How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[outhouse]

I don't agree with everything DM Murdock says, but that doesn't mean she raises no good points at all.

She has been caught in outright lies, and when I have questioned her on known "modern" historical discoveries in archeology that went against her view she ran. She debates like a YEC in a college level biology class.

Even Carrier stated how much he hates dealing with her minions because they lack a complete knowledge, and he states he needs to start over from the start with people that fell for it

Her work is total garbage on all corners for one purpose $ she makes from the ignorant.


The sun and astrology were aspect of all religions from this period, it was common knowledge for everyone. So yes there are traces in all cultures. Its how she connects the dots that starts the lies and the outdated sources she is forced to use. She quote mines like a creationist to make her point which is easily refuted.

she also gets way to deep on the what is it, 32000 year cycle or what ever it is, and on this point she is in outer space :sarcastic

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

She has been caught in outright lies, and when I have questioned her on known "modern" historical discoveries in archeology that went against her view she ran. She debates like a YEC in a college level biology class.

Even Carrier stated how much he hates dealing with her minions because they lack a complete knowledge, and he states he needs to start over from the start with people that fell for it

Her work is total garbage on all corners for one purpose $


The sun and astrology were aspect of all religions from this period, it was common knowledge for everyone. So yes there are traces in all cultures. Its how she connects the dots that starts the lies and the outdated sources she is forced to use. She quote mines like a creationist to make her point which is easily refuted.

she also gets way to deep on the what is it, 32000 year cycle or what ever it is, and on this point she is in outer space :sarcastic

I don't agree with her on Jesus just being a Sun myth or a copy of figures like Horus and Krishna, either. The myths aren't the same. But is she wrong about she and others have said about Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc.? I don't know. That's what I'm trying to figure out here. Seems there's room for doubt on those things.

 

[outhouse]

The myths aren't the same. But is she wrong about she and others have said about Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc.? I don't know. That's what I'm trying to figure out here. Seems there's room for doubt on those things.

They are creating doubt from ignorance. Each is questioned to some extent, but the findings from someone with no education VS professors is night and day

She has no real education on the topic and is not as scholar. A little classics and a little greek.




Acharya S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman discusses The Christ Conspiracy which he calls "the breathless conspirator's dream". Ehrman says "all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong" and her book "is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They are creating doubt from ignorance. Each is questioned to some extent, but the findings from someone with no education VS professors is night and day

She has no real education on the topic and is not as scholar. A little classics and a little greek.




Acharya S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman discusses The Christ Conspiracy which he calls "the breathless conspirator's dream". Ehrman says "all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong" and her book "is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious."

Yes, I know she is not liked by mainstream academics. As I said, I agree that she's wrong on some things, at least. But what about the issues with Suetonius?

Interpretation

Chrestus

James D.G. Dunn states that most scholars infer that "Suetonius misheard the name 'Christus' (referring to Jesus as Christ) as 'Chrestus'" and also misunderstood the report and assumed that the followers of someone called Chrestus were causing disturbances within the Jewish community based on his instigation.[19] R.T. France says that the notion of a misspelling by Suetonius "can never be more than a guess, and the fact that Suetonius can elsewhere speak of 'Christians' as members of a new cult (without any reference to Jews) surely makes it rather unlikely that he could make such a mistake."[20] The term Chrestus (which may have also been used by Tacitus) was common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.[21]
A coin issued by Emperor Nerva (AD 96-98) reads fisci Judaici calumnia sublata, "abolition of malicious prosecution in connection with the Jewish tax"[22]


Feldman states that most scholars assume that in the reference Jesus is meant and that the disturbances mentioned were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome.[8] Robert E. Van Voorst states that there is "near-unanimous" agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus here refers to Christ.[23] but states that nothing in the sentence that Suetonius wrote explicitly refers to Christ or Christianity and adds that the simplest way to understand the statement is that Chrestus was an agitator in Rome.[24] Later, Van Voorst explains that in the passage Chrestus is most likely an error for Christus.[25] E. M. Smallwood states that the only reasonable interpretation is that Suetonius was referring to Christianity.[26] Edwin M. Yamauchi states that "A growing number of scholars, however, have accepted the argument that the "Chrestus" mentioned in Suetonius was simply a Jewish agitator with a common name, and that he had no association with Christianity."[27] Among recent classical scholars there does not seem to be the certainty that is found among many biblical studies scholars. Barbara Levick comments, "To claim that Suetonius, writing in the second century, misunderstood a reference to Christians in his source is unconvincingly economical", concluding "The precise cause of the expulsion remains obscure."[28] J. Mottershead in his commentary on the Claudius states that if Suetonius "had included a reference to Christ one would not have expected him to have simply used Chrestus/Christus unqualified." This points "towards the conclusion that Suetonius did not have in mind a religious dispute involving Christians."[29]


Menahem Stern said that Suetonius was definitely referring to Jesus Christ; because he would have added " a certain " to Chrestus if he had meant an unknown agitator.[30]
Suetonius on Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Tacitus is known to have been tampered with, as well:

​

Detail of the 2nd Medicean manuscript of Tacitus (Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r: Annales 15:44.). showing the word Christianos. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'.
The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing "Christians". In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i' [Georg Andresen in Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie 19, 1902, p. 780f].

​

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an "e" being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an "i".[Harald Fuchs, Tacitus on the Christians, published in Christian Vigil (1950) volume 4, number 2, p. 70, note 6] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the "i" is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an "e" is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning "good, useful".
"I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[Robert Renehan, "Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?", La Parola del Passato 122 (1968), pp. 368-370]
Catalogue of Chrest

 

[Prophet]

Prophet, provide evidence for what I asked or don't bother with me. I'm sick of the immature trolling and insults when I'm trying to have a serious discussion and get to the truth of the matter.

Refusing to address Legion's arguments by attempting to void them with myther blogger trash seems to be what you call "trying to have a serious discussion".

Disagreeing on this matter is not like disagreeing on whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or not, so don't treat me as if I'm a moron for questioning mainstream academia on this. This is not physics!

You have confused my issue with you here. I have no problems with questioning mainstream academia. I am amused by your exclamation that this is not physics as if that is a discipline already set in stone and is not further advanced by those who question mainstream views. My issue here is your questioning academia not through some grand insight like Einstein had, but rather through profound ignorance like this myther blogger trash has.

I'm honestly asking questions and presenting the "other side" of the argument for the sake of the debate. I don't agree with everything DM Murdock says, but that doesn't mean she raises no good points at all. It's food for thought. These questions are not being answered. People are just parroting the official line, thinking that it's a satisfactory answer when it doesn't answer the question I've posed or provide evidence of anything. All I'm seeing is "best guesses" based on a tiny amount of writings that came into existence long after the alleged fact -and these writings themselves are in doubt - but no actual historical evidence.

It's more than a best guess that establishes historicity, but a best guess with the added benefit of no competing ideas that explain the evidence nearly as well.

 

[oldbadger]

And he wrote nothing !
~
'mud

Nor did John the Baptist!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Refusing to address Legion's arguments by attempting to void them with myther blogger trash seems to be what you call "trying to have a serious discussion".



You have confused my issue with you here. I have no problems with questioning mainstream academia. I am amused by your exclamation that this is not physics as if that is a discipline already set in stone and is not further advanced by those who question mainstream views. My issue here is your questioning academia not through some grand insight like Einstein had, but rather through profound ignorance like this myther blogger trash has.



It's more than a best guess that establishes historicity, but a best guess with the added benefit of no competing ideas that explain the evidence nearly as well.

You should've taken the "don't bother with me" choice. I'm not interested in your immature lashing out but, from seeing various other of your posts on this subject, that seems to be all you have. Sounds like you need to take a break from this subject since it makes you so angry.

 

[oldbadger]

The entire genre of history could be full of lies and distortions for all you know. No one was there, were we?

...... so.... you're not certain...?

 

[oldbadger]

I hope you're not one of them fundy religionists who tried to get rock n' roll banned when it first hit the scene in the 1950's, right Elv?
"Uh-huh"..

Gawd...... you that old?
And you put Jesus on a Triumph..... you're never gonna forget that.
How about a 600 Panther single with one of them huge 'family' sidecars for some of his disciples?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Of course it's all debatable. There's no hard evidence, either way. The "historical Jesus" is all based on guesses that depend on which aspect of the character from the New Testament the person wishes to emphasize.

Ok so the question is, does history support that Jesus of Nazareth existed...a man that of whom the Christian movement derived from..before we even get to the heavy stuff, that has to be substantiated....and I think the answer to the question is yes. No historian would deny this, and if they do they are part of a very small minority.

The line from Suetonius does not say "Christo" in the earliest manuscripts:

The passage Divus Claudius 25.4 in Suetonius’ Life of the Twelve Caesars is about the emperor Claudius expelling from Rome the “perpetually tumultuous Jews”, “impulsore Chresto”. Since the 5th century, it has been interpreted as a reference to early Christianity or to the historical Jesus. The fifth century historian Orosius quotes Suetonius’ sentence as reading “inpulsore Christo”, and other readings of the latter word (like Cherestro) are evident in earlier scholarship. In the article, the medieval sources and relevant manuscripts containing the Suetonian sentence are presented and examined. The conclusion is that the reading Christo (or rather xpo) likely is of Christian origin, and that other readings (Cherestro, Chrestro, etc.) most probably are scribal errors. The most trustworthy reading, which most likely was Suetonius’ original spelling, is Chresto.
Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius' Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts - Liber Annuus - Volume 61, Volume 61 / 2011 - Edizioni Terra Santa
Chresto in the Suetonius Manuscript Tradition

So, no. Suetonius is not evidence of anything having to do with Christians. What we do know is that those references probably are referring to Jews getting into trouble with the Romans. During such an early time, Jews and Christians were pretty much the same. There wasn't a differentiation between the two until around 100 CE and neither was the term "Christian" in use during the mid-1st century.

He specifically said "punishment was afflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischeivious supersition"..and he is talking about emperor Nero. You were the one that said persecution of the Christians didn't begin until much later...and my point was that there was a little bit of persecution going on during the 60's AD. Early stuff.

All you can do is say that it was interpolated or try to say something about the translation or whatever...you (in general) have to go through extra lengths just to make the passage say everything other than what it is saying.

How about just letting the passage speak for itself??

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why don't you follow the conversation ...

For the same reason that I often nod off during tiresome and inarticulate reruns. I've been here for a while, I've participated in numerous HJ/MJ threads, and this is easily one of the least substantive and more absurd.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok so the question is, does history support that Jesus of Nazareth existed...a man that of whom the Christian movement derived from..before we even get to the heavy stuff, that has to be substantiated....and I think the answer to the question is yes. No historian would deny this, and if they do they are part of a very small minority.

I don't know if he existed or not. I've been doing research on this for years and I'm not convinced he did exist since no conclusive evidence has been offered, although I accept the possibility that someone did exist who inspired the Christian writings, or maybe even multiple people inspired those writings. The jury is still out, for me. I don't make up my mind based on consensuses. I have to personally be convinced of something in order to agree with it.

Of course you're going to believe he existed.

He specifically said "punishment was afflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischeivious supersition"..and he is talking about emperor Nero. You were the one that said persecution of the Christians didn't begin until much later...and my point was that there was a little bit of persecution going on during the 60's AD. Early stuff.

All you can do is say that it was interpolated or try to say something about the translation or whatever...you (in general) have to go through extra lengths just to make the passage say everything other than what it is saying.

How about just letting the passage speak for itself??

I have showed you that the line didn't say anything about "Christians" and this is based on evidence. Now you are basically admitting that you refuse to accept evidence contrary to your beliefs. You are not interested in truth, as you've demonstrated in discussions on so many other topics besides this one, so I'm not interested in talking to you. You are just an apologist, a propagandist, and a hard-headed one at that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For the same reason that I often nod off during tiresome and inarticulate reruns. I've been here for a while, I've participated in numerous HJ/MJ threads, and this is easily one of the least substantive and more absurd.

Well, if you don't find it of interest and have nothing of substance to add, then stay out of it. Go find a thread that does interest you.

 

[outhouse]

Tacitus is known to have been tampered with, as well:

​

Detail of the 2nd Medicean manuscript of Tacitus (Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r: Annales 15:44.). showing the word Christianos. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'.
The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing "Christians". In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i' [Georg Andresen in Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie 19, 1902, p. 780f].

​

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an "e" being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an "i".[Harald Fuchs, Tacitus on the Christians, published in Christian Vigil (1950) volume 4, number 2, p. 70, note 6] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the "i" is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an "e" is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning "good, useful".
"I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[Robert Renehan, "Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?", La Parola del Passato 122 (1968), pp. 368-370]
Catalogue of Chrest

Read the conclusion.

the change being made an extremely subtle one

Does not change the whole piece or make it any less credible.

It is also a late change and a copy of a copy of a copy.

 

[outhouse]

But what about the issues with Suetonius?

What issue?


Did you read the whole article? It gives both sides of the coin.

Not my subject of expertise I like Stephen Huller on some of these details, but take him with a grain of salt.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Read the conclusion.

the change being made an extremely subtle one

Does not change the whole piece or make it any less credible.

It is also a late change and a copy of a copy of a copy.

The point is that it is not necessarily referring to Christians and that is a later inference. So people are going around pushing a tampered with translation that translates as "Christians" when that's not what the original said. Actually, we don't know what the original said since we don't have it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What issue?


Did you read the whole article? It gives both sides of the coin.

Not my subject of expertise I like Stephen Huller on some of these details, but take him with a grain of salt.

That it may not be referring to Christians.

 

[steeltoes]

The Thread Title is :-

............ in Post 196 you wrote:-


Now..... I wanted to show that despite evangelical editing, fiddling and tinkering that this does not auto-annihilate the story of Jesus, but merely messes about with it.

So I went straight to the nearest report that I could think of which was closest to 'approaching certainty'. Josephus's mention of JtB in Antiquities doesn't attract so many claims of 'tinkering', and JtB does seem to have really existed.

But the evangelists still needed to mess with his story! Leather belts, etc.... A hairy 'look' about him....... Look, just like Elijah! So it doesn't matter how many times you wave the OT flag (as I call it), this doesn't definitely prove that whole story was lies.

Over two years ago a member suggested that JtB was unlikely to have had leather belts etc, but rather he had clothing, sandals or belt woven from naturally occurring fibre or plant material.

So constant references to OT prophesies or stories can help to thin out the gospel reports..... leaving us closer to plausibility....... but they don't destroy it all.

Of course....... none of this helps to arrive at 'certainty'.

I was just pointing out that the author of gMark relied on references to the OT rather than a supposed oral tradition, that's all.

 

[Prophet]

You should've taken the "don't bother with me" choice. I'm not interested in your immature lashing out but, from seeing various other of your posts on this subject, that seems to be all you have. Sounds like you need to take a break from this subject since it makes you so angry.

You're not that interested in really listening to anyone in general. What you are doing has more in common with preaching than debating.

Don't know the difference? Your ignorance isn't surprising. Here's a clue: In debate, we listen to our opponent's arguments and offer counter arguments that address our opponent's arguments with a demonstration of what makes our own claims superior. In what you pass for debate... or preaching, you ignore your opponent's argument and posit something contrary that never actually even attempts to address the arguments you wish to void. Bereft of any real strength in their position, preachers like you lean on feigned certainty, ad hominem, playing the victim, moving the goalposts, and the abuse of every other classical fallacy they can blindly stumble upon to intentionally stunt themselves intellectually and against all reason perpetuate a belief that they are correct.