Genealogy Of Jesus

[Roses]

Eye witness accounts, assuming there were any where Jesus is concerned, can be far from reliable, especially if related many years after the event and involving the supernatural.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No but you are struggling naming the eyewitness accounts, claims of contemporaneous but non Christian history.

The only struggle here is your struggle with constructing a coherent thought. You seem to be trying to say something, but as it has nothing to do with anything I said I have no idea what it is. Eye-witness and contemporaneous records from many ancient civilisations obviously exist. So what?
 

We were discussing what was believed about Jesus, his existence and those communities which derive from his existence

No we weren’t. If you want to discuss that though, go right ahead. If you think what people wrote down about what other people decades earlier believed tells you anything about whether those beliefs were well-founded though, by all means try to make an argument that takes you from the account of the belief to the fact.

Again which claims and which evidence. You have already blatantly deflected from historical and doctrinal into the supernatural. That's handwaving.

Only if you’re not claiming the Jesus of the Bible. If you just want to claim a charismatic mortal whose story caught the wind later on that’s fine – there were many such, and it’s quite possible that your man was one of them. Is that the limit of your claim?   

Sad I call it.

And not true remember.

claimed what?

Magical leprechauns.

Yes what eye witness accounts are there which were written by those eyewitnesses and what document is it that corroborates those accounts? Should we make a concession to you to use anything from ancient Egypt although what would really help your case are examples from non christian sources in the first century.

You’re really losing it now. How about the Egyptian records of the materials used to build the pyramids for starters?:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shipping-mining-farming-economy-pyramids-180956619/

Ask Anchorman about this stuff if you don’t believe me.

I'm not sure that is appropriate since ancient Egypt covers several centuries more than our period of interest.

Relevance? You asked for ancient contemporaneous records – you didn’t ask that they be from a specific date. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eye witness accounts, assuming there were any where Jesus is concerned, can be far from reliable, especially if related many years after the event and involving the supernatural.

The unreliability you are talking about here is not established historically but from your own position with regards the supernatural.

Historians are pretty much agreed that there were epistles from 2 decades after Christ and that there were communities who believed in what are known as trinitarian formulations and the death and resurrection of Jesus'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You asked for ancient contemporaneous records – you didn’t ask that they be from a specific date.

You sued the words contemporaneous. Yes, I did ask for ancient contemporaneous records and no, you haven't provided a reference to any. ''what about ancient egypt?''is hardly a contemporaneous record.

As a reminder to you you said there was eye witness material written by those eye witnesses with corroboration from contemporaneous sources.... let's have it.

Put up or etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The unreliability you are talking about here is not established historically but from your own position with regards the supernatural.

Gibberish. No claims of supernatural events satisfy the tests of historicity because there’s no frame of reference against which to validate them. Any claim of magic is exactly as (in)valid as any other.

Historians are pretty much agreed that there were epistles from 2 decades after Christ and that there were communities who believed in what are known as trinitarian formulations and the death and resurrection of Jesus'.

No doubt historians are pretty much agreed that various people lived and formed committees, and they agree too that all manner of people have believed all sorts of things over the millennia. 

That though tells you absolutely sweet FA about whether any of these beliefs were true.

If you want to claim evidence for your beliefs, that’s your problem remember?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You sued the words contemporaneous. Yes, I did ask for ancient contemporaneous records and no, you haven't provided a reference to any. ''what about ancient egypt?''is hardly a contemporaneous record.

Not true - I gave you a link to examples of exactly such ancient contemporaneous records. Why didn’t you look at it? Oh well – here it is again for all the good it’ll do:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shipping-mining-farming-economy-pyramids-180956619/

As a reminder to you you said there was eye witness material written by those eye witnesses with corroboration from contemporaneous sources.... let's have it.

Put up or etc.

I already have - see above. 


Coda

From the linked article:

"Astonishingly, the papyri were written by men who participated in the building of the Great Pyramid, the tomb of the Pharaoh Khufu, the first and largest of the three colossal pyramids at Giza just outside modern Cairo. Among the papyri was the journal of a previously unknown official named Merer, who led a crew of some 200 men who traveled from one end of Egypt to the other picking up and delivering goods of one kind or another."

How much more contemporaneous do you want exactly?

[ProfessorDavey]

Historians are pretty much agreed that there were epistles from 2 decades after Christ ...

There may have been - but we don't know what they said, as the earliest extant versions of the epistles we actually have available are likely from 200AD or later.

Indeed although the epistles are often considered to be the earliest parts of the NT originally written we simply don't have any really early copies of them, which means that they will have had a couple of hundred years of evolution, editing, amending, additions, deletions before we actually have something we can call evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not true - I gave you a link to examples of exactly such ancient contemporaneous records. Why didn’t you look at it? Oh well – here it is again for all the good it’ll do:

There may have been - but we don't know what they said, as the earliest extant versions of the epistles we actually have available are likely from 200AD or later.

Indeed although the epistles are often considered to be the earliest parts of the NT originally written we simply don't have any really early copies of them, which means that they will have had a couple of hundred years of evolution, editing, amending, additions, deletions before we actually have something we can call evidence.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shipping-mining-farming-economy-pyramids-180956619/

I already have - see above. 


Coda

From the linked article:

"Astonishingly, the papyri were written by men who participated in the building of the Great Pyramid, the tomb of the Pharaoh Khufu, the first and largest of the three colossal pyramids at Giza just outside modern Cairo. Among the papyri was the journal of a previously unknown official named Merer, who led a crew of some 200 men who traveled from one end of Egypt to the other picking up and delivering goods of one kind or another."

How much more contemporaneous do you want exactly?

What is the corroborating evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There may have been - but we don't know what they said, as the earliest extant versions of the epistles we actually have available are likely from 200AD or later.

Indeed although the epistles are often considered to be the earliest parts of the NT originally written we simply don't have any really early copies of them, which means that they will have had a couple of hundred years of evolution, editing, amending, additions, deletions before we actually have something we can call evidence.

And what do you think the implications are of that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What is the corroborating evidence?

What on earth are you thrashing about with now? The “corroborating evidence” is papyri accounts from other merchants, boatyards, jetties, materials that could only have been transported by water, matching references to contemporary kings whose chronologies are already known from other sources etc.

What more corroborating evidence could you possibly want?

Now please provide a first century example?

Ah, so now you’re changing tack from “no ancient records” to “no ancient records from the time I’m interested in”.

First, there clearly are ancient (and well corroborated) records that are still available to be read so your (frankly bizarre) notion that there aren’t is wrong.

Second, of course there are records from the 1st century AD. Try the Plinys (elder & younger) and Seneca to start with.

I have no idea where you think you’re going with this, but you can’t escape the facts:

1. Ancient records exist.

2. Often those records are corroborated from multiple sources.

3. Some of those records are from the 1st century AD.

4. There are no eye witness records of Jesus though there are accounts written down later on (as there are accounts of other charismatics).
   
5. Such records as there are describe what people believed, but that's all.

6. Even if there were eye witness accounts of Jesus and his doings, they would tell you only what people said they saw which may or may not be what actually happened.

7. No records of supernatural events can satisfy the requirements of historicity because there’s no reference framework for validation.

Give it up Vladdo - you're all over the place here. 

[ProfessorDavey]

"Astonishingly, the papyri were written by men who participated in the building of the Great Pyramid, the tomb of the Pharaoh Khufu, the first and largest of the three colossal pyramids at Giza just outside modern Cairo. Among the papyri was the journal of a previously unknown official named Merer, who led a crew of some 200 men who traveled from one end of Egypt to the other picking up and delivering goods of one kind or another."

How much more contemporaneous do you want exactly?

What is the corroborating evidence?

Err ... some ruddy great pyramid things. What better corroborating evidence could you possibly want.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Err ... some ruddy great pyramid things. What better corroborating evidence could you possibly want.

Well, yes – there's those I suppose...

...but apart from the pyramids though? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What on earth are you thrashing about with now? The “corroborating evidence” is papyri accounts from other merchants, boatyards, jetties, materials that could only have been transported by water, matching references to contemporary kings whose chronologies are already known from other sources etc.

What more corroborating evidence could you possibly want?

Proof they are not later copies which have evolved and contain additions and deletions?

Ah, so now you’re changing tack from “no ancient records” to “no ancient records from the time I’m interested in”.

I never said their were no ancient records so that's a straw man argument.

First, there clearly are ancient (and well corroborated) records that are still available to be read so your (frankly bizarre) notion that there aren’t is wrong.

Again I just asked you to come up with them. So again straw man.

Second, of course there are records from the 1st century AD. Try the Plinys (elder & younger) and Seneca to start with.

And what are the earliest extant copies we have of them?

1. Ancient records exist.

Very few contemporary ones do, in fact copies of the writings of most of the roman and Jewish historians (I can't think of one who's work has extant copies of the time they are dated by historians) are later than the NT literature as are the writings of Plato and Sophocles. As I said we are happy to accept those histories as being sufficiently accurate. The discovery of very Rare extant Papyri of ancient Egyptian business transactions with the Royal Family doesn't overturn the issue of extancy.

So the reaction to your Egyptian discovery is ''so what?''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Proof they are not later copies which have evolved and contain additions and deletions?

You’re kidding right? READ THE FREAKIN’ ARTICLE WILLYA!

I never said their were no ancient records so that's a straw man argument.

You implied it – why else would you have kept asking for examples of ancient records, then changed the search criteria when I did it? 

Again I just asked you to come up with them. So again straw man.

Nope – see above.

And what are the earliest extant copies we have of them?

And again you get the answer then change the search criteria. You asked for examples of records from the 1st century AD. There are quite a few of them. Constantly narrowing down the criteria (“OK, but what records are there then from No. 23 Acacia Avenue from 2.30pm on the second Tuesday of the month?” etc) isn’t helping you. 

Very few. Contemporary ones do, in fact copies of the writings of most of the roman and Jewish historians (I can't think of one who's work has extant copies of the time they are dated by historians) are later than the NT literature as are the writings of Plato and Sophocles. As I said we are happy to accept those histories as being sufficiently accurate. The discovery of very Rare extant Papyri of ancient Egyptian business transactions with the Royal Family doesn't overturn the issue of extancy.

What issue?

So the reaction to your Egyptian discovery is ''so what?''

But I should be – “OK, I now accept that there are reliable contemporaneous records from ancient times”.

You’re welcome.

Anyway, what have all these diversions got to do with your assertion that the biblical Jesus was real?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re kidding right? READ THE FREAKIN’ ARTICLE WILLYA!

You implied it – why else would you have kept asking for examples of ancient records, then changed the search criteria when I did it? 

Nope – see above.

And again you get the answer then change the search criteria. You asked for examples of records from the 1st century AD. There are quite a few of them. Constantly narrowing down the criteria (“OK, but what records are there then from No. 23 Acacia Avenue from 2.30pm on the second Tuesday of the month?” etc) isn’t helping you. 

What issue?

But I should be – “OK, I now accept that there are reliable contemporaneous records from ancient times”.

I never said there weren't.

You’re welcome.

For what?

Anyway, what have all these diversions got to do with your assertion that the biblical Jesus was real?

I believe I have been using the term Historical Jesus and exposing your error about the nature of extancy in ancient history where you seem to suggest that the problems of extancy were somehow unique to the documents of the New Testament.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A great deal of academic history entails the examination of eye-witness and contemporaneous accounts.

And what do you base this on? A very rare surviving piece of accountancy from the ancient Egyptian royal family? While ignoring the problem of extancy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I believe I have been using the term Historical Jesus…

Then, as with pretty much everything else, you believe wrongly. If though by that you mean something like “a mortal charismatic whose story caught the wind” rather than the miracle-performing one of the Bible then just say so. I asked you the same thing a few posts ago but, as ever, you just ignored the question. 

…and exposing your error about the nature of extancy in ancient history…

Very funny. What error do you (of all people) think you found exactly?

.. where you seem to suggest that the problems of extancy were somehow unique to the documents of the New Testament.

Ah, and now we actually are in straw man territory. Welcome back – I’ll alert the Canadians to have more straw ready for you…

Oh, and what on earth do you think “the problems of extancy” even means? Are you trying to say that not everything was documented. Well, yes – how does that help you though?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For what?

Explaining to you what "corroboration" means.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then, as with pretty much everything else, you believe wrongly. If though by that you mean something like “a mortal charismatic whose story caught the wind” rather than the miracle-performing one of the Bible then just say so. I asked you the same thing a few posts ago but, as ever, you just ignored the question. 

Very funny. What error do you (of all people) think you found exactly?

Ah, and now we actually are in straw man territory. Welcome back – I’ll alert the Canadians to have more straw ready for you…

Oh, and what on earth do you think “the problems of extancy” even means? Are you trying to say that not everything was documented. Well, yes – how does that help you though?     

I forgot to add my concern that you were trying to undermine my historical arguments by referring to beliefs expressed elsewhere. Goodness knows how many fallacies you've roped in there.
You tried to conflate the historical with positions regarding the supernatural.
My position then is that the first documentation showing recognisable Christian belief in Communities is dated to around 2 decades after the event.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And what do you base this on? A very rare surviving piece of accountancy from the ancient Egyptian royal family? While ignoring the problem of extancy?

The huge enterprise of academic history that relies heavily on eye-witness and contemporaneous accounts from multiple cultures and time periods (of which the papyrus example is just one of many).

Are you feeling unwell of something?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I forgot to add my concern that you were trying to undermine my historical arguments by referring to beliefs expressed elsewhere. Goodness knows how many fallacies you've roped in there.

“Hello, is that the Canadian High Commission? It is? Good. Vlad needs more straw urgently please – and lots of it. Hurry dammit!”

Oh, and you don’t have any “historical arguments” by the way. As ever, you confuse “assertion” with “argument”.

You tried to conflate the historical with positions regarding the supernatural.

Where the hell is that straw delivery when Vlad needs it?

As I suspect you know full well, I did precisely the opposite of that. Historical records are not supernaturalism apt because such claims have no frame of reference to which the methods of academic history can apply. I’ve said this several time now, so why just lie about it? 

My position then is that the first documentation showing recognisable Christian belief in Communities is dated to around 2 decades after the event.

And my position is that that tells you fuck all about whether there was actually a miracle-performing demigod.

Why is this confusing for you?

[Spud]

No idea, since DNA and birth certificates aren't available: but then I don't much care because I can't see why it matters and, anyway, it isn't my claim. I think you need to at least recognise that some things really are unknowable, and especially so when the provenance is uncertain and concerns people and events dating from antiquity, to the extent that a degree of scepticism is required.   

As I said, we know that the gospels were written within a generation of the events in them. So they could have been refuted if false; that they weren't suggests they were accepted as being accurate. 

[Gordon]

As I said, we know that the gospels were written within a generation of the events in them. So they could have been refuted if false; that they weren't suggests they were accepted as being accurate.

Nonsense, Spud: a 'generation' means what exactly?

Even then, given that the growth of Christianity was slow a 'generation' after the alleged events in the Jesus story, what was recorded in what later became the NT reflected the outlook of the Jesus fan club at that time, so that chances of them looking to refute their own claims does seem rather slim - and in the decades immediately after the alleged death of Jesus I'm wondering who else would be intent on the refuting the claims of what, at that time, was a fairly small sect. As such, the lack of refutation in the first century CE doesn't imply that what the NT claims about the genealogy of Jesus is therefore correct since, it seems to me, the only people interested in the Jesus story at that time were already Jesus fans and bangers of the Jesus drum.

I'm sure even you can appreciate that risks or bias, mistake and lies that, from this distance, can't be discounted since there seems to be no method of investigating the family history of Jesus retrospectively, and independently of the NT claims. Why does it matter anyway, in this day and age?   

[ProfessorDavey]

As I said, we know that the gospels were written within a generation of the events in them.

We don't know that at all and indeed the best evidence on the matter suggests your assertion is complete nonsense.

Back in 1stC Palestine I'd imagine a generation would be about 25 years, which would mean the gospels would have had to have been written in the late 50s to be 'within a generation. At best we think the earliest they were originally written was about 70, with some from as late as 110.

And of course the gospels were not written in the place where the purported events occurred, but geographically far away. This means that the gospel writers would have been completely detached in both time and place from the people who might actually have been witnesses to the events.

Add to that the fact that we don't have the original gospels, only many-generation copies from hundreds of years later the the text we have available to us is completely separated from the events they are supposed to describe.

[ProfessorDavey]

So they could have been refuted if false; that they weren't suggests they were accepted as being accurate.

No it doesn't - there are many ways of refuting a claim as false. Sure you might write a piece about how false a claim is - but that is unlikely in 1stC palestine and even if it did occur those texts would need to survive.

But the other way to consider whether the people who were around at the time and place when Jesus was supposed to be performing miracles etc refuted claims is their subsequent behaviour. Had they believed the claims of the gospels then surely they'd have followed Jesus - but by and large they didn't, the people around at the time didn't accept his claims as written in the gospels. They didn't need to refute the claims in writing, their decision not to follow Jesus tells us all we need to know about whether they accepted or did not accept the claims.