• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig B.: As I mentioned in another thread today, Origen in Against Celsus twice used exactly the same wording as (Pseudo?)-Josephus in two of his references to James (striking since most references in the patristics are dependent on the Pauline wording in Galatians) that were themselves references to Josephus' discussion of the death of James. The same passage also claims that Josephus "did not believe that Jesus was the Christ", a statement that may have been occasioned by the LEGOMENOU CHRISTOU in the Josephan passage (a believer would have called Jesus the Christ outright, as the longer interpolation does). This suggests that the statement was part of the text of Josephus at the time Origen wrote, which was probably much earlier than the inclusion of the longer passage (which shows distinct Eusebian style). So either, it was pre-Christian and likely original, or it was interpolated by a Christian in the second century. It certainly wasn't interpolated by Origen since he was citing Josephus in a response to a non-Christian critic.
 
Last edited:
Driwus said:
The DSS are not witnesses to first century C.E. Judaism and Christianity; the key sectarian works (the Damascus Document, Community Rule, the Halakhic Letter, etc.) date to the second and first centuries B.C.E. So key works from the first century C.E. that one would expect to find in the DSS, such as the Book of Parables and the Assumption of Moses, are not extant at Qumran. This does not exclude the fact that first century C.E. copies of older biblical and sectarian works were stored in the caves. One would similarly not expect to find the Book of Mormon in Sir Isaac Newton's library.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. there is some controversy over the dating of the scrolls as Robert Eisenman likes to point out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

...
It has been my position from the beginning of my work (the 70's), in a situation of the kind represented by the materials and discoveries at Qumran, when there is a contradiction between the results of techniques such as these and 'the Internal Data' - meaning, what the documents themselves say which is what my books generally focus on - then 'the internal data' must take precedence, given the quality, imprecision, and kind of 'the external data' that exists for Qumran.

While many might be familiar with the latter - what, for instance, might be considered 'internal data' where the Scrolls are concerned? Unfortunately, the outside observer must actually read the documents themselves to grasp this - which first of all are not easy for the non-specialist (to say nothing of for the 'specialist') to know these. Primarily these consist of the most important allusions at Qumran (a term 'scholars' generally use when referring to the Scrolls). These include references such as 'making a Straight Way in the wilderness,' alluded to twice in the document called "The Community Rule" at Qumran and one of the first douments found there in Cave I; and, as is generally well known, associated with the teaching and coming of John the Baptist 'in the wilderness' in the Synoptic Gospels (that is Matthew, Mark, and luke - but not John).

A related terminology is 'the New Covenant,' a phrase originally based on Jeremiah 31:31 and a central theme of the Damascus Document, known of course as the basis of the word 'New Testament' (i.e., the 'New Covenant'). Equally important is the allusion to and exposition of Habakkuk 2:4, perhaps the climax of the Habakkuk Commentary (or, as we in the field call it, 'The Habakkuk Pesher') and perhaps the central Scriptural building block of early Christian theology as set forth by Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and, of course, in James.
...
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/james-the-just-as-righteo_b_4133599.html

...
To state this perhaps more clearly, it was my firm opinion then and now that the margins-of-error in C-14 testing for a timeframe, such as that for the mss. at Qumran - particularly the 'sectarian' ones or those never seen before - were of such magnitude as to render "absolute dating" unrealistic. On the other hand, in the circumstances, ''relative dating" - meaning, as we just saw, "earlier vs. later" in the same test series - would be the best that could reasonably be expected since, in the limited circumstances of a run of tests conducted at the same time, the inherent methodological errors would more or less cancel each other out. Moreover such a process would at least test over-inflated claims for accuracy based on these tenuous "paleographic sequences".
...
Click to expand...
 
Craig B said:
Of course there are questions, but the issue here is not so clear. I am inclined to think that "called the Christ" is an interpolated gloss, but I'm by no means certain. The presence of another Jesus in the passage, the son of Damneus, raises suspicions.

If we take the "Christ" out, we are left with a credible tale. A rogue high priest kills a certain James. The King deposes the miscreant and appoints the victim's brother in his place. That would explain why Josephus gives us the name of the brother. It becomes relevant later in the paragraph. But a Christian copyist misread the whole thing and added in an identifying gloss explaining (wrongly) who the Jesus was. That's plausible, and I'm inclined, though without great tenacity, to support that theory.

There are nearly twenty people named Jesus mentioned in the works of Josephus.
Click to expand...

That plausible idea sounded familiar and so I tracked it down here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946



Now my question is:
Why do HJ proponents continue to trot out these references, both Ant.20.200 and the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus?
 
Last edited:
Brainache

...known of course as the basis of the word 'New Testament' (i.e., the 'New Covenant')...
Click to expand...
Huh? Testament doesn't mean covenant. Jeremiah 31: 31-34 is plainly an influence on Paul and his (and his Jesus') "New Covenant," which means new contract, treaty or other agreement. The New Testament, on the other hand, is the newer testimony, sign or personal statement. The Damascus document is a "covenant" all right

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

but there's nothing about a New Testament that I can find..

Something is amiss here. You are our local expert on Eisenman. Can you sort this out?
 
pakeha said:
That plausible idea sounded familiar and so I tracked it down here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946



Now my question is:
Why do HJ proponents continue to trot out these references, both Ant.20.200 and the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus?
Click to expand...
Because apart from the evident insertions into the TF, there are still valid arguments in favour of this material. So I think "discuss" would be better than "trot out".
 
eight bits said:
Brainache



Something is amiss here. You are our local expert on Eisenman. Can you sort this out?
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt that I can.

I think he is just being a bit loose with his phrasing in that blog.

He is saying that Paul speaks of a New Covenant, just as the Damascus document does. And that Paul's teaching is central to what we call the New Testament.

As far as the Qumran Community is concerned the "New Covenant" is a rededication to the Laws of Moses. For Paul it is about salvation through the blood of Christ.

The Qumran documents (too late now for me to look up which ones) speak of a Liar who speaks against the Law and builds a community on blood, leading the "simple of Ephraim and Manasseh" astray with the lies he spouts.

Paul takes great pains to point out that he isn't lying, no matter what anyone else says...
 
Craig B wrote
Because apart from the evident insertions into the TF, there are still valid arguments in favour of this material. So I think "discuss" would be better than "trot out".
Click to expand...
Point taken, Craig B.
What do you consider to be valid arguments in favour of Ant.20.200 and the Testimonium Flavianum?
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
Nice goalpost shifting.
In any case, while you may find consensus arguments convincing on the subject of Tacitus' references to Christ and to Christian persecution under Nero, not everyone does.
How old was Tacitus at the time of the fire of 64?
Click to expand...

SUPER NICE CHERRY PICKING, yourself.

Not everyone does. Cool story, bro, seeing as i never claimed that, what I said was that the overwhelming weight of scholarly authority finds Tacitus to be authentic and authoritative.

Tacitus was between 8 and 10 years old. How old was the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire when Rome... err.. declined and fell?

Scholarly History does not work that way!
 
16.5 said:
SUPER NICE CHERRY PICKING, yourself.
Click to expand...

Not really. All I had to do was quote your posts in full to show how you shifted goalposts.



16.5 said:
Not everyone does. Cool story, bro, seeing as i never claimed that, what I said was that the overwhelming weight of scholarly authority finds Tacitus to be authentic and authoritative.
Click to expand...
And?



16.5 said:
Tacitus was between 8 and 10 years old. How old was the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire when Rome... err.. declined and fell?

Scholarly History does not work that way!
Click to expand...

Who said it did?
Strawman, anyone?
 
pakeha said:
I'm glad you brought up that post yet again, Stone.

You give me the chance to mention that it's been a great influence in my own reading and thinking on the subject of this elusive HJ.

I found an old vridar blog article on the subject of those core sayings that might interest you.

http://vridar.org/2010/05/22/jesus-a-saviour-just-like-the-kings-and-gods-of-egypt-and-babylon/

The blog entry is based on Neil Godfrey's refections after reading Thomas L. Thompson's The Messiah Myth.

The article goes on to develop the idea with a fair number of examples, of course.

I'd be interested in your thoughts, as well as those of all the people posting and reading here, on the premise that those core sayings form part of a tradition rather than being "out of the blue" or strikingly original.
Click to expand...

While Stone demands you research his references, there's little chance he will give you same courtesy.

I conclude based on the broad and deep scholarship of religious development in the region that if there was a man who fits some definition of an 'historical Jesus' it's most likely any particulars about that person would be drowned in a tsunami of messianic expectations.

Paul's christ is a very good example of this sort of process - much more interested in what the scriptures have to say, and what he learns from visions and visits to various levels of heaven, than what he might learn about a man who might have taught something a few years ago.
 
pakeha said:
Not really. All I had to do was quote your posts in full to show how you shifted goalposts.
Click to expand...

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, almost intentionally deceptively wrong. You intentionally left out the posts to which I was replying. Bad!

Who said it did?
Strawman, anyone?
Click to expand...

LOLZ, then what was your purpose is asking how *********** old Tacitus was when the Great Fire took place? You taking a poll or something, or just intentionally wasting my valuable time?

Tacitus is authentic and authoritative, you want to address that or continue to waste my time?
 
pakeha said:
Not really. All I had to do was quote your posts in full to show how you shifted goalposts.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was amusing to watch how over several pages this fellow had to inch by inch agree that pretty much everything I said was true.

"Tacitus was between 8 and 10 years old. How old was the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire when Rome... err.. declined and fell?

Scholarly History does not work that way!"

Who said it did?

Strawman, anyone?
Click to expand...

All I ever did was set forth reasoning why an honest intelligent person might consider the Tacitus reference to be less than authentic.

But rather than argue the point, we get handwaved at with the ultra-vague incantations of the magical phrase 'scholarly consensus'.

...and even if Tacitus did write the passage, so what? We already know some narratives about a Jesus were being composed in the 2nd century.
 
proudfootz said:
All I ever did was set forth reasoning why an honest intelligent person might consider the Tacitus reference to be less than authentic.

But rather than argue the point, we get handwaved at with the ultra-vague incantations of the magical phrase 'scholarly consensus'.

...and even if Tacitus did write the passage, so what? We already know some narratives about a Jesus were being composed in the 2nd century.
Click to expand...

Stop. Is it authentic or not. Yes or no. I don't give a **** that Dawkins or who ever does not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Tacitus covered a huge span of history and virtually every reputable scholar believes it is authentic and authoritative.

Is it authentic or not?
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Stop. Is it authentic or not. Yes or no. I don't give a **** that Dawkins or who ever does not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Tacitus covered a huge span of history and virtually every reputable scholar believes it is authentic and authoritative.

Is it authentic or not?
Click to expand...

There are good reasons to suspect the paragraph in question is not authentic.

It could easily be a spurious insertion like the Testimonium.

Not sure why you're on about ad hominems - I don't simply dismiss Ehrman or others simply because they aren't historians.
 
proudfootz said:
There are good reasons to suspect the paragraph in question is not authentic.

It could easily be a spurious insertion like the Testimonium.

Not sure why you're on about ad hominems - I don't simply dismiss Ehrman or others simply because they aren't historians.
Click to expand...

I am looking for a yes or no. I mentioned ad hominems because people in this thread have rejected the scholarly consensus because some of the people looking at it are Biblical Scholars, which is 1. an ad hominem; 2. ignores the fact the other non-biblical scholars have concluded that the work is authentic.

I am not looking for speculation, if you have "good reasons" to reject the fact that almost every serious scholar believes it is authentic, come out with it.

Yes or No. If no, explain why.
 
dejudge said:
It is Finished--just give up the Ghost.
Click to expand...

See, this circles back to something I said quite some time ago: you are unable to sever the possible historical origin of the legend with the legend itself. For you, it's all or nothing, God Jesus Christ or no one at all. There is no allowable middle ground, lest your old faith creep back into your uncertain mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom