Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Because (supposedly) Christianity was still a Jewish internal movement (as a sect of 1st Century Judaism), important enough that the High Priest required the Expulsion Curses be read, at the end of the 1st Century. 

That would be irrelevant if he was an "orthodox" Jew. To him, Jesus was just a pretender, and not actually a Messiah. 

One WOULD have expected him to comment definitively about that problem and it's origins if anything about it was what it's portrayed as. 
http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the-benedic...the-minim/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkat_haMinim

The thing is, about the time Josephus was writing his book, Christianity was outlawed in the Roman Empire. Christians were hated by the Romans, and with Josephus being "kept" by the Romans, and writing Antiquities FOR the Roman audience, the most he would likely say is basically what we see. He was giving a historical account of the Jews, and he probably started writing his book years before AD 93, since it's so large. To him, and to the Romans, Christianity and Jesus called Christ were not much more than an annoyance at the time. It was spreading, yes, but in the AD 80s the Romans were still killing Christians simply because, as Tacitus stated 20 years later, "they were a class hated for their abominations."

Josephus (supposedly) called the Christians a "tribe." As a Jew, this would not be unusual, as Jews know all about the 12 Tribes of Israel. To him, the Christians represented another somewhat pseudo tribe of Israel. Even at his time the Christians were still considered Jews, but were disliked by the orthodox Jews who didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, calling them a tribe is quite accurate, even if he didn't say it.

.... BUT, for those who are totally denying the historicity of Jesus, the fact is, this sect was going, and strong enough to pose a threat by the end of the 1st Century. Something or someone had to have got it going.

That is the logical conclusion based on everything we know.

[SYZ]

As an ignostic, it's only logical that I don't—ultimately—really give two fucks as to
whether or not some ancient character was a real person or simply a fabrication.  
And why should I anyway?  The correct answer doesn't affect me to even the tiniest
iota of my human existence or my daily life.

I may as well waste my time and energy trying to figure out if Beowulf was a real person.

And I sometimes wonder why so many atheists waste so much time and effort attempting
to disprove JC's existence—with the same fervour that theists try to prove he did exist
as a real person or the messiah or whatever.

The story about JC is simply a conglomeration of many fictional bits and pieces, gathered over
time, and distorted by multiple transliterations, fanciful thinking and credulity.

There's long been speculation about whether Beowulf was real or not. Like all legendary
stories—such as the Bible—Beowulf mixes elements of fact and fiction, and there is
much historical and archeological evidence for many of the events that the poem depicts.
However, there's not been any evidence discovered of a real Beowulf as a living individual,
but some scholars are still speculating as to whether or not the so-called "Beowulf poet"
completely fabricated him or not.

[Minimalist]

And I sometimes wonder why so many atheists waste so much time and effort attempting to disprove JC's existence

Because so many jesus freaks come here insisting their silly bullshit is true.  What are we supposed to do?  Say "that's nice - now run along and play, sonny?"

They come here looking to sprinkle jesus dust on the carpets.  Like disobedient puppies they need to have their noses rubbed in it.

This,




is every bit as real and a whole lot funnier!

[Minimalist]

Free Wrote: 2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Gee.  If you thought of that why didn't Eusebius?

Oh right.  He didn't give a shit.  He was just spinning a yarn for the dolts.

[Dancefortwo]

Free Wrote: 2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Gee.  If you thought of that why didn't Eusebius?

Oh right.  He didn't give a shit.  He was just spinning a yarn for the dolts.

LOLOLOL!  This is the EXACTLY the reason scholars why believe the TF is an insertion.  Thanks for making my point for me.  If he'd believed Jesus was the messiah he'd have written much more than that small paragraph.  It was his style of writing that he went into great, lengthy  detail about historical figures.   

(Minimalist, I was too lazy to isolate and quote Free so I just used your post.  I have a crapy cold today. I'm a lazy slug today.Ugh)

[Minimalist]

That's fine, man.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Chas]

Actually, from Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian, we see:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

if Josephus mentions Jesus Christ then why the interpolation?

Here's something everyone needs to understand. There is absolutely no evidence of interpolation in the works of Josephus. None. Nada. Ziltch.

You see, it doesn't matter what anyone says about it, including the experts and armchair critics. The bottom line is that everything we see in Josephus is what it is, and there is no evidence to suggest interpolation.

Opinion is not evidence, and never will be. But if you value the opinion of the experts then you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that virtually ALL experts agree that Josephus wrote two entries in Antiquities of the Jews mentioning Jesus Christ.

That's the bottom line here.

Josephus had no primary sources for any of this.  It's ALL hearsay.

[Bucky Ball]

That would be irrelevant if he was an "orthodox" Jew. To him, Jesus was just a pretender, and not actually a Messiah. 

False. 
He was an historian, and the movement was real. 
It impacted Jewish culture. The POINT is not who or what the founder was. The POINT is that there was an important historical change going on.
He didn't just write about messiahs.

[Chas]

1. Paul said that Jesus had a brother named James.

Who cares. Paul said a lot of crazy shit, including that he was transported to heaven.

That's not a retort, and you know it.

2. The Gospel records clearly name James as a brother to Jesus 

Citation required. Where ? ANd how do you know how it was meant ?

Mat 13:55 -56  Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas, and his sisters, are they not all with us? Then from where does this man have all these things? 

Mar 6:3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at Him.

Now, also here is something for you to think about:

Joh_7:3  Therefore His brothers said to Him, Move away from here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see the works that You do.

Joh_7:5  For His brothers did not believe in Him

So I have a question for you. If the word "brother" is only a reference to the "brotherhood of Christ," how then could this gospel entry have brothers who did not believe he was the Christ? After all, if they didn't believe he was the Christ, how then could the word "brother" in respect to "brotherhood of Christ" apply to those who didn't believe he was the Christ?

I know you see the logic, Bucky. And I know that YOU know I have a valid point here. There's simply no way the brotherhood of Christ applies to the brothers in John 7:5, therefore it can only refer to his natural brothers.

3. Josephus clearly says James was the brother of Jesus. 

He also said Vespasian was the messiah. You don't know in what way he means "brother".

He means brother in the same way he uses the word in regards to other people in his works. Nowhere in Antiquities does Jospehus refer to a brother as meaning anything other than a physical relative. 

So why single this out? An uncomfortable truth, perhaps? 

4  Eusebius says: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles."

He also said he would use pious fraud if it was useful.

And that- if true- somehow invalidates his mundane statement that James was the brother of Jesus? How?

5. Jerome says: "Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says 'Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'"

Jerome also said he would lie when it was useful.

And that- if true- somehow invalidates his mundane statement that James was the brother of Jesus? How?

6. The Gospel of the Hebrew says Jesus said to James: "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead."' And so he ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is, until the seventh year of Nero."

Gospels are proclamations of faith ... not history.

That does not in any way invalidate any historical value they may have. They are two separate and distinct things.

Arguing the meanings and shadings of words not in the original language is folly.
What words were actually used in the source?  What translation are you using?

That kind of argument is no argument at all.

[Phaedrus]

I notice how he keeps using Orthodox Jew for a time period when I am fairly certain there was simply the Jew and no sects to warrant a separation to recognize one as Orthodox or untraditional.

[Free]

Free Wrote: 2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Gee.  If you thought of that why didn't Eusebius?

Oh right.  He didn't give a shit.  He was just spinning a yarn for the dolts.

LOLOLOL!  This is the EXACTLY the reason scholars why believe the TF is an insertion.  Thanks for making my point for me.  If he'd believed Jesus was the messiah he'd have written much more than that small paragraph.  It was his style of writing that he went into great, lengthy  detail about historical figures.   

(Minimalist, I was too lazy to isolate and quote Free so I just used your post.  I have a crapy cold today. I'm a lazy slug today.Ugh)

Are you still stupid? The vast majority consensus from the scholars regarding the TF is that it almost certainly had a nucleus regarding Jesus. Sure, in the Greek transcripts we see what appears to be a Christianaized alteration of the original text regarding Jesus, but virtually all scholars agree that, because we have the Syriac and Arabic versions of the TF, there was with almost certainly a mention of Jesus, that he was regarded as the Christ, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Since we have the text in 3 different languages, and they vary from each other, it demonstrates that there was almost certainly something written about Jesus Christ by Josephus in that section.

The modern scholars who disagree can be counted on the fingers of one hand, with likely a couple fingers left over. At last count, over 100 scholars world-wide are in agreement. These are experts in the field, and their reasons for agreeing are because of the physical evidence. 

Now, if we take 4 or 5 scientists who disagree that the fossil record indicates evolution, while 125 agree that it does indicate evolution, what would you think of of those 5 scientists? Studying the fossil record is not unlike studying history, because in fact it is the study of the history of evolution.

Therefore, if we can dismiss the opinions of 5 crackpot scientists, equally we can dismiss the opinions of 5 crackpot historians, such as Richard Carrier and that lot of wannabe somebodies.

And if we can dismiss the opinions of crackpot historians, then we can most certainly dismiss the opinions of crackpot armchair critics such as yourself and Minimalist.

[Phaedrus]

Walls of text that amount to poppycock.

[Free]

Walls of text that amount to poppycock.

If that's the best response you can muster well dude ... you are completely out of your element.

But by all means, if you can actually contribute something meaningful I am certain the peanut gallery won't shower you will peanut shells.

[Phaedrus]

Well, thank goodness reverse psychology doesn't work on me, because a tit-for-tat whereby my best response is as relevant as what you have assembled is all I am willing to provide at this point.

[Minimalist]

He knows absofuckinglutely nothing about the bulk of the scholarship on Josephus.

That moron will never do it but everyone else should consult Richard Carrier who has reviewed the current evidence.  He summarizes much of it here but On The Historicity of Jesus is still a fine source.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already

A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.
The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at academia.edu).

So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus  in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.

[Free]

Well, thank goodness reverse psychology doesn't work on me, because a tit-for-tat whereby my best response is as relevant as what you have assembled is all I am willing to provide at this point.

Since your comments do not touch on the subject matter of this discussion  they are non sequitur, and are also a false comparison to my comments which are directly cohesive to the content and theme of this discussion.

But please, carry on. The entertainment value might account for a healthy diversion.

[Free]

if Josephus mentions Jesus Christ then why the interpolation?

Here's something everyone needs to understand. There is absolutely no evidence of interpolation in the works of Josephus. None. Nada. Ziltch.

You see, it doesn't matter what anyone says about it, including the experts and armchair critics. The bottom line is that everything we see in Josephus is what it is, and there is no evidence to suggest interpolation.

Opinion is not evidence, and never will be. But if you value the opinion of the experts then you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that virtually ALL experts agree that Josephus wrote two entries in Antiquities of the Jews mentioning Jesus Christ.

That's the bottom line here.

Josephus had no primary sources for any of this.  It's ALL hearsay.

You know it's hearsay, how? Because he doesn't list his sources? If that's the case, the entirety of all historical documents should be doubted for their accuracy because the writers didn't list their sources? None of the Caesars existed, and all the evidence we see today regarding them are just the figments of the imaginations of the writers?

Should we just strike what we deem as documented history by all the ancient historians off the grid, just because they don't list their sources?

That's not how it works, Chas.

[Free]

He knows absofuckinglutely nothing about the bulk of the scholarship on Josephus.

That moron will never do it but everyone else should consult Richard Carrier who has reviewed the current evidence.  He summarizes much of it here but On The Historicity of Jesus is still a fine source.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already

A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.
The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at academia.edu).

So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus  in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.

Richard Carrier .... now let's just see how the real scholars receive him:

Aviezer Tucker

Carrier's methodology in his work on the historicity of Christ was reviewed by Aviezer Tucker, a prior advocate of using Bayesian techniques in history. Tucker expressed some sympathy for Carrier's view of the Gospels, stating: "The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere." However, Tucker argued that historians have been able to use theories about the transmission and preservation of information to identify reliable parts of the Gospels. He said that "Carrier is too dismissive of such methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence"

Christina Petterson

Reviewing On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere, writes, "Even if strictly correct, the methodology is tenuous. In addition, the numbers and the statistics seem like a diversion or an illusionary tactic which intentionally confuse and obfuscate", and that, "Maths aside, nothing in the book shocked me, but seemed quite rudimentary first year New Testament stuff." Petterson says Carrier's conclusion that the later tales of a historical Jesus should be studied for their literary and rhetorical purpose and not for their specific historical content "reveals Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity.

Larry Hurtado

Responding to what he sees as the main elements in the same book, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, Larry Hurtado, has written that, "contrary to Carrier's claims, Philo of Alexandria never refers to an archangel named Jesus". Hurtado also states that "the apostle Paul clearly believed Jesus to have been a real man who lived on earth and that deities of pagan saviour cults such as Isis and Osiris, etc., were not transformed in their devotees' ideas from heavenly deities to actual people living on earth."

Daniel N. Gullotta, 

reviewing Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, says Carrier has provided a "rigorous and thorough academic treatise that will no doubt be held up as the standard by which the Jesus Myth theory can be measured" though he finds Carrier's arguments "problematic and unpersuasive", his use of Bayesian probabilities "unnecessarily complicated and uninviting" and criticizes Carrier's "lack of evidence, strained readings and troublesome assumptions." Gullotta also says that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, either documentary or archaeological, that there was a period when Christians believed that Jesus only existed in heaven rather than living as a human being on earth, which he says is Carrier's "foundational" thesis.[81]

Simon Gathercole 

Simon Gathercole at Cambridge has written regarding mythicist arguments relating to the claim that Paul believed in a heavenly, celestial Jesus who was never on Earth. Gathercole concludes that Carrier's arguments, and more broadly, the mythicist positions on different aspects of Paul's letters are contradicted by the historical data, and that Paul says a number of things regarding Jesus' life on Earth, his personality, family, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier#Reception

The comments above are from Carrier's own Wiki page, and are all negative. No one takes him seriously. No one.

Except fools like you.

[Chas]

Here's something everyone needs to understand. There is absolutely no evidence of interpolation in the works of Josephus. None. Nada. Ziltch.

You see, it doesn't matter what anyone says about it, including the experts and armchair critics. The bottom line is that everything we see in Josephus is what it is, and there is no evidence to suggest interpolation.

Opinion is not evidence, and never will be. But if you value the opinion of the experts then you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that virtually ALL experts agree that Josephus wrote two entries in Antiquities of the Jews mentioning Jesus Christ.

That's the bottom line here.

Josephus had no primary sources for any of this.  It's ALL hearsay.

You know it's hearsay, how? Because he doesn't list his sources? If that's the case, the entirety of all historical documents should be doubted for their accuracy because the writers didn't list their sources? None of the Caesars existed, and all the evidence we see today regarding them are just the figments of the imaginations of the writers?

Should we just strike what we deem as documented history by all the ancient historians off the grid, just because they don't list their sources?

That's not how it works, Chas.

No, it works by corroboration of sources.  There are many objections to what you judge are corroborative.

And deciding what is more likely does not make it fact.  You've created a strawman mythicist to sneer at and it is doubtful that they exist in the form you portray.

The Jesus of the Bible did not exist.  
Was there a particular person on whom this myth was based?  Or was it an amalgamation of people and stories?
No one knows and it doesn't matter which of those is true, if either.

[Chas]

The comments above are from Carrier's own Wiki page, and are all negative. No one takes him seriously. No one.

"Carrier's own Wiki page"?  Are you under the impression that he is the author?

[jerry mcmasters]

No, it works by corroboration of sources.  There are many objections to what you judge are corroborative.

And deciding what is more likely does not make it fact.  You've created a strawman mythicist to sneer at and it is doubtful that they exist in the form you portray.

Cuts both ways though...a casual reading of this thread (I'm glossing over most of it, the nuts and bolts are over my head) shows a very sneery strawman "person who suspects there was something like an original Jesus-ish apocalyptic wannabe-prophet" (not as catchy as "mythicist") as if that's equivalent to flat-earth belief.  Sneering to the point of insulting, which is odd considering this is all really not only not a big deal but impossible to conclude with any certainty.  It's the modern day version of trying to determine how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

The Jesus of the Bible did not exist.  
Was there a particular person on whom this myth was based?  Or was it an amalgamation of people and stories?
No one knows and it doesn't matter which of those is true, if either.

Yep.

[SYZ]

The modern scholars who disagree can be counted on the fingers of one hand, with likely a couple fingers left over. At last count, over 100 scholars world-wide are in agreement...

Citations please.

[Bucky Ball]

The modern scholars who disagree can be counted on the fingers of one hand, with likely a couple fingers left over. At last count, over 100 scholars world-wide are in agreement...

Citations please.

And take out all the scholars who work for religious institutions. 
 .. inherent conflict of interest.

The consensus of scholars argument is not convincing. Virtually all of them were educated by others who never once actually asked the question, as though it had any merit.
They have no secret stash of documents or knowledge. They know nothing that is not available to us. We know what they know. What they can demonstrate is not convincing.
I don't care how many scholars say they are convinced. Let them show us their convincing evidence, and stop trying to muddy the waters with the consensus argument.
If they are so sure, let's see the evidence.

[Minimalist]

The comments above are from Carrier's own Wiki page, and are all negative. No one takes him seriously. No one.

"Carrier's own Wiki page"?  Are you under the impression that he is the author?

Just like he thinks Josephus wrote the TF.  We got a true dumbass, there.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Free already accepts that the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist.

And Jesus is the actual Jesus so the actual Jesus didn't exist ... so this is all moot and pointless.

He wants to call some dude called Jesus "Jesus" even when he isn't the Jesus of the Bible. That's so silly ... may as well call a random Mexican "Jesus Christ."

Oh look, Jesus:



The Bible isn't evidence of anything but magical stories, talking snakes, bigotry, horseshit and bullshit.