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.

[TheTruth101]

If you were to look at a video of one claiming they have exploited the myth of Christ, there were thousands that tried and did the same in the past. Christians should refer them as anti Christs.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Josephus, Paul, and Acts is more than adequate to reasonably infer the historicity (as opposed to the divinity) of Jesus.

Josephus appears to have been modified.. and therefore the source is too corrupted to be able to use as evidence.

Josephus on James is widely acknowledged as authentic. To dismiss all of Josephus because the Testamonium was redacted is agenda-driven nonsense.

Paul admits to lies as a method of preaching..

Do you claim that the Paul's conflict with the Jerusalem sect is a complete fabrication?

And Acts bases a lot of what is said on Paul, and is not a primary, or even secondary source.

Do you claim that the discussion in Acts of Paul's conflict with the Jerusalem sect is a complete fabrication?

So, no.. those three sources are not 'good enough' by any means.

For you: clearly. Therefore? What is the consensus of peer-reviewed scholars?

[Goat]

Josephus, Paul, and Acts is more than adequate to reasonably infer the historicity (as opposed to the divinity) of Jesus.

Josephus appears to have been modified.. and therefore the source is too corrupted to be able to use as evidence.

Josephus on James is widely acknowledged as authentic. To dismiss all of Josephus because the Testamonium was redacted is agenda-driven nonsense.

And, if you read it in context.. you know what context is, right??? If you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth.

I will also note that there are a number of prominiate scholars that do say that the passage is a copiers gloss, and point out that the passage does not match the quote by origien

Paul admits to lies as a method of preaching..

Do you claim that the Paul's conflict with the Jerusalem sect is a complete fabrication?

No, but I will point out that since Paul is an acknowledged liar, what he says can not be taken with surity, and I will also point out that, well, he does admit he never met 'Jesus in the flesh'. What documents do you have above and beyond Paul that were written within a decade of his death that details the conflict from a non-Christian persepective.

And Acts bases a lot of what is said on Paul, and is not a primary, or even secondary source.

Do you claim that the discussion in Acts of Paul's conflict with the Jerusalem sect is a complete fabrication?

So, no.. those three sources are not 'good enough' by any means.

For you: clearly. Therefore? What is the consensus of peer-reviewed scholars?

Meh.. I yawn at 'peer reviewed scholars'.. since they can't answer the questions I have any more than anybody else. The vast majority of them are Christian, and are conditioned to be biased in a certain direction. While there might have been a historical Jesus, trying to use Josephus, acts and the letters of John as sufficient information to 'prove' it is irrational. .. particularly Josephus, which is highly tampered with, and Acts, which has indications it used Josephus as a source of some information, and therefore was probably written in the very early second century. The letters of Paul as singularly non-informative about Jesus.. or his theology, but merely concentrate on 'he died and rose for our sins'. He says very little about the sayings of Jesus, or his ministry, or his life. This shows that PAUL himself have no knowledge of an earthly Jesus, and therefore can't be a Good source.

Appealing to authority when you can't make a good case using the sources that say are the best for believing there is a historical Jesus isn't very logical. One forgery, and out of context quote, One religious one written very much later and one that has no details about the 'earthly Jesus'. Doesn't sound like a good case to me.

That isn't to say that an 'earthly Jesus' could not have existed, but , well these sources are do not give the solid results are you claiming. Josephus is very much corrupted with changes, and Acts was written much too late, with too much assumptions and bias to consider. The letters of Paul, which you would think from the time frame written would have given the best evidence is strangely lacking in any kind of solid information about a fleshly Jesus.

The might have been .. and it is even probable there was, but the sources you give aren't worthy sources to use as evidence.

[Jayhawker Soule]

And, if you read it in context.. you know what context is, right???

Yes, and I know what scholarship is as well. Your interpretation is fringe nonsense.

Meh.. I yawn at 'peer reviewed scholars'..

Obviously.

[Goat]

And, if you read it in context.. you know what context is, right???

Yes, and I know what scholarship is as well. Your interpretation is fringe nonsense.

Meh.. I yawn at 'peer reviewed scholars'..

Obviously.

Yet,,, all you complain about 'that is fringe scholarship'. Sorry, but honestly.. proclaimining something 'fringe', and showing it is incorrect are two different things. .. particularly what is being discussed is the SOURCE that is being examined. I note that you just go through a dismissal of it, rather than deal with the words as they are written.

Somehow, the technique of hand waving arguments away rather than dealing with them is not terribly convincing to me.

[Jayhawker Soule]

And, if you read it in context.. you know what context is, right??? If you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, and I know what scholarship is as well. Your interpretation is fringe nonsense.

Meh.. I yawn at 'peer reviewed scholars'..

Obviously.

Yet,,, all you complain about 'that is fringe scholarship'. Sorry, but honestly.. proclaimining something 'fringe', and showing it is incorrect are two different things. ...

It is not my responsibility to prove your claims incorrect. Rather, it is your responsibility to defend them. So please show how context indicates that Josephus was referencing Jesus the High Priest. Perhaps you could even point to supporting scholarship.

Wikipedia, referencing context and quoting John Painter's Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition notes:

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, there is also a reference to Jesus son of Damneus who was a High Priest of Israel but is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ" mentioned along with the identification of James. John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation. Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable. However, a few scholars still question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.

So what is the source of your pompous certitude that "if you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth"?

[Goat]

And, if you read it in context.. you know what context is, right??? If you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, and I know what scholarship is as well. Your interpretation is fringe nonsense.

Meh.. I yawn at 'peer reviewed scholars'..

Obviously.

Yet,,, all you complain about 'that is fringe scholarship'. Sorry, but honestly.. proclaimining something 'fringe', and showing it is incorrect are two different things. ...

It is not my responsibility to prove your claims incorrect. Rather, it is your responsibility to defend them. So please show how context indicates that Josephus was referencing Jesus the High Priest. Perhaps you could even point to supporting scholarship.

Wikipedia, referencing context and quoting John Painter's Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition notes:

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, there is also a reference to Jesus son of Damneus who was a High Priest of Israel but is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ" mentioned along with the identification of James. John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation. Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable. However, a few scholars still question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.

So what is the source of your pompous certitude that "if you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth"?

Yes, John Painter disagrees.. yet.. all he is doing is pointing to everyplace BUT the actual paragraph. Can you show, using the words of Antiquities 20, that the interpretation is wrong?? And, John Painter's response is not even addressing the point I am making.. he is addressing it's authenticity. Gosh, if you are gonna present an argument, at least have one that is addressing the point I am making.

[Jayhawker Soule]

More on 'context' ...

Antiquities 20.9.1 reads:

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." [source]

So this young and insolent Ananus assembles the sanhedrin and brings before it "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. But why would he have been called Christ? Because Christ means 'annointed', and a high priest would have certainly undergone such a ritual. But not yet:

n the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the Just.[1] Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

Had Josephus meant to refer to this latter high priest rather than distinguishing from him, he would have more appropriately said something like ...

James ben Damneus, brother of Jesus who would be called Christ.

And even this formulation, though more accurate would have been quite odd.

When Goat writes ...

If you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth.

... his appeal to context is ignorant nonsense. He's simply committed himself to see what he wants to see and scholarship be damned.

[Jayhawker Soule]

And, if you read it in context.. you know what context is, right??? If you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, and I know what scholarship is as well. Your interpretation is fringe nonsense.

Meh.. I yawn at 'peer reviewed scholars'..

Obviously.

Yet,,, all you complain about 'that is fringe scholarship'. Sorry, but honestly.. proclaimining something 'fringe', and showing it is incorrect are two different things. ...

It is not my responsibility to prove your claims incorrect. Rather, it is your responsibility to defend them. So please show how context indicates that Josephus was referencing Jesus the High Priest. Perhaps you could even point to supporting scholarship.

Wikipedia, referencing context and quoting John Painter's Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition notes:

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, there is also a reference to Jesus son of Damneus who was a High Priest of Israel but is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ" mentioned along with the identification of James. John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation. Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable. However, a few scholars still question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.

So what is the source of your pompous certitude that "if you read it in context, the messiah that it is talking about is Jesus, the high priest, not Jesus of Nazareth"?

Yes, John Painter disagrees.. yet..

... yet what is he compared to you? What egotistical rubbish. The fact of the matter is:

1. Not all opinions are created equal, and
2. puerile efforts to shift the burden of proof serve only to embarrass you.

[catalyst]

Hi Mithrae,

You wrote:

29:30 - Carrier suggests that Mark invented an eclipse from whole cloth, which as far as I can tell is deception by omission at best: Carrier knows (it's mentioned in one of his infidels.org articles) that there was in fact a midday eclipse in the middle east during the rule of Pontius Pilate (29 CE to be precise, in August if memory serves).

There was no midday eclipse in 29CE and certainly not one in August.

There were 3 solar eclipses in 29CE and they were in January, June and November.

Some apologetics sites have claimed the one that happened in November is the one you perhaps are referring to, however it peaked at 9.24am and ended over an hour before midday.

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE0001-0100.html

Cat.