To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[michaelsherlock]

50 years, in many instances, is definitely stretching it. When you use sources such as the Toledot Yeshua, which is extremely old, it really has no use, as it isn't close enough to the actual events, yet is too old to be any use.

Sources from the 1800's simply are not good enough. Sources from the early 1900's are too out dated.
If you're going to publish though, you have a responsibility to have the best information. From what we are seeing here, you simply don't. We can look at the James passage in Josephus again. There are nearly no scholars who deny it's authenticity. And there is no reason to suggest that it isn't authentic. Yet you continue to hold onto an idea that you can't support.

Ok let us return to James the brother of Jesus. This passage may be authentic, or it may not. I think it is possible that the "who was called Christ" was possibly an interpolation for the following reason.

Interpolation occurred within Josephus' Antiquities, this fact, I think you will agree with, whether it be vast or minor, alteration to Josephus' work by the Church took place. Let us say for the moment that having added to the Antiquities, the culprits came across a mention of a James the brother of Jesus, would this not be a perfect opportunity to insert "who was called Christ?" You must admit that it is a possibility, especially considering that this work had been altered. Therefore it casts doubt over the "who was called christ" and in so doing, undermines the best evidence test as it relates to this passage.

We need also to consider the socio-political context with regards to such material. It travelled from the first century through a veritable storm of "orthodoxy" inspired obsuration of historical, philosophical and religious documents that conflicted with the church's beliefs. It seems that those documents which could be altered to support the Church's historicity of thier godman were fixed and those that could not, were destroyed.

In the words of Dr. Richard Carrier;

"you are faced with the original problem: Christian literature, and history, holds almost no analogy with any other literature or history we could care to name. From Homer to Tacitus, there is by comparison virtually no such background or context of ideological conflict affecting the texts--affecting not only the doctoring or editing of their content, but their very selection and preservation. Christianity's own history, and above all the nature of Jesus, was the very target of contention here. I cannot think of any comparable problem in ancient history that is as seriously challenged by such biasing of the source material.
Yet the "victorious" sect happened to be historicist. Since that was an accident of their tactics and good fortune, we cannot be entirely confident that the orthodoxy, much less the surviving source material, reflects the truth about Jesus. This is all the more troubling since we know the orthodox sect was credulously eager to latch onto any piece of nonsense that supported their historicist position."

Thus, if the "who was called Christ" was an interpolation, then we are left with two brothers, one of the twenty or so Jesus' mentioned in the antiquities and one of the many James'.

You may argue that Origen mentioned Josephus' Jesus and James passage, yet couldn't this have been altered as well?

Finally, even if this small passage had not been altered, it does not represent direct evidence for an historical Jesus, as some 50 to 60 years had passed before it was written and so Josephus could have been relating that he had heard of a James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, from tradition, but tradition is not always the best form of historical evidence. Especially when it involves legend, at least this is the view of Hegel on the Philosophy of History, pertaining to Original evidence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Finally, even if this small passage had not been altered, it does not represent direct evidence for an historical Jesus, as some 50 to 60 years had passed before it was written and so Josephus could have been relating that he had heard of a James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, from tradition, but tradition is not always the best form of historical evidence. Especially when it involves legend, at least this is the view of Hegel on the Philosophy of History, pertaining to Original evidence.

So which is more accurate =

A work on Abe Lincoln written sixty years after the fact

A work on Abe Lincoln written 106 years after he died

 

[blackout]

I personally can't find any of 'the gospels' useful at all
in any other capacity than that of mythos.

Whatever the historcal basis may or may not be
really makes no difference to me at all.
I have no opinion about it,
as I personally have no basis for an opinion,
and don't care enough
to trouble mySelf about it.

Not like anyone cares.

 

[michaelsherlock]

So which is more accurate =

A work on Abe Lincoln written sixty years after the fact

A work on Abe Lincoln written 106 years after he died

Again, I think we need context here. The time following Abe Lincoln was not the same as the time following the alleged Jesus. (see above quote from Dr Richard Carrier.)

From an historical point of view, generally speaking, the more contemporaneous the source, the better.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From an historical point of view, generally speaking, the more contemporaneous the source, the better.

Yes, a source that has no time to reflect on the placement of the event in history.

(context is important, remember? see above quote by Daddy)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ok let us return to James the brother of Jesus. This passage may be authentic, or it may not.

... which is true of virtually any sentence found in Josephus or, for that matter, any number of other historians of the period.

I think it is possible that the "who was called Christ" was possibly an interpolation for the following reason.

What would consider to be the predominant position on the authenticity of the James reference? (By the way, have you read Whealey?)

 

[michaelsherlock]

which is true of virtually any sentence found in Josephus or, for that matter, any number of other historians of the period.

And that is my only argument. I do not and have not said that Jesus was not an historical figure, I say that he may not have been, for the evidence is not conclusive, that is all! He may have been, and if he was, I doubt he was anything other than a Jewish Heretic who gained a following, like Jiddu Krishnamurti the Indian Heretic, or any of the other Heretics of history. It really does not matter at the end of the day, all that matters is that we foster more uncertainty in the world, for with it comes humility!

What would consider to be the predominant position on the authenticity of the James reference? (By the way, have you read Whealey?)

Most scholars believe that it is genuine. I have not read her book yet but I am very interested now, I checked out the link and articles on it and it sounds really interesting.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Yes, a source that has no time to reflect on the placement of the event in history.

(context is important, remember? see above quote by Daddy)

Time can be a double edged sword with regards to historical analysis. Especially when that time is filled with theological turmoil which inspires fraud, forgery and lies and those who are committing these sins are in control of the academic and political institutions..

 

[Mehr Licht]

According to Origen some of the stories in the Gospels were written with the intent of expressing spiritual teachings in symbolic or allegorical form. Not all of them happened in a historical sense. In fact there are actually disagreements between the accounts given in the four canonical Gospels if they are taken in a strictly literalist /historical manner. That alone should point people in the direction of viewing some of the stories as more symbolic than historical. I think there is some truth to what he was saying in that regard.

The idea that Jesus never existed and that he was totally a mythical creation is something else all together though. That idea seems to be out the mainstream even among secular and non Christian scholars. I did read two books (The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess) that looked at the Gospels from that angle, and while they made some good points (and the books themselves were very interesting) , they really didn't prove their theory to my satisfaction.

 

[fallingblood]

Ok let us return to James the brother of Jesus. This passage may be authentic, or it may not. I think it is possible that the "who was called Christ" was possibly an interpolation for the following reason.

The statement "who was called Christ" is not a Christian phrase. When we do see it used in the NT, it is used by non-followers of Jesus. It is not typical of Christian usage, who for the, Jesus was Christ.

Interpolation occurred within Josephus' Antiquities, this fact, I think you will agree with, whether it be vast or minor, alteration to Josephus' work by the Church took place. Let us say for the moment that having added to the Antiquities, the culprits came across a mention of a James the brother of Jesus, would this not be a perfect opportunity to insert "who was called Christ?" You must admit that it is a possibility, especially considering that this work had been altered. Therefore it casts doubt over the "who was called christ" and in so doing, undermines the best evidence test as it relates to this passage.

Just because there are interpolations in one area of Josephus, does not mean we can rule out this passage as an interpolation. It simply doesn't work like that. Especially, when in the passage that contains interpolations, it is quite clear that they were interpolations. It is also quite clear that Josephus wrote about Jesus anyway, even though someone later added more to that account.

There simply is no reason to think that the "who is called Christ" is a later addition. It fits Josephus perfectly, it is a non-Christian statement, and there really is no evidence that it is an interpolation. Your basic argument then is that if it was possible, it probably happened. And that simply is not a good argument.

We need also to consider the socio-political context with regards to such material. It travelled from the first century through a veritable storm of "orthodoxy" inspired obsuration of historical, philosophical and religious documents that conflicted with the church's beliefs. It seems that those documents which could be altered to support the Church's historicity of thier godman were fixed and those that could not, were destroyed.

Yet we have many documents and manuscripts with their origins from that time that are not in any way orthodoxy. Not to mention that there are things within the NT itself that simply did not fit with the orthodox beliefs that came along. Not to mention that the term "who is called Christ" simply is not a Christian saying, and really, goes against the orthodox view. Thus, your argument here holds no real water.

Also, the church, in defending their orthodox views, didn't usually destroy or tamper with the opposition. Instead, we see many apologetic works arguing against these other works.

In the words of Dr. Richard Carrier;

And he never mentions the Josephus work.

Thus, if the "who was called Christ" was an interpolation, then we are left with two brothers, one of the twenty or so Jesus' mentioned in the antiquities and one of the many James'.

You haven't shown that the "who was called Christ" is an interpolation though. And to base any argument on it being an interpolation, without actually showing that it is an interpolation, is simply dishonest.

You may argue that Origen mentioned Josephus' Jesus and James passage, yet couldn't this have been altered as well?

Do we have any reason to think that it was? No. Josephus could have been a badger with a bad hangover. With out evidence, or an argument to support such, it simply is a ridiculous claim.

Finally, even if this small passage had not been altered, it does not represent direct evidence for an historical Jesus, as some 50 to 60 years had passed before it was written and so Josephus could have been relating that he had heard of a James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, from tradition, but tradition is not always the best form of historical evidence. Especially when it involves legend, at least this is the view of Hegel on the Philosophy of History, pertaining to Original evidence.

Actually, only about 30 years had passed from the time that James was supposedly killed. Josephus was alive at that time, he would have had sources he could consult, and the fact is, most people though that oral sources were more accurate anyway. And yes, there would have been people alive who would have known James, and that James was the brother of Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And that is my only argument.

Which reduces your argument to little more than silly obstinance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most scholars believe that it is genuine.

Why so? Where is their reasoning flawed? And why, in your opinion, is it more reasonable to assume that a 4th century apologist would fabricate such a problematic characterization than it is to provisionally accept the reference as authentic?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Time can be a double edged sword with regards to historical analysis. Especially when that time is filled with theological turmoil which inspires fraud, forgery and lies and those who are committing these sins are in control of the academic and political institutions..

Yes. No sinners exist who are not in control.

All heretics are heroes.

 

[Prophet]

You don't really debate anyone, do you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Someone isn't paying attention.

 

[Prophet]

I was paying enough attention to see that someone disagreeing with you is sufficient grounds for a show of disrespect.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was paying enough attention to see that someone disagreeing with you is sufficient grounds for a show of disrespect.

So you weren't paying attention and therefore you thought that these off-topic comments would be appropriate.

You are embarassing yourself.

 

[Prophet]

You are taking his argument and deliberately distorting it into an easily disprovable statement. This is a common technique employed by debaters who lack the ability to speak intelligently to the detriment of the actual argument. This fallacy is commonly called "attacking a straw man".

Embarrassing, indeed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was paying enough attention to see ...

... what you wanted to see. Do you have a coherent position on the topic that you'd care to share?

 

[michaelsherlock]

Why so? Where is their reasoning flawed? And why, in your opinion, is it more reasonable to assume that a 4th century apologist would fabricate such a problematic characterization than it is to provisionally accept the reference as authentic?

I do not want to go into too much here, but look into the (probable)Eusebian fabrication of the Letters from Jesus to the Syrian King Abgar (Abgar actually means King in Syrian, which is quite funny, so Jesus wrote a letter to King king of Syria); and the letters from this king to Jesus.

Check out Eusebius' use of the Greek term 'Poietes' versus Josephus' and his application of the term 'tribe' versus Josephus'. that should get you started and I am sure that Legion could help you in this regard, as I feel he is a very competant scholar and I use that term to mean well read, especially with regards to Greek and other classical languages.