GakuseiDon

I don't understand why this keeps being brought up without noticing that, according to the Gospels, people witnessed Jesus's miracles, etc, and still rejected him. The Pharisees just said "no healing on a Sabbath, please" instead of "my God and Saviour!" Others went away when they didn't understand what Jesus was talking about. Even if the Gospels are just fiction, we have Celsus who doesn't seem to have a problem with Jesus being a miracle-working, but he puts it down to sorcery. I just don't see it as reasonable to assume that people would have automatically written about him.

Amaleq13

IMO, the notion that the "original" TF offered negative comments about Jesus lacks credibility given the absence of any early Christian criticizing Josephus for expressing such views. A lackluster or neutral original or a complete interpolation appear to be the only viable possibilities.

Vivisector

Greetings, Amaleq13 - long time since we crossed pens/swords, and longer still in this context. I agree (a red letter day!) with you that a lackluster/neutral commentary (but perhaps still containing elements unacceptable from the Christian POV; e.g., "called Christ") is much more likely than an obviously negative one.

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector

If you're saying that, as a run-of-the-mill magician/sorcerer, Jesus could still have stayed below the radar, so to speak, then I'd tend to agree with you.

I'm personally ambivalent as to whether Jesus was considered a miracle worker/sorcerer/magician in his own lifetime. The model that makes the most sense to me (today - who knows about tomorrow) is the wandering teacher and preacher. I see the miracle stories as accretions necessitated by his identification as the Christ, Son of God, etc., and elements such as explaining the Pharisees' rejection as the authors' way of answering the question of, "If he did such great things, why didn't people follow him unconditionally?" I think Mk 6:4-6 is very telling - it would go far toward answering the question of why Jesus wasn't known as a miracle worker even in his own hometown. This makes all the more sense to me if, as is generally accepted, the gospels were written distant from Judea/Galilee and after the first war, where and when the chances of direct contradiction of the miracle stories would be minimal.

Cheers,

V.

Malachi151

Look at who else WAS written about, however.

James the Just (supposedly the brother of Jesus) was written about. In fact, there is quite a bit of historical evidence for James.

John the Baptist was written about, we have historical evidence for him.

We know that Paul was real.

We have Appolonius, who was written about, left churches behind, and wrote his own teachings down.

So, in the middle of all these people is Jesus, for whom there is no "credible" historical record. (There is the Testimonium, which is very much disputed).

We have all kinds of writtings about James, but not his brother (who was supposedly God in human form )

Toto

All of the above should be qualified.

We have a mention of a James in Josephus, but his designation as the brother of Jesus Christ may be a Christian addition. All of the other historical descriptions of James are from Christian sources that may reflect more theology and legend than history.

The only mention of John the Baptist outside of Christian sources is Josephus.

We don't "know" that Paul was real. We assume that there was a real person who wrote the Pauline epistles, but there is no other mention of him in historical literature, unless he has an alternative identity.

We don't have much more reliable information on Apollonius than we have for Christian figures. There are fragments of letters which are allegedly written by him, but some are of dubious authenticity.

===

Robert Eisler is the source of the idea that original references to Jesus were excised by Christians because they were embarrassing. There is an excerpt from his work here.

spin

Why do you think John was mentioned in the christian testament? He obviously wasn't central to the new religion's message.


spin

Chris Weimer

Which religion? Christianity, or the "brand" of Judaism that Jesus preached? I think the surviving emphasis on baptism in the early church indeed point to John the Baptist having some prominence, or at least his theology playing a crucial part.

And don't read too much into crucial.

Chris Weimer

If I recall correctly, Peter Kirby now accepts this hypothesis as well. I'm still leaning towards the entire TF as fake, but I can accept an adulterated passage as a possibility.

Toto

He was obviously important to some group in the 1st or 2nd century. Jay Raskin has some interesting speculation in his new book, Evolution of Christs and Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk), that the stories about Jesus were originally told about John.