Why The Gospels Are Myth

[bornagainathiest]

To Brother Jeff and Directionless...

 

 

I've taken a careful look at Sextus' input here and also Tim's blog and I can imagine just how valuable he's been to you guys.

 

For the record, I most certainly do NOT want to put him on ignore and would be delighted to engage in a fruitful dialog with him.

 

.

.

.

Ooops!

 

Here's the man, now.

[bornagainathiest]

Good to see you back, BAA!  Hope you're close to kicking that cold/flu.

 

90% there, F.  

[Sextus]

[

His point was that sayings that were floating around from John the Baptist were likely confused with sayings from Jesus, after they were both dead, due to the fact that some people had associated John and Jesus for reasons stated in the verses sited. And he argued this because John was an ascetic doomsday personality but Jesus didn't appear to be ascetic at all. So the doomsday material, per the argument, is likely not from Jesus because it's ascetic doomsday material. That doesn't appear to be a strange misinterpretation.

I have no idea why ApostateAbe conflated "asceticism" with "apocalypticism". One doesn't have to go with the other. Some of the gospel traditions about John indicate that he was a desert ascetic, but if all we had was the mention of John in Josephus no-one would think he was an ascetic at all. But the argument that "Jesus was not an ascetic so he was not an apocalyptic prophet" is a complete non sequitur. He could have been both, like John seems to have been. Or he could have been one or the other. He seems to have been an apocalyptic prophet but not an ascetic, at least not the way John was.

 

How this somehow means Jesus didn't exist and was somehow an amalgam of people like John I have no idea. The whole idea is totally incoherent.

 

Wouldn't people thinking John had resurrected as Jesus, first of all, be a confusion of the two as if they were one, and secondly, be cause to have their different sayings confused later on down the road due to the close association that the two previously shared which would have possibly feed the quote books or oral tradition that the later Gospel writers drew their sources from?

Sorry, but I can't see how people mistaking Jesus for a risen John in a story about Jesus can somehow become evidence that Jesus didn't exist and was an amalgam of people like John. As I noted, what the John and Jesus stories actually indicate is that the gospel writers were desperately trying to make John subordinate to Jesus and were having some difficulty doing so. That indicates that historically both John and Jesus had memories and traditions about them after their deaths and the gospel writers had a tricky time trying to reconcile them.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Sextus/Tim

 

There's an old saying you may or may not be aware of: You catch more bees with honey.

 

[Joshpantera]

Tim, there's two separate issues at play. 

 

The debate was not Apostate Abe against mythicism, it was Apostate Abe claiming the pro position that Jesus was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet or preacher. 

 

The con position was simply to show that Abe's assertions don't hold up to scrutiny. It wasn't to prove Jesus was not historical. As you can see the con position was that if both John and Jesus were historical, then it's likely that the doomsday material attributed to Jesus was incorrectly attributed to Jesus because he did not have the tell tale signs of a doomsday prophet, while John did. And he claims that 2/3rds of Jesus Scholars also take that position. This would be conflating things that John would have said with Jesus. So the con used it as part of claiming that the Jesus in scripture seems to be an amalgamation. He also used all of the condemned prophet types that are mentioned by the Jews who seem to contribute in parts to the creation of the Jesus story as well, furthering his argument that Apostate Abe does has not found the real Jesus of history, an apocalyptic preacher who settles the issue of who the real Jesus was. 

 

I only linked this debate to show that the claim that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher is questionable, not the most likely or parsimonious theory. The truth behind it all still seems to elude us.....

[Sextus]

Perhaps this article will be of some interest on the topic:

 

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'

 

Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.

 

The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.

 

He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.

Full article:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

 

Yes, well this is a perfect example of the kind of appalling "bad atheist history" I was referring to above. This so-called "discovery" by a so-called "historical researcher" is supposedly based on his analysis of "126 texts he studied ... all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus". Well, that certainly sounds impressive, unless you actually know anything about the supposed "126 texts" that this guy is supposed to have "studied".

 

The 126 writers that he claims should have mentioned Jesus but didn't is basically a list of pretty much every single writer we know of from the beginning of the first century to the end of the third. It's not just a list of people whose writings we have, it's also a list of anyone we know did any kind of writing about anything at all in that 300 year period. That includes people whose writings are quoted or even just mentioned in other texts but which we don't have.

 

Which brings us to the first problem with Paulkovich's "discovery" - he can't have "studied the texts" of writers for whom we have no texts. In fact, 47 of the 126 texts he claims to have studied don't exist. When cornered over this in the last couple of days, Paulkovich dodged via a very strange argument. He said that if these writers had mentioned Jesus, Christian writers would have cited them and preserved their works. So the fact they weren't preserved means they didn't. Two problems here: (i) this assumes these mentions were somehow complimentary or neutral and not abusive or condemnatory (why would Christians preserve the latter?) and (ii) it assumes that no Christian texts have been lost down the centuries, which we know isn't true.

 

That aside, there is a more ridiculous problem with this thesis. If you look at the writers he says "should" have mentioned Jesus you find everyone from authors on gynaecology to writers on aqueducts and military strategy. Sulpicia is listed as someone who "should" have mentioned Jesus, despite the fact all we have from her is just two lines of erotic verse. We have a bit more from Apollonius Dyscolus - four books. But they are on Greek grammar and syntax. Still, that's better than what we have for Decimus Valerius Asiaticus, whose sole surviving writing is a letter to the local authorities about a stolen pig. No, I'm not making this up.

 

It doesn't take much critical thought to see that this argument is completely ridiculous - it's like saying I've scanned a selection of books on mathematics, knitting patterns and beekeeping and found no mention of Barak Obama, so clearly he doesn't exist.

 

What this "researcher" seems to be trying to do (and failing miserably) is make what historians call "an argument from silence". Imagine I want to check my grandfather's claim that he once met Winston Churchill. I discover my grandfather kept a daily journal from 1933 to his death in 1985, but when I read his journal I find no mention of him even travelling to the UK, let alone meeting Churchill. Naturally, his journal should at least mention something as remarkable as meeting Churchill, so I can make a strong argument from silence that my grandfather was lying.

 

The key word there is the word should. It makes no sense that writers of erotic verse, gynaecology or letters about stolen pigs should, somehow, also mention some Jewish peasant preacher, so most of Paulkovich's "126 texts" argument is total irrelevant nonsense.

 

But even if we winnow his list down to the (actually surprisingly few) historians on it, his argument still doesn't stack up. Historians are selective about who and what they write about now and were then as well. Not surprisingly, most Greek and Roman historians on the first three centuries AD were interested in Greek and Roman history. And even then they were interested mainly in the big important stuff: wars, battles, emperors, uprisings, disasters, aristocratic scandals etc. Virtually none of them had any interest in the obscure doings of the Jews - who were considered a weird people at the edge of the Empire. Of Paulkovich's 127 writers, only about four or five mention Jewish affairs at all, even in passing.

 

So why "should" they have mentioned Jesus? Paulkovich seems to think they "should" have done so if Jesus did the things that the gospels claim he did - raising the dead and walking on water. That's debateable, since it's not like this stuff was broadcast on CNN for Vellius Paterculus and Virgil to watch over in Rome. But this is another case of a Jesus Mythicist muddling up an argument against the Jesus of the gospels with an argument against any historical Jesus at all. If, as most non-Christian scholars agree, Jesus was simply a peasant preacher, which aristocratic Greek and Roman historians can we expect to have paid any attention to him? We can answer that question by looking at which ones paid any attention to any other first century Jewish preachers.

 

How many is that? One.

 

Who? Josephus.

 

And Josephus DOES mention Jesus - twice.

 

Of course, Paulkovich takes the usual Mythicist route of rejecting the scholarly consensus and claiming that both references to Jesus in Josephus are wholesale forgeries. He also rejects the overwhelming scholarly consensus and also claims this about the reference to Jesus in Tacitus. Leaving that aside (I'll be coming back to those references in later posts), his "126 texts" claims is nonsense, his argument from silence is ridiculous and his whole "discovery" (so-called by a tabloid newspaper and some websites that should know better) is total garbage.

 

Beware bad history.

[Overcame Faith]

Yes, well this is a perfect example of the kind of appalling "bad atheist history" I was referring to above. This so-called "discovery" by a so-called "historical researcher" is supposedly based on his analysis of "126 texts he studied were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus". Well, that certainly sounds impressive, unless you actually know anything about the supposed "126 texts" that this guy is supposed to have "studied".

 

The 126 writers that he claims should have mentioned Jesus but didn't is basically a list of pretty much every single writer we know of from the beginning of the first century to the end of the third. It's not just a list of people whose writings we have, it's also a list of anyone we know did any kind of writing about anything at all in that 300 year period. That includes people whose writings are quoted or even just mentioned in other texts but which we don't have.

 

Which brings us to the first problem with Paulkovich's "discovery" - he can't have "studied the texts" of writers for whom we have no texts. In fact, 47 of the 126 texts he claims to have studied don't exist. When cornered over this in the last couple of days, Paulkovich dodged via a very strange argument. He said that if these writers had mentioned Jesus, Christian writers would have cited them and preserved their works. So the fact they weren't preserved means they didn't. Two problems here: (i) this assumes these mentions were somehow complimentary or neutral and not abusive or condemnatory (why would Christians preserve the latter?) and (ii) it assumes that no Christian texts have been lost down the centuries, which we know isn't true.

 

That aside, there is a more ridiculous problem with this thesis. If you look at the writers he says "should" have mentioned Jesus you find everyone from authors on gynaecology to writers on aqueducts and military strategy. Sulpicia is listed as someone who "should" have mentioned Jesus, despite the fact all we have from her is just two lines of erotic verse. We have a bit more from Apollonius Dyscolus - four books. But they are on Greek grammar and syntax. Still, that's better than what we have for Decimus Valerius Asiaticus, whose sole surviving writing is a letter to the local authorities about a stolen pig. No, I'm not making this up.

 

It doesn't take much critical thought to see that this argument is completely ridiculous - it's like saying I've scanned a selection of books on mathematics, knitting patterns and beekeeping and found no mention of Barak Obama, so clearly he doesn't exist.

 

What this "researcher" seems to be trying to do (and failing miserably) is make what historians call "an argument from silence". Imagine I want to check my grandfather's claim that he once met Winston Churchill. I discover my grandfather kept a daily journal from 1933 to his death in 1985, but when I read his journal I find no mention of him even travelling to the UK, let alone meeting Churchill. Naturally, his journal should at least mention something as remarkable as meeting Churchill, so I can make a strong argument from silence that my grandfather was lying.

 

The key word there is the word [i[should[/i]. I makes no sense that writers of erotic verse, gynaecology or letters about stolen pigs should, somehow, also mention some Jewish peasant preacher, so most of Paulkovich's "126 texts" argument is total irrelevant nonsense.

 

But even if we winnow his list down to the (actually surprisingly few) historians on it, his argument still doesn't stack up. Historians are selective about who and what they write about now and were then as well. Not surprisingly, most Greek and Roman historians on the first three centuries AD were interested in Greek and Roman history. And even then they were interested mainly in the big important stuff: wars, battles, emperors, uprisings, disasters, aristocratic scandals etc. Virtually none of them has any interest in the obscure doings of the Jews - who were considered a weird people at the edge of the Empire. Of Paulkovich's 127 writers, only about four or five mention Jewish affairs even in passing.

 

So why "should" they have mentioned Jesus? Paulkovich seems to think they "should" have done so if Jesus did the things that the gospels claim he did - raising the dead and walking on water. That's debateable, since it's not like this stuff was broadcast on CNN for Vellius Paterculus and Virgil to watch over in Rome. But this is another case of a Jesus Mythicist muddling up an argument against the Jesus of the gospels with an argument against any historical Jesus at all. If, as most non-Christian scholars agree, Jesus was simply a peasant preacher, which aristocratic Greek and Roman historians can we expect to have paid any attention to them? We can answer that question by looking at which ones paid any attention to any other first century Jewish preachers.

 

How many is that? One.

 

Who? Josephus.

 

And Josephus DOES mention Jesus - twice.

 

Of course, Paulkovich takes the usual Mythicist route of rejecting the scholarly consensus and claiming that both references to Jesus in Josephus are wholesale forgeries. He also rejects the overwhelming scholarly consensus and also claims this about the reference to Jesus in Tacitus. Leaving that aside (I'll be coming back to those references in later posts), his "126 texts" claims is nonsense, his argument from silence is ridiculous and his whole "discovery" (so-called by a tabloid newspaper and some websites that should know better) is total garbage.

 

Beware bad history.

Thank-you, Sextus. That's a very interesting perspective on the article and the "discovery".

 

I am looking forward to reading why you seem to accept the mention of Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

 

Tim has presented ample evidence that a historical Jesus existed. Two mentions in Josephus and one mention in Tacitus is enough for me personally

I agree with you, Bro Jeff, and many others that the problems in the gospels create confidence that the dogmatic claims of orthodox Christianity are false.  I would appreciate hearing more from Tim and/or others about why we should accept the TF in Josephus and the reference in Tacitus as reliable evidence about a historical Jesus.

 

I have read a decent amount about the Testimonium Flavianum, i.e. the account of the ministry and execution of Jesus in Antiquities 18.63-64, although much less than what has been published.  I won't rehash all the arguments I've encountered.  I'll just say that it seems fishy to me that Josephus would consider the affair of Jesus as one of the "outrages" suffered by the Jews at the hands of Pilate.  "Outrage" is Louis Feldman's translation of the words that introduce the NEXT event in Josephus' presentation.  Right after the bit about Jesus, the text continues, "About this time another outrage threw the Jews into an uproar ... " (Ant. 18.65).  One would think that the words, "another outrage," imply that the immediately preceding events were too an outrage.  But why would Josephus present the affair of Jesus as a member of a list of outrages suffered by the Jews?  The narrative flows seamlessly from the end of 18.62, "Thus ended the uprising," to the beginning of 18.65, "About this time... etc."  Even if you take out the phrases that are obvious candidates for excision as interpolated ("This one was the messiah," etc.), the remaining parts seem "off" enough that it's rational to doubt their authenticity, as I see it.  I believe Feldman expresses more skepticism about the TF now than he did when he published the translation (Loeb) that I quote above.

 

As to Tacitus (the so-called Testimonium Taciteum), in Annales 15.44 we read how Nero punished the followers, "Chrestianos," of a certain Christus, etc.  Again, this whole passage fits with difficulty into the narrative context - here, the account of the great fire of Rome.  Wm. Benjamin Smith long ago ("The Silence of Josephus and Tacitus," The Monist 20 [1910] 515-50) argued that this passage was inserted into a manuscript of Tacitus as an embellishment of an account in Sulpicius Severus, a Christian writer of around 400.  I understand that Richard Carrier has an article arguing the same thesis coming out in Vigiliae Christianae (unless it's already out).  I won't go into all the details, but there was a detailed thread on this passage over on earlywritings.com:

 

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=344&hilit=sulpicius+severus&start=10

 

The gist of the "interpolation" position is that this passage too breaks up the narrative, introduces strange details, and looks more like an expansion of Sulpicius than Sulpicius looks like a condensation of it.  I did a good deal of searching on JSTOR for recent defenses of the authenticity of this passage but didn't find much.  Perhaps Tim or others know of some academic publications that defend the TT successfully.

 

--------------------------------

 

Adding:  Tim, this person, LK, disagrees with your view of the TT:

 

http://thoughtsphilosophyculture.blogspot.com/2014/03/is-tacitus-annales-1544-independent-non.html

 

LK argues, not that the passage is interpolated, but that Tacitus' info came from Christians - maybe funneled through Pliny.  T's witness, then, would not be independent.  LK thinks Josephus' death somewhere between 95 and 105 is too early for confidence that Tacitus used Josephus as a source about Jesus in this part of the Annales, which came out around 120.

 

 

Yes, thank you Ficino for taking this to the depth of the arguing that represent where the mythicists are at with  all of this. 

 

I suppose that Bro Jeff and others who are unfamiliar with the history of mythicism would gladly accept Tim pointing out the TF, and TT as credible evidence simply because of not having been familiar with them from the outset. It's like considering that guys like Carrier might have a point, then seeing the usual evidence claimed as secular support, and then simply stopping there thinking that the burden of proof has been satisfied. 

 

No, far from it. 

 

You see, all, the whole reason that there is a mythicist position is because of the fact that some people began to really question the authenticity of the Gospels, and of things like the TF and TT. That's why Bart Ehrman's book was such a fail when it comes to addressing the issue. His evidence for Jesus is the very same material that serves as a launching point for skepticism. These passages do seem to break the flow of the narrative, regardless of the whether the person interpolating consciously used patterns that Josephus was known to use as part of the interpolation.

 

I can imagine that if I were to insert something into a quote from Tim then I'd probably make the effort to try and mimic Tim's writing style to some degree, for the sake of trying to make it authentic. Even if what I said was something contrary to what we'd expect of Tim. What if I wanted to make Tim approve of the mythical Jesus Theory well after Tim was dead, as if it were Tim who wrote it? And then future scholars elimated the obvious parts that Tim would not have said, in favor of mythicism, but then left the other parts that I interpolated which did seem likely that Tim would have written, even though it was I who wrote all of it? 

 

Then you'd get the Testimonium Timothium. lol !!!!!!

 

No, seriously though, these references supposedly about Jesus are simply the starting line for skepticism, not the grand finale that settle the issue........

[directionless]

What is the time range when the historical references to Jesus by Josephus could have inserted? I believe Sextus said that Origin quoted one of these references to Jesus.

 

Why would somebody in that time period insert references to Jesus in Josephus (and Origin too apparently)? I can see a motive for harmonizing secular references to Jesus with the gospel accounts, but I don't see a motive for inserting them to justify the historicity of Jesus when nobody was questioning that.

 

Or maybe somebody was questioning the historicity of Jesus in antiquity?

[bornagainathiest]

My thanks to Sextus for the excellent idea of a "Historical Jesus for New Atheists" site.

 

If it existed, it would be an invaluable resource for those few deconverting from Christianity who have what it takes to benefit from it.  

 

Since it doesn't exist, then I guess everyone else (the vast majority) will just have to keep on stumbling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brother Jeff]

My thanks to Sextus for the excellent idea of a "Historical Jesus for New Atheists" site.

 

If it existed, it would be an invaluable resource for those few deconverting from Christianity who have what it takes to benefit from it.  

 

Since it doesn't exist, then I guess everyone else (the vast majority) will just have to keep on stumbling.

 

I would be happy to create such a glorious site but... I don't have the time or the knowledge to do it right now. I already have more than I can handle in life on my plate right now -- a website, Ex-C and all that happens here, a busy Facebook life, my budding health coaching business and three business courses I am taking for it (two self-paced and one not, which I am behind in), and other shit to take care of in life too. And I take all of the "fun" time I need without apology. I really don't have time for this thread or this discussion, but I'm interested enough to try to keep up with it anyway. I don't personally really give a shit if Jesus existed or not, though I think the evidence that he did is strong as evidence from ancient history goes. But the man has been dead now for 2000 years. This is important stuff for people just getting free of the cult, though, so somebody who has the time and knowledge should build such a site. I will beseech the Lard that it will be done. Glory!

 

And btw, yes, my plate is very full for a chronically sleep-deprived guy who has bipolar disorder. It is only because of the LARD and His magical power if my life and the Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically empowering my inner spook that I am able to keep my shit together reasonably well. I bless the Lard every day and pray in the Spook without ceasing! Glory!

[Sextus]

My thanks to Sextus for the excellent idea of a "Historical Jesus for New Atheists" site.

 

If it existed, it would be an invaluable resource for those few deconverting from Christianity who have what it takes to benefit from it.  

 

Since it doesn't exist, then I guess everyone else (the vast majority) will just have to keep on stumbling.

Well maybe I could write a series of posts on relevant subjects on this forum and use them as the basis for the site. That way I can get suggestions for relevant topics and make use of feedback from curious ex-Christians. It's been 30 years since I deconverted, so I'm likely to overlook questions that many here may find genuine perplexing - e.g. how do scholars use the gospels to try to determine things about the origins of Christianity despite the fact they aren't literally true and are full of supernatural events that couldn't have happened?

 

I'm open to suggestions about topics to cover.

[sdelsolray]

 

My thanks to Sextus for the excellent idea of a "Historical Jesus for New Atheists" site.

 

If it existed, it would be an invaluable resource for those few deconverting from Christianity who have what it takes to benefit from it.  

 

Since it doesn't exist, then I guess everyone else (the vast majority) will just have to keep on stumbling.

Well maybe I could write a series of posts on relevant subjects on this forum and use them as the basis for the site. That way I can get suggestions for relevant topics and make use of feedback from curious ex-Christians. It's been 30 years since I deconverted, so I'm likely to overlook questions that many here may find genuine perplexing - e.g. how do scholars use the gospels to try to determine things about the origins of Christianity despite the fact they aren't literally true and are full of supernatural events that couldn't have happened?

 

I'm open to suggestions about topics to cover.

 

Sorry to "barge in" again, but consider reverse engineering, for lack of a better description.  What parts, phrases, sentences, chapters, words, etc. of the Bible are supernatural bullshit?  What's left after that?

 

If Thomas Jefferson could do it, I'm sure you can.

[Sextus]

Sorry to "barge in" again, but consider reverse engineering, for lack of a better description.  What parts, phrases, sentences, chapters, words, etc. of the Bible are supernatural bullshit?  What's left after that?

Pardon? The whole process of determining what elements in the traditions may have a historical basis is this kind of "reverse engineering". I think you'll find scholars have been doing this for a couple of centuries now. Though I'm not sure I actually understand what exactly you're trying to say.

[Brother Jeff]

 

My thanks to Sextus for the excellent idea of a "Historical Jesus for New Atheists" site.

 

If it existed, it would be an invaluable resource for those few deconverting from Christianity who have what it takes to benefit from it.  

 

Since it doesn't exist, then I guess everyone else (the vast majority) will just have to keep on stumbling.

Well maybe I could write a series of posts on relevant subjects on this forum and use them as the basis for the site. That way I can get suggestions for relevant topics and make use of feedback from curious ex-Christians. It's been 30 years since I deconverted, so I'm likely to overlook questions that many here may find genuine perplexing - e.g. how do scholars use the gospels to try to determine things about the origins of Christianity despite the fact they aren't literally true and are full of supernatural events that couldn't have happened?

 

I'm open to suggestions about topics to cover.

 

 

I think a general outline of the real scholarship on who the historical Jesus actually was would be very helpful, as would your articles that you have already written countering "Jesus Myth" claims and other fringe bullshit. An overview of the Gospels and what real scholars who are professionals at this stuff generally accept as factual and historical from them and what is bullshit (such as the supernatural stuff) would be helpful too. I've been free from the cult for almost 15 years now, and those are subjects I personally would love to see covered for my own education. I hardly ever read the Bible anymore for any reason, and I haven't laid eyes on any of the gospel books in well over a year. I'm interested in this stuff still. I just don't have much time right now for Bible reading.

[directionless]

 

 

My thanks to Sextus for the excellent idea of a "Historical Jesus for New Atheists" site.

 

If it existed, it would be an invaluable resource for those few deconverting from Christianity who have what it takes to benefit from it.  

 

Since it doesn't exist, then I guess everyone else (the vast majority) will just have to keep on stumbling.

Well maybe I could write a series of posts on relevant subjects on this forum and use them as the basis for the site. That way I can get suggestions for relevant topics and make use of feedback from curious ex-Christians. It's been 30 years since I deconverted, so I'm likely to overlook questions that many here may find genuine perplexing - e.g. how do scholars use the gospels to try to determine things about the origins of Christianity despite the fact they aren't literally true and are full of supernatural events that couldn't have happened?

 

I'm open to suggestions about topics to cover.

 

 

I think a general outline of the real scholarship on who the historical Jesus actually was would be very helpful, as would your articles that you have already written countering "Jesus Myth" claims and other fringe bullshit. An overview of the Gospels and what real scholars who are professionals at this stuff generally accept as factual and historical from them and what is bullshit (such as the supernatural stuff) would be helpful too. I've been free from the cult for almost 15 years now, and those are subjects I personally would love to see covered for my own education. I hardly ever read the Bible anymore for any reason, and I haven't laid eyes on any of the gospel books in well over a year. I'm interested in this stuff still. I just don't have much time right now for Bible reading.

 

Some other topics I would be curious about:

- evolution of Judaism from beginning to Jesus showing how the rituals and ideas changed

- the relationship if any between the Essenes, Ebionites, and early Christians

[Blood]

I actually believe that Tacitus is the best argument for a historical Jesus, and claiming that it's an interpolation is just cheating. It infuriates me, too, when atheists do this. The theologians use this same trick to dismiss passages inconvenient to them. What Tacitus is credited writing there makes complete historical and literary sense for a Roman of his time and stature -- unlike, say, the Pauline epistles, which make no sense at all from a Jewish perspective. 

 

But Tacitus did not understand the different religious subcultures of Rome, and had no idea that their scriptures existed, much less read them and tried to understand them. From an outsider's perspective, the only explanation needed for the sect of Christianos or Chrestianos was that the Christ was their actual founder -- he had no idea "the Christ" had been a literary archetype in scriptures hundreds of years old by that time. 

[directionless]

I actually believe that Tacitus is the best argument for a historical Jesus, and claiming that it's an interpolation is just cheating. It infuriates me, too, when atheists do this. The theologians use this same trick to dismiss passages inconvenient to them. What Tacitus is credited writing there makes complete historical and literary sense for a Roman of his time and stature -- unlike, say, the Pauline epistles, which make no sense at all from a Jewish perspective. 

 

But Tacitus did not understand the different religious subcultures of Rome, and had no idea that their scriptures existed, much less read them and tried to understand them. From an outsider's perspective, the only explanation needed for the sect of Christianos or Chrestianos was that the Christ was their actual founder -- he had no idea "the Christ" had been a literary archetype in scriptures hundreds of years old by that time.

That's a good point that Tacitus would have simply taken at face value the Christian claim that Jesus was crucified. I assume you say that Tacitus is the best argument for a historical Jesus, because you think Josephus' reference to the stoning of James is not what it seems? IMO Josephus' reference would be much more compelling than Tacitus', because Josephus would have cared more about happenings in Jerusalem.

[Joshpantera]

I'm sorting through some of the people who contest the TF and James references to try and zero in on this a little more. Here's a link to Strong Atheism.net: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/rameus_on_testimonium_flavianum/

 

He's not impressed at all with the Arabic version and claims that it traces back to Eusebius any ways. And Origin's commentary doesn't seem to impress him either. I'm going to go through Ficino's links as well and pretty much pour over the people who feel that full interpolation is the most likely: 

 

Let us conclude with a brief summary of my analysis:

1. Opportunity: We have determined that the Christians had ample opportunity to forge the Testimonium Flavianum. All of the surviving copies were written by Christian scribes, and more importantly the first person to produce the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop Eusebius 300 years after it was [allegedly] written by Josephus.
2. Motive: We have demonstrated that the early Christians had a very clear motive for perpetrating this forgery. Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ was one of the critical elements they needed to expand their small cult into a widespread religion; and historical evidence was the one element they lacked. The writings of the early Christian apologists and even those of the New Testament clearly demonstrate this dilemma that confronted the early Christian church. These texts borderline on an obsession that worshippers should believe that Jesus Christ existed, that he was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins on the cross under Pontius Pilate. The Testimonium Flavianum addresses all three of these concerns.
3. Prior Record: There is a serious paradigm of forgery and suppression of riv al literature perpetrated by the Christian church. In a more thorough study I would exhaustively demonstrate this paradigm; but in this limited discussion I have chosen to do little more than touch upon it. Readers should feel free to engage in further research for themselves.
4. Fingerprints: As has been demonstrated, the language, context, and style of the Testimonium Flavianum are entirely Christian. It is highly unlikely that a Jewish Pharisee like Josephus, would use such language when describing Jesus.

1. Circumstantial Evidence: The Testimonium Flavianum apparently fell out of the sky and into Bishop Eusebius? lap in the 4th century, as no previous author, Christian or otherwise made any reference to it. Strangely enough, the Testimonium Flavianum was widely quoted after Eusebius made reference to it. Interesting how the Christians chose to ignore it before we have proof that it existed, but then quoted it frequently immediately after the evidence suggests that it might have been forged.

   Taken individually, none of these points prove that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery. However, when taken together they do paint a compelling case for such a forgery to have taken place. Ask yourself this question:

   If the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, why is there so much evidence suggesting that the passage was forged entirely?

   Last updated: Circa 225 C.

[Sextus]

He's not impressed at all with the Arabic version and claims that it traces back to Eusebius any ways. And Origin's commentary doesn't seem to impress him either.

It's a holiday weekend here in Australia, so I won't be able to respond in detail for a couple of days. But, seriously, the guy in that link doesn't have a clue. He isn't "impressed" with the Arabic paraphrase because, judging by his incoherent and muddled comments, he simply doesn't understand its implications. He refers to it being used by "fundamentalists", which would be pretty amusing to the leading Josephan scholars like Pines and Whealey (a Jew and an agnostic respectively) who actually present arguments about it. He also thinks that Origen was desperate to "prove the historicity of Jesus", despite the fact no-one questioned Jesus' historicity before the eighteenth century. So ... what?

 

And then he refers to himself via something about "those of us in the academic community"! Er, yup. Thanks for the laugh though, that was hilarious.

[Joshpantera]

JP Holding's apologetic stand on the TF:

 

 

To be fair to the Hard Atheist blogger, I too have seen apologists try and use the secular consensus as part of an apologetic discourse. I wouldn't fault him for seeing this whole thing as an apologetic issue that catches secular scholarship in the cross fire. That seems a fair enough assertion. 

 

My wife be at home like: "Hey honey, what are you doing on the dam computer now?"

 

And I be like: "I'll be off in a minute dear, just addressing a Christian apology forwarded by JP Holding / Tim O'Neill about the ancient writer Josephus." lol

[qadeshet]

What we need, but do not have, are contemporary accounts, written by those who actually lived at the same time as Jesus. Philo of Alexandria would have mentioned Jesus, if he had heard of him. Josephus was born in 37 AD and wrote his Jewish histories around 90 AD. At best, even if authentic, Josephus only tells us what Christians believed at the time. Pliny the younger and Tacitus wrote decades later. Pliny had to torture several Christian women in order to find out what Christians believed. Tacitus, a close friend of Pliny, would have found out the same way. Worthless evidence in support of an historical Jesus.

 

Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf by Richard Carrier

 

Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" by Lena Einhorn, PhD

 

Theologians as historians by Alvar Ellegård

[Sextus]

JP Holding's apologetic stand on the TF:

To cite that guy is going to the other extreme. How about people pay attention to what the objective scholars have to say, rather than biased polemicists from both sides? Holding is like Carrier in reverse.

 

To be fair to the Hard Atheist blogger, I too have seen apologists try and use the secular consensus as part of an apologetic discourse. I wouldn't fault him for seeing this whole thing as an apologetic issue that catches secular scholarship in the cross fire. That seems a fair enough assertion.

No, actually, it isn't. It's lazy polemics. Just because apologists occasionally agree with real researchers doesn't make the real researchers wrong. Apologists aren't wrong about everything. It's an easy and lazy tactic to assume all of your opponents fall into the most stupid and extreme camp. And it's something the online Mythicists do too often. I regularly find my blog has been searched for using strings like "'Tim O'Neill' + 'is really an apologist/Christian/Catholic'". It's quite pathetic.

[Sextus]

What we need, but do not have, are contemporary accounts, written by those who actually lived at the same time as Jesus.

 

Why do we "need" these? We don't have them for any other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants. We don't have them for most people in the ancient world. Hell, we don't even have them for some of the most famous people in the ancient world. Find me a contemporary reference we have for Hannibal, for example. It would be nice if we had them for Jesus, but that's not the same thing as "needing" them. Non-contemporary sources are sufficient for most ancient figures and so they are sufficient for this one. They have to be - the nature of ancient source material is such that non-contemporary references are all we usually have. This claim that we somehow "need" contemporary sources for Jesus is another false attempt at trying to artificially raise the bar of evidence for a historical Jesus to deliberately exclude the evidence we have. Sorry, no dice.

 

Philo of Alexandria would have mentioned Jesus, if he had heard of him.

There's a bold claim! He "would have", would he? Why? Says who? Based on what? Philo doesn't mention all kinds of much more prominent people who he definitely would have known about, so does that mean they don't exist too? He doesn't mention the Pharisees. He doesn't mention a whole slew of High Priests from his time. More to the point, he doesn't mention ANY first century prophets, popular preachers or Messianic claimants. So why would he mention this one, exactly? If you are going to try to make an argument from silence, you need to do it properly. You haven't. Try again.

 

Josephus was born in 37 AD and wrote his Jewish histories around 90 AD. At best, even if authentic, Josephus only tells us what Christians believed at the time.

Josephus was 25 years old and living in Jerusalem in 63 AD. As a young man from a priestly family who had just returned from his first diplomatic mission to the Senate in Rome, Josephus would have been very close to political affairs in his city. And in that year the High Priest, Hannan ben Hannan, was deposed by Herod on order of the Romans - an event of great significance that the young Josephus would have followed carefully. He would have known the key players in this drama very well, given his family background and given that Jerusalem was a small city of around 80,000 residents. And why was the High Priest removed? Because he illegally executed some people including one James "brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah". You can't pretend this is some kind of mere hearsay. As ancient accounts go, this is about as close to first hand testimony as we tend to get and is a hell of a lot closer than we have for most ancient events. This is not some guy on the other side of the Empire reporting on rumours. You don't seem to understand the material.

 

Pliny the younger and Tacitus wrote decades later.

And our major source for the campaigns of Alexander wrote a whole 600 years after the events. Welcome to ancient source material.

 

Pliny had to torture several Christian women in order to find out what Christians believed.

Pliny's letter makes no mention of torture. And what's the relevance of this anyway?

 

 

Tacitus, a close friend of Pliny, would have found out the same way.

He would? How do you know that?

 

 

Worthless evidence in support of an historical Jesus.

Every single sentence in your argument above was flawed. That's quite an achievement.

[sdelsolray]

 

Sorry to "barge in" again, but consider reverse engineering, for lack of a better description.  What parts, phrases, sentences, chapters, words, etc. of the Bible are supernatural bullshit?  What's left after that?

Pardon? The whole process of determining what elements in the traditions may have a historical basis is this kind of "reverse engineering". I think you'll find scholars have been doing this for a couple of centuries now. Though I'm not sure I actually understand what exactly you're trying to say.

 

So...where is your list of Biblical parts, phrases, sentences, chapters, words, etc. that you have identified as supernatural bullshit?