I do see that I am not getting through to you and, to make things perfectly clear, let me use this analogy. You keep trotting out "the gospels say" and "scholars say." I know what the gospels say. I've read them. There are sufficient contradictions for me to dismiss them as propaganda written for different people in different places. I do not care what they say.

Here is the problem. I call this the Tax Fraud Analogy.

Picture a courtroom where a man is on trial for income tax evasion. A forensic accountant is on the witness stand explaining how he has thoroughly investigated the books and records and can find no substantiation for the expenses and deductions claimed. At this point, the defendant stands up waving the tax return in question and shouts "bullshit...it's all in here."

We know what he wrote on the return. It forms the basis of the indictment. What we want to see are the invoices and cancelled checks which substantiate those claims.

This is what I want from bible-thumpers. I want to see the invoices and the cancelled checks and all I ever get is "the gospels say."

Well. Fuck the gospels. As far as I am concerned those are what is on trial.

Any thoughts on the Testimonium Flavianum?
Was it a partial forgery or a total forgery?
If it was a partial forgery, any ideas what it said originally?
Also, I've heard some claim that Eusebius was the forger, but wouldn't he have been more clever?

Quote:3. 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 amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] 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 at this day.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiqu...Book_XVIII

(March 10, 2015 at 10:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'll set aside my question of "what do we base this knowledge on?" and just take your assertions about The Historical Jesus at face value:

Let's review. The Historical Jesus was...
1. Born in a town where lots of others were from.
2. Had a brother. And hey, his brother had a common name.
3. He was one of many apocalyptic preachers of that time.
4. He was one of many baptized by and inspired by JtB.
5. Did we mention he was one of many apocalyptic preachers of the time?
6. He was one of many Jews crucified by Pilate.
7. He was one of many claimed messiahs of that time.

Heck, there were probably a dozen or so Historical Jesuses (Jesusi?).

Occam's Razor is a good tool to rule out multiple Jesuses, unless you can make a case that one Jesus is not enough to explain the awkwardness that is seen in the Gospels.

D-P begins a discussion of it in this very thread.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-31832-p...#pid888179


To build on that consider this passage from Contra Celsus. It was written c 250 AD, or, about 75 years before Eusebius' TF.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Quote:I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

Study the bolded part.

Now, this is generally what the 'partial authenticity' gang puts forward as original in the TF.

Quote:“Now about this time there lived Jesus a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place had come to love him did not forsake him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, continues to the present day.”

Now, study the bolded part in this and compare the two. Origen bitches and moans 75 years earlier that Josephus did not state that the reason for the disasters which befell the jews was the conspiracy against jesus and instead invents a tale about how it was the death of James the Just which caused the diaster.

Unless Origen was the stupidest bastard who ever lived how could he have made this mistake unless there was nothing written there which gave him the slightest hint that Pilate HAD crucified jesus on the accusation of the ruling classes?

Origen's bleating in reply to Celsus is as bad as any other xtian bullshit but clearly the man was not an outright idiot. If it was there...in any form...it would have clinched the case he was trying to make about the reason for the calamity of 70 AD.

And...he correctly identifies the John the Baptist passage in Book XVIII of Antiquities so it would seem that he had the right book.

(March 10, 2015 at 10:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 10:14 pm)TimOneill Wrote: As I find myself saying repeatedly in these discussions, people who want cases to be “proved” should avoid this subject altogether.

Fair enough. Actually, that fits with my identity as a Jesus Mooter.

If being a "Jesus Mooter" is defined by not being certain and accepting that things can only be argued to be more or less likely and not "proven", then pretty much every historian of the ancient world is an "ancient history mooter". That's simply the position on most things in the pre-modern past held by anyone with a more than high school level grasp of historiography.

Quote:I'll set aside my question of "what do we base this knowledge on?"

It's not "knowledge". These are things I say we can state are highly likely to be historical, nothing more.

Quote:1. Born in a town where lots of others were from.

"Lots"? Nazareth was a tiny village. Do you have any examples of other people called Jesus who came from there in the first century AD?

Quote:2. Had a brother. And hey, his brother had a common name.

Any other examples of a James who had a brother called Jesus who was called Messiah?

Quote:3. He was one of many apocalyptic preachers of that time.

We assume so. We actually know of very few.

Quote:4. He was one of many baptized by and inspired by JtB.

Probably. I'm not getting where you're going with this "one of many" stuff.

Quote:5. Did we mention he was one of many apocalyptic preachers of the time?

See above.

Quote:6. He was one of many Jews crucified by Pilate.

See above.

Quote:7. He was one of many claimed messiahs of that time.

We have knowledge of just one other who was declared Messiah in the same century. So, no actually.

Quote:Heck, there were probably a dozen or so Historical Jesuses (Jesusi?).

Really? You have evidence of some others that all of those things can be said about? That's remarkable. Let's see it.

Quote:Let me know if historians find anything of substance.

Tell me what evidence could we expect to find for someone like Jesus that fits the bill of your "of substance". Give me some examples of this evidence that we could expect to find for a peasant preacher that would satisfy you.

I've been asking people who claim to be agnostic on this issue this question for many years now and have yet to get a coherent answer. See how you go.

---

I'll assume this post is somehow aimed at me.

(March 10, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I do see that I am not getting through to you and, to make things perfectly clear, let me use this analogy. You keep trotting out "the gospels say" and "scholars say." I know what the gospels say. I've read them. There are sufficient contradictions for me to dismiss them as propaganda written for different people in different places. I do not care what they say.

You're rather more likely to "get through to me" if you present something coherent. That confused stuff earlier about how there may have been people in the first century who were Christians/Chrestians but weren't Christians (or something) and then Christians appeared from nowhere complete with an elaborate fantasy about how they had been around since the early first century (but hadn't, or something) was one of the most incoherent attempts at an alternative explanation for the origins of this sect I've seen in many years. And I've seen some pretty crazy ones.

And you seem to have some very odd knee jerk responses to trigger words, that mean you blurt things that have little to do with anything I've said. You see "Q" and blurt "Hypothesis!" Reject!" but fail to account for the clear textual overlap between gMatt and gLuke. You see me refer to the gospel material and what these texts may tell us about the traditions they arose out of and you blurt "Gospels! Fuck the gospels! Hit gospels with stick!" as though that is some kind of counter to anything I've said.

In fact, I'm beginning to think you aren't even reading my posts and are just spasmodically blurting at random words in them. It makes trying to engage with your strange ideas increasingly pointless.

---

(March 10, 2015 at 11:51 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: Any thoughts on the Testimonium Flavianum?
Was it a partial forgery or a total forgery?
If it was a partial forgery, any ideas what it said originally?
Also, I've heard some claim that Eusebius was the forger, but wouldn't he have been more clever?

The best founded case is the case for partial authenticity. It contains some language which is clearly not Josephan but that is mainly in the parts that are obviously things Josephus would not say. It also contains some language which is distinctively Josephan. Then we have three early variants in Jerome, Agapius and Michael the Syrian which don't only differ from the textus receptus, but differ in precisely the places we'd expect them to if they reflect an earlier, unaltered original - the parts that are things Josephus would not say.

All this indicates that these parts were added to an earlier original mention of Josephus. This also fits with the later reference to "that Jesus who was called Messiah" in Bk XX because (i) that reference makes more sense if it was referring back to the Bk XVIII account and (ii) the textual variants indicate that the "he was the Messiah" in the current text was originally "he was called the Messiah".

Vermes' reconstruction seems pretty likely to me:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man . . . For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him . . . And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Some of the language in the most likely interpolated parts is very similar to that used by Eusebius, but it is hard to say for sure. It's clear that the interpolations were added in the early fourth century though.

---

(March 11, 2015 at 1:53 am)Minimalist Wrote: Now, study the bolded part in this and compare the two. Origen bitches and moans 75 years earlier that Josephus did not state that the reason for the disasters which befell the jews was the conspiracy against jesus and instead invents a tale about how it was the death of James the Just which caused the diaster.

Unless Origen was the stupidest bastard who ever lived how could he have made this mistake unless there was nothing written there which gave him the slightest hint that Pilate HAD crucified jesus on the accusation of the ruling classes?

Another very strange argument. Origen complains that Josephus didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the execution of Jesus. And the TF ... doesn't.

So, huh?

Tim, what's your take on 1 Corinthians 15 when Jesus post-mortem supposedly shows up to 500 brethren "at one time," considering that you at least find Paul trustworthy as a source of accurate information in the other areas concerning Jesus you've mentioned? And how do you decide when you think Paul or anyone else should be given the benefit of the doubt when the early Christians prove themselves willing to make shit up to suit their purposes in the majority of other instances?

(March 10, 2015 at 11:51 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: Any thoughts on the Testimonium Flavianum?

It's a joke. And a really bad one.

Some do argue for its "partial authenticity". Do they have earlier extant copies prior to the Eseubian forgery?

Not exactly.

Do they have any citations from earlier Christians who quoted the earlier version?

Not exactly.

Does the paragraph fit in with the previous or following paragraphs of Josephus' work?

Not exactly.

Did they just make up a new version that seemed to them to be plausible?

Well, yeah.

So what do they have to justify keeping any part of the TF at all?

It uses words that Josephus might have used and stuff. Ta Da.

Does that convince me?

Not exactly.

---

(March 11, 2015 at 1:34 am)Irrational Wrote: Occam's Razor is a good tool to rule out multiple Jesuses, unless you can make a case that one Jesus is not enough to explain the awkwardness that is seen in the Gospels.

My point flew over your head.

The description of The Historical Jesus is so general and so vague that he could be anybody.

Historians can get back to me when they have something specific. For example, "apocalyptic preacher" is vague, especially in the context of 1st century Judea. There were lots of them at that time in Judea. WHAT SPECIFICALLY did he preach? How would the world end? How could a person be saved? What was salvation based on? Were people supposed to put brown paper bags over their heads and lie on the floor?

---

(March 11, 2015 at 2:40 am)TimOneill Wrote: If being a "Jesus Mooter" is defined by not being certain and accepting that things can only be argued to be more or less likely and not "proven", then pretty much every historian of the ancient world is an "ancient history mooter".

A Jesus Mooter is a skeptic of religion who notes that any historical Jesus does nothing to validate Christian supernatural claims any more than any other founder of any other religion does. Other Christian apologetic arguments such as "would they have died for a lie?" and "the Trilemma" are vapid and easily dispatched but that's another thread for another time.

A Jesus Mooter is also one who notes how, accepting the existence of The Historical Jesus, we'll never know the true story as it is hopelessly buried under folklore and mythology. It's like 2,000 years from now looking for The Historical Elvis but none of his music survived, none of his bio survived, none of his interviews survived and all we have are some fanciful tabloid articles about Elvis sightings.

Since Jesus is a dead guy, he makes no difference to religious claims. Since history can't know anything about him apart from the skimpy details offered, there's nothing here of interest.

It's all moot.

Quote:Tell me what evidence could we expect to find for someone like Jesus that fits the bill of your "of substance". Give me some examples of this evidence that we could expect to find for a peasant preacher that would satisfy you.

So he was a religious leader? What did he preach? "Apocalyptic" isn't especially distinctive for 1st century Judea.

Many different Christianities existed in the first few centuries. Which one got it right, if any? Do we have anything on the ministry he led? If we had some actual knowledge about The Historical Jesus, we might be able to venture at least a guess.

He was crucified by Pilate? As were a lot of Jews. Or so Josephus says in his reflections on Pilate. Pilate was a brutal Roman governor, even by Roman standards. Maybe some additional details might help make his execution story distinct. What was he crucified for? Did he lead a rebellion that failed? Or did Pilate find something in his ministry that was a threat to Roman authority? What exactly?

What you offer is barely more than "some guy named Yeshua".

EDIT to correct embarrassing typo of "Elvish sightings" to "Elvis sightings". Perhaps there have been tabloid articles on "Elvish sightings", which would be no less silly, but that would be a different topic.

(March 11, 2015 at 2:40 am)TimOneill Wrote: The best founded case is the case for partial authenticity. It contains some language which is clearly not Josephan but that is mainly in the parts that are obviously things Josephus would not say. It also contains some language which is distinctively Josephan. Then we have three early variants in Jerome, Agapius and Michael the Syrian which don't only differ from the textus receptus, but differ in precisely the places we'd expect them to if they reflect an earlier, unaltered original - the parts that are things Josephus would not say.

All this indicates that these parts were added to an earlier original mention of Josephus. This also fits with the later reference to "that Jesus who was called Messiah" in Bk XX because (i) that reference makes more sense if it was referring back to the Bk XVIII account and (ii) the textual variants indicate that the "he was the Messiah" in the current text was originally "he was called the Messiah".

Vermes' reconstruction seems pretty likely to me:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man . . . For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him . . . And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Some of the language in the most likely interpolated parts is very similar to that used by Eusebius, but it is hard to say for sure. It's clear that the interpolations were added in the early fourth century though.

I wonder if this is a case where a very pious Christian scribe felt the need to insert editorial comments to the words of Josephus that seemed to border on blasphemy to this scribe? Later scribes could not distinguish the editorial comments from the text and unintentionally created this apparently clumsy forgery? In other words it was margin notes instead of a deliberate forgery?

(March 11, 2015 at 8:44 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: Later scribes could not distinguish the editorial comments from the text and unintentionally created this apparently clumsy forgery? In other words it was margin notes instead of a deliberate forgery?

Scholars think that did happen. Not all "interpolations" are deliberate forgeries. Sometimes margin notes would be carried into later copies by careless scribes.

(March 11, 2015 at 10:42 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(March 11, 2015 at 8:44 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: Later scribes could not distinguish the editorial comments from the text and unintentionally created this apparently clumsy forgery? In other words it was margin notes instead of a deliberate forgery?

Scholars think that did happen. Not all "interpolations" are deliberate forgeries. Sometimes margin notes would be carried into later copies by careless scribes.

I suspect in some cases the scribe thought the margin notes were corrections to the manuscript instead of notes?

I wonder how the scribes knew where to interpolate the margin notes into the text when they made their mistakes? Do you suppose they guessed where the note should be inserted or did the note creator typically insert a marker in the text to show where his/her note applied?

Also, wasn't paper expensive? Would there be room in the margin for a note or would a scrap of paper be inserted?