Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

OK, so here's where we are -

Firstly I cannot find you a single passage that uses the word 'fleshly' or 'flesh' to describe the sub-lunar sphere - amongst all the descriptions such as mutable, corrupt, impure, etc. etc. But I think it's no great leap for Paul to equate these properties with flesh and by the cosmology of the time the Air Beneath the Moon had flesh too.

Secondly, I cannot find you an example of dying happening in the Air Beneath the Moon - but we do know that a variety of actions such as sacrifices did take place there, and we know that Adam is buried in the 3rd heaven in Paradise. It's no leap for Paul to imagine a crucifixion in a place where sacrifices and burial can take place.

You have to give Paul some wiggle room for having original thought - for his particular twist on things - he obviously had some sort of genius in him - of course he can have imagined these two elements in a milieu with so many examples around that fed into the myth.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday,

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'.

No, but there is a Jesus who is called Rises.

Second, the entity called "Rise" is somebody to come and not Jesus, son of Josedec.

Well, to me they seem to be the same character - 'Behold the man'.

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.

Not the same name - but two names given to the same person - he is Jesus and he is called Rises.

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).

So what if it's not scripture? The idea is still present in the religious cultural matrix.

What we do now have is a Jesus who is son of God, the High Priest, the Logos, the image of God, agent of God's creation, and called "Rises".
In pre-Christian writing.

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.

Where does having to be contemporarys come from, you've lost me.

"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 ... 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

It shows that before Christianity, all the elements of the Christian story were known from scripture and some imagination. It shows how the Christian story of Jesus could get started without there ever being a historical Jesus to spark it off.

Kapyong

[maryhelena]

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

Sorry, you are wrong here. Aretaz IV did not rule Damascus. The text is ambiguous - leaving open questions regarding 'Paul'. The post below is from a thread on FRDB - Dating Paul. A thread that ran to 99 pages....

Paul in Damascus

In Galatians, we read of Paul's alleged trip to Damascus.

We should not imagaine that a historical Paul ever did such a thing. Paul's alleged trip to Damscus is midrash on Elijah's attempts to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). The "Arabia" and "Damascus" details explain what has puzzled scholars who look for history in Galatians.

Even N.T. Wright sees the Elijah model (1 Kings) employed in the life of Paul, but shrinks away from the implications of his insight. PAUL, ARABIA, AND ELIJAH

Paul and Elijah both set out to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal for Elijah (1 Kings 18) and the church for Paul (Gal 1:13,23).

Elijah is turned aside (1 Kings 19:3) as is Paul when he encounters the risen Christ (Acts 9). Now here is the key part; Elijah immediately goes to Horeb, the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8). Likewise, Paul turns aside into Arabia (Gal 1:17), where Mount Sinai is supposed to be located (Gal 4:25). It is on the Mount that Paul would naturally receive his alleged divine revelation, Gal. 1:12.

After that, both Elijah (1 Kings 19:15) and Paul (Gal. 1:17) go to Damascus. That is the source of Paul's alleged association with Damascus, "midrash" (loosely defined). It is very much of the same thing that was used to create the fictional life of Jesus.

It is evident that Galatians 1 was written after Acts 9 because Gal 1:17 states Paul returned to Damascus. Returned? Galatians doesn't mention Damascus before this. It was mentioned in Acts 9:3. These texts evolved "in conversation" with each other. This is supported by the fact that the so-called biographical details of Acts 9 and Galatians 1 in conjunction were derived from Elijah in 1 Kings 18 and 19.

2 Cor. 11:32 contains the story of Paul escaping from Damascus. The "lowering in a basket" has all the elements of a folk tale based on the motif of the hero being lowered to escape his enemies.

I have trouble with the idea that Damascus was under control of Aretas in 38/39 CE. And that is explicitly what 2 Corinthians 11:32 states."At Damascus, the ethnarch under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus, in order to seize me." This is the nonsense that the governor of Damascus reported to King Aretas, something the Romans would never have allowed, and is reported nowhere except in this single text in the "inerrant" Bible.

There are indications in the text that 2 Cor. 11:32 is an interpolation. 2 Cor. 11:31 contains the famous "lying oath." The redactor is adding new material, and the readers need the extra assurance that the never before seen material is true. "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus knows, he who is blessed forever, that I do not lie." He protests too much! And thus vanishes the melodramtic spectacle of Paul's escape by being let down in a basket.

Nabataean control of Damascus by Aretas IV has never been established from any external sources. Instead, defenders of the biblical text twist all historical facts to try to save the accuracy of this, one of the very few historical anchors in the Pauline Corpus.

The only King Aretas who was documented to have had such authority in Damascus was Aretas III. In 84 BCE he conquered Damascus (BJ 1.4.8) and in 65 BCE besieged Jerusalem. But he broke off when the Romans appeared (BJ 1.6.3). The redactor of 2 Corinthinas has conflated Aretas III and Aretas IV from Josephus. It wouldn't be the first time a New Testament writer misread Josephus. In any case, another one of the key anchors to date Paul is yet shown unreliable.

Jake Jones IV

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... ul&page=30

I don't go with the interpolation idea. I also don't think the Pauline writer misread Josephus. The text is what it is - ambiguous - thus leaving room for questioning the whole NT 'Paul' story. What Jake Jones has done with this post is highlight the implausibility of the whole Damascus, Aretas and 'Paul' story.

(the FRDB links, the one below for the start of the thread, will work for those who were previously members of that forum:
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... light=paul)

[bcedaifu]

Thank you maryhelena, for those quotes from Jake Jones IV--very interesting.

My point remains: Whether Aretas III, or IV, this reference to an historical figure in no way defines when 'Paul' lived or wrote any of the epistles attributed to him.

Again: we are unable to assert that Lev Tolstoy lived in the era of Catherine the Great, simply because he wrote about Marshal Kutuzov-- a genuine historical figure, appointed by her-- in his novel War and Peace.

I seek a bona fide piece of evidence for the existence of 'Paul'. I deny Carrier's assertion, that 'Paul' were contemporaries of Philo. Where's the evidence? Please don't quote from Philo, to address the answer to this question. Please don't quote from wikipedia to prove the existence of the planet Krypton, birthplace of Superman.

Krypton is found 27.1 light-years from Earth, in the southern constellation Corvus (The Crow), says Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the American Museum of Natural History's Hayden Planetarium in New York City. The planet orbits the red dwarf star LHS 2520, which is cooler and smaller than our sun.

[maryhelena]

Thank you maryhelena, for those quotes from Jake Jones IV--very interesting.

My point remains: Whether Aretas III, or IV, this reference to an historical figure in no way defines when 'Paul' lived or wrote any of the epistles attributed to him.

Sure, agreed.
I've only referenced the Aretas issue because it was raised by both Kapyong and Neil.

Again: we are unable to assert that Lev Tolstoy lived in the era of Catherine the Great, simply because he wrote about Marshal Kutuzov-- a genuine historical figure, appointed by her-- in his novel War and Peace.

I seek a genuine piece of evidence for the existence of 'Paul'. I deny Carrier's assertion, that 'Paul' were contemporaries of Philo. Where's the evidence? Please don't quote from Philo, to address the answer to this question. Please don't quote from wikipedia to prove the existence of the planet Krypton, birthplace of Superman.

Krypton is found 27.1 light-years from Earth, in the southern constellation Corvus (The Crow), says Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the American Museum of Natural History's Hayden Planetarium in New York City. The planet orbits the red dwarf star LHS 2520, which is cooler and smaller than our sun.

It does amaze me that some mythicists don't follow through with the premise that the gospel figure of Jesus was a literary creation ie not historical. If Jesus was not historical - then, logically, the whole NT story about early christian origins is suspect for it's historicity. That includes the figure of 'Paul'. If 'Paul' is not a historical figure - then not only does the historicists position fall - so, likewise, does the Carrier-Doherty mythicist position. Methinks 'Paul' might well be the final hurdle in clearing the way forward in the search for early christian origins.

[bcedaifu]

If Jesus was not historical - then, logically, the whole NT story about early christian origins is suspect for it's historicity.

I cannot accept your terminology.

IF Jesus of Nazareth were not historical..."

This construction is as illogical as the wikipedia article on the planet Krypton, as birthplace of Superman.

We cannot write, "IF", which suggests, at least to me, that consideration must be given to the possibility that a man, named Jesus of Nazereth really did walk on water, really did restore vision to those poor souls who had encountered the sharp tip of the Roman soldiers' swords, and really could raise Lazarus from the dead.

That's not an "IF" construction. That's absurd.

There is no possibility here, for fence sitting (what spin calls, "agnostic"). Humans do not possess the traits exhibited by the character portrayed in the gospels. There's no "IF" about that. Our human inability to restore vision to those unfortunate victims of enucleation, is as much a fact, as the circumference of the earth. We may or may not be sufficiently skillful to accurately compute the earth's circumference, but there is a circumference available for us to determine, should we choose to do so. How we assess that dimension, we can argue about. Do we employ satellites, or poke a couple of sticks in the ground, as did Eratosthenes? That we can debate.

In that setting, yes, we can write "IF". IF we use satellites, our measurement will be more accurate, i.e. closer to THE TRUTH. IF we follow Eratosthenes, our measurement will be somewhat less persuasive. We will deviate from THE TRUTH, by a larger margin, than if we had used data from satellites.

But, we cannot write, "IF only superman had done xyz...", for that implies that superman had existed as a genuine person, someone who actually lived, breathed air, and walked on planet earth. We know that Jesus was not a real human, based on Mark 1:1 in the revised, Byzantine version, not Codex Sinaiticus: "Son of God".

[maryhelena]

If Jesus was not historical - then, logically, the whole NT story about early christian origins is suspect for it's historicity.

I cannot accept your terminology.

IF Jesus of Nazareth were not historical..."

This construction is as illogical as the wikipedia article on the planet Krypton, as birthplace of Superman.

We cannot write, "IF", which suggests, at least to me, that consideration must be given to the possibility that a man, named Jesus of Nazereth really did walk on water, really did restore vision to those poor souls who had encountered the sharp tip of the Roman soldiers' swords, and really could raise Lazarus from the dead.

That's not an "IF" construction. That's absurd.

There is no possibility here, for fence sitting (what spin calls, "agnostic"). Humans do not possess the traits exhibited by the character portrayed in the gospels. There's no "IF" about that. Our human inability to restore vision to those unfortunate victims of enucleation, is as much a fact, as the circumference of the earth. We may or may not be sufficiently skillful to accurately compute the earth's circumference, but there is a circumference available for us to determine, should we choose to do so. How we assess that dimension, we can argue about. Do we employ satellites, or poke a couple of sticks in the ground, as did Eratosthenes? That we can debate.

In that setting, yes, we can write "IF". IF we use satellites, our measurement will be more accurate, i.e. closer to THE TRUTH. IF we follow Eratosthenes, our measurement will be somewhat less persuasive. We will deviate from THE TRUTH, by a larger margin, than if we had used data from satellites.

But, we cannot write, "IF only superman had done xyz...", for that implies that superman had existed as a genuine person, someone who actually lived, breathed air, and walked on planet earth. We know that Jesus was not a real human, based on Mark 1:1 in the revised, Byzantine version, not Codex Sinaiticus: "Son of God".

Oh dear, avi - you well know that my position is that Jesus is a literary creation - there is no 'if' about it. I was simply using the 'if' to suggest that the logical follow on from a literary Jesus is that the historicity of 'Paul' must be questioned. ie 'if' it is so ..... then.....

[neilgodfrey]

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'? ????

If by "evidence" you mean "proof" then you have a point. But I don't believe you are bothering to read my responses -- perhaps only every second line.

Letters do not claim who wrote them ...

If by "claim" you mean "prove" then you have a point. But I don't believe you are bothering to read my responses -- perhaps only every second line.

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

If by "indication" you mean "proof" then you have a point. But I don't believe you are bothering to read my responses -- perhaps only every second line.

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

Are you really reading what I've written or just playing games and having a chuckle with your pretence? If you understood any one of my posts you would know very well that NO, we do NOT VERIFY from the existence of a letter claiming to be by Paul that PAUL WAS REAL?

If you really think that's what I'm saying then I wonder what you are smoking or if you have a reading comprehension disorder. But I don't believe you are bothering to read my responses -- perhaps only every second line.

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?
.

I have never once in any of my replies here tried to argue that "Paul's letters are real". I do not argue that at all. That is not what I have been saying. But I don't believe you are bothering to read my responses -- perhaps only every second line.

No wonder mythicists have a bad name!

[neilgodfrey]

My point remains: Whether Aretas III, or IV, this reference to an historical figure in no way defines when 'Paul' lived or wrote any of the epistles attributed to him.

Presumably by "defines" you mean "proves conclusively".

I seek a bona fide piece of evidence for the existence of 'Paul'.

Presumably by "evidence" you mean "conclusive proof".

Such sloppy terminology is a sign of woolly thinking.

[neilgodfrey]

Again: we are unable to assert that Lev Tolstoy lived in the era of Catherine the Great, simply because he wrote about Marshal Kutuzov-- a genuine historical figure, appointed by her-- in his novel War and Peace.

This is not even a discussion. No-one -- except you -- has anywhere suggested that a reference in a document enables us to assert that its author lived in the era contemporaneous with the target of that reference. Red-herring. Non-sequitur. Ignore any critical response. Just repeat made-up stuff.