Jesus:Real or myth?

[Ouroboros]

Lol, we don't have very many records for many things, we have to put a little trust in honest historic records.
I for one happen to believe in Josephus Antiquities reference to Jesus.

Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus supposedly died.

 

[fantome profane]

Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus supposedly died.

That is what historians do, they talk about dead people.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus supposedly died.

Therefore?

 

[Ouroboros]

That is what historians do, they talk about dead people.

Historians talk about histories. Not everything Josephus said was true. He got quite a bit of facts wrong about other things.

 

[Ouroboros]

Therefore?

Therefore not a great source to prove that someone existed beyond doubt.

I do believe there was some kind of Messiah figure, cult leader, or whatever, but the reference of a historian who got information second or thirdhand is not a strong argument to a 100% factual certainty.

Or to put it in Ken Ham's terms: He wasn't there.

But that being said, I have no problem with some guru causing a stir in the ancient Judea. I even think it's likely, but based on other reasoning (or inferences similar to how you would go about knowing that evolution is true based on 500,000 references--i.e. fossil record).

---

It's also important to know that historians interpret history and the stories based on their own bias. Someone being a historian, writing about someone they believe might have existed, is not evidence that the person they wrote about actually did exist. History books are supposed to be read carefully and critically.

According to E.H. Carr, the Western world has fallen into a "cult of facts" when it comes to history. We tend to believe historians are unbiased and only report the facts. And not only that, we consider "historians" from ancient times to have done the same.

 

[Ouroboros]

*post moderated*

It isn't.

For instance, my understanding is that Josephus claims John the Baptist was executed 36 AD, 4 years after the death of Jesus. Which one is right? Bible or Josephus? And he got many other dates wrong, places, rivers (Tigris outlet in Dead Sea, I think it was?), etc. So I wouldn't trust Josephus to be 100% correct about everything (since he isn't).

So the "stupid" falls back on those who take his words as absolute and undeniable truth.

By the way, Josephus and Tacitus both wrote about Hercules... Doesn't mean that he existed. We can take their words with a grain of salt and read it in context of culture and their own history. Tacitus wrote about Hercules in indirect terms, just like Josephus did about Jesus.

 

[Quagmire]

It isn't.

For instance, my understanding is that Josephus claims John the Baptist was executed 36 AD, 4 years after the death of Jesus. Which one is right?

Actually, the 30 AD date is just traditional, there really isn't any historic backing for that specific date, and if we go by Josephus (as you just pointed out) it doesn't work at all.

Aside from the execution of John, iirc Pilate was only prefect of Judea from 35 till 37 AD.

Bible or Josephus?

The bible doesn't offer a specific date for the crucifixion. Like I say: 30 AD is traditional.

And he got many other dates wrong, places, rivers (Tigris outlet in Dead Sea, I think it was?), etc. So I wouldn't trust Josephus to be 100% correct about everything (since he isn't).

So the "stupid" falls back on those who take his words as absolute and undeniable truth.

I don't know of anyone who does that.

By the way, Josephus and Tacitus both wrote about Hercules... Doesn't mean that he existed. We can take their words with a grain of salt and read it in context of culture and their own history. Tacitus wrote about Hercules in indirect terms, just like Josephus did about Jesus.

Hercules was already an icon long before Tacitus was born. I have no idea what Tacitus wrote about Hercules, but the way Josephus refers to Jesus suggests an actual person rather than a legend.

 

[Quagmire]

iirc Pilate was only prefect of Judea from 35 till 37 AD.

Looks like I goofed on that one. According to a few sites I just googled Pilate was prefect from 26-36, although I can't tell what they're basing this on.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know of anyone who does that.

Then what I said wasn't "stupid" then.

Hercules was already an icon long before Tacitus was born. I have no idea what Tacitus wrote about Hercules, but the way Josephus refers to Jesus suggests an actual person rather than a legend.

He didn't talk about Hercules like a legend. He mentions Hercules three times. Once about a temple, twice about Hercules as a person.

For instance "Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention. of these things, and thereby endeavors to show that this king [Nebuchadnezzar] exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia. " Doesn't say Hercules was a legend, myth, story, or made up in any way.

Besides, his reference to Jesus must've been hearsay just as much as any legend.

 

[Quagmire]

Then what I said wasn't "stupid" then.

Did someone say it was? (I haven't read back through this thread so I have no idea). EDIT: OK, I see it now. Leave me out of it.

He didn't talk about Hercules like a legend. He mentions Hercules three times. Once about a temple, twice about Hercules as a person.

For instance "Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention. of these things, and thereby endeavors to show that this king [Nebuchadnezzar] exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia. " Doesn't say Hercules was a legend, myth, story, or made up in any way.

He doesn't really have to. It sounds like he's using the idea of Hercules as a standard, it doesn't mean he considered Hercules a real person, or rather his actual person-hood would be beside the point. Then as now Hercules would serve as a symbol of strength and heroism.

I'm sure that Megasthenes doesn't mean to suggest that Nebuchadnezzar could hold up the cosmos on his shoulders.

It would be the same as saying, "Ethel was more beautiful than Helen of Troy". Someone saying something like this wouldn't need to believe that Helen of Troy was an historical person, they would just need to be aware that, classically, she symbolized the ultimate in feminine-human beauty.

People still say things like "He's got the Midas touch" or "My mother-in-law is a harpy". Doesn't mean they actually believe the myths associated with those figures.

Besides, his reference to Jesus must've been hearsay just as much as any legend.

Almost all ancient historical accounts are based on hear-say.

 

[steeltoes]

And it is plausible that he existed to the point historians claim crucifixion and batism as fact.

There are no facts concerning the crucifixion and baptism. All we have is a storied fictional account as it concerns these things.

 

[steeltoes]

Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery.

 

[Quagmire]

Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery.

No it isn't.

 

[Ouroboros]

Almost all ancient historical accounts are based on hear-say.

Exactly. That's the point. You can't trust it 100%. It's not an absolute certainty.

 

[Bunyip]

No it isn't.

Even if every word ofJosephus is true to his original account, all that there is in support of Jesus is a brief and very vague reference to the Christos that relates an event that occured many years before Josephus was born and in a far distant country.

Even if you ignore the controversies over the validity of the TF, there is still nothing more than an obliique mention of a messiah that Josephus did not believe to be the messiah anyway.

Josephus does refer in passing to Christos, but it is hardly reliable evidence that the crucifixion occured.

 

[Ouroboros]

No it isn't.

Part of it might be, or it would suggest Josephus was Christian.

 

[Quagmire]

Part of it might be, or it would suggest Josephus was Christian.

Part of it certainly is, although "forgery" isn't the right word.

 

[steeltoes]

Part of it might be, or it would suggest Josephus was Christian.

Yes, Josephus converted to Christianity, that would explain it.

 

[Quagmire]

Even if every word ofJosephus is true to his original account, all that there is in support of Jesus is a brief and very vague reference to the Christos that relates an event that occured many years before Josephus was born and in a far distant country.

I think you're confusing Josephus with Tacitus.

Even if you ignore the controversies over the validity of the TF, there is still nothing more than an obliique mention of a messiah that Josephus did not believe to be the messiah anyway.

No, if you ignore the controversies over the validity of the TF what you have is an account of an historical figure, which for the sake of this discussion is all that matters.

Josephus does refer in passing to Christos, but it is hardly reliable evidence that the crucifixion occured.

Again: I think you're confusing Josephus with Tacitus.

 

[Quagmire]

Exactly. That's the point. You can't trust it 100%. It's not an absolute certainty.

If you're interested in absolute certainty, History may not be the best hobby for you.

We can't believe what our morning papers say with any real certainty, why would we expect ancient "news" to be any more reliable?