Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Goat]

First, as Mithrae already pointed out, we don't "know" that Eusebius introduced this interpolation into Antiquities. That is mere speculation on your part.

It's not just on my part. That's where the evidence leads. Even if it wasn't Eusebius, it was a Christian from the same time frame.

I agree that the evidence points to these interpolations being added to Antiquities some time in the late 3rd or early 4th Century. My objection here was simply to your assertion that we "know" it was Eusebius in particular who made this change. That is overstating the evidence considerably.

As an aside: I find it interesting that you so readily accept this rather speculative hypothesis, which is based on little, if any, evidence. And yet are at great pains to accept the historicity of Jesus, which rests on far more evidence.

I fail to see how an innocent slip and accident, placed such a verse in a historical document. There is a motivation behind it.

These "slips and accident" occurred with some regularly at a time when people were forced to copy documents by hand.

To understand how that can happen, you have to realize that scribes often wrote notes -- called glosses -- into the margin of manuscripts. These were meant to explain or clarify the text, like a commentary. You can see an example of these glosses in this image here.

As scribes would make additional copies from a text like this -- a long and tedious task -- they would sometimes lose focus and accidentally include these glosses (which were sometimes written in between the lines of the text) into their own copy so that it became part of the main text itself.

In the case of Antiquities 18, then, we can hypothesize than an earlier scribe may have included some explanatory notes here about Jesus in the margin, which a subsequent scribe then accidentally included into the main of the text in his copy. Stuff like that happens.

Or it could have been done purposefully. We don't know.

Third, if the scholarly consensus is correct that this interpolation actually expanded an existing reference to Jesus in the text, then the motive for this expansion could not have been to provide "proof" of Jesus' existence, since the original text from Josephus would have already served that purpose.

What text? The mention of James?

No, the mention of James in Antiquities 20 is something else altogether.

The general consensus of scholars today is that Jospehus himself actually wrote a brief account of Jesus right here in Antiquities 18. And then some Christian scribe (accidentally or purposefully) inserted additional comments in between the (authentic) Josephus text, and that is what we see today.

This is what that looks like, taken from John Meier's anlysis in "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52.1 (1990): 76-75. The original text from Josephus is in black, the Christian interpolations in red.

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

If this is correct, then clearly the purpose of these interpolations was not to "plant evidence of Jesus," since the original text already mentions Jesus. Rather it appears that the purpose here was simply to expand or provide a more positive account of Jesus.

The idea is it a partial change is rather new, for many decades it was though to be a total interpolation.

To those historians who make the claim it is partial modified, they are using the text in Josephus to try to reconstruct what it should have been. I want to see what evidence they have that this 'reconstruction' actually existed before the 4th century?? I mean, unless they have that, the reasoning is a bit circular, and the reconstruction is at best speculation.

[Nickman]

Right, because the guy claiming that Christ is a myth based on evidence is conducting a search of Wikipedia about source that is at best ancillary to the body of evidence and there is no way whatsoever you just googled that ...

In fact, you are not making any case in support of your conclusion whatsoever.

Your thesis: That Christ is a myth.

Your evidence: disagreeing with whatever the historical consensus is based on ... google.

When have I once made the claim Jesus never existed? I has stated many times that I am in the middle. I am debting one side to see if it can stand up. Thats pretty much how true research goes.

Google is a great search engine that every person on this forum uses to find the information they don't have on the shelf. I have many sites as favorites for quick reference. So do you. You use google just like everyone else on here. You also use many websites just like everyone on here. I don't see what your trying to accuse me of here?

You offer no compelling evidence of fraud. You offer zero credible alternatives to historical Jesus, backed by nothing. You ignore the Bible entirely, including the entire Canonization process, without addressing the evidential standards that were used in the period (Gnostic, heretical documents and what did and did not make the cut and way). Indeed you appear absolutely oblivious to that process.

Rebuttal of common criticism: You fail entirely to address even a single Christ scholar and the case they make. You fail entirely to address the replete rebuttal fo Wells and his Jesus Myth. You demonstrate no familiarity with the evidential case, backed by peer reviewed mass consensus, and simply pretend that 'scholars' support your position - therefore its reasonable.

You dont address my arguments and instead resort to dismissal with logical fallacies of appeal the authority and scholarly opinion. You also poison the well by trying to make bold assertions against my method of acquiring data, which you do the same. Tell me you don't use the internet in any way. Give me a break.

Failing entirely mention that most 'Jesus Myth' work is derived from Wells and that even Wells was forced to retract much of his early work.

Worse, you address nothing about why the Jesus Myth has so little traction outside the atheist community. If the evidence is so compelling, then why are all Christ Mythers atheists? Is everyone else just delusional ... including Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Pagans?

I really don't think Buddhists, Hindus, and pagans really give a hoot about Jesus. Your assertion that all atheists are Christ Mythers is false. Im not one, argument refuted.

Your restated conclusion would be: Based on zero evidence and having avoided rebutting any of the peer reviewed and compelling cases documenting the life and time of Jesus, we must conclude on faith alone that Jesus was a myth ... so sayeth the great FSM.

I keep asking you to make a case, and what I see is the exact same tactic of Wells. You ask for evidence, and the simply find an excuse to avoid it.

I have never used any of Wells arguments, intentionally. If him and I draw the same conclusion, it is by coincidence. I have provided many rebuttals to much of the texts used to for Jesus and most so far have shown to not be one hundred percent with many variables. The ones I cannot refute would be Paul. Thats it. Tacitus maybe.

A reminder:

Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ (the third volume of his Story of Civilisation), the

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

And here you are talking about Trypho? Maybe you should begin where the evidence begins, with the letters of Paul and how they confirm the details of the Synoptic Gospels, the very first person accounts you demand ... but are certainly not excluding ... no sir

Ive already stated that I cannot refute Pauls letters. Well the eight that he wrote out of thirteen. The gospels are another story which I can discredit because they are not first hand accounts and no matter how many times you say they are doesn't make it true. They are third person copies of copies. That is not a first hand account. The fact that the gosepls speak of the thoughts of Jesus is inline with fiction. The fact that the authors know what Jesus says in private also attests to them being narrative fiction. Tell me how these authors are to know the thoughts of Jesus in third person? You cant unless you realize the story is written like every other work of fiction we have ever seen. There is no difference. Knowing Jesus' thoughts or anyone in the story is not first person or even any person. It is narrative fiction.

[stubbornone]

First, as Mithrae already pointed out, we don't "know" that Eusebius introduced this interpolation into Antiquities. That is mere speculation on your part.

It's not just on my part. That's where the evidence leads. Even if it wasn't Eusebius, it was a Christian from the same time frame.

I agree that the evidence points to these interpolations being added to Antiquities some time in the late 3rd or early 4th Century. My objection here was simply to your assertion that we "know" it was Eusebius in particular who made this change. That is overstating the evidence considerably.

As an aside: I find it interesting that you so readily accept this rather speculative hypothesis, which is based on little, if any, evidence. And yet are at great pains to accept the historicity of Jesus, which rests on far more evidence.

I fail to see how an innocent slip and accident, placed such a verse in a historical document. There is a motivation behind it.

These "slips and accident" occurred with some regularly at a time when people were forced to copy documents by hand.

To understand how that can happen, you have to realize that scribes often wrote notes -- called glosses -- into the margin of manuscripts. These were meant to explain or clarify the text, like a commentary. You can see an example of these glosses in this image here.

As scribes would make additional copies from a text like this -- a long and tedious task -- they would sometimes lose focus and accidentally include these glosses (which were sometimes written in between the lines of the text) into their own copy so that it became part of the main text itself.

In the case of Antiquities 18, then, we can hypothesize than an earlier scribe may have included some explanatory notes here about Jesus in the margin, which a subsequent scribe then accidentally included into the main of the text in his copy. Stuff like that happens.

Or it could have been done purposefully. We don't know.

Third, if the scholarly consensus is correct that this interpolation actually expanded an existing reference to Jesus in the text, then the motive for this expansion could not have been to provide "proof" of Jesus' existence, since the original text from Josephus would have already served that purpose.

What text? The mention of James?

No, the mention of James in Antiquities 20 is something else altogether.

The general consensus of scholars today is that Jospehus himself actually wrote a brief account of Jesus right here in Antiquities 18. And then some Christian scribe (accidentally or purposefully) inserted additional comments in between the (authentic) Josephus text, and that is what we see today.

This is what that looks like, taken from John Meier's anlysis in "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52.1 (1990): 76-75. The original text from Josephus is in black, the Christian interpolations in red.

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

If this is correct, then clearly the purpose of these interpolations was not to "plant evidence of Jesus," since the original text already mentions Jesus. Rather it appears that the purpose here was simply to expand or provide a more positive account of Jesus.

The idea is it a partial change is rather new, for many decades it was though to be a total interpolation.

To those historians who make the claim it is partial modified, they are using the text in Josephus to try to reconstruct what it should have been. I want to see what evidence they have that this 'reconstruction' actually existed before the 4th century?? I mean, unless they have that, the reasoning is a bit circular, and the reconstruction is at best speculation.

Once again, I am left awstruck by the sheer silliness of atheist claims. We now have an atheist pretending to be an expert on Christian historiography speaking the intentions of authors and scholars whom he conveniently fails to mention, so as to take automatic exception to anything that presents Jesus, of all people, in a positive light?

Simple status as a curmudgeon.

But the leaps in logic, the silly claims, and the faux expertise are all the clarion calls of conspiracy. Only in atheism ...

[Goat]

First, as Mithrae already pointed out, we don't "know" that Eusebius introduced this interpolation into Antiquities. That is mere speculation on your part.

It's not just on my part. That's where the evidence leads. Even if it wasn't Eusebius, it was a Christian from the same time frame.

I agree that the evidence points to these interpolations being added to Antiquities some time in the late 3rd or early 4th Century. My objection here was simply to your assertion that we "know" it was Eusebius in particular who made this change. That is overstating the evidence considerably.

As an aside: I find it interesting that you so readily accept this rather speculative hypothesis, which is based on little, if any, evidence. And yet are at great pains to accept the historicity of Jesus, which rests on far more evidence.

I fail to see how an innocent slip and accident, placed such a verse in a historical document. There is a motivation behind it.

These "slips and accident" occurred with some regularly at a time when people were forced to copy documents by hand.

To understand how that can happen, you have to realize that scribes often wrote notes -- called glosses -- into the margin of manuscripts. These were meant to explain or clarify the text, like a commentary. You can see an example of these glosses in this image here.

As scribes would make additional copies from a text like this -- a long and tedious task -- they would sometimes lose focus and accidentally include these glosses (which were sometimes written in between the lines of the text) into their own copy so that it became part of the main text itself.

In the case of Antiquities 18, then, we can hypothesize than an earlier scribe may have included some explanatory notes here about Jesus in the margin, which a subsequent scribe then accidentally included into the main of the text in his copy. Stuff like that happens.

Or it could have been done purposefully. We don't know.

Third, if the scholarly consensus is correct that this interpolation actually expanded an existing reference to Jesus in the text, then the motive for this expansion could not have been to provide "proof" of Jesus' existence, since the original text from Josephus would have already served that purpose.

What text? The mention of James?

No, the mention of James in Antiquities 20 is something else altogether.

The general consensus of scholars today is that Jospehus himself actually wrote a brief account of Jesus right here in Antiquities 18. And then some Christian scribe (accidentally or purposefully) inserted additional comments in between the (authentic) Josephus text, and that is what we see today.

This is what that looks like, taken from John Meier's anlysis in "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52.1 (1990): 76-75. The original text from Josephus is in black, the Christian interpolations in red.

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

If this is correct, then clearly the purpose of these interpolations was not to "plant evidence of Jesus," since the original text already mentions Jesus. Rather it appears that the purpose here was simply to expand or provide a more positive account of Jesus.

The idea is it a partial change is rather new, for many decades it was though to be a total interpolation.

To those historians who make the claim it is partial modified, they are using the text in Josephus to try to reconstruct what it should have been. I want to see what evidence they have that this 'reconstruction' actually existed before the 4th century?? I mean, unless they have that, the reasoning is a bit circular, and the reconstruction is at best speculation.

Once again, I am left awstruck by the sheer silliness of atheist claims. We now have an atheist pretending to be an expert on Christian historiography speaking the intentions of authors and scholars whom he conveniently fails to mention, so as to take automatic exception to anything that presents Jesus, of all people, in a positive light?

Simple status as a curmudgeon.

But the leaps in logic, the silly claims, and the faux expertise are all the clarion calls of conspiracy. Only in atheism ...

If it is so 'silly', you should be able to provide me with evidence that this so called reconstruction existed before the 4th century. How about addressing the point, rather than go with the insult?

[stubbornone]

Right, because the guy claiming that Christ is a myth based on evidence is conducting a search of Wikipedia about source that is at best ancillary to the body of evidence and there is no way whatsoever you just googled that ...

In fact, you are not making any case in support of your conclusion whatsoever.

Your thesis: That Christ is a myth.

Your evidence: disagreeing with whatever the historical consensus is based on ... google.

When have I once made the claim Jesus never existed? I has stated many times that I am in the middle. I am debting one side to see if it can stand up. Thats pretty much how true research goes.

Google is a great search engine that every person on this forum uses to find the information they don't have on the shelf. I have many sites as favorites for quick reference. So do you. You use google just like everyone else on here. You also use many websites just like everyone on here. I don't see what your trying to accuse me of here?

You offer no compelling evidence of fraud. You offer zero credible alternatives to historical Jesus, backed by nothing. You ignore the Bible entirely, including the entire Canonization process, without addressing the evidential standards that were used in the period (Gnostic, heretical documents and what did and did not make the cut and way). Indeed you appear absolutely oblivious to that process.

Rebuttal of common criticism: You fail entirely to address even a single Christ scholar and the case they make. You fail entirely to address the replete rebuttal fo Wells and his Jesus Myth. You demonstrate no familiarity with the evidential case, backed by peer reviewed mass consensus, and simply pretend that 'scholars' support your position - therefore its reasonable.

You dont address my arguments and instead resort to dismissal with logical fallacies of appeal the authority and scholarly opinion. You also poison the well by trying to make bold assertions against my method of acquiring data, which you do the same. Tell me you don't use the internet in any way. Give me a break.

Failing entirely mention that most 'Jesus Myth' work is derived from Wells and that even Wells was forced to retract much of his early work.

Worse, you address nothing about why the Jesus Myth has so little traction outside the atheist community. If the evidence is so compelling, then why are all Christ Mythers atheists? Is everyone else just delusional ... including Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Pagans?

I really don't think Buddhists, Hindus, and pagans really give a hoot about Jesus. Your assertion that all atheists are Christ Mythers is false. Im not one, argument refuted.

Your restated conclusion would be: Based on zero evidence and having avoided rebutting any of the peer reviewed and compelling cases documenting the life and time of Jesus, we must conclude on faith alone that Jesus was a myth ... so sayeth the great FSM.

I keep asking you to make a case, and what I see is the exact same tactic of Wells. You ask for evidence, and the simply find an excuse to avoid it.

I have never used any of Wells arguments, intentionally. If him and I draw the same conclusion, it is by coincidence. I have provided many rebuttals to much of the texts used to for Jesus and most so far have shown to not be one hundred percent with many variables. The ones I cannot refute would be Paul. Thats it. Tacitus maybe.

A reminder:

Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ (the third volume of his Story of Civilisation), the

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

And here you are talking about Trypho? Maybe you should begin where the evidence begins, with the letters of Paul and how they confirm the details of the Synoptic Gospels, the very first person accounts you demand ... but are certainly not excluding ... no sir

Ive already stated that I cannot refute Pauls letters. Well the eight that he wrote out of thirteen. The gospels are another story which I can discredit because they are not first hand accounts and no matter how many times you say they are doesn't make it true. They are third person copies of copies. That is not a first hand account. The fact that the gosepls speak of the thoughts of Jesus is inline with fiction. The fact that the authors know what Jesus says in private also attests to them being narrative fiction. Tell me how these authors are to know the thoughts of Jesus in third person? You cant unless you realize the story is written like every other work of fiction we have ever seen. There is no difference. Knowing Jesus' thoughts or anyone in the story is not first person or even any person. It is narrative fiction.

You are all over the place, beginning with ever changing goal posts ... do you not see the OP title? What exactly are you arguing as when someone spells out your thesis - one you have clearly been arguing too - you claim that is not what you are arguing too????

What is your thesis? What is your argument? One you claim was driven by evidence? Evidence in support of what? Who the hell knows right?

You then fundamentally failed to comprehend simple English Paul's letters, which are largely authentic, are not used by themselves. The details in them are used to verify the accuracy of those other sources whose authorship cannot be definitively proven ... like the Synoptic gospels, which are presented as first hand accounts, and their accuracy attested to by Paul.

An God forbid you actually address the story of Peter, he's only the foundation of the Catholic Church, but heh ... Torphy is the most relevant thing you have?

In short, you claim to be driven by evidence, but you are not only unfamiliar with the basics of Christian historiography, you appear to be utterly resistant to even familiarizing yourself with the basics of the ARGUMENT FOR CHRIST! One you claim 'evidence' lead you to reject?

Once again, no major scholar has attempted out right Christ denial, save Wells, and much of what you write is directly or indirectly attributed to him. Have you read it? Have you seen the painful twists and logic and ever changing standards of exclusion? See why scholars universally reject it? Have you compared it with an actual Christian Scholar? CS Lewis? Tecelli? Anyone?

What you are doing is no different than walking into a room full of historians and stating, "I believe that Lincoln was a myth! Its evidence that drove me to conclude as such!"

And certainly, there are no doubt even period accounts that are implausible about good old honest abe ... but it takes a seriously deranged type of logic to deny that Lincoln even existed or that he performed remarkably accomplishments in his life time.

Yet for some reason, if you are atheist, Jesus denial based on the same tautology, is supposed to be ... given respect?

Simple put, you don't know the evidence for Jesus, you are unfamiliar with those who have made peer reviewed and compelling cases, you haven't bothered to read the SINGLE German philosopher who attempted Jesus Myth, and the entirety of your argument is at the fringe of the historical evidence for Jesus - the main body of evidence simply hand waived away ...

And yet we are supposed to treat your silly dismissal of the basis of the faith of millions as respectable rather than simple slander?

So I ask all the Jesus Mythers out there: What is it that drove you to the Jesus Myth? Because it sure as heck wasn't evidence ...

[stubbornone]

If it is so 'silly', you should be able to provide me with evidence that this so called reconstruction existed before the 4th century. How about addressing the point, rather than go with the insult?

You keep asking for evidence and the ignoring it. How many times do I have to provide you with the early christian writings web site? How about using google?

Or are you merely playing atheist baseball? As in show me something and I will find some reason to reject it ... no matter how silly.

Your thesis? Supported by?

Right you have no argument and you have presented no evidence in support of anything.

You have a whole lot of words that essentially say, "I am right and you are wrong, er, because I say so ..."

And that is why the Jesus Myth is rejected by everyone by atheists.

[Goat]

If it is so 'silly', you should be able to provide me with evidence that this so called reconstruction existed before the 4th century. How about addressing the point, rather than go with the insult?

You keep asking for evidence and the ignoring it. How many times do I have to provide you with the early christian writings web site? How about using google?

Or are you merely playing atheist baseball? As in show me something and I will find some reason to reject it ... no matter how silly.

Your thesis? Supported by?

Right you have no argument and you have presented no evidence in support of everyone.

You have a whole lot of words that essentially say, "I am right and you are wrong, er, because I say so ..."

And that is why the Jesus Myth is rejected by everyone by atheists.

Yes, you pointed me to it, and I quoted from it, which directly disagreed with the poitn you were making. You then pointed me to , and said 'See, you wonly quoted part of it',.. yet, you didn't bother to show where it supported your claim..

I cut/paste from the web site.. that disputed your claim, and all you did is point tothe same web page I used, and say 'LOOK HERE"? How about extracting the information you think is valid.

You point to a web site. I extract information that disputes what you say.. then you say 'HOw many times i have to point you to that web site? Give me a break.

[Nickman]

Fair enough, I may have misunderstood you; Eusebius was among the church fathers, who belonged to the early church. So they could all be called "early church fathers," though obviously Eusebius was not early among the church fathers The facts remain that we don't know it was anyone as prominent as Eusebius who altered the TF, rather than some over-zealous scribe; we do know that it almost certainly wasn't done in the first two hundred years of Christianity; and this is the only case of alteration in non-Christian texts that we know of (speculation aside). So at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I repeat that your earlier rhetoric -
"blatant forgeries that put him in the extra-biblical record. . . . Why did the early church fathers have to forge writings into extra-biblical sources?"
- is inaccurate at least and, in your ongoing refusal to either show other "blatant forgeries" or acknowledge your error, quite dishonest too.

Yeah we don't know for sure if Eusebius forged Josephus but we do have other Church Fathers such as Bishop Warburton saying this:
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.�
He doesnt specify which part either. I assume he got his hands on alot of it and manipulated it quite a bit. I have poasted my reasons why already.

Also the Catholic Encyclopedia calls him a pious fraud.

So did Eusebius forge the Josephus account? Most likely.

And yet later you say "Get me an author that describes Jesus in the time which he lived and prior to the establishment of Christian approved texts. If you can't, then those references are not very credible or reliable." Setting aside the fact that this is an arbitrary demand, not based in academic methods or even sound logic, we have such a source in the form of Paul. So any quibbling about Josephus should ultimately be unnecessary: We've got information on Jesus' historical reality - as a Jew presumed to descend from David - from a critic who became a convert, who was personally acquainted with Peter, John, Jesus' brother James and the Jerusalem church in general. We've also got "good evidence for an actual Christ figure" from a quite early, credible Roman senator/historian who we cannot say was likely to have simply parroted Christian claims.

I still think there are some variables that can make Tacitus account less reliable. That would be that he didn't live during the time of Christ and therefore HAD to other sources. What those sources are we cannot say. His account is second hand on the subject of Jesus since he was wasn't there. This is a fact. It is believed he had his sources in the Atna Senatus which are the roman records but they don't speak of Jesus. Wouldnt the Atna Senatus be a great place to find JESUS? Yet it is not there.

Unless I've missed something, the only evidence that Jesus didn't exist you've managed to offer is a very dubious interpretation of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, in which Trypho supposedly implies that belief in Jesus' existence is unfounded. But I've already pointed out that this isn't the objection which Justin responds to, and as the dialogue's author he surely wouldn't have left Trypho's challenge unanswered. Since Justin attempts to show from the Scriptures that the Christ was to institute a new covenant, it's obvious that Trypho's objections were about the identity and role of the Christ, not about Jesus' existence. That's always been one of the biggest points of contention between Jews and Christians, and it's also how the passage most naturally reads. Simply asserting that Trypho means Jesus himself when he's talking about "some kind of a Christ" seems little more than wishful thinking.

I think thus far I have shown that Josephus is unreliable on Jesus, Tacitus can't be taken as first hand as in his information, and the gospels have fictional styles such as knowing what Jesus thought and what he said in private. What your left with is PAUL, and he didn't have first hand knowledge either.

So if you already agree that there's two good sources of evidence that Jesus did exist, and if there's no evidence that he didn't exist, what can we conclude...? Already Josephus and all the rest of it are merely icing on the cake.

I don't find Josephus reliable or correct. Somebody messed with it. We know one is a complete forgery, the other mention makes no sense with "who was called Christ" within the text. Not to mention it is the exact format of Matthew 1:16. Jesus is mentioned twice in the same text and I don't think one can say they are different Jesus'. My argument is that they are both Jesus son of Damneus. By coincidence of popular names this Jesus has a brother named James. Not to mention Josephus was written first. I don't think Josephus is writing about the poor man named James in the gospels. He is speaking of people in the Sanhedrin, and far from poor. Since Josephus always identifies the person he is talking about, he did so with this Jesus in the last part of the text when he calls him "son of Damneus." Someone interpolated "who is called Christ" verbatim from Matthew 1:16. they saw an opportunity between James and Jesus Damneus. There is no reason to believe that anyone but Christians knew who James was by association of Jesus. The audience of Josephus is not Christians, and at this time Christians were not a prominent part of society. They were very small and in hiding. Josephus' audience is his fellow Jews and Romans. None of which I think new the slightest about James of the gospels. How would they? If Jesus is so low on the historical scale, how did James make such news to get into the record?

Earl Doherty managed a BA in Ancient History and Classical Languages in the 60s, and published The Jesus Puzzle in 1999. I'd guess that Stephen Carr would list any academic qualifications on his blog if he had any, but from a brief look I've not been able to find them there or elsewhere. From what little I've read of his work, Josephus does seem to be a fairly thorough author, but I wouldn't take the word of those two, or yours, that he always explains everything he writes; in fact I'd say he would certainly leave some things to his readers' general knowledge. You're actually repeating the reasonable argument I've given that "Jesus, the one called Christ" cannot refer to a Jewish high priest, since that specifically Jewish use of the term would indeed require explanation, as well as being out of place since it's the only time he uses the term (and ben Damneus served only one year).

I feel that an appeal to authority is not a good one. Yours and mine and anyone esles argument is just as valid as the next until shown incorrect. My post about Josephus is above.

More importantly, it's quite plausible that Josephus expected some or even many of his readers to have heard of the Christian sect. This actually explains the passage better than your view: Who are these others who died with James? By your reasoning, Josephus should have explained that to his readers, because he always explains everything he writes, right? But if the high priest killed James the Christian and some others, it seems pretty clear who those others would have been.

My rebuttal is above.

But it's not just who these others were that piques our curiousity: Why did a high priest kill the member of another priestly family at all? What internal fued did this killing represent? Why should King Agrippa have been so sympathetic for Jesus ben Damneus' loss as to confer such an important public office upon him? Why would Josephus not make it clearer that "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James" was also the son of Damneus? If James were a central figure in this story, we should expect far more clarification by Josephus of what's going on here. But if James is merely a side note, the catalyst for a change in priesthood, the passage as it stands reads perfectly; for those readers who know of the Christian sect, its founder's brother and some others were killed, causing a change in the priesthood. For those who don't know of the Christian sect, some people were killed, causing a change in the priesthood. It only really matters who James and these others were and why they were killed if James were the member of a priestly family, brother to the next high priest; yet the priestly connection of James is not clearly stated and there's certainly no explanation about the others or the reason for their deaths.

Lets look at Josephus again

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

It states the brother of Jesus. Take out "who is called christ" and the text flows properly. Look at it again.
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

The subject in the sentence is James, and alluding to Jesus more than need is improper and unnecessary. Adding "who was called christ" screws up the whole text and makes the sentence nonsensical and ungrammatical. It was interpolated in my mind without doubt, unless someone can show me how adding "who was called christ" does anything but make the text nonsensical. It offers nothing to the text.

You're just seeing what you want to see again, aren't you? Christians mentioned John, and Josephus mentioned John, so somehow you manage to find Christian ideas in Josephus even when he specifically contradicts them!

It seems clear (to me at least) that there's some not inconsiderable issues of bias shaping your thinking, which ought be addressed before any further discussion. I suspect that you don't hold any real hope of getting anywhere in your discussion with Stubbornone - so at least you'll understand how I feel

Ill give you John's reference.

Long story short:
> Yourself, Goat and Student really haven't given any good reason to suppose Antiquities 20 has been altered; at the very least you'd have to show that the TF was a wholesale insertion, rather than an expansion or 'correction' of a less flattering original as seems more likely. But even then, the passage on its own makes sense if James was merely a side-note or catalyst who Josephus thought some readers might recognise by reference to the Christian founder; but any alternative reading or association of James with priestly circles raise significant questions and problems.

> Paul was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, a critic who became a convert, who know Peter, John, Jesus' brother James and the Jerusalem church, and he clearly writes about Jesus as a real Jew presumed to descend from David.

> Tacitus was a credible late 1st/early 2nd century Roman senator/historian, whose comments about Jesus can't be waved away as parroting the claims of a sect he viewed with hostility or contempt.

So even before we look at the alleged account written by Peter's interpretor - its rural Jewish outlook and the sometimes embarassing details it reveals about Jesus - we already have better evidence for Jesus' existence than for such an important Jewish teacher as Hillel the Elder, and better than many mainstream Greek or Roman philosophers and teachers also.

Your only contrary 'evidence' seems to be along the lines Trypho says the Christians invented "some kind of a Christ," but he really meant they invented Jesus and Justin left the challenge unanswered.

Please se my post above on this.

[Nickman]

@ Mithrae
On John in Josephus. If the one in Josephus is different from that in the gospels, then how do we know which one spoke correctly about John's baptism? One says, for remission of sins, the other says nay.

[Nickman]

@ Stubborneone

All my arguments have been directed to Mithrae and Historia. I don't feel like reiterating them again. So if you want you can see them in those posts.

Also I havent changed any goal posts. I have dealt with your lack of understanding my position even though I have spelled it out for you about four times now. You have constently falsely claimed I am something I am not. Everytime I address your posts, you don't address them and instead appel to just telling me I am wrong without any reason as to why. You also keep going back to Wells which means nothing in the argument. If you have problem with Wells, you got the wrong guy. I am Nickman, not WELLS! Anyway if you want to address my arguments properly, do so from what I have posted to Mithrae and Historia.