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

[Jobar]

Like that of Herod against Jesus?

I've only skimmed the last page or two, so someone else may already have pointed out that Herod's slaying of the innocents is certainly mythical; there is not a single reference to it outside the Gospels.

 

[whollygoats]

But I do find it interesting that 'Chrestos' and 'Christos' were both Greek words, with quite different meanings. If I were a Greek scholar with access to many ancient texts, I would look into the uses of the two terms, looking at when and where they varied, and if perhaps different sects used one or the other in the earliest centuries. It might be that 'Jesus the Good' was the object of worship of groups the Catholic Church named heretics. I'd be interested to read the reports of such a scholar, if anyone runs across such a work.

Well, did anybody explain to the Greeks why this particular Joshua was so greasy? This Paul evidently kept spouting off about him being greasy. Was he some kind of athlete?

 

[bilby]

But I do find it interesting that 'Chrestos' and 'Christos' were both Greek words, with quite different meanings. If I were a Greek scholar with access to many ancient texts, I would look into the uses of the two terms, looking at when and where they varied, and if perhaps different sects used one or the other in the earliest centuries. It might be that 'Jesus the Good' was the object of worship of groups the Catholic Church named heretics. I'd be interested to read the reports of such a scholar, if anyone runs across such a work.

Well, did anybody explain to the Greeks why this particular Joshua was so greasy? This Paul evidently kept spouting off about him being greasy. Was he some kind of athlete?

When in Judea, eat at Greasy Joe's! Happy Hour Friday - All the wine you can drink before sundown! Try our Loaves and Fishes combo (half price - first five thousand customers only).

 

[ruby sparks]

Like that of Herod against Jesus?

I've only skimmed the last page or two, so someone else may already have pointed out that Herod's slaying of the innocents is certainly mythical; there is not a single reference to it outside the Gospels.

Herod (The Great) didn't kill the innocents as per the NT story. That was made up. But he apparently wanted to do something very similar.

He was by all accounts a complete bastard and/or a lunatic (specifically displaying symptoms of paranoid depression perhaps) and he did have two of his own sons murdered in 7 BCE. Maybe the story partly came from an exaggeration of that. He had also already murdered his wife, the sons' mother, in 29 BCE, and her brother (his brother-in-law) the next year. Unsurprisingly, his mother-in-law (biological mother of Mariamme, his murdered wife) apparently thought he was mentally unfit to rule, though she may have also supported and abetted him, possibly in fear of her own life and/or privilege. They were harsh times.

More likely though, the story mainly comes from an event recorded in Josephus' Antiquities. When Herod was about to die (in 4 BCE) he issued an order that one out of every Jewish family should be killed. It seems to have been some sort of mad revenge/legacy thing for him, one last, pointless brutality. He was dying horribly in excruciating pain (possibly chronic kidney disease complicated by gangrene) and had contemplated suicide.

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17, chapter 6, verse 6:

"6. Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man's mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity; since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or that was against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes; while it is usual for those who have any regard to virtue to lay aside their hatred at such a time, even with respect to those they justly esteemed their enemies."


http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-17.htm


As it turned out, he died before the order could be carried out and it was not done.

Only two of the gospels have a nativity story. The text later to be called 'Matthew' was the one in which Jesus was supposedly born at the time of Herod the Great's demise and the threat of killing the innocents. 'Luke' has Jesus born at the time of the Census (for tax purposes) ordered by Quirinius (6 CE) when the Romans occupied part of Palestine (Judea specifically) as opposed to having it run by non-Jewish (or Jewish/arab) Idumaean client kings such as Herod the Great or his sons. We should not, imo, think of Luke as contradicting Matthew's timing of events, since 'around that time' seemed to be good enough for accuracy, even by the iffy standards of 'proper history' (eg Josephus) at the time. I'm not saying the gospels were proper history at all. They were more like theology dressed up, and the nativity stories are among the most obviously fictional parts of the texts. Fictionalising birth narratives wasn't unknown in ancient history, even for historical persons.

Tangentially, Galilee was not occupied (at that time) and was given, by the Romans, to one of Herod the Great's sons, Herod Antipas, who ruled it until 29 CE. Partly for this reason (not being under direct Roman rule but being nearby) Galilee apparently became a hotbed for anti-Roman (and anti-Jewish-establishment) dissent during the early part of the 1st C CE, and somewhere that dissenters and rebels could bolt to for comparative safety. Not unlike Counties Monaghan, Louth and Donegal (south of the border in the Irish Republic) during the Troubles here in Northern Ireland. So, 'being from Galilee' may have been a loaded expression during those years.

 

[whollygoats]

Tangentially, Galilee was not occupied (at that time) and was given, by the Romans, to one of Herod the Great's sons, Herod Antipas, who ruled it until 29 CE. Partly for this reason (not being under direct Roman rule but being nearby) Galilee apparently became a hotbed for anti-Roman (and anti-Jewish-establishment) dissent during the early part of the 1st C CE, and somewhere that dissenters and rebels could bolt to for comparative safety. Not unlike Counties Monaghan, Louth and Donegal (south of the border in the Irish Republic) during the Troubles here in Northern Ireland. So, 'being from Galilee' may have been a loaded expression during those years.

John 1:26.

A buncha hicks; lots of gentiles. IIRC, Megiddo is there, too.

And Herod was not Hebrew, but Idumean. His family had endured forced conversion under Hasmonean rule. He was resented and reviled by the Jews.

 

[Learner]

Really? How is it you know this? IIRC, the War Scrolls found in Qumran, as part of what we know as the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicate that some sectarians believed in the rise of dual messiahs, one martial and one priestly, who would deliver the salvation of the Jewish people from bondage and drive out the kittim from the Promised Land. But then, the usage of the term 'messiah' seems to be a bit broader than what you indicate. According to Jacob Neusner and his associates, in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge University Press, 1987), the title of 'messiah' (the anointed one) seems to have been a bit more common than modern Christians give out. IIRC, all kings and high priests were 'messiahs'.

Sure perhaps there can be many broad uses or claims of the messiah name as you describe but I was meaning in the context for example, Jesus doesn't say to any of His desciples or relatives :" You take over as Messiah when I'm gone!" As you would do ... replacing with a new Pope or Rabbi.

 

[lpetrich]

Sure perhaps there can be many broad uses or claims of the messiah name as you describe but I was meaning in the context for example, Jesus doesn't say to any of His desciples or relatives :" You take over as Messiah when I'm gone!" As you would do ... replacing with a new Pope or Rabbi.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ apparently appoints Peter as a successor: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." But this is clearly not a family succession.

 

[whollygoats]

Really? How is it you know this? IIRC, the War Scrolls found in Qumran, as part of what we know as the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicate that some sectarians believed in the rise of dual messiahs, one martial and one priestly, who would deliver the salvation of the Jewish people from bondage and drive out the kittim from the Promised Land. But then, the usage of the term 'messiah' seems to be a bit broader than what you indicate. According to Jacob Neusner and his associates, in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge University Press, 1987), the title of 'messiah' (the anointed one) seems to have been a bit more common than modern Christians give out. IIRC, all kings and high priests were 'messiahs'.

Sure perhaps there can be many broad uses or claims of the messiah name as you describe but I was meaning in the context for example, Jesus doesn't say to any of His desciples or relatives :" You take over as Messiah when I'm gone!" As you would do ... replacing with a new Pope or Rabbi.

That's because the gospel writers were not Hebrews, did not clearly know what the term meant, and freighted it with completely variant and novel meaning....particularly Paul. The term comes from the Hebrew and was transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic to the Greek 'christos', which meant 'unguent, for external purpose only', until the Pauline authors redefined it for their purposes.

 

[bilby]

Really? How is it you know this? IIRC, the War Scrolls found in Qumran, as part of what we know as the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicate that some sectarians believed in the rise of dual messiahs, one martial and one priestly, who would deliver the salvation of the Jewish people from bondage and drive out the kittim from the Promised Land. But then, the usage of the term 'messiah' seems to be a bit broader than what you indicate. According to Jacob Neusner and his associates, in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge University Press, 1987), the title of 'messiah' (the anointed one) seems to have been a bit more common than modern Christians give out. IIRC, all kings and high priests were 'messiahs'.

Sure perhaps there can be many broad uses or claims of the messiah name as you describe but I was meaning in the context for example, Jesus doesn't say to any of His desciples or relatives :" You take over as Messiah when I'm gone!" As you would do ... replacing with a new Pope or Rabbi.

That's because the gospel writers were not Hebrews, did not clearly know what the term meant, and freighted it with completely variant and novel meaning....particularly Paul. The term comes from the Hebrew and was transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic to the Greek 'christos', which meant 'unguent, for external purpose only', until the Pauline authors redefined it for their purposes.

Unguents? Like camels, goats, and sheep?

 

[whollygoats]

That's because the gospel writers were not Hebrews, did not clearly know what the term meant, and freighted it with completely variant and novel meaning....particularly Paul. The term comes from the Hebrew and was transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic to the Greek 'christos', which meant 'unguent, for external purpose only', until the Pauline authors redefined it for their purposes.

Unguents? Like camels, goats, and sheep?

No. Like lotions, balms, salves, and liniments. In Hebrew society the external application of oil was an indicator of authority, particularly divine authority. In Greek society, external application of oil tended to be associated with professional athletes like wrestlers, javelin throwers, and runners, who used it with such abandon that they required sponsors to underwrite the cost of the oil.

The 'christ' term is an ambiguity of the Septuagint, the Grecophonic translation of the Hebrew Torah.

 

[humbleman]

Not far behind is prophecies fulfilled by heroes. Jesus Christ is far from alone, though it's hard to compete with the prophecy of Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother. Where are the prophecies of the coming of George Washington or Charles Darwin or Adolf Hitler? I recall that some people have tried to find Adolf Hitler in the works of Nostradamus, but that's about it.

Then being raised by foster parents in a distant land. That's rather odd.

That was really a weird comparison

Losing favor with the gods or one's followers is rather curiously common in legendary heroes, and Jesus Christ is far from alone there. However, repudiation is much rarer among well-documented ones, even defeated ones like Napoleon and Hitler. Both "gentlemen" had followers who stayed faithful even when they were losing. When Napoleon was exiled to Elba island near Italy, he escaped and his followers got him into power a second time. After he was defeated a second time, he was exiled to St. Helena island in the south Atlantic Ocean. He spent the rest of his life there. Adolf Hitler had followers to the bitter end, when he committed suicide in his bunker in Berlin with Soviet troops only a few blocks away.

I scored Muammar Gaddafi in that page, because his being repudiated is so rare. Among notable people, Tsar Nicholas II, Richard Nixon, and Mikhail Gorbachev were also repudiated, but many others weren't.

But, there is no mention at all that some follower called the messiah "a hero".

You reminded me an interview to Kevin Sorbo when the TV show host asked this actor who acted as Hercules about comparing him with Superman. The actor responded that Superman was a hero, but he as Hercules was a "semi-god", and he smiled with pride...

Lower down, but still with sizable slopes, is:

1. Father being a king
2. Mother being a royal virgin
3. Us having no details about his childhood despite a dramatic infancy
4. Dying a mysterious death
5. Triumphing over some big enemy

Jesus Christ is a rather mixed bag here. (1) His (step)father was a commoner, but JC's biographers make a big fuss about his Davidic ancestry. (2) His mother was a commoner, but she is not called the Virgin Mary for nothing. (3) We learn that he studied in the Jerusalem Temple when his parents visited there with him, and there are some Infancy Gospels with further childhood adventures. (4) When he was crucified, he died a quick death for a young man in good health. (5) He refused the Devil's temptations, and the Devil gave up on him.

Some items had low slopes, however, like parents being near relatives, the hero's making notable laws, his dying on top of a hill, his having no family successors, and his marrying a princess.

he died a quick death for a young man in good health

What the age has to do with the death of the messiah?

According to studies about his crucifixion, the process was very painful.

http://www1.cbn.com/medical-view-of-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-christ

Of the many aspects of this initial suffering, the one of greatest physiological interest is the bloody sweat. It is interesting that St. Luke, the physician, is the only one to mention this. He says, “And being in agony, He prayed the longer. And His sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.” Every ruse (trick) imaginable has been used by modern scholars to explain away this description, apparently under the mistaken impression that this just doesn’t happen. A great deal of effort could have been saved had the doubters consulted the medical literature. Though very rare, the phenomenon of Hematidrosis, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional stress of the kind our Lord suffered, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with sweat. This process might well have produced marked weakness and possible shock. ...

...Jesus was next brought before the Sanhedrin and Caiphus, the High Priest; it is here that the first physical trauma was inflicted. A soldier struck Jesus across the face for remaining silent when questioned by Caiphus...

...In the early morning, battered and bruised, dehydrated, and exhausted from a sleepless night, Jesus is taken across the Praetorium of the Fortress Antonia, the seat of government of the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate...

...but the Jews had an ancient law prohibiting more than forty lashes. The Roman legionnaire steps forward with the flagrum (or flagellum) in his hand. This is a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus’ shoulders, back, and legs.

At first the thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue...

...Flexible branches covered with long thorns (commonly used in bundles for firewood) are plaited into the shape of a crown and this is pressed into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding, the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body. ..

...In spite of His efforts to walk erect, the weight of the heavy wooden beam, together with the shock produced by copious blood loss, is too much. He stumbles and falls. The rough wood of the beam gouges into the lacerated skin and muscles of the shoulders...

...The left foot is now pressed backward against the right foot, and with both feet extended, toes down, a nail is driven through the arch of each, leaving the knees moderately flexed. The Victim is now crucified. As He slowly sags down with more weight on the nails in the wrists, excruciating pain shoots along the fingers and up the arms to explode in the brain — the nails in the wrists are putting pressure on the median nerves.

As He pushes Himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, He places His full weight on the nail through His feet. Again there is the searing agony of the nail tearing through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet. At this point, as the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push Himself upward. Hanging by his arms, the pectoral muscles are paralyzed and the intercostal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs, but cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise Himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the blood stream and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, he is able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen....

...Jesus experienced hours of limitless pain, cycles of twisting, joint-rending cramps, intermittent partial asphyxiation, searing pain where tissue is torn from His lacerated back as He moves up and down against the rough timber. Then another agony begins -- a terrible crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart...

... The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John reports: “And immediately there came out blood and water.” That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium. ...

Can you repeat one more time your story: "When he was crucified, he died a quick death for a young man in good health"?

I don't know where you obtain your information, but no doubt that you were looking for it in the wrong places.

 

[lpetrich]

Not far behind is prophecies fulfilled by heroes. Jesus Christ is far from alone, though it's hard to compete with the prophecy of Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother. Where are the prophecies of the coming of George Washington or Charles Darwin or Adolf Hitler? I recall that some people have tried to find Adolf Hitler in the works of Nostradamus, but that's about it.

Then being raised by foster parents in a distant land. That's rather odd.

That was really a weird comparison

What do you mean?

But, there is no mention at all that some follower called the messiah "a hero".

That's splitting hairs. Messiah-hood makes one a kind of hero.

he died a quick death for a young man in good health

What the age has to do with the death of the messiah?

According to studies about his crucifixion, the process was very painful.

 Crucifixion, This is the horrible way that crucifixion actually kills you -- it's possible to survive a day or two of crucifixion.

Furthermore, if Jesus Christ had been God, he could have jumped off of that cross.

 

[Jobar]

 

[humbleman]

What do you mean?

But, there is no mention at all that some follower called the messiah "a hero".

That's splitting hairs. Messiah-hood makes one a kind of hero.

he died a quick death for a young man in good health

What the age has to do with the death of the messiah?

According to studies about his crucifixion, the process was very painful.

 Crucifixion, This is the horrible way that crucifixion actually kills you -- it's possible to survive a day or two of crucifixion.

Furthermore, if Jesus Christ had been God, he could have jumped off of that cross.

That... you know what?... that is what dumb High Priest & Company wanted to see...

The plans of God & Son were different: for the Son to come back with glory from death. This was a better show to see: it has sold more tickets than ever. More than two thousand years and keeps going...

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure, a lot of people have bought tickets, but.....when's the show?

 

[humbleman]

Sure, a lot of people have bought tickets, but.....when's the show?

You missed it already.

Start visiting a Church for having a better information about part II.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure, a lot of people have bought tickets, but.....when's the show?

You missed it already.

Start visiting a Church for having a better information about part II.

Jesus has returned in glory? Where? Mars?

I take it you're not talking about this:

"...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." MATTHEW 24:30

Is that not the show? It's the one that was advertised.

 

[humbleman]

Sure, a lot of people have bought tickets, but.....when's the show?

You missed it already.

Start visiting a Church for having a better information about part II.

Jesus has returned in glory? Where? Mars?

I take it you're not talking about this:

"...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." MATTHEW 24:30

Is that not the show? It's the one that was advertised.

He was resurrected.

That was a great show. more than five hundred people watched the new body which is supposed won't see "death" anymore.

See? that was better than watching CNN with dudes screaming "impeach!" everyday...

Part II will be the return of the same resurrected guy but at this time, watch out!... he won't be the nice and cute and passive dude of two thousand years ago... at this time he will crash his enemies like smashing roaches under your foot.

Look at it this way. You were born and live a life with good and bad moments. You have made good and bad things. You have learned lots of things. You have experienced lots of things. You know that beyond your perceptions thru your senses, also you have imagined things which perhaps you never thought those exist. Perhaps your dreams never went out of showing things already observed in the universe or you have visions of new things.

No matter how far you went with your actions, knowledge, ideas and dreams. It should a waste if all that just disappears after you died. If this is the fate of humanity, well, then this is it.

But, in case there is a second part, that after all your actions, ideas, an acquired knowledge, it is restored to check what good can be used and check if must be part of a new era, then, everything you have experienced in your life perhaps has a meaning beyond death.

This is what part II and part III of the show will be about.

You are free to buy your entrance to the show or, just been aware that it will come or, just ignore it.

 

[whollygoats]

LOL! FAKE NEWS!

 

[ruby sparks]

So what you're saying, humbleman, is that the show has started, and it's sort of the interval. In which case I'll change my question to 'when is the second (coming) part gonna start? The audience has been in the theatre for over 2000 years already.'

Never was the popcorn icon more appropriate. If only I could find the bloody thing. It's almost as elusive as the historical Jesus at the moment.