Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[MrMacSon]

There is nothing wrong -- in fact I thought it was the more scholarly approach -- to work with uncertainty, to hold knowledge tentatively, provisionally, to say "we don't know", when working with documents from ancient times.

Now you're talking sense.

So why do you reject the agnostic position and choose to "reject" evidence/information/content out of hand?

I don't do either.

I have argued that information, particularly contents of early-christian texts, be evaluated in context.

Such contents are, of course, evidence for and evidence of early-Christianity; but we ought to be mindful the contents of those early-Christian texts may have been, or are likely to have been, redacted or embellished over several generations, including propositions as to who their authors are alleged to have been.

We do not know who wrote most of the seminal texts.

I think anyone who gives credibility to the idea simply asserts there was a Paul (who primarily wrote the Pauline texts in the NT) is over-stating that idea.

[Bernard Muller]

Thanks Kapyong,

This is the prophecy about a high priest crowned king in heaven named 'Jesus Rising', God's 'servant', who will 'rise' from below and be given godly authority and somehow be involved in cleansing the world of sin.

First, there is nobody in the prophecy of Zechariah named 'Jesus Rising'.
Second, the entity called "Rise" is somebody to come and not Jesus, son of Josedec.

Here is the LXX passage translation:
11 And thou shalt take silver and gold, and make crowns, and thou shalt put [them] upon the head of Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest; 12 and thou shalt say to him, Thus saith the Lord Almighty; Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord. 13 And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between [them] both.
And the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to the useful men of the captivity, and to them that have known it, and for the favour of the son of Sophonias, and for a psalm in the house of the Lord. 15 And they [that are] far from them shall come and build in the house of the Lord,
It is obvious the future builder of the temple has not sprung up yet. And he will not be a high priest but a king, with a priest on his side. Certainly, Jesus son of Josedec is not the same name than "Branch" or "Rises" or "Dawn" as the Greek world is translated.

Furthermore Carrier does not put in front of his quote of the passage from Philo the following:
"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this:"“Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, ...""
Here Philo does not say he read “Behold, the man named Rises!” from the scriptures, but he heard it (from some contemporary, I suppose).

But how could Zechariah be considered a companion of Moses, who allegedly lived almost a millenium before the prophet?
Outside that alleged allusion to Zechariah 6:12, Philo quoted nine prophetic writings in all his books. Each time he introduced the quote as emanating from either a "prophet" or one of the "prophets", and never from a companion of Moses.
- Questions and answers on Genesis II 43 --> Isa 1:9
- On dreams II XXVI 172 --> Isa 5:9
- On the change of names XXXI 169 --> Isa 48:22
- On rewards and punishments XXVII 156 --> Isa 54:1
- On flight and finding XXXVI 197 --> Jer 2:13
- On the Cherubim II XIV 49 --> Jer 3:4
- On the confusion of tongues XII 44 --> Jer 15:10
- Noah's work as a planter XXXIII 138 --> Hos 14:9
- On the change of names XXIV 139 --> Hos 14:9
Furthermore, the book of Zechariah never refers to Moses, his Law or anything about his life: so, in no way Zechariah could be identified as (only) a companion of Moses.

"In the same book, Philo says that even if no one is 'worthy to be called a Son of God', we should still 'labor earnestly to be adorned according to his firstborn Logos, the eldest of his angels, the ruling archangel of many names'.118 Elsewhere Philo adds that 'there are two Temples of God, and one is this cosmos, wherein the High Priest is his Firstborn Son, the divine Logos' (whom Philo elsewhere identifies as the primordial 'image of God').

I have no problem about accepting the huge imports from Philo's works into the pre-existent and post-existent Jesus, and the sacrifice for atonement of sins, and his titles, which Paul adopted (sometimes with reluctance, but he had to, due to the popularity of Apollos of Alexandria --same city than for Philo-- and his ideas. But I am digressing here).
However, what does that have to do with the historicity of Jesus? Philoic elements could have been put into the pre- & post-existence of an earthly human Jesus, with an (salvatic) explanation for his execution.
Of course all of that is explained on my website, more so on that webpage: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

The verse simply says that the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord "in the air" "among the clouds". So Jesus does descend to the sublunar heaven. You also missed the other passages in the OT that portray God descending in clouds to the sublunar heaven. I don't know why you avoid clear statements in the literature of Paul's day that leave us in no doubt that the sublunar region was understood as the habitation of imperfect spirits or the clear statements even in the canonical literature that God visits this region from time to time.

Yes, I know about that passage, but it is in the context of the so-called second coming.

God visiting the sublunar region but not going to earth. I have a blank here. What passages?

About spirits in the air (such as demons, angels and souls), I never said I did not think the ancients did not believe in them.
Actually, on my website, I wrote:
Platonic Xenocrates (396-314 BCE), Neopythagorean Ocellus Lucanus (2nd cent. BCE) and middle Platonic Antiochus of Ascalon (around 130 BCE) & Plutarch (around 80 CE) did propose a home for daemons, the sublunar realm, but it extended to earth itself (see this site for references). Furthermore, for Plato & others, those "daemons" were understood to be good spirits, acting as intermediaries between men & gods and/or as personal "gardian angels". As Richard Carrier put it, as gathered from Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris':
"Plato, says Plutarch, "calls this class of beings an interpretive and ministering class, midway between gods and men, in that they convey thither the prayers and petitions of men"(361c)"
But what about the bad daemons?
On this matter, Plutarch supported the views of Empedocles (492-432 BCE):
"[s.26] Empedocles says also that the demigods must pay the penalty for the sins that they commit and the duties that they neglect:
Might of the Heavens chases them forth to the realm of the Ocean; Ocean spews them out on the soil of the Earth, and Earth drives them straight to the rays of the tireless Sun, who consigns them to Heaven's whirlings; thus one from another receives them, but ever with loathing"

I also quoted Cicero and Philo of Alexandria on that matter.

But does that mean Jesus had to be crucified in the air rather than on earth? I do not see the relevance.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

I have argued that information, particularly contents of early-christian texts, be evaluated in context.

Such contents are, of course, evidence for and evidence of early-Christianity; but we ought to be mindful the contents of those early-Christian texts may have been, or are likely to have been, redacted or embellished over several generations, including propositions as to who their authors are alleged to have been.

We do not know who wrote most of the seminal texts.

I think anyone who gives credibility to the idea simply asserts there was a Paul (who primarily wrote the Pauline texts in the NT) is over-stating that idea.

Exactly my point. We evaluate and test what we have.

This little sub-thread arose when someone dogmatically spun the assertion that there was "no evidence" for Paul's letters being written by "Paul" in the first century. It was the dogmatism that I found to be just as invalid as those scholars who introduce what they call a "hermeneutic of charity".

The prima facie evidence is that Paul wrote letters in the first century. That stands despite (or arguably because of) the subsequent attempts to doctor what he wrote. That we have no idea who wrote other texts is irrelevant.

We lose some respect for scholarship that just assumes the letters can be taken at face value. But we are, I think, being just as naive if we assume the opposite. Each side has a rationale for its assumption. But the point of genuine research and investigation ought to be to argue each point and not rely upon blanket assumptions.

Scepticism is not about rejection. It is about testing. The sceptical approach tests and questions. It doesn't begin with a rejection. It begins with agnosticism.

[MrMacSon]

This little sub-thread arose when someone dogmatically spun the assertion that there was "no evidence" for Paul's letters being written by "Paul" in the first century. It was the dogmatism that I found to be just as invalid as those scholars who introduce what they call a "hermeneutic of charity".

The prima facie evidence is that Paul wrote letters in the first century.

So, what is "the prima facie evidence" that the Pauline letters were written by 'Paul'?

[neilgodfrey]

This little sub-thread arose when someone dogmatically spun the assertion that there was "no evidence" for Paul's letters being written by "Paul" in the first century. It was the dogmatism that I found to be just as invalid as those scholars who introduce what they call a "hermeneutic of charity".

The prima facie evidence is that Paul wrote letters in the first century.

So, what is "the prima facie evidence" that the Pauline letters were written by 'Paul'?

A letter claiming to be written by Paul. That does not mean we should not question the evidence. We are sceptics and we question everything. But it is evidence because (unlike Russian novels filled with characters as someone tried to use in refutation of this point earlier) the letter genre is associated with the intention to communicate news of some sort. Letters are "real" communications between "real" people.

For this reason -- that is, because of the nature of the letter genre -- authors (including ancient authors) writing fiction have co-opted the letter genre in order to create verisimilitude and lead readers/hearers to enter into a world where they can believe they are reading a real communication between real people. The letter creates verisimilitude because real letters indicate a real intention between real people.

A refugee who dictated his/her identity and experiences to a recorder is providing prima facie evidence. If I report a crime to the police and the statements are taken down I am providing prima facie evidence. I could be lying. The supposed refugee could be lying. It is up to others to test the evidence provided. That will probably mean looking for more evidence to corroborate the claims.

It is true that we cannot legitimately establish a claim on the mere existence of the claim itself. Self-testimony is not sufficient to establish itself as true.

But we err, I think, if we simply reject claims as facilely as others believe them.

[GakuseiDon]

Furthermore Carrier does not put in front of his quote of the passage from Philo the following:
"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this:"“Behold, the man named Riises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, ...""
Here Philo does not say he read “Behold, the man named Rises!” from the scriptures, but he heard it (from some contemporary, I suppose).

But how could Zechariah be considered a companion of Moses, who allegedly lived almost a millenium before the prophet?

I used to think that, but I suspect that Philo means "one of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures" when he writes "a companion of Moses". Later on in OCoT, Philo also quotes "one of the friends of Moses", this time using a passage from the Psalms. But it seems a roundabout way of quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. Elsewhere he seems okay with attributing quotes from "scriptures". By attributing the quotes to companions/friends of Moses, it may be that Philo is hinting that his use is not related to the context of the passages in the OT, but I don't know how to prove such a thing. Anyway, I think it is ultimately irrelevant to any argument, since the source -- either directly or indirectly -- are the passages in the OT.

I commented on Carrier's use of Zech 6:12 on a Skeptic Ink Network blog, to which Richard Carrier responded on his blog. (He called my criticism of his use "a confused objection", alas!) But there was a long discussion on Philo and Zech 6:12 between Carrier and a responder called fpvflyer on Carrier's blog last year, which is interesting.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3103

[neilgodfrey]

New Testament "historicist" scholars sometimes ridicule "mythicists" for being hypersceptical. What they are doing is projecting their own dogmatism and lack of critical thinking -- they are the ones very often who are dogmatically and uncritically taken the face value of certain claims for granted. Their criticisms of "mythicists" for being "hypersceptical" -- meaning rejection of claims as their starting point -- might be justified if that's what "mythicists" really do do. I think some do. Some "mythicists" are guilty as charged.

[MrMacSon]

This little sub-thread arose when someone dogmatically spun the assertion that there was "no evidence" for Paul's letters being written by "Paul" in the first century. It was the dogmatism that I found to be just as invalid as those scholars who introduce what they call a "hermeneutic of charity".

The prima facie evidence is that Paul wrote letters in the first century.

So, what is "the prima facie evidence" that the Pauline letters were written by 'Paul'?

A letter claiming to be written by Paul. That does not mean we should not question the evidence.... But it is evidence because ... the letter genre is associated with the intention to communicate news of some sort. Letters are "real" communications between "real" people.

Is that really your answer to my question: what is "the prima facie evidence" that the Pauline letters were written by 'Paul'? ????

Letters do not claim who wrote them ...

Where is the original? Where is there indication Paul wrote it?

Your assertive-statement that 'Letters are "real" communications between "real" people' is supposed to verify what? Paul was real?

The letter creates verisimilitude because real letters indicate a real intention between real people.

What letter? Is that really your appeal that the Pauline letters are real?
.

[Kapyong]

Gday maryhelena,

Kapyong answered re Paul and Aretas to support his premise that Paul wrote in the first century. The internal data regarding Paul and Aretas does not support this premise. Why? Aretas' rule in Damascus ended around 62 b.c.e. That is the internal date. That the NT story also Paul places somewhere between 33 - 68 c.e. contradicts the internal data that connects Paul to an Aretas that ruled Damascus. Thus, at the very least, dating 'Paul' is an open question. Hence, the answer by Kaypong referencing Paul and Aretas as support for the Pauline writings in the first century is not supported by the internal data he referenced.
Neil, there were so many threads on this issue on FRDB - I'm surprised that you seem to have referenced this Paul and Aretas problem to support Kaypyong on his Paul writing in the first century.
Aretas III

Hang on - it's Aretas the FOURTH we are talking about, not the THIRD :
Aretas IV