Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[none]

No case then. I see.

pfft
the text includes the declaration that Jesus is the son of Dammeus

you avoided my question as to why you don't think the narrative of being Christ as genuine and not a forgery by asking me to make a case for the text mentioning Jesus as Christ when it is obvious the text contains the declaration that Jesus is the son of Dammeus

why would you think there is no forgery and why do I need to make a case for something that is obvious?

we both know the handlers of the text forged entries, and the text says Jesus is the son of Dammeus and was promoted because his brother was stoned to death.

I asked you a simple question and you want to change the subject

 

[ruby sparks]

I asked you a simple question and you want to change the subject

You said that the Jesus in that passage was the son of Damneus. So far, you haven't made a case for it, other than saying the passage mentions a Jesus son of Damneus at the end, which of course it does, but not where you wanted the bit taken out after the first mention of a 'Jesus'. You are saying that Jesus the son of Damneus is the only Jesus mentioned, right? Then you need to make a case that the first mention of a Jesus is the same guy as the second one.

I'm just waiting to hear your case for that before commenting (again) on the general issue of possible interpolation in that passage.

 

[none]

I asked you a simple question and you want to change the subject

You said that the Jesus in that passage was the son of Damneus. So far, you haven't made a case for it, other than saying the passage mentions a Jesus son of Damneus at the end, not where you wanted the bit taken out.

I'm just waiting to hear your case for that before commenting on the general issue of possible interpolation in that passage.

oh I see you think that I want the interpolation removed as being unjustified.
what I want is irrelevant
it is an interpolation
that is where we disagree and I am asking you why you don't think it is a forgery?
why should I have to make a case for removal of the forgery when the authenticity of the text is not certain because you think otherwise?
the handlers of the text have demonstrably forged entries in manuscripts.
the evidence is on my side, so kindly answer why you think it is not a forgery given the contamination of forgery in the works of Josephus and history in general?

 

[ruby sparks]

I asked you a simple question and you want to change the subject

You said that the Jesus in that passage was the son of Damneus. So far, you haven't made a case for it, other than saying the passage mentions a Jesus son of Damneus at the end, not where you wanted the bit taken out.

I'm just waiting to hear your case for that before commenting on the general issue of possible interpolation in that passage.

oh I see you think that I want the interpolation removed as being unjustified.
what I want is irrelevant
it is an interpolation
that is where we disagree and I am asking you why you don't think it is a forgery?
why should I have to make a case for removal of the forgery when the authenticity of the text is not certain because you think otherwise?
the handlers of the text have demonstrably forged entries in manuscripts.
the evidence is on my side, so kindly answer why you think it is authentic given the contamination of forgery in the works of Josephus and history in general?

You're missing the point. I'm asking you to make a case for why we should think, even taking out the reference to Christ, that the only Jesus in that passage is the son of Damneus, as you suggest. I really don't think I could have asked any more clearly or often.

 

[none]

oh I see you think that I want the interpolation removed as being unjustified.
what I want is irrelevant
it is an interpolation
that is where we disagree and I am asking you why you don't think it is a forgery?
why should I have to make a case for removal of the forgery when the authenticity of the text is not certain because you think otherwise?
the handlers of the text have demonstrably forged entries in manuscripts.
the evidence is on my side, so kindly answer why you think it is authentic given the contamination of forgery in the works of Josephus and history in general?

You're missing the point. I'm asking you to make a case for why we should think, even taking out the reference to Christ, that the only Jesus in that passage is the son of Damneus, as you suggest. I really don't think I could have asked any more clearly or often.

ok, it could be another jesus but using an interpolation, forgery, as ground to suggest that is problematic
I don't know what the original text was
all we know is that the text is corrupted
there maybe other opinions on this issue, I don't know what they are besides "hey look at this interpolation"
having Jesus denoted later in the text is sufficient to conclude that the Jesus mentioned was the son of Dammeus
just ask yourself: was the priority of handlers of the texts to preserve the authenticity

 

[none]

just ask yourself: was the priority of handlers of the texts to preserve the authenticity

 

[ruby sparks]

ok, it could be another jesus but using an interpolation, forgery, as ground to suggest that is problematic

Thankyou. The notion that it's the same Jesus sucks. What worries me about your approach to this is that you appear likely to just accept at face value any old claim in favour of your pov.

all we know is that the text is corrupted

We don't know that. It might have been. Even Jewish Josephus scholars with no interest in Jesus think it's probably original. You are too certain.

- - - Updated - - -

just ask yourself: was the priority of handlers of the texts to preserve the authenticity

I do ask myself. I can't think of any good reason to conclude that their motivation was ever to counter claims that Jesus didn't exist. Lots of other reasons, yes.

Also, I think it's unwise to paint all early christian scribes as not being interested in authenticity. The claim that 'there were interpolators' is too general.

And in the case of the James passage, if there was an interpolation, it must have been very early, way before christianity had any sort of control over Roman texts (Josephus was writing in Rome for the Romans) because Origen cites it in 248AD. And quite possibly others before Origen.

 

[lpetrich]

Philo and Josephus are the authors who lived closest in space and time to where Jesus Christ had supposedly lived. Both of them might have been willing to mention and discuss JC and his career. So let's see how it goes.

Philo was interested in eccentric Jewish sects. But he never mentioned JC.

Josephus discussed such self-styled prophets as Theudas and "The Egyptian", but he never mentioned JC among them. He described an incident where a Roman soldier provoked a riot in the Jerusalem Temple by exposing himself in it, but he never mentioned JC's Temple temper tantrum. Josephus also made some much-argued-over possible references like the Testimonium Flavianum, as it's called. My favorite theory about the TF is that it was some scribe's note that got interpreted as part of the original text. It is very out of character for Josephus, and the language looks wrong for him.

So if there was a historical Jesus Christ who lived around 30 - 33 CE, the Gospels were just plain wrong about how famous he had been.

 

[ruby sparks]

Philo and Josephus are the authors who lived closest in space and time to where Jesus Christ had supposedly lived. Both of them might have been willing to mention and discuss JC and his career. So let's see how it goes.

Philo was interested in eccentric Jewish sects. But he never mentioned JC.

Josephus discussed such self-styled prophets as Theudas and "The Egyptian", but he never mentioned JC among them. He described an incident where a Roman soldier provoked a riot in the Jerusalem Temple by exposing himself in it, but he never mentioned JC's Temple temper tantrum. Josephus also made some much-argued-over possible references like the Testimonium Flavianum, as it's called. My favorite theory about the TF is that it was some scribe's note that got interpreted as part of the original text. It is very out of character for Josephus, and the language looks wrong for him.

So if there was a historical Jesus Christ who lived around 30 - 33 CE, the Gospels were just plain wrong about how famous he had been.

Philo was dead by 50 AD don't forget. I'd like to see a case that he should have mentioned Jesus. Did he mention any other minor 1st C Judean preachers? Did he mention any 1st C preachers?

Hey, anyway, I see how this works. If somebody mentions Jesus, it's a whole-cloth christian interpolation. If they don't mention Jesus, it's an odd silence. This is called having your cake and eating it.

 

[none]

Thankyou. The notion that it's the same Jesus sucks. What worries me about your approach to this is that you appear likely to just accept at face value any old claim in favour of your pov.



We don't know that. It might have been. Even Jewish Josephus scholars with no interest in Jesus think it's probably original. You are too certain.

- - - Updated - - -

just ask yourself: was the priority of handlers of the texts to preserve the authenticity

I do ask myself. I can't think of any good reason to conclude that their motivation was ever to counter claims that Jesus didn't exist. Lots of other reasons, yes.

Also, I think it's unwise to paint all early christian scribes as not being interested in authenticity. The claim that 'there were interpolators' is too general.

And in the case of the James passage, if there was an interpolation, it must have been very early, way before christianity had any sort of control over Roman texts (Josephus was writing in Rome for the Romans) because Origen cites it in 248AD. And quite possibly others before Origen.

I think you may misunderstood me, I'm coming from the perspective it could have been a Jesus that wasn't the son of Dammeus not that it could be someone other that Jesus Christ, I don't default to the idea that the text with or without the Christ reference pertains to Jesus Christ.
I don't entertain the idea that the passage is authentic mentioning Jesus Christ of biblical fame.
Why the interpolation is in there in the first place is speculative, but the first rule of fight club is no one talk about fight club, a motif present in Christianity.
hush hush about this and that, leaning towards secrecy and deception.
Speculating more than interpolation but motive is problematic, but it fits the narrative imo.
Personally the myth has manifest a great deal but its truth I find highly questionable given the nature of all the claims that center around the characters, especially Jesus Christ.
I am still kinda on the fence about Jesus Christ historicity, I am open minded but I don't think this jamesian reference is a good match to reality.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think you may misunderstood me, I'm coming from the perspective it could have been a Jesus that wasn't the son of Dammeus not that it could be someone other that Jesus Christ, I don't default to the idea that the text with or without the Christ reference pertains to Jesus Christ.
I don't entertain the idea that the passage is authentic mentioning Jesus Christ of biblical fame.
Why the interpolation is in there in the first place is speculative, but the first rule of fight club is no one talk about fight club, a motif present in Christianity.
hush hush about this and that, leaning towards secrecy and deception.
Speculating more than interpolation but motive is problematic, but it fits the narrative imo.
Personally the myth has manifest a great deal but its truth I find highly questionable given the nature of all the claims that center around the characters, especially Jesus Christ.
I am still kinda on the fence about Jesus Christ historicity, I am open minded but I don't think this jamesian reference is a good match to reality.

Hey listen, it's Christmas. Whilst I don't necessarily buy into it, I am willing to agree with you that the reference to Christ in the James passage is, possibly, an interpolation. There's nothing implausible about that particular suggestion, imo.

I thought you were additionally advancing one of Carrier's 'Plan B' suggestions that both uses of Jesus in the passage were the same guy, which I have a lot of difficulty buying into.

I also don't necessarily think Jesus existed, I just lean slightly in favour, partly because I haven't yet seen what I consider a good enough case. I think trying to get him to be completely ahistorical is a stretch. Most new cults have a charismatic leader. Plus, we have no evidence that they ever felt a need to justify his existence to anyone.

To me, there were two games going on in Early Christianity. One was to try to convince doubters that he really was the messiah. The other was the infighting to be the winning faction. Defending that he even existed wasn't even on the menu, as far as we can reasonably tell.

My money is on Jesus not being what they said about him. 'They' being mostly the Paulines. We don't hear enough about the probably original Jerusalem Jewish followers that most likely, imo, preceded Paul. I have a sneaking suspicion that ol' Jeebus was likely quite a bit more of a militant troublemaker than we think or than the stories would have us believe. As Reza Aslan says, allegedly getting crucified by the Romans is arguably a bit of an obvious clue right from the start.

 

[whollygoats]

Thankyou. The notion that it's the same Jesus sucks. What worries me about your approach to this is that you appear likely to just accept at face value any old claim in favour of your pov.



We don't know that. It might have been. Even Jewish Josephus scholars with no interest in Jesus think it's probably original. You are too certain.

- - - Updated - - -

just ask yourself: was the priority of handlers of the texts to preserve the authenticity

I do ask myself. I can't think of any good reason to conclude that their motivation was ever to counter claims that Jesus didn't exist. Lots of other reasons, yes.

Also, I think it's unwise to paint all early christian scribes as not being interested in authenticity. The claim that 'there were interpolators' is too general.

And in the case of the James passage, if there was an interpolation, it must have been very early, way before christianity had any sort of control over Roman texts (Josephus was writing in Rome for the Romans) because Origen cites it in 248AD. And quite possibly others before Origen.

I think you may misunderstood me, I'm coming from the perspective it could have been a Jesus that wasn't the son of Dammeus not that it could be someone other that Jesus Christ, I don't default to the idea that the text with or without the Christ reference pertains to Jesus Christ.

*sigh*

'Christ' is a title. And, if we are to trust the analysis of the likes of Jacob Neusner et al, in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge University Press, 1987), then upon being selected as the High Priest, Jesus, son of Damneus, would have become Jesus the Christ....the anointed of the Lord, aka the High Priest.

The term 'Christ', indicating the divinity of the salvific founder figure, was evidently a semantic innovation of the author of the genuine 'Pauline' epistles.

As for ruby's claim that your 'there were interpolations' being too general....well, ruby is a forking hypocrite. He has done the very same throughout this thread, making claims without being responsible for providing any kind of back-up, like he is some kind of demi-god of knowledge on Jesus. Fuck that noise. ruby deserves not a single response from any other poster in this thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

'Christ' is a title. And, if we are to trust the analysis of the likes of Jacob Neusner et al, in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge University Press, 1987), then upon being selected as the High Priest, Jesus, son of Damneus, would have become Jesus the Christ....the anointed of the Lord, aka the High Priest.

I wish I had a clue what your point was there.

 

[Juma]

Philo and Josephus are the authors who lived closest in space and time to where Jesus Christ had supposedly lived. Both of them might have been willing to mention and discuss JC and his career. So let's see how it goes.

Philo was interested in eccentric Jewish sects. But he never mentioned JC.

Josephus discussed such self-styled prophets as Theudas and "The Egyptian", but he never mentioned JC among them. He described an incident where a Roman soldier provoked a riot in the Jerusalem Temple by exposing himself in it, but he never mentioned JC's Temple temper tantrum. Josephus also made some much-argued-over possible references like the Testimonium Flavianum, as it's called. My favorite theory about the TF is that it was some scribe's note that got interpreted as part of the original text. It is very out of character for Josephus, and the language looks wrong for him.

So if there was a historical Jesus Christ who lived around 30 - 33 CE, the Gospels were just plain wrong about how famous he had been.

Philo was dead by 50 AD don't forget. I'd like to see a case that he should have mentioned Jesus. Did he mention any other minor 1st C Judean preachers? Did he mention any 1st C preachers?

Hey, anyway, I see how this works. If somebody mentions Jesus, it's a whole-cloth christian interpolation. If they don't mention Jesus, it's an odd silence. This is called having your cake and eating it.

Yeah. Philo was dead at 50 CE. Which gives him plenty of time to receive the news of jesus. It there had been any...

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah. Philo was dead at 50 CE. Which gives him plenty of time to receive the news of jesus. It there had been any...

Ok mister wants-to-have-his-cake-and-eat-it, tell me who Philo did write about that was in Judea in his time.

 

[whollygoats]

Philo and Josephus are the authors who lived closest in space and time to where Jesus Christ had supposedly lived. Both of them might have been willing to mention and discuss JC and his career. So let's see how it goes.

Philo was interested in eccentric Jewish sects. But he never mentioned JC.

Josephus discussed such self-styled prophets as Theudas and "The Egyptian", but he never mentioned JC among them. He described an incident where a Roman soldier provoked a riot in the Jerusalem Temple by exposing himself in it, but he never mentioned JC's Temple temper tantrum. Josephus also made some much-argued-over possible references like the Testimonium Flavianum, as it's called. My favorite theory about the TF is that it was some scribe's note that got interpreted as part of the original text. It is very out of character for Josephus, and the language looks wrong for him.

So if there was a historical Jesus Christ who lived around 30 - 33 CE, the Gospels were just plain wrong about how famous he had been.

Philo was dead by 50 AD don't forget. I'd like to see a case that he should have mentioned Jesus. Did he mention any other minor 1st C Judean preachers? Did he mention any 1st C preachers?

Hey, anyway, I see how this works. If somebody mentions Jesus, it's a whole-cloth christian interpolation. If they don't mention Jesus, it's an odd silence. This is called having your cake and eating it.

Yeah. Philo was dead at 50 CE. Which gives him plenty of time to receive the news of jesus. It there had been any...

Plus, reputedly get a gander at the burgeoning 'christian' community that Saul was reputedly so busy intimidating and harrassing. And, by the time of his mission, believers had spread as far as Corinth, at least. And, he was warning them against those missionaries for 'other Jesuses'. How is it that Philo missed all of that explosive growth that spun off a congregation as far away as Corinth by the mid-60s?

Not only that, if memory serves, Philo was related by marriage to Herod Agrippa, one of the actors in the storyline.

 

[ruby sparks]

Who did he write about from Judea in his own time, that's my question. I genuinely don't know the answer. As far as I knew, he didn't write about such things, so to expect him to write about one particular preacher might be unreasonable.

Also, why didn't the Christians supposedly so keen to get a mention for Jesus in order to establish his existence pop a little something into Philo's writing during all the centuries they had them? You know, before Judaism started to talk about Philo in the 16th Century?

Also, everybody knows that an argument from silence is a weak argument.

There were several messianic preacher rebel types in Judea at that time and Philo doesn't mention any of them, as far as I know.

 

[ruby sparks]

How is it that Philo missed all of that explosive growth that spun off a congregation as far away as Corinth by the mid-60s?.

Um. He would have been already dead. The earliest dating for the earliest epistle is mid-50's. Lol.

 

[ruby sparks]

Philo complains about Pontius Pilate executing Jews without just cause. Jewish troublemakers were executed by Pontius Pilate (according to other reports). Philo doesn't, as far as I know, discuss any of the victims, or any Jewish troublemakers or preachers, so why would he mention Jesus?

 

[none]

I think you may misunderstood me, I'm coming from the perspective it could have been a Jesus that wasn't the son of Dammeus not that it could be someone other that Jesus Christ, I don't default to the idea that the text with or without the Christ reference pertains to Jesus Christ.
I don't entertain the idea that the passage is authentic mentioning Jesus Christ of biblical fame.
Why the interpolation is in there in the first place is speculative, but the first rule of fight club is no one talk about fight club, a motif present in Christianity.
hush hush about this and that, leaning towards secrecy and deception.
Speculating more than interpolation but motive is problematic, but it fits the narrative imo.
Personally the myth has manifest a great deal but its truth I find highly questionable given the nature of all the claims that center around the characters, especially Jesus Christ.
I am still kinda on the fence about Jesus Christ historicity, I am open minded but I don't think this jamesian reference is a good match to reality.

Hey listen, it's Christmas. Whilst I don't necessarily buy into it, I am willing to agree with you that the reference to Christ in the James passage is, possibly, an interpolation. There's nothing implausible about that particular suggestion, imo.

I thought you were additionally advancing one of Carrier's 'Plan B' suggestions that both uses of Jesus in the passage were the same guy, which I have a lot of difficulty buying into.

I also don't necessarily think Jesus existed, I just lean slightly in favour, partly because I haven't yet seen what I consider a good enough case. I think trying to get him to be completely ahistorical is a stretch. Most new cults have a charismatic leader. Plus, we have no evidence that they ever felt a need to justify his existence to anyone.

To me, there were two games going on in Early Christianity. One was to try to convince doubters that he really was the messiah. The other was the infighting to be the winning faction. Defending that he even existed wasn't even on the menu, as far as we can reasonably tell.

My money is on Jesus not being what they said about him. 'They' being mostly the Paulines. We don't hear enough about the probably original Jerusalem Jewish followers that most likely, imo, preceded Paul. I have a sneaking suspicion that ol' Jeebus was likely quite a bit more of a militant troublemaker than we think or than the stories would have us believe. As Reza Aslan says, allegedly getting crucified by the Romans is arguably a bit of an obvious clue right from the start.

it's not like this hasn't been an ongoing debate for centuries