Rick Sumner

Doherty called this "perhaps the single strongest argument" against historicity in his book. In correspondence with myself some time ago that got downgraded substantially, though he still called it a "piece of the puzzle." I'm not even prepared to grant it that.

The Teacher of Righteousness was a deified Jewish leader. No, he wasn't deified in quite the same sense that Jesus was. Yes, he was still deified (4Q431). Nobody saved anything. Nobody gives any hint that they had any interest in such a thing, and surely if they had, something would be mentioned in the wealth of proscriptions for ritual and festival--such an artifact, were it really so important, would surely be a part of such things.

There is, quite simply, no precedent with which to justify the expectation that artifacts would be kept.

But the refutation is really much simpler than even that. If early Christians (or Jews, after the Teacher of Righteousness, for that matter), cared about such things, they would have forged them. We can state this with a great deal of certainty, because when they did start to care (c. the 4th century), they did forge them. So the individual (in this case you) who wishes to present such an argument has a great deal of explaining to do: If such relics were really so important why were there no forgeries until centuries after? Even allowing the Jesus Myth to be entirely true, certainly by the late second or early third century historicism had come to pass. So why didn't anyone forge artifacts then? Why did they wait until the fourth century CE if such relics were really so paramount?

I, quite candidly, don't know what exactly inspired the new interest in the fourth century. What I do know is that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone was interested before then, and absolutely no reason to expect them to be. The fourth century fascination is an anomaly. The previous ambivalence is all we have any right to expect. The argument is an anachronism. To be fair, it's an anachronism that's easy to miss. But that doesn't make it any less of one.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jjramsey

And Josephus was not alive during the lifetime of many of those messiahs. He certainly was not alive when Judas the Galilean started an insurrection in 6 A.D.

He is writing letters addressing the issues in those churches, not giving pious history lessons. Bear in mind as well that if the Jesus in the Gospels is grossly embellished, Paul would not know many of the details in the Gospels because they had not been invented yet.

Except that what you offered didn't support your claim. The three heads of John the Baptist were as spurious as the Shroud of Turin, so they are hardly evidence that first-century people collected relics.

An apples-and-oranges comparison. Islam was not an apocalyptic movement, and Mohammed had a much higher profile, having been both a warrior and a political leader.

Fair enough. On the other hand, if you are going to believe Jesus didn't exist, you shouldn't do it on spurious grounds, and unfortunately, there are a lot of spurious grounds on offer.

I've seen some reasons offered for its nonauthenticity, but they seem to be spurious or weak.

Jehanne

I use the word "archaeological evidence" in a broad sense. Again, no mention on the part of the secular historians of the day, and again, no writings even from Jesus himself (unlike, Paul.)

Okay, fine, if Jesus was a real historical person, I am "okay" with that. As far as I am concerned, he was a religious loon, if he existed, but if he had been a "teacher of righteousness" or some other religious leader of his day, so what? But, then again, the fact that Paul had epilepsy has been firmly established (to my satisfaction, at least), and as the old saying goes, "Birds of a feather..." So, Paul likely associated with other epileptics and together they created the "Jesus, Son of Man" vision experience which later evolved into the "historical Jesus." Just my two cents...

Roger Pearse

You might be interested in a couple of quotes which I gathered the other day, while looking for something else.

This work is a bibliography of scholarship, rather than a book, and the quote introduces a series of references.

Whealey's book is a study of the attitudes of scholars down the centuries. She adds a footnote to this, in which she cites the four volume Dictionary of Christian Biography as evidence that Schürer's views were remarkable in his time (ca. 1900) also.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jehanne

Agreed. If manuscript evidence could be recovered that could establish the authenticity of the two references in Josephus' writings, I would regard that as "proof positive" that Jesus of Nazareth existed. But, even you must admit that Josephus' documents have been at least tampered with, an opinion that most scholars have.

Paul got pretty "personal" in some of his writings, and it stretches my imagination to believe that he would have nothing to say about the "historical Jesus" when writing to churches a thousand or more miles away from Palestine. Had Jesus been a real person, he and Paul would practically have been contemporaries. And yet, Paul has nothing (in his 80,000 words) to say about this?

Okay, fine, I concede on this point. The 1st-century Jews were not in the habit of "collecting relics." But, again, no reference from the historians of Jesus' day to his existence. No surviving records from the Romans about the "Son of Man", either.

Concede.

I honestly do not know if he existed or not. It really doesn't matter to me, but I do believe that the mythicist position offers the best explanation of the facts in question.

Toto

Don't forget about Jesus' foreskin, left over from his circumcision. Other putative relics are listed here, including his milk teeth, hair, and the holy umbilical cord.

Julian

I agree that that particular reason is not overly strong. I was thinking of the use of the word χριστος which is never used by Josephus (except in the longer section) and would likely be incomprehensible to a Roman audience in this context at the time of Josephus writing. Also, Photius Codex 238 doesn't show a reference to christ. Those two reasons are far stronger, I think.

Julian

Jehanne

Modern scholarship may be absolutely correct -- the references in Josephus may be authentic. On the other hand, if an early (say, early 2nd-century), complete manuscript of Josephus would be discovered tomorrow that had those references missing, then that would proof that those references were forged. Agreed?

Toto

I don't think that most of the artifacts about Jesus were used in rituals, so I am not sure why we would have a record of any artifacts connected with the ToR.

You see this as evidence that historicism is not connected to the worship of relics. I see it as evidence that 3rd century Christians were not complete "historicists" the way fourth century Christians were. The third century Christians took the theological stance that Jesus became man, but who is to say that they thought the actual historical details were important?

The fourth century is not the anomaly. Christians from the fourth century to the current day are interested in artifacts, in traveling to the actual location where Jesus allegedly lived, preached, and died. Other religions and political movements show a similar interest in visiting the places or owning the relics of their founders. The anomaly lies in the Christian movement before the fourth century.

andrewcriddle

Although the veneration of relics certainly increases in the 4th century there are earlier examples of at least similar attitudes.

From the 'Martyrdom of Polycarp' who suffered c 161 CE Andrew Criddle