Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

[Politesse]

The term 'evidence' can have one of two meanings: (a) that which is offered to support a claim, and (b) that which serves to make evident. With respect to the HJ debate, to pedantically assert that both Josephus and chicken entrails can constitute 'evidence' is to say something that is both technically correct and effectively worthless. Anyone who offers a piece of evidence as defined by (a) bares the burden of proof of showing that it meets definition (b).

Supporting claims? Burden of proof? Did we file a lawsuit and I missed it?

This is exactly what I mean, this debate always leads to making a mockery of historical research.

 

[psychoslice]

There is no evidence what so ever of Jesus.

 

[JoStories]

That's an interesting theory, but I don't think that it holds water. The connection between James the author of the canonical epistle and James the brother of Christ is highly suspect and not sustained by the Christians who preserved the works. In Galatians 2 and Acts, James and Paul are not at odds, and yet the epistle of James - which comes much later than Paul, openly attacks Pauline theology. So it's the author of the epistle of James that attacks Paul and not vice-versa, and the theory that he is the biological brother of Jesus is not accepted by early Christians.

I'm not sure when the connection was made, but I can find out in a few seconds.

The problem with your theory is that one cannot use the bible to substantiate the historicity of Jesus. That would constitute circular logic. Scholars only consider outside sources and even those are held as skeptical owing to the time frame, language and writer/s.

 

[JoStories]

There is no evidence what so ever of Jesus.

I cannot agree with that. There is some evidence albeit contraversial. There is mention in several wirters works. Josephus is largely held as apologetic and not enough but other sources are more accepted however, again it is contraversial.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Supporting claims? Burden of proof? Did we file a lawsuit and I missed it?

This is exactly what I mean, this debate always leads to making a mockery of historical research.

Whine less.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scholars only consider outside sources and even those are held as skeptical owing to the time frame, language and writer/s.

How would you know?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Josephus is largely held as apologetic and not enough but ...

It's embarrassing to see people speak authoritatively yet demonstrate substantial ignorance.

There are two referenced in Josephus: Antiquities 18.3.3 and Antiquities 20.9.1. While the former is widely viewed as being at least a partial interpolation, the latter is generally viewed as being authentic.

You might wish to wait until you're better informed before deigning to teach others.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's embarrassing to see people speak authoritatively yet demonstrate substantial ignorance.

There are two referenced in Josephus: Antiquities 18.3.3 and Antiquities 20.9.1. While the former is widely viewed as being at least a partial interpolation, the latter is generally viewed as being authentic.

You might wish to wait until you're better informed before deigning to teach others.

Both are actually contested. Especially the part where "also known as the christ" is concerned.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Both are actually contested. Especially the part where "also known as the christ" is concerned.

So what? Evolution is 'contested'. The fact of the matter is:

"Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. However, New Testament scholar Robert M. Price speculates that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling." (wiki)​

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So what? Evolution is 'contested'. The fact of the matter is:

"Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. However, New Testament scholar Robert M. Price speculates that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling." (wiki)​

Evolution is scientific fact that has been established with mountains of evidence. The arguments for authenticity isn't even in the same league as the contestants of evolution. Though its hard already to compare the arguments made in historical documents vs scientific data we can actually use and verify. All I was stating is that your dissertation that one of the Josephus references is generally accepted as genuine is false.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

^ Dunning-Kruger ^

 

[Monk Of Reason]

^ Dunning-Kruger ^

This is irrelevant to the argument. It is also an unsupported claim with no basis. You seem to be lashing out for a personal attack rather early for me to take your claims as seriously as I feel I should be able to. If you feel that one of the claims is authentic then present the evidence. But don't lie and imply that it is established as fact or truth and already prep up a way to brush off claims otherwise by calling them uneducated. I haven't even claimed that it wasn't authentic but simply corrected you when you low-balled the disputes. If you wish to have a debate regarding the validity of evolution then we can. But if you have a problem with the fact that one is scientific fact that is accepted in all arena's of science and the other is still a highly disputed piece of history that already has nearly definitive evidence that the Author has been fabricated before on the same subject then you will need to make the case of why.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is irrelevant to the argument.

It was not intended as an argument but, rather, as an observation.

Given:

• "Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities ...", and
• "All I was stating is that your dissertation that one of the Josephus references is generally accepted as genuine is false."

Either

• you have serious issues with reading comprehension, or
• you reject the wiki statement without reason, or
• you are simply and thoughtlessly polluting the thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, the wiki article goes on to note:

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation. Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable. However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it. [ibid]

See, also: Josephus on Jesus: The Testamonium Flavianum Controvers From Late Antiquity to Modern Times.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It was not intended as an argument but, rather, as an observation.

Given:

• "Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities ...", and
• "All I was stating is that your dissertation that one of the Josephus references is generally accepted as genuine is false."

Either

• you have serious issues with reading comprehension, or
• you reject the wiki statement without reason, or
• you are simply and thoughtlessly polluting the thread.

No. I simply understand that Wiki isn't the end all source. At times it is dreadfully inaccurate. Its a good source for surface level debates I suppose but there are myriads of sources on the debates. Here is a clip from one. Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

Though wiki did say that so I can understand your confusion.

ome have argued that the partial reconstruction is untenable because without the phrase "He was the Christ" the statement "the tribe of Christians so named from him" is incomprehensible. In defense of his reconstruction, Meier has commented:

But as Andre Pelletier points out, a study of the style of Josephus and other writers of his time shows that the presence of 'Christ' is not demanded by the final statement about Christians being 'named after him.' At times both Josephus and other Greco‑Roman writers (e.g., Dio Cassius) consider it pedantry to mention explicitly the person after whom some other person or place is named; it would be considered an insult to the knowledge and culture of the reader to spell out a connection that is taken for granted.

(Meier, op. cit., page 61).

Additionally, considering that Josephus was writing in Rome after 90 CE, it's likely that his audience would be at least familiar with "the tribe of Christians" and their founder, Christ.

Christianity was well known by that time in Rome and Jerusalem. In fact, there was already a relatively large community of Christians in Rome itself that had been founded 40‑50 years earlier. They gained notoriety -- and even public sympathy -- as a result of Nero's persecution of Christians in the 60s CE. And two Roman officials writing about 10 years or so after Josephus wrote Antiquities knew quite well that Christianity was founded by Christ.

To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judaea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas horn all over the world pour in and find a ready following.

 

[outhouse]

Here is a clip from one

Not credible. Just another blogger.

 

[outhouse]

No. I simply understand that Wiki isn't the end all source. At times it is dreadfully inaccurate.

While true, on this topic it actually is fairly accurate.

While I have my own issues with J, he is correct, and well read enough to know all the different sources and where middle of the road viewpoint actually is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. I simply understand that Wiki isn't the end all source. At times it is dreadfully inaccurate.

So, you believe it to be "dreadfully inaccurate" when it states

"Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities ..."​

Based on what? This?

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

Seriously?

Apparently you don't seem to realize that your reference is discussing the Testimonium and not Antiquities 20.9.1.

You're making yourself look silly. I suggest that you stop while you're behind.

Though wiki did say that so I can understand your confusion.

As I said, Dunning-Kruger ...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

While true, on this topic it actually is fairly accurate.

While I have my own issues with J, he is correct, and well read enough to know all the different sources and where middle of the road viewpoint actually is.

Then I will stand corrected.

 

[columbus]

There is no evidence what so ever of Jesus.

Yes, there is. That's where the problem lies.
The strength of the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Suppose someone told you "I had a dream that Dan Wirey is cheating on his wife". That is evidence. Perhaps the weakest kind of evidence, especially if you have no particular reason to believe that a guy named Dan Wirey exists. But in the absence of any other evidence whatsoever it is the strongest evidence on the subject.
If a person wants to believe that Dan Wirey is a real person and a sleazy philanderer, this description of a dream might be "compelling evidence", which is the definition of proof.

This is the problem with religion. In the absence of any empirical evidence the weakest hearsay or delusion is the strongest evidence available to many people.

Tom