Existence of Jesus

[Mark]

As I say, I am not an expert on this subject, but my first point of reference on most things is wikipedia, which I regard as reasonably reliable. If the article in question is inaccurate to your knowledge, you are free to point out where.

It's a general comment on Wikipedia ... it's a useful starting point but I do not consider it a valid reference site.

Do you agree that in light of the information supplied in the cited article, "fake" is misleadingly strong? I think it is, because it creates the impression that the entire idea that Josephus mentioned Jesus is a bogus one.

The primary passage is regarded by many (most I am given to understand) as a later interpolation (an insertion to meet some kind of agenda), it was not written by Josephus so no, I think "fake" is an entirely apt description.

While I will concede that wikipedia is not the very best reference, it is by far the most convenient for a discussion such as this, and it is generally regarded as relatively trustworthy.

You have persistently refused to do me the courtesy of of actually reading the article in question, which would take about 20 minutes. As I have pointed out, it supports not with certainty, but with some degree of likelihood, that the original editions of Josephus contained a passage moderately similar to the disputed one found in later editions, but not containing any expressions of Christian belief; that in direct contradiction of your repeated assertions, the disputed passage does indeed conform to Josephus style and word choice, and so is far from a clumsy forgery; and that there exists in classical literature, by one Agapius, an Arabic Christian writer, a paraphrase of what appears to be an early edition of Josephus. The paraphrased passage is worth quoting again for the benefit of others who may read this thread:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"

Now there is some degree of likelihood that Josephus in his original form said something rather like this, particularly since this does somewhat parallel the disputed passage in the extant edition of Josephus. Needless to say, the paraphrase expresses no Christian belief; it merely reports what others believe. It would hardly be surprising if Josephus, writing a book about Jewish culture and religion, would choose to include such a report.

Perhaps you will be good enough to reveal the authority with which you dismiss the entire wikipedia piece with a wave of your hand; you have not so far chosen to confront it in any convincing way; but for the time being I will assume that, like me, you are a mere student of these matters and lack the authority to judge the merit of what appears to be the scholarly work of others.

Objective persons who come here and read this puzzling dispute will have to judge which is more worthy of credit, your sweeping assertions or what appears to be a scholarly discussion on wikipedia. In contrast to you, I do not set myself up as an expert, but merely point to the sources that I have available.

Well I have not maintained that Josephus was an eyewitness to Jesus. It remains the case that he was writing within a few decades of the supposed death of Jesus.

Do you realise how your phraseology distorts the relative time frames of Jesus Christ and Josephus? It wasn't merely that he wrote within a few decades of Jesus Christ, he was born AFTER Jesus Christ was dead!!!!!!

It appears that you fail to understand the significance of a possible report of Jesus in Josephus. The point is not that Josephus was a direct witness to anything. It is merely that he would have based his report upon some combination of written documents of the day, his own life as a well-educated Judean, and his communications with other Jews. A possible reference to Jesus in Josephus would show that this supposed person was not only reputed to exist but was culturally significant among Jews at a time when he was more or less insignificant to Romans.

I also have Josephus at home, in English, but only on the Jewish War. But I see no reason to doubt that the quoted passage is in the extant edition of Josephus.

You have A Josephus text at home but the relevant text is "Antiquities".

I was making conversation, just to show that I found Josephus interesting before our conversation began. Neither your English translation of the Antiquities nor my totally unrelated English translation of The Jewish War establishes either of us as any authority, nor sheds any light at all upon this thread.

You don't see a reason to doubt? This, despite the fact that you admit to being no expert and despite the fact that there remains [n]o verifiable evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ and significant amounts of missing evidence given that he was the apparent phenomenon he is claimed to have been. That, along with the evident similarities between the Christian myths and pre-existing mythologies gives me plenty of reason to doubt that the man was real.

Of course I see reason to doubt. I have already said that there is some possibility that Jesus the man did not exist. But I think that you and others here fundamentally misunderstand what sort of "verifiable" evidence would be likely to exist of such a man living in Judea in the early First Century. Leaving aside Josephus, we do have the Gospels, which have a certain consistency and which appear to be based on earlier written accounts. (If you had bothered to read the wikipedia piece you would have seen that Luke resembles in certain places the disputed passage in Josephus, which would suggest a common source). So it is not the case that there is an utter lack of evidence of the man, Jesus.

There are not "significant amounts of missing evidence." There is only some evidence, but one has to understand that there is miniscule likelihood of discovering any evidence at all of anything that happened in the First Century that was not of major significance at the time to the Roman Empire.

Yes, I admit that I am not expert. But are you claiming to be an expert, and if so, upon what basis?

First let me say that I have no doubt that if a passage about Jesus existed in Josephus, the above is not a fully faithful rendition of it. It is preposterous that Josephus, a non-Christian with a strong Hellenistic sensibility, would have made some of the statements here. But this does not rule out that Josephus, who was after all writing a history of the Jews and a defense of their religion, did treat Jesus in a passage moderately similar to this one.

Of course it does not rule it out but the available evidence indicates the relevant passages were interpolations ... Josephus simply did not appear to write in that way. Now I have actually read the cited quote, in context, and it is almost immediately apparent that there is a significant change of style so I'm afraid I am inclined to believe this is exactly what many historians say it was, a later interpolation (a fake).

What, are you an expert in textual analysis? You have a doctorate in classical Greek? You read it in the Greek? I'm afraid I must doubt your personal expertise.

If you read the cited article, you will see that a reasonable case can be made for that, and which it appears that many scholars accept. For example, it is widely proposed that Josephus said, "Jesus is believed to be the Christ" and the emphasized words were left out by the scribe.

Mark, let us put this to bed once and for all shall we? I am well enough read in this area to debate you on the subject ... please DO NOT tell me what to read and what not to read, debate me on what I write.

We are discussing a matter of fact, not of opinion. Why is unreasonable to ask you to read what a appears to be a scholarly discussion that I would like to adduce here as evidence?

Secondly if you read the cited article, you will see that it is now commonly agreed that the passage quoted, in Greek, does indeed conform both to the style and word choice customary to Josephus. Thus if it is a complete forgery, it is not a clumsy one that violates the style and use of words of the author, but a skillful one.

No, I may see that someone claims it is so, I am not able to verify that fact and neither are you ... in addition the kind of style referred to would go beyond language translation.

Neither I nor you has the expertise to question this independent and apparently scholarly source, so it is to be dismissed out of hand?

Well, it is not of no matter. The point about Origen is that he, writing 160 years after Josephus, declares that Josephus did not accept the divinity of Jesus. This would be a rather strange thing to say if Origen had not read something about Jesus in Josephus.

You seem awfully intent on proving there was actually a real man at the root of the legend ... why?

I have an interest in history and in ascertaining the truth about it. I am not "awfully intent", I merely maintain that the balance of likelihood, which is all that can be mustered in most aspects of the history of the classical period, is that Jesus the man existed.

Well I am no expert so I can't judge this passage. Is the Antiquities lost in the original Greek? But in any case, it would seem to require a more thoroughgoing discussion of Jesus than this to cause Origen to conclude that Josephus rejected the divinity of Jesus.

The passage from my book at home does in fact use the words, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, who was called James..." and that, as earlier stated, raises again the spectre of interpolation.

The passage in your book at home is an English translation, but in any case I have already conceded that I do not doubt that the disputed passage if translated into English is substantially what you have quote. What, for heaven's sake, do you think your book at home says about any of this?

Further we can't be entirely sure that the "Jesus" referred to here is Jesus of Nazareth. Joshua was a common name at the time.

It says, "who was called Christ", so I think we probably can assume that is what the passage (genuine or not) refers to.

Well if that is true, then there does appear to be a reference to Jesus in Josephus, doesn't there?

Well I emphasize that this part of my argument is not at all about Josephus. I have a number of histories of Rome on my bookshelf, and each one of them that deals with this period and part of the world at some point discusses the historical Jesus as a charismatic man who either actually or most probably existed. No reference of mine avers that he did not exist. So I will maintain what I say in the first sentence above.

It's a shame that the available Roman records don't reflect your confidence isn't it? Histories are written later, not at the time and I'd guess that the history books you have were written much, much later.

There are no available Roman records and there is no plausible expectation that there would be any. My view is that the balance of likelihood is that such a man existed is based on the accounts that do exist, chiefly the Gospels but possibly Josephus; on the utter absence of any report from the First Century that the alleged preacher at the center of the Christian religion did not exist (many Jews would have been happy to see Christianity go away); and on the implausibility that a religion would originate as late as the First Century and purport to be founded on the teachings of an actual preacher, who nevertheless did not exist. This latter being supported by the complete absence in modern history of any similar example, and by the abundance of cases to the contrary.

Yes exactly, others maintain that it was altered. There is indeed a paraphrase of Josephus in the classical literature, which I quoted in English from the wikipedia article, which sounds very much like the disputed passage but which is free of Christian belief. There is a fair degree of supposition that paraphrase was based on an early edition of Josephus in which the disputed passage had not yet been modified.

Selective much? The simple fact is that we CANNOT be sure there was ever a real person at the root of the Christian myth and other available evidence implies strongly that there was no such person.

You do not answer my point about the paraphrase, but merely assert what is to be proved. While I agree that we cannot be sure, I have yet to see any evidence that "implies strongly that there was no such person." What evidence would that be?

But in any case, while I think it likely that Josephus did mention Jesus in something pretty well resembling the paraphrase, I don't consider this to be the main basis of the historicity of Jesus. You have in the first place the Gospels, which purport to be accounts of this man's life. They are sufficiently consistent to suggest that such a person may have existed, and they appear to be based on prior written accounts. Granted they report absurd miracles, but that is not ground for dismissing the report of a man's existence and the broad outlines of his conduct.

And I think you WANT Josephus to support your view and have based your interpretation with that in mind.

Well what I want is to discuss the evidence objectively. My degree of wanting or not wanting to make a particular case is manifestly irrelevant to the merits of my arguments. In other words, let us discuss the facts.

Ignoring the fact that the gospels were only named Mathew, Mark, Luke & John in the latter half of the second century & that the gospels of Luke and Matthew conflict in such key areas as genealogy it appears that the gospels of Luke & Matthew are largely copies of Mark and that Mark (the earliest of the 4) came largely to be between 70 & 90CE. It is also interesting that much of the important stuff for Christians (appearances of Jesus after his supposed resurrection) were added later.

Yes, yes; but the fact remains that the Gospels do constitute reports, probably based on earlier sources, of the man Jesus. And it is equally apparent that a great many people at the time are purported to have seen this man.

More importantly, the formation of a religious movement around a charismatic preacher is hardly an uncommon occurrence in history. Amy Temple McPherson; Joseph Smith; and many others are modern examples. On the other hand, you will search modern history in vain where any such a movement, ostensibly inspired by a charismatic preacher, arose without the actual existence of the preacher in question.

Modern History? So what? We're talking about the time of the classical mystery religions here where god-like creatures, resurrections, virgin births and crucifixions were common place and the primary figures were accepted to be spiritual and not real.

Yes and Joseph Smith alleged that he had received a heaven-sent book from the angel Moroni, which report his followers fully credited. And Amy McPherson claimed that the Lord regularly appeared to here, and spoke to her, and this too was credited. My point is that there are many recorded examples of charismatic preachers starting religions and even being credited with miracles, but no reports of preacher-inspired religions where the preacher in question did not, in fact, exist.

chatpilot rather strangely said that many ancient religions were based on imaginary human beings. There is of course very little evidence that Budda, for example, ever existed, but there is very scant reason to assert that he did not. Confucious is rather certain to have existed, I believe. This is not to assert that every mythical human being taken up as a demi-god by any religion necessarily existed; only that chatpilot's case that ancient religion is typically founded on the preaching of a non-existent preacher is quite weak.

And Chatpilot was right ... it was that kind of time and the only way I can really responds to your "scant reason" assertion is say that there is scant reason to believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars; Would you believe such a claim that it is real?

My point was that there are examples of ancient religions founded on the preachings of actual people, e.g. Confucius and possibly Budda.

At the end of the day, we do not know for certain whether the actual Joshua bar Joseph, mortal and charismatic preacher of something-or-other in Judea around 40 C.E. existed or not. But the preponderance of likelihood, which is really all that historians have to work with in such cases, is that he did. I concede that there is some possibility that he did not.

Whilst conceding the actual existence of Jesus Christ as a possibility, I simply do not believe it to be anywhere near as likely as you do and recognise that a myth does not require a literal central character to grow.

The latter point I will concede, but it is equally true that a myth can grow around a real man. Further, while a great many myths arose from very distant antiquity, I am not aware of any that arose as late as the First Century, unless it be this single one.

I suggest you read Chapter 16, "The Jews, Jesus and Paul" of Michael Grant's History of Rome. Grant is very well known and a very mainstream classical scholar. He addresses many of your concerns about the Gospels, and fully takes Jesus to be an actual, historical figure. I could cite other examples, such as Dudley's The Romans. But it is a fact that classical scholarship essentially does not doubt that Jesus was a real man.

Oh and lastly, there is not "an incredible lack of hard confirmatory evidence" of Jesus' existence. There is a lack, but it is hardly incredible given that Jesus was a rather unimportant person to the only people at the time who were keeping systematic records, and further given that almost all the records that they kept have been lost to history anyway. How much "hard confirmatory evidence" exists of anyone in the First Century?

Then why believe he existed at all?

Because the community of classical scholars accepts it, and because the balance of likelihood in view of the available facts, in my understanding, supports it.