian kind" mentioned in the venerable ancient movie Conan the Barbarian? What a way to go ... :lol:
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by hakeem »

We know that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 did not refer to the Jesus in Christian writings because of the forgery called the "TF" found in the same writing Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

Events in the time of Pilate are found in the 18th book of AJ [Antiquities of the Jews] and there was nothing about the Jesus in Christian writings so AJ 18 had to be manipulated.

Events in the time of Festus and Albinus are found in AJ 20--Jesus called anointed was alive in the time of Festus and Albinus.

We know that the Jesus in Christian writings would not be called the Christ by Jews because he was not anointed as a King or High Priest.

Even the earliest version of the Jesus story [gMark] the character called Jesus was not called Christ by Jews.

In gMark, Jesus was called John the Baptist, Elijah or a prophet. In fact, in the same gMark, when Jesus publicly claimed he was Christ he was crucified in less than 24 hours.


Mark 9.27 
And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
The Jesus in Christian writings is also confirmed to be a non-historical character by their own authors.

All Christian writings that mention the birth of their Jesus either admitted he had no human father, that he was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin, that he was the only begotten Son of God, the Creator or the Logos.


Christian writings which do not mention the birth of their Jesus state that he walked on water, transfigured and resurrected after he was supposed to be dead for at least three days.

In the so-called Pauline writings it is claimed his Jesus was the firstborn of the dead, God's own son, the Creator, the Lord from heaven and the second Adam. In fact, Pauline writings show that it was not even necessary for Jesus to be alive for Paul to have received information from him. The supposed Paul was seen by Jesus after it is claimed he was dead for at least 3 days.

In addition, every event with Jesus in Christian writings is either implausible or did not happen.

Jesus in Christian writings was completely non-historical.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by arnoldo »

hakeem wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:54 am
We know that the Jesus in Christian writings would not be called the Christ by Jews because he was not anointed as a King or High Priest.
See:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NLT
and
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=NIVUK
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

But the irony in the gospel is interesting. Jesus is aware of what the Jews are expecting but the initiated reader knows he is not the messiah. The Samaritans do not expect the Jewish messiah. I've always thought this Christian perspective seems to be Samaritan.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply