Re: The invention of Christ


david bazley wrote:
> Dear Thoreau38, (I keep meaning to ask you what on earth that means?)

I'm a fan of the transcendentalist movement, especially Thoreau.

>
>
>
> Look I don't want to be rude but I was hoping to find convincing new
> evidence of the historicity of Jesus Christ. And here you are, an obviously
> highly educated, well read and convinced Christian trotting out all the old
> stuff that is no longer seriously considered by most neutral classical
> scholars. I was really hoping for better things from youL


I have to say I was quite disappointed by the tone of your response,
all the more disappointing after previously being excited by what
seemed to be the beginning of an honest and open discussion on the
subject. Let me clarify - I am not a Christian. I was raised in the
Disciples of Christ church, a fairly liberal denomination and (as
evident by my denial above) my beliefs do not correspond to the faith's
official doctrine (so please no more of the brainwashing rhetoric i.e.
"woven into the fabric of their undeveloped brains")
As for the beliefs of "neutral classical scholars" - the last published
survey I'm aware of done on the matter was by Louis H. Feldman,
surveying relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in his book _Josephus
and Modern Scholarship_. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the
Testimonium Flavianum (josephus' ch. 18 reference to jesus-TF here on
out) as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some
interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as
being totally an interpolation. Clearly the majority believes the
passage is partly authentic, which was my previously expressed belief.
Since then, out of the 13 books on the subject published since then, 10
find it to be partially authentic with only 3 considering it a complete
fraud - all three of which also firmly denied the existence of Jesus
whatsoever (suggesting a strong disconnect with the views of academia
and imho, a clear bias).

>
>
>
> But you have at least succeeded in forcing me to blow the dust off some old
> books that I have not looked at for a very long time, including even the
> NT - so I am taking you quite seriously and hence the delayJ
>
> Forgive me if I do not reply to you in detail, my time is very limited. But
> I will just take one example, Josephus and other Jewish historians: Surely
> to goodness you cannot still believe that the famous statement found in
> Josephus' writings: "At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed
> one might call him a man." etc. was written by him. I mean that's really
> grasping at straws.

As I stated before, I believe it is authentic with
interpolations/additions, as do most scholars. So yes, clearly some of
those phrases are later additions - and recent discoveries have made
this view even more plausible - most notably the relatively recent
discovery of an alternative arabic version of the josephus' antiquities
by shlomo pines which had the TF but lacked the above mentioned obvious
interpolations - available here:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

>
>
>
> May I quote from a book that I am currently reading, The Jesus Mysteries,
> which puts it rather better than I can:
>
>
>
> "For hundreds of years these passages in Josephus were sized on by Christian
> historians as conclusive proof that Jesus existed. That is, until scholars
> began to examine the text a little more critically. No serious scholar now
> believes that these passages were actually written by Josephus. They have
> been clearly identified as much later additions. They are not of the same
> writing style as Josephus and if they are removed from the text, Josephus'
> original argument runs on in proper sequence. Writing at the beginning of
> the third century, Origen, whom modern authorities regard as one of the most
> conscientious scholars of the ancient church, tells us that there is no
> mention of Jesus in Josephus and that Josephus did not believe that Jesus
> was the Christ since he did not believe in any Jewish messiah figure..

This puts a very strong spin on the subject which I think could
properly labeled an outright lie. Origen does not "tell us that there
is no mention of Jesus in Josephus" - he simply fails to explicitly
mention the TF. Freke and Gandy have failed to tell you that Origen
does in fact make reference to Jesus mention in Josephus - but refers
to a passage in Chapter 20 of antiquities where jesus is mentioned in
passing as the brother of James. Origen's reference as all the other
facts I've given in this response are available on Peter Kirby's (a
xian turned atheist - yes it does happen) website
www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html. I would think Freke
and Gandy's misleading statements and outright lies should cause you to
seriously question their work and look for second opinions. Kirby would
seem to agree: "In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far
as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has
authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed."

Kirby's site also gives a detailed coverage - quoting scholars on both
sides of the argument- of the Origen dilemma which I would strongly
recommend. To summarize, Origen does say a number of times that
Josephus did not accept Jesus as the messiah, which many scholars
interpret as a reference to the TF since there is no other passage
where he could have gotten this from. It's also hypothesized that
Origen (and other apologists) would fail to explicitly mention the TF
because in all likelihood it's original version was strongly critical
and insulting of Jesus- Josephus displays a clear disdain for messianic
movements of all varieties throughout his history and it's only
reasonable to assume his treatment of Jesus, whose heresy had become
the dominant messianic mvmt. in josephus time, would be especially
vitriolic. As noted by Alan Humm, the scholar who runs the above linked
site at upenn.edu Origen also refers to a statement by Josephus (not
present in our versions) "that it is as punishment for the execution of
James that Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. The possibility
suggests itself that even Origen's Josephus has undergone Christian
reworking, simply of a different variety, in which, perhaps, the
insulting Testimonium has been expunged, and James has been introduced
as a pious Jewish hero." There's a variety of explanations that more
than suffice to explain these controversies- and origen's reference to
josephus disbelief is imho view a confirmation that some form of the TF
is authentic. In order to pre-empt an argument you hopefully will read
on kirby's site - origen does use mildly derogatory passages in
josephus to support john the baptist's existence, but I would guess
that the reference to Jesus in the TF was more insulting than this and
so abandoned since Origen could simply make reference to the much more
civil reference in ch. 20, making the TF and it's negativity entirely
unnecessary. If nothing else, I'd say trust the dominant view of
academia on the subject - that the TF is authentic with later
interpolations.


>
> Early Christians who, like us, searched for historical evidence of Jesus'
> existence, would have seized on anything written by Josephus as conclusive
> proof. Yet early Christians do not mention Josephus. It is not until the
> beginning of the fourth century that Bishop Eusebius, the propagandist of
> the Roman Church, suddenly produced a version of Josephus that contained
> these passages. From that point onwards, Josephus became the foundation for
> the historicity of Jesus"
>
>
>
> And what about other Jewish historians such as Philo, an eminent Jewish
> author who lived at the same time as Jesus is supposed to have lived and
> wrote around 50 works that still survive. They tell us a great deal about
> Pontius Pilate, but make no mention of Jesus. How is that possible?
>
> Or a contemporary of Philo, Justus of Tiberias, who was also a Jew and lived
> near Capernaum, where Jesus was often said to have stayed. He wrote a
> history that began with Moses and extended to his own times. But again no
> mention of Jesus!

The mvmt around Jesus, as pointed out even in the NT, was extremely
small and lacked serious influence until, (coincidince? hmm..) josephus
time. So, it's argued by most that earlier historians would have
neglected him, as they did most messianic movements of the time,
because he lacked any significance or uniqueness in the big picture.
It's also important to note whether those historians make mention of
messianic movements at all - in many cases it may be that this was
simply not their focus. In addition to all this, you have to consider
the possible biases of each author - a devout jew who strictly followed
the law of the torah would obviously not deem the radical jesus, a
heretic in many's opinion, worthy of mention.

>
>
/snipped condescension
>
>
>
> However, my door is always open to new evidence, I would like to find the
> real JC too - but I'm not holding my breath.

What about the dominus flevit inscriptions, the ordinance of caesar at
nazareth, and all the other evidence I mentioned?


Hoping we can continue this sans the condescension,

matt

>
>
>
> Baz
>
>
>
>
> "thoreau38" <thehipi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1130787041.634136.198950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > david bazley wrote:
> > > Dear Thoreau38,
> > >
> > > Recently I stood on the great stage of the ancient Greek amphitheatre in
> > > Ephesus, on the very same marble slabs that Paul had once stood when
> > > addressing the unresponsive truculent Attis worshippers of that city
> (they
> > > apparently didn't turn to Christianity until several hundred years
> later). I
> > > found that experience thrilling because I love Greek and Roman history
> and I
> > > have little difficulty in believing that Paul actually existed (because
> > > there is so much convincing evidence) and believed in Jesus Christ, or
> > > rather his spiritual version of JC, with incredible passion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So the reason why I asked my original question is that I can find little
> > > evidence of the same compelling quality for the existence of JC. But I
> would
> > > love to be wrong because although I am an atheist I would actually like
> to
> > > discover authentic evidence to indicate JCs true historicity. So
> although we
> > > are coming from different directions, we are both in a way on the same
> side;
> > > we both want the story to be true. So why not humour me instead of
> getting
> > > all testy and irritable?
> >
> > Point taken - I certainly didn't intend to come off this way (though
> > admittedly I did) - so I apologize.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since you mentioned Paul as evidence for the historicity of JC and since
> we
> > > both believe he actually existed, then let us continue with him. And yes
> all
> > > the classical scholars (not just committed Christians) tell us that he
> wrote
> > > some of the earliest Christian documents predating the rest of the NT by
> > > many years. And yes he certainly does talk about JC all the time. So he
> is a
> > > good choice, probably the best choice in fact.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However the trouble appears to be that just as God sexed up the story of
> WMD
> > > when talking to Bush and Blair, he also sexed up what he told the early
> > > Christian scribes when they translated dear old Paul. Nobody now is
> really
> > > sure what is genuine and what is falsified in Paul's writings; you
> believe
> > > what you want to believe, although there are lots of expert opinions.
> Even
> > > so Paul says nothing about the historical literal Jesus whatsoever, only
> the
> > > mystical Jesus and the resurrection. Nowhere does he link JC with any
> time
> > > or place and he doesn't mention Jerusalem or Pilate. Yet according to
> your
> > > version of history the crucifixion only happened a few years before,
> within
> > > the lifetime of many witnesses! Can you therefore understand my
> scepticism?
> > > Please try to convince me a little harder. Where is the evidence?
> > >
> > > Baz
> >
> > The reason I've heard given for why Paul doesn't ever recount the story
> > (which seemed quite plausible to me) is that these were letters to
> > people who were already familiar with the story and so wouldn't need or
> > want to hear it repeated, instead seeking elaboration of doctrine,
> > guidance on how to operate as a church within the context of the larger
> > society, etc. Paul - trying to hype up the faith and maintain adherents
> > - would focus on the more universal aspects of the story most likely to
> > do this - the resurrection, salvation, etc. Paul does make reference to
> > Christ's crucifixion and his suffering, blood, etc - i.e. Gal 6:12 As
> > many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to
> > be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross
> > of Christ - as well as a reference to the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians,
> > both letters commonly believed to be authentic. These are statements
> > that can only refer to a material, mortal Jew living under Roman rule
> > and the Eucharist bit would affirm either an oral or literary tradition
> > about the life and sayings of Christ existed previous to the letters
> > composition. I think stronger evidence for the historicity of Jesus
> > exists in the gospels, the existence of a xian church in Jerusalem led
> > by James immediately following Christ's death, and the small amount of
> > archaeological evidence. The dominus flevit inscriptions are strong
> > evidence imo, with inscriptions like Jesus, have mercy," and "Jesus,
> > remember me in the resurrection," dating to the early 1st century in a
> > mixed catacomb in Jerusalem w/ Jewish and xian ossuaries. There's also
> > an ordinance discovered at Nazareth with a Caesar's order to not
> > disturb or remove buried bodies. Most interpet the stone as a reference
> > to Jesus and the controvery that arose between xians and Jews who
> > claimed that early xians removed Jesus' body. Both finds are given a
> > bit more elaboration (w/ reference) here:
> > http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/x-outof-nt.txt. The gospels recount
> > an innovative and radical philosophy which has a unified tone (and so
> > the composite preacher hypothesis fails in my view) - _someone_ must
> > have preached these ideas. There's the josephus references, even if you
> > reject the Testimonium (imo, it has interpolations, but the shlomo
> > pines version affirms it's general authenticity) there's the reference
> > in chapter 20. Josephus generally displays a high regard for truth and
> > states explicitly that he had full access to the roman records of the
> > time (his histories were funded by the emperor), which would have
> > confirmed or denied the existence of such a character. The talmud,
> > based on traditions passed down for centuries, chooses to mock/insult
> > the story of Jesus instead of wholly discounting it, another piece of
> > evidence for his historicity since the rabbis (who display a clear
> > hatred for the character) would have preferred the latter, more solid
> > refutation if it was deemed believable. I'm guessing none of this is
> > new to you, but essentially, I'd argue that the historicity of jesus
> > should be taken as fact because it's by far the most reasonable
> > explanation of all this evidence.
> >
> > Interested to hear your opinion on all this,
> > matt
> >

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Islam/Christianity
    ... Which is analogous to saying if you presuppose that Jesus was not ... questions of historicity. ... As was the case with Deedat, you want Christian ... Mark" (which has a portion where Jesus tells a young boy to take off ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Are the New Testament miracles plausible?
    ... If I found incontrovertable proof that Jesus did not in fact die on the ... she starts with two references in Josephus' Antiquities. ... was still friendly with the Christians and Jewish Christians. ... An issue overhanging our topic is the detection of Christian ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Would historians consider that Jesus related to the tumultuous times he lived in?
    ... Antiquities_20.9.1 speaks of James "brother of Jesus ... quote Josephus, and none of them mention this section despite them being ... have been made by a Christian interpolator. ... Eusebius, however, in c.324 does have the passage as quoted ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Zero Points?
    ... evidence for Napoleon's existence. ... I'm not saying there never was a Jesus, ... The early Christian movement must have ... Vermes seems pretty convinced of the historicity, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Would historians consider that Jesus related to the tumultuous times he lived in?
    ... Antiquities_20.9.1 speaks of James "brother of Jesus ... He was the Messiah [variant, ... quote Josephus, and none of them mention this section despite them being ... have been made by a Christian interpolator. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)