TrueMyth

I would agree, which limits their findings to describing what was unique about Jesus when compared with other historical figures and movements. It most certainly cannot be a dictum: "This is THE historical Jesus."

Regarding prophecy from other sources, I have no problem with asserting that they were historically genuine prophecies, in the sense that they were regarding event E before it could reasonably have been determined to take place (or be taking place), and that E actually took place at some later date. I'm fine with that. I'm not sure why this is relevant; my main point was that when such prophecies are found in history, there seems a bias to assert that Jesus could not have made them, since they came true at a time that was epistemically inaccessible to him. This bias I see stemming from the use which later Christians made of these prophecies; namely, in proving his divinity. In order to avoid giving fuel to these claims, Jesus' prophecies are rejected out of hand as being authentic. When other people make prophecies, these statements are not questioned as being inauthentic merely in virtue of being prophecies. My question is, ironically, the same as yours, but directed at a different audience: Why Jesus and not the others?

gurugeorge

As some folks have pointed out already, only Josephus is a contemporary, and the Josephus references are at best dubious; the others are either too late, too ambiguous or appear to merely reproduce Christian hearsay.

Not that a HJ can be outright denied - the evidence is just too ambiguous all round to make an outright denial - but he can't really be outright affirmed either, for reasons of the same ambiguity and dubiousness.

So there's room for reasonable people to play around with the idea of a MJ, and see whether that explains the Christian materials better than the idea that there was a living historical person somewhere at the murky roots of the phenomenon of Christianity.

TrueMyth

I know you won't enjoy this, but I am really not interested in discussing the existence or non-existence of miracles at this time. It is not b/c I am trying to dodge the issue. Miracles are a separate issue, and as such needs to be determined on its own merits. If you want to start a thread to discuss the existence and/or possibility of miracles, be my guest. My point is simply this: the JS assumes two things in its analysis of the Gospels-- Naturalism generally and the non-existence of miracles specifically. Both of these must be proven externally to the issue of the historical authenticity of the Bible. I have not found a clear example of a defense of either in the writings of any of the JS members.

At this point, we are not really in disagreement. Miracles are not the only parts of the Bible which are/might be inauthentic. Miracles are irrelevant if one is attempting to prove the partial inauthenticity of the Bible. However, if one is attempting to find the character of a person in the Bible, and miracles are attributed to that character in the Bible, then the inclusion or removal of them significantly changes that person's character. In this case, miracles are quite relevant. However, they are a separate issue.

Thank you for explaining the parables situation to me. I find it probable to suppose, as you do, that allegorical-style parables are later additions, AT LEAST IN STYLE. The Synoptics were written around AD 60 (give or take 5-10 years) and are thus at least within spitting distance of the allegorical style. To say that an author put the content of a story into the form which was popular at the time, is not to disparage the content. Thus, it seems to me reasonable to suppose that one of two outcomes are possible regarding allegorical parables: 1) They were later additions, in whole; 2) The form was a later addition, using original content. Both have their arguments and are equally compelling to me.


The statement "Miracles never happen" is an ontological/metaphysical statement about the state of things which does not follow from your point (well taken) that we would have to know the laws of nature exhaustively in order to be certain a miracle occurred. This is an epistemic fact. To say that we cannot know something for absolute certain, therefore it does not exist, does not follow. Perhaps you are making the weaker claim, however. You might be meaning that for all practical purposes, we can assume miracles do not exist, since we cannot prove that they do. This is a claim which I would challenge, as I would your self-defeating claim regarding miracles, but again, not here. If you wish to start a thread on miracles, please do.

It seems to me you forget that cultural bias is only recently out of vogue. Anti-Semitism was rampant and virulent, and the Jews gave as good as they got, as did any other cultural group. Tolerance is a modern concept.

Thus, why would his followers put these words in his mouth? To jab at the hated Samaritans, Caananites, or whomever: what better way to prove they are scum than to have the Messiah call them "dogs"? People do not deem these passages inauthentic b/c of their desire for a PC Jesus. They deem them inauthentic for their historical demerits, such as lack of parallelism, departure from context (both for Jesus himself and the surrounding passages), non-Lukan/Markan/Matthean language, etc. On the one hand we have the majority of scholarship which rules these statements out for historical reasons. On the other hand, we have your assertion that it was excluded for its failure to produce a fuzzy Jesus. I find the first to have the a stronger consensus of informed minds, more objective evidence in its support, and no contradictory or suspect logic. I choose to side with historical consensus on this one.

Again, we must take into account the whole of what he has said, not just the parts in isolation.

You claim on the one hand that Jesus was an uneducated peasant and on the other hand that his teachings were heavily influenced by Hellenized philosophy, all while he was tucked away in a backwater corner of the world without formal education or big-city exposure. I cannot see how you can hold to both, and the former has much more historical evidence.

OK, fine. This only serves to further strengthen my point that Jesus' teachings to "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" were highly original moral teachings for the place and time.

I think Jesus would agree with the idea that if someone steals your shirt, you should hand him your Dockers as well. In what sense he would agree is an open question. Literally? I don't know. Hyperbolically? Maybe. As a mini-parable, intended to illustrate a deeper truth? Perhaps. Who knows.

Have you ever read Les Miserables? When Bishop Bienvenu catches Valjean stealing his silver, he not only tells the gendarmes that it was a present, he gives him the candlesticks as well. This gives Valjean a new perspective and a new lease on life. In fact, this is the one event which effects his transformation to an honest man. Yes, I know that in fiction we can make the characters do whatever they want and bring about any outcome. The point, however, is that I cannot see reading this wonderful passage and feeling derision for the Bishop, let alone calling him "stupid". It is quite possible that due to our different upbringings, you and I simply see the world differently. However, to me this is one of the most beautiful examples of putting Jesus' principles into action, and my assessment would remain the same if Valjean had then gone on to live a life of dissipation.

The point of Jesus' illustration there, and in several other similar passages, is that nothing is more important than your soul. When faced with an ethical dilemma, always look first to your own soul. When you follow this principle, the rest will take care of itself: you will give others every possible opportunity to be good.

The problem, as I see it, is that you are removing Jesus from his historical context as an uneducated peasant in ancient Palestine. He was not trying to set up a systematic analysis of virtue and good. He was not Plato. He comes from a different tradition, one steeped in aphorisms, parables, hyperbole, and veiled truth. Thus, only those who ignore this feature of Jesus will take his words entirely literally. They will ask themselves, "What can I glean from this?" and then interpret the passage. Yes, this leaves it open for personal bias, but that is the nature of the beast. If one uses Jesus as their model, there may or may not be one right answer to the question "What should I do?", but there most certainly are wrong answers to that question. In so far as Jesus rebelled against these wrong answers-- which were the answers of his day-- he was original in his moral teachings.

Your approach makes good sense. Now what we need to ask ourselves is, "Is situation X such that I can apply principle P to it without doing violence to its core truth?" I do not believe that the "turn the other cheek" principle applies in the wife/daughter rape scenario, because there is nothing intrinsic in the principle which stipulates that one ought to offer anything whatsoever to the offender. Letting someone slap you on a cheek is a very far cry from asking for your daughter to be raped. What is intrinsic to the principle is this: do not seek revenge, for it will decay your soul.

Again, unless they wanted to put their sentiments in his mouth. What better way to corroborate your opinions than to have your hero say them?

The sentence which the translation I used rendered as "He was the Christ" is increasingly being rendered "He was believed to be the Christ", which satisfies your criteria. Alice Whealy has brought this to the forefront. See her book Josephus on Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) for evidence of this. Apart from this, however, Josephus acknowledges that Christians were named after Jesus. This section is considered authentic, which actually gives credence to the validity of the direct Christ reference, but in the second translation. In any case, there is are two facts present: 1) Josephus indirectly acknowledges this Jesus as being known as the Christ, and 2) If this fact were well-known enough to his audience, given the increasing prevalence of Christians, it would not be necessary to specifically identify Jesus as the Christ previously. It would be like me writing a book about modern American history and saying, "William Jefferson Clinton, who was president of the United States", and then you demanding an earlier reference to Clinton specifically as president of the US before you claim that I actually wrote this passage. The referent is sufficiently well-known that no prior association is necessary for understanding.

Amaleq13

It is my understanding (via Crossan IIRC) that Sepphoris is likely to have provided the sort of "exposure" you seem to be denying here.

TrueMyth

Thank you for providing this! This city could very easily be a source whereby outside philosophy was brought into Palestine, and it seems reasonable to assume that it is at least likely that Jesus was there a fair amount of the time.

The contention is that Jesus was original in his moral system by 1) Rebelling against the dominant system, and 2) Shifting focus from specific to general, and from cultural to universal. The response is that Jesus obtained these approaches from contact with other philosophies, specifically Hellenic, most likely via Sepphoris. It seems entirely possible that this response will prove to be adequate. Of course, to prove its probability we must show specific points of Hellenistic philosophy which we can demonstrate to have been present at Sepphoris prior to or concurrent with the start of Jesus' teaching. Historical inquiry, especially the further back we go, will always require a certain amount of speculation, but it is too much speculation for me to assert that because Sepphoris was a cultural hub in Galilee, any given aspect of Hellenic philosophy can be said to have infiltrated it preceding Jesus' visits there.

I have conceded the probability of Jesus visiting Sepphoris, given its proximity to his hometown and its usefulness for his work. I have conceded that he probably visited fairly regularly for the same reasons. I have conceded that Sepphoris was a cultural center for his home region, and most likely had influences from outside philosophy. What remains to be proven in order to avoid a large speculative jump are 1) the existence at Sepphoris of specific external philosophy which has parallels in Jesus' teachings, and 2) its existence at a specific time, particularly during the formative period of Jesus' philosophy. Until these are shown, I find the idea that Jesus aquired the Hellenistic wisdom in question via Sepphoris to be possible, but its likelihood requires further information.

TrueMyth

I can't see how you can think that both the Josephus references are at best dubious, when the Book 20 reference is almost universally accepted by scholars as being authentic. Do you have information or expertise which hermeneutical scholars and historians do not? The Book 18 reference (TF), on the other hand, is understood to have later Christian additions, but the majority of scholars do not reject the entire thing b/c of this. They find further corroboration for at least parts of the TF in both Origen and an Arabic version discovered in 1971 by Professor Schlomo Pines, both of which cite the TF without the obvious Christian slant. Thus, it is reasonable to accept the parts of the TF which I listed not in CAPS as authentic, and it is very reasonable to accept the James reference in its entirety. From those two sources, I gathered the bare facts about Jesus the man which are present in 2-2f of my post which began this page. To deny those facts about Jesus seems to me to smack very strongly of presumption, given that they are based on what current scholarly consensus of ancient writings tells us is authentic.

TrueMyth

Given that it was gleaned directly from the JS's conclusions after studying the Gospels, I think that it has at least some evidence behind it and is not thus "pure speculation'. There will always be a certain element of speculation in historical inquiry, and even more so the further back we go. However, the person of Jesus is the only one to whom the radical skepticism you describe is applied very rigorously. To use it as a general approach is to deny, or seriously doubt, both the existence and actions of nearly many figures in history. I am calling for the diminishment of all possible speculation, and a return to an equal application of skeptical principles for all historical persons.

PS.-- I call your skepticism "radical" b/c you acknowledge that we can get indirect evidence which indicates even as much as that event X was unlikely to happen any other way, but you still attach the label of "pure speculation" to the conclusions.

jakejonesiv

The link provides what you have asked for. Zindler argues that the references to Jesus, James, and JBAP have been
interpolated. Zindler alleges more Christian tampering with Josephus beyond these. Why don't you read it and
familiarize yourself with the issues? (Rather than weaseling out with the word respected)
You might find that the props holding up the edifice of Historical Jesus are shakier than you have previously thought.

Here is Earl Doherty's review of Zindler's book.

Jake Jones IV

Faith is a discredited method of aquiring knowledge; heaven's gate, Jim Jones, 9/11 hijackers, etc.

gurugeorge

My knowledge of the scholarly position is not as good as it could be, to put it mildly, but while one obviously has to be aware of a consensus in scholarship, one should also be aware that it's no guarantee, and can change. There are sufficient respectable intellects who dispute the matter in what are so far as I can see reasonable terms, for me to feel confident in holding to my position.

In the James passage I think the Jesus spoken of is the "Jesus bar Damneus" fellow mentioned later, that "James" is his brother, and that the Christ bit is a plain interpolation.

The Testimonium still falls because if it is true that the words are (as they seem to be) similar to Luke, or an earlier, now lost Gospel (ur-Luke?), to suggest that Josephus consulted Luke or that Gospel, rather that the interpolator simply made use of that passage, seems a bit weak. Other than that, I see the textual flow argument as making the best case for interpolation, but then that's a bit of a matter of taste I suppose

Anyway, the whole thing stinks so much, it's far from the clear cut contemporary proof one would need to be utterly confident. To me, if there's some obvious interpolation (as the James case clearly is), then the case for the authenticity of these passages, taken as a whole, as proof of this "Jesus" fellow's existence, is considerably weakened.

As I say, it's no big deal, and one can believe what one likes, to me the paucity of contemporary support for there being a human referent for, or component of "Jesus", just means one can freely and with good reason strike out on the path of imagination, of "thinking outside the box" - and lo and behold, when one does, one finds the MJ position as providing a more satisfying picture, overall, of the origins of this thing called "Christianity".

Toto

To assert that these are "facts" that cannot be denied seems to me to smack of ideological rigidity and a refusal to actually examine the evidence.

Have you examined the current scholarly consensus, or are you just repeating the claim that there is such a consensus? Do you know what that consensus is based on? You imply that it is based on different scholars examining the evidence for themselves, but it might just be "group think" or reliance on a safe authority.

Steve Mason is one of the, if not the foremost Josephan scholars. He examined the issue of the authenticity of the Testamonium passage in his book, Josephus and the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk). After pages of analysis, he ended by saying that, since the passage had been tampered with, we should not be confident of our ability to recover the original text. (He uses the second mention of Jesus in the Antiquties as more reliable evidence - but there are no biographical details there of the sort that you want to assert as established evidence.)