The historical Jesus

[Grave_n_idle]

Whew, okay, Mesopotamian. Yes, I agree, the Hebrew myth was undoubtedly modeled on an older, Mesopotamian one. After all, where did Abraham come from? From Ur of the Chaldees (though there seems to be some debate on where that was, exactly, in Sumeria or in Northern Mesopotamia, at Edessa). Anyway, there was a progression of Semitic peoples up from the Bahrain - Oman area into Mesopotamia, up into Syria, down into Palestine, maybe then back down into the Hejaz. They would have carried their myths and legends with them.

The funny thing is - not only does the scripture mention where 'Abraham' would have been able to pick up such stories, it also reveals the truth about the geographical limitations of the original flood myth... although Christians tend to either not notice that - or (deliberately?) ignore it.

Joshua 24:3 "And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

'The flood', then, refers to the flooding of either the Tigris or the Euphrates.

[Maurepas]

Whew, okay, Mesopotamian. Yes, I agree, the Hebrew myth was undoubtedly modeled on an older, Mesopotamian one. After all, where did Abraham come from? From Ur of the Chaldees (though there seems to be some debate on where that was, exactly, in Sumeria or in Northern Mesopotamia, at Edessa). Anyway, there was a progression of Semitic peoples up from the Bahrain - Oman area into Mesopotamia, up into Syria, down into Palestine, maybe then back down into the Hejaz. They would have carried their myths and legends with them.

The funny thing is - not only does the scripture mention where 'Abraham' would have been able to pick up such stories, it also reveals the truth about the geographical limitations of the original flood myth... although Christians tend to either not notice that - or (deliberately?) ignore it.

Joshua 24:3 "And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

'The flood', then, refers to the flooding of either the Tigris or the Euphrates.

Canaan is obviously another planet in this context,

[Dakini]

Whew, okay, Mesopotamian. Yes, I agree, the Hebrew myth was undoubtedly modeled on an older, Mesopotamian one. After all, where did Abraham come from? From Ur of the Chaldees (though there seems to be some debate on where that was, exactly, in Sumeria or in Northern Mesopotamia, at Edessa). Anyway, there was a progression of Semitic peoples up from the Bahrain - Oman area into Mesopotamia, up into Syria, down into Palestine, maybe then back down into the Hejaz. They would have carried their myths and legends with them.

The funny thing is - not only does the scripture mention where 'Abraham' would have been able to pick up such stories, it also reveals the truth about the geographical limitations of the original flood myth... although Christians tend to either not notice that - or (deliberately?) ignore it.

Joshua 24:3 "And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

'The flood', then, refers to the flooding of either the Tigris or the Euphrates.

I've heard it might refer to the flooding of the Black Sea as well (it was also in that region and wasn't always a sea).

[Grave_n_idle]

Whew, okay, Mesopotamian. Yes, I agree, the Hebrew myth was undoubtedly modeled on an older, Mesopotamian one. After all, where did Abraham come from? From Ur of the Chaldees (though there seems to be some debate on where that was, exactly, in Sumeria or in Northern Mesopotamia, at Edessa). Anyway, there was a progression of Semitic peoples up from the Bahrain - Oman area into Mesopotamia, up into Syria, down into Palestine, maybe then back down into the Hejaz. They would have carried their myths and legends with them.

The funny thing is - not only does the scripture mention where 'Abraham' would have been able to pick up such stories, it also reveals the truth about the geographical limitations of the original flood myth... although Christians tend to either not notice that - or (deliberately?) ignore it.

Joshua 24:3 "And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

'The flood', then, refers to the flooding of either the Tigris or the Euphrates.

I've heard it might refer to the flooding of the Black Sea as well (it was also in that region and wasn't always a sea).

Possible - it is another one of those 'legendary accretion' topics. The 'Noah'-type story likely refers to a specific instance of a specific individual, in a specific flood on the Tigris, but the 'flood' in the story likely has accumulated aspects of already existant tradition.

[Tmutarakhan]

This is entirely untrue. The only people who think that the part of the Josephus passage regarding Jesus is authentic are biblical apologists.

That's entirely untrue. *I* am not a biblical apologist, but like most others who have studied the matter, I see the case for accepting the Agapius text as being very close to what Josephus actually wrote (before tamperers got ahold of it) as quite strong.

It breaks the flow of the narrative and does not appear in early Christian apologist accounts, even those who write about Josephus.

It only breaks the flow in its tampered form. It is paired with a hostile account of the birth of "that Egyptian" (nobody who mentions this particular pretender seems to care to give his name), who would make a lot of trouble when he grew up decades later; the theme is about pretentious troublemakers. OF COURSE Christian apologists would not want to cite what Josephus originally wrote, anymore than Moonies would cite a column attacking the pretensions of "reverend" Moon (for what purpose? to prove that Moon actually exists? well, nobody doubts that; just like nobody ever expressed any doubt that there was a person named Jesus until the late 20th century).

Tacitus... wrote the passage in 116 CE.

As I pointed out before, this is ALWAYS the case with ancient chroniclers: they write as old men, about events from earlier decades which are in danger of being forgotten. Tacitus was about seven years old at the time of the Great Fire, the same age I was when JFK was shot; this was surely the most traumatic event of his childhood, and it is inconceivable that he would not have as vivid a recollection of what people said and did at that time as I do about that weekend in November '63.

We don't know if his attributing the fire to Christians is something that was actually a common attitude at the time of the fire or if this is something that happened later.

Read the text. It was not "a common attitude", it was the OFFICIAL EXPLANATION for the disaster by the Roman state; but it was not a common attitude among the populace to give much credence to the official positions of Nero's regime. The common attitude toward Christians was one of contempt, but the common attitude toward the scapegoating of them as the purported arsonists was one of severe skepticism.

In addition, he just claims that they follow a man who was executed by Pilate, he does not actually say that this guy was executed

??? Yes he does, quite matter-of-factly.

he's likely just reporting what Romans gathered about Christian beliefs

What makes you think that likely? I see no signs that he, or anyone in his social circles, had any contact with actual Christians.

Pliny the Younger... reports that Christians are unwilling to worship the emperor and then comments on their beliefs. This is not proof that Jesus existed.

But he refers to Jesus matter-of-factly as a man who had become deified by this sect (not an unusual development); it would be very strange, and worthy of comment, if instead they were imagining some person who had never been, but nobody suggests any such thing.

Lucian [is] like someone who is arguing against the beliefs of any other group just argue the belief.

If you were arguing against someone who believes that President Ericson's policies from 50 years ago are the root of all our problems, wouldn't it occur to you to make the argument, "uh... there never actually was such a person as President Ericson"?

Celsus:
If by much earlier, you mean between 3 and 13 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus#Loc ... 7_writings not before 150 CE.

The Wiki article assumes that "The True Word" is the only book he wrote, rather than a magnum opus summarizing his views after a forty-plus year career, arguing that the earlier references to Celsus are to some other person who coincidentally had the same name (a position I consider silly), on grounds that the earlier Celsus had some different positions from the late Celsus (which is only to be expected from any writer with a long career). Sections of "The True Word" seem to be lifted verbatim from much earlier books: his attacks on Marcion are addressed as if Marcion is still alive, and has not yet published his definitive edition of Paul's epistles (the Apostolikon, c. 130, not yet including 1 or 2 Timothy, Titus, or large sections of Romans; together with the Evangelion, which was more or less what we now call "the gospel of Luke", this was the first Christian "canon" and may have been a direct response to Celsus' attacks for not having one settled text).

It's quite probable that the Jews were upset about being conquered and went into revolt led by a guy with a common name.

A common GREEK name??? No, that's out of the question. Here, Suetonius has garbled "Christus" (the translation of "Messiah") into "Chrestus" because he doesn't know beans about Jews. But there is no indication that this particular messiah was Jesus, and I don't think it likely that it was.

and Thallus: If he existed and if he wrote these things (e.g. if he and his quotes weren't made up by early Christians) his work isn't a contemporary reference to Jesus anyway.

I continue to think it just silly to think Thallus "didn't exist". We have no idea of his date, however; we don't know that it WAS a "contemporary reference", but equally well we don't know that it WASN'T.

Why would it almost certainly be James the brother of Jesus who is referred to as the wise king of the Jews? There were a number of messiahs running around in this time, it could be referring to any one of them, or none of them.

Uh, no, there weren't. There were a couple of claimants every generation or so. I do get tired of imaginative inventions of the history ("gee, there must have been a messiah on every street-corner back then"). After the execution of the Zealot heirs, the position of James as "rightful" heir to the Davidite claims was unchallenged, even by those one would most expect to deny that he had any rightful position, and he is THE figure whose murder was immediately followed by the destructive outbreak of Jewish-Roman warfare.
The other great pretender in the period was "that Egyptian", but: whatever the precise nature of his claims (magical powers, certainly), "kingship" doesn't seem to have been part of it; his death was well after the Jewish War was in full swing; and nobody remembered him afterwards as the "just" (the word Mara actually uses, not "wise" as you quote; dikaios here is the standard translation for Hebrew tzaddiq, the title always used for James).

Why are there Hindus? Clearly Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu (and a host of others) exist because there are Hindus.

Nobody says those were human beings living at a particular time. If you want a Hindu example, consider Krishna: the Bhagavad Gita, deifying him and identifying him with Vishnu, is a late insertion (c. 200 CE, perhaps in response to the "St. Thomas" Christians) into the Mahabharata, which otherwise depicts him as a human figure in a particular historical context, charioteer to prince Arjuna during a famously destructive war. Was there actually such a person? The Occam's Razor explanation is that OF COURSE there was a Krishna, although we have to question how much accurate biographical information we can get out of the stories. Could he drive a chariot really really fast? Could he play the flute seductively? Yes, yes. Did he fight valiantly until brought down by a poisoned arrow? Maybe: the theme that only an underhanded trick could take out the hero has to make us a little suspicious. Was he secretly of royal parentage? Was he smuggled into a peasant family to avoid the murderous tyrant? No, no: that's the kind of story that's typically made up when a figure rises to prominence without any illustrious pedigree.

[Dakini]

This is entirely untrue. The only people who think that the part of the Josephus passage regarding Jesus is authentic are biblical apologists.

That's entirely untrue. *I* am not a biblical apologist, but like most others who have studied the matter, I see the case for accepting the Agapius text as being very close to what Josephus actually wrote (before tamperers got ahold of it) as quite strong.

It breaks the flow of the narrative and does not appear in early Christian apologist accounts, even those who write about Josephus.

It only breaks the flow in its tampered form. It is paired with a hostile account of the birth of "that Egyptian" (nobody who mentions this particular pretender seems to care to give his name), who would make a lot of trouble when he grew up decades later; the theme is about pretentious troublemakers. OF COURSE Christian apologists would not want to cite what Josephus originally wrote, anymore than Moonies would cite a column attacking the pretensions of "reverend" Moon (for what purpose? to prove that Moon actually exists? well, nobody doubts that; just like nobody ever expressed any doubt that there was a person named Jesus until the late 20th century).

Are we talking about the same passage? I'm talking about this:

3.3 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.

This is a forgery. I don't know what you're talking about.

Tacitus... wrote the passage in 116 CE.

As I pointed out before, this is ALWAYS the case with ancient chroniclers: they write as old men, about events from earlier decades which are in danger of being forgotten. Tacitus was about seven years old at the time of the Great Fire, the same age I was when JFK was shot; this was surely the most traumatic event of his childhood, and it is inconceivable that he would not have as vivid a recollection of what people said and did at that time as I do about that weekend in November '63.

Unless blaming Christians was historically motivated or you know, unless seven year olds don't remember so clearly what people say about the fire immediately after the fact.

We don't know if his attributing the fire to Christians is something that was actually a common attitude at the time of the fire or if this is something that happened later.

Read the text. It was not "a common attitude", it was the OFFICIAL EXPLANATION for the disaster by the Roman state; but it was not a common attitude among the populace to give much credence to the official positions of Nero's regime. The common attitude toward Christians was one of contempt, but the common attitude toward the scapegoating of them as the purported arsonists was one of severe skepticism.

And is there another example of this official explanation appearing before Tacitus recorded it?

In addition, he just claims that they follow a man who was executed by Pilate, he does not actually say that this guy was executed

??? Yes he does, quite matter-of-factly.

I meant to say that it does not say anything about following up on the matter (e.g. he didn't go into detail and fact check it). It appears more like a casual statement based on what the Christians were known to believe. I mean, he didn't even get Pilate's title correct, he probably didn't look into the matter too much since it was irrelevant to his writing.

he's likely just reporting what Romans gathered about Christian beliefs

What makes you think that likely? I see no signs that he, or anyone in his social circles, had any contact with actual Christians.

Yes, because people were hearing all about how these Christians were such trouble makers but nobody overhears what it is they believe.

Pliny the Younger... reports that Christians are unwilling to worship the emperor and then comments on their beliefs. This is not proof that Jesus existed.

But he refers to Jesus matter-of-factly as a man who had become deified by this sect (not an unusual development); it would be very strange, and worthy of comment, if instead they were imagining some person who had never been, but nobody suggests any such thing.

Or he didn't bother to look into the matter and see if the man actually existed.

Lucian [is] like someone who is arguing against the beliefs of any other group just argue the belief.

If you were arguing against someone who believes that President Ericson's policies from 50 years ago are the root of all our problems, wouldn't it occur to you to make the argument, "uh... there never actually was such a person as President Ericson"?

First, I would probably ask what his policies were. Second, this is entirely different. This is more like me telling you about how great my friend Hank is and how he's an amazing philosopher and person and me and my friends pay homage to him. You're probably not going to question the existence of my friend Hank if you're not that interested in him and his philosophies (or if you think that "his" philosophies are bunk, you're more likely to criticize me for repeating them).

Celsus:
If by much earlier, you mean between 3 and 13 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus#Loc ... 7_writings not before 150 CE.

The Wiki article assumes that "The True Word" is the only book he wrote, rather than a magnum opus summarizing his views after a forty-plus year career, arguing that the earlier references to Celsus are to some other person who coincidentally had the same name (a position I consider silly), on grounds that the earlier Celsus had some different positions from the late Celsus (which is only to be expected from any writer with a long career). Sections of "The True Word" seem to be lifted verbatim from much earlier books: his attacks on Marcion are addressed as if Marcion is still alive, and has not yet published his definitive edition of Paul's epistles (the Apostolikon, c. 130, not yet including 1 or 2 Timothy, Titus, or large sections of Romans; together with the Evangelion, which was more or less what we now call "the gospel of Luke", this was the first Christian "canon" and may have been a direct response to Celsus' attacks for not having one settled text).

It's a bit difficult to tell since none of his works survived. Further, this still doesn't exactly matter since he wasn't a contemporary source and would not be able to provide support for the existence of Jesus anyway. All he provides evidence for is the existence of Christians and nobody is denying that Christians exist.

It's quite probable that the Jews were upset about being conquered and went into revolt led by a guy with a common name.

A common GREEK name??? No, that's out of the question. Here, Suetonius has garbled "Christus" (the translation of "Messiah") into "Chrestus" because he doesn't know beans about Jews. But there is no indication that this particular messiah was Jesus, and I don't think it likely that it was.

Considering that Christ isn't even a name... though if you don't think that this messiah would have been Jesus then this passage doesn't matter for the existence of Jesus, does it?

and Thallus: If he existed and if he wrote these things (e.g. if he and his quotes weren't made up by early Christians) his work isn't a contemporary reference to Jesus anyway.

I continue to think it just silly to think Thallus "didn't exist". We have no idea of his date, however; we don't know that it WAS a "contemporary reference", but equally well we don't know that it WASN'T.

So why would we assume he is?

Why would it almost certainly be James the brother of Jesus who is referred to as the wise king of the Jews? There were a number of messiahs running around in this time, it could be referring to any one of them, or none of them.

Uh, no, there weren't. There were a couple of claimants every generation or so. I do get tired of imaginative inventions of the history ("gee, there must have been a messiah on every street-corner back then"). After the execution of the Zealot heirs, the position of James as "rightful" heir to the Davidite claims was unchallenged, even by those one would most expect to deny that he had any rightful position, and he is THE figure whose murder was immediately followed by the destructive outbreak of Jewish-Roman warfare.
The other great pretender in the period was "that Egyptian", but: whatever the precise nature of his claims (magical powers, certainly), "kingship" doesn't seem to have been part of it; his death was well after the Jewish War was in full swing; and nobody remembered him afterwards as the "just" (the word Mara actually uses, not "wise" as you quote; dikaios here is the standard translation for Hebrew tzaddiq, the title always used for James).

As far as we know, we're discussing a guy who is talking about his former cell mate who had some good ideas.

Why are there Hindus? Clearly Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu (and a host of others) exist because there are Hindus.

Nobody says those were human beings living at a particular time. If you want a Hindu example, consider Krishna: the Bhagavad Gita, deifying him and identifying him with Vishnu, is a late insertion (c. 200 CE, perhaps in response to the "St. Thomas" Christians) into the Mahabharata, which otherwise depicts him as a human figure in a particular historical context, charioteer to prince Arjuna during a famously destructive war. Was there actually such a person? The Occam's Razor explanation is that OF COURSE there was a Krishna, although we have to question how much accurate biographical information we can get out of the stories. Could he drive a chariot really really fast? Could he play the flute seductively? Yes, yes. Did he fight valiantly until brought down by a poisoned arrow? Maybe: the theme that only an underhanded trick could take out the hero has to make us a little suspicious. Was he secretly of royal parentage? Was he smuggled into a peasant family to avoid the murderous tyrant? No, no: that's the kind of story that's typically made up when a figure rises to prominence without any illustrious pedigree.

I haven't looked into whether there is actually any evidence that Krishna exists. I would say that if there aren't any contemporary references to him outside the Bhagavad Gita, it is unlikely.

[Tmutarakhan]

Buddhism would still be Buddhism if it was actually created by a group of people who invented the idea of a Buddha and recorded "his" teachings.

No, it wouldn't be anything at all. It requires a powerfully charismatic leader to get such movements started.

Joshua 24:3 "And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

'The flood', then, refers to the flooding of either the Tigris or the Euphrates.

"Flood" in this passage is just an alternative word for "river" in the English of King James' day (compare German Fluss, which means "river" and nothing else).

[Dakini]

Buddhism would still be Buddhism if it was actually created by a group of people who invented the idea of a Buddha and recorded "his" teachings.

No, it wouldn't be anything at all. It requires a powerfully charismatic leader to get such movements started.

Not necessarily. It could have been created at a school or among a group of people who were looking to reform Hinduism. They might have invented the idea of the Buddha so there is a person for the movement to center on, but that doesn't mean the Buddha was one man.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's entirely untrue. *I* am not a biblical apologist, but like most others who have studied the matter, I see the case for accepting the Agapius text as being very close to what Josephus actually wrote (before tamperers got ahold of it) as quite strong.

The problem here - of course - is that you seem to be implying there can only have one one set of tampering.

There are quite clearly two separate sets of tampering - the passage itself (which, I assume, you are referring to as the Agapius text) - which is an ealier interpolation (but still, long after Josephus) - and then the additional tamping to add desired additional text.

There is no reason to believe the content referred to in the Agapius passage.... was written by Jospehus - not only is it out of place, but it's also stylistically suspect. Josephus would not have called Jesus ' a wise man', would not have used the phrasing "wonderful works", and is unlikely to have ripped off the book of Luke for phrasing.

The "if it be lawful to call him a man", "He was the Christ" and "tribe of Christians" comments are obviously fake - but the whole passage is fairly obviously forged, anyway.

And, there's no good reason to believe the passage was there in the original Jospehus version - it would have made a lot of sense for Origen, for example, to quote the passage in his attacks on Celsus. He quoted other Jospehus passaages quite extensively, but the part that would directly assist him - he ignores? Unlikely.

Who are we going to trust - the person who had reason to use the passage (if genuine) but inexplicably didn't? Or the person who faked letters from Jesus, who is the first person to claim the conflicted Josephus' passage - 200 years after it's supposed to have been written? (Eusebius, obviously).

There's no reason to believe that the 'contested' Jospehus text is real.

[Tmutarakhan]

They might have invented the idea of the Buddha so there is a person for the movement to center on

Why??? A living, breathing human leader is useful. An imaginary person is not.
A supernatural figure, derived from some force of nature or abstraction, can serve as a focus for a cult without any story about having once been a human being. Human leaders sometimes get supernaturalized in the stories that expand about them after their death, but abstract deities don't get humanified, there's no point to that.

There are quite clearly two separate sets of tampering - the passage itself (which, I assume, you are referring to as the Agapius text) - which is an ealier interpolation (but still, long after Josephus) - and then the additional tamping to add desired additional text.

I see nothing remotely "clear" about that. There is no motive I can see for anyone to have invented the Agapius version.

There is no reason to believe the content referred to in the Agapius passage.... was written by Jospehus - not only is it out of place, but it's also stylistically suspect.

Neither of those assertions is correct. Jumping from one incident to another based on loose thematic ties is exactly what Josephus does throughout; the Jesus passage fits just fine where it is (assuming it was originally about a pretender, analogous to those discussed in the adjacent passages, rather than about the real deal).

Josephus would not have called Jesus ' a wise man', would not have used the phrasing "wonderful works"

Why not? Just because he didn't think Jesus was the messiah (neither do I) doesn't mean he couldn't recognize wisdom in his words or wonder in his actions (I do).

and is unlikely to have ripped off the book of Luke for phrasing.

He is not "ripping off" Luke as we have it now, but something earlier which Luke must also have drawn on as one source. He is explicitly (in the Agapius version) telling us what the Christians say, and so of course he would be using words derived from some Christian source (without endorsing the truthfulness of it). This is not a case like Tacitus, who never met a Christian in his life as far as we can tell; Josephus would certainly have encountered some Christians, and would know what they were saying.

The "if it be lawful to call him a man", "He was the Christ" and "tribe of Christians" comments are obviously fake

Agreed as to the first two. But I have no idea why you would think "tribe of Christians" suspect: you doubt that there were Christians? (The way he uses "tribe" here, by the way, is very much echt Josephus, so very like his other uses of the word for non-ethnic groups that other authors would call by some other term as to be good evidence for the genuineness of the passage.)

but the whole passage is fairly obviously forged, anyway.

Repeated claims of "obviousness" don't make it any more "obvious" than when you said it the first time.

it would have made a lot of sense for Origen, for example, to quote the passage in his attacks on Celsus. He quoted other Jospehus passaages quite extensively, but the part that would directly assist him - he ignores? Unlikely.

It would have made ZERO sense for him to quote an author saying he doesn't think Jesus was the messiah. As I said before: would Moonies cite a hostile column about the "reverend" Moon? What for? There was no need back then to "prove" that a person named Jesus did exist, since no-one for almost two thousand years would even think to say otherwise.

[Lithzenze]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I keep reading the title of this thread as ''The hysterical Jesus''.

[Buffett and Colbert]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

Can you prove this?

[Lithzenze]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

Can you prove this?

i dont need too. I'm not making the claim. F.F. Bruce is.
but if it helps any:

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

[Grave_n_idle]

I see nothing remotely "clear" about that. There is no motive I can see for anyone to have invented the Agapius version.

I'm not saying that the text allocated to Agapius is 'fake'. I'm saying that the Agapius text refers to a POST-Josephus amendment.

Neither of those assertions is correct. Jumping from one incident to another based on loose thematic ties is exactly what Josephus does throughout; the Jesus passage fits just fine where it is (assuming it was originally about a pretender, analogous to those discussed in the adjacent passages, rather than about the real deal).

Both are correct. It doesn't fit the surroundings - despite your claims that it does, and it doesn't fit with Josephus' established style anywhere else in the text... it doesn't use his vocabulary, it doesn't 'read like' Josephus.

Why not? Just because he didn't think Jesus was the messiah (neither do I) doesn't mean he couldn't recognize wisdom in his words or wonder in his actions (I do).

Not the point: Josephus is very specific about his phrasing - the only references to 'a wise man' anywhere else in the canon, are Solomon and Daniel. The only reference to 'wonderful works' anywhere else in the canon, is Elisha.

Someone was trying to sound like Jospehus, and used his words - but didn't understand his context.

Agreed as to the first two. But I have no idea why you would think "tribe of Christians" suspect: you doubt that there were Christians?

No - I doubt Jospehus used that phrasing.

Eusebius is our source for Josephus having said it. Eusebius also says Tertullian said it (he didn't), and that Trajan said it (he also didn't).

Anything that we ONLY get from Eusebius is suspect.

Repeated claims of "obviousness" don't make it any more "obvious" than when you said it the first time.

And yet, it was obvious then, too... perhaps the 'problem' isn't the argument...

It would have made ZERO sense for him to quote an author saying he doesn't think Jesus was the messiah. As I said before: would Moonies cite a hostile column about the "reverend" Moon? What for? There was no need back then to "prove" that a person named Jesus did exist, since no-one for almost two thousand years would even think to say otherwise.

On the contrary - making Celsus look like a dick was pretty much Origen's passion. He spent a quarter of a million words saying Celsus was a dick - a fair number of them, originally from Josephus.

The passage in question, discussing Jesus' alleged 'wonderful works'...

Why wouldn't Origen use that to directly refute Celsus: "Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word?'"

If the contested Jospehus text had existed - especially given how familiar Origen was with Jospehus' canon - Origen would have used it. It's perfect, and it's absence is nonsensical - UNLESS the whole passage was forged, after Origen's time.

[Buffett and Colbert]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

Can you prove this?

i dont need too. I'm not making the claim. F.F. Bruce is.

Ah. My apologies.

[Grave_n_idle]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

The British scholar F F Bruce was a mere mortal, was he not?

[Lithzenze]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

The British scholar F F Bruce was a mere mortal, was he not?

yes whats your point?

[Buffett and Colbert]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

The British scholar F F Bruce was a mere mortal, was he not?

yes whats your point?

He is setting himself up to make the point as to how could he possibly be sure, I think. But I think he thinks, like I did, you believe Jesus existed.

Of course I could be wrong.

[Grave_n_idle]

As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar"

The British scholar F F Bruce was a mere mortal, was he not?

yes whats your point?

That he is not, therefore, infallible?

It is eminently possible, is it not, that this British scholar F F Bruce... could be wrong?

[Lithzenze]

He is setting himself up to make the point as to how could he possibly be sure, I think. But I think he thinks, like I did, you believe Jesus existed.

Of course I could be wrong.

Well i imagen that F.F. Bruce looked at various peaces of infomation and evidence to come to this conclusion as did Darwin with his theory of Evolution. (study the evidence, draw a conclusion).

[Buffett and Colbert]

He is setting himself up to make the point as to how could he possibly be sure, I think. But I think he thinks, like I did, you believe Jesus existed.

Of course I could be wrong.

Well i imagen that F.F. Bruce looked at various peaces of infomation and evidence to come to this conclusion as did Darwin with his theory of Evolution. (study the evidence, draw a conclusion).

If you read a post by Enadail (I think I'm likely to be wrong) you will see him/her discredit every piece of tangible evidence there is to support the existence of Jesus, mortal or not.

[Deus Malum]

He is setting himself up to make the point as to how could he possibly be sure, I think. But I think he thinks, like I did, you believe Jesus existed.

Of course I could be wrong.

Well i imagen that F.F. Bruce looked at various peaces of infomation and evidence to come to this conclusion as did Darwin with his theory of Evolution. (study the evidence, draw a conclusion).

Well, seeing as we have things allegedly written BY Julius Caesar, things written ABOUT him by other people, busts of his head, and the like, all of which appear to have been written while he was actually alive, instead of, in the case of Jesus, decades after the fact, it seems your expert would happen to be wrong.

[Grave_n_idle]

He is setting himself up to make the point as to how could he possibly be sure, I think. But I think he thinks, like I did, you believe Jesus existed.

Of course I could be wrong.

Well i imagen that F.F. Bruce looked at various peaces of infomation and evidence to come to this conclusion as did Darwin with his theory of Evolution. (study the evidence, draw a conclusion).

And Darwin, also, could be wrong - no?

[Meshuggahisle]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

I dunno, but i find your flag and name intriguing. I hope your an eighty year old irishmen though. That would make me smile.