So if he WASN'T the Son of God....

Everlong1

....who exactly was this Jesus Christ bloke? And why are millions still worshipping him 2,000 plus years later?

MrPudding

Everlong1 wrote: »

....who exactly was this Jesus Christ bloke? And why are millions still worshipping him 2,000 plus years later?

OK, that's me convinced. Where is you church at? I will be there on Sunday.

MrP

kylith

A) some bloke with good charisma. Or maybe not, there’s no hard evidence he existed at all

a good PR team.

If Ra isn’t the sun god why did people worship him for about 5000 years?

Pherekydes

If Frigg wasn't God why do we have a day named after her, and why do millions say "Thank God it's Friday!"?

pleas advice

Just a very naughty boy

oldrnwisr

Everlong1 wrote: »

....who exactly was this Jesus Christ bloke? And why are millions still worshipping him 2,000 plus years later?

To paraphrase Gag Halfrunt, vell, Jesus was just zis guy you know.

As why millions are worshipping him, well the same question could be asked of a lot of things. Why are there 1.1 billion Hindus who worship Ganesh and Shiva, why are there over 500 million Buddhists who worship Buddha (well revere rather than worship), why do so many people read Harry Potter books?

The question of why people believe the things that they do is vast. You may want to narrow down your question just a tad.

robindch

Everlong1 wrote: »

....who exactly was this Jesus Christ bloke?

He's a character in a controversial, and controversially edited, series of stories from around 2,000 years ago. We have essentially no information beyond that.

Everlong1 wrote: »

And why are millions still worshipping him 2,000 plus years later?

Interesting question and one which ultimately saw me abandoning religion perhaps 20 years ago when it became clear that one didn't need to be descended from a deity in order to create an idea which had universal appeal over long periods of time.

The figure's closer to billions, btw, rather than millions. Doesn't make the truth-claims made on his behalf true though.

kylith

oldrnwisr wrote: »

why do so many people read Harry Potter books?

That is a total mystery.

py2006

Is there any written account of Jesus outside of the Bible? I mean (if he existed) it should have been written/painted about by others?

robindch

py2006 wrote: »

Is there any written account of Jesus outside of the Bible? I mean (if he existed) it should have been written/painted about by others?

There are a few accounts from non-christian authors of characters who have traditionally been assumed to be Jesus, or of groups of believers who have been assumed to have been following Jesus. The accounts are, at best, fragmentary and convey little information.

The two most important non-christian sources are a) Josephus in a short passage in one of his works which textual evidence suggests was probably added later by another author; and b) several sentences by Tacitus which appear in the earliest extant manuscripts of Tacitus, written perhaps 1,000 years after Christ, which describes the existence of somebody called "Christus" who was reported to have created a troublesome religion.

On the christian side, there are a range of what are referred to as Gnostic Gospels which are texts from around the 3rd and 4th centuries which describe Jesus in terms quite different from the descriptions which appear in the biblical gospels.

The only lines which are convincing in any way to me come from Tacitus who was, and remains, a respected historian and shrewd observer of humanity and its foibles. The other texts are fanciful.

oldrnwisr

py2006 wrote: »

Is there any written account of Jesus outside of the Bible? I mean (if he existed) it should have been written/painted about by others?

The short answer is nope. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The long answer is more complex and detailed. There are no writings by Jesus. There are also no contempraneous writings (i.e. written at the same time as the events they depict) either by people disposed towards the Jesus story or those either neutral or hostile towards it.
The earliest non-Christian source which is touted by Christian apologists is that of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian writing for a largely Roman audience who was born in 37CE as detailed by robindch. His work contains two passages which are claimed to be references by Jesus, the "Testimonium Flavianum" which was fabricated in its entirety by a later author (probably Eusebius) and a lesser passage referring to James (who was, in fact, not the James of the bible).
The other non-Christian sources like Tacitus as noted by robindch arrive much later, in Tacitus' case around 115CE. It is far more likely that this second round of non-Christian references are not in fact independent but drawing on Christian sources given that by the time Tacitus mentions Jesus it is over 60 years since Paul's first epistle.
However, the bigger problem is not the problems with the sources we do have, it is the deafening silence from those sources we expect to have written about Jesus but didn't. People like Seneca, Philo of Alexandria, Justus Tiberias or Nicolaus of Damascus. Even later authors contempraneous with writers like Tacitus and the early Church fathers are strangely silent, writers like Pausanias, Aristides, Fronto, Maximus of Tyre and Athenaeus of Naucratis.
The only biographical information we get in any source on Jesus is in the gospels which, as we now know, are works of deliberate fiction, backstories for a fairly obscure preacher from Palestine (if he existed at all).

py2006

Fascinating stuff. Thanks a million guys. Lots to read up on.

Am I right in saying the name, 'Jesus', is a westernised version of what his name would have been?

david75

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The short answer is nope. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The long answer is more complex and detailed. There are no writings by Jesus. There are also no contempraneous writings (i.e. written at the same time as the events they depict) either by people disposed towards the Jesus story or those either neutral or hostile towards it.
The earliest non-Christian source which is touted by Christian apologists is that of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian writing for a largely Roman audience who was born in 37CE as detailed by robindch. His work contains two passages which are claimed to be references by Jesus, the "Testimonium Flavianum" which was fabricated in its entirety by a later author (probably Eusebius) and a lesser passage referring to James (who was, in fact, not the James of the bible).
The other non-Christian sources like Tacitus as noted by robindch arrive much later, in Tacitus' case around 115CE. It is far more likely that this second round of non-Christian references are not in fact independent but drawing on Christian sources given that by the time Tacitus mentions Jesus it is over 60 years since Paul's first epistle.
However, the bigger problem is not the problems with the sources we do have, it is the deafening silence from those sources we expect to have written about Jesus but didn't. People like Seneca, Philo of Alexandria, Justus Tiberias or Nicolaus of Damascus. Even later authors contempraneous with writers like Tacitus and the early Church fathers are strangely silent, writers like Pausanias, Aristides, Fronto, Maximus of Tyre and Athenaeus of Naucratis.
The only biographical information we get in any source on Jesus is in the gospels which, as we now know, are works of deliberate fiction, backstories for a fairly obscure preacher from Palestine (if he existed at all).

Are there not Roman records that are still readable of a rabble rouser causing disturbance in that area at that time?

Don’t know for sure if that’s true but heard it in some history show somewhere I think.

endacl

Everlong1 wrote: »

....who exactly was this Jesus Christ bloke? And why are millions still worshipping him 2,000 plus years later?

Also, check your maths. If we accept Holibabijebus was actually born in late December, year dot, he'd only be 17 2000 years ago. Right in the middle of his *lost years*. With nobody worshipping him. Probably tearing it up on his gap year....

Franz Von Peppercorn

robindch wrote: »

There are a few accounts from non-christian authors of characters who have traditionally been assumed to be Jesus, or of groups of believers who have been assumed to have been following Jesus. The accounts are, at best, fragmentary and convey little information.

The two most important non-christian sources are a) Josephus in a short passage in one of his works which textual evidence suggests was probably added later by another author; and b) several sentences by Tacitus which appear in the earliest extant manuscripts of Tacitus, written perhaps 1,000 years after Christ, which describes the existence of somebody called "Christus" who was reported to have created a troublesome religion.

On the christian side, there are a range of what are referred to as Gnostic Gospels which are texts from around the 3rd and 4th centuries which describe Jesus in terms quite different from the descriptions which appear in the biblical gospels.

The only lines which are convincing in any way to me come from Tacitus who was, and remains, a respected historian and shrewd observer of humanity and its foibles. The other texts are fanciful.

Most historians accept that the Josephus passage was generally true with one or two added lines.

Tacitus is reciting what he's learned about Christianity a few hundred years later. It’s not all accurate either.

endacl

david75 wrote: »

Are there not Roman records that are still readable of a rabble rouser causing disturbance in that area at that time?

Don’t know for sure if that’s true but heard it in some history show somewhere I think.

That was Brian. There was an excellent biopic made some years ago. Written by some clever chaps from Cambridge, so it must be true.

david75

endacl wrote: »

That was Brian. There was an excellent biopic made some years ago. Written by some clever chaps from Cambridge, so it must be true.

He’s still grounded afaik

robindch

py2006 wrote: »

Lots to read up on.

The most readable books I've come across in this general area are by Bart Ehrman - and while he could be justifiably accused of writing the same book ten times, it does have to be said that that one book is very interesting indeed.

py2006 wrote: »

Am I right in saying the name, 'Jesus', is a westernised version of what his name would have been?

In the Koine Greek, Jesus' name is Ιησους which can be transliterated into English as Iesous, or phonetically, as Eeyay-zous. Not sure what his name was in his original Aramaic though I'm sure google could provide.

robindch

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most historians accept that the Josephus passage was generally true with one or two added lines.

No idea who you're referring to since the majority of academics accept that the Testimonium Flavianum which appears in Josephus was added much later.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Tacitus is reciting what he's learned about Christianity a few hundred years later.

Uh, Tacitus was born in the mid first-century, perhaps around 50AD, so he would have been dead for a couple of centuries by the time that you claim that he was writing. Quite an achievement, though according to some religious people, an achievement also managed by Josephus.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s not all accurate either.

*cough*

robindch

david75 wrote: »

Are there not Roman records that are still readable of a rabble rouser causing disturbance in that area at that time?

That's the bit I mentioned above as deriving from Tacitus:

Tacitus wrote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

robindch

py2006 wrote: »

Is there any written account of Jesus outside of the Bible? I mean (if he existed) it should have been written/painted about by others?

robindch wrote: »

The most readable books I've come across in this general area are by Bart Ehrman - and while he could be justifiably accused of writing the same book ten times, it does have to be said that that one book is very interesting indeed.

Ah, nothing like looking after one leaps.

Seems that the redoubtable Mr Ehrman has addressed precisely this topic in his 2013 book "Accounts of Jesus from outside the New Testament":

https://www.bartdehrman.com/the-other-gospels/

Probably worth pointing out here that while some religious people believe otherwise, in fact, the Old Testament says nothing whatsoever about Jesus.

jaxxx

Everlong1 wrote: »

....who exactly was this Jesus Christ bloke? And why are millions still worshipping him 2,000 plus years later?

A Jon Snow b*stard (

except he's not but...)

whose mother had a one nighter with some randomer and rather than tell her husband the truth, fabricates a story where she was impregnated by some god or other whose son is the saviour of all mankind who will die for all our sins and... yada yada yada.

Franz Von Peppercorn

robindch wrote: »

No idea who you're referring to since the majority of academics accept that the Testimonium Flavianum which appears in Josephus was added much later.Uh, Tacitus was born in the mid first-century, perhaps around 50AD, so he would have been dead for a couple of centuries by the time that you claim that he was writing. Quite an achievement, though according to some religious people, an achievement also managed by Josephus.*cough*

The general consensus is that the specific sentence about him being the messiah was added later but the nucleus of the passage is original.

uck51js9zml2yt

py2006 wrote: »

Is there any written account of Jesus outside of the Bible? I mean (if he existed) it should have been written/painted about by others?

Josephus mentions Him. He was an historian about the same time.

pauldla

Elora Prehistoric Biceps wrote: »

Josephus mentions Him. He was an historian about the same time.

Have you read the comments about Josephus earlier in the thread?

oldrnwisr

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most historians accept that the Josephus passage was generally true with one or two added lines.

Tacitus is reciting what he's learned about Christianity a few hundred years later. It’s not all accurate either.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The general consensus is that the specific sentence about him being the messiah was added later but the nucleus of the passage is original.

Well, no. None of the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus is original. For those who haven't been around for previous threads let me explain.

Firstly, let's look at the passage itself in isolation:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Already, just looking at the passage on its own, we can see problems.

Firstly, it has an overly reverent or fawning tone, not something you'd expect of a Pharasaic Jew. Furthermore, Origen who mentions Josephus in his writings comments that Josephus was a reliable source despite "not believing in Jesus as the Christ".

Secondly, in Josephus' earlier work The Jewish War, Josephus claimed that the emperor Vespasian was the one who had, in fact, fulfilled the requirements of the messiah.

Third, Josephus wrote in meticulous detail about his subject matter. However, in this passage he drops in far too many words and phrases with no explanation whatsoever. For example he mentions Christ, a phrase which his Roman audience would not have understood, but offers no explanation of its meaning. Similarly, the phrases "performed surprising deeds", "such people as accept the truth gladly" and "a thousand other marvels about him" are all offered with no explanation, completely uncharacteristic of Josephus' writing style.

Next, Josephus describes several people who were either self-proclaimed messiahs or proclaimed as such by their followers, like Judas of Galilee or Theudas the Magician. However, in every case Josephus describes these people as swindlers, cheats, frauds and evil men.

Next, when we take the passage above in its wider context we see further problems:

But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.

When we look at the passage in the wider context of Chapter 18, we can see that it is out of place. The section opens with an anecdote about how Pilate brutally put down a minor uprising among the Jews. Then we get the Testimonium. Then the next section begins: "about the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder". If the Testimonium is authentic it begs the question, what sad calamity. It is out of step with a passage that has just been talking about Jesus. However, if we remove the passage entirely, the whole story reads much more smoothly.

Finally, nobody seems to notice this remarkable passage of Josephus. No Christian writer prior to Eusebius mentions the testimonium. Not Clement, nor Papias, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, not even Origen. In fact, this last omission is a damning indictment of the authenticity of the testimonium. Firstly, in Contra Celsus, Origen defends Christian teachings against Celsus' writings and quotes Josephus repeatedly to support his arguments. For example in 1.47 Origen references the specific book of Antiquities that we have been talking about in order to prove the existence of John the Baptist but at the same time gives out about Josephus for not mentioning Jesus in the same book:

"I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

Furthermore, later on in Contra Celsus (2.33) Origen bemoans the lack of writings about Jesus' miracles, stating: "but from what other source can we furnish an answer than the gospel narratives". This would be a remarkable oversight if the testimonium was authentic.

Finally, as I have already pointed out, the first Christian writer to mention the testimonium was Eusebius. This is odd for yet another reason. Eusebius quotes Josephus from his own copy of Antiquities. But in his own writings Eusebius mentions that he inherited his copy from his master Pamphilus who in turn inherited his copy from ...Origen. So its very strange that Eusebius suddenly notices a passage of this magnitude about Jesus in the same copy of the same book that Origen quotes from repeatedly and yet completely misses. In fact, its likely given Eusebius' character that he fabricated the testimonium out of whole cloth. Even his contemporaries decried his dishonesty and lack of integrity. As Jacob Burckhardt, a biographer of Constantine wrote, Eusebius was: "the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian of ancient times".

Now, those are the problems with the full testimonium. Some scholars have tried desperately to cling to this reference by offering the possibility of a reduced testimonium, removing the more reverent phrases from the passage. However, while this resolves the contradiction with Josephus' character as a Pharasaic Jew, it does nothing to help the other problems. It is still out of place with the rest of the story, it is still uncharacteristic of Josephus' other writing. It is still overlooked by a myriad of early Christian writers hungry for any mention of Jesus. Further, it raises some questions. Why is the passage here and not in The Jewish War? Antiquities is contempraneous with the gospels, arriving 20 years after Mark and several years after Matthew. However, the Jewish War is 20 years earlier and is more relevant to the Jesus story than Antiquities. Surely a reference to Jesus would have been better placed here.

david75 wrote: »

Are there not Roman records that are still readable of a rabble rouser causing disturbance in that area at that time?

Don’t know for sure if that’s true but heard it in some history show somewhere I think.

Well, no. Firstly, there's no evidence that Rome kept the kind of records that would have recorded the death of Jesus. Secondly, Rome had been destroyed by fire in the mid 60s CE. So, therefore, by the time the first Roman writers begin to talk about Christianity the chances of any Roman records still existing is pretty close to zero.

robindch wrote: »

The most readable books I've come across in this general area are by Bart Ehrman - and while he could be justifiably accused of writing the same book ten times, it does have to be said that that one book is very interesting indeed.In the Koine Greek, Jesus' name is Ιησους which can be transliterated into English as Iesous, or phonetically, as Eeyay-zous. Not sure what his name was in his original Aramaic though I'm sure google could provide.

His Aramaic name is, or likely to have been, Yeshua, or Joshua if you Anglicise it.

robindch wrote: »

The only lines which are convincing in any way to me come from Tacitus who was, and remains, a respected historian and shrewd observer of humanity and its foibles. The other texts are fanciful.

Rob, we've already discussed the issues with Tacitus on a previous thread including:

• He mistakenly cites Pontius Pilate as a procurator instead of a prefect.
• He references Jesus' crucifixion. It's not likely that the Romans would have kept records on every crucifixion and there's no evidence that they did anyway.
• Rome burned to the ground in the meantime (which he references in that passage) which means there's a good chance that any Roman records that did exist would have been destroyed long before he got to see them

But there's one more thing which didn't come up the last time. The early Christian writers desperately clung on to any reference to Jesus by any non-Biblical source (in much the same way modern Christians cherry pick passages from the OT as prophecies about Jesus). Furthermore, they also jealously guarded and protected any source which spoke favourably of Christians and destroyed those which were hostile (for example, the only extant traces of Celsus' writing are those preserved in Origen's quotes). This raises a problem for anyone hoping to use Tacitus as a source. In Annals, Tacitus provides a detailed history of the reign of the emperor Tiberius from 14-68CE. However, one particular section of this work has been lost, the section detailing the years 29-31CE. Obviously, if this section referenced Jesus and his crucifixion, early Christians would have been desperate to preserve it. On the other hand, if it made no mention of Jesus, they would have been desperate to hide that fact. Its odd that Annals is so well preserved but the most relevant section on Jesus is completely absent.

Elora Prehistoric Biceps wrote: »

Josephus mentions Him. He was an historian about the same time.

Again, no. Firstly, I've already explained above the problems with the reference to Jesus in Josephus but also Josephus wasn't a contemprorary historian. He was born in 37CE and didn't write his first major work until 75CE. The work which supposedly references Jesus wasn't written until 93/94 CE. So not the same time. At all.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In fact, its likely given Eusebius' character that he fabricated the testimonium out of whole cloth. Even his contemporaries decried his dishonesty and lack of integrity.

Eusebius' wiki page provides:

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." 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, Gibbon appealed to a chapter heading in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica (Book XII, Chapter 31)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."

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Rob, we've already discussed the issues with Tacitus on a previous thread including:

Yes, there are problems with his prose, but contested descriptions of Jesus notwithstanding, forgive a lot of a man with the wit to point out that "To plunder, slaughter and steal, these things they misname empire; and they make a wilderness and call it peace."

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

Eusebius' wiki page provides:

I feel like I should point out that calling out Eusebius as untrustworthy and dishonest is not a new phenomenon. Gibbon, while frequently cited, is far from the first person to call Eusebius' reputation into question. Dozens of his contemporaries took issue with Eusebius' scholarship:

Testimonies of the Ancients against Eusebius

robindch wrote: »

Yes, there are problems with his prose, but contested descriptions of Jesus notwithstanding, forgive a lot of a man with the wit to point out that "To plunder, slaughter and steal, these things they misname empire; and they make a wilderness and call it peace."

Indeed, Tacitus provides a great service to history through his writings, especially Annals and Histories. However, his contribution to the Jesus problem is minimal. The reason for this is not because of problems with his quote (in the way that the Josephus reference is flawed) but more because Tacitus' contribution doesn't represent independent confirmation of Jesus since, in all likelihood, he is drawing on Christian sources not Roman ones. He's just reporting what the Christians have been saying. Indeed, its interesting that the passage in Tacitus opens with an anecdote about Christians being persecuted by Nero to hide Nero's own guilt. These claims of persecution are common among early Christians but have not been borne out by history. In fact, Candida Moss devotes an entire book to just this topic:

The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom

Adamocovic

I had always assumed there was enough historical writings that suggested a person (Named Jesus or not) claiming to be the son of God existed. That it was just his claim that was the big debating point, not his existence. Have to say the posts have been very interesting.

Maybe it's just me but seems quite difficult to, with certainty, say which is correct and which is not.

Patser

More to the OP's point, if he Wasn't the Son of God..... Who's Son was he?

Joseph denies all knowledge! Mary is spouting on about Archangels, Immaculate conceptions etc, the vast majority of flavours of God are denying all responsibility, the other 1 is a bit vague.

This sounds like a Jerry Springer special edition.

Franz Von Peppercorn

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, no. None of the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus is original. For those who haven't been around for previous threads let me explain.

Firstly, let's look at the passage itself in isolation:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Already, just looking at the passage on its own, we can see problems.

Firstly, it has an overly reverent or fawning tone, not something you'd expect of a Pharasaic Jew. Furthermore, Origen who mentions Josephus in his writings comments that Josephus was a reliable source despite "not believing in Jesus as the Christ".

Secondly, in Josephus' earlier work The Jewish War, Josephus claimed that the emperor Vespasian was the one who had, in fact, fulfilled the requirements of the messiah.

Third, Josephus wrote in meticulous detail about his subject matter. However, in this passage he drops in far too many words and phrases with no explanation whatsoever. For example he mentions Christ, a phrase which his Roman audience would not have understood, but offers no explanation of its meaning. Similarly, the phrases "performed surprising deeds", "such people as accept the truth gladly" and "a thousand other marvels about him" are all offered with no explanation, completely uncharacteristic of Josephus' writing style.

Next, Josephus describes several people who were either self-proclaimed messiahs or proclaimed as such by their followers, like Judas of Galilee or Theudas the Magician. However, in every case Josephus describes these people as swindlers, cheats, frauds and evil men.

Next, when we take the passage above in its wider context we see further problems:

But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.

When we look at the passage in the wider context of Chapter 18, we can see that it is out of place. The section opens with an anecdote about how Pilate brutally put down a minor uprising among the Jews. Then we get the Testimonium. Then the next section begins: "about the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder". If the Testimonium is authentic it begs the question, what sad calamity. It is out of step with a passage that has just been talking about Jesus. However, if we remove the passage entirely, the whole story reads much more smoothly.

Finally, nobody seems to notice this remarkable passage of Josephus. No Christian writer prior to Eusebius mentions the testimonium. Not Clement, nor Papias, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, not even Origen. In fact, this last omission is a damning indictment of the authenticity of the testimonium. Firstly, in Contra Celsus, Origen defends Christian teachings against Celsus' writings and quotes Josephus repeatedly to support his arguments. For example in 1.47 Origen references the specific book of Antiquities that we have been talking about in order to prove the existence of John the Baptist but at the same time gives out about Josephus for not mentioning Jesus in the same book:

"I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

Furthermore, later on in Contra Celsus (2.33) Origen bemoans the lack of writings about Jesus' miracles, stating: "but from what other source can we furnish an answer than the gospel narratives". This would be a remarkable oversight if the testimonium was authentic.

Finally, as I have already pointed out, the first Christian writer to mention the testimonium was Eusebius. This is odd for yet another reason. Eusebius quotes Josephus from his own copy of Antiquities. But in his own writings Eusebius mentions that he inherited his copy from his master Pamphilus who in turn inherited his copy from ...Origen. So its very strange that Eusebius suddenly notices a passage of this magnitude about Jesus in the same copy of the same book that Origen quotes from repeatedly and yet completely misses. In fact, its likely given Eusebius' character that he fabricated the testimonium out of whole cloth. Even his contemporaries decried his dishonesty and lack of integrity. As Jacob Burckhardt, a biographer of Constantine wrote, Eusebius was: "the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian of ancient times".

Now, those are the problems with the full testimonium. Some scholars have tried desperately to cling to this reference by offering the possibility of a reduced testimonium, removing the more reverent phrases from the passage. However, while this resolves the contradiction with Josephus' character as a Pharasaic Jew, it does nothing to help the other problems. It is still out of place with the rest of the story, it is still uncharacteristic of Josephus' other writing. It is still overlooked by a myriad of early Christian writers hungry for any mention of Jesus. Further, it raises some questions. Why is the passage here and not in The Jewish War? Antiquities is contempraneous with the gospels, arriving 20 years after Mark and several years after Matthew. However, the Jewish War is 20 years earlier and is more relevant to the Jesus story than Antiquities. Surely a reference to Jesus would have been better placed here.




Well, no. Firstly, there's no evidence that Rome kept the kind of records that would have recorded the death of Jesus. Secondly, Rome had been destroyed by fire in the mid 60s CE. So, therefore, by the time the first Roman writers begin to talk about Christianity the chances of any Roman records still existing is pretty close to zero.




His Aramaic name is, or likely to have been, Yeshua, or Joshua if you Anglicise it.




Rob, we've already discussed the issues with Tacitus on a previous thread including:

• He mistakenly cites Pontius Pilate as a procurator instead of a prefect.
• He references Jesus' crucifixion. It's not likely that the Romans would have kept records on every crucifixion and there's no evidence that they did anyway.
• Rome burned to the ground in the meantime (which he references in that passage) which means there's a good chance that any Roman records that did exist would have been destroyed long before he got to see them

But there's one more thing which didn't come up the last time. The early Christian writers desperately clung on to any reference to Jesus by any non-Biblical source (in much the same way modern Christians cherry pick passages from the OT as prophecies about Jesus). Furthermore, they also jealously guarded and protected any source which spoke favourably of Christians and destroyed those which were hostile (for example, the only extant traces of Celsus' writing are those preserved in Origen's quotes). This raises a problem for anyone hoping to use Tacitus as a source. In Annals, Tacitus provides a detailed history of the reign of the emperor Tiberius from 14-68CE. However, one particular section of this work has been lost, the section detailing the years 29-31CE. Obviously, if this section referenced Jesus and his crucifixion, early Christians would have been desperate to preserve it. On the other hand, if it made no mention of Jesus, they would have been desperate to hide that fact. Its odd that Annals is so well preserved but the most relevant section on Jesus is completely absent.







Again, no. Firstly, I've already explained above the problems with the reference to Jesus in Josephus but also Josephus wasn't a contemprorary historian. He was born in 37CE and didn't write his first major work until 75CE. The work which supposedly references Jesus wasn't written until 93/94 CE. So not the same time. At all.

A lot of verbiage there but modern scholars disagree, as any reading of the literature would prove. You’ve presented the case for the opposition but not the case for proposition.

I don’t get why a certain type of atheist want to disprove the existence of Jesus - after all it’s nothing to do with his divinity. I believe he existed and was not divine (obviously) and was preaching to the Jews only. I don’t think it’s clear either way whether he claimed to be the messiah. Paul was the founder of gentile Christianity. However he was pretty sure that Jesus existed and in fact had arguments with people who knew Jesus, at least according to the literature. To fake all this takes a lot of effort.

And it takes a lot of selective argument.

It’s easy to explain Tacitus’s mistakes. He was writing after the event and so he got some details wrong. He’s explaining what Christians themselves say re the crucifixion (so he doesn’t need records) and was mistaken or was incorrect about who Pilate was. It’s clear he’s just recounting what he believes Christians then believed. Do you believe that Christians didn’t exist at the time?

It’s a pretty extraordinary to argue that the passage, hostile to Christianity as it is, was later interpolated by a monk. Why add the “they hate the world” bit? Who was this monk trying to fool? The 21st C atheist? When did he exist? If it was the Middle Ages he wouldn’t have written anything hostile to Christianity. In fact if a monk got hold of this passage he would have, at the least, deleted it. Or corrected it. So your claim that Tacitus got some details wrong rather disproves your case rather than proves it.

Tacitus doesn’t prove much about Christ, one way or the other, since he is only recounting what he knows second hand.

King Mob

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

A lot of verbiage there but modern scholars disagree, as any reading of the literature would prove. You’ve presented the case for the opposition but not the case for proposition.

I don’t get why a certain type of atheist want to disprove the existence of Jesus - after all it’s nothing to do with his divinity. I believe he existed and was not divine (obviously) and was preaching to the Jews only. I don’t think it’s clear either way whether he claimed to be the messiah. Paul was the founder of gentile Christianity. However he was pretty sure that Jesus existed and in fact had arguments with people who knew Jesus. To fake all this takes a lot of effort.

Is that the case for the proposition?
If so, I'm not seeing how that outweighs oldrnwisr's arguments.

What evidence do you have that Paul was having arguments with people who knew Jesus and how do you know that they actually did.
If the extent of it is that Paul just said he did, then that is incredibly easy to fake.

Franz Von Peppercorn

King Mob wrote: »

Is that the case for the proposition?
If so, I'm not seeing how that outweighs oldrnwisr's arguments.

I don’t expect anybody in this forum would. It’s slightly cultish and he’s a cult leader. However, as I said, my view is the general scholarly consensus these days.

What evidence do you have that Paul was having arguments with people who knew Jesus and how do you know that they actually did.
If the extent of it is that Paul just said he did, then that is incredibly easy to fake.

Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.

Of course you are going to reject both.

The problem is that you guys need a counter theory. I’m never clear of you think Paul even exists or not.

King Mob

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.

So what's the difficulty in faking it?

oldrnwisr

Adamocovic wrote: »

I had always assumed there was enough historical writings that suggested a person (Named Jesus or not) claiming to be the son of God existed. That it was just his claim that was the big debating point, not his existence. Have to say the posts have been very interesting.

Maybe it's just me but seems quite difficult to, with certainty, say which is correct and which is not.

Well, here's the thing.

We've only scratched the surface of this topic with a discussion of the non-Biblical references to Jesus. Even once you get through discussing all of those there's an even bigger question to answer. Why do we have no writings at all from the people who were a) in the right time and place to have known about Jesus and b) had an interest in writing about topics which would have featured Jesus? Take Seneca, for example. Seneca the Younger was a philosopher, writer and politician. The main focus of Seneca's writing is ethics and yet he makes no mention of Jesus' radical rethink of Jewish ethics. Secondly, he wrote an encyclopedia of sorts covering all sorts of natural phenomena like earthquakes, volcanoes etc. and yet makes no mention of the Star of Bethlehem, the worldwide darkness at Jesus' crucifixion or the multiple earthquakes attendant to it. Finally, in On Superstition, Seneca talks about every known religion, nitpicking each one and yet makes no mention of Christianity which later Christian sources said was spreading rapidly through the empire at that time. Seneca was in the right place and time and sufficiently interested in the topic to mention Jesus and yet he doesn't. His older brother Gallio is even mentioned in Acts as the judge who hears Pauls trial and throws it out of court and yet no mention of Christianity. In fact, Seneca's silence is so deafening that St. Augustine himself tries to explain away the omission in his book City of God.

The other problem, as has been discussed at length before is that the gospels are works of deliberate fiction. So, they don't help to advance the overall quest for the truth about Jesus' existence at all. Once you discard the gospels you're left in a state of indeterminacy and the whole conversation takes a turn in the direction of epistemology and we have to ask ourselves how we determine if Jesus existence without any concrete evidence. Is believing in a real Jesus the default position or should it be?

Adamocovic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, here's the thing.

We've only scratched the surface of this topic with a discussion of the non-Biblical references to Jesus. Even once you get through discussing all of those there's an even bigger question to answer. Why do we have no writings at all from the people who were a) in the right time and place to have known about Jesus and b) had an interest in writing about topics which would have featured Jesus? Take Seneca, for example. Seneca the Younger was a philosopher, writer and politician. The main focus of Seneca's writing is ethics and yet he makes no mention of Jesus' radical rethink of Jewish ethics. Secondly, he wrote an encyclopedia of sorts covering all sorts of natural phenomena like earthquakes, volcanoes etc. and yet makes no mention of the Star of Bethlehem, the worldwide darkness at Jesus' crucifixion or the multiple earthquakes attendant to it. Finally, in On Superstition, Seneca talks about every known religion, nitpicking each one and yet makes no mention of Christianity which later Christian sources said was spreading rapidly through the empire at that time. Seneca was in the right place and time and sufficiently interested in the topic to mention Jesus and yet he doesn't. His older brother Gallio is even mentioned in Acts as the judge who hears Pauls trial and throws it out of court and yet no mention of Christianity. In fact, Seneca's silence is so deafening that St. Augustine himself tries to explain away the omission in his book City of God.

The other problem, as has been discussed at length before is that the gospels are works of deliberate fiction. So, they don't help to advance the overall quest for the truth about Jesus' existence at all. Once you discard the gospels you're left in a state of indeterminacy and the whole conversation takes a turn in the direction of epistemology and we have to ask ourselves how we determine if Jesus existence without any concrete evidence. Is believing in a real Jesus the default position or should it be?

I can appreciate people having an opinion that Jesus, and truth be told my knowledge of Seneca's writings is not as extensive as yours.

I was under the impression that the baptism and crucifixion was almost universally accepted by scholars, mainly due to the accounts from Tacitus and Josephus, which I have seen you've previously put across your arguments against.

Regarding the comment about why most famous scholars from that period had not written about a person claiming to be son of God I had read a report before when they took a list of the most famous writers credited for the period. Some had reasonable reasons as to why he would not have been discussed by them, others had brief mentions but not much details, Seneca was one of the writers the author wasn't entirely sure of.

Anyway, I'd consider myself open minded regarding my thoughts on his existence but I just see myself believing that a person claiming to be Christ did exist. I know people may try change my mind on this, and I've no issue with that.

I do apologise that we've strayed off topic a bit. The debate if Jesus wasn't the son of God what was he is interesting at times. I've heard suggestions such as a con artist to a crazy man who believed he was and through time the stories were exaggerated.

oldrnwisr

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

A lot of verbiage there but modern scholars disagree, as any reading of the literature would prove. You’ve presented the case for the opposition but not the case for proposition.

Well, firstly you've misrepresented what the consensus actually is and secondly, you've offered no explanation or argument why we should listen to the consensus in the first place.

It's fine to opine that there is a consensus but when it can be readily demonstrated that the consensus position is wrong as I've shown above, then you need to offer a counterargument to either rebut my points or otherwise show why the consensus is reliable. You've done neither.

As far as a consensus position goes, its stretching the term just a little bit to describe the scholarly position on the Testimonium as a consensus. There are a wide variety of scholarly positions on the subject from completely fabricated (G.A. Wells, Arthur Drews, Kenneth Olson, Peter Kirby), through partially authentic (Paul Maier, Zvi Baras, Andreas Kostenberger, Craig Blomberg) to fully authentic (most fundamentalist Christian scholars). However, even among those that accept the partially authentic position (the "consensus" position), there is wide disagreement. There have even been different approaches to reconstructing the original text with some scholars favouring negative reconstruction (removing the troublesome phrases) while others favour positive reconstruction, adding in the bits they think sound most like Josephus.

The consensus reconstruction looks like this:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

However, as I've already pointed out, this reduced testimonium does little to resolve the problems of the full testimonium and many scholars have pointed this out. Kenneth Olson, for example points out the textual similarities between the testimonium and Eusebius' writing. For example, the word used in the testimonium for "doer" as in "doer of wonderful deeds" is poietes which Josephus only uses to refer to a poet. However, Eusebius uses it in the sense in which it is used in the testimonium. Similarly, Michael Hardwick in "Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius" points out that the number of early Christian writers who quote Josephus in their writings and yet make no mention of the testimonium is extensive including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Lactantius and the aforementioned Origen. Now one or two of these making that kind of oversight would be reasonable but the fact that nobody, not one Christian writer for 200 years makes reference to the passage is highly suspicious.

Opining that there is a consensus position is fine, but the fact that there is a consensus is not an argument in itself and certainly not when there are so many flaws in that position. But since there is a consensus position it should be trivially easy for you to either reference a work which resolves all of the problems I've outlined or deal with those problems yourself.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t get why a certain type of atheist want to disprove the existence of Jesus - after all it’s nothing to do with his divinity. I believe he existed and was not divine (obviously) and was preaching to the Jews only. I don’t think it’s clear either way whether he claimed to be the messiah.

Well, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not out to disprove the existence of Jesus. In fact, when I started down this road I was still a Catholic, trying to discover whether the Jesus story was true or not. In the meantime, the rest has been debates with strident Christians who want to exist that, variously, the existence of Jesus is a historical fact and that the gospels are eyewitness accounts which are completely historically reliable.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Paul was the founder of gentile Christianity. However he was pretty sure that Jesus existed and in fact had arguments with people who knew Jesus, at least according to the literature. To fake all this takes a lot of effort.

Well, for what its worth I'm mostly inclined to agree with you. I've been reading a lot more mythicist literature lately and while people like Robert Price and Richard Carrier do an excellent job of unpicking the gospels, the positive case for mythicism is sorely lacking. There becomes a point when you've thrown enough evidence against the gospels that you're just flogging a dead horse. So, when you eventually discard the gospels, you have to build a positive case for mythicism, which to date has had two major flaws, the existence of any pre-Pauline evidence of said beliefs (the best Carrier has got is The Ascension of Isaiah) and the Pauline epistles themselves and Paul's conception of Jesus. It's not at all clear when we collate the various Jesus anecdotes in Paul's authentic writings whether Paul actually believed in a historical figure or not. There's not enough evidence to sway the argument in one direction or the other.

Having said that, its hard to take Paul's interactions with the other apostles at face value. We have no writings from any of these apostles and our traditional picture of them is coloured by the later arrival of the gospels. So there's a kind of Mandela effect in play here whereby most people assume that Peter and James and John knew a real Jesus because they feature in Paul's writings and the gospels said they knew a real Jesus. When you set the gospels aside all you've got left is Paul arguing with other people who are also preaching about Jesus. But Paul never outlines how these people obtained their information about Jesus. Take Peter, for example. In the authentic Pauline epistles Peter only receives 9 mentions, once as Peter and 8 times as Cephas. The only mention of Peter's interaction with Jesus in the authentic epistles is 1 Corinthians 15:5 where Paul says that Jesus appeared to Cephas. However, since Paul uses the same word (ophthe) to describe Jesus' appearance to Peter as he does his own (which was a vision), it is not at all clear that Peter knew a real Jesus. At least not from what Paul has to say.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s easy to explain Tacitus’s mistakes. He was writing after the event and so he got some details wrong. He’s explaining what Christians themselves say re the crucifixion (so he doesn’t need records) and was mistaken or was incorrect about who Pilate was. It’s clear he’s just recounting what he believes Christians then believed. Do you believe that Christians didn’t exist at the time?

I think you've misread or misinterpreted my point. It's not that the passage in Tacitus is fake, its that the mistakes it contains are not likely to have occurred if Tacitus was using a Roman record as his source. Like you say he's simply reporting what Christians are saying. So this is useless as an independent confirmation of Jesus' existence.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.

Of course you are going to reject both.

The problem is that you guys need a counter theory. I’m never clear of you think Paul even exists or not.

OK, two minor points here. Firstly, yes obviously Paul existed.

Secondly, Acts is worthy of rejection because it is filled with mistakes and contradictions. Despite having supposedly been written by Paul's travelling companion Luke, Acts makes numerous biographical mistakes about Paul including a contradictory conversion story. Compare and contrast Acts 9 with Galatians 1 and 2 for example. Also, throughout Luke and Acts there is evidence of extensive borrowing by Luke from Josephus. The author of Luke-Acts is clearly not an eyewitness and his familiarity with Judaism in general is limited. In Acts 26:5 he describes Paul as living as a Pharisee, "the strictest sect of our religion" which any Jew would recognise as false, the Essenes being the strictest Jewish sect.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

His Aramaic name is, or likely to have been, Yeshua, or Joshua if you Anglicise it.

Interesting that the Irish form Iosa is a lot closer to the original version of the name, as is the Arabic form which also sounds quite similar. Jesus is a prophet in Islam as well as being "up there" as an incarnation/main character in Christianity.

robindch

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t get why a certain type of atheist want to disprove the existence of Jesus [...]

I can't speak for oldrnwisr, but for myself, it's got nothing to do with certain types of anybody trying to disprove the existence of one figure or another.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with what I suppose you could call the semi-voyeuristic spectacle of religious people - and I'm not including you here - who declaim or imply the perfection of their religion while unfamiliar with the imperfection of the blocks which hold it up in the air.

recedite

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.

Of course you are going to reject both.

Paul never claimed to have met Jesus though; he was only born around the time of Jesus' alleged ascent into heaven. So by the time he had grown up and converted, his only interaction was with hearsay and the followers of a cult whose founder was long gone.
Not that much different to you or me, then.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Paul never claimed to have met Jesus though; he was only born around the time of Jesus' alleged ascent into heaven. So by the time he had grown up and converted, his only interaction was with hearsay and the followers of a cult whose founder was long gone.
Not that much different to you or me, then.

Paul was likely born at around the time of Jesus's birth, not his death. He and Jesus would have been contemporaries, though they never met. (If they had, Paul would certainly have mentioned it in his writings.) Paul's letters start from a time about 20-25 years after the crucifixion, and it's evident that by this time there are already organised Christian communities in many places (Who else is Paul writing to?) who already have a considerable body of tradition/belief/memory of who Jesus was, what he said, what he did.

So the problem with the idea of Jesus as a complete fiction is this; it's a fiction that must have been created and propagated well within the lifetime of large numbers of people who would be well positioned to know, first-hand, that it was a complete fiction. And yet not only is it widely accepted, but we have no evidence at all that anybody at the time ever suggested that it was a fiction. No writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction survive. No writings survive which refer to any writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction. In all the defensive writings we have from Christian source which attempt to vindicate Christianity against various attacks, none at all seem to be defending against an attack based on the fictitiousness of Jesus.

All of this is rather hard to explain if, in fact, Jesus is completely fictional. In fact, those who suggest that he was fictional seem to be embracing a theory for which there is considerably less evidence than the rival theory, that he was historical.

The parsimonious explanation for what we know about the early Jesus movement is that Jesus was a historical figure, and I think this is what the majority of scholars of the period consider to be the case.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Paul was likely born at around the time of Jesus's birth, not his death. He and Jesus would have been contemporaries, though they never met. (If they had, Paul would certainly have mentioned it in his writings.) Paul's letters start from a time about 20-25 years after the crucifixion, and it's evident that by this time there are already organised Christian communities in many places (Who else is Paul writing to?) who already have a considerable body of tradition/belief/memory of who Jesus was, what he said, what he did.

So the problem with the idea of Jesus as a complete fiction is this; it's a fiction that must have been created and propagated well within the lifetime of large numbers of people who would be well positioned to know, first-hand, that it was a complete fiction. And yet not only is it widely accepted, but we have no evidence at all that anybody at the time ever suggested that it was a fiction. No writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction survive. No writings survive which refer to any writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction. In all the defensive writings we have from Christian source which attempt to vindicate Christianity against various attacks, none at all seem to be defending against an attack based on the fictitiousness of Jesus.

All of this is rather hard to explain if, in fact, Jesus is completely fictional. In fact, those who suggest that he was fictional seem to be embracing a theory for which there is considerably less evidence than the rival theory, that he was historical.

The parsimonious explanation for what we know about the early Jesus movement is that Jesus was a historical figure, and I think this is what the majority of scholars of the period consider to be the case.

Are there examples of any contemporary scholars directly refuting the existence of fictional figures around the time that they supposedly existed?

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

Are there examples of any contemporary scholars directly refuting the existence of fictional figures around the time that they supposedly existed?

Well, you'd be looking for a fictional figure who, in or shortly after his own time, is widely believed to have been real, and is the focus of a religious or political movement which is invested in his reality.

Unless you can identify such a figure, the question of whether his reality was refuted at the time doesn't really arise.

Do you have someone in mind?

(And, if you don't have someone in mind, does that perhaps suggest that the widespread and uncontradicted acceptance of fictional characters as real by their contemporaries is an uncommon and improbable occurrence?)

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you'd be looking for a fictional figure who, in or shortly after his own time, is widely believed to have been real, and is the focus of a religious or political movement which is invested in his reality.

Unless you can identify such a figure, the question of whether his reality was refuted at the time doesn't really arise.

Do you have someone in mind?

I don't have anyone in mind.
I kind of imagined that you did given that your argument seems to hinge on the thought that scholars must directly refute the existence of such fictional figures.

Just because such refutations don't exist, it doesn't follow that the person must then be real.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

I don't have anyone in mind.
I kind of imagined that you did given that your argument seems to hinge on the thought that scholars must directly refute the existence of such fictional figures.

Just because such refutations don't exist, it doesn't follow that the person must then be real.

I'm not talking about scholars refuting the existence of Christ. I'm talking about contemporary opponents of Christianity, of whom we know there were many, pointing out that he was fictional, if in fact he was fictional.

The contemporary opponents of Christianity, remember, included the Temple authorities, who were supposed to have hunted him down and handed him over to the Romans to be crucified. If he had been fictional, they would know that none of this had ever happened. They would hardly have been behind about pointing this out. Similarly, the Pharisee movement would have had a strong interest in pointing to the fictionality of Christ, if indeed he had been fictional.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not talking about scholars refuting the existence of Christ. I'm talking about contemporary opponents of Christianity, of whom we know there were many, pointing out that he was fictional, if in fact he was fictional.

Do you have an example of something like this happening for anyone else?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The contemporary opponents of Christianity, remember, included the Temple authorities, who were supposed to have hunted him down and handed him over to the Romans to be crucified. If he had been fictional, they would know that none of this had ever happened. They would hardly have been behind about pointing this out. Similarly, the Pharisee movement would have had a strong interest in pointing to the fictionality of Christ, if indeed he had been fictional.

These are a lot of presumptions on your part.
First you presume that they didn't do so and either such writing was lost or suppressed.
You presume that they would indeed think that it bares pointing out he was fictional at the time.
You also presume that they themselves didn't simply assume that Jesus was a real person and that they never thought to question it.

There's a ton of explanations for why they wouldn't claim he's fictional.
Your claim that he must exist because they didn't doesn't really follow because it's not the only, nor most likely explanation.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have an example of something like this happening for anyone else?

My point is that such a question can't even arise unless there was another fictional character widely taken as real by his own contemporaries, and treated as the focus of a religious or political movement.

Ad if there is no other figure, if a fictional Jesus would in fact be unique in history, that in itself tells us something about he likelihood of a fictional Jesus, doesn't it?

King Mob wrote: »

These are a lot of presumptions on your part.
First you presume that they didn't do so and either such writing was lost or suppressed.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you restate?

King Mob wrote: »

You presume that they would indeed think that it bares pointing out he was fictional at the time.

Of course it would bear pointing out. How would it not?

King Mob wrote: »

You also presume that they themselves didn't simply assume that Jesus was a real person and that they never thought to question it.

Why would they assume Jesus to be real when they knew him to be fictional? They themselves are characters in the stories about Jesus; if the stories are complete fiction, they know it.

King Mob wrote: »

There's a ton of explanations for why they wouldn't claim he's fictional.

To be honest, I'm not seeing any very plausible explanations.

Plus, any explanations that there are are speculative. None of them are supported by any evidence at all. And we can't, with consistency, argue that the historical Jesus is not sufficiently evidenced to be accepted, but explanations which support a fictional Jesus should be accepted, even though they are completely unevidenced.

King Mob wrote: »

Your claim that he must exist because they didn't doesn't really follow because it's not the only, nor most likely explanation.

When did I claim that he must exist?

What I am saying is that the "fictional Jesus hypothesis" looks to me to be much weaker, much less probable, and much less well-evidenced than the "historical Jesus hypothesis". The historical Jesus hypothesis is therefore more likely to be correct (and is, in fact, widely accepted by current scholars of the period.)

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point is that such a question can't even arise unless there was another fictional character widely taken as real by his own contemporaries, and treated as the focus of a religious or political movement.

Then by that token, you can't really say how critics of such a movement would react.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ad if there is no other figure, if a fictional Jesus would in fact be unique in history, that in itself tells us something about he likelihood of a fictional Jesus, doesn't it?

There's lots of examples of fictional people who are and were widely believed.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you restate?

It's possibly that these people did raise such objections, but these objections were lost or suppressed.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course it would bear pointing out. How would it not?

Because perhaps they are addressing people that already knew that he was fictional and/or wouldn't accept the proof that he was. Perhaps they thought it was a better tactic to address other points more relevant to his followers and the growing political movement.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would they assume Jesus to be real when they knew him to be fictional? They themselves are characters in the stories about Jesus; if the stories are complete fiction, they know it.

That's kind of your assumption that they were the ones who were actually supposed to have met Jesus. It could be that they assumed other people had, but they never verified it. Or they were just not the same people at all.
Or maybe the stories about Jesus just never happened...?

We already know that at the very least, the gospels and early church claim things happened that didn't really happen.
Do the critics you refer to mention the fictionality of these fictional events?
If not, does this mean that events we know didn't happen are somehow now more likely to have happened?

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not seeing any very plausible explanations.

Plus, any explanations that there are are speculative. None of them are supported by any evidence at all. And we can't, with consistency, argue that the historical Jesus is not sufficiently evidenced to be accepted, but explanations which support a fictional Jesus should be accepted, even though they are completely unevidenced.

Yes, I know. But your explanation is likewise speculative and not really evidenced either. It's based on a lot of supposition and your conclusion doesn't follow.

There are other reasons why early critics of the movement wouldn't have claimed Jesus was fictional.
Him being real is only one possible explanation.

Peregrinus wrote: »

When did I claim that he must exist?

What I am saying is that the "fictional Jesus hypothesis" looks to me to be much weaker, much less probable, and much less well-evidenced than the "historical Jesus hypothesis". The historical Jesus hypothesis is therefore more likely to be correct (and is, in fact, widely accepted by current scholars of the period.)

Well you're not really putting forward much in the way of evidence for the historical Jesus and you're not doing much to counter the arguments Oldrnwisr has put forward.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

Then by that token, you can't really say how critics of such a movement would react.

No. We can't say how they did react, but we can certainly think meaningfully about how they would react.

(Ironically, it's the proponents of the fictional Jesus hypothesis who have to say how the opponents of the Jesus movement did react.)

King Mob wrote: »

There's lots of examples of fictional people who are and were widely believed.

By their own contemporaries? If there are "lots of examples", you should have no difficulty in offering, say, three?

King Mob wrote: »

It's possibly that these people did raise such objections, but these objections were lost or suppressed.

Yes, it's possible. But there is zero evidence for it, and you can't simulatenously reject a hypothesis on the grounds that it is supported by limited evidence, but embrace one for which there is zero evidence.

Lots of criticisms of the Jesus movement are evidenced either directly (by writings of the critics) or indirectly (by later writings that refer to the critics and what they said, or by defensive Christian writings which respond to the criticism). But for this particular criticism, although it would have been a very powerful criticism f offered, there is zero evidence, either direct or indirect. Yes, it's possible that by a freakish coincidence this is the one criticism of Christianity of which all trace has entirely disappeared from the historical record. But it's a fairly extravagant speculation to explain a complete lack of evidence.

(PS: the notion of anti-Christian writings or opinions being supressed isn't relevant here. That comes from a much later period, a couple of centuries afterwards, when Christians were in a position to (attempt to) supress texts or opinions, they didn't like. Even then, such efforts were mostly unsuccessful, but at this period they weren't even possible. Christians simply didn't have the power to censor or supress what they didn't like.)

King Mob wrote: »

Because perhaps they are addressing people that already knew that he was fictional and/or wouldn't accept the proof that he was. Perhaps they thought it was a better tactic to address other points more relevant to his followers and the growing political movement.

You're suggesting that not only the opponents of Christianity but also the followers of Christianity knew that Jesus was fictional?

You do realise that that's a completely different fictional Jesus hypothesis from the one that others have been advancing, don't you?

King Mob wrote: »

That's kind of your assumption that they were the ones who were actually supposed to have met Jesus. It could be that they assumed other people had, but they never verified it. Or they were just not the same people at all.
Or maybe the stories about Jesus just never happened...?

You're missing my point again, King Mob. If the claim that the Temple authorities delivered Jesus up to the Romans to be crucified is fictional, the Temple authorities absolutely know, from their own knowledge, that it's fictional. Both the individual priests involved, and the Temple priests as a collective, known this. Similarly Pontius Pilate, and people close to the adminstration of Pontius Pilate, know the truth about claims that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If these things never happened, there is large group of both Jews and Gentiles who know that they never happened, and most of them are still alive when Christian communities are flourishing and Paul is writing to them. And yet the issue of whether these events ever happened at all is never argued about? It never occurs to the opponents of Christianity to raise this rather obvious point? I don't find that very plausible.

King Mob wrote: »

We already know that at the very least, the gospels and early church claim things happened that didn't really happen.
Do the critics you refer to mention the fictionality of these fictional events?
If not, does this mean that events we know didn't happen are somehow now more likely to have happened?

In the time of which we are speaking, the gospels haven't been written, so opponents of the Jesus movement can hardly be expected to refute them.

From the time we're speaking of, all we have are the writings of Paul. Paul makes limited fact claims about Jesus. He basically says: Jesus had a mother called Mary, had a brother called James, taught against divorce, was crucified. From the tone of Paul's letters, he's not revealing these things to his readership, or trying to persuade them; they seem to be facts that he already thinks they accept. All of these claims also appear in the (later) Gospel of Mark, whose author shows no sign of every having read Paul's letters, or being aware of their wider content. So it seems likely that Paul didn't invent these facts; he is recording existing traditions about Jesus which the author of Mark also records.

SFAIK we have no record of any of these fact-claims being challenged, and the parsimonious explanation for that is that they are in fact true. There is nothing remarkable about them, after all, unless Jesus is wholly fictional, in which case we have to postulate a conspiracy involving Mary and James, both of whom are still alive at the time, and everyone who knows Mary and James.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I know. But your explanation is likewise speculative and not really evidenced either. It's based on a lot of supposition and your conclusion doesn't follow.

No, my explanation is not speculative. The evidence for the historicity of Jesus may not be enough to convince you, but it is certainly not non-existent, and it' accepted as sufficient by many - perhaps most - scholars of the period. The dominant scholarly opinion is certainly that that the historical Jesus is more likely than the fictional Jesus.

King Mob wrote: »

There are other reasons why early critics of the movement wouldn't have claimed Jesus was fictional.
Him being real is only one possible explanation.

It's more than a possible explanation; it's the simplest and most parsimonious. Occam's razor, and all that.

Again, I still await the other explanations.

King Mob wrote: »

Well you're not really putting forward much in the way of evidence for the historical Jesus and you're not doing much to counter the arguments Oldrnwisr has put forward.

My purpose is not to put forward the evidence for the historical Jesus; that's already well-known. It's to critically scrutinise the fictional Jesus hypothesis.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. We can't say how they did react, but we can certainly think meaningfully about how they would react.

"... how they MIGHT react"

Again, without a real example you can't really present your theory are a given.

Peregrinus wrote: »

By their own contemporaries? If there are "lots of examples", you should have no difficulty in offering, say, three?

The most direct example I can think of is John Frum.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it's possible. But there is zero evidence for it, and you can't simulatenously reject a hypothesis on the grounds that it is supported by limited evidence, but embrace one for which there is zero evidence.

I'm not rejecting your hypothesis, I'm rejecting the idea that it's the only one or that it's a given.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're suggesting that not only the opponents of Christianity but also the followers of Christianity knew that Jesus was fictional?

You do realise that that's a completely different fictional Jesus hypothesis from the one that others have been advancing, don't you?

Yea sure, but again, I'm pointing out the other possibilities that exist as an explanation.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing my point again, King Mob. If the claim that the Temple authorities delivered Jesus up to the Romans to be crucified is fictional, the Temple authorities absolutely know, from their own knowledge, that it's fictional. Both the individual priests involved, and the Temple priests as a collective, known this. Similarly Pontius Pilate, and people close to the adminstration of Pontius Pilate, know the truth about claims that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If these things never happened, there is large group of both Jews and Gentiles who know that they never happened, and most of them are still alive when Christian communities are flourishing and Paul is writing to them. And yet the issue of whether these events ever happened at all is never argued about? It never occurs to the opponents of Christianity to raise this rather obvious point? I don;t find that very plausible.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the time of which we are speaking, the gospels haven't been written, so opponents of the Jesus movement can hardly be expected to refute them.


From the time we're speaking of, all we have are the writings of Paul. Paul makes limited fact claims about Jesus. He basically says: Jesus had a mother called Mary, had a brother called James, taught against divorce, was crucified. All of these claims also appear in the Gospel of Mark, whose author shows no sign of every having read Paul's letters, or being aware of their wider content. So it seems likely that Paul didn't invent these facts; he is recording existing traditions about Jesus which the author of Mark also records.

SFAIK we have no record of any of these fact-claims being challenged, and teh parsimonious explanation for that is that they are in fact true. There is nothing remarkable about them, after all.

Now, you see these two arguments don't gel.

We know that there are early church claims about events and things we agree did not happen. Many of these are contained in the gospels. And if you believe that Mark is drawing from accounts rather than making stuff up whole cloth, we can assume that there must have been at least some untrue claims about Jesus, whether or not he was real at the time of his critics.

So where are the claims of fakery about these events?
Do you think that none of the earliest Christians made untrue claims at all? Do you think that all of the untrue claims in the gospels only popped up in the Gospels and at no time before?

You are claiming that if these events didn't happen, then there would be accounts of people calling them out.
Presumably there would even accounts of people calling out untrue things that the earliest followers of Jesus claimed that didn't make their way into the bible.

Do you have some examples of these?
If not, why not?

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

The most direct example I can think of is John Frum.

John Frum may not in fact be wholly fictional. As in, the foundation of the John Frum stories may well be an actual person who either was, or presented himself to the Vanuatuans as, a westerner and who promised them material benefits.

But let that go. Assume that he is or may be wholly fictional. This fact is widely noted. In truth, you will find it hard to mention any text about John Frum that doesn't point this out.

So this doesn't help you. You're looking for someone like John Frum, except that his fictionality is not pointed out.

King Mob wrote: »

We know that there are early church claims about events and things we agree did not happen. Many of these are contained in the gospels. And if you believe that Mark is drawing from accounts rather than making stuff up whole cloth, we can assume that there must have been at least some untrue claims about Jesus, whether or not he was real at the time of his critics.

So where are the claims of fakery about these events?
Do you think that none of the earliest Christians made untrue claims at all? Do you think that all of the untrue claims in the gospels only popped up in the Gospels and at no time before?

You are claiming that if these events didn't happen, then there would be accounts of people calling them out.
Presumably there would even accounts of people calling out untrue things that the earliest followers of Jesus claimed that didn't make their way into the bible.

Do you have some examples of these?
If not, why not?

Well, we do have records of opponents of Christianity contradicting the virgin birth claim. Specifically, we have a record of story which alleges that Jesus was the product of an illicit liason between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera.

And Matthew's gospel (written 30-40 years after the death of Christ) includes a story about an angel appearing to Joseph and telling him, yes, when Mary says she's been impregnated by the Holy Spirit, she really has. And this is why Joseph decides against divorcing her quietly.

Nobody else has this story, so Matthew likely invented it. (Matthew does that a lot.) And at least some scholars suggest that he did so to defend Christians against an accusation which was being levelled even then; that Jesus was illegitimate.

Which, again, raises the issue; if the opponents of the Jesus movement thought that Jesus was, or even might be, fictional, then the story that he was born illegitimate would itself be false. Why circulate a false story to refute Christianity, when you could circulate a true one that would be an even more effective refutation?