Was Jesus Real or a Myth?

[Typo_Knig]

@dougie_monty

Who is Sterling Hayden?

The actor who played General Jack D. Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove. The cigar-chomping lunatic in the following relevant YouTube clips: clip # 1 and clip # 2

[dougie_monty]

I’ll take your word for it, Knig. I was 14 when that movie came out; we had just moved to a new neighborhood and I wasn’t going to movies any more.

[ambushed]

@ambushed

Nonsense. Such claims have been handily discredited for many years (note I did not say “disproved”) – more than a century, in fact. Even if the forged interpolations forced into Josephus were actually the product of his own hand – which is a truly ridiculous notion – and even as a newly adopted Roman citizen, he was still a very important Jew and something of an apologist as well (and one who couldn’t stop writing endlessly about the Jewish historical period in question). As such, Josephus ***would ***have told us in his very clear language of this ostensibly “corrupt” Jewish “establishment” and what it’s crimes were. But he wrote no such thing!

@Stringbean

So let’s go to Josephus’ own words on this one (Testimonium Flavium)…

Wonderful! I apologize for the delay in responding, Stringbean, but I’m delighted I’ve received your thoughtful (if factually quite unwarranted) reply.

An extremely frequent occurrence over the two decades that I’ve carefully researched and debated this historicist/mythicist question, the so-called Testimonium Flavium has been thrown back in my face as an alleged “proof” of a historical Jesus more times than I can count!

I shall now endeavor to thoroughly rebut every single one of your arguments (and some you haven’t addressed yet)…

@Stringbean

So let’s go to Josephus’ own words on this one (Testimonium Flavium):
*
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. *

Who were the “principal men among us” if not the Jewish high priests?

Well, that’s not the most the most common English translation that’s thrown out there by apologists – many of whom will at least openly admit that the alleged “Testimonium” is chock full of interpolations (i.e., forgeries), but I’ll work with it…

The first question then becomes: Did Josephus, the highly respected Jewish historian of his day, actually write any of those words, or were they all invented from whole cloth much later by Christian apologists (including Eusebius) who realized how desperately valuable such a set of ‘Lies for Jesus’ would be in converting “heathens” to the newly revised “Christianity”?

Since you’re obviously either new to this debate or have not been adequately challenged by your previous debaters, I will turn over that question to Earl Doherty’s excellent and clearly written analysis here: Josephus on the Rocks

Assuming you’ve read all that before returning, I’ll address the rest of your arguments…

@Stringbean

Who were the “principal men among us” if not the Jewish high priests?

Who were those totally fictional “principal men”? The entirety of the Jews! You see, by the time of the total fabrication of the so-called “Testimonium” by Christan leaders, Enemy Number One were the Jews themselves, because they totally rejected the entire notion of both a historical “founder” of Christianity as well as the notion of any first-century “messiah!”

I realize you haven’t spent much time researching both sides of this debate and you appear to be under the influence of the extremely common human cognitive flaw known as “confirmation bias”, but try to carefully research the name Porphyry and what’s left of his astonishingly important book on this very debate entitled: Against the Christians (Adversus Christianos)

What you’ll learn is that Porphyry utterly refuted the very notion that ‘Jesus’ ever lived! As a Jewish expert on the history of the time, he adamantly insisted that “You ‘Christians’ have made him up entirely”! Therefore, Josephus could not possibly have written any of all the apologist-pleasing nonsense attributed to him by much later ‘Christian’ writers!

Moving on to Paul, I had earlier written:

@ambushed

Forgive me, Stringbean, but that comment represents an extremely raggedy and hopelessly bogus trope. There’s always some kind of ostensibly “good” motive to “make up any whole story”! Have you never read Conan Doyle, for example? What “motive” was there to “make up” all those wonderful Sherlock Holmes stories? Do you imagine he had none??

To which you just responded:

@Stringbean

Money and literary fame. Paul allegedly gave up his material wealth to spread the gospel of another man’s glory.

Er, um, I’m sorry to tell you this oh favorite bean ‘o mine, but you’re embarrassing yourself and your arguments with such arguments. Money?? First, Paul of Tarsus may well have been a tax collector as a way of putting food on his table (a professional, if you will, in his day), but do you imagine he got to keep those taxes rather than turn over 99.9% of what he collected over to the actual ruler(s)?? Besides, the world has always been full to overflowing with people who desperately long to turn over all their money and belongings (and their kids’ inheritances) to the leader of any of thousands of cults all through history! Paul was just one of millions…

However, it’s true that Paul definitely “got off” on putting together his own socially Right-wing ‘Christian Nation’ (no sex at all unless you’re so weak you can’t do without! no women priests!) to head and govern. Consider, for example, those many epistles of his where he desperately feels the need to repeatedly argue with the other so-called ‘apostles’ (who were definitely not the so-called ‘twelve disciples’ the Gospels speak of) that he was as much an ‘apostle’ as they were! Oh, yes, Paul had a ginormous ego to feed, all right!

But one of the many, many points of dispute on this general topic over the decades here at the Dope (primarily between myself and arguable ‘brightest living human’ (after our Master Cecil) tomndeb is whether or not Paul out-and-out invented Christianity (much like Joseph Smith was the primary fictional inventor of Mormonism), so it’s not entirely out of the question… (but as an aside, please note that I, like Tom, absolutely and unequivocally reject such a notion for Paul).

Finally, I had earlier written:

@ambushed

And then what about **huge **religious literary monstrosities such as The Urantia Book and the Book of Mormon? No serious, critical researcher actually believes both works works were not deceptively manufactured out of ludicrous whole cloth and a vast amount of plagiarism from other religious texts, so your argument falls flat on it’s face.

To which you just responded:

@Stringbean

So because a book was written in recent times and can be discredited means a book written in ancient times with no existing means of factual discreditation is also completely fabricated?

Not a leap I’m willing to take.

Ah, but that’s an example of the lousy straw-man fallacy, since that’s not at all what I was arguing! Boo!

I was absolutely NOT arguing that Paul invented Christianity or the Gospels! What I was actually arguing is that hopelessly false argument that

"… Jesus’ main target was actually the Jewish establishment, which he viewed as corrupt. Feeling threatened by the growing rebellion, they may have determined that Jesus “needed to go away.”

was utterly bogus! And I have more than adequately discredited your false assertions right here in this post!

Thanks for playing, but with respect but without false modestly, I feel you need to perform a great deal more research to reach the point where we can debate as approximate equals the way [tomndeb] and I can.

All the best…

[tomndebb]

@ambushed

First, Paul of Tarsus may well have been a tax collector as a way of putting food on his table (a professional, if you will, in his day), but do you imagine he got to keep those taxes rather than turn over 99.9% of what he collected over to the actual ruler(s)??

Not your strongest argument.

The whole point of hating tax collectors or publicans at that time was that they generally purchased the right to collect taxes in a region, were then given a set amount to raise, and were then turned loose to collect as much as they could, keeping whatever exceeded their government set goal.

[ambushed]

@Measure_for_Measure

@ambushed

Hello again, Christian apologist Sage Rat. You may not remember me, but I’m one of the many who have debated this topic with you here at the Dope in the past. (see: here, for example).

I’d like to re-present myself as an increasingly cautious & forensically restrained advocate of the ahistoricist/mythicist position; one who utterly rejects all the sloppy and poorly-evidenced bulldada (not a synonym of “bullshit”) of the crackpot mythicists…

And this is from ambushed in 2009:

@ambushed

I understand, Sage Rat, that the ahistoricist position seems quite preposterous and needlessly extreme to you, as it does to nearly everyone else. You, like most, probably see it as some kind of zealously rabid atheism or perhaps just an argument taken to fanatical extremes.

That’s healthy skepticism, and far from denigrating it, I praise such understandable reluctance quite highly. The initial reaction should be considerable skepticism! And the truth about myself is that I utterly condemn and despise extremism among atheists as well as among anyone else, including myself (and have taken a lot of heat my from my fellow atheists for my harsh criticism of atheist extremism, which they claim is an attempt to silence atheists).

Okay, then: Just to be sure, although your main point relates to whether or not Doherty should be trusted as a trustworthy and extremely careful researcher or not, the first point you feel needs to be brought up is that my views have revised (actually become far more cautious, sophisticated and nuanced) – and hence demonstrates that I’m fickle or something like that (at least in relation to trusting Doherty) – in the last SIX years? Is that your argument?

Well, then: Guilty as charged! Oh, yes! Mea Culpa! indeed!

Since you’ve quoted it yourself, allow me to repeat my own 2015 words to Sage Rat back to you and the general readership: I’d like to re-present myself as an increasingly cautious & forensically restrained advocate of the ahistoricist/mythicist position…

Yes, my 2009 views were not nearly as sophisticated as my 2015 views. Is this supposed to be a dubious thing? Something to make my current views look contrived or otherwise suspicious?

And turning back to Doherty, permit me to shamelessly quote my 2015 self a bit more:

@ambushed

By far, the most compelling evidence in the issue is presented in astonishingly clear format by Canadian researcher Earl Doherty in his magnum opus: Jesus: Neither God nor Man. Although not completely without flaws, it is particularly difficult to find any genuine faults in Doherty’s reasoning and evidence once you’ve read him thoroughly and carefully enough to understand all his arguments!

…

The above is fairly similar to my own and Doherty’s view expounded in Jesus: Neither God nor Man, but with one HUGE exception: neither of us gives much credence at all to the incredibly doubtful notion espoused by crank mythicists such as “Acharya S” and others relating to the whole “dying/rising gods” and/or “mystery religion” mythology being a major foundation of the Jesus myth! We both agree that Ehrman’s attacks on that notion are quite sound – even though Doherty’s earlier book, The Jesus Puzzle, gave a bit more credence to that view (which his new book repudiates). (emphasis added)

So when you opine:

@Measure_for_Measure

We’ve discussed Doherty’s hypothesis before. Can we all agree that it is, at best, a minority opinion?

Again, in my defense I need to quote my 2015 self again:

@ambushed

Re The historicist vs mythicist positions: If after all your reading you come to the conclusion that the “evidence overwhelming supports the idea that Jesus at most was a simple completely human man…”, then you haven’t read ***nearly ***enough yet!

Instead, it seems to me that most of what you’ve read comes from the overwhelmingly large school of pro-historicist writers (Christian and non-Christian alike), but definitely **not **from the relatively small school of overwhelming ***evidence ***of non-historicity.

The difference between the two are enormous. By far, the most compelling evidence in the issue is presented in astonishingly clear format by Canadian researcher Earl Doherty in his magnum opus: Jesus: Neither God nor Man.

So, yes, we definitely agree that Doherty’s and people such as Carrier and Wells, et., al. represent a minority opinion. That’s not debatable. But the thing is (and we appear to agree about this aspect as well), they’ve got far stronger arguments and evidence on their ‘side’! Or as you quite ably put it:

@Measure_for_Measure

That’s not to dismiss it. Indeed, I’ve come to concede that the Christian mythicist hypothesis is not crackpottery and it is not grounded in ignorance about historical methods and ancient sourcing. Or at least Doherty’s version isn’t.

But I must also add this extremely important addition to the list of very highly respected current ahistoricists: The justly renowned Christian writer and former historicist Burton Mack!

Now, again, the overwhelming majority of people are quite certain – including the not-as-bright-as-they-think Wikipedia authors, and utterly without any current justification – that Mack always leaned much more towards the historicist (but just a man) ‘side’ of this debate. But not for decades now! Somewhat like myself, his views grew ever more sophisticated over the years until, in the dawn of the 21’st century (publishing date 2001), he had emphatically placed himself in the mythicist camp! (Tomndeb and other extremely knowledgeable historicisits, I hereby challenge you to refute any of this or it’s crucial importance!]

But the fact is, in his final book (so far, anyway, and I’m sure he’s long retired), entitled The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, he fully revered himself! For just the barest evidence, look at the title!

To the best of my admittedly obsolete knowledge, the Dope’s commercial owners (and acting on their behalf my kind and gracious friend TubaDiva) are reluctant indeed to embrace the occasionally tricky legal concept of ‘Fair Use’, I am not allowed to quote Mack at anywhere near even the modest length needed to establish that Mack has become a mythicist (hence my sig, which when shown reads: Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is ineluctably the chewy chocolate center of all bullshit (including this, of course).), I must be brief in quoting Mack. Here that is:

[quote=Burton Mack: The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy

At the End of the Quest

I want now to offer four criticisms of the quest for the historical Jesus, especially as it has been pursued in recent American scholarship, and then suggest a better approach to the examination of Christian beginnings.

(1) A first criticism is that the quest has not produced any agreement about a textual data base from which to work. The textual units used for this or that profile change from scholar to scholar without any agreed-upon theoretical framework to adjudicate the differences among them. This is a serious indictment of the guild of New Testament scholarship…

(2) A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (a lawyer for the defense), the pre-Markan miracles stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential. Thus the link is missing between the historical Jesus as reconstructed by scholars and the many figures of Jesus imagined and produced by early Christians. Since the quest for the historical Jesus has been pursued in the interest of explaining Christian origins, this missing link is a very serious consideration.

[color=red]
It means, in fact, that the quest has failed.

…

(3) A third criticism is that the link between the teachings of Jesus on the one hand and the story of his crucifixion on the other is missing. None of the scholars that start with the sayings of Jesus has ever been able to account for the crucifixion of Jesus on the basis of those teachings. This means that something is wrong. The teachings and the crucifixion should make sense when put together, but they do not. This is a very serious criticism of the quest…

(4) A fourth criticism is that the publication of books about the historical Jesus as well as the public discussion of them has assumed a purpose for the quest that is unreasonable and ill-conceived. That purpose has been to rectify and rejuvenate Christian faith and self-understanding. Christians approach the question of Jesus and Christian origins as a seriously definitive enterprise. That is because Christian mentality, especially in its Protestant variety, locates the message, authority, events, and power upon which the Christian churches draw precisely at the moment of origin, and that moment has always been defined by the appearance of Jesus “in human history.” The conventional view is that, by recall and ritual, Christians can strike once more the magic flint that ignited and can reignite the Christian vision and faith. The problem for the historian and for the quester of the historical Jesus is that the Jesus of importance for the Christian faith is the Jesus as portrayed in the gospel story…

Changing the Focus

This means that we need to start over with the quest for Christian origins. And the place to start is with the observation that the New Testament texts are not only inadequate for a Jesus quest, they are data for an entirely different phenomenon. They are not the mistaken and embellished memories of the historical person, but the myths of origin imagined by early Christians seriously engaged in their social experiments. They are data for early Christian mythmaking.
[/quote]

(emphasis added).

What do you say, wise Measure for Measure?

[Frylock]

I am, as I’ve said, basically, a mythicist, in that if I had to bet I’d bet there was no historical Jesus. But what you just quoted from Burton Mack doesn’t establish him as a mythicist. He is staking out a fairly radical position on just how much we can know about the historical Jesus (from what he’s said here, it would appear he thinks that we have no reliable evidence whatsoever on that topic) but that is not at all the same as a claim that there was no historical Jesus.

It may be just a step away, but it’s still a full and complete step away.

I would assume that you do not confuse the term “myth” as used in mainstream biblical studies with the concept of a falsehood or nonexistent being. That Mack uses the term “myth” here doesn’t imply that he’s a “mythicist” in the more colloquial sense at work in the discussion over the historicity of Jesus.

[septimus]

@ambushed

Since you’re obviously either new to this debate or have not been adequately challenged by your previous debaters, I will turn over that question to Earl Doherty’s excellent and clearly written analysis here: Josephus on the Rocks

Thanks for linking to this interesting article. It certainly makes a case that Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

It claims the oldest extant manuscript of the Antiquities is from the 11th century; that certainly leaves plenty scope for post-Josephus revision! The article mentions several much-earlier Christian references to the Antiquities which would probably have cited Josephus’ Jesus-mentions if they existed.

[ambushed]

@tomndebb

Not your strongest argument.

The whole point of hating tax collectors or publicans at that time was that they generally purchased the right to collect taxes in a region, were then given a set amount to raise, and were then turned loose to collect as much as they could, keeping whatever exceeded their government set goal.

Ah! Thanks for the factual correction, knowledgeable one!

BTW, I hope, I *truly *hope, that you realize that my compliments to you and your larger store of knowledge than my own is not vain flattery aimed at ingratiating myself with a moderator! We’ve sparred as poster vs poster as well as poster vs moderator on several ‘historical’ occasions, including on this very topic. But I’ve also expressed my very genuine admiration and respect for your amazing knowledge base and critical thinking skills quite a few times in the past – even when we disagree, as we have done many times on this topic – so please trust me when I say that I am neither being sarcastic nor disingenuous with my candid praise…

But I must admit that I absolutely crave the occasion to participate in a primarily mano-a-mano Great Debate on this whole historicism vs mythicism topic, sorta like a Dope equivalent of the recent Bill Nye/Ken Hamm ‘debate’ (with no premature casting of which of us would be which, of course)! Certainly not a “closed” debate, of course, which is quite appropriately anathema here in Cecil’s home. But rather something with a thread title such as "Was there a historical founder of Christianity, or was Jesus essentially mythical: The 99’ers tomndeb vs. ambushed smack-down! (if I may be allowed to create the thread)?

Whaddya think, Mr. Smarty Pant (since there is only one item of clothing involved, I was surprised to learn

[ambushed]

@septimus

Thanks for linking to this interesting article. It certainly makes a case that Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

It claims the oldest extant manuscript of the Antiquities is from the 11th century; that certainly leaves plenty scope for post-Josephus revision! The article mentions several much-earlier Christian references to the Antiquities which would probably have cited Josephus’ Jesus-mentions if they existed.

I appreciate the praise, well-named septimus, but we agree that Doherty deserves the far greater praise!

However, Earl Doherty was definitely not my first tutor on just how laughably bogus the alleged Testemonium Flavium forgeries was – along with all the rest of the ludicrous bulldada later Christian fabulists forced into the works of Josephus, of course. I’ve read approximately 40-50 books on the whole historicist/mythicist debate from all sides (and there sure is an enormous numbers of ‘sides’, roughly one per book!). My memory is terrible and the tiny number of bookshelves I have room for here with me is too small to improve my recollection (I’ve been forced to store the rest of my several hundred books in a ‘u-store-it’ place that’s too far away to conveniently reach), but I seem to recall my first exposure to the entirety of the debate was from a (mid?) 20’th century Jewish scholar who presented utterly compelling evidence that Josephus – as a Jewish historian who was extremely knowledgeable of the alleged time of ‘Jesus’ – could not possibly have written any of the interpolated statements blamed on him. Unforutnately, I just can’t remember his name…

[ambushed]

@Frylock

I am, as I’ve said, basically, a mythicist, in that if I had to bet I’d bet there was no historical Jesus. But what you just quoted from Burton Mack doesn’t establish him as a mythicist. He is staking out a fairly radical position on just how much we can know about the historical Jesus (from what he’s said here, it would appear he thinks that we have no reliable evidence whatsoever on that topic) but that is not at all the same as a claim that there was no historical Jesus.

Hello, friend Frylock! I’ve been a long-time fan of that brilliant and admirable Adult Swim character, and I certainly would like to believe that you model yourself after him/it in some ways (it may be another example of ‘white guilt’ or whatever, but I dearly enjoy the opportunity to reference brilliant black thinkers and actors and philosophers and the like to some of my still somewhat racist family members!)

Anyway, back on point: It is arguably true that the extremely brief (and here please remember what I keep saying about how any abbreviated text is always the bearer of bullshit) doesn’t persuade everyone that Mack has become a mythicist. But if you were to read his entire book (as I’m certain you would eagerly do if time permitted), I am confident that you would indeed conclude that Mack has **completely **moved over to the mythicist position!

I’m going to look into the possibility of posting a much fuller quotation from The Christian Myth elsewhere on the web and posting a link to it here at the Dope, but I’m afraid I may not be able to get to that for a while yet…

@Frylock

It may be just a step away, but it’s still a full and complete step away.

I would assume that you do not confuse the term “myth” as used in mainstream biblical studies with the concept of a falsehood or nonexistent being.

You assume entirely correctly!

@Frylock

That Mack uses the term “myth” here doesn’t imply that he’s a “mythicist” in the more colloquial sense at work in the discussion over the historicity of Jesus.

Ah, but although you’re technically correct (as I’ve also carefully pointed out) that merely entitling his book The Christian Myth does not establish that he’s become a mythicist, what I’ve posted here most certainly does! How else to interpret the following words I quoted?

@Burton Mack

(2) A second criticism is that **none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape… Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential. Thus the link is missing between the historical Jesus as reconstructed by scholars and the many figures of Jesus imagined and produced by early Christians. Since the quest for the historical Jesus has been pursued in the interest of explaining Christian origins, this missing link is a very serious consideration.

It means, in fact, that the quest has failed.**

But I repeat, the conclusion that Mack has now totally reversed his earlier – but still extremely weak – historicism and replaced it with what I will call ‘enlightened mythicism’ simply cannot be made clear on any message board due not just to the limits of ‘fair use’ but out-and-out copyright infringement (by posting the entirety of his book online), which I am adamantly opposed to. So anyone with well-justified skepticism on such an enormously weighty matter has no recourse but to obtain and read the entire book him or herself (or french-fry-self?) - it’s just $14 USD on Amazon!

[Frylock]

@ambushed

How else to interpret the following words I quoted?

Originally Posted by Burton Mack
(2) A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape… Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential. Thus the link is missing between the historical Jesus as reconstructed by scholars and the many figures of Jesus imagined and produced by early Christians. Since the quest for the historical Jesus has been pursued in the interest of explaining Christian origins, this missing link is a very serious consideration.

It means, in fact, that the quest has failed.

The quest he refers to is, to my knowledge, the quest to discover what Jesus did and how this led to the origins of the church. The failure of this quest is just the failure to discover what Jesus did and how this led to the origins of the church. That is not the same as determining that Jesus didn’t exist after all. It is just to say that, even if Jesus did exist, the quest has failed to figure out what he did and how the church started to any significant degree.

Notice these words from what you quoted: “Thus the link is missing between the historical Jesus as reconstructed by scholars and the many figures of Jesus imagined and produced by early Christians.”

He’s saying that we’ve failed to find the link between the historical Jesus and ideas about him in the early church. To fail to find that link is not to show that there was no Jesus to be linked to in the first place. Similarly, just because I haven’t figured out where the golden gate bridge is, this does not mean San Francisco doesn’t exist.

ETA: To be honest it is really, really dubious that Mack could be a mythicist without your being able to show us a paragraph where he says this. It may be that what’s going on here is Mack thinks a lot of things which you think should imply mythicism. But that doesn’t make Mack himself a mythicist.

[ITR_champion]

Ambushed: you are entitled to your opinion of the Testemonium Flavium. The majority of scholars who have written about it recently have taken the position of “partial authenticity”, acknowledging that some words or phrases in it are not genuine but that the bulk of the text is. I would suggest that anyone interested read this article by Christopher Price.

The first question then becomes: Did Josephus, the highly respected Jewish historian of his day, actually write any of those words, or were they all invented from whole cloth much later by Christian apologists (including Eusebius) who realized how desperately valuable such a set of ‘Lies for Jesus’ would be in converting “heathens”

I’ve heard this argument countless times, yet when I ask, no one can ever explain it. Supposing for the sake that a Christian apologist did fabricate the passage entirely, it’s entirely unclear to me why he would find the passage “desperately valuable”.

[ITR_champion]

@septimus

Thanks for linking to this interesting article. It certainly makes a case that Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

It claims the oldest extant manuscript of the Antiquities is from the 11th century; that certainly leaves plenty scope for post-Josephus revision! The article mentions several much-earlier Christian references to the Antiquities which would probably have cited Josephus’ Jesus-mentions if they existed.

How exactly do we know that early Christians “would probably have cited Josephus’ Jesus-mentions”? Doherty says that several Christian writers referenced Antiquities before Eusebius, which is correct. Doherty does not explain why these writers referenced Antiquities. Typically those Christian writers brought it up in disputes about Jewish law or Jewish history from Old Testament times. Since they were discussing issues far removed from the life of Jesus, there’s no reason to expect that they would have mentioned the TF. Roger Pearse makes this argument thoroughly by listing every early Christian reference to Josephus.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
the total fabrication of the so-called “Testimonium” by Christan leaders, Enemy Number One were the Jews themselves, because they totally rejected the entire notion of both a historical “founder” of Christianity as well as the notion of any first-century “messiah!”
[/quote]

What’s your cite for the claim that the Jews “totally rejected the entire notion of a historical founder of Christianity”? Evidence from the Talmud, though admittedly short and somewhat ambiguous, implies that Jews in the early centuries knew that Jesus was the founder of Christianity; they of course thought his claim to be God was false.

I realize you haven’t spent much time researching both sides of this debate and you appear to be under the influence of the extremely common human cognitive flaw known as “confirmation bias”, but try to carefully research the name Porphyry and what’s left of his astonishingly important book on this very debate entitled: Against the Christians (Adversus Christianos)

What you’ll learn is that Porphyry utterly refuted the very notion that ‘Jesus’ ever lived! As a Jewish expert on the history of the time, he adamantly insisted that “You ‘Christians’ have made him up entirely”!

Well I readily admit that I’m no expert on Porphyry, but the sources I’ve read and the Wikipedia page that you linked to both flatly contradict you. Porphyry straightforwardly said that Jesus did live; he rejected Christ’s divinity.

Indeed we have no reason to believe that there was a single person in the ancient world who ever said or believed that Jesus did not exist.

[tomndebb]

@ambushed

But I must admit that I absolutely crave the occasion to participate in a primarily mano-a-mano Great Debate on this whole historicism vs mythicism topic, sorta like a Dope equivalent of the recent Bill Nye/Ken Hamm ‘debate’ (with no premature casting of which of us would be which, of course)!

Sorry. I have no interest in trying to “prove” a historical Jesus. When you people whom it does interest get into your monthly brawls, I prefer that you all stick to demonstrable facts, but I am well aware that the lack of First Century documentation in the Levant renders any final conclusion subject to the perspective with which one enters the discussion.

[Trinopus]

@ITR_champion

. . . Indeed we have no reason to believe that there was a single person in the ancient world who ever said or believed that Jesus did not exist.

If Jesus didn’t exist…who the heck would there be to say so?

I’ve never heard anyone in our time say that Gandalf doesn’t exist. Let alone Raoul Mitgong.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Trinopus

If Jesus didn’t exist…who the heck would there be to say so?

I’ve never heard anyone in our time say that Gandalf doesn’t exist. Let alone Raoul Mitgong.

Heck, people talk all the time about people who don’t exist. Superman. Wolverine. A viable Republican candidate for 2016. Constantly.

[Razncain]

Hard drive crashed for about a week, but will be brief with a few points.

@Blake

Will Cecil Adams suffice?

Not Cecil’s finest column, and probably the piece I’m most disappointed in by him. Cecil’s column has a person that asked two questions, about Jesus existence, and the Shroud of Turin. He devotes over 20 paragraphs or so to the The Shroud of Turin. I can understand why Cecil played it safe with Is there a Santa Claus? bit, but not this. Nor am I concerned if he thought it more likely than not for arguing for some kind of a historic Jesus, but that he only devotes two brief paragraphs to it, and for his sources he doesn’t bother to tell his reader of why many find them to be in dispute.

@ambushed

And this is from ambushed
But I must also add this extremely important addition to the list of very highly respected current ahistoricists: The justly renowned Christian writer and former historicist Burton Mack!

I’m sure you’re being honest with us, but do you think there is a possibility that you have possibly misread or overstated Mack’s viewpoint on this? Even though Mack doesn’t consider himself an expert on Jesus historicity, according to wiki, I would very much value his opinion if this is indeed the case. I looked at the book recommendation. It’s been out since Sept of 2013. If this is true, seems like we should have something from Carrier, Doherty, Loftus, Brodie, Avalos, Thompson and others by now, even if it is something as simple as a blog entry mentioning it.

When I’ve read from Burton Mack, e.g., Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth I’ve yet to see him side with one side or the other, and he states it is not necessary or possible to say much on the historic Jesus, he finds many other things to address, and that the earlier followers of Jesus wasn’t interested in preserving accurate memories of a historic Jesus, but more so of making him some kind of founder-teacher of some form of thought. He says they drew up on many sources which give us the final compilation of gospels we know today, but not after many, many re-writes.

@ITR_champion

Richard Carrier has a degree in history, which puts him a little closer to credibility to Doherty but not much. As far as I know he’s never held an academic post. Since he makes no effort to hide the fact that he’s motivated by hatred of Christians, it’s not surpising that most other historians aren’t impressed by him.

In debates with Carrier I have followed, as well as his books and blog, I have found him to be very civil to Christians, nothing that would indicate he is being motivated by a hatred of them. What is your cite for that?

Concerting Doherty you state:

Earl Doherty is not a historian or a scholar. He has never written a single scholarly article or book, nor held any academic post, nor done anything at all with any connection to the scholarly community that I know of. I’ve read part of his book and like others have found it to be absurdly dishonest and dumb. Can you name a single instance in which any actual scholar has cited Doherty, except perhaps to debunk him? If not, then what’s your basis for the claims he’s a “well respected historian in the scholarly community”?

If you’re concerned with who has held an academic post, whether or not someone is a historian, scholar or has never written a single scholarly article or book, and I might add peer reviewed, you should reconsider most of your sources used thus far in this thread.

[Frylock]

Related point of interest: Richard Carrier is presenting his case at a regional conference of the Society of Biblical Literature: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6803

[SeekerofTruth]

@Dinsdale

Dispel my ignorance, please. What evidence shows that Jesus visited or entertained visitors from Corinth and Thessaly? What is your basis for averring that Jesus “was a real person” to them?

The majority of folk seem to have no difficulty believing folk like Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard successfully developed followings based on complete bullshit. Not to mention a number of charismatic political leaders. Why should we believe that was impossible 2000 years ago?

I have no proof that the early leaders of the christian church were megalomaniacal/delusional/bullshitters… But such behavior is certainly within the capacity of human beings.

Hear! Hear! Finally someone who sees through the bullsh*t besides myself. You go the head of the class, Dinsdale.