No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[Tellurian]

Just an added not on the shorter paragraph in Josephus about Jesus. It is almost positive that it was not forged by Eusebius. The reason being that Origen had most likely paraphrased the reference in Josephus. So even disregarding the TF, we still have a shorter passage in Josephus, that still refers to Jesus.

Origen never claimed that Josephus had written anything about the biblical Jesus. Origen wrote that Josephus had mentioned James the Just, and it was Origen that added comments about James supposedly being the brother of the biblical Jesus and did not say anything about Josephus writing about the biblical Jesus. Josephus was not one of the Messianic Jews who believed that a Messiah was supposedly going to come to save the Jews, which led to Origen writing that Josephus did not believe in anyone being the "Christ". For more information on what Origen had to say about Josephus see:

Origen on Josephus.

 

[Tellurian]

Where does that say that people in the first, second, third, or so centuries doubted that Jesus existed? Like I said, even the opponents of Jesus, such as Celsus, accepted that Jesus was a historical figure.

According to what he wrote Celsus seemed to consider Yeshu ben Pantera a real person, not the biblical Jesus. Your confusion is probably due to Yeshu ben Pantera being one of the real persons whose stories were used to create the fictional, composite Jesus of the gospels. A modified version of the birth story of Yeshu ben Pantera seems to have been used to create the birth story of the biblical Jesus.

Celsus on Jesus

 

[angellous_evangellous]

a e



The TF (Testimonium Flavium) was not mentioned by many readers of Josephus works.

93 CE: Eusebius cites Josephus Flavius - 20 book "Antiquity of the Jews"; Major ref to Jesus in Antiquities 18.3.3; with 20.9.1 (Minor Ref))
160 CE: Eusebius cites Justin Martyr who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
160 CE: Eusebius cites Pseudo-Justin who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF. (are these two authors distinct?)
179 CE: Eusebius cites Melito of Sardis - no mention of the TF
180 CE: Eusebius cites Theophilus Bishop of Antioch - no mention of the TF.
190 CE: Eusebius cites Irenaeus, saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
200 CE: Eusebius cites Clement of Alexandria, influential Greek theologian, prolific writer, head of the Alexandrian school - nothing about the TF.
220 CE: Eusebius cites Julius Africanus, a prominent chronographer from Emmaus - is silent about the TF.
220 CE: Eusebius cites Tertullian, early literary apologist/polemicist against unorthodox heresy - is silent about the TF.
220 CE: Eusebius cites Hippolytus (170-235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
230 CE: Eusebius cites Origen (185-254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
250 CE: Eusebius cites Minucius Felix, lawyer and Christian convert - no mention of the TF.
270 CE: Eusebius cites Anatolius (230-c. 270/280) - no mention of TF.
290 CE: Jerome cites Methodius of Olympus - comprehensive philosophical education, important theologian; prolific author - no Ref.
320 CE: Lactantius, previously an official professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia; Constantine sponsored "tutor" - no mention.

324 CE: *** Eusebius: cites the TF thrice *** P.E. 3.5, *** HE. 1.11, *** Theophany.

324 CE: Constantine cites the testimony of Virgil and Cicero as "prophets", but fails to mention Josephus' testimony - REF
362 CE: Julian states "the wretched Eusebius claims that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews, since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic."
407 CE: Chrysostom (347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
5?? CE: The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF. - REF
8?? CE: Methodius, saint of the 9th century - makes no mention of it.
814 CE: Photius of Constantinople - admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.

From The Testimonium Flavianum - a chronological summary of its Censure

Do you even realize that you did not even address the question?

You can't mindlessly copy something that's completely unrelated and expect it to magically answer an original question.

If you actually put some effort into it, you might actually learn something.

Or you can continue life as a spammer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just an added not on the shorter paragraph in Josephus about Jesus. It is almost positive that it was not forged by Eusebius. The reason being that Origen had most likely paraphrased the reference in Josephus. So even disregarding the TF, we still have a shorter passage in Josephus, that still refers to Jesus.

Actually, it refers to josys, which in Zulu refers to a creme filled donut.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, it refers to josys, which in Zulu refers to a creme filled donut.

Darn. At least the resolves one question though. Creme filled donuts are supported by early Christians. I might have to buy a box now.

 

[fallingblood]

Origen never claimed that Josephus had written anything about the biblical Jesus. Origen wrote that Josephus had mentioned James the Just, and it was Origen that added comments about James supposedly being the brother of the biblical Jesus and did not say anything about Josephus writing about the biblical Jesus. Josephus was not one of the Messianic Jews who believed that a Messiah was supposedly going to come to save the Jews, which led to Origen writing that Josephus did not believe in anyone being the "Christ". For more information on what Origen had to say about Josephus see:

Origen on Josephus.

Why should we believe that Origen added the part about Jesus being the brother of James, instead of believing that it was in the original text of Josephus? If we compare what Origen stated, and what we see in Josephus, there is no reason to assume that Origen had to add something that was already present in the work of Josephus.

And Josephus, mentioning Jesus, and even saying that he is the so called Christ, would not in anyway make him accept Jesus as the Messiah. By calling Jesus, the so called Christ, it is actually showing that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, Messiah, but instead is only referring to what others have called Jesus. In fact, Christ, by that time, was already becoming nearly a second name for Jesus, so it would be a good way for someone to identify Jesus. As we see no one else being called Christ, it would have been suiting for Josephus to state that Jesus was called Christ.

Back to Origen. I am not saying that it is a definite thing that Origen quoted from Josephus about Jesus, as there is no direct quote. However, when comparing the passage in Origen with the passage in Josephus, it certainly looks like a paraphrase by Origen. And the fact that Origen addresses the passage, in the same manner as Josephus did, by stating that James was the brother of Jesus, there is no reason to assume that Origen simply added it to his account.

Really, if we see Josephus stating that James was the brother of Jesus, and then Origen paraphrasing that section, and saying that James was the brother of Jesus, why should we assume that Origen added something to his account, when it was already present in the account he was paraphrasing from? It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[fallingblood]

According to what he wrote Celsus seemed to consider Yeshu ben Pantera a real person, not the biblical Jesus. Your confusion is probably due to Yeshu ben Pantera being one of the real persons whose stories were used to create the fictional, composite Jesus of the gospels. A modified version of the birth story of Yeshu ben Pantera seems to have been used to create the birth story of the biblical Jesus.

Celsus on Jesus

Have you read Celsus? I don't think you have. Because there is a lot more that Celsus stated about Jesus than what your link supplied. And even in that passage you linked to, Jesus is never called Yeshu ben Pantera. If you read the story of Yeshu ben Pantera though, you would see that it really does not resemble closely the life of Jesus. More so, Celsus doesn't call Jesus Yeshu ben Pantera, that only occurs later in Jewish writings.

If you read Celsus, and I suggest you do if you are going to use him as a source, you will see that he had no doubt that the Jesus, as spoken of by Christians, the Jesus we see in the Bible, was a living human being. He doesn't suggest that he was made up or formed out of several different individuals. He doesn't suggest that he was a fictional character. He accepted that Jesus did in fact exist. He states very clearly that Jesus (referring to the founder of Christianity, the individual written about in the NT) was truly a man. He denies the divinity of Jesus, but has no problem in accepting that Jesus actually existed.

Again, you need to read Celsus if you are going to use him as a source. However, be prepared to realize that he is not the most credible source, as his personal biases are extremely strong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Have you read Celsus? I don't think you have.

Thanks, Captian Obvious!

On top of everything else, all of Celsus's extant writings are in Origin's writing Contra Celsus.

So we have an apparent bias from Celsus whose writings are preserved by a man who hates his guts.

Bias doesn't automatically mean unreliable, but I think that we should be suspect of such a source.

*And as you know, spammers very rarely read their own sources anyway*

 

[outhouse]

That doesn't make him irrelevant. Any researcher will most likely rely on earlier sources. The fact that John was probably relying on earlier sources makes him even more relevant.

the fact he is using 3rd or 4th or 5th hand material is only relevant if you want to prove the author of J had no clue about the real history of the jesus charactor. J builds no historicity for nazereth.

what gospels we do have take away historicity with contradictions and misinformation that would not place jesus in the current location . I dont think this misinformation takes away from the fact he could have been at nazereth either, but it does show the authors are clueless and are running with zero historicity. If they were running with the truth it would be dead luck.

There was no reason to create a history though

why not? Theology was created. Events were created, in fact we know this means history was created. We know the jesus story grew after death, no one argues this, but now you want to pick and choose what grew and what did not with no real evidence to back this claim. There is really no archeology that supports pre 67ce to verify the town, allthough the attempts based on biased claims have been flushed out.

I think we can agree that child jesus pre 30 has zero historicity, this includes the place he is said to have lived.



the fact they used nazareth and why? is a good question, but because they used it doesnt give it the historicity your claiming.



fact is we dont really know and educated guesses point that way,,,, but,,, you cant pull this out of the gray area just yet.

 

[outhouse]

what if it was added to help hide the fact jesus real father could have been a roman guard.

Placing him in a small village would also protect the created theology surrounding his birth place which has no historicity


if you create a birthplace you might as well create a place where he grew up. What better then a small village where no previous stories would come from due to its small size that would contradict the created theology

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what if it was added to help hide the fact jesus real father could have been a roman guard.

Placing him in a small village would also protect the created theology surrounding his birth place which has no historicity


if you create a birthplace you might as well create a place where he grew up. What better then a small village where no previous stories would come from due to its small size that would contradict the created theology

For the love of pete shoot me before you write something like this.

 

[tarasan]

For the love of pete shoot me before you write something like this.

I believe we are getting to the point of the debate where your opponents are say, "im not going to change my mind irregardless of the evidence".

 

[Tristesse]

I believe we are getting to the point of the debate where your opponents are say, "im not going to change my mind irregardless of the evidence".

Irregardless? I think you mean regardless or irrespective.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The fact that Jesus is said to be from Nazareth is more than enough evidence to suggest that it was a real site. The reason being, it would be ridiculous to put Jesus there if he wasn't from there. Why not just stick with the idea that he was born in Bethlehem and stayed there? It would have been much easier to do that. However, the Gospel writers were forced to place Jesus in some obscure village because that is where it was accepted that he lived. More so, there is never any sources during that time that state that there was no Nazareth. And really, if someone wanted to attack the Jesus story, and there were plenty, that would have been a prime discussion point.

Great post fallingblood. However, the Gospel writers, writing several decades after the fact, could possibly have been forced to place Jesus' birth in Nazareth by a stubborn myth, no? Apparently it was widely accepted that Jesus was resurrected from the cross, so the Gospel writers included that detail, too. Couldn't more mundane details also have become cemented as part of the Jesus myth? And there is some motivation to place Jesus' birth in Nazareth: if I recall correctly, one of the Gospel writers claimed Jesus' birth fulfilled the prophesy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene (or am I mistaken?)

 

[outhouse]

For the love of pete shoot me before you write something like this.

i know its reaching.

but his birthplace has zero historicity, leeding me to believe where they placed him growing up also has no historicity.


why nazareth? good question.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This shows that the fictional stories about the biblical Jesus of the gospels were not created until the second century when there was a Jewish village at the Nazareth location.

No, it only proves there is no archeological evidence found there.

 

[outhouse]

I believe we are getting to the point of the debate where your opponents are say, "im not going to change my mind irregardless of the evidence".

what evidence.

scholars are not unanimous that the town existed in jesus time. Its still a gray area no matter how you slice it.

Thast due to the lack of evidence of a settlement pre 67ce

 

[outhouse]

No, it only proves there is no archeological evidence found there.

I agree.

 

[tarasan]

Irregardless? I think you mean regardless or irrespective.

Irregardless is an informal term commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "nonstandard" or "incorrect".

im not a sophisticated persons, im an "informal" kinda guy

 

[tarasan]

what evidence.

scholars are not unanimous that the town existed in jesus time. Its still a gray area no matter how you slice it.

Thast due to the lack of evidence of a settlement pre 67ce

well Ive read this entire thread, as well as studied somewhat in depth in university, and im pretty sure you have slice it quite percularly to get your conclusion.