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.

[stubbornone]

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Mithrae, as usual, has beaten me to the punch here. But let me repeat what he said, and maybe offer some further explanation.

What Trypho is saying here is that the Messiah (Greek: Christ) has not yet appeared. It's possible, Trypho suggests, that the Messiah may already have been born. But, if so, even he doesn't yet know that he is the Messiah. Only once Elias anoints him will he, and everyone else, know that he is the Messiah. Since that has yet to happen, Christians are apparently mistaken in claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. They have, in a sense, "invented" a Messiah for themselves.

'Trypho', of course, is not a real person, but rather a literary device, created by Justin Martyr here for his Dialogue, in which he answers Jewish objections to Christianity. Nowhere in the text does Justin suggest that the very existence of Jesus was ever in doubt. Many of the Jewish criticism he attempts to refute in this work take as their basic assumption that Jesus existed.

This is a good example of the perils of quote mining, though.

After more research, I would have to disagree. Although Trypho may or may not be an invention. Trypho makes two points.
Trypho's words, "You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour and have invented some kind of a Christ for yourselves" is really saying that Jesus was the unfounded rumour for on the basis that he existed they invented the idea that he was the Christ!

He states that their Christ is unfounded and invented. Prior he states that if Christ was real and alive as in the real one, then he has not shown himself yet. He follows with denial of Justins Christ by telling him his is unfounded and invented. If there were a Christ that lived such as Jesus, the the conversation would look much different. It would be a specific attack on the man JESUS. It may have had a dialogue that spoke of Jesus being a false Christ. Instead we have a straight denial of that idea, and an attack that he holds belief in an unfounded Christ and one that is invented.

In short, I just conducted a google search to continue adamantly denying.

[Nickman]

But Eusebius was 4th century The patristic period roughly covers the 2nd through 5th centuries from what I've gathered, so 4th century is not an early church father. More importantly you're still neglecting the fact that you alluded to multiple "blatant forgeries," yet there is only one. At best, such inaccuracies in your rhetoric/reasoning will obviously undermine any conclusions you draw. At worst, it's straight out dishonesty.

Eusebius was 263-339 ad. I think this is early church, but our ideas of early may be different. Heres just a quick reference from wiki

Patristic
Among the persons whose writings form the basis for Patristics, i.e. prominent early Church Fathers, are Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.120-c.202), Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215), Tertullian (c.160-c.225), Origen (c.185-c.254), Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258), Athanasius (c.296-c.373), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), Basil of Caesarea (c.330-379), Gregory of Nyssa (c.330-c.395) Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Pelagius, Vincent of Lérins (d. bef. 450), Cyril of Alexandria (d.444), Nestorius (died c.451).

Pastristics concerns early church writers in the period pre-Nicean. Eusebius fits in that time frame. Eusebius was an early church father. He even held the title of Father as a Bishop of Caesarea.

Your comments about extra-biblical sources are not evidence that Jesus didn't exist; they describe the limits of the evidence that he did exist. That said, as you and others have mentioned the Roman historian Tacitus said a few things about Jesus in the early 2nd century, and since he was obviously hostile towards Christians it would be quite a leap of faith to suppose that he was simply taking Christians' word for it about Jesus. And Josephus' passing reference to the killing of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ has already been discussed in detail, particularly important because as a long-time resident of Jerusalem Josephus is a superb source for that knowledge. Those are the only two non-Christian sources I know of which I consider worth discussing, though there's some comments in the Talmud which are somewhat intriguing.

Ill have to agree that Tacitus is good evidence for an actual Christ figure. As I said before, I have no problem with agreeing with evidence. Im here to learn from the evidence wherever it may lead.

On Josephus, he usually elaborates very well in detail the subjects he is writing about. He never gives a one word reference. This is outside of his writing style and technique. This has been noted by scholars such as Doherty and Carr. Josephus never makes mention of Christ in his texts and especially in the Jewish sense. He always explains everything he writes, being sensitive to the reader. The term Christ would mean "wetting" to the reader and would make no sense. Hence, it would read, Jesus who is wetted. Anytime he makes mention of a Jewish concept, he explains it. Here he doesnt. The reference to James, who is part of the subject is sufficient on its own without a reference to Jesus. Somehow a reference to Jesus would only allow the Christian reader to be famiiar with the James in the story. The reader of the time would understand that James was the one who cause the downfall of Ananus. The reader would include Je and non-Jew alike. It seems as if the later scribes saw James in Josephusand possibly added a Christ reference. One must note that the exact wording of Christ in Josephus matches Mathew 1:16 exactly. Matthew says: Jesus, who was called Christ. Josephus says: Jesus, who was called Christ. Both are in exact same grammatical order. Not to mention that there is another Jesus mention in the same passage of Josephus who is granted high preist. So if the reference is to James the brother of Jesus who is later mentioned then the passage actually makes more sense. James brought down Ananus from the position if high priest and Jesus, his brother is given the position. The passage makes no sense when "who is called Christ is added." The passage stands perfectly understandable on its own with out such. If we read the whole passage, there is a succession of the high priethood. This is the subject. A man named James whose brother is Jesus, not Jesus Christ, causes Ananus to lose his position and it is therefore given to JESUS. Take out the bolded portion below and see how the passage makes sense without it. Only when it is inserted does it make things very foggy.

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."

What Jew speaks like this about baptism?

Not in the Christian sense for remission of sins.

The NT doesn't record the death of James, but in a rather embellished account the 2nd century Jewish-Christian church chronicler Hegesippus relates that James was unjustly killed by the Jewish religious authorities (the "scribes and Pharisees" in his account) shortly before the revolt (which began 67CE). And yes, he mentions stoning Josephus' reference to the unlawful killing by the religious authorities of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ places it just five years before the revolt. It would be an uncanny coincidence - bordering on the miraculous - if that same event occurred twice, and Josephus was referring to the non-Christian one, the one for which we have no evidence. Since this is the only occasion on which Josephus uses the term 'Christ,' I'd say it's all but indisputable that he's talking about the Christ which some of his Roman readers may have heard of through the Christian sect, rather than an otherwise obscure high priest.

I think my post above answers why it is not the same James. It also addresses why it is not the same Jesus and that "who is called christ" is completely out of place.

We know of an alteration to the text of Josephus in Antiquities book 18, and we also know that this alteration is not associated with anything from book 20. Origen's 3rd century statements that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ is one of the important reasons we know that the TF is not genuine and was altered in the late 3rd or early 4th century, yet he does quote Josephus on the death of James. In fact he uses that same phrase "the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ" verbatim on three occasions, and from memory on one of them specifically references it to the 20th book of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Origen seems to be slightly confused with the account by Hegesippus (he incorrectly says that Josephus associated James' death with the revolt). But ultimately there's no reason to suspect 2nd century tampering with Josephus' work and, as I discussed with Student, such early Christian influence would in fact be more unlikely and any speculative 'original' readings would simply raise more difficulties.

Again, I point to my previous argument on this above. The Jesus in the story makes no sense if he is the one in the gosepls. The Jesus in Josephus ends up becoming high preist, who is the Brother of a man called James, and the son of Damneus.

Josephus' comments on John are a little off-topic. But baptism is just a Greek word meaning washing, and the Jews had used various such cleaning rites for centuries before Jesus and John. It's quite possible that John was more famous in his own day than Jesus was - even Acts mentions a group of Jews in Ephesus who'd heard of John but not Jesus - so there's nothing suspicious with Josephus' comments that I can see.

I contend that John is a real reference with christian additions. I made my point on this earlier. It is highly unlikely that Josephus would describe baptism in the sense of christian baptism for the remission of sins. This is not a Jewish concept of baptism.

No-one but conservative Christians does say that. But the fact that he was a Galilean teacher who wound up getting himself executed is obvious, not least because of the kind of reasoning sometimes called the criterion of embarassment. It's extremely unlikely that any Jew would invent a crucified Messiah; but since that's clearly what Paul and the gospels present, we can infer that Jesus was in fact crucified and Paul's extensive theology (perhaps building on Jesus' disciples own thoughts) sought to explain how this could be. Absent from Mark's gospel but present in Matthew and Luke are Jesus' descent from David, his birth in Bethlehem, and John's hesitation or deference towards baptising Jesus, all of which serve to elevate Jesus and reinforce his messianic credentials. So we can infer that those elements in Mark's story probably were not invented: He really was Jesus of Nazareth, not some Bethlehem-born royal prodigy, and he probably was baptised by John.

This is a possibility, ill give you that. Its not one I endorse though.

Historia "jumped in" on a discussion between you and Stubbornone, didn't he? And either you "jumped in" to someone else's reply to the OP, or they jumped into yours, or else you'd still be quietly awaiting a reply from Alwayson. That's how discussion forums work. I think I've made it clear in each of my posts to you that my main concern has been the significant inaccuracies in your reasoning or rhetoric. Of course the same might be said of Stubbornone, but I wouldn't want to steal your fun.

fair enough

As a self-confessed opponent of the church, it's virtually impossible that Paul would have changed his mind on the matter if Jesus didn't even exist!

Many people today confess that Jesus exists without any evidence whatsoever. So I find your claim here wrong. Some of those who were also opponent of the church. I don't find this argument the slightest bit convincing.

This is why I have such a problem with inaccurate rhetoric; it's so easy to run away with the impression that the early Christians were operating a wholesale forgery and propaganda machine (and in fact I've seen people say precisely that). In the entire New Testament there are only two known alterations which are longer than two sentences, namely the end of Mark and John 8 - and the latter is a thoroughly benign moral tale. I suppose you could mention John 21 also, though that doesn't seem intended to be read as part of the original so can't really be considered a forgery or interpolation (and in fact it provides some interesting evidence that the original was written by a disciple). Off the top of my head I know of only two others which are even a full sentence in length, the trinitarian formula in 1 John 5 and Jesus' bloody sweat in Luke (two sentences I think), though there might be one in Acts also. The one in 1 John 5 seems to have been a very late addition (5th century or later), and I'm not aware of any changes which significantly affect the meaning of the text. Scribal errors and clarifications are more a matter of trivia than cause for alarm.

I actually did more research on Trypho and gave my rebuttal to Hystoria. Please reference that on that subject.

On all of these we can add all of Peter's epistles as well. I don't find these errors as trivial. Many people believe Jesus did this or that yet if the text is an interpolation then they are believing in something that is not true. With all of these later additions, and not having originals, we cannot say that any of what we read is reliable or additions along the way to making a full story.

The pseudepigrapha such as the pastorals are more troubling, but still not a reason to suppose (as some folk seem to do) that unless a work's authenticity can be proven beyond doubt we should assume it be written by anon. In fact the sheer numbers of early Christian pseudepigrapha, including those outside the canon, makes the anonymity of the canonical gospels both surprising and intriguing: Why did the writers themselves not say "This is the gospel written by Matthew the apostle"? Why is one of them attributed to a mere interpretor of Peter, rather than Peter himself as a later non-canonical gospel was? I think a very good case can be made that 'Matthew' wasn't written by the apostle, not least because Papias said that the apostle wrote the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek. But it's quite plausible that Mark wrote Mark; probable that Luke and Acts were written by Luke the companion of Paul; and plausible that the John was indeed written by a follower of Jesus (John 1:14, 19:35 and 1 John 1:1-3; cf John 21:23-24), albeit one who from the outset is openly more interested in theological value than historical facts.

There are plenty of theories going 'round about what the historical Jesus was actually like, and I've often said that these are more or less open to anyone's guess since they depend so much on specific interpretations of Paul, the gospels and early church dynamics.

Which makes me ask the question. How can anyone believe in a real Jesus when the writings about him are completely anonymous except for Paul who never met him? Pauls references to vague instances of Jesus's life can be attributed to oral stories circulating. This boils down to hearsay.

But as far as I've seen theories that there was no historical Jesus are more or less utter trash, depending on vastly more sceptical approaches to some sources than others, strange and radical reinterpretations of Paul (or sometimes even denial of his existence too!), and a great deal of speculation about interpolations and greek ideology replacing what we can actually say about textual evidence and the movement's origins.

I disagree. Jesus' existence relies on a couple references. Beyond that we have a large amount of unreliable texts. Some have been interpolated and some forged. All were written long after the Jesus story was already circulated. 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.

[Nickman]

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Mithrae, as usual, has beaten me to the punch here. But let me repeat what he said, and maybe offer some further explanation.

What Trypho is saying here is that the Messiah (Greek: Christ) has not yet appeared. It's possible, Trypho suggests, that the Messiah may already have been born. But, if so, even he doesn't yet know that he is the Messiah. Only once Elias anoints him will he, and everyone else, know that he is the Messiah. Since that has yet to happen, Christians are apparently mistaken in claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. They have, in a sense, "invented" a Messiah for themselves.

'Trypho', of course, is not a real person, but rather a literary device, created by Justin Martyr here for his Dialogue, in which he answers Jewish objections to Christianity. Nowhere in the text does Justin suggest that the very existence of Jesus was ever in doubt. Many of the Jewish criticism he attempts to refute in this work take as their basic assumption that Jesus existed.

This is a good example of the perils of quote mining, though.

After more research, I would have to disagree. Although Trypho may or may not be an invention. Trypho makes two points.
Trypho's words, "You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour and have invented some kind of a Christ for yourselves" is really saying that Jesus was the unfounded rumour for on the basis that he existed they invented the idea that he was the Christ!

He states that their Christ is unfounded and invented. Prior he states that if Christ was real and alive as in the real one, then he has not shown himself yet. He follows with denial of Justins Christ by telling him his is unfounded and invented. If there were a Christ that lived such as Jesus, the the conversation would look much different. It would be a specific attack on the man JESUS. It may have had a dialogue that spoke of Jesus being a false Christ. Instead we have a straight denial of that idea, and an attack that he holds belief in an unfounded Christ and one that is invented.

In short, I just conducted a google search to continue adamantly denying.

Nice tactic of dismissing my post with absolutely nothing.

[Goat]

Please provide evidence that the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts. Show evidence, first of all, that the person who the gospel is attributed to actually wrote it.

The source that I provides is a list of such sources, including the synoptic gospels, and you are free to puruse them to your hearts content ... but I would assume that you are already familiar with them, as, like Nickman, you are claiming its evidence that drives you ... and yet your opinion is in stark adversarial conflict with established historiography?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

.

Ok. Let us look at just one of those synpotic gospels.. and see if it backs up your claim that it was written by an eye witness.

Let's look at Mark.. since that is the one that is the earliest one written, according to that site.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Information on the Gospel of Mark

Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

In other words, you just completely and totally skipped everything I presented with the results of a random google search used to fulfill your prejudices and preconceptions

That's why the Jesus Myth deserves tin foil hat status.

Feel free to address any of what I presented.

Random Google search?? But, I USED THE SOURCE YOU PROVIDED. How about that. You pointed me to the earlychristianwritings.com, I took one of the synoptic gospels, and quoted from the very source you provided.

ANd guess what. .the very source you provided disagrees with you on the gospel of Mark.

You present a bare link to a web site, and I provide quotes from the web site you provided, and you want me to address what you provided?? Ok. I am. I am absolutely agreeing with the web site you provided.. and you are wrong.


Want to show where the others are eye witness accounts?

[stubbornone]

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Mithrae, as usual, has beaten me to the punch here. But let me repeat what he said, and maybe offer some further explanation.

What Trypho is saying here is that the Messiah (Greek: Christ) has not yet appeared. It's possible, Trypho suggests, that the Messiah may already have been born. But, if so, even he doesn't yet know that he is the Messiah. Only once Elias anoints him will he, and everyone else, know that he is the Messiah. Since that has yet to happen, Christians are apparently mistaken in claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. They have, in a sense, "invented" a Messiah for themselves.

'Trypho', of course, is not a real person, but rather a literary device, created by Justin Martyr here for his Dialogue, in which he answers Jewish objections to Christianity. Nowhere in the text does Justin suggest that the very existence of Jesus was ever in doubt. Many of the Jewish criticism he attempts to refute in this work take as their basic assumption that Jesus existed.

This is a good example of the perils of quote mining, though.

After more research, I would have to disagree. Although Trypho may or may not be an invention. Trypho makes two points.
Trypho's words, "You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour and have invented some kind of a Christ for yourselves" is really saying that Jesus was the unfounded rumour for on the basis that he existed they invented the idea that he was the Christ!

He states that their Christ is unfounded and invented. Prior he states that if Christ was real and alive as in the real one, then he has not shown himself yet. He follows with denial of Justins Christ by telling him his is unfounded and invented. If there were a Christ that lived such as Jesus, the the conversation would look much different. It would be a specific attack on the man JESUS. It may have had a dialogue that spoke of Jesus being a false Christ. Instead we have a straight denial of that idea, and an attack that he holds belief in an unfounded Christ and one that is invented.

In short, I just conducted a google search to continue adamantly denying.

Nice tactic of dismissing my post with absolutely nothing.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[stubbornone]

Please provide evidence that the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts. Show evidence, first of all, that the person who the gospel is attributed to actually wrote it.

The source that I provides is a list of such sources, including the synoptic gospels, and you are free to puruse them to your hearts content ... but I would assume that you are already familiar with them, as, like Nickman, you are claiming its evidence that drives you ... and yet your opinion is in stark adversarial conflict with established historiography?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

.

Ok. Let us look at just one of those synpotic gospels.. and see if it backs up your claim that it was written by an eye witness.

Let's look at Mark.. since that is the one that is the earliest one written, according to that site.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Information on the Gospel of Mark

Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

In other words, you just completely and totally skipped everything I presented with the results of a random google search used to fulfill your prejudices and preconceptions

That's why the Jesus Myth deserves tin foil hat status.

Feel free to address any of what I presented.

Random Google search?? But, I USED THE SOURCE YOU PROVIDED. How about that. You pointed me to the earlychristianwritings.com, I took one of the synoptic gospels, and quoted from the very source you provided.

ANd guess what. .the very source you provided disagrees with you on the gospel of Mark.

You present a bare link to a web site, and I provide quotes from the web site you provided, and you want me to address what you provided?? Ok. I am. I am absolutely agreeing with the web site you provided.. and you are wrong.


Want to show where the others are eye witness accounts?

http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

That is what is actually on the sight. There is far more to the gospel than what Esuebius wrote in a single paragraph and only serves to prove that atheists ignore the far more abundant presentation of evidence to focus on minutia to deny at any cost.

Hundreds of pages of information on that particular gospel, and leave it to the atheists to quote one paragraph and ignore everything else.

Such serious scholarship we have here ...

[Mithrae]

But Eusebius was 4th century The patristic period roughly covers the 2nd through 5th centuries from what I've gathered, so 4th century is not an early church father. More importantly you're still neglecting the fact that you alluded to multiple "blatant forgeries," yet there is only one. At best, such inaccuracies in your rhetoric/reasoning will obviously undermine any conclusions you draw. At worst, it's straight out dishonesty.

Eusebius was 263-339 ad. I think this is early church, but our ideas of early may be different. Heres just a quick reference from wiki

Patristic
Among the persons whose writings form the basis for Patristics, i.e. prominent early Church Fathers, are Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.120-c.202), Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215), Tertullian (c.160-c.225), Origen (c.185-c.254), Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258), Athanasius (c.296-c.373), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), Basil of Caesarea (c.330-379), Gregory of Nyssa (c.330-c.395) Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Pelagius, Vincent of Lérins (d. bef. 450), Cyril of Alexandria (d.444), Nestorius (died c.451).

Pastristics concerns early church writers in the period pre-Nicean. Eusebius fits in that time frame. Eusebius was an early church father. He even held the title of Father as a Bishop of Caesarea.

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.

Your comments about extra-biblical sources are not evidence that Jesus didn't exist; they describe the limits of the evidence that he did exist. That said, as you and others have mentioned the Roman historian Tacitus said a few things about Jesus in the early 2nd century, and since he was obviously hostile towards Christians it would be quite a leap of faith to suppose that he was simply taking Christians' word for it about Jesus. And Josephus' passing reference to the killing of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ has already been discussed in detail, particularly important because as a long-time resident of Jerusalem Josephus is a superb source for that knowledge. Those are the only two non-Christian sources I know of which I consider worth discussing, though there's some comments in the Talmud which are somewhat intriguing.

Ill have to agree that Tacitus is good evidence for an actual Christ figure. As I said before, I have no problem with agreeing with evidence. Im here to learn from the evidence wherever it may lead.

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.

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.

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.

On Josephus, he usually elaborates very well in detail the subjects he is writing about. He never gives a one word reference. This is outside of his writing style and technique. This has been noted by scholars such as Doherty and Carr. Josephus never makes mention of Christ in his texts and especially in the Jewish sense. He always explains everything he writes, being sensitive to the reader.

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).

But Student and I have already been over these points: Can show that there was no original version of the TF in book 18? Historia has suggested that most scholars suppose that there probably was an original version; partly (I would guess) because an Arabic version exists which seems uncorrupted by that Christian influence, and partly because a zealous scribe 'correcting' some not-very-flattering comments about Jesus makes more sense than inserting a reference from scratch. So while I wouldn't consider a hypothetical original version of the TF as good evidence regarding Jesus, by the same token you have no basis for claiming that the reference to Christ in book 20 is without explanation.

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.

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.

What Jew speaks like this about baptism?

But baptism is just a Greek word meaning washing, and the Jews had used various such cleaning rites for centuries before Jesus and John.

Not in the Christian sense for remission of sins. . . .


I contend that John is a real reference with christian additions. I made my point on this earlier. It is highly unlikely that Josephus would describe baptism in the sense of christian baptism for the remission of sins. This is not a Jewish concept of baptism.

In your own quotation of the passage, Josephus says that John's baptism was not for the remission of sins:
"...for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

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



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.

[historia]

Trypho's words, "You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour and have invented some kind of a Christ for yourselves" is really saying that Jesus was the unfounded rumour for on the basis that he existed they invented the idea that he was the Christ!

I would suggest that you are simply seeing what you want to see here.

Nowhere in the Dialogue does Trypho call into question the historicity of Jesus -- quite the contrary, as you will see below. We have no basis, then, to assume that the "groundless report" (to use the translation above) here means the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth. You are simply reading that into the text.

The much more natural reading is that the "groundless report" concerns what Christians have said about Jesus: his miraculous birth, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. And in making such claims, Christians have "invented a Messiah."

If there were a Christ that lived such as Jesus, the the conversation would look much different. It would be a specific attack on the man JESUS. It may have had a dialogue that spoke of Jesus being a false Christ.

And that is precisely what you see if you read the rest of Justin's work. Consider what Trypho has to say elsewhere:

"But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments."

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Messiah of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Then [Trypho] replied, "Let these things be so as you say -- namely, that it was foretold the Messiah would suffer, and be called a stone; and after his first appearance, in which it had been announced he would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man [Jesus] be He of whom these prophecies were made."

"For we all expect that the Messiah will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man [Jesus] appear to be the Messiah, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man [Jesus] is not He [the Messiah]."

"And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs [i.e., Jesus was born of a virgin], and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He [Jesus] is the Messiah, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Messiah, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

A note on these last two quotes. Trypho here is objecting to Justin's claim that Jesus was divine and was born of a virgin (in that way not born "man of men", so the phrase above). Justin informs him that, although he doesn't agree with them, some Christians (i.e., the Ebionites) do not believe that Jesus was either divine or born of a virgin. Trypho retorts that these people "speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express" (see Chapters 48, 49).

Nowhere here is there even the hint that Trypho thinks Jesus of Nazareth himself didn't exist. His objections are always and invariably about the claims Christians have made about Jesus. And that is the clear purpose of the passage you cited as well.

[historia]

What it tells me is that people are easily mislead by information they read on the Internet.

That's a possibility, but I dont rely on just one text or one scholar. I am looking at all of the extant writings we have available. The sources I use are from ones that make a point based on evidence available. We cannot discredit an argument because of where it comes from.

But we can discredit a source when it makes patently false claims.

The website you quoted above is chock full of them. And, in so far as you have repeated several of those claims here, it's clear to me, and no doubt many others, that you haven't properly evaluated the quality or the accuracy of the sources you are consulting.

This is why I continue to urge you to read scholarly works on this topic, written by experts who have subjected their writings to critical review by other scholars. Their analysis is much more reliable.

Every argument must be dealt with individually. If the opposition says that a point is invalid because the majority of scholarship disagrees, it is a fallacy.

I agree we should absolutely debate the evidence ourselves (it's more fun anyway).

At the same time, though, none of us here are experts. It would be foolish for us not to turn to the analysis of experts so as to inform our discussion about the evidence.

And if the near-universal consensus of scholars is that Jesus existed, then that is a very strong argument. I won't continually beat you over the head with that fact, as others here have. But I don't think you can simply dismiss that out of hand, either.

[historia]

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.