Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Simon Moon]

I wonder what Tim O'Neil has to say about this?


The 'Oxford Classical Dictionary', one of the foremost authorities on the Greco-Roman world, does not have an entry for Jeshua Ben Yusef?


http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...alify.html


"The 3rd. ed. continues the title:  The Oxford Classical Dictionary: The Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World includes more than 6,200 entries, but again fails to provided any entry on Jesus nor has it any use for the New Testament as a historical record.  Although the entry on Josephus is expanded in the newer editions, the Dictionary dismisses the Testimonium Flavianum account on Jesus as reliable history in just one sentence: “The famous testimonium to Jesus is partly or even wholly an interpolation.” (p. 798)

Likewise, there are no entries on Gospels, New Testament, nor does the Dictionary list a single reference  to any Biblical book under its section: Abbreviations Used in the Present Work   A. General  B. Authors and Books in its 75 pages."


I don't believe Oxford are in the 'fringe', are they?  

Did you read the post or not? I'll take the relevant information, but this was clearly addressed.

There are two major historical references to Jesus from the greco-Roman world.

Many Christian apologists vastly overstate the number of ancient non-Christian writers who attest to the existence of Jesus.  This is partly because they are not simply showing that a mere Jewish preacher existed, but are arguing for the existence of the "Jesus Christ" of Christian doctrine: a supposedly supernatural figure who allegedly performed amazing public miracles in front of audiences of thousands of witnesses.  It could certainly be argued that such a wondrous figure would have been noticed outside of Galilee and Judea and so should have been widely noted as well.  So Christian apologists often cite a long list of writers who mention Jesus, usually including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Thallus and several others.  But of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person - the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the "Christ" that was the focus of its worship.

If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures.  And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the time.  The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.

Josephus

The Jewish priestly aristocrat Joseph ben Matityahu, who took the Roman name Flavius Josephus, is our main source of information about Jewish affairs in this period and is usually the only writer of the time who makes any mention of Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the First Century.  Not surprisingly, he mentions Jesus twice: firstly in some detail in Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 and again more briefly when mentioning the execution of Jesus' brother James in Antiquities XX.9.1.  The first reference is problematic, however, as it contains elements which Josephus cannot have written and which seem to have been added later by a Christian interpolator.  Here is the text, with the likely interpolations in bold:

"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 paradoxical deeds, 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,
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 at this day."

There has been a long debate about what parts of this reference to Jesus are authentic to Josephus or even if the whole passage is a wholesale interpolation.  Proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, naturally, opt for the idea that it is not authentic in any way, but there are strong indications that, apart from the obvious additions shown in bold above, Josephus did mention Jesus at this point in his text.

To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephean in their style and phrasing.  "Now (there was) about this time ..." is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work.  There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as "a wise man", but this is a term used by Josephus several times, eg about Solomon and Daniel.  Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus' miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral term παραδόξων ἔργων - "paradoxa erga" or "paradoxical deeds".  Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean "deeds that are difficult to interpret" and even has overtones of cautious scepticism.  Finally, the use of the word φῦλον ("phylon" - "race, tribe") is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about sects, nations or other distinct groups.  Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν ("Christianon" - "Christians") every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus' writings.

The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity.  Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts.  And it is significantly free of terms and phrases from the gospels, which we'd expect to find if it was created wholesale by a Christian writer.  So either a very clever Christian interpolator somehow managed to immerse himself in Josephus' phrasing and language, without modern concordances and dictionaries and create a passage containing distinctively Josephean phraseology, or what we have here is a genuinely Josephean passage that has simply been added to rather clumsily.

As a result of this and other evidence (eg the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of this passage which seem to come from a version before the clumsy additions by the interpolator) the consensus amongst scholars of all backgrounds is that the passage is partially genuine, simply added in a few obvious places.  Louis H. Feldman's Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the passage to be partially authentic.  

Peter Kirby has done a survey of the literature since and found that this trend has increased in recent years.  He concludes "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the (Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 passage) to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist."  

The other mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1, is much more straightforward, but much more of a problem for Jesus Mythicists.  In it Josephus recounts a major political event that happened when he was a young man.  This would have been a significant and memorable event for him, since he was only 25 at the time and it caused upheaval in his own social and political class, the priestly families of Jerusalem that included his own.

In 62 AD the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome.  This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer reign than usual. Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed.  This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests.  But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, 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.

This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.

Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand.  This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways:

(i) "The words "who was called Messiah" are a later Christian interpolation" -

Since it is wholly unlikely that a Christian interpolator invented the whole story of the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus, Mythicists try to argue that the key words which identify which Jesus is being spoken of are interpolated.  Unfortunately this argument does not work.  This is because the passage is discussed no less than three times in mid-Third Century works by the Christian apologist Origen and he directly quotes the relevant section with the words "Jesus who was called the Messiah" all three times: in Contra Celsum I.4, in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17.  Each time he uses precisely the phrase we find in Josephus: αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου ("the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah").  This is significant because Origen was writing a whole generation before Christianity was in any kind of position to be tampering with texts of Josephus.  If this phrase was in the passage in Origen's time, then it was clearly original to Josephus.

The name 'Yeshua' is just a translation of Jesus.

Did you read my post?

One of the foremost authorities on the Greco-Roman world, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, has no entry for Jesus, nor to they reference any book of the NT as a historical source. 

I've read Tim O'Neil before. He makes a strong case.

All I posted is a reputable historical source that does not consider the case for a historical Jesus to have an entry for him in a scholarly historical reference book. 

I believe you reversed your last statement. Jesus is the translation of Yeshua.

[TheMessiah]

Did you read the post or not? I'll take the relevant information, but this was clearly addressed.

There are two major historical references to Jesus from the greco-Roman world.



The name 'Yeshua' is just a translation of Jesus.

Did you read my post?

One of the foremost authorities on the Greco-Roman world, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, has no entry for Jesus, nor to they reference any book of the NT as a historical source. 

I've read Tim O'Neil before. He makes a strong case.

All I posted is a reputable historical source that does not consider the case for a historical Jesus to have an entry for him in a scholarly historical reference book. 

I believe you reversed your last statement. Jesus is the translation of Yeshua.

I read your post - I then highlighted a specific part of the one I quoted.

What Christians claim Jesus is isn't what Historians claim he is - the historical Jesus, and the version of Jesus that Tim (and many other Historians) refer to is simply a human Jewish preacher who had a grassroots following and died a disgraceful death. And despite his relative insignificance, we have at-east 2 historical references to him/that figure. The ones I cited, are of two of the most reputable scholars of the time.

The reality is that he doesn't really deserve a place on the list, because historically, he isn't significant. The fame surrounding Jesus is based on the concept of Christ, as a saviour.

[robvalue]

So... Jesus is only 99% mythical then. That doesn't exactly make the mythicist possession mental in my opinion. I don't see what difference it makes about that 1% of banal factoids. Why is this such a big deal I wonder? When you have that little information about someone, saying it's "based on" them really doesn't mean much at all. His life story is mythical. (Or in scepto speak, we have no good reason to think his life story is anything other than almost entirely mythical. Angels and shit are a bit of a giveaway.)

The Jesus written about in the bible is not a real person. He is a ridiculous story told about someone who quite possibly existed, or quite possibly more than one person shoved together.

[Cyberman]

FFS - hide tags, people!

[TheMessiah]

So... Jesus is only 99% mythical then. I don't see what difference it makes about that 1% of banal factoids. Why is this such a big deal I wonder? When you have that little information about someone, saying it's "based on" them really doesn't mean much at all.

I don't know what you mean by 99% mythical. No serious Historian, nor me ever proposed that Jesus was a magical figure - I'm not going to entertain absurdity.

But was he a figure who had a grassroots movement, tried to reform the Jewish faith and got killed for it? Most likely. His followers had to reconcile his embarrassing death and the Jewish prophecy.

The evidence for his existence is actually better attested to than some other historical figures - I mean, we all know how illogical Christians are, but sometimes I wonder whether there is an ideological desire to undermine the existence of Jesus.

[robvalue]

Err... you don't know what I mean? I mean 99% made up. I'm not trying to undermine anything. I don't care if he was real or not, he's just some asswipe.

Did I say you said that? You seem a bit defensive.

I didn't say I was a mythicist, by the way.

If other historical figures are less well documented then I feel very sorry for them It's flattery to call the gospels "documented" I think.

[TheMessiah]

Err... you don't know what I mean? I mean 99% made up. I'm not trying to undermine anything. I don't care if he was real or not, he's just some asswipe.

I didn't say I was a mythicist, by the way.

I don't know what you're referring to by made up. There are certainly things that The Bible claim Jesus said, that we just don't know if he did; the general gist of the figure is true, but if you're referring to some specific events, then yes, they be ''made up''.

If a movie about Jesus is made, then obviously, they have the general gist of what he did; but they need fillers.

[robvalue]

That's fine, if you see the gospels as evidence, that's your decision I don't. Like I said, it makes no odds to me, I'm not emotionally attached to any of this. Just calling it as I see it.

Of course stuff "could have happened" but that's not reliable history, to me.

[Pyrrho]

He was ''disposed'' in the way that he was crucified - we know he wasn't slaughtered like a militant Jew because the death of Christ via Crucifixion is an event which is well-attested to; both via historical reference from Tacticus (who also hated Christians, but acknowledged his cruxification) and on a logical level.
...

I presume you mean "Tacitus."  "Tacticus" could be Aeneas Tacticus,  Aelianus Tacticus, or possibly someone else who made no mention of Jesus.

In the case of Tacitus (that is, Publius [or Gaius] Cornelius Tacitus), the mentioning of Christ (which is not Jesus' name) is known to be tampered with.  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Furthermore, even if genuine, Tacitus is obviously repeating some other source, as he could not possibly have been a witness to anything he is mentioning about Christ.  Of course, that he knew about Christians is another matter.

So, even if the passage is authentic and not something patched in later by a Christian liar (as has been shown to be the case in other instances of old texts), all it means is that the story was being spread by circa 116.  Obviously, Tacitus did not witness anything directly beyond the fact that there were members of a bizarre cult, who made various claims.  So it just means that Christians were making such claims in circa 116 about Christ, nothing more.

In other words, this is not evidence that anyone existed at all, just evidence that there were such stories in about 116.  And that is even assuming that the text is genuine, which is questionable.

One can read old texts in which Apollo and Zeus are discussed as existing, too.  They may have as much reality in them as Jesus.

All of this is a rehash of a thread from earlier this year; here is a post from that thread:

---

Personally I have not heard a single argument that convinces me that HJ is likely. Everything I've heard, even from historians, is based on assumptions and motivations. If there's any actual argument you have, feel free to use a historians argument, then I'd be happy to hear it. But I don't care about Genghis Khan or the level of evidence for anyone else. I'm only interested in actual arguments and evidence for HJ, if you want to make that point. I didn't see anything I'm that thread you posted that was convincing.

The fact that Christian historians (who, of course, are the most numerous types of historians who [if you will pardon the expression] historically have studied the historical Jesus) believe that there was an historical Jesus convinces TheMessiah that there really was an historical Jesus.

The idea that all historians have approached the question without bias is laughable.  For the most part, the people who seriously study the issue do so because of their religious convictions.  And then we are supposed to take their conclusions seriously, when they started by assuming that their conclusions were true!


If we look at someone like Tacitus, who he mentioned earlier here,

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31487-po...#pid870718

what that proves is that Christianity existed in 116, and that Tacitus had heard the basic outline of the story that Christians were spreading.  It does nothing whatsoever to show that the events actually took place, only that the story was in circulation at the time.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

No one is questioning the existence of Christianity (which is all that Tacitus really proves); it is only a matter of whether or not there was some person upon whom the story is based.  A story can be written with or without such a person, and can be influential (or not) with or without such a person.

Tacitus, having heard the basic story, had no particular reason to say that there was no basis in fact, but neither had he any proof that it did.  Quite frankly, the existence of such a person was unimportant to him, as, indeed, it is unimportant to pretty much anyone who is not a Christian.  It does not matter whether the story (I should write, "stories," because they are not consistent with each other) is based on a real person or not.


If TheMessiah is consistent, then he believes that there is also an historical Herakles (Hercules to those of you who prefer Roman names) and every other half-god being that there is some ancient story about.  But my guess is, he makes a special exception for Jesus, because of the indoctrination that people get on this subject.  (If you are reading this, TheMessiah, do you believe in an historical Herakles?  If not, why not?  He is referenced by multiple ancient authors and described as if he existed.  Or is it that you just go along with the prejudices of the Christian society in which you have been raised?)


Most people who attempt to search for the historical Jesus start with the assumption that there is an historical Jesus.  This is true whether they are Christians or not.  And when most of them end up believing what they started with presupposing to be true, why should anyone be surprised?

---

[TheMessiah]

He was ''disposed'' in the way that he was crucified - we know he wasn't slaughtered like a militant Jew because the death of Christ via Crucifixion is an event which is well-attested to; both via historical reference from Tacticus (who also hated Christians, but acknowledged his cruxification) and on a logical level.
...

I presume you mean "Tacitus."  "Tacticus" could be Aeneas Tacticus,  Aelianus Tacticus, or possibly someone else who made no mention of Jesus.

In the case of Tacitus (that is, Publius [or Gaius] Cornelius Tacitus), the mentioning of Christ (which is not Jesus' name) is known to be tampered with.  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Furthermore, even if genuine, Tacitus is obviously repeating some other source, as he could not possibly have been a witness to anything he is mentioning about Christ.  Of course, that he knew about Christians is another matter.

So, even if the passage is authentic and not something patched in later by a Christian liar (as has been shown to be the case in other instances of old texts), all it means is that the story was being spread by circa 116.  Obviously, Tacitus did not witness anything directly beyond the fact that there were members of a bizarre cult, who made various claims.  So it just means that Christians were making such claims in circa 116 about Christ, nothing more.

In other words, this is not evidence that anyone existed at all, just evidence that there were such stories in about 116.  And that is even assuming that the text is genuine, which is questionable.

One can read old texts in which Apollo and Zeus are discussed as existing, too.  They may have as much reality in them as Jesus.

All of this is a rehash of a thread from earlier this year; here is a post from that thread:

---

The fact that Christian historians (who, of course, are the most numerous types of historians who [if you will pardon the expression] historically have studied the historical Jesus) believe that there was an historical Jesus convinces TheMessiah that there really was an historical Jesus.

The idea that all historians have approached the question without bias is laughable.  For the most part, the people who seriously study the issue do so because of their religious convictions.  And then we are supposed to take their conclusions seriously, when they started by assuming that their conclusions were true!


If we look at someone like Tacitus, who he mentioned earlier here,

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31487-po...#pid870718

what that proves is that Christianity existed in 116, and that Tacitus had heard the basic outline of the story that Christians were spreading.  It does nothing whatsoever to show that the events actually took place, only that the story was in circulation at the time.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

No one is questioning the existence of Christianity (which is all that Tacitus really proves); it is only a matter of whether or not there was some person upon whom the story is based.  A story can be written with or without such a person, and can be influential (or not) with or without such a person.

Tacitus, having heard the basic story, had no particular reason to say that there was no basis in fact, but neither had he any proof that it did.  Quite frankly, the existence of such a person was unimportant to him, as, indeed, it is unimportant to pretty much anyone who is not a Christian.  It does not matter whether the story (I should write, "stories," because they are not consistent with each other) is based on a real person or not.


If TheMessiah is consistent, then he believes that there is also an historical Herakles (Hercules to those of you who prefer Roman names) and every other half-god being that there is some ancient story about.  But my guess is, he makes a special exception for Jesus, because of the indoctrination that people get on this subject.  (If you are reading this, TheMessiah, do you believe in an historical Herakles?  If not, why not?  He is referenced by multiple ancient authors and described as if he existed.  Or is it that you just go along with the prejudices of the Christian society in which you have been raised?)


Most people who attempt to search for the historical Jesus start with the assumption that there is an historical Jesus.  This is true whether they are Christians or not.  And when most of them end up believing what they started with presupposing to be true, why should anyone be surprised?

---

I've addressed this before.

The reference is from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, who was a Roman historian and senator --- who despised Christianity; hence trying to scapegoat the Christians for the Roman fire.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
(Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)

This not being a historical reference (which it is unanimously accepted as) begs to question why the senator, who's hate for Christianity was well known would acknowledge the existence of Jesus; opposed to deny his existence, as had been demonstrated when he tried to undermine Christian influence by scape-goating them. The passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect Second Century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine.

The reason why ''But he was just repeating a Christian lie'' argument fails:

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all. This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could. He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:

My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt. He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, his miracles and nothing about the claim he rose from the dead. On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred {"during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus. But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects. None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus. There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least quite plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.

Either your argument is lacking, or it is disingenuous.