pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Great to have you here!!!
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,673
You know, it's kinda funny in what hurry some people are to just unilaterally proclaim victory. It's not even the first time I lose interest in a thread or sub-thread for a while, and I gather others did too, when it turns into repeating the same nonsense and not much of a discussion, only to later turn out that someone took the dropping of interest in their stuff as some kind of confirmation of their 'winning' somehow.
Ironically, in Tim's case it wasn't even his Goodfeathers act that finally got me bored. The moment I left the discussion was when someone else started dumping far worse nonsense into the thread. So, you know, it never even had much to do with his stuff, much less warrant such proclamations as, "After this post, they totally abandoned that line of argument."
Ironically, in Tim's case it wasn't even his Goodfeathers act that finally got me bored. The moment I left the discussion was when someone else started dumping far worse nonsense into the thread. So, you know, it never even had much to do with his stuff, much less warrant such proclamations as, "After this post, they totally abandoned that line of argument."
neilgodfrey
New Blood
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 23
Thanks for the welcomes.
Yes, I've noticed good old Tim read lots more into web silences than are warranted.
Yes, I've noticed good old Tim read lots more into web silences than are warranted.
I know this thread has been quiet for a while but I thought you would all like to know Carrier has a peer reviewed journal article on the 'christ brother of James' line in Josephus (Carrier, Richard (2012). "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200". Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (4).)
Simply put it finally gets into an academic journal what Remsburg and every other critic has been saying for over 100 years--at best it is the accidental insertion of a marginal note by some copyist and the Jesus refereed to is Jesus ben Damneus
The paper also cites Goldberg, G.J. (1995) “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 7: 59-77) which "demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). " (Carrier Dec 21, 2102 "Jesus in Josephus")
These two papers show that the two references to Christ in Josephus to be bogus.
Simply put it finally gets into an academic journal what Remsburg and every other critic has been saying for over 100 years--at best it is the accidental insertion of a marginal note by some copyist and the Jesus refereed to is Jesus ben Damneus
The paper also cites Goldberg, G.J. (1995) “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 7: 59-77) which "demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). " (Carrier Dec 21, 2102 "Jesus in Josephus")
These two papers show that the two references to Christ in Josephus to be bogus.
Last edited:
Oh Noes! What will we do with all of that Church property now that they'll be shutting down the religion? I suggest we sell it all and give the money to the poor. It's what Jesus would have wanted... if he'd existed.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
I've been away from this thread for a while. Therefore, I don't know if anyone has brought up the latest book by Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, in which he asserts the historicity of Jesus, but not the necessarily the Jesus proclaimed in the gospels. Apparently, however, he does assert the historicity of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. Since every motif in that story, particularly as presented in the Gospel of Matthew, was based on material from the Jewish scriptures, I'm curious how he could see anything in the story as being historical.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,143
Not since DOC's marathon of ignorance.
There's an excellent and detailed critique of Ehrman's book by Earl Doherty here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211645
davefoc
Philosopher
One paper seems to be unavailable without an institutional license for the journal and the other paper is only available for $25. I haven't read either one of them but stating that that either paper shows that the two references to Christ in Josephus is bogus seems to not be quite consistent with what the article linked to concludes. From the article:
and:
Note the use of the word probably in the first quote and the strangely worded second quote where his proof is "pretty conclusive."
Regardless, I was interested in reading the two papers, but I am skeptical that either paper has significantly changed the nature of the case for or against the Testimonium Flavium. This is one of the most studied and written about areas associated with early Christianity and it is surprising that somebody has managed to find new arguments or evidence associated with it.
If somebody has access to the papers could they explain the argument about the correspondence between Luke and Josephus? I thought correspondence between Luke and Josephus was an established fact but the conclusion usually put forth is that Luke derived material from Josephus. Is a different conclusion being suggested here?
At risk of repetition - if the earliest copies that we have of anything from Josephus date from around 1000 years after the mans death, then we cannot possibly know what he ever wrote about Jesus (or even if he wrote anything at all about Jesus or James or anyone else in that short passage).
The only exception would be if we had original copies of some other work, ie from some other author, where those copies were known to be from the time when Josephus was writing, ie circa 100AD, and where that other work quoted what Josephus had written.
However, afaik, all the other writing which is often mentioned in that context, is itself only known from copies made many centuries after the authors death.
So the only “fact” here appears to be that all copies are far to late to say with any confidence what Josephus (or anyone else) may or may not have ever actually written about Jesus or about anyone called James being his brother.
And if the above is not correct, then I’d very interested to know why it is not.
The only exception would be if we had original copies of some other work, ie from some other author, where those copies were known to be from the time when Josephus was writing, ie circa 100AD, and where that other work quoted what Josephus had written.
However, afaik, all the other writing which is often mentioned in that context, is itself only known from copies made many centuries after the authors death.
So the only “fact” here appears to be that all copies are far to late to say with any confidence what Josephus (or anyone else) may or may not have ever actually written about Jesus or about anyone called James being his brother.
And if the above is not correct, then I’d very interested to know why it is not.
JabbaPapa
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 260
What if pigs had wings, and we could shoot pork chops out of the sky ?
The saying "if pigs could fly" is meant to imply impossibility. Are you saying it is impossible that Jesus was a mythical figure?
JabbaPapa
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 260
No -- the purpose of the trope is to ridicule a ludicrous hypothetical.
Why is it ludicrous to the point of needing ridicule for Skeptic Ginger to ask “what if there was no real man behind the religion and someone made the story up … ?“.
Presumably you think the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming?
However on forums like this one, on RDF, and on Rational Scepticism there have been numerous very long (and often very acrimonious) threads on the historicity of Jesus, where it is quite clear that whilst Christians almost always take the existence of Jesus for granted, and in the case of any argument they will cite all sorts of ancient writing from the bible to Josephus, Tacitus and others, none of that writing can be shown to be anywhere near contemporary with the claimed lifetime of Jesus, and none of it is from any authors who claim to be eye-witnesses to anything Jesus ever said or did.
In other words - all of that earlier writing is apparently only hearsay.
That is not really very good as evidence at all.
Jesus may have existed more-or-less as described in the individual preaching stories that were later collected together as a bible (minus the impossible miracles). But I think that in all honesty it has to be admitted that the historical evidence, written or otherwise, is actually very weak.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,143
If it's so ridiculous then I'm sure you can provide substantial, verifiable, extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Well, you'd need something bigger than a 12 gauge.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,494
Are the stories written when Yeshua was little considered accurate or not? If so, why? If not, why not?
(BTW, this is not necessarily aimed at you, IanS. Your post just reminded me of it.)
JabbaPapa
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 260
Now there's an agenda for you !!!
Please can you demonstrate the validity of your apparent claim that the New Testament is evidence-free.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
You want to argue that the Bible is true because the Bible says so? Because that certainly sounds so.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Right after you demonstrate that Jesus is the most documented person in the 1st century.
(trying to reverse the burden of proof, shame)
- Status