The Historical Christ

[Eilonnwy]

tl :: dr

But let me throw up this essay:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html

[LEDO]

Fair enough. I will refrain from using Biblical sources as anything more than back-up (e.g. Circumstantial evidence).

First off I would like to say that I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick when it comes to the wittings of Josephus. Yes many scholars agree that 'At about this lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one might call him a man...' was a latter tampering with the text by Christian copyists-the operative word being 'tampering'. There is no evidence that I can find which suggests that this passage was complete invention. In fact it is far more likely to be Christians changing an existing passage which does not agree with their world view.

Why is this more likely? Well latter on in the text, Josephus says 'James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ'. We know that this (and other passages) is probably not the work of Christian copyists because it questions Christ's Messiahship. As you said yourself, no-one promotes like a Christian hence it is extremely unlikely that pro-Christians doctored this type of passage. That Josephus questions Jesus' divinity rather than his existence suggests that he had access to earlier sources which have since been lost.

If there was any remaining doubt that Josephus wrote about Jesus as an historical figure, then please welcome Origen. He wrote in a time when Christianity was yet to be institutionalized and hence pre-dates Christian copyists (all the manuscripts were written by slaves at the time-very few of which would have been pro-Christian). He complains about Josephus' attempt to discredit Christ by arguing against his Messiahship. Clearly the latter Christian monks doctored the book, but changed the words of an existing passage rather than invented a new one.

Now that Josephus is taken care off, I can move on to the Mishnah, Baraitha and Tosefta. These are Jewish works from around the first and second centuries AD, and make reference to Jesus (although the Mishnah does not mention him by name) several times. Any threat of them being doctored by Christians is throwen out the window if you read the passages. They paint Christians and Christ in a less that favorable light (again an unlikely characteristic of a Catholic monk), but clearly confirm his existence. The fact that they are written for use by Jews further aids their authenticity as they tended to be ignored by Christian scholars, so Jews did most of the copying. These Jewish Rabbi-so strongly anti-Christian-are unlikely to doctor a document in favour of Christianity.

One of the biggest problems with the myth senario is brought up by the critics of Christianity. If there had been even a small chance that Jesus was not real, they would have jumped upon it. As it stands all the critics of antiquity question that Christ was sent by God, not his existence. This suggests (as it does in Josephus' work) that, when they were writing, his existence was undeniable. The burning of anti-Nicene documents after Constantine means that this evidence for his existence has since vanished, but, in the works mentioned, it leaves a deep trace.

However, the last nail in the coffin for the myth theory is the disciples themselves. Chatpilot, you said yourself that the disciples where real historical figures, and yet they said that they saw Jesus, the real man. You are left with two choices: they are lying or Christ existed. Which will it be?

Is this enough secular evidence or should I continue?

I would say there were no writings of Josephus making a reference to Jesus. While his work was known, no early church father cited the passage. Most likely it was added after it was realized there was no reference to Jesus and there needed to be one.

I would also say Jewish references to Jesus were written to slur an "existing" fictional Jesus believed to have existed.

[chatpilot]

Dagda I believe that the apostles never wrote anything about Christ.The gospels are the bibles main books that speak of Jesus earthly life and ministry.And most scholars agree that none of those books namely:Matthew,Mark,Luke,or John were written by any of the apostles whose names are attached to them.I dont count Paul as an apostle since in my definition of an apostle the main requirement would be that he was chosen by Christ and walked with Christ.Paul had a revelation of Christ on the road to Damascus according to the scriptures.And it is because of that that I dont accept his conversion story as real.A revelation is only a revelation to the one recieving it,to the rest of us it's just hearsay.

[dagda]

I think you have missed my point. You say the apostles were real, historical figures, and they clearly believed in the physical, historical Christ. This leaves two options; Jesus is real or they are lying. Which one will it be?

Kyu, your comments on Josephus do not prove that Josephus did not write about Christ. Indeed, it actually verifies the point I was making; of course the passage will not sound like Josephus if the style of the writer had to be dismantled to create a more Christian friendly version (he was quite anti-Christian I think).

Ledo, Origen was an early Church Father. He cited a Josephus passage mentioning Christ-and criticized it for being so anti-Christian. Also, your comments about the Jewish sources seem to be pure fantasy. Where is the evidence and why would the sources that are so anti-Christian not mention the fact that he was fiction (first thing I would do if I were them)?

[Kyuuketsuki]

your comments on Josephus do not prove that Josephus did not write about Christ. Indeed, it actually verifies the point I was making; of course the passage will not sound like Josephus if the style of the writer had to be dismantled to create a more Christian friendly version (he was quite anti-Christian I think).

What does "PROVE" it? What it does is cast serious doubt on whether Josephus is a credible Christian witness and as I am sure you realise, that's all I need to do!

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Kyu

I'm fascinated by the constant reference to Josephus. Essentially a Roman apologist,he is not a writer to whom I would turn as a prime source on anything.


Wiki

Historian E. Mary Smallwood wrote:

(Josephus) was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefitted for the rest of his days from his change of side.[10]

Josephus' credibility as a historian is questionable — his works are usually dismissed as Roman propaganda or as a personal or Jewish apologetic, aimed at rehabilitating his reputation in history. More recently, commentators[who?] have reassessed previously-held views of Josephus. As P.J. O'Rourke quipped:

Reason dictates we should hate this man. But it's hard to get angry at Josephus. What, after all, did he do? A few soldiers were tricked into suicide. Some demoralizing claptrap was shouted at a beleaguered army. A wife was distressed... all of which pale by comparison to what the good men did. For it was the loyal, the idealistic and the brave who did the real damage. The devout and patriotic leaders of Jerusalem sacrificed tens of thousands of lives to the cause of freedom. Vespasian and Titus sacrificed tens of thousands of more to the cause of civil order. Even Agrippa II, the Roman client king of Judea who did all he could to prevent the war, ended by supervising the destruction of half a dozen of his cities and the sale of their inhabitants into slavery. How much better for everyone if all the principal figures of the region had been slithering filth like Josephus.[11]

[moleque]

Out of curiosity, has anyone read Tolstoy's interpretation of the Christian beliefs?
He left one story with the death of Jesus and did not mention any resurrection.

[chatpilot]

moleque I have not read Tolstoys interpretation but you have piqued my interest thanks for bringing that up I will look into it. Dagda acknowleding that the apostles were actual historical figures does not mean that they beleived Jesus was real.For all we know they were just sticking to the teachings of the Gnostics regarding a the coming of a nameless messiah.The apostles themselves did not write the gospels so as far as I am concerned the gospels themselves are based on hearsay.None of the so called words of Christ can be taken at face value since the oldest gospel of Mark was not written till at least 30-60 years after the alleged death of Christ.

In my opinion Josephus did not write that cursory reference to Christ in his book.Most reknowned scholars agree that that was a later insertion into the text.

[chatpilot]

Here is a good site for information regarding Josephus statements about Christ specifically.I have read on this so much that I have no desire to hold anyones hand and take them through it.If you really want to know what scholars have uncovered about Josephus this is the place to go,knock yourself out and enjoy.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm

[LEDO]

I think you have missed my point. You say the apostles were real, historical figures, and they clearly believed in the physical, historical Christ. This leaves two options; Jesus is real or they are lying. Which one will it be?

Kyu, your comments on Josephus do not prove that Josephus did not write about Christ. Indeed, it actually verifies the point I was making; of course the passage will not sound like Josephus if the style of the writer had to be dismantled to create a more Christian friendly version (he was quite anti-Christian I think).

Ledo, Origen was an early Church Father. He cited a Josephus passage mentioning Christ-and criticized it for being so anti-Christian. Also, your comments about the Jewish sources seem to be pure fantasy. Where is the evidence and why would the sources that are so anti-Christian not mention the fact that he was fiction (first thing I would do if I were them)?

The Jewish writings claim Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman Centurian. Also some writings have him living a century earlier and show him simply as a smart-ass trouble maker. Origen mentions Jesus in the same sentence as Josephus, but there is no actual quote from Josephus about Jesus. Did he really read Josephus' books? If so, why no quote? Jesus appears to be mentioned by Origen as an historical figure Josephus did not believe in.

The first quote claims James was the brother of Jesus called the Christ. Is this supposed to be a Josephus quote, or is Origen making this statement on his own? The second citation is even more cloudy.

Origen, Josephus and Jesus

The works of Origen (c. 182-251 CE) which have down to us mention Josephus referencing Jesus Christ twice. It is worth quoting both passages in full:
"Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James." (On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15) [om]

"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. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine" (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:47) [oa]

One point of interest is that Josephus is cited fourteen times by early Christian writers in the Ante-Nicence Fathers - and these are the only mentions of this supposed reference to Christ before Eusebius in the fourth century. [tj]

The next obvious query is Origen's correctness of the reference to "the 18th book of his Antiquities" in "Against Celsus". The attached footnote to the Ante-Nicene Fathers is this (SPIonic font required):
"[arxaiologiaj. S.] Cf. Joseph., Antiq., book xviii. c. v. sec. 2." [oa]

Louis Feldman, the pre-eminent Josephus scholar, has confirmed that the original text of Origen Against Celsus does not reference "the 18th book of his Antiquities". We can therefore not be certain that Origen was aware of Josephus 18.3.3 when he wrote.