Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[OCaptain]

Congrats, you've managed to prove that people who never, ever met Jesus had heard stories about Jesus some 30+ years after his supposed death.

Now, ad homiems and what-not aside, do you have any evidence that supports the actual existence of Jesus rather than stories relaying stories relaying hearsay?

I don't think you have a healthy understanding for how history was written 2000 years ago. Again, what evidence would you consider admissable? And, to make sure your expectations aren't unusually high, ask yourself if you would require that same level of evidence of any person from 2000 year old writings, just to ensure that your expectations are reasonable.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

These quotes do constitute evidence. What they don't constitute is proof.

There is a difference. One is unassailable, whereas the other is not.


While you think that an opponent's mentioning and speaking out against stories of Christ and his followers is NOT evidence for Christ and his followers, more reasonable people see the error you've made. If someone writes a paper, after the invention of the internal combustion engine, calling it a myth, that still shows awareness of the ICE, regardless of the commentator's OPINION of it. That, sir, is evidence.

Yes, you are not wrong. But you need to keep in mind what exactly some of the references are evidence are of. Another thing to consider is whether or not such a reference constitutes independent attestation, or whether they merely tell us what we already know, i.e. that Christianity at some point has a HJ.

With Josephus for example you can - if you leave aside some of the problems with the TF for a second - see this as an attestation of a historical Jesus. There is also no indication of being directly dependent on for instance Christian believers, so that there at least is chance of Josephus being somewhat independent. However, as I already mentioned, there are problems with the TF ...

Tacitus too is an attestation of a historical Jesus. Christ and the ultimate penalty and so on. But the problem is, that it is next to impossible that this is independent attestation. He is passing on what he has been given.

Suetonis with his Chrestus neither has necessarily a HJ nor is it independent. An not only is it not independent, it is quite garbled at that. If this is about Christianity at all, then it is perfectly compatible with the Mythicist version of early Christianity.

Similarly to Suetonis is Pliny, with the exception that there is no question that this is about Christianity. Still, it is neither independent, nor is it necessarily about a Christianity that started with a HJ.

 

[OCaptain]

Yes, you are not wrong. But you need to keep in mind what exactly some of the references are evidence are of. Another thing to consider is whether or not such a reference constitutes independent attestation, or whether they merely tell us what we already know, i.e. that Christianity at some point has a HJ.

With Josephus for example you can - if you leave aside some of the problems with the TF for a second - see this as an attestation of a historical Jesus. There is also no indication of being directly dependent on for instance Christian believers, so that there at least is chance of Josephus being somewhat independent. However, as I already mentioned, there are problems with the TF ...

Tacitus too is an attestation of a historical Jesus. Christ and the ultimate penalty and so on. But the problem is, that it is next to impossible that this is independent attestation. He is passing on what he has been given.

Suetonis with his Chrestus neither has necessarily a HJ nor is it independent. An not only is it not independent, it is quite garbled at that. If this is about Christianity at all, then it is perfectly compatible with the Mythicist version of early Christianity.

Similarly to Suetonis is Pliny, with the exception that there is no question that this is about Christianity. Still, it is neither independent, nor is it necessarily about a Christianity that started with a HJ.

Thank you. Now I know who the reasonable one is.

Now, all I need to do is convince you that the separation between HJ and MJ is a modern construct.

 

[Craig B]

OCaptain makes a point I have literally never heard of before.

About another comment that I meant to address before - "Chrestus" was indeed a common Greek name, but in the context of the passage in the original Latin, for "Chrestus" to have been intended to be a name, is missing a necessary word "quodam". Therefore, we must conclude that the use of the word is of a title, as is apparent.

Any latinists here who can help with this? Does Suetonius's "impulsore chresto" require the addition of a "quodam" to indicate a proper name, without which it is a title? And if so, why does the author not explain to his readers what this title means? Would it have been perfectly familiar to Roman readers in his day?

 

[Craig B]

I should also add that OCaptain's defence of the Testimonium Flavianum misses the point presented to him, that Josephus, whatever he may have said, could not possibly have used the expression "christ", and that we have positive ancient evidence that he did not. Moreover, even most Christian commentators concede at least this. Over to you, OCaptain.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, the TF not a known forgery. What is fact is that some suspect that the writing style doesn't match with the rest of Josephus. That doesn't settle the matter by any stretch. Besides, it is more likely that he was reporting on the beliefs of the Christians rather than his own opinion of the man. It wouldn't have been the first time he did so.

That's not quite true. The problems with TF are more than that. Probably an even bigger smoking gun for example is that the previous paragraph flows more naturally into the one after the TF, as you'd expect from an unskilled insertion between two paragraphs.

It's really not a case of "some people" suspect, but a case of pretty blatant forgery. The gushing endorsement is out of character for a pagan writer like Josephus. It uses the wrong style for Josephus. It uses the wrong lexicon. It disrupts the flow of the text, which reads more naturally without it.

And an even bigger smoking gun are all the church fathers who DON'T cite that paragraph. The first one to even mention such a paragraph is in the 4'th century. Until then, even when someone like Justin Martyr tries to convince a rabbi of the historicity of Jesus, mysteriously he doesn't cite such a paragraph which would have been the best evidence possible. Origen shows that he's familiar with the references to James and John The Baptist from the same book, but mysteriously never mentions the TF. Etc. Until the 4'th century, nobody EVER, jew or christian or pagan alike, ever mentions such a paragraph.

Remember also, that no copy of "Antiquities" has surfaced without this passage recorded, referring to him as the "so-called Christ". So, any speculation that some prior version left it out is just that - speculation, and it places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those positing such an original to produce it.

BS. You seem to have a pretty warped notion of how it works. The idea that you must take a forgery as true unless someone produces a non-forged version is pretty silly, in fact.

 

[tsig]

No, the TF not a known forgery. What is fact is that some suspect that the writing style doesn't match with the rest of Josephus. That doesn't settle the matter by any stretch. Besides, it is more likely that he was reporting on the beliefs of the Christians rather than his own opinion of the man. It wouldn't have been the first time he did so.

That's not quite true. The problems with TF are more than that. Probably an even bigger smoking gun for example is that the previous paragraph flows more naturally into the one after the TF, as you'd expect from an unskilled insertion between two paragraphs.

It's really not a case of "some people" suspect, but a case of pretty blatant forgery. The gushing endorsement is out of character for a pagan writer like Josephus. It uses the wrong style for Josephus. It uses the wrong lexicon. It disrupts the flow of the text, which reads more naturally without it.

And an even bigger smoking gun are all the church fathers who DON'T cite that paragraph. The first one to even mention such a paragraph is in the 4'th century. Until then, even when someone like Justin Martyr tries to convince a rabbi of the historicity of Jesus, mysteriously he doesn't cite such a paragraph which would have been the best evidence possible. Origen shows that he's familiar with the references to James and John The Baptist from the same book, but mysteriously never mentions the TF. Etc. Until the 4'th century, nobody EVER, jew or christian or pagan alike, ever mentions such a paragraph.



BS. You seem to have a pretty warped notion of how it works. The idea that you must take a forgery as true unless someone produces a non-forged version is pretty silly, in fact.

If Josephus actually believed what he supposedly wrote he'd have to be a Christian.

 

[RandFan]

If Josephus actually believed what he supposedly wrote he'd have to be a Christian.

Yep. And hell, who wouldn't? Resurrection, miracle healing, proof of god on earth and a plan for eternal life. Sign me up (when you have the proof).

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

OCaptain makes a point I have literally never heard of before. Any latinists here who can help with this? Does Suetonius's "impulsore chresto" require the addition of a "quodam" to indicate a proper name, without which it is a title? And if so, why does the author not explain to his readers what this title means? Would it have been perfectly familiar to Roman readers in his day?

1. Yes. It's complete BS, but then you probably already suspected that. The word is quidam/quaedam/quodam and means basically "a certain". You'd use that word if you want to say, quite literally, "they were instigated by a certain Chrestus."

BUT it's NOT mandatory, and NOT a determinative for proper nouns, and that goes both ways.

- You can for example equally use it with a common noun, to say "He caught a certain man with a dagger near him when he was sacrificing", and Suetonius himself uses in book 5 paragraph 36, and in several other places. That's your quodam right there, used for something that isn't anyone's name. And conversely

- you can use proper nouns without qualifying themselves as such. Suetonius himself for example uses plenty of persons' names without qualifying them as "a certain". You don't think he wrote "a certain Claudius" when talking about the Emperor, for example, do you?

Frankly, it's as optional as the English equivalent is in English. You can write, for names, something like "they caught Guy Fawkes stockpiling gunpowder" or equally "they caught a certain Guy Fawkes stockpiling gunpowder." Or for common nouns, you can write "they caught a disgruntled catholic stockpiling gunpowder" or equally "they caught a certain disgruntled catholic stockpiling gunpowder." It only changes the nuance of the phrasing a little, but it's up to you if you want to use it or not.

And, again, it's used equally optionally for titles as for names, which makes it pretty remarkably silly as a criterion for distinguishing titles from proper name.

2. The bigger problem is basically that it means nothing either way. Let's say, just for ad absurdum sake, that Suetonius actually meant Chrestos or Christos. While that sounds significant to us, and like meaning definitely Jesus Christ, both were actually much more common in the centuries before and after Jesus. In fact, he'd be one of MANY Christos and Chrestos at the time.

Christos meant "annointed", and the usage of that is so wide-spread, that it's even one of the titles of Odin at the other end of Europe. Seriously, Grimm, means "annointed". It was used not only for gods and messiahs, but depending on the time and cult even for high priests, oracles, kings, etc.

Chrestos was used to mean anything between "good man", or "seeker of wisdom", or "guy who decodes the cryptic sayings of an oracle", or "neophite who wasn't annointed yet", or merely "servant of an oracle". I mean, "Chrestos" in Greek literally meant "Good" or "Useful", and in addition to a proper name, it was used as a title in a variety of cults and cult roles.

In simpler terms, at best Suetonius would say that the Jews were incited by a messiah (i.e., someone who a particular group considered the messiah) to cause trouble. That messiah could be Jesus, but most probably isn't. The traction of Jesus among Jews was negligible, compared to gentiles, among other things. And at worst, the Jews are instigated by some random rabbi or whoever Suetonius would use a chrestos title for. Or, again, it can actually be a person's name.

It should also be noted that whoever Suetonius was referring to, he makes it sound much more like a person active at that time and agitating the Jews, which doesn't really fit Jesus. Be it a title or a name, he doesn't say that they were doing it for the teachings of Chrestus or anything, but that they're instigated by Chrestus. So either he actually doesn't mean the same guy, or he's talking out the ass about some dead guy instigating the living.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If Josephus actually believed what he supposedly wrote he'd have to be a Christian.

Ayup. That's what makes it wildly out of character for Josephus.

 

[Belz...]

Atheism is not a religion?

Not believing in something with no evidence to believe it shows the same degree of "faith" as believing in something with little to no evidence? Hardly.... nice try...

With that much thought put into your post, it's no wonder you're a theist.

 

[Belz...]

Yep. And hell, who wouldn't? Resurrection, miracle healing, proof of god on earth and a plan for eternal life. Sign me up (when you have the proof).

Don't forget: none of those pesky rituals anymore. All you have to do is believe ! You can be as evil as you want.

 

[OCaptain]

Ayup. That's what makes it wildly out of character for Josephus.

I, for one, am not accusing Josephus of believing everything he wrote. Are you?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

1. About your post mentioning "the many writers who failed to mention Jesus". Even as prettily as it's dressed up, it's still an argument that expresses your incredulity, nothing more.

Wrong.
Personal incredulity would be if I claimed :
"I cannot believe these writers were silent on Jesus".

But it's NOT my incredulity here at all - it's a FACT that they were silent on Jesus. A fact you ignored, and will no doubt continue to ignore.

As such, it adds little to the discussion. Sound and fury, and all. The scholars I know don't behave that way. (I know you're probably going to accuse me of appealing to authority, so I'll beat you to it).

Wrong.
It adds evidence to the debate. Evidence that argues AGAINST an HJ.
So naturally you ignore it.

2. Your post betrays an ignorance of the accident of preservation with regards to artifacts, of which ancient MSS are part and parcel. You're assuming that we have the complete corpus of all the writers you mentioned, and thus can be judged. That is never wise, and by crafting your post the way you did, you asked it to bear more than it can.

Wrong.
The evidence we HAVE argues against an HJ.
Here you are pretending there is some OTHER non-existing evidence which supports YOU.

3. It seems that someone DID study rhetoric in college. I've been accused more times of using rhetorical strategies in one day here than in an entire year of posting with scholars on several listserves.

Yes, it's clear you came here to preach rhetocirally.
You sure have little knowledge of, and no interest in discussing the facts.

4. It seems that some here have forgotten the conventions of civil debate.

Your posts are ignorant, rude and uncivil. I hope you are gone from here soon - if you cannot be reasonable.

5. I have my own internal biases, which I struggle with every day.

Yes, we can see them clearly. I hope you at least TRY to discuss the facts and evidence. Your rhetorical abuse is unwelcome.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

These quotes do constitute evidence. What they don't constitute is proof. There is a difference. One is unassailable, whereas the other is not.

Yes - everyone knows that. How rude of you to assume no-one but you knows that.

Yes - it's evidence that argues AGAINST an HJ. So instead of addressing the evidence, you just give us rhetorical word games.

While you think that an opponent's mentioning and speaking out against stories of Christ and his followers is NOT evidence for Christ and his followers, more reasonable people see the error you've made. If someone writes a paper, after the invention of the internal combustion engine, calling it a myth, that still shows awareness of the ICE, regardless of the commentator's OPINION of it. That, sir, is evidence.

What silly nonsense. Telling stories about a real thing does NOT make it a myth, no. Obviously. But that's NOT what happened here at all. You seem to have serious problems with English comprehension.

Because you have NOT shown Jesus was historical yet - you just ASSUMED it. Myths can be written about fictional people, and often are. The mere fact that myths CAN be written about real persons does NOT show that person was historical.

Criticisms of the Jesus stories as FICTION based on MYTHS argues against an HJ. Do you have any answer for that or not?

You've also failed to consider the points of view of those dismissing Christianity in their writings. Most, by far, do so in favor of either their own competing beliefs or the beliefs of their king or emperor. NOT, for the most part, on behalf of some secular, atheist sense of skepticism. You're using the pagan faithful to override the Christian faithful. How is that science again?

What?
So, anyone who is anti-Christian is WRONG?
What on earth is your point?

Admittedly, the writing about the followers of Chrestus in Rome is not the strongest piece of evidence, but it can easily be understood as a confused early account of a new religion.

So, once again you jyst IGNORE the arguments that have been made :
Chrestus is a common slave name - but you ignored that.
Chrestus was apparently active in Rome in the 40s - you ignored that too.
Will you ever address the issues? Or is rhetoric all you've got?

And, about your Hannibal analogy - let me make sure I understand you.
You would give preferencial weight to more accounts much later on (Hannibal) than to fewer accounts much closer in time (Jesus)? Because that's what it seems like you're saying here.

The total evidence for a historical Hannibal is better than the evidence for a historical Jesus.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

It's not a matter of what I believe. What I believe is inadmissable.

Another silly dodge. You just WILL NOT address the issues, will you?
It's a simple yes or no question - but you refuse to answer it.

Do you agree that Josephus called Jesus the Messiah?
Yes or no?

No, the TF not a known forgery. What is fact is that some suspect that the writing style doesn't match with the rest of Josephus.

It's KNOWN that there is a firm consensus that it has been tampered with.

That doesn't settle the matter by any stretch. Besides, it is more likely that he was reporting on the beliefs of the Christians rather than his own opinion of the man.

So then it's NOT evidence for Jesus at all, is it?
Just evidence for Christian beliefs.

It appears you DO agree that Josephus called Jesus the Messiah. But you cannot admit it openly - why is that?

It wouldn't have been the first time he did so. Remember also, that no copy of "Antiquities" has surfaced without this passage recorded, referring to him as the "so-called Christ".

Copies? Our COPIES are from the 11th century! Meanwhile, Origen e.g. read Josephus and tells us that Josephus did NOT call Jesus the Messiah. This is clear and present evidence that in Origen's time the passage did NOT say Messiah.

Naturally you ignored that fact, because it shows you are wrong. Similarly, other early Christians knew of Josephus but NOT the T.F. - showing it was NOT present in early copies. But once again you ignored that fact, because it shows you are wrong.

So, any speculation that some prior version left it out is just that - speculation, and it places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those positing such an original to produce it.

We HAVE produced it.
We have documentary EVIDENCE of what Josephus said from Origen around 200CE. But you have to ignore that evidence of course.

Will you EVER address the issue of Origen NOT having "the Messiah"?
I doubt it, because that would show you were wrong.

About another comment that I meant to address before - "Chrestus" was indeed a common Greek name, but in the context of the passage in the original Latin, for "Chrestus" to have been intended to be a name, is missing a necessary word "quodam". Therefore, we must conclude that the use of the word is of a title, as is apparent.

Rubbish.
THAT'S your excuse for why we have the name CHRESTUS? What complete nonsense (thanks Hans.)

Will you continue to ignore the problem that this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome in the 40s?

Or will you just ignore that awkward fact like all the others?
Or is rhetoric and abuse all you have to offer?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I don't think you have a healthy understanding for how history was written 2000 years ago. Again, what evidence would you consider admissable?

Evidence has been cited, but you just ignore it.
Such as Origen NOT calling Jesus the Messiah.

It seems that any evidence that disagrees with you is 'inadmissable' - to you.


K.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think you have a healthy understanding for how history was written 2000 years ago. Again, what evidence would you consider admissable? And, to make sure your expectations aren't unusually high, ask yourself if you would require that same level of evidence of any person from 2000 year old writings, just to ensure that your expectations are reasonable.

I don't think you have a healthy understanding of what constitutes 'evidence', nor what constitutes 'civil discourse'. But this discussion shouldn't be about opinions, it should be about evidence.

At this point, there has been zero contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus. At best, at best, we have stories written down 30-40+ years after Jesus supposed death and not one author who actually claims to have personally known/met Jesus. That is hardly contemporary and remains evidence of nothing other than that stories were being told.

As for whether the burden of proof is too excessive, so far, there is no evidence, other than faith, that the specific person "Jesus the Christ" existed. Asking for contemporary, corroborating evidence that Jesus exists is hardly excessive. I would ask for the same evidence that Mary and Joseph existed. Now, I have no doubt that there was a Jesus and a Joseph and a Mary who existed around that time and in that region. But that doesn't make any of them the people referenced by the stories in the bible.

Don't confuse this with "The stories of the Bible are inaccurate", because that's not the argument I'm bringing.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I, for one, am not accusing Josephus of believing everything he wrote. Are you?

Accusing?
It's ACCUSING to say someone believed what they wrote themselves ?

Is it an ACCUSATION to say that YOU, OCaptain, believe what you wrote?
Or are you lieing, like you claim Josephus is?

Incredibly, you seem to be saying that it's an ACCUSATION to say someone believes what they wrote! As if it's the normal case that people such as Josephus do NOT believe what they wrote, but simply lied.


Meanwhile - you just CANNOT answer the question openly, can you? Perhaps because you realise how silly your claim is, so you want to keep it hidden?

It appears that you DO agree that Josephus called Jesus the Messiah, even though the facts argue otherwise, and even though you cannot admit it.

And now - it appears you think he wrote it, but did NOT actually believe it? So now your evidence for Jesus is from someone you claim is a liar?


What stupid nonsense.


K.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I, for one, am not accusing Josephus of believing everything he wrote. Are you?

Maybe. But as a member of one exclusivist religion, you don't write a gushing endorsement for a messiah you don't follow, citing miracles and resurrections.

The Testimonium Flavianum paragraph reads: "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."

The moment you write such a gushing confirmation of miracles, resurrection, extreme wisdom, etc, and as fact not as "his followers claim", would YOU not follow such a guy? Doubly so when you actually state "He was the christ"? Wonder rhetorically if you can even call such a wonderful being a man? WTH?

How often did you ever feel a need to say that someone was actually the messiah, and genuinely performed miracles, and genuinely resurrected, and was genuinely prophecised before his time by "the divine prophets", if you don't believe it? Did you ever feel a need to state as a fact that Gautama genuinely was the Buddha and actually did everything ascribed to him, without actually being a buddhist? That Mahomed genuinely transcribed personal message from God, via an Archangel, if you're not a Muslim? That Joseph Smith was genuinely guided by an angel to some ancient golden tables, if you're not a mormon?

Again, we're not talking about something along the lines of, "well, a group of guys claimed to be followers of some Jesus dude who they say did miracles and stuff", but about a gushing endorsement as fact of miracles, resurrection, etc.

The whole idea that the Jews would know Jesus is the messiah, but not follow him out of some unexplained spite, is an idiotic medieval Christian notion. Whole myths about Jews were built around that notion. No doubt, to the one who inserted that paragraph saw no problem with making Josephus confirm the divinity of Jesus as fact, although Josephus wasn't a Christian (which we know even from the likes of Origen), it seemed no problem. It just fit his stupid idea that that's the kind of thing a Jew would do.

But if you don't look through those glasses, it's simply illogical. A Jew who isn't convinced about Jesus at all, and who's writing to some readers who aren't into Jesus either, would not state as fact that Jesus was the messiah foretold by the prophets of God. It's the kind of stuff that just doesn't happen.