Ted Hoffman

I have been reading Bede's Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed Here is<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm" target="_blank">Bedes Page</a>

I would like to address his "refutations" but I need an answer to the question above first so that I know areas to exclude when arguing. He says: Doesnt he know Jesus made 2000 pigs to drown?
Doesnt he know Jesus raised people from the dead and healed lepers?
Doesnt he know Jesus fed a crowd of 5000?
If the above are true, it wouldave been very difficult for Jesus to pass through life unnoticed.

He says How can the argument that Tacitus wrote what he "heard" from Christians be a case of special pleading? This betrays a poor grasp of logic on Bede's part and therefore a non-argument on his part.
Titus was born after Jesus had been supposedly killed (circa 54 AD) where else could he have found the story of Jesus from except from Christians?
Evidence shows that NO Historians wrote about Jesus except for Josephus who is claimed to have mantioned him in Antiquities 18, which scholars admit is an interpolation and Antiquities 20 whose authenticity is, at best, debatable.
He says "impossible to disprove" what evidence shows its "imposiible to disprove?" Earl Doherty has not only done it but also written a book and earned a lot of respect and admiration from Scholars like Robert Price (of the Jesus Seminar?)
"impossible to disprove" is just argument from ignorance.
Is this what Bede calls an argument?

It depends on what Tertulian found absurd in the story. In any case, if it was truly absurd, how come he became a christian? His books Apologeticum and Praxean indicate he was a christian.

So, its a "rationalised" myth?
There were no eyewitnesses, no reliable sources?

You cant whip moneychangers out of a huge temple and be obscure, you cant drown 2000 pigs and remain obscure, you cant feed 5000 and be obscure. Cant rise from the dead and still be obscure.
You can't be killed by Romans publicly and remain obscure. We have writers who were Jesus' contemporaries who were living in Rome and Palestine - these are people who must have heard of a great miracle worker etc, but they dont mention him.
Which pericope is this that Bede is appealing to?

False analogy. Carl Sagan is one among tens of thousands of Scholars. Carl Sagan does not claim to have any unique skill or heritage (Jesus is claimed to have been the son of God) Carl Sagan does not calm storms or raise people from the dead.
And still, if you search on relevant subjects, you will still find Carl Sagans name mentioned.
So the argument fails.

Explain why they killed him then

I don't think I have to refute the TF again (Antiquities 18) because most people agree its not authentic (unless Bede would like to argue for its authenticity). About Antiquities 20 (James brother of Jesus and Jesus called Crist), I have the following arguments which I put forth when debating with Peter Kirby (I believe the important thing is the argument that we cannot rely on Origen because of the stark contradiction between what he claims Josephus said and what Josephus actually said):

Argument against the authenticity for antiquities 20:
My argument is triple pronged:
1. That Josephus could not have referred to Jesus as "called Christ"
2. That Josephus could not have referred to James as the brother of Jesus
3. Incongruity objection

1. That Josephus could not have referred to Jesus as "called Christ"

• a) The presence of the phrase "called the Christ" makes sense if he was referring to a subject he had addressed earlier. Given that this was a gentile audience, who were likely to be ignorant of the meaning of the term, they would have been distracted into asking "called by who", "why was he called Christ" or "what does Christ mean?" Introducing a new term to an unclear subject without elaborating on its meaning or significance to the readers would have served to distract the audience by raising questions. The presence of this phrase would only be fitting if antiquities 18 were authentic and extant then, because if that were the case the readers would not have all these questions concerning who Christ was or what Christ meant. Given that Antiquities 18 has been accepted as an interpolation, the phrase called Christ is inappropriate and sticks out like a sore thumb in the passage and renders it almost incoherent.
• b) "Called the Christ" presents a Christian view (even though it might not imply assent) and is thus biased and NOT neutral (because it begs the question "called by who?"). It goes without saying that Jesus was called Christ by Christians at that time and the idea that Jesus was called christ was not so ubiquitous in mid first century, in fact most of the Jews are known to have considered Jesus as an imposter. It's also known that during the first century the Jews and Christians were greatly polarized over the question about whether or not Jesus was the messiah. Given Josephus' Jewish ness, it is very likely that Josephus would have sought to use a neutral term regarding Jesus (due to the dramatic and contentious nature of the issue), if he felt compelled to elaborate on who he was. There could have been many neutral expressions, a ready one, which Earl Doherty suggests is "the one who was crucified by Pontius Pilate".
  Besided the term appearing in the NT three times, that Matthew also used the term called Christ in referring to Jesus in the NT also suggests that it was a term Christians used to refer to their "Lord", unless it can be argued that Matthew felt a need to be neutral concerning Jesus' stature in Matthew 1:16.
  As James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, p. 92f, says:
  
  
  Quote:

  It appears likely that Josephus referred to Jesus, but certainly not in the form preserved in the Greek manuscripts."(p. 94). "Behind the Christian interpolations or redactions is a tradition that derives from Josephus. The Jewish historian did apparently refer to Jesus of Nazareth." (p. 96). "The Greek recension, minus the Christian interpolations, reveals how a first-century Jew probably categorized Jesus: He was a rebellious person and disturber of the elusive peace; but he was also a wise person who performed 'surprising', perhaps even wonderful works, and was followed by many Jews and Gentiles. The Arabic version [of Josephus] provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in "Antiquities 18", but certainly not in such favorable terms." (p. 98)

  The argument that Josephus was not writing for a Jewish audience but a gentile and therefore did not care for the sensibilities of the Jews one only makes sense if Josephus was a renegade Jew. In any case, at the time, Christians were very few. Why would Josephus then, have chosen to share with the readers the opinion of a minority group? More importantly what are the chances that Josephus would have chosen to present the view of a minority group who he differed with?

2. That Josephus could not have referred to James as the brother of Jesus

• The fact that Josephus does not write anything on James other than his manner of death suggests that he knew nothing else about James. As I have argued before, James righteousness preceded him and most who knew him knew him as "James The Just" as both Eusebius and Origen call him. Even Origen underlines that Joephus said that the righteousness of James was so great that when he died, the Jews believed the calamities befell them because of the death of James.
  
  If Josephus knew something little about James, it is likely that he would have known James for his righteousness (ie as James the Just) but the passage would have us believe that Josephus knew Jesus' brother who only happened to be called James (ie he knew Jesus had a brother called James). (contrast this with James' brother who was called Jesus).
  Besides, the inappropriate placement of the words "a brother of Jesus called the christ" before the name of James makes it appear as if Josephus is about to dwell on Jesus, then only later does he say that Jesus' brother was James. This greatly reduces the coherence of the passage and is a sign that the passage had been tampered with. As Crossan suggested "a man named James" could have served the purpose (this is from Earl Doherty's site). It is very unlikely that Josephus could have felt compelled to introduce James kinship to Jesus plus what Jesus was called by other people in a passage addressing Ananas' fate where James was not even the main character.
• c) As Earl Doherty argues, Josephus was writing to a gentile audience who would not have required a detailed profile of every minor character. Including Jesus relationship to James and what a minor group of Jews called Jesus is unwarranted and questionable.
• d) The disjointed and icongruous structure of the passage to accomodate "the brother of Jesus, the one called the Christ" is evidence of tampering. Why would Josephus place Jesus before James? yet Jesus brotherhood would have been included only to make James identity clearer? This is questionable.
  
  In addition, from Josephus' writings, he appears reticent about the question of christ and the messianic expectaions of the Jews and does not describe the ethos and the drama that it entailed, and when he does (in The Jewish War), it is in a very cursory fashion. It is therefore surprising that he would introduce the subject when it is unnecessary and in such an a manner that would appear like he was "forcing" the issue.

3. Incongruity objection

• a) As Origen states, in Matthew 10.17, Josephus too believed the calamities that befell the Jews were due to what they did to James. But how can this be so yet Josephus narrates in Antiquities 20 that it was Ananas who killed James against the wishes of the Jews? Could Josephus have held two conflicting views concerning the same issue? Would Origen have had a "confused" recollection concerning what Josephus wrote?
• b) Given that Josephus was writing for a largely Roman audience, and that the Romans were the ones who had destroyed Jerusalem, wouln't Josephus have been misreporting the true events by attributing the fall of Jerusalem to Gods punishment as opposed to Roman conquest? Would he have attributed the fall of Jerusalem to Gods wrath given that as Earl Doherty says, in Jewish War 3.5.8, Josephus said his purposes in writing was "to deter others who may be tempted to revolt"
  There is no reason to believe that Josephus as a historian, had the impertinence to take the Liberty to record his own(superstitious) beliefs and NOT record the correct history of the events that actually took place.

We can address these before we address Pagan Similarities and Pauls silence.

Any contributions will be appreciated

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

I apologise to everyone for the double post:
Bede has responded:
Peter, what is Bede referring to?
Bede, did Peter tell you he debated with me because of his patience or is this just your cop out?

Philosophus

INTENSITY:
Doesnt he know Jesus made 2000 pigs to drown?
Doesnt he know Jesus raised people from the dead and healed lepers?
Doesnt he know Jesus fed a crowd of 5000?
If the above are true, it wouldave been very difficult for Jesus to pass through life unnoticed


PHILOSOPHUS:
This of course, reminds me of Gibbon's classic commentary on the silence of roman historians concerning the marvels of christianity at its origins:


"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, daemons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Caesar, when, during the greatest part of a year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendour. This season of obscurity, which cannot surely be compared with the preternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age."

Ted Hoffman

You know, when I saw Bedes page with that ambitious title, I thought "Wow! there are christians who are informed enough to be able to refute Jesus mythers!"
When I looked at it yesterday (after being a myther) and started this thread, and Bedes' response, well. My thoughts have changed very much.
Off to JP Holding...

Tercel

Intensity... how to say this?
What Bede is referring to is that you're so extremely biased that there is little point in arguing with you. Us Christian apologists don't exactly expect to start on neutral ground - this is the sec-web after all - however there are limits to our patience. And often the stubborn headedness displayed around here can try even our patience sorely. However you seem to have singly won the prize hands down for pure stubborness and a willingness to stick to your guns and assert rubbish no matter how many times you are told.
Bede seems to be understandably amazed at how Peter Kirby could discuss things with you for such length in a couple of previous threads without having the urge to bang his head against a wall.

But anyway, I'll give you one last chance, since Bede's argument is well written and I can't bear to see you bash it and get away with it. Please try and be sensible this time, the discussion will end promptly if you will not follow basic logic.

Vorkosigan

No, this is because, as Bede knows full well, NT scholars do not currently possess any methodology which would enable them to say anything with much certainty about Jesus' life. So any argument from Bede will eventually founder on his inability to present anything reliable, solidly backed by basic logic and sound methodology, drawn from the Christian legends regarding Jesus.

Tercel and Bede complain about butting their heads against a stone wall, but of course it is the stone wall of the failure of 200 years of NT studies. Against that rock they will hurl themselves in vain.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Why? Jesus spent most of his time in small villages in the countryside. They didn't have CNN back then you know. The Gospels often say "the news about Jesus spread around that part of the country". Get it? That part of the country. A small part of a small country on the very fartherest reaches of the Roman empire. A small country that was continually throwing up religious fanatics and rebels, teachings and supposed healers and new religious sects. Even within his own country Jesus had only a comparatively small following, gathering most of his fame in relatively isolated villages in the countryside. According to the gospels he spends only a week or so in the captial before he is executed.
A small splash in a small country. "A marginal Jew" as Meier puts it. I really really recommend you read at least the first volume of Meier's work. Nothing greatly controversial, Meier one of the most widely recognised NT Scholars sets out to establish what could be agreed upon about Jesus if an agnostic a jew and a Christian were locked up together until they produced a document which all agreed upon.
It's exactly special pleading. Basically special pleading is when you try and find reason which exempts a particular bit of evidence or argument from its natural interpretation. In this case, Tacitus is writing a historical account. The natural interpretation of anything he writes that could reasonably be considered history is that it really is history. Hence your attempt to exempt Tacitus' reference to Jesus from counting because "it might have been heard from Christians" is special pleading.

Now special pleading is not a problem, if there's only a little bit of it involved in your entire argument and if you can give properly substantive reasons to support your hypothesis. However almost every single piece of evidence that exists for the Jmyth hypothesis involves special pleading. That frankly, is a joke, you cannot build an argument out of fallacies and expect it to be taken seriously. At every turn the Jmyth hypothesis overturns the accepted scholarly verdict on issues: "All those scholars aren't really right in thinking that Ant 20.9.1 is authentic because X. The majority of scholars aren't really right in thinking that Ant 18.3.3 originally contained a reference to Jesus because Y. Paul doesn't really make numerous references to the historical Jesus he just looks like he does, because if you reinterpret them in this way then Z. The Gospels aren't really intended to record historical events and all previous scholars and lay readers are wrong in thinking they are because A. Jesus is really a parallel of 100 previous ancient figures and any scholarly work that has been previously done on this subject and concluded he isn't is irrelevant."
And finally of course "Did we mention that you can't believe Tacitus because B (he heard it from the Christians)?"
The whole argument depends on overturning established scholarly consensus and generally running rampant through all common sense, waving the magic wand of special pleading left right and centre to remove all obstacles. And finally the greatest absurdity of all is committed: Silence is argued from. After the magic wand of Special Pleading has been used to illegally vanish the piles of evidence the Jesus myther has the audacity to ask the question of why there is no evidence left and try to use that in a premise of an argument from silence - a type of argument that is dangerous and uncertain at the best of times. Yet this one giant fallacy of special pleading is used as the foundation for an even more massively fallacious argument from silence.
Anyway back to the point...

He heard it from the Christians. He heard it from the Christians
What, may I ask, sort of a pathetic excuse is that? Should we ignore all Roman history that comes to us through Roman sources? Should we ignore all Greek history that was written by a Greek? Or in the modern day: Should we ignore all news that comes from America because it's told to us by Americans?
So how is ignoring something about Christ because it's coming via Christians sensible?! This is two layers of special pleading. One, we have to think that Tacitus' information coming via Christians is a bad thing. Two, we have to think that Tacitus' information did indeed come via Christians.

Even if I grant that Tacitus' information was coming through Christians, where does that get you? It tells you Christians believed in a physical Christ by the time of Tacitus' writing, isn't that a conclusion you'd have preferred to avoid?

You appear to be under a mistaken impression of what the scholarly view on these subjects is. It is the case that the majority of scholars who have analysed Antiquities 18 have found a partial interpolation most likely. It is the case that the vast majority of scholars who have analysed Antiquities 20 have found in favour of complete authenticity. These include Josephus scholars whose focus is on the text of Josephus in general and not primarily anything to do with Jesus (and who are hopefully, hence unbiased).
The tiny percentage who believe Antiquities 20 to be an interpolation can be put down to those who are out to prove something (eg Jesus never existed) and are hence not unbiased in their conclusions.

Is this what you call a rebuttal?
Bede seem to be using here the criteria of embarrassment and disimilarily. Basically people are less likely to make up something they find embarassing or something quite different to what they are used to.

I think Tertullian clearly believed in spite of what he saw as absurdities within Christianity. As an apologist I can confirm that Christianity is not the most easy system to defend. If I was making up a story, I'm sure I could make up one a lot more simple to grasp and defend.

Of course you can, of course you can, of course you can. A few moneychangers whipped? A small disturbance of the peace. The man was executed a few days later. Who is going to write about it? The newspapers? A few pigs drowned in the the countryside? Who was watching with their notepad? Were the illiterate villiage people who saw it supposed to go out and write a volume on the subject? You can't feed 5000 and be obscure? A mere 5000 moderately ignorant and uneducated people in the middle of the countryside in a distant province of the vast Roman empire. Who's supposed to notice again? The newspapers? The only people who would have reason to record such a thing would be people with special interest: Christians and Jewish historians. Oh, wait, that's right the Gospels do record these things. Oh, and Josephus records that Jesus did many wonderful things and drew over a large following so dedicated that they didn't abandon him even after his death. (Something quite unusual for new religious sects at the time) Hmm so the people who are expected to notice, do notice. Wow.
You can't be killed by Romans publicly and remain obsure? Why not? People were no doubt put to death regularly for murder, or theft or whatever. It's not history making stuff. Historians are only interested in political leaders: If Jesus had lead the Jewish people in rebellion against Rome you'd probably have all the literature you could want. The gospels record two nameless criminals crucified with Jesus. If we didn't have the gospel accounts we'd have never have known they even existed.

That's too general. Be specific. What were they writing about that they should have mentioned him? Saying a person writing on the subject of hydrolics in Rome at the time doesn't mention Jesus is not really helpful to your argument.

Making him, in most pagan's eyes of the day, one among tens of thousands of religious nutters.

And still, if you search on relevant subjects you will still find Jesus Christ's name mentioned.

Because the Jewish leaders demanded they did. If you examine the circumstances surrounding Pilate's position at the time of Jesus' death you will discover that his job security left something to be desired and he would have been no doubt quite eager to appease the Jewish people. The Gospel records that he was prepared to put to death a man he believed innocent to appease the crowds are quite believable in this respect.

That is not the case. Most people believe it is substantially authentic. I believe there can be little doubt that the majority opinion is the correct one. I do plan to write a detailed article on it in the hopefully not too distant future, but let's leave it for now.

Special pleading again.
How do you know what Josephus actually said? I see nothing wrong with the possibility that Josephus originally did say what Origen says he said but the passage has been edited out because it contained a negative reference to Jesus? (It seems unlikely to be the first such a one)
Origen was a textual critical Scholar (his magnum opus was an copy of the Scriptures combining 6 different translations of the OT in parallel all in the one copy) living in Alexandria which had one of the largest libraries in the world. We have every reason to trust what he says in his quotes. And three times he refers to "Jesus called Christ" when discussing what Josephus had to say. Origen's use of the words "called Christ" is clearly not an insertion by him to identify Jesus to to his readers as he shows no reluctance to use just Jesus by itself and fully assumes throughout that his readers have a reasonable knowledge about Jesus and Christ. So if Origen has not added the words "called Christ" himself and he mentions "Jesus called Christ" on 3 separate occasions when he references Josephus then the only sensible conclusion is that this is because they were in Josephus. Suprise, suprise those exact same words appear in Antiquities 20 dealing with the subject matter Origen is discussing.
Conclusion: The words were most certainly authentic Josephus.

What else does Origen tell us? Twice he says that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ. How did he know? Most obvious answer: There was a passage in one of Josephus works which was clearly negative wrt Jesus. Most likely candidate? Ant 18. Probably a Christian copier felt the need to touch up Josephus' negative comments into a somewhat more positive version.

My argument is also triple pronged. Origen x3. All extant Josephus texts. No good reasons against authenticity.

Agreed. Making the partial authenticity of the TF more certain.

If your case here depends on your assumption that Ant 18 is a complete interpolation then it is a weak case indeed. Again, Ant 18 has assuredly not been accepted as an interpolation in its entirity.
And even if we assumed Ant 18 was a complete interpolation your argument here is far from compelling: Special pleading such as this is an order of magnitude less is strength than quotations from Origen for example.

This has been dealt with. Peter Kirby has already explained, at length, why you are wrong here.
This phrase where it is used in other parts of Josephus seems to read better translated "alleged" and as implying that Josephus disagrees with the allegations. There is absolutely no reason to think then that Josephus would not write that Jesus was alleged to be the Christ, and lots of reason to think that no Christian would deliberately add such a statement to Josephus' work.

A simple exercise: What percentage of times in which the term appears in the NT is it found in the mouth of an unbeliever? What percentage of times in which Christians refer to Jesus in the NT do they use this term? What percentage of times in which unbelievers refer to Jesus in the NT do they use this term?

That alone should demonstrate to you that this phrasing is not a Christian one.

It's 12:30 here and I'm going to bed. More installments later.

Ted Hoffman

Tercel,
Its a shame that you can make such a biased, extreme and baseless judgement concerning me considering that just the other day I was debating with you and I had the impression we ended on an amicable note. I find this animosity totally out of the blue.
you're so extremely biased that there is little point in arguing with you
If this is your perception, then I think its unfortunate. Don't you think you need to provide evidence for this accusation?

However you seem to have singly won the prize hands down for pure stubborness and a willingness to stick to your guns and assert rubbish no matter how many times you are told.
Saying I assert rubbish is an insult to me. Your vituperative approach is totally uncalled for. Why do you choose to insult me? Is this how christians counter what they perceive as stubbornnness?

Bede seems to be understandably amazed at how Peter Kirby could discuss things with you for such length in a couple of previous threads without having the urge to bang his head against a wall.
This should show you that there are other neutral people who dont share your views concerning me. What you have said so far is absolute baseless accusations and its childish that you are questioning Peters "patience" and not your "impatience".

Why are you so desperate to have Peter Kirby share your point of view? That you are seeking support shows you have absolutely no foundation and are seeking to appeal to numbers to make your accusation.

But anyway, I'll give you one last chance, since Bede's argument is well written and I can't bear to see you bash it and get away with it
"Well written" doesnt mean much unless this is an English Composition excercise in elementary school.
I am glad that at least you have implied that I have bashed it. Thats enough for me.

Please try and be sensible this time, the discussion will end promptly if you will not follow basic logic.
Which discussion? There is no discussion here, just a christian coming in defense of a fellow christian on assumption that there is an enemy to be tackled.

I will always be myself. If you find that unacceptable, go ahead and ignore my posts or sit on a pin. I dont, and will NOT subscribe to what you call "sensible". Getting your approval or acceptance appears nowhere among my needs. As for Bede, I have accepted his response and I won't dwell on it. I get cop outs all the time. But I doubt that he is proud of his cravenly sterile response.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Tercel writes: What else does Origen tell us? Twice he says that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ. How did he know? Most obvious answer: There was a passage in one of Josephus works which was clearly negative wrt Jesus. Most likely candidate? Ant 18. Probably a Christian copier felt the need to touch up Josephus' negative comments into a somewhat more positive version.

There are at least three other candidates. First, the reference in Ant. 20.9.1 could have been interpreted by Origen as being skeptical. Second, the reference to Vespasian as the fulfillment of the messianic oracles in Wars 6.5.3 would have indicated that Jesus was not the Messiah. Third, the very fact that Josephus was a Jew could have been enough for Origen to know that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I have some problem with that third one. Certainly many other Christian writers were quite happy to accept a Josephan declaration that Jesus was the Christ as valid, despite the fact they knew he was Jewish.

For examples:

Isidorus noted that "There was one Josephus, a Jew of the greatest reputation, and one that was zealous of the law ... What then does he say? ... "he was the Christ."

And Sozomen, "Now Josephus ... a man of very great note , both among the Jews and the Romans.... He names [Jesus] Christ openly...."

Christians were quite willing to believe that Josephus, despite being Jewish, referred to Jesus as the Christ.