bacht

Ercatli, the "scholarly consensus" you allude to sounds more like 19th C than 21st

If you scan some of the wikipedia articles about the NT you'll find references to modern researchers who would question a lot of your points. For example, the opinions about the dating of Mark extend as late as 135 (bar-Kochba revolt).

I only mention wiki because I think they strive to present a mainstream perspective on most issues.

show_no_mercy

Ummm... that's not archaeological evidence for Jesus. You can claim that Spiderman is real by using the same standard. Spiderman comic books accurately depict the title and location of Columbia University, the Empire State building, and they also depict Spiderman's response to 9/11. If simply naming locations and titles is all you need for historicity, then Spiderman is just as real as your Jesus.

And "Luke" contradicts Josephus' account of the messiah figures in the first century AND contradicts Paul's letters.


For every "expert" you quote, we can quote just as many. You might want to see whether the person you quote is a biblical minimalist or maximalist... or is even a biblical scholar at all (this was already pointed out to you).


The synoptics sure, but...

This part is uncorroborated. The only reference to a "sayings" (logia) at all is in the lost writings of Papias. This may or may not be the "sayings" hypothetical document that is posited to explain the similarities between the synoptics. This "Q" is speculated to exist prior to the gospel named after Mark was written. Speculated, but not evidenced. Which brings us back to the point of this thread - none of the "first generation" of Christian writers quote any of these sayings, or at the least attribute these sayings to Jesus.

Pious fiction is only one of many genres the gospels might be placed into. History isn't one of them.

"Bodily" is contested. Paul seems to scoff at the idea of a resurrected body having the same "body" that was put into the ground...

Paul mentions nothing about what Jesus did on Earth - ie none of his "signs and wonders". In Paul's authentic letters, all we know is that some "person" (whether spiritual or not) was executed sometime in the past. "Paul's" only reference to a point in time when this savior god was executed is in the Pastorals; and scholarly consensus is that the Pastorals are wholly pseudepigraphal.


There's no consensus about the extent of interpolation.

Again, the "Christus" reference in Tacitus is only retelling the views of Christians. It was probably only a cursory investigation of their views, considering he confuses (and misspells/Latinizes) the title "Christ" instead of the man "Jesus". It would be like saying "General" got executed and that's why his followers are called "Generalians".


Funny, I could write the same about you - but that gets us nowhere. Still, you don't have any archaeological evidence - which is why I called you out on it. The "archaeological evidence" you posited would also prove that the Odyssey really happened (oddly enough, Homer's epics were seen as sacred scripture until Christianity became the dominat religion in Rome).

Toto

Vernon Robbins is still active and is the mentor to many students, as is MacDonald. Both are active Christians with no motive to discredit Christianity, and both are academics with respect for the academic process.

EP Sanders is respected, but his particular approach does not seem to have spawned any further progress. The observation that he made in 1985 is not applicable to what has happened since.

Meier does good work within the confines of the imprimatur.

Wright is discredited in my mind because he thinks that there is credible evidence for supernatural events. His influence I think lies in his position as the Bishop of Durham and his writing ability, not the persuasiveness of his arguments.

Robbins and MacDonald are two scholars that I have read - I can't claim to have read everything current, and I still have a lot of books I want to get around to reading. Their work seems to be solidly grounded in analysis of the texts and of what can be known of Greco-Roman society from other literary sources. They don't engage in the sort of speculation that Crossan did, and which scholars who try to reconstruct actual history are forced to do (e.g., James Tabor and the Tomb of Jesus.)

I got into this because Christian apologists kept showing up on the forums here and claiming that there was historical proof of the validity of Christianity and/or the Resurrection. I have an interest in history, and I did enough investigation to learn that this is not true; this historical claim has the same relationship to real history as creationism does to biology.

I don't particularly care if there was a historical Jesus, but I notice that Christian apologists always overstate the quality of the historical evidence and then try to draw conclusions that are not warranted. They generally refuse to address the real evidence, but try to hide behind some presumed "consensus" of "experts." It is annoying.

But along the way I got interested in Christian origins, especially after reading Rodney Stark's book on the Rise of Christianity, where he compares it to Scientology and Mormonism in its techniques. (He is sympathetic to Christianity, Mormonisn, AND Scientology.)

Wright is not a historian. Strobel is an apologist; not all of the people he interviews are apologists, but his technique is designed to support his belief system, not to test it. (And his belief system relies on the fact that Jesus saved him from alcoholism, not on a real review of the evidence.)

Best wishes to you.

mountainman

Dear ercatli,

On the contrary, the consensus of commentary indicates that Eusebius simply inserted "his references" to Jesus into Josephus at a particularly shameful hour in the fourth century. A simple fourth century forgery, much like the letter of Jesus to King Agbar.

Have you read opinion contrary to your own views, or do you dismiss it out of hand once you have determined that it is contrary?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear skepticdude,

I included that reference to serve as a reminder that although, as your OP runs, the apostles did not quote jesus, there was an epoch in the history of christianity in which all the church leaders start quoting jesus: notably the fourth century.

I included it to be complete. Conservative apologism IMO must try and explain all the quotes of the supposed apostles of the supposed jesus. Your OP asks a good question, with which I agree. But what is the next step? The apostles dont quote jesus, but where does the 'quoting of jesus' actually start in history? We have alot of people wandering around quoting jesus today. When did this practice start? When Jesus became God in the Roman empire c.325 CE, or was it before?



Best wishes,

rlogan

Heh. One thing about blind apologists.

They're blind.

You have not one whit of methods, assumptions, outputs or peer recognition submitted for any source of yours. Just endless repetition they are "experts".

Which, they are obviously not. They are not even historians. They do not even have academic titles of historians. Not in history departments, nor publishing in history journals.


*yawn*

don't let the door hit you running away.

wordy

Hope I am not too Off Topic now.

Christians makes much out of that Josephus writing the History of the Jews does mention the Chrestos? But the way that text sits there makes it more plausible that it is something that Christian believers put there long after.

Now to the not so related.

Josephus actually does refer to the Essenes not sure spelling. and later one have found texts that maybe are related to them? A kind of Jewish group that was critical to how the Temple and politics was handled in relation to the Rome.

Now the Bible doesn't mention them ever.

But a curious thing is that Jesus several times are referring to men in white clothes that will help them find a room and other services they provide. Food water?

Could he have had a group of these Essenes that was kind of secret group that he didn't told the Disciples about. I mean regardless if all of it is Myth why would them need to kept the Essens in ignorance instead of bragging about them helping them out in new places and such.

"Go into the City, there you will find a man in white clothes he will help you find a room prepared for .... " whatever.

I mean if the Essenes had lay persons who did function as a kind of go between to high up folks?

I mean it seems the Gospels are hiding something that could have gone lost by history? Could the Jesus story have been written by the Essenes first and then later taken over by the Constantine and Eusebius gang. Them eliminating the Essenes and therefor cover up by not mentioning them at all?

rlogan

It is absolutely essential to understand why Eusebius forged the Testimonium Flavianum.

Eusebius quotes extensively from Josephus - dozens of times in his official book entitled "Church History". (Ecclesiastica Historia)

It is the PRIMARY SOURCE for Eusebius composing the official state history of Christianity. That is why it is so important to insert the false, but official history in that work.


In Book I, 11.9 we see why he quotes the Testimonium (right after quoting it):

Eusebius quotes the T.F. in three works. Look at them. It is perfectly clear that he does so in order to defeat opponents of different theological view, and is positively preening around with how important Josephus' "testimony" is.

That is exactly why we need to pay attention to the fact Christianity is not mentioned at all by Josephus, nor any Jesus. Because it wasn't there.

All of the bible works are forgeries. ALL of them. At the time of the great battle over what would be the official state religion, the winner was the one claiming historical heritage from Jesus himself.

the official state history of linear descent from Jesus himself to the Pope is the reason for the forgery of the Testimonium Flavianum


People that are caught up in the "Historical Jesus" delusion are blind to how urgent it was to invent a historical Jesus. The importance cannot be understated. It was critical. Paramount. Decisive. Control of the entire religious arena in the Roman Empire depended on the Testimonium Flavianum: on forging a "history" as a claim to power.


He does so at great length. He has a whole book division on "Sects of the Jews".

So it is not just "strange" that Josephus would not mention Christians. It is proof that there was no Christian sect of the Jews by late 1st century that was worth even a sentence in a book section expressly dedicated to such things. Josephus was SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR Christianity or any other sect of the Jews.

And he went on in detail with respect to the Essenes and their habits.


Because it was written distant in time and place from the alleged events, and shows all kinds of ignorance about the period, the geography, and culture.


Essenes didn't have a Jesus story.

Analyst

What thoughts have you on the forgery of the Donation of Constantine?

skepticdude

I see your point. If quoting Jesus isn't shown to start occuring until later, then that argues the Christians of the earlier period did not regard words of Jesus as ultimately authoritative, a blow to the basic conservative position.