Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Indeed it doesn't follow. Its a complete fallacy.

You are the only person that made that fallacious claim. And you are still trying it even though you know it's untrue.

 

[Brainache]

You are dodging the big issue. Origen in two separate places in the same work claimed that Josephus wrote that the death of James the Just was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

I again ask oh Wise One where in 20.9.1 is there anything about Josephus saying that the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple was the punishment for the death of James the Just? As I asked before WHERE in Josephus is there even such a statement?

Its in Origen.

Josephus was tampered with years after Origen, when Christian Scribes had the kind of power that they needed to be able change it. That was the point of the whole argument. That these passages no longer exist in Josephus, but they used to.

There is a theory that Josephus' speech about Ananus was originally about James. It clashes with earlier descriptions of Ananus, but matches earlier descriptions of James.

Ananus was never known as a lover of equality and Justice anywhere else in Josephus, except that one speech where the destruction of Jerusalem is blamed on his death.

Josephus has been doctored to remove this favourable mention of James over Jesus.

Did you get it this time? Or will I have to say all this again, again?

 

[Brainache]

The highlighted bit does not follow at all, and nobody said it did follow (only you claimed that!).

It is the structure of your argument though.

You want to destroy Christianity and you seem to think that telling Christians that Jesus didn't exist will impress them somehow.

Bizarre.

 

[Craig B]

You are the only person that made that fallacious claim. And you are still trying it even though you know it's untrue.

I have made no claim that this reasoning is valid. I think some version of that thinking motivates some elements of the MJ movement.

 

[zugzwang]

I don't think anyone actually uses it as an argument, do they? It would be a very weird argument - MJ would devastate Christianity, therefore it's true!

However, it may be a motivation for some people, and they might not even be aware of it. I suppose Carrier is a fairly vehement anti-theist, isn't he? But I don't know if one can connect that with his MJ propensities.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha

Thank you for that video the other day, I lol'd. ...

Glad to oblige. I've never seen RD in quite the same light after Brother Sam's comments.

 

[IanS]

I have made no claim that this reasoning is valid. I think some version of that thinking motivates some elements of the MJ movement.

Well you were the person who said it. Do you need me to quote you again on that?

Where did I (or anyone here) say any such thing?

In fact you said that exact same thing here way back, and I told you very clearly then, that I'd never said, implied, or otherwise thought or suggested any such thing.

The only person here who has suggested anything like that is you (and not for the first time either).

That’s apart from the fact that like almost everyone here on the HJ side, your posts keep slipping into all manner personalisation’s attempting to denigrate the character of people who disagree with you. Which is almost always a sure sign that you have no credible argument to support your belief in Jesus …

... and for which are certainly still waiting for any shred of reliable credible evidence at all.

 

[Brainache]

Well you were the person who said it. Do you need me to quote you again on that?

Where did I (or anyone here) say any such thing?

In fact you said that exact same thing here way back, and I told you very clearly then, that I'd never said, implied, or otherwise thought or suggested any such thing.

The only person here who has suggested anything like that is you (and not for the first time either).

That’s apart from the fact that like almost everyone here on the HJ side, your posts keep slipping into all manner personalisation’s attempting to denigrate the character of people who disagree with you. Which is almost always a sure sign that you have no credible argument to support your belief in Jesus …

... and for which are certainly still waiting for any shred of reliable credible evidence at all.

I distinctly recall you saying you started thinking about this whole subject because of 9/11 and that you wanted to abolish religion.

You admitted (or, didn't deny) that your entire motivation was ideological.

It is plain to see that you have never seriously studied the subject and that most of the dishonesty and personal attacks are coming from your side of the fence.

It also seems strange that you criticise others for a lack of evidence. When was the last time you backed up any of your absurd assertions?

Pythagoras ringing any bells for you?

 

[Craig B]

Well you were the person who said it. Do you need me to quote you again on that?

Where did I (or anyone here) say any such thing?

In fact you said that exact same thing here way back, and I told you very clearly then, that I'd never said, implied, or otherwise thought or suggested any such thing.

The only person here who has suggested anything like that is you (and not for the first time either).

That’s apart from the fact that like almost everyone here on the HJ side, your posts keep slipping into all manner personalisation’s attempting to denigrate the character of people who disagree with you. Which is almost always a sure sign that you have no credible argument to support your belief in Jesus …

... and for which are certainly still waiting for any shred of reliable credible evidence at all.

That is plainly not true. I have denigrated no character. I have indicated an argument, and showed why I find it fallacious. That is not personalisation, let alone denigration. Can you give me the post or page number of my previous post on this issue please? I've lost it.

 

[dejudge]

Its in Origen.

Josephus was tampered with years after Origen, when Christian Scribes had the kind of power that they needed to be able change it. That was the point of the whole argument. That these passages no longer exist in Josephus, but they used to.

Your claim is not only void of logic but also void of corroboration. There is NO existing original of Origen's "Against Celsus" and NO Apologetic writer BEFORE Origen mentioned the passage.

There is a theory that Josephus' speech about Ananus was originally about James. It clashes with earlier descriptions of Ananus, but matches earlier descriptions of James.

Ananus was never known as a lover of equality and Justice anywhere else in Josephus, except that one speech where the destruction of Jerusalem is blamed on his death.

Josephus has been doctored to remove this favourable mention of James over Jesus.

You are merely INVENTING your own James story WITHOUT a shred of supporting evidence which precisely reflects the HJ argument--a massive conspiracy theory.

It seems Everybody lied about your Jesus and Your James.

Your Jesus was an obscure itinerant preacher but Paul lied and claimed he was the Christ?

Your James was really the brother of Jesus an ITINERANT preacher but Josephus Lied and said Jesus was the Christ?

Can you tell me the TRUE STORY of Romulus? Was Remus his real brother?

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is just a total contradiction and absurd.

Josephus was tampered with years after Origen, when Christian Scribes had the kind of power that they needed to be able change it.

That was the point of the whole argument. That these passages no longer exist in Josephus, but they used to.

There is a theory that Josephus' speech about Ananus was originally about James. It clashes with earlier descriptions of Ananus, but matches earlier descriptions of James.

Brainache argues quite illogically that what Josephus wrote about James was tampered with by CHRISTIANS Scribes.

If James was a Christian and the Lord's brother it makes absolutely no sense that Christians Scribes would remove evidence that James was known by Josephus.

We would even expect more about James and Jesus if they were really brothers and if Jesus was the Christ.

The HJ argument is just a massive conspiracy theory. Now, even Christians Scribes removed evidence for His James from Josephus according to Brainache.

Unless the Christian Scribes were complete idiots it is not expected that they would remove evidence that Josephus knew James and replace him with a non-Christian.

 

[Brainache]

The HJ argument is just a total contradiction and absurd.



Brainache argues quite illogically that what Josephus wrote about James was tampered with by CHRISTIANS Scribes.

If James was a Christian and the Lord's brother it makes absolutely no sense that Christians Scribes would remove evidence that James was known by Josephus.

We would even expect more about James and Jesus if they were really brothers and if Jesus was the Christ.

The HJ argument is just a massive conspiracy theory. Now, even Christians Scribes removed evidence for His James from Josephus according to Brainache.

Unless the Christian Scribes were complete idiots it is not expected that they would remove evidence that Josephus knew James and replace him with a non-Christian.

I wish you would actually read what I wrote, instead of making it all up and then jabbering like a buffoon about it.

They didn't remove references that show Josephus knew about James, those are still there.

What they removed were references to James being greater and more influential than Jesus. These guys didn't like the idea that James, not Jesus was the reason Josephus gave for the destruction. You can see Origen saying it himself in the quote I gave you before.

Because you don't understand something, doesn't make it "void of logic".

 

[dejudge]

I wish you would actually read what I wrote, instead of making it all up and then jabbering like a buffoon about it.

They didn't remove references that show Josephus knew about James, those are still there.

What they removed were references to James being greater and more influential than Jesus. These guys didn't like the idea that James, not Jesus was the reason Josephus gave for the destruction. You can see Origen saying it himself in the quote I gave you before.

Because you don't understand something, doesn't make it "void of logic".

You are the one who puts forward illogical connections between Ananus and James without a shred of evidence.

Who removed references to James? Christian Scribes!!! You have no corroborative sources for your conspiracy theories.

You have no evidence that Josephus wrote anything that Origen claimed he wrote about Jesus of the NT.

Origen's claims about James in Josephus has never been found and no-one before Origen ever made references to them.

 

[IanS]

That is plainly not true. I have denigrated no character. I have indicated an argument, and showed why I find it fallacious. That is not personalisation, let alone denigration. Can you give me the post or page number of my previous post on this issue please? I've lost it.

Why have you lost it? You do not remember that you had said the same thing before? Well presumably you do know that you just made the exact same untrue allegation again directly above on this page. So ... where did I ever say the reason Jesus did not exist was because “Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus”?

I never said any such thing did I? I’ll save you the trouble looking - I certainly did not say that.

In fact afaik, the only person here who has suggested that anyone said any such thing, is you!

Here again is what yourself just said in reply to me in your earlier post above (on this same page) -

In the case of entirely religious figures like Jesus, it is the existence of the figure himself that is crucial. If Jesus does not exist, then the entire basis of the Christian belief system is bogus.

I have pointed out long ago that this seems to be one of the main motives for adopting the MJ position. Christianity is bad, and ought to disappear. If it was acknowledged by its present adherents to be bogus, it would disappear. If Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus. Therefore Jesus didn't exist.
This is an absurd reason for believing Jesus not to have existed. It is a fallacy. Whether the discovery of Jesus' non-existence would have desirable consequences or not, has no effect at all on its probability.

 

[Brainache]

You are the one who puts forward illogical connections between Ananus and James without a shred of evidence.

Who removed references to James? Christian Scribes!!! You have no corroborative sources for your conspiracy theories.

You have no evidence that Josephus wrote anything that Origen claimed he wrote about Jesus of the NT.

Origen's claims about James in Josephus has never been found and no-one before Origen ever made references to them.

It wasn't just Origen. It was Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Clement as well. All of these guys lived at a time when Christians had no control over information in the Roman Empire.

I think we should look at Eusebius as a prime candidate for tampering with Josephus. Lying for Jesus was his schtick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

...
Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel bears witness to the literary tastes of Origen: Eusebius quotes no comedy, tragedy, or lyric poetry, but makes reference to all the works of Plato and to an extensive range of later philosophic works, largely from Middle Platonists from Philo to the late 2nd century.[29] Whatever its secular contents, the primary aim of Origen and Pamphilus' school was to promote sacred learning. The library's biblical and theological contents were more impressive: Origen's Hexapla and Tetrapla, a copy of the original Hebrew Version of the Gospel of MattitYahu, and many of Origen's own writings.[20] Marginal comments in extant manuscripts note that Pamphilus and his friends and pupils, including Eusebius, corrected and revised much of the biblical text in their library.[20] Their efforts made the hexaplaric Septuagint text increasingly popular in Syria and Palestine.[30] Soon after joining Pamphilus' school, Eusebius started helping his master expand the library's collections and broaden access to its resources. At about this time Eusebius compiled a Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, presumably for use as a general reference tool.[20]

...
Edward Gibbon openly distrusted the writings of Eusebius concerning the number of martyrs, by noting a passage in the shorter text of the Martyrs of Palestine attached to the Ecclesiastical History (Book 8, Chapter 2) in which Eusebius introduces his description of the martyrs of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with: "Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. [...] We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

[52] In the longer text of the same work, chapter 12, Eusebius states: "I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as [...] the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning."
When his own honesty was challenged by his contemporaries,[53] Gibbon appealed to a chapter heading in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica (Book XII, Chapter 31)[54] in which Eusebius discussed "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."[55]

Although Gibbon refers to Eusebius as the 'gravest' of the ecclesiastical historians,[56] he also suggests that Eusebius was more concerned with the passing political concerns of his time than his duty as a reliable historian.[57]...

He had motive, opportunity and it fits his stated goals.

 

[Brainache]

Why have you lost it? You do not remember that you had said the same thing before? Well presumably you do know that you just made the exact same untrue allegation again directly above on this page. So ... where did I ever say the reason Jesus did not exist was because “Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus”?

I never said any such thing did I? I’ll save you the trouble looking - I certainly did not say that.

In fact afaik, the only person here who has suggested that anyone said any such thing, is you!

Here again is what yourself just said in reply to me in your earlier post above (on this same page) -

If that isn't the reasoning you used, what is?

Looks to me like you reached your conclusion and now refuse to look at any evidence.

 

[Craig B]

Why have you lost it? You do not remember that you had said the same thing before?

Yes of course I do! I thought you had found the earlier post, but unfortunately you didn't. Thanks anyway.

 

[dejudge]

It wasn't just Origen. It was Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Clement as well. All of these guys lived at a time when Christians had no control over information in the Roman Empire.

I am extremely happy that you mention Irenaeus. You should have read what Irenaeus wrote.

You should know Irenaeus in Against Heresies 2.22 claimed Jesus was crucified around c 50 CE, when Jesus himself was an old man and the apostles including John preached the very same thing.

Irenaeus writings are evidence that the Pauline Corpus are historically and theologically bogus.

Paul could NOT have preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected since 37-41 CE if he was crucified c 50 CE.

Irenaeus have reduced the History of the Church to rubble.

Around c 180 CE, it was taught in the Churches that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE--NOT 33 CE.

Irenaeus has single handedly destroyed Clement, Hegesippus and Origen. The Elders, John and the other Apostles preached throughout Asia that Jesus OBTAINED his 50th year and was an OLD MAN when he was crucified


Against Heresies 2.22

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.

Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.

I think we should look at Eusebius as a prime candidate for tampering with Josephus. Lying for Jesus was his schtick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius


He had motive, opportunity and it fits his stated goals.

You really should not be accusing Eusebius of tampering with Josephus when you are aware of the massive amount of forgeries in Apologetic writings.

Who really wrote gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, 1&2 Peter, James, Jude, 1,2&3 John?

It took hundreds of years, over a thousand years, to discover that virtually all the books of the Canon were indeed either forgeries or falsely attributed to Fake pre-70 CE authors.

There are many more Apologetic writings that have been manipulated making it virtually impossible to accuse any specific author of forgeries when the very writing itself under the name of Eusebius may itself be a forgery.

 

[Craig B]

... You really should not be accusing Eusebius of tampering with Josephus when you are aware of the massive amount of forgeries in Apologetic writings.

Eh? Document B can't be a forgery, because there already exists different Document A which was forged by another person. If you're ever in front of a court charged with forgery, don't use that argument in your case for the defence!

 

[maximara]

Its in Origen.

Josephus was tampered with years after Origen, when Christian Scribes had the kind of power that they needed to be able change it. That was the point of the whole argument. That these passages no longer exist in Josephus, but they used to.

But this is the inverse of the argument given against the Testimonium Flavianum being genuine; no one before the 4th century mentions it (not even Origen). So your position is that if Origen mentions something being in Josephus it had to be there (and was later removed) but if he doesn't mention something even when logic indicated he should have (Testimonium Flavianum) it much have been then and he didn't have a reason to mention it.

HOW THE FREAKING HECK IN THE NAME OF SANITY DOES THAT WORK?!?

Move over why would the later Christians remove such a passage? Why are there no variants of Josephus with this passage when we know that there was a variant without the Testimonium Flavianum as late as 1600? The logic here is nonexistent.