The Christ Myth Theory: Hoax Or Plausible Theory?

[mymistake]

Christians are the ones who care because sometimes they need a crutch to prop up their faith.

[Mythra]

Christians are the ones who care because sometimes they need a crutch to prop up their faith.

Oh, christian definitely care.  Like all eternity is hanging in the balance.

 

But both of the propositions we talk about here undermine the christian position.  Whether Jesus was a man who lived and died and was later worshipped as a god, or whether jesus began as the son of god whose sacrifice took place in a spiritual realm, either way the christian literal gospel version is nullified and relegated to the fiction aisle in the library. 

 

There are very few ancient historians who believe the gospels as recorded. 

[qadeshet]

If it were proven today that Jesus never existed, then Christians would simply interpret the Bible allegorically.

 

The Gnostics and the Historicists spent the entire Second Century fighting this out. Marcion collected the first New Testament, and did not believe that Jesus ever lived on Earth.

The Nag Hammadi library dates to around the Third and Fourth centuries. Christianity might shrink, but it wouldn't die.

[bleedblue22]

I haven't read carriers book on the subject, although I intend to as I saw a vid of him lecturing on it and it sounded surprisingly interesting. As it stands I would side pretty heavily with the historical Jesus camp.

 

I'm sure this has been covered but scholars pretty much have a consensus view that Jesus was a historical figure. This does not guarantee truth of course, but it is not to be taken lightly.

 

It seems to me there are some striking parallels between Jesus mythicism and creationism. The consensus of the experts is hand waved away by claims that the scholars are driven by agenda ("most bible scholars are Christians!" or "Most evolutionary biologists are atheists!"). The experts are experts for a reason and they dont hold strongly to academic theories without justification. There are plenty of biblical scholars who are not driven by proving the truth of Christianity (Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Luddeman, and many more) and have no reason to oppose the Jesus mythicist position dogmatically, yet they consistently say we must deal with a historical Jesus. I know, if you discuss these things online, you will find many non expert online "scholars" who seem confident that Jesus is not a real person, but this kind of departure by the laypeople from what the scholars think seems to look suspiciously those youtube fundies who attempt to disprove the age of the earth with little, scientifically naive backyard experiments.

 

Of course, the evidence for evolution is far stronger than for a historical Jesus, but historians approach these issues by trying to figure out what most plausibly happened, and the best we can reconstruct from the available evidence is that Jesus was very likely a historical figure (however, probably not the miracle working son of God).

 

I still plan to read Carrier's book. Maybe it will change my mind, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Atheists can definitely have blinding biases too, and it seems on full display in the mythicism movement.

[Blood]

I haven't read carriers book on the subject, although I intend to as I saw a vid of him lecturing on it and it sounded surprisingly interesting. As it stands I would side pretty heavily with the historical Jesus camp.

 

I'm sure this has been covered but scholars pretty much have a consensus view that Jesus was a historical figure. This does not guarantee truth of course, but it is not to be taken lightly.

 

It seems to me there are some striking parallels between Jesus mythicism and creationism. The consensus of the experts is hand waved away by claims that the scholars are driven by agenda ("most bible scholars are Christians!" or "Most evolutionary biologists are atheists!"). The experts are experts for a reason and they dont hold strongly to academic theories without justification. There are plenty of biblical scholars who are not driven by proving the truth of Christianity (Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Luddeman, and many more) and have no reason to oppose the Jesus mythicist position dogmatically, yet they consistently say we must deal with a historical Jesus. I know, if you discuss these things online, you will find many non expert online "scholars" who seem confident that Jesus is not a real person, but this kind of departure by the laypeople from what the scholars think seems to look suspiciously those youtube fundies who attempt to disprove the age of the earth with little, scientifically naive backyard experiments.

 

Of course, the evidence for evolution is far stronger than for a historical Jesus, but historians approach these issues by trying to figure out what most plausibly happened, and the best we can reconstruct from the available evidence is that Jesus was very likely a historical figure (however, probably not the miracle working son of God).

 

I still plan to read Carrier's book. Maybe it will change my mind, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Atheists can definitely have blinding biases too, and it seems on full display in the mythicism movement.

 

You should not only read Carrier, but also Price, Doherty, and perhaps some Old Testament "minimalists" like Lemche if you intend to understand the question. 

 

As mentioned, I would not put too much stock in a "consensus" in this case, since it is a consensus mostly of people who are Christians or teach in seminary schools. They also believe in a historical Moses, and a historical anybody mentioned in the Bible. Their job is not to question, but to prevent people from questioning. 

 

Ehrman is an ex-fundamentalist and Crossan still considers himself a Christian, just a "secular" one. 

 

I'm not a scholar. But I have access to the same texts and scholarship that Bible scholars have. I can see plainly that the assumptions that Bible scholars make about these texts being "oral history" rooted in real events are very rash assumptions. It is just as likely that the writers simply invented the people and events they wrote about. "Prophets" believe that what happens in their imagination really happened in the past. 

[Storm]

I haven't read carriers book on the subject, although I intend to as I saw a vid of him lecturing on it and it sounded surprisingly interesting. As it stands I would side pretty heavily with the historical Jesus camp.

 

I'm sure this has been covered but scholars pretty much have a consensus view that Jesus was a historical figure. This does not guarantee truth of course, but it is not to be taken lightly.

 

It seems to me there are some striking parallels between Jesus mythicism and creationism. The consensus of the experts is hand waved away by claims that the scholars are driven by agenda ("most bible scholars are Christians!" or "Most evolutionary biologists are atheists!"). The experts are experts for a reason and they dont hold strongly to academic theories without justification. There are plenty of biblical scholars who are not driven by proving the truth of Christianity (Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Luddeman, and many more) and have no reason to oppose the Jesus mythicist position dogmatically, yet they consistently say we must deal with a historical Jesus. I know, if you discuss these things online, you will find many non expert online "scholars" who seem confident that Jesus is not a real person, but this kind of departure by the laypeople from what the scholars think seems to look suspiciously those youtube fundies who attempt to disprove the age of the earth with little, scientifically naive backyard experiments.

 

Of course, the evidence for evolution is far stronger than for a historical Jesus, but historians approach these issues by trying to figure out what most plausibly happened, and the best we can reconstruct from the available evidence is that Jesus was very likely a historical figure (however, probably not the miracle working son of God).

 

I still plan to read Carrier's book. Maybe it will change my mind, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Atheists can definitely have blinding biases too, and it seems on full display in the mythicism movement.

I understand where you are coming from. but I have to say that the more I look into this, the more I see its not an open and shut case. You correctly stated that many scholars believe that a historical Jesus existed, however, as you mentioned, many of those scholars are also Christians, or believe on some level. And also it is important to note that Richard Carrier is something that most of those scholars are not. He has a PHD in Ancient History. I agree with him that this is significant. He also publishes peer reviewed books and articles. This is also what separates him from the rest. I think that makes a difference.

 

I would guess that the majority of scholars who would be lumped into your definition of "Most scholars" are trained in New Testament or Old Testament, or Theology or something similar to that. These aren't academic disciplines that I would consider to have any validity towards verification of a Historical Jesus. They already contain preconceived biases that create more problems that aren't addressed.

[mymistake]

I haven't read carriers book on the subject, although I intend to as I saw a vid of him lecturing on it and it sounded surprisingly interesting. As it stands I would side pretty heavily with the historical Jesus camp.

 

I'm sure this has been covered but scholars pretty much have a consensus view that Jesus was a historical figure. This does not guarantee truth of course, but it is not to be taken lightly.

 

It seems to me there are some striking parallels between Jesus mythicism and creationism. The consensus of the experts is hand waved away by claims that the scholars are driven by agenda ("most bible scholars are Christians!" or "Most evolutionary biologists are atheists!"). The experts are experts for a reason and they dont hold strongly to academic theories without justification. There are plenty of biblical scholars who are not driven by proving the truth of Christianity (Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Luddeman, and many more) and have no reason to oppose the Jesus mythicist position dogmatically, yet they consistently say we must deal with a historical Jesus. I know, if you discuss these things online, you will find many non expert online "scholars" who seem confident that Jesus is not a real person, but this kind of departure by the laypeople from what the scholars think seems to look suspiciously those youtube fundies who attempt to disprove the age of the earth with little, scientifically naive backyard experiments.

 

Of course, the evidence for evolution is far stronger than for a historical Jesus, but historians approach these issues by trying to figure out what most plausibly happened, and the best we can reconstruct from the available evidence is that Jesus was very likely a historical figure (however, probably not the miracle working son of God).

 

I still plan to read Carrier's book. Maybe it will change my mind, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Atheists can definitely have blinding biases too, and it seems on full display in the mythicism movement.

 

 

If we are going to consider bias then consider the bias of the first 1,700 years where you would be burned alive is you said it wasn't real.  Don't you think that would bias the whole system?  If you start with a clean slate and look at it objectively there is just as much evidence that Paul made it up as there is that Jesus was a crazy, homeless guy.  None!  Nada.  Zip.  So why is this so controversial?  Societies do manufacture mythical and fictional characters.  The major difference between mythicism and creationism is that creationism is flies in the face of everything we know about science and mythicism is completely plausible.

[Vigile]

Unless you believe in miracles, the only 'christ' that existed was someone the gospels were VERY loosely modeled after.

 

This question isn't even in the same ballpark as, e.g., did Alexander exist?

[Mythra]

One thing I appreciated about Carrier's book:  he doesn't just analyze the myth theory and how it squares up with the data.  He also weighs the evidence that would support minimalist historicity. And he doesn't just give it lip service.  I had the impression that Carrier did not start his project with a conclusion.  Here are the parameters he uses for a minimally historical Jesus to have existed:

 

1.  An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.

 

2.  This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.

 

3.  This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshipping as a living god. (or demigod)

 

verbatim from "On The Historicity of Jesus"  by Richard Carrier.

 

This is a minimal set of facts on which almost all historical jesus advocates can agree.

 

This book is a serious effort from a well qualified scholar. (he has a PhD from Columbia in ancient history)  I think he put about 10 years of his life into researching and writing it.  It's 746 pages long.  And almost half of that is citing his sources and breaking down the evidence.

[Mythra]

If anyone wants to read a very scholarly review of Carrier's book, it's here:  

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/review/RVL7M9H1CF7YR/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00QSO2S5C&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful

 

although the reviewer finds lots errors that Carrier has made (most of them minor in nature), the reviewer still gives overall support for Carrier's thesis. And it doesn't hurt his cred any that this reviewer happens to be Quai Chang Caine.  Grasshopper from Kung Fu. Ahhh Grasshopper, your eyes see what I failed to see. 

[bleedblue22]

I understand Carrier is a legit historian with a PHD. He is also an intelligent guy, but the way he explains away the evidence for the historical Jesus can seem somewhat ad hoc and contrived. There's no hard evidence the second passage in Josephus that mentions Jesus, "called the Christ" is an interpolation. While the other passage can definitely be counted up as a forgery due to it not appearing in manuscripts until Christians got their hands on them, this is not the case with this second mention of Jesus (called the Christ), a holy man who has a brother James who got on the wrong side of the authorities. Carrier wants us to accept part of the passage as a forgery and postulate that this was a completely different Jesus (a high priest) who happened to have a suspiciously similar description to our Jesus, on the basis of no hard evidence. And the way he interprets the epistles to not be talking about James, the actual brother of Jesus, and how born of a woman does not really mean born of a woman seems strained. The gnostic texts he uses to support his case (the Ascension of Isaiah among them) in no way can be established to be as early as the canonical gospels and in fact are usually dated to be late 2nd century with no reason to think they represent a more accurate view into the beliefs of early Christians. The pagan parallels to Jesus, though, do seem very interesting and his book seems to be well referenced so it might be worth checking out for that alone.

 

I've checked out Price before, who is very entertaining, witty, and intelligent. Just don't really agree with him on this one.

 

Discrediting scholars in general because many are Christians and teach in seminary seems like poisoning the well. Christians could say the same things about mythicists. "Pretty much all mythicists are atheists and therefore ideologically driven." Or maybe something like "Evolutionary biologists do not want to admit that evolution is false because their very occupation depends on it being a scientific fact." So what if ehrman's an ex-fundamentalist? He seems quite able to change his mind when faced with new evidence and Crossan seems quite content to declare the stories of Jesus' miraculous deeds as parables.

[mymistake]

 

Discrediting scholars in general because many are Christians and teach in seminary seems like poisoning the well. Christians could say the same things about mythicists. "Pretty much all mythicists are atheists and therefore ideologically driven." Or maybe something like "Evolutionary biologists do not want to admit that evolution is false because their very occupation depends on it being a scientific fact." So what if ehrman's an ex-fundamentalist? He seems quite able to change his mind when faced with new evidence and Crossan seems quite content to declare the stories of Jesus' miraculous deeds as parables.

 

Except that atheism isn't an ideology.  Atheism is missing a particular belief.  So if the Christians said that they would be wrong.  Atheist didn't spend 1700 years hunting down Christians and burning them at the stake for questioning the authority of the Atheist church.  Atheist didn't alter ancient documents to create a false foundation for their religion.  Atheist didn't exterminate alternative sects and burn alternative religious texts.  Early Christianity did those things and it leaves a very questionable legacy.

[Mythra]

 There's no hard evidence the second passage in Josephus that mentions Jesus, "called the Christ" is an interpolation. While the other passage can definitely be counted up as a forgery due to it not appearing in manuscripts until Christians got their hands on them, this is not the case with this second mention of Jesus (called the Christ), a holy man who has a brother James who got on the wrong side of the authorities. 

 

Funny you should mention the testimonium flavianum. This morning I ran into a very old post here in this forum by Rameus, who was a user here ten or so years ago.  Here is his take on the TF:  It highlights the word "testimonium" because that's the word I searched for.

 

Rameus on the Testimonium Flavianum-

 

The brief account of Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is at best a highly interpolated account, and at worst an absolute forgery. Many scholars today, Christian and otherwise formally support the veracity of this assertion. Indeed for many centuries, this was the prevailing view among the academic community. It was not until the discovery of a 10th century Arabic Christian version of the Josephus account that the fires of debate were rekindled, so to speak. 

 

To many of us in the academic community, the Arabic manuscript does little to further the thesis that there was an original, authentic reference to the crucifixion of Christ made by Josephus. Should it be any surprise that the European Christian manuscripts use more distinctively Christian language than the Arabic version that is now extant? Christian apologists believe this difference in tone implies that the Arabic copy is much closer to the original work penned by Josephus in the 1st century. By theorizing that the Arabic version is the more original, they are able to shed many of the problems in the Josephus account like so many layers of snake skin. Not least of which is the tone of the Arabic account, which doesn’t contain the extreme Christian language of the Greek and Latin copies. Why would a pious Jew, a Pharisee even, refer to Jesus as the Christ and his movement as the truth? He wouldn’t, which is one of the main reasons why the academic majority has long considered the Josephus account to be a forgery. But with the discovery of the Arabic manuscript, the fundamentalists have decided to jam their toe back in the door, and reopen the discussion. They now propose that the Arabic account is the least mangled of all the copies, and that they all draw from a common, authentic source. This cute little thesis of theirs does little more than appeal to their favorite line of final defense: “It’s possible, and you can’t prove otherwise!” However as I intend to show, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Arabic, Greek, and Latin copies of this text didn’t all come from the same forged manuscript(s) that Bishop Eusebius used (or produced) in the 4th century. 

 

Josephus wrote Antiquities circa 90 C.E., approximately 50-60 years after the (alleged) death of Jesus Christ. 

 

His (alleged) account reads: 

 

 

QUOTE 

"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 wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and 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 ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.” 

[Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter III:63-64]

 

As I have already stated, the original manuscripts of Josephus do not exist. More importantly, we do not have a single extant copy that was not written by Christian scribes many centuries later. The importance of this point should not be underestimated. If the history of Christian Europe shows us anything it is that the Christian church was willing to do just about anything to promote the prosperity and growth of their religion. People were murdered, books were burned, temples were sacked, and manuscripts were forged. These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable. What does this mean? First, it means that the Christians had ample opportunity to commit the forgery; all of the existing copies of Josephus were written by Christian scribes. Second, it means that the Christian church had a very clear motive to commit such forgery; the movement lacked a solid foundation in the historical record that could be used to rebut arguments presented against it by the many detractors of the day. Forging an account and attributing it to Josephus, the major Jewish historian for that time period, would lend enough credibility to the historicity of Jesus Christ to transform Christianity from a movement into a full blown religious phenomenon. Last and perhaps most important, the historical record shows us that the Christians were engaged in forgery and the suppression of rival literature during this time period. So it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that they might very well have utilized these same tactics to create the now famous Testimonium Flavianum. Motive, opportunity, and a prior record; now all we need is to find Christian fingerprints on the Testimonium Flavianum.

 

A cursory analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum is now in order. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin. But after reading theTestimonium Flavianum, one can hardly imagine Josephus to have been a Jew. He quite unequivocally refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense. The language is entirely Christian; the most fitting explanation is that the account was written or interpolated by a Christian.

 

Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it. Josephus was dealing with problems regarding the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the catastrophes that had befallen the Jews because of it. From a Jewish perspective the death of Christ was not a catastrophe, indeed if you believe the gospel accounts they saw him as a blasphemer of the lord and as such justly put to death according to the laws set forth by God in the Torah. However, if you are a Christian trying to insert this forged passage into Josephus' work many centuries later you would probably consider the death of Christ a Jewish catastrophe. In this context the passage again appears to be written not by a Jew but by a Christian. 

 

The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime. He wrote the book Contra Celsum circa 225 C.E. and multiple apologies, quoting very heavily from the works of Josephus, including a very short passage in Book XX of the Antiquities:

 

 

QUOTE 

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…” 

[Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200]

 

Why would Origen, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum? What’s even more compelling is that Origen expressly stated that Josephus never accepted Jesus as the Christ. But very clearly in theTestimonium Flavianum, Josephus (allegedly) proclaims Jesus to be the Christ. It doesn’t take a PhD in astrophysics to deduce that Origen (and all of the other Christian apologists) had never seen this Testimonium Flavianum that was allegedly written by Josephus. But Origen was extremely familiar with the works of Josephus, quoting from several books of the Antiquities. How could Origen and the other early Christian apologists be entirely ignorant of the most important historical reference to Jesus Christ ever recorded, especially when they were quite familiar with the author and the very work that it was supposedly recorded in?

 

The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of "pious fraud". The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said: 

 

 

QUOTE 

"This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." 

 

 

It is extremely important to recall that the original manuscripts of the Josephus account do not exist. This is a critical point to consider because there was rampant forgery perpetrated by some of the original church fathers and later by the Catholic Church during the period. The Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits this today; they refer to it as "pious fraud". 

 

To demonstrate this I will provide an example with a quote from the early Church father, Bishop of Corinth Dionysius (as recorded by Eusebius in the 4th century): 

 

 

QUOTE 

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others...Small wonder that some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts." 

 

 

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 rival 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.

 

5. 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?

 

Rameus 

[bleedblue22]

I agree the testimonium flavianum is a forgery. I think it is unlikely the other passage is, referring to the execution of James.

[mymistake]

I agree the testimonium flavianum is a forgery. I think it is unlikely the other passage is, referring to the execution of James.

 

 

How do you know the execution wasn't referring to any other guy and Christians changed it to James in order to further their religious agenda of interpreting the destruction of Jerusalem as a spiritual result of the murder of James?  It seems plausible to me.  I'm not saying we can prove this but it seems like a great big question mark.

[bleedblue22]

We obviously don't have the original texts of Josephus (nor of pretty much any ancient historical text). Technically, there could be all sorts of changes mangling the text into something that bares little resemblance to the original. However, that happens to be very unlikely, as scribes, while not perfect, would probably find it difficult to change the text so much and still fly under the radar. I think we shouldn't just declare something to be an interpolation unless there is strong reason to suspect it is. Take the text as innocent in its textual integrity until there is reason to think otherwise. Otherwise, much of our understanding of ancient history would collapse. We couldn't trust any of the works of Homer, Plato, or Galen to be anything like their originals.

 

It seems that the reasons why the second Josephus passage is interpolated are very speculative without any hard evidence of change in the text.

[Mythra]

I agree the testimonium flavianum is a forgery. I think it is unlikely the other passage is, referring to the execution of James.

Ok.  So let's kick that around a little bit.  I'll try and summarize Carrier's argument from his book - hopefully I won't butcher it too badly.

 

Here is the passage we will be talking about from Josephus;

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1^[25] For Greek text see [3]

[qadeshet]

 

I agree the testimonium flavianum is a forgery. I think it is unlikely the other passage is, referring to the execution of James.

Ok.  So let's kick that around a little bit.  I'll try and summarize Carrier's argument from his book - hopefully I won't butcher it too badly.

 

Here is the passage we will be talking about from Josephus;

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1^[25] For Greek text see [3]

 

 

Mr Carrier has shown that the phrase "Brother of the Lord" was a later interpolation. A reference to 2 different Jesuses in such a short passage is highly unlikely. Jesus bar Damneus was the brother of James that became High Priet.

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus."

 

"My proof of that is pretty conclusive. But this article also summarizes a sufficient case to reject the Testimonium Flavianum as well (the other, longer reference to Jesus in Josephus), in that case as a deliberate fabrication (see note 1, pp. 489-90, and discussion of the Arabic quotation on pp. 493-94). And I cite the leading scholarship on both. So it’s really a complete article on both references to Jesus in Josephus."

 

Jesus in Josephus

 

[aboveandbeyond]

I agree the testimonium flavianum is a forgery. I think it is unlikely the other passage is, referring to the execution of James.

[Mythra]

Since this passage from Josephus would seem to prove the historicity of Jesus, it's an important one. The entire myth theory is in question if this passage is authentic.

 

In his book, Carrier provides six arguments, that, when combined show this passage to be inauthentic and subsequently dismisses it as evidence.

 

1.  The term "who was called Christ" looks like something that a scribe would have added as an interlinear note. To remind future readers that the Jesus referred to here was Jesus Christ.  Just as we would see today with a footnote or a marginal note in a book. Tacitus has similar comments in the margins to identify the passage mentioning Christ for the benefit of Christian readers who might be skimming the text. The idiom "who was called Christ" was one that was common to christians, yet never used by Josephus anywhere else.  In fact, the term "christ" was never used by Josephus anywhere else. (except for the TF, which was previously dismissed as an interpolation)

 

2.  Josephus could not have written "who was called Christ" without further explaining what the term christ meant, and giving additional information about it. There would be much to explain here, even if the TF were authentic. Anyone who has read Josephus is aware of his being very thorough in providing details. If the testimonium flavianum is inauthentic, then for sure "who was called Christ" here could not have been penned without further explaining what it meant.  James is not identified in this passage as a christian, thus it leaves an assumption that only a christian would make.

 

3.  The account makes no sense.  Why are the Jews outraged at Ananus for executing James, who was a member of the hated sect known as christians? There is no sense of animosity in the account towards James and his affiliates.  Only towards his killers.  Josephus could not have glossed over this without providing an explanation for his Roman audience.

 

4. Apart from being a death by stoning, this account of James' death does not agree with any other account. (Carrier gives no details about what further accounts he's talking about)

 

5.. The book of Acts fails to mention this event. And it's not possible for a christian such as Luke (who claimed that his writing was the result of researching the history of the church) to have known less about the fate of James than Josephus did. There is no possible way that Luke would not have included this event in his account, had he known about it.  But there is evidence that Luke used Josephus as a source for other things, leading to the conclusion that this event was not there in Josephus' writings at that time.

 

6. Origen had intimate knowledge of Josephus, and cited him often, but apparently has no knowledge of this account.  Carrier says that scholars have claimed Origen quotes this passage, but they are wrong. Arguments often cited here are against deliberate interpolation, but Carrier says that it was more likely to have been accidental. (perhaps Carrier is assuming his readers would understand that, since he doesn't elucidate - but it left me unsure).  Carrier says that in passages where it is claimed that Origen is referencing Josephus and the James account, it is actually a paraphrase of a completely different story found only in Hegesippus.  Origen was misattributing it to Josephus. Carrier says that this same misattribution was made by other writers (with a footnote which I didn't research further).

[Mythra]

So, I'm trying to stay open-minded about the Christ myth theory.  And I am open to the idea that it could be wrong. I'd just like to know the truth before I die.   One thing I will say for sure, as I look at the title of this thread.  The theory is most definitely not a hoax.  And it is plausible.

 

I will say this for sure too, the problems in the theory are not nearly as overwhelming and disconcerting as the holes and strained arguments I discovered when I was a sheeple and read Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell or C.S. Lewis.

[Mythra]

Myth is not the consensus right now.  So what? Every idea at one time was considered fringe.  That goes for religious ideas and scientific ones as well. In the history of the world, there has always been a time when most of the experts were wrong about something.

[Blood]

If it walks like pious fraud, swims like pious fraud, and quacks like pious fraud ... then, it's probably pious fraud. 

 

Sorry for the crude analogy but religion has never been concerned about preserving "facts" about "oral history." 

 

Stories about the past aren't "history." 

 

Ancient stories about god-men are not "history." They were stories intended to teach lessons, instill virtue, inspire faith in an afterlife, unify the people, etc. 

 

There is NO reason to assume that ANYTHING in the Bible is based on "oral history." None. The anonymous writers' imaginations suffice as a far better explanation. 

 

 

Nobody is saying that if we just peel away all the legend and discard the supernatural, then we will have "the historical Dionysus." 

 

Any exception for Christianity, Judaism, or Islam is special pleading. These are all very late, demythologizing religions, invented in times of widespread skepticism about the gods. They were invented specifically as text-based religions, which proves their very lateness. They are all pious frauds. 

[Blood]

Myth is not the consensus right now.  So what? Every idea at one time was considered fringe.  That goes for religious ideas and scientific ones as well. In the history of the world, there has always been a time when most of the experts were wrong about something.

 

What region in the world you are in has a big impact on this question. 

 

If you live in England, for example, you are far more likely to believe Jesus is/was a mythical being:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34686993?post_id=10153282380408111_10153282380368111#_=_

 

 

"...the Church of England survey found that four in 10 people did not believe Jesus was a real person, with a quarter of 18 to 34 year olds believing he was a mythical or fictional character."

[mymistake]

We obviously don't have the original texts of Josephus (nor of pretty much any ancient historical text). Technically, there could be all sorts of changes mangling the text into something that bares little resemblance to the original. However, that happens to be very unlikely, as scribes, while not perfect, would probably find it difficult to change the text so much and still fly under the radar. I think we shouldn't just declare something to be an interpolation unless there is strong reason to suspect it is. Take the text as innocent in its textual integrity until there is reason to think otherwise. Otherwise, much of our understanding of ancient history would collapse. We couldn't trust any of the works of Homer, Plato, or Galen to be anything like their originals.

 

It seems that the reasons why the second Josephus passage is interpolated are very speculative without any hard evidence of change in the text.

 

 

Forgive me but it seems to me that the first forgery is evidence that Christians had the will, opportunity and a pattern of editing texts in order to manufacture evidence of their religion.  It's not just that but plenty of New Testament passages were forged.  When Rome officially went Christian they manufactured "Holy Sites" all over the place and built chapels at each one to try to legitimize them.  Of all things the "historic" Jesus has a death date that is calculated based on the moon.  Who else died based on the moon?  The whole thing smells fishy.  And since people are no longer executed for wondering if it is fake it seems reasonable to wonder.