Radcliffe Emerson

None of the New Testamant letters are written earlier than 20 years after Jesus allegedly died, and the various gospels don't surface for almost 50 years.
To me, those don't prove a thing about Jesus actually living.

Peter Kirby

Toto wrote: "Thanks Peter, and thanks for getting your website back up."

No problem.

Toto wrote: "Mason seems to just accept that there probably was a Jesus, just because it's the easiest way to explain how Christianity started. He doesn't seem to have addressed the arguments that Doherty or Robert Price make that cast doubt on the idea."

A bit of chronology might help. Mason's _Josephus and the New Testament_ was published in 1992, Doherty's _The Jesus Puzzle_ was published in 1999, and Price's _Deconstructing Jesus_ was published in 2000. So Mason is hardly to be faulted for failing to engage Doherty or Price.

But G. A. Wells published before Mason. So why doesn't Mason engage Wells? Probably because the historicity of Jesus is not in any way the subject of _Josephus and the New Testament_. Mason is focusing on Josephus and the relationship of Josephus to the New Testament. The question of the existence of Jesus is tangential at best. So Mason is hardly to be faulted for deferring to the majority scholarly opinion on a tangential issue.

askeptic wrote: "None of the New Testamant letters are written earlier than 20 years after Jesus allegedly died, and the various gospels don't surface for almost 50 years.
To me, those don't prove a thing about Jesus actually living."

I'm glad to hear it. One would be foolhardy to attempt to "prove" or "disprove" that Jesus lived, as the words "prove" and "disprove" are far too heavy for our subject matter.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

As yes, another example of scholarly compartmentalization. I wonder how he treats the subject now.

Peter Kirby

Here is Mason's web site:
http://www.yorku.ca/smason/

Published on the site is his e-mail address:

smason@yorku.ca

He might respond if you wrote in with a question.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Nahm, your final comments did throw me into hyper-critical mode though.

His name keeps coming up as of late in my journeys around the net so I kind of just nicknamed him.

Yes, he says "I think" not "It has been clearly deomstrated".

Actually, I said Lowder offers a nice discussion on the Joseph passage in his critique of Joshy's book. I quoted the conclusion and then pointed out that Lowder critiqued a lot of the stuff (Joshy's stuff that is). I didn't take it out of context.

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't remember even stating a case. I just posted Lowder's conclusion.

Vinnie

Vinnie

My readings tell me this is not a problem at all.

Jesus was not a pain to the Romans because of his political activities. Jesus did not even object to paying Caesar taxes which was a hot issue among Jews from that time period. Matthew, Mark and Luke all include this account in their Gospels (Luke 23, Mark 12, Luke 20). Jesus responds to the Pharisees and Herodians on whether or not it was proper to pay taxes to Caesar with, “"Why are you trying to trap me? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" “Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Interestingly enough, when Jesus was before Pilate his accusers, the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, lied and accused Jesus of opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar (Luke 23:1).

For the vast majority of his life it seems that Jesus lived in obscurity. His actual public ministry lasted but 1 to 3 years at the very most and it occurred at the end of his life. He probably never left Palestine. Jesus wasn’t a military leader and he didn’t advocate violence. Here is a brief account from Acts 21:37-39:

As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?" "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."

Jesus’ pains to the Roman Empire were extremely minimal in comparison. Many of the other “proclaimed messiahs” ruffled the feathers of the Romans far more than Jesus did. Flavius Josephus confirms this by telling us that there were many people during the governorship of Festus

who deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were in fact for procuring innovations and changes of the government. These men prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.259]


Josephus continues:

There was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives. He was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to rule them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.261-262]

Josephus retold this story in Jewish antiquities, this time less exaggerated.

about this time, someone came out of Egypt to Jerusalem, claiming to be a prophet. He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer. He added that he would show them from hence how the walls of Jerusalem would fall down at his command, and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those collapsed walls. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. The Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171]


From the Roman standpoint, it doesn’t appear as if Jesus was a huge pain. To add to this, Jesus wasn’t a member of any known political party, he didn’t address the Roman senate nor did he author any extensive Greek philosophical treatises. Also, Jesus was crucified! He died the most humiliating death one could experience in that time. He died as a criminal, the death of slaves and rebels. To both the Jews and to the Romans, being crucified was an ultimate in humiliation.

One point that must be taken into consideration is that surviving first century Roman literature that could conceivably had reason to mention Jesus is extremely scarceat best.

On a related note:

Vinnie

Richard Carrier

I don't spend much time here, but someone asked me to clear up the confusion, so I will interject this one post. Further communication with me should be by mailto:rcarrier@infidels.org

Alexis Comnenus (# 6149) wrote, "Now, that part in bold is a chapter and is not part of Eusebius's text" referring to the phrase "That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach." This is not true. It is in Eusebius, and is the very chapter heading of that section, repeated in the Table of Contents to the PE, also written by Eusebius. The translation in fact is my own, from the actual Greek itself. Indeed, every entry in the PE begins with such a heading, since they are a string of subordinate sentences concluding the first statement of that chapter, that the pagans stole all their good ideas from the Hebrews, and each entry lists one of those good ideas, then where the pagans argue it, and then shows how the Hebrews had it first. This is important, since the examples Eusebius selects are not explication of the concept, but proof that the Jews had the idea first. This is the case throughout that chapter, for every entry. But since there is no such argument made in the Bible, Eusebius has to dig up something lame like this to prove they had the idea of lying for the greater good. Thus, the selected example does not reflect what he means by lying. Rather, it reflects his inability to really prove what he wants to: that the Bible says it is okay to lie, just as Plato does. Since it is Plato's idea that the Hebrews have to have had first, the only reason Eusebius quotes the material here, it is thus Plato's idea that Eusebius is arguing for, not a new interpretation of it (that would be nova philosophia and thus subject to the very attacks Eusebius is trying to refute by proving the Bible is vetus philosophia).

I strongly suggest everyone read everything I wrote in this footnote, not just the selective quotation that has been bandied about here. The omitted material is essential to the argument and renders moot a lot of what has been exchanged here. Also, you must read the article cited there regarding Eusebius' forgery of the Testimonium Flavianum (that's what the Josephus passage is called, and there are lots of articles on it at the Secular Web, some very good--just search for them). The evidence is pretty persuasive and stands on internal and external evidence, including vocabulary unique to Eusebius that is uncommon in Josephus. I would not call it decisive, but it is strong.

Incidentally, the Pearse article that has been cited is wrong about the statement by Eusebius "That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach." Pearse admitted this to me personally almost a year ago. I have contacted him to ask why his essay remains unchanged.

Regarding the general issue, if anyone is curious about my educated opinions (not what I have argued anywhere), I think it is very probable Eusebius forged the TF, and even if that is not so, it still remains highly probable that Josephus didn't author it. However, historically speaking (i.e absent religious assumptions of any kind), it is highly probable that Jesus was a very obscure figure who could well have flown under everyone's radar and never been written about by anyone until Christians started to venerate his memory. Of course, this means it is very probable that Jesus was neither the miracle worker nor the great charismatic that Christian theology requires him to be. For if Jesus really were God on a mission to save mankind, and to that end really did the deeds and had the effect on Judaea that is plainly spelled out in the Gospels, it would be very improbable that he would have flown under anyone's radar who was examining the affairs of Judaea at the time. And not even counting Roman historians and magistrates, we know of at least a dozen great writers who were intimately interested in Judaean affairs in this period, although very few saw any of their writings survive, Josephus being the rarest exception of all--and even his works almost saw oblivion, being just barely rescued by the skin of three or four reliable Greek manuscript archetypes and one poor Latin translation. It helps to keep this perspective in mind. Christians of the 2nd century scoured the sources looking for 1st century texts pertaining to Jesus and found none outside of two passages in Josephus, neither of which being the famous TF everyone is most concerned about here. This paragraph is all just my educated view from long immersion in the history and sources of the period, which people might dispute, I don't know.
I am open to contrary arguments that bring in evidence qualifying my impressions here. Send them via email, and remember it is only evidence I am interested in, not conjectures or logical maneuvers.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Richard Carrier ]</p>

Toto

What a surprize.

I think Bede relies heavily on the Pearse article. I expect he will be updating his web site real soon.

Alexis Comnenus

It seems that I made a mistake and accept what Mr Carrier says about the chapter headings forming part of the original text. This is highly unusual (I know of no other document where it is the case and an ancient table of contents is also exceptional) but I am sure Mr Carrier has checked.

Although the evidence for Eusebius's 'lying for Christ' campaign and his forging anything is still unconvincing to say the least, this passage is a black mark against him.

I am, however, pleased Mr Carrier agrees with the usual assessment of the historicity of Jesus. Hopefully, as a member of Internet Infidels, he won't be accused of theological bias.

Regards

Alex

(edited to add last paragraph)

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Alexis Comnenus ]</p>

Toto

Alex - what would it take to convince you that Eusebius thought that literal truth should take a back seat to faith?

Are you still trying to rely on your "figurative language" defense?