Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Minimalist]

That's a long way from saying that Josephus wrote it, though.

BTW, whoever wrote "Luke" did not pay enough attention to Josephus. He fucked up the whole bit about the political situation in Galilee/Judaea between the death of Herod the Great and the appointment of Herod Agrippa I as king.

"Luke" has a family of Galileans going to Judaea to participate in a census in another country at that time. If he copied from Josephus there is no way he makes that mistake.

[jupitor]

on page 12, I explained my thoughts and said it's all Greek mythology. A speaker yesterday, a religious one explained that in biblical times the Greek language was widely used as there were large communities of Greeks in Palestine/Egypt/Iran/Iraq/Jordan. Aramaic was only used when connected with religion, as 'we' used Latin.
In the New International Bible which has been written after scholars from all over the world retranslated the bible, it says that Jesus was a Greek. So my thoughts seem nearer the truth. The Greeks have several 'Gods' and some had sons with earthling virgins, therefore they needed to introduce a son with the new invisible God. Jesus therefore, is a myth and never existed in reality

[FallentoReason]

He's not a 'myth' as such. He had a very 'real' purpose to the early cults and from the beginning they never claimed that he was a physical being. That interpretation came in around the time of Paul who preached against them, the heretics.

[Minimalist]

That interpretation came in around the time of Paul who preached against them, the heretics.

.....or so the story was later written.

[cratehorus]

Josephus has no surviving manuscripts.... the earliest is from the 6th century AD... there is not even a single mention of any of Josephus' writings mentioning Jesus until after the 4th century AD..... The claim that Mark was written in 70 AD is false (dam apologists) .....the oldest surving peice of the manuscript is a small fragment from 250 AD........ the earliest fragment of any book of the bible is from the book of John from 125 AD......... The claim that Paul's letter's were written in 50 AD is also false.....the earliest is a small fragment from the 2nd century AD........ The earliest complete manuscript of any of the new testament books is the book of Timothy 350 AD..... every other complete manuscript is also from the 4th century

[FallentoReason]

Josephus has no surviving manuscripts.... the earliest is from the 6th century AD... there is not even a single mention of any of Josephus' writings mentioning Jesus until after the 4th century AD..... The claim that Mark was written in 70 AD is false (dam apologists) .....the oldest surving peice of the manuscript is a small fragment from 250 AD........ the earliest fragment of any book of the bible is from the book of John from 125 AD......... The claim that Paul's letter's were written in 50 AD is also false.....the earliest is a small fragment from the 2nd century AD........ The earliest complete manuscript of any of the new testament books is the book of Timothy 350 AD..... every other complete manuscript is also from the 4th century

I think you're getting archaeological finds and the dates of when something could have been penned down confused. I personally believe the Gospels were written around the time that scholars say because Matthew, Mark and Luke at least reference the work of Josephus with the earliest one of his being written around 66 A.D.

The reason why Josephus' passage was quoted in the 4th century onwards is because that's when Eusebus edited Josephus' work. He was the Church's historian at the time. It was bound to happen anyways because it's actually thanks to the Church that those copies of Josephus' work were preserved. The Church had them until the 17th century (I think.. or around that time).

[Minimalist]

? Josephus earliest work was The Jewish War which dates from some time after his arrival in Rome around 71. The usual date is 75. Antiquities of the Jews is a much larger work and is generally dated to 94 AD. It is this work which contains the John the Baptist reference as well as the two so-called "jesus" references.... one of which is an obvious forgery from the 4th century and the other is probably little more than xtian wishful thinking.

Citing the gospels as having knowledge of Josephus thus means that the dates of their creation must be pushed back until sometime after 94. Lots of xtian scholars will have a shit hemorrhage rather than make such an admission.

[FallentoReason]

I'm pretty certain that there's a strong relationship between Josephus and the Gospels. Because I believe that the Gospels are allegory and not history as such, then I guess the dates of Josephus' works take priority.

[Minimalist]

"Luke" seems to fixate on Greco-Roman history what with his (incorrect) citings of a census and his dating of events to the reigns of Roman emperors. However, most scholars insist on 70 as a date for Luke because of the mention of the "little" apocalypse but that is just a date of convenience as they don't wish to acknowledge the absurd idea of "prophecy" and yet it is the earliest time the temple was destroyed....even if that is not exactly what ole jesus says.

In any case, "Luke" cannot be written in 70 and cite Josephus. The logical conclusion is that Luke dates from much later.

[Epimethean]

http://www.edwardjayne.com/christology/mithra.html