Thanks for correcting that. To be more specific, Jesus would have had an unlisted cell phone to avoid telemarketers. Most likely it was an early iPhone model.
It has been stated in this thread that, amazingly, no one ever doubted that Jesus existed when they wrote about him, but how amazing is it? Were there other figures from that approximate period of time who’s existence was questioned by those who wrote about them?
Not completely. I have talked to people who are 100% convinced that the King James Version was written by god and no other bibles are valid. Try telling them about when it was written and who King James was and you’ll get shot down. I tried to tell a guy I knew that Jesus mommy didnt actually name him Jesus and that was a later translation. He refused to understand. He also refused to think about the old “where did Abel’s wife come from?” Most believers are not biblical scholars and don’t care to be.
Oops I meant Cain of course. That’s what I get for trying to multitask and post.
In all the intervening centuries since the time of the Romans, do you really think it impossible for some monk to use his knowledge of Latin to change Roman histories to include the name of Jesus in a bid to give their religion some sort of credibility?
No, here you’re wrong There are two passages, one which is undoubtedly real but heavily edited and thus suspect “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 wonderful works, 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.” So, while almost every scholar agrees this originally was a mention of Jesus by Josephus, it undoubtedly was edited later by a pious Christian who though Josephus wasn’t being respectful enough. The original text is thought to be something on the order of (wiki) "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Next passage is thought by all but a few diehard Atheists (who think that proving Jesus wasn’t a real person will somehow convert the faithful :dubious:) :*And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus… Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, 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
*
There is nothing there that a not very pious Jew would have problem writing. Note “who was* called* Christ” which is something no Christian would write, but a doubting pro-Roman Jew would pen.
Wiki sez this about that quote “*Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” [12] and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation”…The James Passage
Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been “almost universally acknowledged”[122] Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.[123] Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ (Book X, Chapter 17), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.[92] Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman’s assessment that “few have doubted the genuineness of this passage”[2] Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.[124]
According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to “the brother of Jesus called Christ” and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.[13][113] Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the Antiquities and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as “the Lord”, or a similar term.[125] Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term “called Christ” which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.[125]
Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, “the vast majority have considered it to be authentic”, and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.[126] ,
Andreas Köstenberger considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the “brother of the Lord” rather than the “brother of Jesus”, and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.(Köstenberger pages 104-105)
Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Christian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.[128] Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.[128]
John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139-142). Painter discusses the role of Ananus and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by Jesus the son of Damnaeus, Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.(Painter page 136) Painter points out that as described in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 2) Ananus was bribing both Albinus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some of whom then starved to death.(Painter pages 139-142). Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, …[129]*
There is also this:
“What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea *and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. *But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the “new law” he laid down[5]”
Italics mine. This is thought by many to be a reference to Jesus.
Tacicus also mentioned Jesus, in AD 116. Pliny the Younger in 112AD, Quadratus about that time also.
And of course there’s the New Testament. St Paul was definitely a real person, and wrote about Jesus, even if one cast doubts upon the Gospels.
I don’t understand the value of saying that a false statement could be true, or partially true, if it had been written to mean something different. The poster said “most”. “Most” does not mean “some”.
But let’s not hijack this any further. Suffice it to say that the post, as written, is false. If you want to make another, different claim, knock yourself out.
It is asserted that the Roman emperor Julian was aware of accounts of Jesus’ life having existed in the Roman archives and that Julian had spoken about them with people who had claimed to have read them. Apparently these accounts did not match up very well with the Gospel accounts and were destroyed, presumably along with other material. (Gore Vidal is my source, not exactly a Christianity-friendly kind of guy, but not a liar or historical fraudster either AFAIK)
I haven’t had time to follow up on this though- I’d be interested if anyone else has heard of this and can expand upon/debunk it.
Don’t make such categorical statements about debatable matters. The passages are highly suspect.As G.A,. Wells has pointed out, the one passage can easily be remnoved without interrupting the flow of the statements before and after it. The sentence can certainly be a gloss from an earlier copyist that was interpolated later.
And there’s nothing “unChristan” about writing “he who was called Christ”. Some p[eople have gone so far as to translate this as “the so-called Christ” in order to argue that a Christian couldn’t have written it, and it is therefore genuine. But both of these are over-interpreting and arguably mistranslating the original. It’s a perfectly natural construction, and even a believing Christian could easily write it.
Actually, the claims quoted in the OP are literally true. There are three claims made:
- Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet.
This is true. Josephus does mention Jesus, at least once and arguably twice, but he was not Greek or Roman.
- His name never occurs in a single inscription.
True.
- His name is never found in a single piece of private correspondence.
True. Of course, his name is found in the letters included in the New Testament, but these were epistles and thus fairly characterized as non-private.
But the reference to “private correspondence” shows just how far Ehrman is reaching. There is hardly any private correspondence that survives from the first century. Similarly, there is only a limited amount of first century works by Greek or Roman historians, religion scholars, politicians, philosophers and poets, and it is hardly surprising that those works don’t focus on Palestinian religious leaders.
Josephus was indeed a Roman Citizen. Tacitus was Roman and so was Pliny the Younger. Admittedly they wrote a few years after the end of the 1st Century which again shows how much Ehrman is reaching.
The letter from Mara bar-Serapion is private correspondence. Mind you the name "Jesus’ did not occur.
Yeah; I am really reaching here :rolleyes:
“Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference…” “the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to “the brother of Jesus called Christ” and the entire passage that includes it as authentic…” “the vast majority have considered it to be authentic”…“few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage” “nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical”…“there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James”…"that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation "…
Highly suspect by whom? "universally acknowledged , overwhelming majority , few have questioned ", etc etc.
“Highly suspect” is completely, totally and incontrovertibly wrong. You might as well say Global Warming is “highly suspect”.:dubious:
Of course, which is why the vast majority of scholars think that’s mostly what happened in the case of The Testimonium, it apparently included a simple mention of Jesus, but was heavily edited by a too-pious copyist.
Yes, Josephus did become a Roman citizen, but he was not ethnically Roman, so I don’t think you can really fault Ehrman for saying he was not Roman or Greek. For that matter, Paul was a Roman citizen and religion scholar. But Ehrman is trying to craft his statement to make it sound as broad as possible, while systematically excluding the convincing evidence we do have of Jesus’s existence.
I was unaware of the letter from Mara bar-Serapion, but don’t find it very convincing as evidence.
Exactly.
I am not entirely convinced either but it seems more likely than not.
That’s not clear to me. It seems to me that the prof has, intentionally or not, implied Jesus was not mentioned in any private correspondence. If the subject of first sentence, “Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet,” is understood to filter the “any private correspondence” in the second sentence, OK.
Otherwise, it seems like Paul’s epistles count.
The OP may have posted (the subject line makes me wonder), thinking that biblical books and other explicitly Christian writings count, but they all come from after 100 CE.
As jbaker has already pointed out, epistles are not private correspondence.
Ehrman is making a point, and uses very specific language to frame it in. He may be technically correct in it or not. But I’m very sure he’s not so stupid as to forget Paul. If you think he’s doing so, you’re the one who needs to double check your assumptions. That was and continues to be my point.
He reminds me of The Jerk -Navin R. Johnson: Ah, anything… in this general area, right in here. Anything, below the stereo, and on this side of the Bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtray, and the thimbles. Anything in this three inches. Right in here, this area, that includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers.
In other words, he’s being so disingenuous that we might as well say “lying”. :rolleyes:
While some of the Epistles were written to whole communities of believers, others were written to specific individuals. Those specific individuals then went on to share them with the rest of the community, but I think it’s still fair to call them “private letters”.
But what point was he trying to make? What is the context for the OP’s quote? I doubt that Ehrman was trying to argue that that lack of references to Jesus is evidence that Jesus never existed, since his recent book argues for the historical existence of Jesus.