aa5874

But, the argument is not really about proposals of possibilities. It is about the evidence.

It is possible that a man found guilty of a crime may indeed be innocent but ONLY the EVIDENCE PRESENTED in the case can be taken into account, not what may be possible.

In effect, it is actually irrelevant that a man found guilty is possibly innocent without EVIDENCE of the possibility of innocence.

Apologetic sources, the VERY sources that should be able to confirm or should TRUTHFULLY present the ACTUAL history of Jesus claimed he was the Child of a Ghost of God, the Creator, equal to God, who walked on the sea, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

The EVIDENCE has been presented and it MATCHES those of MYTHS. Jesus was a MYTH

Chaucer

Which is NOT every bit of written evidence, thank you. How convenient to ignore the extra-Biblical allusions. It's one thing to dismiss each and every non-Biblical allusion as coincidentally interpolated or second-hand -- or whatever is the convenient flavor du jour. It's quite another to pretend that these extra-Biblical allusions don't even exist. That is what show_no_mercy seems to be doing here.

To say that one doesn't cite non-Biblical texts because of this or that is one thing. Fine. But to offer downright blanket statements, as here, that the only Jesus sources out there are Biblical is profoundly misleading. I am not disputing here anyone's right to dismiss each and every non-Biblical allusion as all coincidentally flawed in one way or another. But I am questioning the tactic of making blanket statements that strongly imply that these non-Biblical allusions don't even exist. Now, that kind of misleading statement is indeed reflective of either ignorance or worse. And emotional bias may not be too far away here either. Might it reflect a degree of wish-fulfillment to act as if those non-Biblical texts don't even exist?

Yes, someone here might possibly respond with "but those are all suspect because of" A or B or C. However, that kind of response does NOT address my point here. My point here is that the reader is left with the distinct implication, in what show_no_mercy writes here, that no such non-Biblical texts exist at all. Now, that implication is plainly incorrect.

Chaucer

Chaucer

And now you know why, as a skeptic myself, I'm sometimes so frustrated here. Welcome to the club. Often -- not always -- in dealing with mythicists, I feel as if I'm dealing with people who have adopted positions out of faith rather than an open grappling with the evidence.

Chaucer

Chaucer

You are right: there is an earlier version of the key Josephan passage that does leave out some of the "extras" put in later.

The earliest version of this passage is a stand-alone reference in Arabic from the 10th century. --



Arabic Version
Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.

Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.



-- From the 11th century comes the earliest extant text of Josephus's complete Antiquities in the original Greek. In that version, the same passage appears considerably embellished. --



Greek Version
Josephus, Antiquities 18.63, probably in a Christian redaction
Tr. I. H. Feldman, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 9, pp. 49ff.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared.



-- The embellishments here are rightly viewed with suspicion by a number of scholars. Finally, there is another Jesus reference in the same Josephan work that does not have the same question marks hanging over it and that most scholars view as having survived with little if any tampering. --



Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning.



-- (I trust this post is substantive enough to pass muster here.............)

Cordially,

Chaucer

Toto

Hi sion:

I do not know if aa5874 is an atheist. I can only tell you that he tests our commitment to free speech on this board, and that he does not speak or type for anyone other than himself.

Toto

This is a bit misleading. There are no early copies of Josephus that would allow you to assume that the supernatural parts are mere embellishment. There is an Arabic copy that lacks some elements that are not consistent with the Islamic view of Jesus. But the argument that there was an underlying neutral reference to Jesus in the Testimonium was constructed by a Catholic scholar, based on literary analysis (or wishful thinking). There is a second reference to James the brother of Jesus called Christ which is generally accepted as a reference to the historical Jesus, except that it appears to be a marginal note copied into the text by a Christian scribe.

You will find a comprehensive review of theories on the Testimonium reference here in a 2001 essay by Peter Kirby. There has been much more discussion here and in the archives. These passages are a very shakey basis for concluding that there was a historical Jesus. As many Christians realize, once you admit that the passage has been tampered with, you can't be sure if you can reconstruct the original with any accuracy.

I can't tell you not to try to discuss this with aa5874, but I can warn you not to expect a fruitful discussion.

bacht

I'm sure aa5874 will engage you on the details, but I'll make a general point: Jesus was ignored both by contemporary Romans as well as Jews (as you know the Josephus passages are controversial). Only Christian writers recorded any of the alleged events during and after Jesus' earthly career.

A general theme on this forum has been the idea that biblical scholars don't follow proper historical procedure as compared to other areas of research. As was just pointed out in another thread, there's only Christian literature to work with, and biblical scholars tend to construct elaborate theories on what are actually shaky foundations (many here would say). Not being an academic I can't really judge, but there seems to be justification for questioning the procedures used in this field.

Chaucer

I'm sorry, Bacht, this is simply incorrect. It's perfectly fine to view the non-Christian texts as problematic or whatever if you wish to. Fine. But it's not correct to say that such texts don't even exist. The latter seems to be an Internet myth, and rationalists should be more rigorous than that.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

bacht

Okay, what are the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus, Peter, James, Paul et al?

Toto

These texts exist only because Christians preserved them and worked over them (especially Josephus). They have been analyzed to death; none are contemporary references, none are especially persuasive or reliable. So when you come down to it, there IS only Christian literature to work with.