The Jesus Myth

[logician]

AND the "Josephus reference" is only a forgery in part.

Even scholars who reject ONE FORM of the Josephus reference still think that the "forgery" has some reference to Jesus.

Josephus'Testimony to Jesus

First of all, no Jew would write that a supposed Jesus was the Messiah, second of all, what Jesus? There is no specificity here, there were many men named Jesus running around Jerusalem, you cannot infer this was a reference to Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

First of all, no Jew would write that a supposed Jesus was the Messiah, second of all, what Jesus? There is no specificity here, there were many men named Jesus running around Jerusalem, you cannot infer this was a reference to Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph.

So did you even read the Testimonium?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

First of all, no Jew would write that a supposed Jesus was the Messiah, second of all, what Jesus? There is no specificity here, there were many men named Jesus running around Jerusalem, you cannot infer this was a reference to Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph.

The ALL CAPS represent the Christian interpolations:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

So we have Josephus saying:

1) Jesus was a wise man and a doer of wonders

2) He had many followers

3) He was condemned to death by Pilate

4) Christians - followers of Jesus - were around during the time of Josephus

 

[Oberon]

First of all, no Jew would write that a supposed Jesus was the Messiah,

Which is why the longer reference is widely considered an altered version of what Josephus actually wrote. However, Vermes (a Jew, and a scholar of Judaism) and others have given strong evidence that the passage is an altered version of something that Josephus really did write about Jesus.

However, even if we throw the passage out altogether, we are left with a short reference to James, the brother of Jesus, the one called [or so-called] Christ.

Not the difference. In the longer reference, Jesus IS the messiah. That's why most scholars think that it is at least a corrupted version, and at worst pure interpolation.

Yet that same logic gives us the opposite conclusion with the other Jesus reference in Josephus, because no christian would refer to Jesus as "the so-called messiah."

second of all, what Jesus? There is no specificity here, there were many men named Jesus running around Jerusalem, you cannot infer this was a reference to Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph.

Yes, you can. We have last names to identify the various joes, james, marys and pauls. They used kin indentifiers, titles, and nicknames. In the Jesus reference in Josephus that IS genuine, Jesus is not only identified by kin (or rather, James is identified by his kin connection with Jesus) he is also identified by his title of Christ/Messiah, which Josephus is careful to point out is only something he is called, not something that he is. In other words, Josephus clearly identifies the Jesus of the gospels, which also (like Paul) identify James as Jesus' brother.

So did you even read the Testimonium?

Of course he didn't.

 

[logician]

The ALL CAPS represent the Christian interpolations:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

So we have Josephus saying:

1) Jesus was a wise man and a doer of wonders

2) He had many followers

3) He was condemned to death by Pilate

4) Christians - followers of Jesus - were around during the time of Josephus

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST"

Again, no true JEWISH historian would have ever said such a blasphemy in such words that it seemed he believed it. This was an obvious forgery added much later on by forgers in the early XIan church.

 

[Oberon]

This was an obvious forgery added much later on by forgers in the early XIan church.

No, it has obviously been altered. That doesn't mean the whole thing is an interpolation. And even if it is, it isn't the only reference to Jesus in Josephus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again, no true JEWISH historian would have ever said such a blasphemy in such words that it seemed he believed it. This was an obvious forgery added much later on by forgers in the early XIan church.

Dude, that's what the quote says.

The ALL CAPS is the INTERPOLATION.

Think.

 

[Oberon]

Think.

You're asking a lot there.

 

[logician]

Dude, that's what the quote says.

The ALL CAPS is the INTERPOLATION.

Think.

You are quite incorrect on this point.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are quite incorrect on this point.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Composer]

No, it has obviously been altered. That doesn't mean the whole thing is an interpolation. And even if it is, it isn't the only reference to Jesus in Josephus.

So let's examine these alleged other references to a Jesus the God?

Cheers!

 

[Quagmire]

So let's examine these alleged other references to a Jesus the God?

Cheers!

There is no reference to a "Jesus the God". That isn't what we're discussing here.

 

[Oberon]

So let's examine these alleged other references to a Jesus the God?

Cheers!

From antiquities, book 20:
καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ/kathizei sunedrion kriton kai paragagon eis auto ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou, Iakobos onoma auto/he [Albinus] sat [assembled] the sanhedrim of judges, bringing before it the brother of Jesus the one called Christ [or so-called Christ], James by name...

 

[Composer]

From antiquities, book 20:

καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ/kathizei sunedrion kriton kai paragagon eis auto ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou, Iakobos onoma auto/he [Albinus] sat [assembled] the sanhedrim of judges, bringing before it the brother of Jesus the one called Christ [or so-called Christ], James by name...

Thanks for that.

i) But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from his own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source. (Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity? - Source: josephus)
(RED by Composer)

ii) So the Sanhedrin bring before them the brother of some one nick-named Jesus the Christ?

Hardly convincing evidence that nick-name was anything more?

iii) Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. Paul must be understood within his Jewish contexts. (Page 160.)

In no way is Paul, still a good Jew (although a Christian one), assuming that Jesus was somehow a divine god second only to YHWH. Yes, Jesus was exalted and had the title “Lord” conferred on him by God. But Jesus was a man who, in Jewish context, had become the Messiah. He was still distinct and inferior to YHWH. When John wrote his almost-Gnostic Gospel almost a half-century later, his use of the “Word” as a pre-existent form is used within Jewish context as well—the same context he used for words like glory, spirit, divine wisdom, and others. “When Paul and John spoke about Jesus as though he had some kind of pre-existent life, they were not suggesting that he was a second divine ‘person’ in the later Trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus had transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the ‘power’ and ‘wisdom’ that he represented were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed ‘what there was from the beginning.’”35
The Jews were absolute monotheists. So was Paul. The Jewish Messiah is not a divine figure. The Messiah would be an ordinary human being that would do privileged “God-things.” The Son of God was a simple way to express the closeness of the Messiah’s actions to the will and power of God. Only the gods of the pagans had “sons” or offspring. “It should be noted that Paul never called Jesus ‘God.’ He called him the ‘Son of God’ in its Jewish sense. He certainly did not believe that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself; he had simply possessed God’s ‘powers’ and ‘spirit,’ which manifested God’s activity on earth and were not to be identified with the inaccessible divine essence.”36
Also it needs to be kept in mind, although I mentioned it earlier, Jesus never claimed that his divine powers were his alone or special to him. On many occasions he promised his followers that if they had faith they could exercise these same powers. “By faith, of course, he did not mean adopting the correct theology but cultivating an inner attitude of surrender and openness to God.”37 This inner attitude is the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed:

(Page 161: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com) - (My RED & Emphasis)

 

[Oberon]

Thanks for that.

i) But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from his own personal experience.

Modern historians were born thousands of years after events they describe. Josephus was in an excellent position to tell of important events and people before and during his time. He was certainly in a position to learn about someone like Jesus who made quite an impression on a number of people.

However, even more important, James, Jesus brother, was still alive and his trial took place during Josephus' life. What we have then is a contemporary of Josephus (James) who was part of an important event for Josephus (a trial which he was interested in) and which he reported about.

At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader.

Even if we disregard the things Josephus wrote about Jesus directly, we are left with him writing about an event which took place during his life and was important to him (although for reasons having nothing to do with christianity): the trial of James.

So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source.

Completely incorrect. Most ancient histories describe events and people prior to the life of the historian. They use various sources, as Josephus did and as modern historians do, to understand the past. Josephus was around very soon after Jesus, and as an important Jew who took an interest in Jewish history and current events he was in an excellent position to know about Jesus and James' trial.

ii) So the Sanhedrin bring before them the brother of some one nick-named Jesus the Christ?

Jesus is not a nick-name. You have to understand how people were identified in the ancient mediterranean world. This was done primarily by kin, but also by titles and nicknames and so forth. In this passage, James is identified by his brother, Jesus, who is identified by the title his followers give him, Christ. In other words, he doubly identified. It is very clear who Josephus was talking about, particularly given that this same James was known by Paul, who also identifies him as a brother of Jesus, and who is also identified as a brother of Jesus in Mark/Matthew.

iii) Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. Paul must be understood within his Jewish contexts. (Page 160.)

Both Paul and Jesus must. This has nothing to do with Jesus' historicity.

In no way is Paul, still a good Jew (although a Christian one), assuming that Jesus was somehow a divine god second only to YHWH.

Not really true. Paul clearly identifies Jesus as something greater than human. But again, this has nothing to do with historicity.

(Page 161: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell

- ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com) - (My RED & Emphasis)

I have an extensive education in this area. I can cite any number of scholarly journals, books, monographs, etc. Quoting popular books is hardly impressive. The fact remains that critical inquiry into the historicity of Jesus began centuries ago. Even today, with an increase of scholars interested in this area who are not christian, there are virtually no experts with relevant degrees or training who believe Jesus did not exist. Out of the thousands of PhDs, I believe there are two. There is simply no better way to explain the evidence we have than to posit that Jesus existed.

 

[dogsgod]

The ALL CAPS represent the Christian interpolations:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

So we have Josephus saying:

1) Jesus was a wise man and a doer of wonders

2) He had many followers

3) He was condemned to death by Pilate

4) Christians - followers of Jesus - were around during the time of Josephus

No doubt you and Oberon are impressed with Jesus as a doer of wonders, that would include raising the dead, curing the blind, walking on water, calming the seas, and the grand finale, his resurrection from the dead, but are we to believe that Josephus was as naive and gullible? As the story goes, Jesus' apocalyptic and revolutionary nature got him executed, but we are supposed to believe Josephus, who otherwise expressed complete contempt for all the other popular agitators of the day, was taken in by this Jesus as a wise man? None of this came to light until Eusebius presented it in the fourth century, maybe he thought he could fool someone, he succeeded.

 

[Oberon]

No doubt you and Oberon are impressed with Jesus as a doer of wonders, that would include raising the dead, curing the blind, walking on water, calming the seas, and the grand finale, his resurrection from the dead, but are we to believe that Josephus was as naive and gullible?

Josephus, as a Jew, firmly believed in the ability of certain people to work miracles.

was taken in by this Jesus as a wise man?

There are several theories on why Josephus would use such language, including the fact that he just didn't want to **** off the growing christian population. Again, however, even if the whole thing is interpolation, there is still another reference to Jesus in Josephus, which is backed up by the gospels and Paul.

 

[dogsgod]

Josephus, as a Jew, firmly believed in the ability of certain people to work miracles.

That would base his sources on tradition coming from the gospels rather than some private connections.

 

[Oberon]

That would base his sources on tradition coming from the gospels rather than some private connections.

How does that follow? For one thing, the gospels don't record Jesus' brother James' trial. For another, all Jews believed in miracles. That hardly amounts to Josephus' knowledge of Jesus as being based on the gospels. After all, he was alive for James' trial.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No doubt you and Oberon are impressed with Jesus as a doer of wonders, that would include raising the dead, curing the blind, walking on water, calming the seas, and the grand finale, his resurrection from the dead,

Well, that's a bias.... against Oberon and myself.

And it is painfully uninformed.

but are we to believe that Josephus was as naive and gullible?

No, and that's not what I think happened, and it's not what I said.

Maybe Josephus did and maybe he didn't believe that Jesus performed miracles. I'm inclined to think that he did not.

BUT what Josephus IS doing is demonstrating specifically to which Jesus he is referring.

Josephus is writing that Jesus - the wise man, doer of miracles - was crucified by Pilate. This is more of a title than an assent to belief.