Jesus:Real or myth?

[steeltoes]

The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said:

“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”



from Rameus On the Testimonium Flavianum

​

 

[Bunyip]

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?

Well it's comparative. If you looked at the historical case for Julius Ceaser for example, there is a vast body of cohesive evidence from multiple sources. While for events such as the crucifixion there is barely a shred of evidence.

So that Julius Ceaser lived is something that there is a sound, historical case for.

Just because one claimed event (the crucifixion) is only supported by a few fragile shreds of historical evidence does not mean that other historical events share the same weakness.

 

[outhouse]

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

ALL ancient writing fit that description though.

They wrote and were trained in rhetoric

 

[steeltoes]

ALL ancient writing fit that description though.

They wrote and were trained in rhetoric

All writings fit that description.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Sure. We can meet midways on that.

I might have been more of a added personal note by some scribe.

 

[steeltoes]

Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive.wiki


I'm going with forgery.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

I'm not interesting in absolute certainty.

It was just the thread of discussion. There's no absolute certainty with anything. Note even science, but there are levels of certainty. Some things are more than others.

Josephus himself doesn't support the existence of Jesus, but I do believe that the fact that there were Christians does. That there was a group claiming to follow a Jesus means that there was some kind of leader at some point. It's very rare to have leaders who works as proxies or using the "salesman from out of town" cons. It happens, but rarely, so I think it's leaning more towards some kind of "Jesus" leader.

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

Agree. That's why I don't take Josephus as the essential point to why there might have been an historical Jesus. It's rather the compilation of things and the inference of it.

 

[Ouroboros]

ALL ancient writing fit that description though.

They wrote and were trained in rhetoric

Agree.

We can make some inductive reasoning to why Jesus was historical based on the different writings together and the most likely historical events, but not base it solely on one historian's version. It's not enough to think that what Josephus wrote is enough or even correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive.wiki


I'm going with forgery.

It also could have been the addition of an overzealous scribe who wanted to point out a clarification. Like a sidenote for the reader, "look, this is the guy we're talking about. right here, that's him! Yay!" We don't know the true motives of whoever made the addition.

 

[steeltoes]

I'm not interesting in absolute certainty.

It was just the thread of discussion. There's no absolute certainty with anything. Note even science, but there are levels of certainty. Some things are more than others.

Josephus himself doesn't support the existence of Jesus, but I do believe that the fact that there were Christians does. That there was a group claiming to follow a Jesus means that there was some kind of leader at some point. It's very rare to have leaders who works as proxies or using the "salesman from out of town" cons. It happens, but rarely, so I think it's leaning more towards some kind of "Jesus" leader.


Agree. That's why I don't take Josephus as the essential point to why there might have been an historical Jesus. It's rather the compilation of things and the inference of it.

That there were Christians could stem from there being gospels. These Christians, just as today, read their gospels. The earlier Christians, the epistle writers were far more mystical, their Christ resided in the heavens as a messenger from God.

 

[Quagmire]

Well it's comparative. If you looked at the historical case for Julius Ceaser for example, there is a vast body of cohesive evidence from multiple sources. While for events such as the crucifixion there is barely a shred of evidence.

So that Julius Ceaser lived is something that there is a sound, historical case for.

Yes, there would be for a man who to a significant extent reshaped the world in his own life time. People tend to notice things like that.

We shouldn't expect to find much at all in connection to someone who's impact on the world wouldn't even begin to be felt until quite a while after his own death.

And even when it comes to a figure like Caesar, sure, we have all kinds of evidence and multiple accounts, but how much of it is actual history and how much ancient propaganda? Especially considering how much of what we have is from his own hand.

Just because one claimed event (the crucifixion) is only supported by a few fragile shreds of historical evidence does not mean that other historical events share the same weakness.

There are certain weaknesses that are endemic to all historical accounts.

 

[steeltoes]

It also could have been the addition of an overzealous scribe who wanted to point out a clarification. Like a sidenote for the reader, "look, this is the guy we're talking about. right here, that's him! Yay!" We don't know the true motives of whoever made the addition.

You might be referring to the short reference, Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200 which could have absorbed a side note rather than the Testimonium Flavianum which appears as a rank forgery.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, there would be for a man who to a significant extent reshaped the world in his own life time. People tend to notice things like that.

We shouldn't expect to find much at all in connection to someone who's impact on the world wouldn't even begin to be felt until quite a while after his own death.

And even when it comes to a figure like Caesar, sure, we have all kinds of evidence and multiple accounts, but how much of it is actual history and how much ancient propaganda? Especially considering how much of what we have is from his own hand.

You seem to have ignored the point being made. There is a great deal of cohesive historical evidence for Julius Ceaser and barely any for the crucifixion. And so the historical case for some things is exponentially superior to that for others.

There is no absolute certainty, but the basic details of the life of Julius Ceaser can be shown to be historically reliable, whilst the life and crucifixion of Jesus can not.

Just because the historical case for Jesus is weak, does not mean that the case for all historical figures is equally weak and unreliable - which is what you seem to be suggesting.

There are certain weaknesses that are endemic to all historical accounts.

Sure, and also some huge and significant differences - for some accounts there is a great deal of cohesive historical evidence from multiple sources, and so they are quite reliable. Whilst for other historical accounts such as that of the OP there is not.

That there is very little evidence to support the historicity of the crucifixion, does not mean that all history is so fragile.

 

[Quagmire]

Sure. We can meet midways on that.

I might have been more of a added personal note by some scribe.

I believe that too: I could imagine some early Christian scribe copying Josephus' account of Jesus, portraying the scribes god as merely human, and making a quick note in the margin "He was the Christ" just to let Jesus (who he would assume was looking over his shoulder) know that he didn't actually believe this "sacrilege" that he was passing on.

Then somewhere along the line another scribe included it in the text.

Regardless of how it happened it's as obvious as can be that the TF that Eusebius wound up with was the product of two hands.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not interesting in absolute certainty.

It was just the thread of discussion. There's no absolute certainty with anything. Note even science, but there are levels of certainty. Some things are more than others.

Josephus himself doesn't support the existence of Jesus, but I do believe that the fact that there were Christians does. That there was a group claiming to follow a Jesus means that there was some kind of leader at some point. It's very rare to have leaders who works as proxies or using the "salesman from out of town" cons. It happens, but rarely, so I think it's leaning more towards some kind of "Jesus" leader.

I think this is a really good point that's rarely brought up in these debates: early Christianity and early Christians are arguably the strongest evidence for an historical core to the Gospel stories.

I mean, say that today a new religion were to emerge claiming that Jerry Garcia was the Messiah, assigning the Grateful Dead repertoire new spiritual significance, passing on stories of miraculous healing at Grateful Dead concerts, etc. . . I would pretty much guarantee it would garner a significant following just from his existing fan-base ("Jerry is God" was already a common Dead-head expression while he was still alive. )

As far fetched as all that sounds, I think it would be even more unlikely to see a new religion just pop up out of thin air centered around a celebrity that never existed in the first place, assigning songs to him that no one ever heard, etc.

Agree. That's why I don't take Josephus as the essential point to why there might have been an historical Jesus. It's rather the compilation of things and the inference of it.

Agree.

 

[Quagmire]

You seem to have ignored the point being made. There is a great deal of cohesive historical evidence for Julius Ceaser and barely any for the crucifixion. And so the historical case for some things is exponentially superior to that for others.

I don't believe anyone here was arguing against the idea that some ancient historical events are more well supported than others. My original point was that practically all historical accounts are based on hear-say, and even those that are reputed to be first hand are always suspect to some degree.

There is no absolute certainty, but the basic details of the life of Julius Ceaser can be shown to be historically reliable, whilst the life and crucifixion of Jesus can not.

Again: we're talking about a man who had a tremendous impact on the world in the space of his own lifetime compared to someone who was relatively obscure and unknown.

I really don't see how the comparison is even useful considering all of that.

If what it's all supposed to boil down to is the question: "if we have so much proof for the existence of Julius Caesar, how come we have hardly any evidence for the existence of Jesus?", it would take a lot more writing than I have the time for just to list all of the reasons that I know of (and I'm sure there are bunch more on top of that).

Just because the historical case for Jesus is weak, does not mean that the case for all historical figures is equally weak and unreliable - which is what you seem to be suggesting.

That's not actually what I was suggesting.

Sure, and also some huge and significant differences - for some accounts there is a great deal of cohesive historical evidence from multiple sources, and so they are quite reliable. Whilst for other historical accounts such as that of the OP there is not.

That there is very little evidence to support the historicity of the crucifixion, does not mean that all history is so fragile.

You seem to have read all kinds of things into my posts that weren't actually there.

 

[steeltoes]

Josephus himself doesn't support the existence of Jesus, but I do believe that the fact that there were Christians does. That there was a group claiming to follow a Jesus means that there was some kind of leader at some point.

People follow God as some kind of leader and He's invisible. That there are now supporters for the Son of God mean that He too has to be based on an historical figure? Mormons believe Jesus resurrected and went to America, that there are Mormons mean that an historical Jesus went to America?

That there was and still is a group claiming to follow a Jesus could just as well mean that people have read the gospels and believe the story to have an historical core.

It appears that some people are more easily convinced than others.

 

[Prophet]

You don't have the knowledge to talk down to me like that. It is also frowned upon.

I let it slide this once, but watch your step.

You talk down to just about everyone who disagrees with you from what I've seen. Consider me warned.

First of all it is not false dichotomy

You said, "No, Christian writers didn't write the gospels, that was done by Roman proselytes." Not only can you NOT support this expansion of your theory, but the defense itself is nonsense. Christianity is a religion. Roman is a nationality. A proselyte is a religious convert. One can be a Christian, a Roman, and a proselyte all at the same time.

No Christians existed at the time the books were written, only what would become Christians.

This is far-fetched, even for you. Any support for this, whatsoever?

I never once stated they were ALL Romans. Paul our first writer was a Roman citizen and very Hellenistic. Mark was written by a gentile and Proselyte community TO and FOR a Roman audience, carefully explaining all Jewish laws to non Jews [/B]

You had used your idea that Roman proselytes had written the gospel to rule out Christian writers writing Christian scriptures across the board here:

They were not christian writers.

They were Roman gentiles, Proselytes. They were not going to blame their own kind

If you had said, "they were not Christian writers because SOME of the writers were Roman gentile proselytes" it would take the tip off your point. You clearly implied "all".

Think before you post.

Take a class on this or I can point you to some great vids at Yale on NT studies.

Whatever you say, chief. From where I sit, class has been in session. Come get owned more.

 

[outhouse]

Again: we're talking about a man who had a tremendous impact on the world in the space of his own lifetime compared to someone who was relatively obscure and unknown.

I have never been sure about how famous he was while alive.



Had he been I would suspect some early Aramaic gospels, or even Hellenistic Koine coming out of Sepphoris had he been well known alive.


I suspect he only found fame after his death and martyrdom.

 

[outhouse]

If you had said, "they were not Christian writers because SOME of the writers were Roman gentile proselytes" it would take the tip off your point. You clearly implied "all"..

You don't get it. The movement started out Jewish and stayed that way for quite some time.

Gentiles and Proselytes to Judaism were its main members. many of the Jews were Hellenistic jews who did not care about jewish customs and laws.


Christianity is something that grew and evolved into what it is.


The movement failed in Judaism from the get go, its why Paul focused on gentiles and Proselytes. Yet it kept Judaism at its foundational levels.


The movement started in the DIASPORA after his death. With his death his Jewish movement in Israel failed.