2-J

Josephus and Tacitus are supposedly the star witnesses for HJ, I think. Not saying I agree with that. Doherty and Carrier's discussions of these two supposed star witnesses are very interesting.

maryhelena

Josephus a 'star witness' to what? Since there was no historical gospel JC - how can Josephus be a 'star witness'? I'm lost here...

My comment, on the other thread - ie that there is a Josephan Wall that is prohibiting any investigation into early christian origins - that is in no way saying that Josephus is a 'star witness' to the assumed historical gospel JC....

In other words - if we are after early christian history - as opposed to the pseudo-history of the NT - then it's Josephus that needs to be tackled. Sure, it might appear that the TF and the James passage are supporting the NT story - but that NT story is pseudo-history not history. And if Josephus is appearing to support the NT pseudo-history (interpolations and textual criticisms of Josephus aside) then the question becomes - what the heck is Josephus doing - and why...

aa5874

You can't be serious.

1. In the forgeries of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 Jesus was a SUPERNATURAL being. He was SEEN ALIVE WHEN he was supposed to be dead.

2. Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT authentic based on Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" X, "Against Celsus" 1.47 and 2.13.

3. Tacitus did NOT mention Jesus at all and it is NOW questionable that Tacitus even mentioned "Christians".

Josephus and Tacitus are actually HOSTILE WITNESSES in FAVOR of MJ.

The forgeries in Josephus and Tacitus would have been used to DESTROY the Christian Faith when they claim Jesus was NOT a man but was born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost without a human father.

Tacitus and Josephus themselves would have used the very information AGAINST the Jesus cult when the Cult claimed they did not worship a man as a God and that Jesus had no human father.

CELSUS the Roman writer and "TRYPHO" the Jew would have LOVED to have the forgeries in Josephus and Tacitus to PROVE once and for all that Christians were a PACK of LIARS when they claimed they did NOT worship men as God and that Jesus had no human father.

Neither Celsus or Trypho the Jew mentioned that Jesus was just a man based on the records of the Jews and the Romans.

Dave31

Yes indeed, this could only give the case for mythicism and the mythicist position a shot in the arm. I would highly recommend that Dr. Ehrman take it very seriously and study up though. Otherwise, he will pay for it dearly. Here's an example of what will happen to him if he does not give it the respect it deserves:

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'

Maybe these would be helpful to Ehrman too

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position

The Mythicist Position

Toto

On Robert M. Price's May 8 Biblegeek, he says that Bart Ehrman asked him for some reading on the Christ Myth theory. Price expects that Ehrman will come up with something worth reading.

stephan huller

Being one who is never afraid to confess his ignorance let me ask - what is meant by the term 'Christ myth theory'? Is it that there was a historical Christ but the original account was embellished by 'myth' or that the whole story from top to bottom was made up in a factory in China?

Toto

The Christ Myth theory is that Christianity started as the worship of a mythical Christ spirit. The gospel story, of an apparent human who either descended to earth or was born miraculously of a virgin, was a later story that was grafted on to this original worship, which even later became orthodoxy.

There is a wiki entry on the Jesus_myth_theory. I can see some obvious errors just glancing at it, but it has some good references.

The idea that there was a historical Jesus but the original account was embellished by myth is the mainstream academic position, as well as the liberal Christian position.

maryhelena

Here you are, Stephan - a short course in the Christ myth/Jesus myth theory.....

sorry about that - Toto beat me to it.........

stephan huller

But I guess my question would be of the chicken or egg variety. What do Christ Myth do with the testimony of Irenaeus and various other Church Fathers that there were two figures at the heart of Christianity - Christ and Jesus.

Can you still be a Christ Myth proponent if you just think the historical Jesus was embellished from an original belief that God came down to earth to instruct his beloved? In other words, everything described in the gospel is described is based on an historical event but reinterpreted through the lens of the 'kingdom of God' narratives in the Pentateuch and Joshua. I guess I am asking if you accept that the belief that Jesus was a historical person was made up in a later period does that make you a Christ myther?

blastula

Price has also said he will be interviewing Ehrman soon, and that you can send in questions to ask him.