spamandham

There is only one possibility here, not 2. This never happened. That doesn't mean Jesus the Christ is a fictional character though, it just means this particular story is bullshit. It wouldn't be the first time a real historical character was turned into a legend - if that's the case.

Personally, I think the most parsimonious explanation is this;

Mark (or it's predecessor more likely) was written as a mystical interpretation of Jewish scriptures in Homeric tradition, blending in myths and wisdom teachings that were common in Hellenistic culture. Later, people took this stuff seriously and eventually later generations came to believe Jesus had been a historical figure. These later writers added a birth story and genealogies to make up for the gaping hole in the original intentionally fictional Mark (/pre-mark). By then, even historians such as Josephus would naturally assume Jesus had been historical, simply because Christians were talking about him in that way. So by the latter first century to early second century, everyone, inclduing the detractors of Christianity, would be expected to be talking about Jesus as if he had been a real person of the recent past.

aa5874

The short reference in Josephus is not accepted as genuine by all scholars.

If the longer reference is questionable, then it should be reasonable that the short reference be also questionable, since without the longer, and earlier reference, the word 'Christ' would have no context.

'Antiquities of Jews' XX ch 9:1,"....... so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ......"

Now, without the TF, who or what does Christ refer to, since there are no other references to 'Christ'?

youngalexander

Like a number of others I am slightly amazed that this keeps on being repeated. Might I suggest Ch 9: The Plausibility of Theft by Richard Carrier in The Empty Tomb (or via: amazon.co.uk), since you appear incapable of realising such a possibility yourselves.

aa5874

The NT is filled with BS, Jesus the Christ must be made of some, at least. The list of BS stories surrounding Jesus the Christ is very long.

Can you name me a real historical character that was made completely from BS?


I am not of the opinion that Josephus wrote anything about Jesus the Christ.

Amaleq13

How is this relevant to what I wrote (ie "vast majority")?

What specific scholars do you have in mind who do not?

Most of those same scholars also consider it likely that the extant TF is an edited version of an original, genuine reference.

To be clear, I am not claiming that the short reference cannot be argued to be an interpolation. I'm trying to point out that ignoring the actual position of modern scholarship does not make your argument stronger and that it is simply misleading to assert a position you know is not held by many scholars as though it was an established fact. That you were certainly aware of the scholarly consensus is what made your assertion "disingenuous".

The short reference explicitly identifies who is called "Christ" so I don't understand your confusion here.

aa5874

Since you understand, is 'Christ' in 'Antiquities of the Jews' refering to the 'Christ' in Matthew, Luke or John?

Amaleq13

As I'm sure you already know, they are understood to refer to the same figure (ie a man named "Jesus" who was called "Christ").

aa5874

But what is your view? Do you think it is an interpolation? We can argue all day about 'most' or the 'vast' amount of scholars. I am of the opinion that the TF and shorter reference are all interpolated, since from a Jewish point of view, Jesus the Christ does not even come close to qualify to be called the Messiah.

It cannot be 'disingenuous' for a person to state their view on any matter. I do not represent modern schlarship, I do not mis-lead anyone when I state my position on any matter.

I have asserted that the historicity of Jesus the Christ, in the 1st century, is baseless. I do not label those who disagree with me as 'disingenuous'.



Since you understand, is 'Christ', in the short reference, refering to the 'Christ' in Matthew or the one in Luke?

aa5874

I am not of that view, without the TF, 'Christ', in the shorter reference, has no discernible context. Based on the NT, Jesus was not accepted as 'Christ', he was killed for blasphemy. He was known by the people as Elias, Jeremias, John the Baptist, son of man, son of david, the deceiver, a devil or some other prophet.

It was the Jews who demanded the death of Jesus, so I would expect Josephus, a Jew and a Pharisee, to refer to Jesus as the deciever.

Amaleq13

My view is that it is misleading and disingenuous to make an assertion as though it were an established fact when you know it to be at odds with the vast majority view of scholars.

I think there is insufficient evidence to know whether there was ever anything there originally.

Not with regard to how many consider the short reference to be genuine nor with regard to how many consider the TF to have a genuine core. You either accept the actual state of scholarly consensus or you ignore it.

Had you qualified your assertion as merely your personal opinion as opposed to established fact, no correction would have been needed.

Pardon my Princess Bride paraphrase but I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means. It certainly is disingenuous to assert something as though it was an established fact when you know that it is actually a minority position held by few scholars. Pretending that one knows less about something than one actually does is what the word means.

That is true when you qualify your assertions as you personal opinions but not when you assert them as though they were established fact or even the consensus view of scholars.

The implication that this is what I have done is simply wrong.

I answered this already.

I also continue to be interested in what specific scholars you have in mind who disagree with the majority views on these two passages.