Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[dogsgod]

I'm not sure about that. I agree that there isn't anything like a confession from Eusebius saying "it was me; I put in all that stuff", but it seems that the Testimonium Flavianum wasn't there when Origen got ahold of Antiquities... or at least not in a form that was exciting enough that Origen would think to mention it, which to me seems odd, since he wrote at length about the other reference to Jesus. Then, by the time Eusebius has it, it's somehow gained the Testimonium.

I think the most logical position is that somebody after Origen altered or added the Testimonium and Eusebius is on the short list of people who might have done it.

This certainly isn't conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.

Actually there is a confession of sorts from Eusebius. I'll try to find it because I can't remember the wording. To further the Christian cause he thought it legitimate to make things up. He's most famous for writing pseudo-histories that tie the church in with centuries old myths.

 

[dogsgod]

You know, Bob Price may be a fairly entertaining speaker, but even I know that his more extreme opinions aren't generally held in high regard by other Bible scholars.

Edit: I suppose that wouldn't stop you from presenting his arguments and supporting them on their own merits, but you won't get any credibility points for citing Bob Price as your source.

Edit 2: However, he probably fits the bill for what Oberon asked for earlier: he's got a PhD in "systematic theology", is a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and apparently doesn't believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.

If you read what Price writes of from the quotes in the preceding posts you can easily check for yourself to see if they're credible. Of course he's not held in high regard by scholars, but that's only because most are Christian and don't want to hear it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it's all he had to work with. Put it this way; if someone painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa, and there were no way to remove it without damaging the painting itself, don't you think they'd leave it hanging in the Louvre anyway?

Sure... with a note or something condemning the moustache-drawer.

Same thing with the TF; to anyone who had any familiarity with Josephus the interpolations would be obvious, but where exactly the original text ends and the interpolations start would be up for speculation.

At the very least, though, this would put the claims in the Testimonium Flavianum in doubt, but Eusebius uses the parts of the Testimonium that you say are obvious interpolations in support of his argument. To me, it seems like what you're suggesting would be like arguing that the subject of the Mona Lisa was actually a transvestite because of the moustache.

Even if Eusebius considered everything written in the Gospels and everything attributed to Jesus by tradition to be the truth, it would still have been a knowingly dishonest act for him to alter Josephus writings to conform to or support these views.

Sure... but do you have any reason to think that he would not have committed dishonest acts? I know nothing of him as a person, so I have no reason to assume that he wouldn't do this.

In a way, yes, but not exactly; if the TF in the form Eusebius presented it was what was currently to found in a standard copy of Antiquities, it would have been unforgivably presumptuous of him to take it upon himself to edit it.

Why's that? If he could substantiate his reasons for doing so, what would be wrong with it?

And wouldn't it be bad scholarship on his part to rely on a passage he thought to be either likely invalid or a flat-out forgery?

I never said it was a forgery. I'm saying that the lack of symmetry and consistency argues against it being a forgery.

Again; if someone were going to make something up out of thin air and attribute it to Josephus, especially someone like Eusebius, it would have been seamless and much more credible.

So... because it looks so much like a forgery, it couldn't have been a forgery?

As it stands it's pretty obvious that someone altered the original passage (and clumbsily), which means of course that there had to have been an original passage.

At the very least there had to have been some copy of the TF that predates Eusebius, probably by a considerable amount of time if it had come to be accepted, as-is, by scholars in his own time.

But I don't necessarily think that this happened.

Also consider that if someone somewhere along the line intended to alter Josephus with a radical Christian slant;

---they most likely would have chosen to attach their interpolations to something already considered legitimate.

Yes... I think that's part of the basis of the argument that the Testimonium was a jazzed-up version of an account of an actual human Jesus rather than a whole-cloth fabrication.

---it would have had to have been at a fairly early date (not too long after Josephus' own time) in order to get away with it.

Why's that? I think the key is lack of general familiarity with the original source, not necessarily time.

Actually there is a confession of sorts from Eusebius. I'll try to find it because I can't remember the wording. To further the Christian cause he thought it legitimate to make things up. He's most famous for writing pseudo-histories that tie the church in with centuries old myths.

It's probably one of the ones that's discussed here: Eusebius the Liar?

I don't know how well-supported the claims are that they're real or forgeries themselves.

 

[Quagmire]

Sure... with a note or something condemning the moustache-drawer.


At the very least, though, this would put the claims in the Testimonium Flavianum in doubt, but Eusebius uses the parts of the Testimonium that you say are obvious interpolations in support of his argument. To me, it seems like what you're suggesting would be like arguing that the subject of the Mona Lisa was actually a transvestite because of the moustache.

Didn't know that. If Eusebius is actually referring to the interpolations to support, basically anything, then he's either being intentionally dishonest or he's actually been fooled himself (which I think is unlikely).

In either case it's still unlikely that Eusebuis is the one who tampered with it, for the reasons I've already given, and it's certain that he didn't invent it whole cloth.

Sure... but do you have any reason to think that he would not have committed dishonest acts? I know nothing of him as a person, so I have no reason to assume that he wouldn't do this.

No reason at all. I was just addressing this;

As has been alluded to by Oberon in this thread, ancient historians had a very different idea of what constituted "history" than we do. The idea that Eusebius might have added the references to Jesus being Christ and wielding miracles could plausibly mesh with the idea of a Eusebius who believed what he was writing to be based in truth and was more concerned about being faithful to that truth than to his source material.

Why's that? If he could substantiate his reasons for doing so, what would be wrong with it?

I'm just speculating but I'm thinking he would have been seen as over-stepping himself.

And wouldn't it be bad scholarship on his part to rely on a passage he thought to be either likely invalid or a flat-out forgery?

There's no reason to suspect that he thought the TF was either of those.

Again; it seems most likely (to me for what that's worth) that Eusebius considered the TF an altered version of an original passage from Antiquities.

So... because it looks so much like a forgery, it couldn't have been a forgery?

It doesn't look like a forgery. A forgery would have been more convincing. It looks like what it is; something that's been altered from it's original form.

 

[logician]

"Oral tradition" as "proof" of historicity really is a laugh. I think everyone has done the test where you seat 10 people around a table and have the first person say something to the person next to him/her. By the time the message gets around the table, it bears no resemblance to what was originally said. Expand that by many years and many people, and it would be hopeless to pass down to posterity what may have happened during your lifetime in any accurate way.

That's why writing was so important back in those days, meticulous copying of records was the only real way of keeeping an accurate record of history.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why writing was so important back in those days, meticulous copying of records was the only real way of keeeping an accurate record of history.

Or songs. I've heard that this is why the Psalms were written in the form of songs: to make them easy to remember.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually there is a confession of sorts from Eusebius.

No, there is not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you read what Price writes ...

... you've wasted a good deal of time.

 

[dogsgod]

Josephus
Reference to Jesus as brother of James




And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[38] Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9


Oh well, wrong Jesus, too bad so sad.

Besides, Epistles to the Hebrews 8:4 4 If he [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.


.

 

[Oberon]

and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[38] Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9


Oh well, wrong Jesus, too bad so sad.

The problem with the ancient roman empire is that so many people has the same name. So other things (fathers, places or origin, nicknames, etc) were used to distinuish them. For this reason Josephus distinguishes between Jesus, who was called the Christ, and Jesus, the son of Damneus. Two different people.

"Oral tradition" as "proof" of historicity really is a laugh. I think everyone has done the test where you seat 10 people around a table and have the first person say something to the person next to him/her. By the time the message gets around the table, it bears no resemblance to what was originally said. Expand that by many years and many people, and it would be hopeless to pass down to posterity what may have happened during your lifetime in any accurate way.

That's why writing was so important back in those days, meticulous copying of records was the only real way of keeeping an accurate record of history.

Exactly what books or scholarship have you read concerning oral tradition? Anything? I'm trying to understand where you are getting your information here, as it seems you are simply making things up. The ancient world was primarily an oral, not written, society. As such ancient people were far more likely to be able to recall and retain history within an oral tradition than we. Furthermore, many of the "written records" you discuss are recordings of oral tradition. Can you name a single historian in the ancient world who did not rely on oral tradition?

 

[dogsgod]

The problem with the ancient roman empire is that so many people has the same name. So other things (fathers, places or origin, nicknames, etc) were used to distinuish them. For this reason Josephus distinguishes between Jesus, who was called the Christ, and Jesus, the son of Damneus. Two different people.

There's problems with the line,"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"

In the following consideration, as R. G. Price points out, it's possible that the passage makes most sense by just removing, "who was called Christ."

"There is a suspicious aspect to the reference to Jesus, in that it comes first in the text. That is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name, together with some others...” Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one? James is the main figure, the character that brought about Ananus’ downfall, while mention of Jesus is supposed to be simply an identifier for him. It would have been much more natural for Josephus to say something like: “(Ananus) brought before them a man named James, who was the brother of Jesus, called Christ...” On the other hand, if the phrase is the product of a Christian scribe, it would be understandable that he, consciously or unconsciously, would have given reference to Jesus pride of place.

This remains a valid consideration, but there could be another way of looking at it. As R. G. Price points out, if the passage is essentially about Ananus and the rise to the high priesthood of the son of Damneus in his place, then a reference to this Jesus ahead of his brother who was the victim of Ananus might be understandable on Josephus’ part, since the fundamental raison d’etre of the whole passage is to relate the supplanting of the High Priest Ananus by Jesus son of Damneus."24 jesuspuzzle.com


In this respect, the references to Jesus would not be of two different people.

 

[Oberon]

There's problems with the line,"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"

In the following consideration, as R. G. Price points out, it's possible that the passage makes most sense by just removing, "who was called Christ."

"There is a suspicious aspect to the reference to Jesus, in that it comes first in the text. That is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name, together with some others...” Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one? James is the main figure, the character that brought about Ananus’ downfall, while mention of Jesus is supposed to be simply an identifier for him. It would have been much more natural for Josephus to say something like: “(Ananus) brought before them a man named James, who was the brother of Jesus, called Christ...” On the other hand, if the phrase is the product of a Christian scribe, it would be understandable that he, consciously or unconsciously, would have given reference to Jesus pride of place.

This remains a valid consideration, but there could be another way of looking at it. As R. G. Price points out, if the passage is essentially about Ananus and the rise to the high priesthood of the son of Damneus in his place, then a reference to this Jesus ahead of his brother who was the victim of Ananus might be understandable on Josephus’ part, since the fundamental raison d’etre of the whole passage is to relate the supplanting of the High Priest Ananus by Jesus son of Damneus."24 jesuspuzzle.com


In this respect, the references to Jesus would not be of two different people.

There are several issues here, the first being that your source is questionable. Try citing scholarship rather than websites. And R. G. Price is not a scholar.

Next, the passage actually reads hate de oun to tethnanai men pheston Albinhon d' eti kata ten hodon huparchein kathizei sunedron kriton kai paragagon eis auto ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou Iakobos onoma auto...
Be wary of anybody who deals with the historicity of passages without the ability to read them in the original.

And finally the reason the "Jesus idea," as your quote puts it, is made "paramount" is probably because it is the reason behind the trial/judgement, and again it is used to distinguish this Jesus from others.

Edit 2: However, he probably fits the bill for what Oberon asked for earlier: he's got a PhD in "systematic theology", is a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and apparently doesn't believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.

Not really. His expertise is in theology, and not even specifically Christian theology. I am looking for experts with a background in history. This does not mean I am limiting it to Biblical Scholars, NT scholars, and early Christian scholars. I would be equally happy with an expert in Ancient Judaism (particularly those whose expertise is in or around 2nd temple Judaism), or early Rabbinic Judaism, or Classical History (particularly those with a focus on Rome), or any expert historian whose specialty coincides with the time and place of Jesus.

Can only experts make judgements on the historical Jesus? Of course not. Anyone can theoretically study enough to equip themselves with the necessary information to make valid judgements. Those who do bother to devote the time and energy usually want the degrees that go with, however. And I have said before that their may be such an expert historian who doubts the historical Jesus (and as long as they are consistent with their historical skepticism, that is fine). However, the fact that the virtually every single expert historian acknowledges that Jesus was a historical figure ought to be something doubters reckon with seriously.

 

[Oberon]

I think everyone has done the test where you seat 10 people around a table and have the first person say something to the person next to him/her. By the time the message gets around the table, it bears no resemblance to what was originally said. Expand that by many years and many people, and it would be hopeless to pass down to posterity what may have happened during your lifetime in any accurate way.

Aside from demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge in this particular area (as I have already commented on), there is another problem here, specifically with your comparison.

In "telephone" (the game you are refering to), each person is usually required to pass on the message only once, and always in a whisper. What happens when you change the rules? For example, if the message was passed on out loud rather than in whisper, the message would remain unchanged.

Your comparison only holds true if we imagine that every person who heard the Jesus tradition heard it from one source and passed it on to one source. However, if we apply what is known about similar oral traditions (along with internal evidence in the NT) then we get a very different picture of how the message was transmitted. It is more likely that certain people in various early christian communities were regarded as authoritative (beginning with those like Paul, Peter, James, etc). These people TAUGHT the tradition to others, some of whom would then be regarded as authoritative enough to pass it on. We can see this in action in Papias' discription on his reception of the transmission of the Jesus tradition, or when Paul speaks of it being "handed on" to him. It is possible, and some have argued for such a scenerio (see in particular Richard Bauckham's book on the historicity in the tradition "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" although I think he is over-confident in many areas), that the accounts in the gospels passed through no more than two or three hands before being written down.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh well, wrong Jesus, too bad so sad.

The ignorance here is astonishing and pathetic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why's that theologically cumbersome? Origen already provided a response along with his paraphrase of Josephus (Contra Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47):

Yes, he did, and this has been the classic argument of those who seek to maintain the dogma of Perpetual Virginity. But for John to use the term is not at all the same as having it employed by someone outside the movement. Anyone within the movement both willing and capable of such a sloppy interpolation of the the TF would have had compelling reasons for, and no compunction against, excising it.

While no one can be certain, the most reasonable explanation of TF is scribal gloss.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There's problems with the line,"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"

In the following consideration, as R. G. Price points out, it's possible that the passage makes most sense by just removing, "who was called Christ."

"There is a suspicious aspect to the reference to Jesus, in that it comes first in the text. That is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name, together with some others...” Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one? James is the main figure, the character that brought about Ananus’ downfall, while mention of Jesus is supposed to be simply an identifier for him. It would have been much more natural for Josephus to say something like: “(Ananus) brought before them a man named James, who was the brother of Jesus, called Christ...” On the other hand, if the phrase is the product of a Christian scribe, it would be understandable that he, consciously or unconsciously, would have given reference to Jesus pride of place.

This remains a valid consideration, but there could be another way of looking at it. As R. G. Price points out, if the passage is essentially about Ananus and the rise to the high priesthood of the son of Damneus in his place, then a reference to this Jesus ahead of his brother who was the victim of Ananus might be understandable on Josephus’ part, since the fundamental raison d’etre of the whole passage is to relate the supplanting of the High Priest Ananus by Jesus son of Damneus."24 jesuspuzzle.com


In this respect, the references to Jesus would not be of two different people.

This was sort of what I was touching on but as I've seen here you get no points for quoting Price. Others here have their reasons for not excepting his work or words. Other than price is there another commentary on the passage that can be offered?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Other than price is there another commentary on the passage that can be offered?

Alice Whealey addresses it extensively.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Alice Whealey addresses it extensively.

Question....

Since Antiquities 18,3,3 is suspect would it not be fair to think that Antiquities 20,9,1 is suspect?

Well, this is what I mean.....if the reference ("who was called Christ") was an interpolation by a scribe as we see in Antiquities 18 then does it make sense the James spoken of is the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus?

Ok, off to check out Alice Whealey.

 

[dogsgod]

There are several issues here, the first being that your source is questionable. Try citing scholarship rather than websites. And R. G. Price is not a scholar.

You're the questionable one here. I provided a reasoned explanation and you don't have the know how to address it.

Next, the passage actually reads hate de oun to tethnanai men pheston Albinhon d' eti kata ten hodon huparchein kathizei sunedron kriton kai paragagon eis auto ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou Iakobos onoma auto...
Be wary of anybody who deals with the historicity of passages without the ability to read them in the original.

Anyone can copy and paste, what's your point?

 

[dogsgod]

As we can see, the interpolations are not always an attempt to deceive:

As a Marginal Gloss

It is important to note that the phrase is actually made up of two distinct parts. This James is identified as “the brother of Jesus,” but this Jesus is himself identified as “called Christ.” The possibility of interpolation, then, could apply to either the composite reference, or only to the second element. Both options have been proposed, beginning with the simplest process, namely that “James” stood alone in the original text and a Christian scribe added a marginal note, “the brother of Jesus, called Christ,” the scribe assuming that it was the Christian James the Just that was being referred to, perhaps in light of a tradition that this James had died around that time. Alternatively, the original text may have included “the brother of Jesus” as Josephus’ identification of his James, and a marginal note, “called Christ” served to identify the Jesus the scribe believed Josephus was speaking of. In either case, the marginal note was subsequently inserted into the text. In view of the difficulties, as we shall see, which are involved in envisioning Josephus as the author of the composite phrase, and especially its second part, the marginal note would be the simplest and most effective explanation. jesuspuzzle.com