Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by Irish1975 »

maryhelena wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:42 am
Irish1975 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:08 am .....The negative case against “the” historical Jesus ought to be altogether separated from any positive theory (e.g. Carrier’s sky demon crucifixion theory) of Christian origins, and yet it rarely ever is. Bruno Bauer seems to have been the first denier of historicity who leapt with both feet into a murky Christ myth theory in his books on Paul and the Caesars. Unfortunately Bauer is not translated into English.
Well said...thus two opposing camps and never the twain shall meet...

Carrier has, to my mind, taken the mythicist 'heavenly 'crucifixion' idea as far as it can go. He needs to backtrack.
And as for the Jesus historicists - they need to acknowledge they can't establish historicity for their JC - and look forward seeking greener pastures.
Glad to hear this makes some sense to you. I agree about Carrier.
perseusomega9
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by perseusomega9 »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:08 am
These must be carefully distinguished. The negative case against “the” historical Jesus ought to be altogether separated from any positive theory (e.g. Carrier’s sky demon crucifixion theory) of Christian origins, and yet it rarely ever is. Bruno Bauer seems to have been the first denier of historicity who leapt with both feet into a murky Christ myth theory in his books on Paul and the Caesars. Unfortunately Bauer is not translated into English.
Yes, this! Mythicisms greatest strength is in showing the implausibility of many historical reconstructions or the events in the literature that are deemed historical. Mythicisms greatest weakness is in trying to develop a coherent "here's how it happened" scenario. Too many mythicists and historicists are trying to develop a big-bang model for christianity's origins.
maryhelena
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:21 am
Irish1975 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:08 am my blog, postchristianworld.com,
real food for thought, thank you! :thumbup:

Irish1975 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:08 am The negative case against “the” historical Jesus ought to be altogether separated from any positive theory (e.g. Carrier’s sky demon crucifixion theory) of Christian origins, and yet it rarely ever is. Bruno Bauer seems to have been the first denier of historicity who leapt with both feet into a murky Christ myth theory in his books on Paul and the Caesars. Unfortunately Bauer is not translated into English.
It would be interesting to develop better this your thought. Are you saying that it is possible to prove the premise that Jesus never existed and only later to prove to describe a reconstruction of the Origins? Is not better to attempt the contrary, instead ( = the plausibility of the reconstruction moves you to accept or reject the historical Jesus) ?
Whatever reconstruction is proposed it will fail unless it has taken down the historicists JC claim. That claim is a historical claim - that a Roman agent was involved with the crucifixion, the execution, of a Jewish man. A man whose life and death is believed to have led to the christian religion. Just saying that the historicists claim can't be established on historical grounds - therefore - we can just move on to spiritualize the gospel crucifixion story in 'outer space' - an alternative that is so different it amounts to offering oranges when the historicists want apples.

The JC historicists want a human on that cross - they want a flesh and blood man executed by Roman agents. Then they need to be presented with a historical Roman execution. A Roman execution of a King of the Jews. That is what the gospels say: ''And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.''

To knock down a theory that is so engrained can't be done by offering alternatives. It's necessary to go for the jugular - the weak point in the theory. Fancy footwork won't cut through. We can debate the meaning of words all day long - but words themselves will fail us. Historical evidence, historical facts, are the only way out of this historicist/mythicist dead-end.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 10:02 am

The JC historicists want a human on that cross - they want a flesh and blood man executed by Roman agents. Then they need to be presented with a historical Roman execution. A Roman execution of a King of the Jews. That is what the gospels say: ''And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.''
they want a guy named JESUS. And your Antigonus is not named "Jesus". End of story. Hence, don't persecute me :roll: with your obsession about the fate of the last Hasmonean king. :tombstone:

I disagree with who says that one can be sincerely mythicist by going against, as a bull seeing red, against the Gospel Jesus.

A good reconstruction is necessary before, to have after sincerity in the own mythicist claims.

In absence of a good reconstruction, dating the historical Paul around 70 CE is a good starter. And here I talk as fan of Doudna, sorry.
maryhelena
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 10:29 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 10:02 am

The JC historicists want a human on that cross - they want a flesh and blood man executed by Roman agents. Then they need to be presented with a historical Roman execution. A Roman execution of a King of the Jews. That is what the gospels say: ''And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.''

they want a guy named JESUS.
Goodness, Giuseppe, the gospel story is a story. The gospel writers could name the guy on the cross any name they fancied. The name they picked 'Jesus' indicates they viewed their guy on a cross as having some relevance to 'salvation'. God saves via that cross - the name of the guy on the cross relates to the function of the cross - 'salvation'. (and no - taken as a human sacrifice such a sacrifice is anti-humanitarian.) Hunting around as you have been doing finding a guy named Jesus - sorry, waste of time.

And your Antigonus is not named "Jesus". End of story. Hence, don't persecute me :roll: with your obsession about the fate of the last Hasmonean king. :tombstone:
Afraid your wrong there Giuseppe - the Roman execution of Antigonus is the beginning of the story. (check back on the quote from Rabbi Wise)

I disagree with who says that one can be sincerely mythicist by going against, as a bull seeing red, against the Gospel Jesus.
Sorry to have to tell you - but when up against a formidable opponent playing nicely won't do. If Christianity is anything worthwhile at all then it's a war cry - a war cry against the entrenched ideas that don't go gently to their netherworld. Not for nothing has Christianity been called the 'mother of heretics'.
A good reconstruction is necessary before, to have after sincerity in the own mythicist claims.
'sincerity ' ? It's a war Giuseppe - a war of ideas. It's a war that requires a two-pronged strategy 1. Historical evidence to supply the JC historicists with a 'guy on a cross'. 2. A demolition squad to take down Josephus as support for the historicists JC.

In absence of a good reconstruction, dating the historical Paul around 70 CE is a good starter. And here I talk as fan of Doudna, sorry.
By all means date Paul wherever - dating does not bestow the NT figure of Paul with historicity.

Greg Doudna - I have great respect for Greg. He has done good work with the DSS and with his argument re JtB (although with that argument I would want to quantify it). However, with his present argument with an Aretas V, methinks he will hit a brick wall.

So, where does all this leave us?

Onward Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See, His banners go!
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by Bernard Muller »

to maryhelena,
The JC historicists want a human on that cross - they want a flesh and blood man executed by Roman agents. Then they need to be presented with a historical Roman execution. A Roman execution of a King of the Jews. That is what the gospels say: ''And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.''

To knock down a theory that is so engrained can't be done by offering alternatives. It's necessary to go for the jugular - the weak point in the theory.
The JC historicists do not WANT a human on the cross. The evidence, from Paul's letters, to the earliest gospel, to Tacitus' Annals, dictate that to them. And only Romans were allowed to crucify non-Romans in those days.

This "King of Jews" is not a weak point for my (very documented) reconstruction (mostly what is left after the deconstructions). On the contrary, it is essential for the (after Jesus' death) beginning of Christianity, which started among Jews. And how a humble non-educated Jew became thought as the King-to-be?
How many times I showed that? from http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

1) Right after Pilate took over as procurator (and/or prefect) in Judea (fall of 26CE), there is an unprecedented series of events in Jerusalem & Cesarea (Josephus' Wars II, IX, 2-3 & Ant., XVIII, III, 1), with exceptionally good outcomes, inviting the Jews to think God is back looking after them. Also, this episode weakens Pilate's rule, allowing for John the Baptist (JtB) and the many Jews going to him (and later a certain royal welcome near Jerusalem) (HJ-1b).

2) JtB attracts large crowds for a few months (spring of 27CE), preaching God's Kingdom (of the old prophecies) is near, better to be "cleansed" in order to avoid the accompanying God's wrath (HJ-1b).

3) Jesus enters here, so far as a lower class, uneducated, rural Jew from Galilee (HJ-1a).
He stays around JtB, among others (HJ-1b).

4) Jesus goes to Capernaum right after JtB's arrest. Then two small successive events happen on Sabbath day, creating a short-lived hysteria around Jesus' alleged healing power (HJ-2a).

5) After Jesus is credited to have healed a man with skin disease (in the nearby villages), another hysteria takes hold and gets known all the way to Jerusalem (80 miles away) and beyond (HJ-2a).

6) Peripherally, Jesus talks about a (down to earth) message well adapted to the times (right after JtB's one: "Kingdom to come") and his milieu (rural Galilee): the Kingdom is coming soon (on earth) and it will benefit only the poor (Jews) (HJ-2b).

7) At that time, JtB, rumored to be the future (human) ruler (king) of the Kingdom (HJ-1b), is executed by Herod Antipas (HJ-3a).

8) Then, some Judean/Hellenist activist Jews interpret the healings by Jesus as a Sign; and he is thought to be the One, replacing (or possessed by) JtB (that's not a leap of faith, this part is multi-documented in GMark) (HJ-3a).

9) So, next spring, Jesus gets a "royalish" welcome by some near Jerusalem, days before the Passover (HJ-3a).

10) He feels encouraged enough to do the disturbance ("cleansing" in the temple) (HJ-3a).

11) Because of that (and the welcome), he is soon arrested (abandoned by the Galileans) and crucified (without trials and as a deterrent) with a mocking sign, "the king of the Jews" (spring of 28CE) (HJ-3a).

12) Later, another event (Josephus' Wars II, IX, 4 & Ant., XVIII, III, 2) will make most Jews doubt the Kingdom (to come soon) and re-establish Roman full authority (and fear) over Judea. But some hellenized Jews will keep the hope alive by looking at certain recent events, the Scriptures, Pharisaic beliefs, Philo of Alexandria's writings, etc. ... (see HJ-3b for the post-crucifixion beginning of Christianity)

But Jesus never reigned as King, so (as some Jews would think), he will reign later. But he was crucified. Solution: he was saved alive in heaven and ready to come back when the time will come.
Furthermore, these Jews did not want to be wrong about picking Jesus as the future King.

Cordially, Bernard
maryhelena
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by maryhelena »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 6:13 pm to maryhelena,
The JC historicists want a human on that cross - they want a flesh and blood man executed by Roman agents. Then they need to be presented with a historical Roman execution. A Roman execution of a King of the Jews. That is what the gospels say: ''And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.''

To knock down a theory that is so engrained can't be done by offering alternatives. It's necessary to go for the jugular - the weak point in the theory.
The JC historicists do not WANT a human on the cross. The evidence, from Paul's letters, to the earliest gospel, to Tacitus' Annals, dictate that to them. And only Romans were allowed to crucify non-Romans in those days.
Bernard, what you need to show is evidence, historical evidence. From what you have posted over the years - you have failed to do just that. You have produced no historical evidence to support your theory about a historical JC. Why? Because there is none.


CHAPTER TWO

SUPPOSED EXTRA-BIBLICAL/SCRIPTURAL
REFERENCE TO JESUS OF NAZARETH
AND ASSOCIATES

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to confirm that apart from Josephus’ Ant.
(which we still need to examine in greater detail), no other genuine historical
sources exist to provide valid extra-biblical/scriptural evidence relevant to
the historical existence of Jesus.

Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities
Josephus Interrupted

By Nicholas Peter Legh Allen · 2020


Since at least the fourth century CE, the Jewish historian Josephus’ Judean Antiquities has been assumed to be a critical source for valid extra-biblical evidence pertaining to the existence of the historical Jesus, James the Just and John the Baptist. Based on the latest findings from both contemporary and independent research, this book sets out, step by step, the final proof that (apart from the New Testament) there is absolutely no valid record pertaining to the historical existence of any of these individuals.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/ ... =en&gbpv=0
Source: Publisher

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:15 am Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities
Josephus Interrupted

By Nicholas Peter Legh Allen · 2020
good find. :cheers:
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Synopsis of Schweitzer’s QHJ [Ch. 1, The Problem]

Post by Bernard Muller »

to maryhelena,
Well, chapter II does not dispel the evidence in Josephus' Antiquities (about Jesus called Christ).
And the evidence from Tacitus' Annals is not looked at.
John the Baptist's existence is evidenced not only in Josephus' Antiquities, but also in the traditions & rituals of the Mandeans (who hated Jesus).
James, the blood brother of Jesus, is evidenced again in Josephus' Antiquities.

And I don't see why the evidence in the NT should not be taken in consideration.
More so in Paul's letters (for Jesus and James, his brother), even if Paul was not interested in the human Jesus, except for him crucified (& allegedly resurrected).

As for John the Baptist, there is evidence in Acts, in the gospels (more so in gJohn which repeatedly wants to "destroy" JtB, certainly for a purpose, such as because he had later followers who believed JtB was THE Christ: 3:28).

BTW, books, articles written in modern times are NOT evidence.

Cordially, Bernard
Post Reply