Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

It is indeed only a few sentences, and by suggesting there's no such passage, as some kind of a fact(!), you're turning a fringe opinion into a fact. Shameless. Fact: There is a passage of a few sentences prior to the reference to James, and it's in Chapter 18. What you've done without realizing it is leave the implication that there was originally such a passage in Chapter 18 after all, except that the original was corrupted and "sanitized". Guess what? That's the same guess we find in a whopping majority of today's professional secular scholars -- Duh.

Stone

Yet there is that report that "Vossius, in the 16th century, possessed a manuscript of Josephus which contained no mention of Jesus" and the fact that people who should have used the Testimonium Flavium didn't.

Why didn't Justin Martyr (c100 - c165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (c120 - c203), Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), Origen (c185-c254), Hippolytus (c170 - c235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230-280), Chrysostom (c347-407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (c820-891) use the Testimonium Flavium in their arguments against detractors?


The Greek word used in the passage for Christ is χριστος which does appear the Old Testament...the problem is that appears to mean ointment rather than anointed one. Which would leave the poor Roman audience Josephus was writing for scratching their head in befuddlement.

More over why does the passage right after the Testimonium Flavium say "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” and the whole section flow better if you remove the Testimonium Flavium entirely?

The funny thing is when Remsburg wrote The Christ even Christian scholars were dismissing the Testimonium Flavium as a fake. How did the discovery of a 10th-century Arabic version result in such a sea change? The forgery is thought to have happened in the 4th century so a copy some six centuries older doesn't prove anything about the passage existing.

One gets less the impression of actual scholarly work and more the kind of mindset Miner satirized in a "Body Ritual among the Nacirema".

 

[pakeha]

deleted post

 

[eight bits]

max

Why didn't ...(Cox' Army) ... use the Testimonium Flavium in their arguments against detractors?

Do you have any indication that these people faced off against opponents who denied there was a historical Jesus? If so, what rebuttal arguments did these apologists use instead of Josephus?

 

[Brainache]

That's interesting.
Does Eisenman deduce a link between Paul and the communities of the DDS?

Eisenman identifies Paul as the "Spouter of lies who preached against the Law in the midst of the congregation".

He also asserts that Paul was a member of the Herodian family and a little too chummy with people like Agrippa II.

He also argues that Paul is the Saulus mentioned in Josephus:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

That would be when Paul was still in the persecution phase of his career, before he moved on to subversion.

Or that James, the Brother of the Lord was not only a pillar of the church in Jerusalem but also an enemy of Rome?

As a pillar of the Church in Jerusalem, he was a leader of the Messianic Movement, which included the Zealots/Sicarii who, according to Josephus, were the instigators of all of the troubles with Rome. Maybe because they kept saying that they were preparing the way for the Lord of Hosts to come and destroy their oppressors.

From the time of Quirinius' census until Bar Kochba (7 CE - 120 CE) it was people like John The Baptist, Theudas, The Egyptian and James etc who were the leaders. That is why they were killed by the Establishment who feared that they would lead revolts. I'm pretty sure the Romans took a dim view of their sort.

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan
Agreed. This is one problem about his reference to James as the brother of Jesus, "who was called [or "spoken of as" Gr. legomenou] Christ." Since Josephus goes into detail about Theudas, a relatively minor character, we would expect an earlier reference to Jesus, even though it might only be a few sentences, to explain the allusion to "Jesus who was called Christ."

It is indeed only a few sentences, and by suggesting there's no such passage, as some kind of a fact(!), you're turning a fringe opinion into a fact. Shameless. Fact: There is a passage of a few sentences prior to the reference to James, and it's in Chapter 18. What you've done without realizing it is leave the implication that there was originally such a passage in Chapter 18 after all, except that the original was corrupted and "sanitized". Guess what? That's the same guess we find in a whopping majority of today's professional secular scholars -- Duh.

Stone

The only passage I know of in Book 18 of the Antiquities is what is known as the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiq. 18:3:3). Even if one purges the overtly Christian parts of it, there remains a problem. It is obviously intrusive material Here are the end of Antiq. 18:3:2 and 18:3:4 with an elipsis in boldface between them to indicate the removed intrusive 18:3:3 (bracketed material added for clarity):

So he [Pilate] bade the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave his soldiers that signal beforehand agree on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those who were not, nor did they spare them in the least; and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition. . . . About this same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder; . . .


As to the area in your post that I've hilited: No, I'm not shameless, and your insults are not only uncalled for, but petty and childish.

 

[maximara]

max


Do you have any indication that these people faced off against opponents who denied there was a historical Jesus? If so, what rebuttal arguments did these apologists use instead of Josephus?

Which way are you using "historical Jesus"? Given the Euhemerism mind set of the day and the number of would be christs Josephus writes about would anybody of the time consider Jesus more than 'Oh great another one.'?


"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

Note that the term used is stories of and NOT man himself.

There are modern examples of the stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes":

George Washington and the Cherry Tree;

Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn;

Jesse James and the Widow.

King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

If you actually read what the early 20th century Christ mythers wrote they were not so much arguing against Jesus being a flesh and blood person but that the stories had little to no non-mythical substance.

"The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

As I said before while Remsberg and to less extent his contemporary Drews made the distinction between the Jesus of the Bible and Christianity (Jesus of Bethlehem) and a possible Jesus of history (Jesus of Nazareth) many modern Christ Myth theories fail to make that distinction and as a result they get snarled up in the tar baby of Jesus of Bethlehem and Jesus of Nazareth being one and the same.

Dan Barker in his (2006) Losing Faith in Faith pg 372 is one of the few modern Christ Mytherswho does keep the two separate.

As I jokingly said before a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50 would still be "Non historical" if you used Marshall's second definition and it falls under Robertson's and Bromiley definition of the Christ Myth theory.

Per this definition supported by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia itself the first challenge to the historical Jesus would be Celsus c180 CE who Origen wrote a reply to and yet did not use the Testimonium Flavianum. The only logical reason is the passage didn't exist for Origen to use.

 

[eight bits]

Per this definition supported by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia itself the first challenge to the historical Jesus would be Celsus c180 CE who Origen wrote a reply to and yet did not use the Testimonium Flavianum.

Does your source tell you where Celsus' denial that there was a historical Jesus might be found in Origen? If so, would you tell us, please?

And you did mean the first challenge to the historicity of Jesus, right? It is conventional to credit Origen-Celsus as the earliest surviving record of an extended counterapology and its rebuttal by a proto-orthodox Christian. Our concern, however, is to locate an early denial of Jesus' actual existence, something to which an appeal to the TF might be responsive.

I am sure you can appreicate that there's not much in Josephus about Davy Crockett.

 

[pakeha]

Eisenman identifies Paul as the "Spouter of lies who preached against the Law in the midst of the congregation".

He also asserts that Paul was a member of the Herodian family and a little too chummy with people like Agrippa II.

He also argues that Paul is the Saulus mentioned in Josephus:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html ...

Ah, Paul as a repentant enforcer type, then? I've seen that before.
However, isn't the Saulus passage too late to be Paul?

I also like the "Spouter of lies who preached against the Law in the midst of the congregation" indentification. I wonder if that provoked the "I am not a liar" assertion in his epistle to the Galatians 1:20

 

[Brainache]

Ah, Paul as a repentant enforcer type, then? I've seen that before.
However, isn't the Saulus passage too late to be Paul?

I'm not sure. It looks to me like Josephus is talking about the 40s and 50s CE in that passage. The Pseudo Clementine Recognitions tell a story about "Paul The Enemy" attacking James and throwing him down the Temple stairs sometime in the 40s.

Not Paul as repentant enforcer, more like Paul the agent provocateur of the ruling class trying to sow discord amongst the rebellious lower classes.

I also like the "Spouter of lies who preached against the Law in the midst of the congregation" indentification. I wonder if that provoked the "I am not a liar" assertion in his epistle to the Galatians 1:20

That is indeed one of the things Eisenman argues. Paul is quite adamant about denying being a liar. It would be strange for someone to keep telling everyone that he isn't lying, if no one was accusing him of it.

ETA: If you don't want to read his 1000 page books, here is a 1 hour video interview with Eisenman talking about this stuff:

 

[pakeha]

I'm not sure. It looks to me like Josephus is talking about the 40s and 50s CE in that passage. The Pseudo Clementine Recognitions tell a story about "Paul The Enemy" attacking James and throwing him down the Temple stairs sometime in the 40s.

Wasn't Paul's conversion in the middle to late 30s?

Not Paul as repentant enforcer, more like Paul the agent provocateur of the ruling class trying to sow discord amongst the rebellious lower classes. ...

I get it.
Like the FBI distributing LSD to the hippies and arms to the Black Panthers in the late 60s?

ETA Thanks for the link!

 

[maximara]

Does your source tell you where Celsus' denial that there was a historical Jesus might be found in Origen? If so, would you tell us, please?

And you did mean the first challenge to the historicity of Jesus, right? It is conventional to credit Origen-Celsus as the earliest surviving record of an extended counterapology and its rebuttal by a proto-orthodox Christian. Our concern, however, is to locate an early denial of Jesus' actual existence, something to which an appeal to the TF might be responsive.

I am sure you can appreicate that there's not much in Josephus about Davy Crockett.

You seemed to have missed the point entirely.

Remsburg, the darling of seemingly every armchair Christ Mythist out there, did not deny that there there was a flesh a blood Jesus but rather that the Gospels told us nothing about that man.

Remember that historical myth ("a real event colored by the light of antiquity") ranges from "(t)he event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false"

"The historicity of Jesus" should be more properly be the "the historicity of the Gospel Jesus". It is akin to debating the historicity of Robin, Earl of Huntington or King Arthur Pendragon son of Uther Pendragon and Lady Igraine.

Again in every case where we can actually check the Gospel account to history it falls apart like a cheap suit: no true contemporary makes any comment on Jesus or his popularity, the birth accounts are a train wreck, and the trial doesn't jive with other accounts of Pontius Pilate. Jesus becomes the John Frum of 1st century Judea.

 

[maximara]

Wasn't Paul's conversion in the middle to late 30s?

The range of the conversion is generally given as 31-37 CE and if you think about John Frum you have yet another possibility.

We know that from 1940-1947 there were three inspired natives that took up the name John Frum.

So we have Paul converting in 31 CE inspiring one or more followers to become Jesus. This "Jesus" gets in trouble with the Romans and is crucified.

So you have Paul talking about a mythical (doesn't mater which type) Jesus that inspires someone to become Jesus who is later crucified and whose exploits along with other would be messiahs form the Gospel Jesus.

 

[maximara]

Wasn't Paul's conversion in the middle to late 30s?

The range of the conversion is generally given as 31-37 CE and if you think about John Frum you have yet another possibility.

We know that from 1940-1947 there were three inspired natives that took up the name John Frum.

So we have Paul converting in 31 CE inspiring one or more followers to become Jesus. This "Jesus" gets in trouble with the Romans and is crucified.

So you have Paul talking about a mythical (doesn't mater which type) Jesus that inspires someone to become Jesus who is later crucified and whose exploits along with other would be messiahs form the Gospel Jesus.

 

[Stone]

You seemed to have missed the point entirely.

No, you have. 8bits' question asks where there's any indication in Origen that Celsus questions the historical existence of Jesus the human teacher at all. You, by evading that simple question here, leave readers here with only one implicit conclusion: There is in fact no such indication that Celsus ever questions the historical existence of Jesus the human teacher. So, you erred completely when you first wrote "the first challenge to the historical Jesus would be Celsus c180 CE". Didn't you? -- And in this follow-up response to 8bits' question, you evade 8bits' question entirely because you don't want to admit you were flat-out wrong in your first assertion. The fact is that, at best, you didn't know what you were talking about, and at worst, you were practicing deliberate distortion.

ITEM: Celsus never questions the historical existence of Jesus the human teacher at all, and there's never any indication in Origen that he does so.

It's fast-and-loose examples like your first unfounded assertion, and the carelessness -- at best -- that such examples epitomize, which have made me more and more furious with the myther cult over the years rather than less.

Stone

 

[Brainache]

Wasn't Paul's conversion in the middle to late 30s?

I'm not sure. Eisenman seems to think it's possible that Paul returned to Jerusalem after his stay in Rome.

I get it.
Like the FBI distributing LSD to the hippies and arms to the Black Panthers in the late 60s?

ETA Thanks for the link!

Paul has some connections in pretty high places. He sends greetings in his letters to people in Caesar's household and someone he calls the littlest Herod (Herodion).

Whether Paul was an agent of the ruling class, or just doing his own thing, he certainly was a trouble maker.

 

[pakeha]

..."The historicity of Jesus" should be more properly be the "the historicity of the Gospel Jesus". It is akin to debating the historicity of Robin, Earl of Huntington or King Arthur Pendragon son of Uther Pendragon and Lady Igraine.

Again in every case where we can actually check the Gospel account to history it falls apart like a cheap suit: no true contemporary makes any comment on Jesus or his popularity, the birth accounts are a train wreck, and the trial doesn't jive with other accounts of Pontius Pilate. Jesus becomes the John Frum of 1st century Judea.

The range of the conversion is generally given as 31-37 CE and if you think about John Frum you have yet another possibility.

We know that from 1940-1947 there were three inspired natives that took up the name John Frum.

So we have Paul converting in 31 CE inspiring one or more followers to become Jesus. This "Jesus" gets in trouble with the Romans and is crucified.

So you have Paul talking about a mythical (doesn't mater which type) Jesus that inspires someone to become Jesus who is later crucified and whose exploits along with other would be messiahs form the Gospel Jesus.

That's an amusing speculation and would have a cut-off date of 36, when Pilate was removed from his governorship of Judaea. Could Paul have been creepy enough to do such a thing?

...It's fast-and-loose examples like your first unfounded assertion, and the carelessness -- at best -- that such examples epitomize, which have made me more and more furious with the myther cult over the years rather than less. ...

You're very passionate about the historicity of the author of the core sayings of Jesus, Stone.

I'm not sure. Eisenman seems to think it's possible that Paul returned to Jerusalem after his stay in Rome. ...
Paul has some connections in pretty high places. He sends greetings in his letters to people in Caesar's household and someone he calls the littlest Herod (Herodion)..

What dates would that give us for the stay in Rome?

The people of Narcissus' and Aristabulous' houseolds in Rome would have been, if Lenski's analysis is accurate, slaves.
http://books.google.es/books?id=zEd...wCA#v=onepage&q=Paul epistle Herodion&f=false


How does Eisenman make that out to be connections in high places?

 

[Brainache]

That's an amusing speculation and would have a cut-off date of 36, when Pilate was removed from his governorship of Judaea. Could Paul have been creepy enough to do such a thing?



You're very passionate about the historicity of the author of the core sayings of Jesus, Stone.




What dates would that give us for the stay in Rome?

The people of Narcissus' and Aristabulous' houseolds in Rome would have been, if Lenski's analysis is accurate, slaves.
http://books.google.es/books?id=zEd...wCA#v=onepage&q=Paul epistle Herodion&f=false


How does Eisenman make that out to be connections in high places?

Romans 16:10 - 11:

Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.

11 Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew.

Herodion? A slave named after the King?

Paul's encounter with Agrippa and his wife/sister in Acts depicts these Tyrants as being on friendly terms with him. Remember Paul is the hero of Acts, and this book depicts him as hobnobbing with the very people who were oppressing the Jewish people and executing all those early Martyrs.

Some of it also depends on just how common or uncommon a name "Epaphroditus" was.

 

[pakeha]

Romans 16:10 - 11:


Herodion? A slave named after the King?

Did you read the material I linked to?

 

[Brainache]

Did you read the material I linked to?

The link didn't work for me. It opened a google books page, but It just showed a blank page.

Could you summarise or quote some?

 

[pakeha]

How strange.
The link works perfectly for me.
How about this link?
http://books.google.es/books?id=zEd...908#v=onepage&q=Paul epistle Herodion&f=false

The sense of the page is that the people of those households were slaves and that Herodion was the name of a Jewish slave of Aristabulos.
The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8-16 by R. H. C. Lenki, 2008 was the ninth hit when I typed Paul epistle Herodion into Google.

Apparently it's a reprint of a text published in 1938.
Good luck finding a workable link as I'd be interested in your take on Lenski's view the epistle doesn't refer to influential people, but rather slaves.