Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Belz...]

Because two or more gospels mention something that makes it important?

Strawman.

You are still using the bible to prove the bible.

I think you're confused about what we're talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Why are you making the same fallacious claims when you have no evidence at all and know there is no evidence?

Because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ?

 

[Brainache]

Why are you making the same fallacious claims when you have no evidence at all and know there is no evidence?

1. If Jesus did exist the Gospel MUST have come BEFORE Paul.

Rubbish.

2. Jesus PREACHED the Gospel BEFORE Paul in the Bible.

Paul invented the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus' resurrection, so I don't see how Jesus could have preached that.

3. Paul was a PERSECUTOR BEFORE he preached the Gospel in the Bible.

Well then, he probably learned a bit about the Jesus Cult when he was doing that, don't you think?

4. Paul PERSECUTED those who PREACHED the GOSPEL in the Bible.

No he didn't. He persecuted followers of Jesus. What makes you think they had a written gospel?

5. PAUL wrote the Epistles AFTER Churches were ALREADY developed.

OK, so we know Paul didn't invent the whole thing.

6. There are apologetics writer who knew the Gospel but NOT Paul.

Why do you think this?

7. ALL Apologetics that mentioned Paul ALWAYS know the Gospels.

8. No Pauline manuscripts have been dated to c 70 CE or earlier

So what?

The assumption that Jesus existed reduces the Pauline writings to rubble. The Gospel of Jesus himself MUST have PREDATED the Pauline Corpus and MUST have been the ORIGINAL Gospel.

What makes you think they wrote anything down about this?

Now, Paul, the monstrous LIAR claimed he got his Gospel from the resurrected DEAD.

WHAT NONSENSE!!

WHAT A PACK OF LIES!!

You're funny.

If Jesus did actually exist then it MUST be the Apostles of Jesus himself who KNEW the Gospel of Jesus--NOT Paul--he NEVER heard a word.

What happened to the Gospel of Jesus himself if he did exist??

It was declared Heresy and destroyed because it didn't depict Jesus as Divine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites

 

[davefoc]

Why are you making the same fallacious claims when you have no evidence at all and know there is no evidence?

1. If Jesus did exist the Gospel MUST have come BEFORE Paul.

2. Jesus PREACHED the Gospel BEFORE Paul in the Bible.

3. Paul was a PERSECUTOR BEFORE he preached the Gospel in the Bible.

4. Paul PERSECUTED those who PREACHED the GOSPEL in the Bible.

5. PAUL wrote the Epistles AFTER Churches were ALREADY developed.

6. There are apologetics writer who knew the Gospel but NOT Paul.

7. ALL Apologetics that mentioned Paul ALWAYS know the Gospels.

8. No Pauline manuscripts have been dated to c 70 CE or earlier


The assumption that Jesus existed reduces the Pauline writings to rubble. The Gospel of Jesus himself MUST have PREDATED the Pauline Corpus and MUST have been the ORIGINAL Gospel.

Now, Paul, the monstrous LIAR claimed he got his Gospel from the resurrected DEAD.

WHAT NONSENSE!!

WHAT A PACK OF LIES!!

If Jesus did actually exist then it MUST be the Apostles of Jesus himself who KNEW the Gospel of Jesus--NOT Paul--he NEVER heard a word.

What happened to the Gospel of Jesus himself if he did exist??

For the record, I was listing the evidence usually put forth to support the existence of an HJ and explaining why I thought it was weak. I didn't mean my list to necessarily be in chronological order.

However, I do suspect that the standard view that Paul's writings predate the Gospels is correct. There is an issue with that, as you suggest, that Christianity seems to be in existence before Paul starts his letter writing. I wondered about this issue quite a bit when I was forming my guesses as to what went on. Who was Paul preaching to? And how were there Christians before the Gospels were written?

My HJ-existed view is that there was a small religious sect in which the HJ played a prominent role and Paul did play some sort of role in attempting to suppress that group. The group might have been either Jewish or Hellenistic Jewish. This group existed before the Gospels were written. Maybe Paul was involved in some of the ongoing disputes that had not completely faded away after the Jewish civil war.

My guess as to who Paul might have been preaching to is that he was preaching to God fearer groups that had already begun a transition from the-Messiah-is-coming believers to the-Messiah-has-come believers and Paul may have just been one of a few exploiting the demand for information about the recently dead and risen Messiah.

However, my view about all this is that for sure I don't know what went on in the first 100 years of Christianity and I suspect nobody else has a very good idea about that either even if they know a great deal more about the bits and pieces of evidence floating around about the origin of Christianity than I do. If definitive evidence existed about any of this it would be well known and it isn't so I think the details about the origin of Christianity will remain unknown forever.

 

[tsig]

Strawman.



I think you're confused about what we're talking about.

I thought we were talking about an HJ. What are you discussing?

 

[Brainache]

I thought we were talking about an HJ. What are you discussing?

AFAICT Belz... was talking about being Skeptical, as opposed to just being a Denier. A Skeptic should look at all of the evidence, not just go with whatever suits their personal bias.

The evidence suggests that Xtianity started as a Jewish Cult with a Teacher, which was later hijacked by Paul and adapted for a Greco-Roman Audience.

The evidence does not suggest worship of a Celestial Jesus, or that Paul invented it from whole cloth.

There may very well be stories of more than one individual which later became associated with Jesus, and most of his teachings are straight out of the Talmud, so there is nothing extraordinary about him at all really.

The only extraordinary thing about Jesus is the sheer amount of stories about the guy, almost all of which are obviously told to justify particular Sectarian practices or beliefs.

There are ways of sifting through this stuff, but it takes a lot of time and patience

 

[Belz...]

I thought we were talking about an HJ. What are you discussing?

I am saying that we shouldn't assume that a work of myth or fiction is worthless for analysis despite it being unreliable. Reading The Lord of the Rings can reveal quite a bit about the author, for instance, even if it's total fiction. It also uses names and elements of past mythology from the real world into his story. Similarily, the gospels can contain important information about that time, culture and even perhaps clues about the probability Jesus' existence, but all that is lost to us if we simply assume that it's worthless and don't even try to discern anything from it.

 

[dejudge]

For the record, I was listing the evidence usually put forth to support the existence of an HJ and explaining why I thought it was weak. I didn't mean my list to necessarily be in chronological order.

You have not listed any evidence. You have made assumptions as facts and now admit you are guessing.

You stated "After Paul there are the Gospel".

Where is the evidence of that in or out the Bible?

There is none.

In fact, it is the complete OPPOSITE.

After the Gospel and after the Gospels came the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writer KNEW the FICTION characters in the Gospels and stayed with the apostle Peter for fifteen days when Peter NEVER EVER existed.

You seem to have forgotten that the Pauline writers knew gLuke.

See Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1 and Eusebius Church History 6.25

However, I do suspect that the standard view that Paul's writings predate the Gospels is correct. There is an issue with that, as you suggest, that Christianity seems to be in existence before Paul starts his letter writing. I wondered about this issue quite a bit when I was forming my guesses as to what went on. Who was Paul preaching to? And how were there Christians before the Gospels were written?

Did not Paul first become a Christian BEFORE he wrote his supposed Epistles?

Was not Paul blinded by a bright light BEFORE he preached the Gospel?
?

If you believe Jesus existed then why would not there be Christians in the time of Jesus? What did Jesus PREACH?

Some say their HJ was a Preacher well he may have been ILLITERATE because he wrote nothing.

My HJ-existed view is that there was a small religious sect in which the HJ played a prominent role and Paul did play some sort of role in attempting to suppress that group. The group might have been either Jewish or Hellenistic Jewish. This group existed before the Gospels were written. Maybe Paul was involved in some of the ongoing disputes that had not completely faded away after the Jewish civil war.

Your view is all guessing and speculation. It is really useless. We are now in the evidence stage and you have nothing.

My guess as to who Paul might have been preaching to is that he was preaching to God fearer groups that had already begun a transition from the-Messiah-is-coming believers to the-Messiah-has-come believers and Paul may have just been one of a few exploiting the demand for information about the recently dead and risen Messiah.

Again, all guesswork and rhetoric. This is the evidence stage. Do you have any evidence from antiquity outside of your imagination for what you assume happened??

However, my view about all this is that for sure I don't know what went on in the first 100 years of Christianity and I suspect nobody else has a very good idea about that either even if they know a great deal more about the bits and pieces of evidence floating around about the origin of Christianity than I do. If definitive evidence existed about any of this it would be well known and it isn't so I think the details about the origin of Christianity will remain unknown forever.

Well, if you think the details will never be known why are you telling us about Jesus and Paul? Based on your view we will never know if what you are guessing has any historical value.

 

[Stone]

Like everybody else, hypocrisy is always a possible explanation for my views. I don't think we can ever be sure we've out thought our biases and when there is an equivocal nature to the available evidence the possibility that biases are driving our conclusions goes up significantly.

I will give you the reasons I think that I trust the conclusions of one group of experts more than another in this case. I don't expect my reasons to make a persuasive case to you that hypocrisy isn't the real driver.

The experts that I found most credible on the James Ossuary issue used hard science reasons to support their view that the Ossuary was forged. They tested the patina chemically on the inscription and the box and compared the results. They examined the sharpness of the inscription and compared that with sharpness of the image on the other side of the box that was believed to have been inscribed at roughly the time the box was made. The information they put forth in their separate writings could be viewed as independent data points about the possibility that the inscription was forged.

The findings that the inscription on the box was a hoax was consistent with the fact that the box was found to have passed through the hands of a dealer in antiquities who was believed to have forged other artifacts previously and when his house was searched tools that could have been used in the making of forgeries were found.

The experts that claim the inscription was not forged all were associated with the magazine, Biblical Archeology Review. I could not find where they had submitted articles for peer review (with one possible exception and I couldn't find where his paper had been published), but they had written articles for a magazine that was campaigning to promote the authenticity of the box and that was not publishing any of the articles by people that disputed the authenticity of the inscription.

I would contrast the above reasons that I believe the specialists that supported the conclusion the James Ossuary was a hoax with the reasons I am skeptical of the specialists that argue that the existence of an HJ is either a certainty or extremely likely.

Where is the evidence that they produce that can rise to the level of scientific analysis of an artifact? Of course, there is nothing like that available. What is available are writings by unknown people separated in time, distance, language and culture from the events they describe who were promoting a religion. Although there were numerous people that contributed to the writing of the early Christian documents it is most likely that none of the them ever had direct contact with the HJ and the most likely the situation is that either zero or one of them had direct contact with people that had known the HJ.

And despite the fact that there are numerous people that wrote the NT Gospels it is likely that only gMark represents an independent source of information about oral traditions that might have conveyed accurate information. I realize that some have suggested here that Q might be another possibility, and that idea can't be ruled out but the possibility that there was a Q document has been shown to be much less likely than it was thought to be previously.

But still, why not trust these experts Stone thinks make up this grand consensus about the extremely likely existence of an HJ? Because instead of pointing to solid data points for their arguments they almost always begin their arguments with a description of how unreliable the NT texts are as a source of history but then go on to argue that despite that, all reputable experts agree that an HJ existed. Why lead with that as your evidence? Relying on that kind of evidence is relying on a method that has done more to suppress truth than to reveal it. Galileo went to jail because a bunch of people claimed that the scientific consensus was more credible than actual facts. All sorts of scientific consensuses have eventually been shown to be wrong. If the scientific community relied on this circular everybody believes it approach to science there would be no science.

And what is the evidence when the HJ-existed-for-sure experts get around to describing it instead of trying to claim it exists because all reputable scholars agree it does?

It is damn slim. There are the writings of Paul believed to be genuine, but they exist completely without external corroboration and the possibilities that Paul lied, Paul was fooled, Paul's writings were forged and that Paul didn't exist can't be disproved.

After Paul there are the Gospels. John is usually discounted entirely because of its late date and contradictions with the other three Gospels. And Matthew and Luke seem to be completely dependent on Mark for the bulk of their story except when they make up stories like the birth narrative and the trial narrative. If there is truthful information in Matthew and Luke beyond what is in Mark, how could one determine what that is? One might make some guesses about plausibility and criteria of embarrassment but does any of that lead to evidence strong enough to support a conclusion that it is extremely likely that an HJ existed. I don't think so.

And after the Gospels there are the other NT books. Is there anything probative in them with regard to the existence of an HJ. I haven't seen those arguments if they exist. Although James is sometimes put forth as an example of a book that may have been derived from a Jesus oriented Palestinian sect. Maybe, the evidence seems speculative to me.

And after the other NT books there are the alleged non-biblical corroborations of the NT. When one cuts out the crap here there are only two that are possibilities: Josephus and Tacitus. These sources have been argued endlessly. Neither individual could have been a witness to an HJ. Both at best might be a witness to Christians at a fairly early date. There is great dispute about the authenticity of the Josephus writings and my guess is that the arguments that dispute authenticity are correct. But regardless of my guess about this it is clear there are significant reasons to doubt the authenticity of Josephus on the HJ and as such Joshephus' alleged writings about the HJ don't contribute much support to a case that it is extremely likely that an HJ existed.

It is pure convenience based entirely on bias that peremptorily rejects the Ants. 20 ref. to brother James, a ref. from a direct contemporary of James in the same city where James died. There is no external textual history directly associated with this James ref. that points to any other version of this passage. That's what contrasts it with the TF in Ants. 18. The only reasons why fancy suppositions have been laid on top of Ants. 20 are entirely due to internal content that has merely proved too uncomfortable for those with an a priori agenda, regardless of Ants. 20 being a non-apologetic text. That is not a responsible professional textual analysis; it is a set of blatant "what-if"s stemming entirely from biased wishful thinking that is prone to entertain suppositions like this that violate Ockam's Razor, and that are not at all equivalent to professional paleographic analysis.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

It is pure convenience based entirely on bias that peremptorily rejects the Ants. 20 ref. to brother James, a ref. from a direct contemporary of James in the same city where James died. There is no external textual history directly associated with this James ref. that points to any other version of this passage. That's what contrasts it with the TF in Ants. 18. The only reasons why fancy suppositions have been laid on top of Ants. 20 are entirely due to internal content that has merely proved too uncomfortable for those with an a priori agenda, regardless of Ants. 20 being a non-apologetic text. That is not a responsible professional textual analysis; it is a set of blatant "what-if"s stemming entirely from biased wishful thinking that is prone to entertain suppositions like this that violate Ockam's Razor, and that are not at all equivalent to professional paleographic analysis.

Stone

May I remind you that Chrisitian writers themselves admitted that James the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of Jesus by birth.

[Chrysostom's Homily on Galatians

“But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James.” “I saw him merely, I did not learn from him,” he means. But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not “James” merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does. But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him “the Lord's brother,” although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed.

James the brother of the anointed one Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT James the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19.

This is confirmed in the Recognitions when it is claimed James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-68 CE or AFTER Peter was dead--not 62 CE when James was killed in Josephus.

By the way, the earliest paleographic dating of the Pauline Corpus c 200 CE is about 100 years after Antiquities of the Jews was believed to have been composed.

 

[JaysonR]

Jayson R

The Norseman's observation that there was no use of the idea of "null hypothesis" in the Bayesian book he is reading is the usual thing. "Null hypothesis" is used almost entirely in a competing kind of statistical inference, not in Bayes.

In the other kind of inference, "null hypothesis" isn't a "negative," but a specific situation. If the observed results would be sufficiently unlikely if the null hypothesis were true, then we acquire some confidence that the null hypothesis isn't true. We don't assume it's untrue, and in the particular approach to statistics that uses the technique, we never conclude that it is true. It is a hypothetical whose use furnishes a standard for comparison with other possible explanations of the observed data.


A fundamental part of Bayesian practice is to keep track of what information the posterior probability takes into account. If you are overlooking information, then this is not Bayes' problem, it is your problem. If you are cherrypicking or otherwise trimming the data, then I would be suspicious of your "answer" regardless of what method you used to analyze it.


No. The posterior probability is based on the information you have taken into account. Obviously, if additional evidence becomes available, then you will revise your estimates.

What about that impresses you as irrational? Or perhaps I should be asking what method do you propose that would get the right answer in 1930 based on evidence that won't be seen until 2020? Does that performance not impress you as magical?


You actually can write that sentence, and see no relationship between a literally geometrically linear representation and the linear narratives so beloved in the humanities departments?

There is one true timeline, but you don't know which of unboundedly many possible timelines actually occurred. There is no obligation to pick one and ignore the rest. Uncertainty means that, so far as the speaker knows, there is more than one serious possibility for what actually happened. There is nothing irrational about choosing knowledge representations that reflect that.

For example, someone could choose a distibution of confidence over the ensemble of seriously possible worlds (or if you prefer, timelines), which Bayes offers one way of managing.

I don't have a lot of time atm, but in short; this all is the same as I was referring to.

The way it currently works doesn't propose to be "true".
It permits entry at first rather loosely, and then over time attacks the entry to see if it sustains being entered.

Running a probability does actually, conceptually (not literally), begin at a negative.
Or perhaps more appropriate, it starts from neither negative or positive.
It just waits for the probability to produce the answer.

This isn't really a good way to go, as I've mentioned, as the exclusive method of working with history, as by large part, history is incapable of standing up to probability due to the incredibly small amount of information we have, and the nature of that information typically being heavily culturally idiomatic.

You discussed revising the probability; right, that's my point.
The probability may come out negative, and then you revise it as you get more information and maybe one day it enters into the positive.

However, it works just the inverse today.
The positive is where it starts and then maybe one day it will end up in the negative, but until then it remains in the positive.

We have more history as a result of taking this position.

As I mentioned before, I think it should be introduced into history as a tool to use, but not a replacement of the entire method.

 

[davefoc]

The Testimonium Flavium
Antiquities of the Jews - Chapter 18

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm


Arguments against authenticity
I have attempted to gather the arguments against authenticity from various sources. I have not provided both sides of the argument here. I have only put forth the arguments against authenticity as my point is that authenticity of the TF is disputed and strong arguments against authenticity are made by people who have studied the issue extensively. The TF can not be part of the case that the existence of an HJ is extremely likely. I have focused on the TF because the arguments against the authenticity of the James reference are partially based on the inauthenticity of the TF.

1. Testimonium Flavium was not quoted until the time of Eusebius (about 324 CE)and many Christian writers who quoted other parts of Josephus and the Testimonium Flavium didn't quote the TF. This is a strong suggestion that the TF did not exist before Eusebius.

We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus,
Tertullian, Hippolytus and Orgen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Josephus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage,
though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may
note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it.

--"Josephus (CE 37-c.100)," in William Harbury et al., ed.,
The Cambridge History of Judaism vol. 3 (1999) pp. 911 - 912.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-josephus-so-called-testimonium.html

2. The TF is so biased toward the Christian view that even people that believe it to be genuine generally believe it has been modified from the original. However the text is so dominantly pro-Christian in a way that Josephus was unlikely to have been that it is not clear how it could be edited so that it could be known that what remained is genuine. If there was an obvious way to edit the paragraph and only leave what was not forged then the various scholars who have suggested edits to the paragraph would be consistent with each other. In fact there are numerous variations of edited TF reconstructions that have been created by different scholars.

3. If Josephus was really talking about this fantastic man why did he limit himself to a small paragraph? Josephus describes Jesus as "a doer of wonderful deeds", who “drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles”, who “was the Christ", and he was such a big deal that Pilate himself condemned him. And yet Josephus only wrote this small paragraph about the guy that he says all that stuff was true of? It doesn't seem likely that this would be the case.

4. If the paragraph was genuine why doesn't it provide any details beyond what are in the Gospels? It is a pretty big coincidence that Josephus happened to stop his story about this man without adding details that somebody couldn't have derived from the Gospels.

5. The words and phrases of the TF are similar to other Eusebius writings and are different from any other Josephus writings.

The term “maker of miraculous works” παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, contrary to what one frequently finds in the literature on the Testimonium, is far more characteristic of Eusebius than of Josephus. Josephus never elsewhere uses the word ποιητής in the sense of “maker” or “doer” rather than “poet.” Nor does he ever elsewhere combine a form of ποιέω with παράδοξος in the sense of wonderworking. The combination of παράδοξος and ποιέω to mean “wonder-working” is extremely common in Eusebius and occurs more than a hundred times. With the disputed exception of the Testimonium itself, the word ποιητής modified by παραδόξων ἔργων does not show up anywhere in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database of extant Greek literature before Eusebius, who uses this combination of words ten times outside the Testimonium,23 usually of Jesus, but also of God. ...

Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations
Chapter 5 A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum
- Ken Olson
See http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html for some of what Olson wrote on this

6. The claim that Jesus won over both Jews and Gentiles does not appear in the NT but it is something that was claimed by Eusebius.

7. Even if the TF was not forged by Eusebius the arguments that it was forged by him apply almost as well to the possibility that it was forged by Pamphilus, a successor to Origin and a teacher of Eusebius. This is Richard Carrier's theory.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4391

8. The paragraph does not fit well with the rest of chapter 3. The chapter is about calamities that befell the Jews. A paragraph about a religious guy getting killed and rising from the dead hardly fits in with the theme of chapter 3. Even if the rising from the dead part is removed the paragraph seems to have little to do with the theme of chapter 3.

 

[dejudge]

This isn't really a good way to go, as I've mentioned, as the exclusive method of working with history, as by large part, history is incapable of standing up to probability due to the incredibly small amount of information we have, and the nature of that information typically being heavily culturally idiomatic.

History, the reconstruction of the past, MUST rely on Data which will in turn allow the historian to determine what probably happened.

Artifacts, Archaeological findings, manuscripts, culture and other details are extremely useful to determine what probably happened in the past.

Bayes Theorem only Numerically QUANTIFIES the probability.

Bayes Theorem is simply a mathematical equation that require actual numbers.

For example, one might say it is probable Jesus was a figure of mythology without supplying any numerical value to the probability.

However, with Bayes Theorem after applying the relevant data one may say that it is 90% probable that Jesus was a figure of mythology.


This is an example of the application of Bayes Theorem.

If a person had a conversation with someone with long hair what is the probability it was a woman when 75% of women and 15% of men have long hair.?

The probability is 83% that it was a woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#Introductory_example

Now, using Bayes Theorem what is the probability that the character called Jesus was a figure of mythology if he was described as the Son of God who walked on water, transfigured and resurrected with no known history?

 

[davefoc]

...

By the way, the earliest paleographic dating of the Pauline Corpus c 200 CE is about 100 years after Antiquities of the Jews was believed to have been composed.

From Wikipedia

As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.

So maybe Josephus was forged in the 11th century?

 

[Stone]

I have focused on the TF because the arguments against the authenticity of the James reference are partially based on the inauthenticity of the TF.

That is a perfectly ludicrous rationale for dealing with the TF instead of the James reference. James isn't even referenced in the TF at all. The James reference is a ref. to a victim of Jerusalem jurisprudence by a contemporary who was also right in Jerusalem. None of that applies to the TF.

I'm perfectly familiar with all those arguments against the TF, thank you. You're not saying anything new, either to me or to anyone else with the least bit of knowledge of this thread. You aren't dealing with the total absence of any textual variants in the textual history of the James reference, and it's evident that you have no intention of doing so. The whole notion that the James reference can't stand alone is just as ludicrous as your rationale for dealing with it by way of the TF! <roll eyes>

Josephus identifies James's brother by citing the nickname "Christ" that was more familiar to most readers. That is no different from calling Ronald Reagan the Gipper. Plenty of Americans knew that Reagan was called the Gipper without always knowing why he got that nickname. It's the same here. Josephus doesn't have to explain the nickname when identifying James's brother, and it's ludicrous to insist he has to. You have not dealt with the James reference at all by offering these evasions about the TF, nor have you addressed the obvious bias that propels dubious speculations over Ants. 20 based not on paleographic research but on purely ideological dislike of its content, and nothing else.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

Josephus identifies James's brother by citing the nickname "Christ" that was more familiar to most readers.

What?? How come HJ was known as the Christ? HJ was not the Christ.

HJ was a Cynic.

HJ was a Zealot.

HJ was an itinerant preacher.

HJ was a rabbi.

HJ was an Apocalyptic.

HJ was a rabble rouser.

Nobody knew any character called Jesus the Christ who was worshiped as a God by Jews.

Up to now, 2000 years later Jews have NOT acknowledge the ADVENT of the Christ.

It is hopelessly illogical that Josephus would have mentioned the death of James but ONLY mentioned the predicted Jewish Messiah in passing.

Conveniently, HJers REJECT HJ as the Christ in the NT yet claim he was the Christ in Josephus.

HJers need to stick to their story. Their story keeps changing.

One time Jesus is a Zealot and the next time he is the Christ.

One time Jesus is a little known itinerant preacher and the next time he was the WELL known Christ in Josephus.

It is clear HJers have ran out of options. They have no evidence and have no idea who their unknown dead HJ was.

Christians writers have already admitted that THEIR Jesus Christ was NOT the brother of James and THEIR James was ALIVE c 67-68 CE.

See writings attributed to Papias, Jerome, Rufinus, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Origen, the Gospels, and Acts.

 

[davefoc]

...

I'm perfectly familiar with all those arguments against the TF, thank you. ...

What is your view on TF authenticity?

ETA: I didn't mean to offend you and I am sorry that I seem to have. Part of the reason that I did the research for that post was for my own purposes. I have been reading TF arguments for years and I wanted an overview that would summarize them for myself.

 

[eight bits]

Jayson R

Running a probability does actually, conceptually (not literally), begin at a negative.

I have only a guess as to how anybody would "run" a probability, and no idea at all what distinction you are getting at when you contrast "literally" with "conceptually" beginning to perform a physical act on a mathematical abstraction.

That somewhat limits the possibilities for you and me to disucss this, until and unless you decide to clarify your remarks. In the meatime, please refrain from adding things to my posts that weren't in the original. There is no problem quoting only the portion of a post you wish to discuss. There is a problem adding "spoiler tags" where none existed, and passing off the result as my work, when in fact it is your work.

... due to the incredibly small amount of information we have ...

Do you have evidence, argument or demonstrative proof that probability is inferior to other methods of uncertainty management when the amount of evidence is small?

Is it not the case that when evidence is overwhelming and copious, it makes little difference what method you use? It is only when evidence is meager or equivocal that the choice of method can matter much. I have already, in earlier posts, listed several difficulties the "historical method," in the style of some posters, has in addressing the on-topic inference problem that I have. Bayesian methods do not have any of these impediments. I choose accordingly.

The probability may come out negative, ...

Meaning what? It is by definition a non-negative number. What, then, are you talking about?

We have more history as a result of taking this position.

Good for you. But my problem is not to increase the output of history, but rather to estimate the truth about a focused question concerning what happened in the distant past, based upon information available to me now. As I have said repeatedly, the very fact that historians are solving a different problem than mine is ample warrant for me to look elsewhere for heuristic guidance in solving my problem.

Conversely, it is all the same to me whether or not historians adopt some "tool." So long as they are interested in achieving goals besides case-by-case truth seeking, like "having more history," then how they pursue their goals can only be sparingly related to how I might achieve mine.

 

[Stone]

What is your view on TF authenticity?

What is your view on the James reference?

Stone

 

[David Mo]

Do these sources assert that he was in some way divine?

I think he is deified in one way or another. John says that he is an emanation of the Lord, the Logos, before creation. Mark suggests that he is adopted as God's son. All evangelists attribute a divine role as judge in his second coming. I used a deliberately vague statement: "God in some way."
But keep in mind that the Gospels are written with many different voices and some paragraphs that speak of Jesus as a man and others which speak of him as a divine entity may coincide in the same work. For example, in the Acts of the Apostles.

You'd think so, Craig B, and indeed, I thought so til I learned the embarrassment criterion is basically an method of bible study, not used in other historical research, correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Can the multiple attestation criterion be properly applied to the NT to determine any probability or plausibility to Jesus' historicity?
I have serious doubts it can, but I'm more than happy to change my mind.
It wouldn't be the first time I've changed my mind and I hope not the last, either.

As far as I know the famous three or four (or whatever ) authenticity criteria are only used by some biblical historians. But, although they are not named with the nomenclature of biblical scholars, you can see how they can be used in the field of justice, semiotics or philosophy. A judge who decides a case without other evidence that some testimonies uses the multiple attestation criterion . In fact the term is legal. Hume also refers to it in his Enquiry (chap. 10 -IIRC).

The problem is that biblical historians using these criteria give them more scope than they have and incur certain vagueness that worsens the matter. With purely formal criteria is almost impossible to get anything out of the truth of these texts that are written by people very different from us, in a very different society to ours and on which we have very little data. In my case I think it is only possible to obtain limited assurance about the fact that Jesus existed.

As for changing your mind, this can be a sign of wisdom, rather than weakness. I also believed that it was impossible to reach a conclusion about the existence of Jesus and I have changed my mind after reading some non-confessional authors. And wisdom I have no much.

Those two "tools" are widely used by Christian theologians and apologists, so it's interesting seeing them used by skeptics to quote mine an HJ out of the bible.

The embarrassment or difficulty criterion has been used by some non-confessional and radical historians to claim to Jesus as religious/political resistant against Roman Empire. In Spain José Montserrat has written Jesus, the armed prophet in the line of S.G.F. Brandon. I think it is irritating ('embarrassing') for confessional historians because discloses a different branch of early Christianity very far of their placid Jesus, but I find hard to attribute this view to some kind of "historical" Jesus. It is another brand of Christianity and no more.