What you are doing is casting doubt upon the inerrancy of the Bible. This is not the subject here, and it’s a question for GD, not here. Every great man has myths about him- look at George Washington with "the cherry tree’ and “dollar throw”- both very likely myths. Does that mean George Washington didn’t exist?
Your arguement has nothing to do with the question here- which is “was there really a historical Jesus?” Cecil has concluded there was- and so far, no one here has shown any of Cecil’s points to be incorrect, or thrown any new light on the subject.
What you are doing is casting doubt upon the inerrancy of the Bible. This is not the subject here, and it’s a question for GD, not here. Every great man has myths about him- look at George Washington with "the cherry tree’ and “dollar throw”- both very likely myths. Does that mean George Washington didn’t exist?
Your arguement has nothing to do with the question here- which is “was there really a historical Jesus?” Cecil has concluded there was- and so far, no one here has shown any of Cecil’s points to be incorrect, or thrown any new light on the subject.
Hmm, oddly, the exact same reply works for both. Nothing new, nothing to do with the question. “When come back- bring facts”.
Fair points. But what I was saying originally was not that Cecil necessarily ‘got it wrong’, but simply that I think he is stretching it where he claims that a couple of references in Josephus and a few brief mentions by 2nd century non-Christians writers (by which point there were clearly Christians around believing that they had a historical founder - the gospels had been written after all) ‘proves’ Jesus existed.
To go back to Josephus (1st century Jewish historian and Roman collaborator) - he makes a brief reference to James, brother of Jesus, called Christ. I agree with scholars who say it is likely that at the least the ‘called Christ’ bit was a later addition by Christians. Perhaps, knowing of the tradition Jesus had a brother called James, they noticed this coincidental mention of these common names and decided to make it look like it was referring to ‘their’ Jesus. I have a copy of Josephus’ work and in the index under ‘Jesus’ there are 14 different people. It would also be most remarkable for a non-Christian Jew to casually remark that Jesus was ‘called Christ’, which is a synonym for ‘Messiah’ - ie the one everyone was waiting for. At one point, he apparently tries to curry favour with the Roman emperor by saying he views HIM as the Messiah.
The other Jospehus passage, as I have said is 99 per cent certain to have been tampered with because its content is more of less impossible for a non-Christian, who was critical of would-be Messiahs elsewhere apparently (I’ve not read it all), to write. Also even the idea that it was originally in a slimmed-down form, is problematic, because the surrounding passages read better without it:
Ch.3 Antiquities, talking about a ‘sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate. Describes how Pilate tried to abolish some of the Jewish laws and introduced images of Caesar in Jerusalem. People complained about it in their ‘multitudes’ and when Pilate threatened the death penalty they were still adamant, so he removed the images. The it describes how Pilate decided to use ‘sacred money’ to build some sort of aqueduct, and the Jews were upset again. Pilate ordered soldiers to go and quell the disturbance, but they were excessively zealous and ‘there were a great number of the slain’.
The he says:
Now, there was at 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 many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them again alive on 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 to this day’.
Then he continues…
‘About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder…’
Surely it is likely this reference is to the ‘sad calamity’ of the massacre he has previously mentioned and the Jesus bit was never there at all?
Mmm. I think I see the problem. I took the OP to mean
I was commenting on this and you apparently are commenting on
. So, it is limited to this?
If we were taught that GW was born in SquatnPee, Utah and attended Bubba U. and led a war against King Ralph I think it might begin to cast doubts on the very origin of the existance of GW and would be entirely relevent.
Nothing new? Are you of the opinion that everything that has been stated in this thread was already known to everyone who has read it?
If in fact this is a review of the factual and in-depth writtings of Cecil then I don’t see any point to the post. Read it and accept it or add additional insights to the the subject at hand.
In this forum, discussion is limited to commenting on Cecil’s Column. So, we do allow some latitude (considerable latitude, in fact) but we like to keep focused on Cecil’s column.
If you want to discuss whether Jesus existed in more detail, the Great Debates forum is the better spot. If you want to discuss Cecil’s comments on Jesus’ existence, this is the place. Agreed, it’s a fairly fuzzy distinction.
Hmm, but even so… he was writing to very new Christian communities, often founded by himself, and frequently had to rebuke them for ‘unChristian’ behaviour or wrong beliefs etc… I am surprised he doesn’t say things like ‘as Jesus once said… ‘as the Lord was fond of saying’… ‘remember the time Jesus did X…’ etc… his references are all to his faith in the risen saviour etc… This could be partly explained by his lack of personal knowledge of Jesus, but he was still in contact with other Chrsitian leaders and SHOULD have had a good working knowledge and the kind of things his incarnate God was saying and doing a couple of decades ago when he was alive. It’s like Jesus’ preaching - moral or theological - and good deeds have disappeared into an all-consuming ‘faith’ in his power to redeem.
Well, if you re-read the Cecil article, he doesn’t base his claim very strongly on the Josephus mentions: "
Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of (heh-heh) whole cloth. Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one “Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody."
His main point was that “40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of whole cloth”. He had other cites also.
I havn’t seen any unbiased scholars that think that the first mention of Jesus in Josephus (“James, brother of Jesus, called Christ”) is tampered with. It’s in Josephus’s style, in the proper place historically, and is mainly about acts of the Sanhedrin, one of which was the stoning of James for heresy. It fits, and the mention of James in the context of both his more famous brother- who was also the reason for the execution of James. Note that if some Christian was adding this, the wording wouldn’t have been “called Christ”- that wording, however, exactly fits with a more or less neutral historian (Josephus was Jewish, certainly, but he was also very pro- Roman). It’s a “throw-away” mention, also. The devout Xian who added the second message (From what I know- the two mentions were "originally’ in two different versions of Josephus’s writings- one that appears tampered with, one that has no indication it was.) if he had been adding this- could not have resisted the opportunity to add more stuff praising Jesus and condemning the High Preist.
No one here has ever claimed the second mention of Jesus was really written by Josephus. It’s not his style, it’s not in the right place, and everyone agrees it’s wording is just plain wrong.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Well, if you re-read the Cecil article, …
His main point was that “40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of whole cloth”. He had other cites also.
Fair enough.
'I havn’t seen any unbiased scholars that think that the first mention of Jesus in Josephus (“James, brother of Jesus, called Christ”) is tampered with. ’
To be honest I’ve not read widely on that anyway. I must admit it looks, at my cursory reading, to fit in better with the flow and have some historical relevence/credibility. I also take your point about the simplicity of the reference and the ‘called Christ’. Also I read yesterday that Origen, in the third century, referred to the James reference, but not the second, and added he was aware that Jospehus did not consider Jesus to be the CHrist/Messiah himself (which adds weight to the idea the other passage is an even later, phoney, addition). I don;t think we can be 100 per cent sure, but I’m cool with that. I hope there was a historical Jesus and that the Christian faith isn;t based on a completely mythical idea. I would like to go back in time and meet the guy - if I spoke Aramaic! - and find out more about what he was really like!
What I find a bit odd still, and what makes me think perhaps Jesus must have made quite a small impact in his life, is that there IS no apparent other, more detailed reference to Jesus, and Josephus lived near to where Jesus was supposed to have lived and wrote extensively, and knowledgably about his period - including a perfectly credible passage about John the Baptist and plenty of references to Pilate. He also for that matter makes no reference to Christians, despite eg describing the beliefs and practices of the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees and a few other sects, which suggests that the faith had been perhaps a small minority movement in Jerusalem and had not made an impact on Josephus as it started to spread among the Gentiles with the help of Paul (that despite the persecutions of Chrsitians in Rome under Nero, showing the faith had gathered a reasonable amount of supporters by the AD60s - some years before Josephus wrote his books).
Oliver
I don’t think anyone denies that Jesus had a small impact during his life. (Nor that, one way or another, he had a great impact after he died.) At any rate, I suspect Josephus concentrated on those with an impact on the governance of Palestine, and the Christians didn’t make an impact until later.
As to the size of Jesus’s Jewish following, I am confused. I have heard historians refer to most pre-Constantine Christians as Jews. I.e., that while Christianity was widespread in the Roman Empire, the majority of early converts were Jews. I’ve also heard that most of the early converts were Gentiles, as few Jews were ready to accept a Messiah who died ignominiously. (And that philosophic thought provided fertile ground for the Christian message.)
I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that most (all?) of the first Christians were Jews, in Palestine, who set up a group in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death, lead by people such as Peter, and at some point, James ‘brother of the lord’ who became converted. At first they still considered themselves Jews, but differed from most in thinking JC had been the Messiah (most expected him to usher in a new ‘Kingdom of God’ full of peace and prosperity for the faithful Jews etc… and it hadn’t happened).
Paul, a Pharisee who Acts says was violently opposed to the Christians, was later converted by a mystic experience of seeing a blinding light and hearing Jesus’ voice, and he spent the years about 40-60AD travelling around preaching to the Gentiles in Asia Minor and Italy, starting new churches (which at that time basically met in people’s homes). He wrote his epistles to keep in touch. Thanks to his energy, and to him persuading the leaders in Jerusalem it was OK for Gentile converts to not be circumsized or follow most of he nitty-gritty of the Jewish laws, it caught on around the Mediterranean - though what numbers were involved, who knows?. In the AD60s there were enough Christians in Rome for the emperor Nero to pick on them as scapegoats when a fire broke out in Rome - he had some crucified, killed by dogs and also set alight as ‘torches’ for his palace gardens - nice man. . Peter and Paul were both said to have been martyred in Rome around the AD 60s.
Around 65-70AD there was a Jewish revolt in Palestine which was severly put down and I think the Jewish Chrsitian church more or less fizzled out then. Also by then they had fallen out with the Jewish authorities and were considered a seperate religion. Around then the gospels were written for the benefit of gentile Christiains wanting to know about their founder and the numbers kept increasing despite periods of persecution - on various grounds, eg. not worshipping the emperors, not worshipping the standard state gods, accusations of ‘cannibalism’ etc.
Hope that helps.
PS I’ve just realised Josephus wrote in Rome at the time of the emperor Domitian, who is said (on apparently quite slender grounds) to have persecuted Christians - so maybe that was an incentive not to mention them in his books?? However you would have still thought he would talk about them more, even to discredit them. Hmm, could be, as I said, they just didn’t make a big impression on him after all.
Your view is what I would have thought, except that I have heard history professors make comments to the contrary. I guess that no one really knows who the pool of early converts around the Med were. Clearly the earliest converts were Jews in Palestine, and some Gentiles in the eastern Med converted, but who the preponderance of early converts were might be impossible to determine.
I do know that the church in Jerusalem maintained a strong presence for centuries. That church was one of four or five (Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria come to mind) that claimed primacy in doctrinal matters in the early church.
The early Christians were not monolithic. There were various sects and sub-sects, including the Gnostics and those who wanted to remain faithful to Jewish Law, and … There was quite a lot of strife amongst the various groups, and some very un-Christian hatreds – consider some of Paul’s comments about the Jews, and about the Christians who wanted to remain under Jewish Law, for instance.
My recollection is that James was head of the Jewish-Christians (if we can use that term), who remained in Palestine, adhered to Jewish Law, and believed Jesus would return any minute to change the world. When years went by and there was no return, and when the Romans devastated Judea in 70 AD, the Jewish-Christians disappeared as a meaningful sect. (Interestingly, there are some soi-disant Messianic Jews today who are trying to re-establish that belief.)
Among the early Christian groups outside Judea, there was lots of disputation and argument about matters of theology, until finally one strand (or, arguably, two) emerged triumphant. Sort of.
Now you mention it, I seem to remember he often initially went to Jewish (diaspora) synagogues in the countries he went to, looking for converts. Those he attracted there would presumably be mostly Jews, plus I believe I read the synagogues also attracted a few Gentiles interested in Jewish ideas about monotheism. Hence, as you say, I guess there would be a mix - even if presumably most of the Jews he met did not convert. I do recall from the NT though that eg the issue of whether or not his new (Gentile) converts had to adhere to Jewish customs became a big issue.
As for the church in Jerusalem maintaining a strong presence for centuries, I’m not sure, but I don;t think this would correspond to the original ‘Jerusalm church’ headed by James - as C Dexter Haven said, I am under the impression they mostly disappeared after the Jewsish revolt and the desctruction of the temple by the Romans etc… Then after the second Jewish revolt (c.AD145?) the Jews were expelled entirely from Jerusalem and it became a Gentile city. I’m not sure at what point it became established as a major Chrsitian centre - perhaps - I’m guessing - around the time Christiainty became ‘respectable’ in the fourth century?
If I remember my Roman history prof correctly, and it has been 25 years, the Jerusalem church’s claim to primacy was based on its historical/geographic claims, and not on the existence of a great theologian. That would not disagree with both of your memories. I don’t recall any other historians explicitly referencing that church.
You’re assuming that a record of his death should have existed (since otherwise, the lack of such a record couldn’t have been used as an evidence against his existence).
More importantly, how do you know nobody brought up the issue of his existence?
On the basis the numerous document written by people opposed to christianism that have survived until now? Since there isn’t any, we don’t know what arguments were used at the time. Actually, we know some of them, since some “refutatios” written by christians have survived. But you can’t assume that these documents adress all the arguments used at the time (and this time, when christiannism was wisepread enough and powerful enough for pagan philosophers to attack it, was long after the life of Jesus, and it’s dubious that so late, a lack of documentation about him would have been an evidence).
No, let’s turn around your argument. Contrarily to writings against christianism, a significant number of writings supporting it survived. How comes no christians ever bothered mentionning documents, testimonies, etc… related to the life (and death) of Jesus? These christians authors would mention for instance that one line in Josephus refers to James, but would never mention accounts/documents directly refering to Jesus???
Pliny is discussing the measures he’s taking against christian. He tells nothing about Jesus, apart from mentioning that christians worship him as a god.
I didn’t notice this one. At the time of the the Romans serving in Judea, their sons or trainees, Jesus was a non-issue (or if it was, there’s no trace left of it).
We’re talking about one century old documents at the time the first mentions of jesus are made by roman authors, etc… and several century old documents when christianism is important enough for echoes of the debate about him surviving until today.
Not at all. There are all the time people willing to die for myths just made up. I like mentionning for instance, these sect members who commited a collective suicide some years ago, expecting that their souls would be brought can’t remember where by the alley comet.
What kind of evidences did they have for their belief? None. And they still kill themselves. In our current time, when myths and made up stories are much less easily accepted than they used to be.
Besides, how do you know that people risked his life for their belief in Jesus soon after his death (when there was people still around who could tell whether or not the story was true)? You gathered that from the christian tradition. And if we’re discussing the evidences existing outside the scriptures and this christian tradition, then we can’t assume that the stories about the apostoles being executed are true, either.
But the “master of Justice” of the essenes was precisely a rabbi who was executed, according to the dead sea scrolls… And there’s isn’t a huge step between “revered and perfect founder of our true religion” and “messiah”.
Of course, this didn’t contradict the hypothesis of an historical Jesus. Though some have thought that the story of a rabbi executed for his teachings/beliefs had been borrowed from the Essenians. I believe this hypothesis isn’t given much credence, currently…
Perhaps because the mere existance of Jesus was not in doubt? When your opponent in a debate accepts a point, you don’t need to keep putting forth evidence for that point. It seems reasonable to suppose that everyone involved in those early debates accepted the existance of a man named Jesus who started the Christian movement. Nobody tried to prove that he existed, since nobody thought it needed proving. What was up for debate was whether he was God, or the Son of God, or the Messiah, or a prophet, or a wise but uninspired teacher, or just some nutcase. So the early Christians would have and did bring forth “evidence” on those points, tales of his miracles and teachings and the like.
