Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GrahamSA · 10-06-2008, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

I tend to think Jesus was a real person and that there is some history in the Gospels, though it's now corrupted beyond recognition.

Is it true that nowhere else is any historical recording of Jesus ever made other than the Gospels and a "fictitious insert" by Josephus ?

ie all referrences to Jesus are Biblical only ?

Graham

neilgodfrey · 10-06-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But here, aren't you in fact falling for the later reinterpretation I wrote of?
When the Lord came on clouds in the HB, who in fact actually saw the Lord?
No one.

Might we be confusing the metaphoric with the literal. Seeing the Lord coming in judgment is in fact to see the armies destroying Jerusalem. That is the sort of meaning it carries in the OT. The Lord coming down to earth in thick dark clouds was seen in the demise of Saul, for example.

Neil

bacht · 10-06-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrahamSA

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

I tend to think Jesus was a real person and that there is some history in the Gospels, though it's now corrupted beyond recognition.

Is it true that nowhere else is any historical recording of Jesus ever made other than the Gospels and a "fictitious insert" by Josephus ?

ie all referrences to Jesus are Biblical only ?

Graham

There are a couple of vague clues in Suetonius and Tacitus. Josephus is the main non-Christian reference to an historical Jesus, this description is controversial.

The mythic position is that there is nothing discussing a real flesh-and-blood Jesus outside of Christian writings. The usual starting point for this picture is considered to be the Gospels. All kinds of Jesus characters pop up in the literature after the 1st C. This was one of the reasons for restricting the NT canon in the 4th C.

spamandham · 10-06-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrahamSA

Is it true that nowhere else is any historical recording of Jesus ever made other than the Gospels and a "fictitious insert" by Josephus ?

ie all referrences to Jesus are Biblical only ?

There is also the "James brother of Jesus" mention in Josephus, in addition to the one you refer to.

show_no_mercy · 10-06-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrahamSA

Is it true that nowhere else is any historical recording of Jesus ever made other than the Gospels and a "fictitious insert" by Josephus ?

ie all referrences to Jesus are Biblical only ?

There is also the "James brother of Jesus" mention in Josephus, in addition to the one you refer to.

But isn't that Jesus named "Jesus, son of Damneus" in Josephus?

bacht · 10-06-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

There is also the "James brother of Jesus" mention in Josephus, in addition to the one you refer to.

But isn't that Jesus named "Jesus, son of Damneus" in Josephus?

Is that the one sentenced to stoning by the Sanhedrin? I don't know if he is the same as the apostle James from Paul's letters, but there is a similar story in Acts 12. There have been other threads here about James and his namesakes.

spamandham · 10-06-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

But isn't that Jesus named "Jesus, son of Damneus" in Josephus?

Not as far as I know. See Antiquities (20.9.1).

andrewcriddle · 10-06-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

There is also the "James brother of Jesus" mention in Josephus, in addition to the one you refer to.

But isn't that Jesus named "Jesus, son of Damneus" in Josephus?

Not in our current texts of Josephus
josephus ant-20

Quote:

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. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Some, on this forum and elsewhere, have speculated that, in the original text of Josephus, the brother of James was Jesus b Damneus, but this is not a plausible reading of our present text.

Andrew Criddle

jeffevnz · 10-06-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrahamSA

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

I tend to think Jesus was a real person and that there is some history in the Gospels, though it's now corrupted beyond recognition.

Is it true that nowhere else is any historical recording of Jesus ever made other than the Gospels and a "fictitious insert" by Josephus ?

ie all referrences to Jesus are Biblical only ?

Graham

Almost. There are the brief, apparently corrupted comments by Josephus. Tacitus and Pliny say a few things about Christians, but nothing explicit about Jesus. Suetonius makes a brief mention of some guy with followers who might be Jesus, but it's not clear. All of these were written after 90 AD. The Gospels themselves are apparently written after 70 AD, and few people argue earlier than 60. Only the letters of Paul, which say almost nothing about Jesus of Nazareth, get earlier than that, with possible dates around 50 AD.

So the historical record of Jesus is much weaker than people think. I know I was surprised to learn about this. The little information we have is late, apparently corrupted, and apparently not written by witnesses. Nothing, not one iota of testimony or evidence of any kind comes from Jesus's lifetime, or the 15 years after he died. Total historical silence.

andrewcriddle · 10-06-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

Almost. There are the brief, apparently corrupted comments by Josephus. Tacitus and Pliny say a few things about Christians, but nothing explicit about Jesus.

Our text of Tacitus says Ann.+15.44

Quote:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.