Existence of Jesus

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

I disagree for reasons already stated!

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.

No, and do you want to know why? If you read the section concerned (and I'm talking more than the chapter concerned) you will not only realise that it has a completely different style (which is why I referred to the "Wish you were here" comment by an historian friend or my best friend) you will also note that it reads FAR better without the interpolated passage ... so, if it's OK by you, I'm just going to carry on believing it is a FAKE because that's EXACTLY what it appears to be.

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.

I don't "dismiss" Wiki, I simply accept it for what it is ... a user subscribed database of documents with insufficient control over its content to be trusted. Yes they have improved this recently but there remain questions about the way it is edited, indeed one of the primary administrators was found to have edited out negative comments concerning something he was intimately associated with. Nevertheless it remains a useful starting point in anything one wishes to research ... it simply cannot be regarded as in any fashion authoritative.

Another little story about Wiki for you, hearsay I admit ... there was a debate between Gordon Brown & David Cameron and they disagreed about something or other and the debate ended as debates do. Immediately after some bright Tory runs along to Wiki and edits the article in favour of Cameron (despite the fact that Brown was actually right) in the full knowledge that the press, gullible as they are, will run to Wiki and lap it up ... and it worked. Oh it was edited back the following day but by then the damage was done!

You see the problem with Wiki is simple, it ISN'T an encyclopaedia, it a sort of debating forum. When issues arte no contentious it's fine, it can maybe be relied upon but when they are (such as the historicity of Jesus) it can't, it isn't that sort of resource. Now I'm done with arguing with you whether I should or should not read your damned link ... as it happens I only read kinks from trusted sources and you are most definitely not one of those. You want to put your Wiki argument fine, do so, but you do so in your own words and on this forum.

Sources? I have a number of sources including Earl Doherty, Gandy & Freke, Zindler, Remsberg and 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.

As to whether it is a "scholarly discussion" (see above) is debatable but I would expect nothing less.

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.

IMO your problem with me is that I fail to agree with your repeated insistences that it is more reasonable to believe there was a Jesus Christ than not ... given the flimsy nature of the evidence supporting his physical existence am I not allowed to believe something different from you?

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.

I'm not interested in "making conversation" ... I am interested in debating your assertions with regard to the existence of Jesus Christ.

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.

I don't think either Chatpilot or I have misunderstood the nature of evidence at all (though I recognise that historical evidence is somewhat weaker in nature than scientific) but let's role with that ... what is verifiable evidence?

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.

Given that your claim is that there was a literal Jesus Christ (a physical man) at the root of the Christian myth I would argue that it is entirely reasonable to argue, in context, that there are significant missing evidences (though in truth I was probably being a little poetic in my choice of phraseology)

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

No, just someone with an opinion evaluating the available evidence just as you are.

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.

And no worse than you it seems.

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?

See above.

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

See above.

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.

And I disagree.

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?

We've discussed this already ... I do not see the need to do so again. Given that there is no verifiable evidence or direct eye-witness accounts in support of the existence of Jesus Christ my opinion stands, AT THE VERY LEAST, as being as valid as yours.

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

Which (if referring to the first passage) appears to be an interpolation and (if the second) may well be.

There are no available Roman records and there is no plausible expectation that there would be any. My view 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.

Fair enough, but there are indirect references to them, indeed it is argued that the writings of Tacitus (another major Christian "evidence" for the existence of Christ) concerning Jesus Christ are written in a way that indicate he was not writing from the Roman records of the time.

I am aware of what your supposedly "balanced" view is and I have made it clear that I consider neither you or Wiki authoritative on the subject.

There are no available Roman records and there is no plausible expectation that there would be any. My view 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.

There are indirect references to them, indeed it is argued that the writings of Tacitus (another major Christian "evidence" for the existence of Christ) concerning Jesus Christ are written in a way that indicate he was not writing from the Roman records of the time.

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?

I fail to see why I should continually repeat my argument so, see above and previous posts.

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.

I think the last thing you want is objectivity; I think you have already made up your mind. I remain unsure why that is.

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.

Possibly, possibly not and I am inclined towards the latter for reason already stated.

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.

Again so what? Comparative religions of the time were replete with similar claims; there are few serious claims that they had real people at their root.

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

The teachings of Buddha & Confucius may well have impacted on the mystery religions of the time and thus upon Christianity ... I don't know enough about that to be sure. What I am sure of is that just because these religions had real people at their root does not mean that others did.

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.

It's possible that the Holy Roman Church's practice of destroying anything to do with other religions (pre or during) had an impact.

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.

Thank you but I will read the books I want to read, namely those suggested by others I consider to be more objective.

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.

Maybe historians who believe or suspect that Jesus did not exist are in the minority (though I would like to see evidence to back up that claim and I strongly suspect that that is not true of non-theologically biased historians) but saying that most historians think there is is problematic because things change, views of history change and it is worth remembering that at one point in time EVERYONE (at least in Western civilisation) believed in a literal creation and earlier still EVERYONE believed in a flat Earth. In essence you are using the fallacious argument from numbers.

The other stuff you already know I disagree with.

Kyu