Jesus really existed. Also Hercules, Thor, and Quetzalcoatl.
Prove me otherwise.
Jägermeister, thank you for bringing some sanity and science to this thread. It will be appreciated - though only by those who already adhere to sanity and science. Those who insist that the Shroud is magic will continue to adhere to magic. Both are self-fulfilling prophecies. It’s a strange world even without magic.
My pleasure. I do get annoyed at people who talk about science papers without having actually read them, or checked for any problems with them.
Jesus is like acupuncture – many, many people want them to be real, but there’s no independent evidence of this. It’s all just misguided faith.
What? Now acupuncture isn’t real? Crap! It’s getting hard to keep up!
You are aware, are you not, that Josephus was debunked as a forgery a long, long time ago?
<<Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:
“…the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars.”>>
quoted from Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium
Science rocks!
Sanity is over rated.
No it wasn’t. And you might wish to find a better cite than an aliens-among-us website. Some Christian redactor may have “sweetened” Josephus here or there, but “forgery” is not the scholarly consensus.
“Sweetened” seems like such an inadequate word to describe making changes to a book and then passing it on as if your changes were in the original. How about altered? vandalized?
It seems that between in the first half of the 20th century the consensus was that the paltry references to Jesus in Josephus’s writings were likely forgeries. But in the second half of the 20th century, more scholars have taken the viewpoint that parts of the passages are authentic and other parts aren’t. But there are still plenty of scholars who think the entire Testimonium Flavianum is one big interpolation (text inserted later, not part of the original). Richard Carrier, for one.
Unfortunately, when it comes to finding cites, almost all the pro-authentic posts tend to be found on pro-Jesus websites (making it tempting to dismiss them as propaganda) yet almost all the pro-forgery posts tend to be found on atheist websites, which means the believers will claim call it propaganda there too.
Anyway, even if it’s true that the kernel of the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic, saying that there actually was a man named Jesus who was condemned to death by Pilate, and then later some Christians altered the text, putting words into Josephus’s mouth saying that this person was in fact the messiah… that’s still some pretty weak evidence right there. And if it’s an entire forgery, then it’s no evidence at all.
I doubt you’ll find a single serious biblical scholar anywhere who takes the position that the entire Testimonium Flavianum is 100% authentic.
So the choices are, either it’s a complete forgery, or it’s a partial forgery.
From Cracked.com:
and:
The Cracked article cites and summarizes this much-more-detailed article:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/print.php?id=16-10-012-v
And to expound further on that, the fact that we know it was altered in some way by Christian authors throws the entire paragraph’s validity into question. We don’t know if it can be taken seriously, and that means it probably shouldn’t be.