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.

[Student]

Your comment highlights what I perceive to the major problem with the references to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, namely, why would Josephus use the term ‘Christ’ uniquely in reference to Jesus, especially if, as Origen records, he didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah?

As mentioned previously, the word ‘Christ’ only appears twice in all the extant writings of Josephus; both occurrences are in the Antiquities of the Jews; the Testimonium Flavianum 18.3.3 “He was the Christ� [ � χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν] and 20.9.1. in a reference to the death of James, “Jesus the one called Christ�[ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ].

Throughout the Septuagint the word ‘Christ’ is used where Mašíaḥ is used in the Tenach. It is applied to various kings and high priests. However, despite mentioning many high priests [included several called Jesus], and kings including David and Cyrus, Josephus never uses the term ‘Christ’ in relation to any of them. Why?

I think we can account for this fairly simply: By the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, Christians were using the term 'Christ' as a kind of proper name for Jesus. We see that development already in Paul's writings. Tacitus' remark that 'Christus' was the founder of the Christian movement attests to this as well.

Josephus is not calling Jesus the messiah (I take 'he was the Christ' in Antiquities 18 to be an interpolation), but rather apparently using a common designation for Jesus of Nazareth as "the one called Christ."

I have touched on this possibility in an earlier post. However while not dismissing the hypothesis in its entirety I perceive one or two problems.

Firstly, for Josephus to think, in common with Tacitus and Suetonius, that ‘Christus/Chrestus’ was Jesus’ name, we have to conclude that Josephus himself was ignorant of the significance of the title ‘Christ’? How likely is this? Is it possible that Josephus hadn’t read the Septuagint and as a consequence was unaware the translation of Mašíaḥ as χ�ιστὸς Christ?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Josephus thought 'Christ' was a personal name.

Rather, my point here is that, by the end of the first century, Christians regularly referred to Jesus simply as 'Christ'. It was originally a title, of course -- Jesus the Christ -- but 'Christ' came to function as a byname for Jesus already in Paul's time. So much so, in fact, that Tacitus, and likely other Romans, (mistakenly) took is to be a personal name.

Now, Josephus must have known that 'Christ' was (originally) a title; i.e., that Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Nevertheless, it appears that "Jesus who is called the Christ" was a common way of referring to Jesus of Nazareth, so Josephus uses that same appellation here in Antiquities 20. In doing so, he is not, of course, endorsing the Christian view that Jesus really was the Messiah.

Conversely, if Josephus did recognise the significance of the term χ�ιστὸς how confident could he be that his intended audience were sufficiently unfamiliar with Christianity, or Judaism, or the Septuagint to be ignorant of the significance of the term ‘Christ’? And why would he take the risk of discovery?

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Would you mind elaborating?

My point is that anyone familiar with the Septuagint, such as members of the Jewish Diaspora and certain members of the Christian community, would be fully aware of the term ‘Christ’ and its special significance. How certain could Josephus be that his readership would not include any members of these particular groups?

While I agree that many gentiles would consider ‘Christ’ to be Jesus name, why would Josephus risk using an expression that would appear to be loaded with a special significance for Jewish or Christian readers? As I’ve indicated in my previous post to Mithrae, it is evident that the expression ‘the one called Christ’ is sufficiently imprecise as to mean either the designation of a name or a title; neither use can be precluded.

So, would Josephus risk being misconstrued by using such an ambiguous expression?

[East of Eden]

Interesting that Thallus from your list of extra-Biblical references to Jesus, even references the darkness at the time of the crucifixion.

This comment by Thallus is not extant. It's known by a vague allusion in the work of 2nd/3rd century Christian writer Julius Africanus.

That work of Julius Africanus is not extant either. It is known by quotation in the work of 9th century Christian author George Syncellus.

Julius Africanus wrote:

• This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?

Obviously, this is not a direct quote of what Thallus wrote.

So what did Thallus actually write? Without knowing what he wrote, all we've got is speculation, not evidence. However it seems that Eusebius quoted two non-Christian sources which made reference to some kind of darkness/eclipse which he (Eusebius) identifies with the gospel story. One of those sources he identifies as Phlegon - the other one is probably Thallus:

• Jesus Christ..underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius [32 AD]. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... allus.html

Obviously if that first quote was from the work of Thallus, it is not a direct reference to Jesus' crucifixion. In fact as I briefly discussed with Catalyst earlier in the thread, both of those quotes appear to be in reference to the eclipse which NASA informs us passed over Bithynia (north-western Turkey) around midday in November 29CE.

"Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun."

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-n ... dor-people

In fact, Thallus is cited SEVERAL times by muliple authors, thus we can be reasonably certain that there was a Thallus and that he was accurately quoted by multiple sources.

Indeed, we see the same pattern here, the picking a choosing of evidence. The source I listed provides half a dozen sources of various degrees of certainty - just as a start - but rather than take a look at all of them and acknowledge that there is a consistency that supports Jesus ... we hold that we should disregard quotations of known authors because their original works are lost to antiquity ...

I wonder how much of our knowledge, with the burning of the Library in Alexandria, foe example, would thus be lost to history as unverifiable?

And that is why we must use a set of objective standards to weigh the evidence that is available to seek the larger truth.

It is, given the repeated citation of Thallus, far more reasonable to assume that he lived and produced works than it would be to assume that he was randomly mentioned by various authors. Thus, when quoted directly, he becomes another source of FURTHER verification, not a source in an of itself to prove alone.

Its merely confirmation of the prediction that, were Jesus alive, we should ... and indeed do, find references to him outside the Bible.

Well, this is the problem.. the only thing we know about Thallus is that he talked about an eclipse.. and we got that from Julius Africanius. ... who was saying "No it wasn't"

We don't have what Thallus actually said. we just have the interpretation of an apologist who was trying to use Thallus to show there was 'darkness at noon'. .. and was trying to say that was the same incident as was recorded in the Bible.

Since we don't have Thallus' original work, but rather the interpretation of an apologist, that is second hand information from someone with a strong agenda.

Now, it would be MUCH more worth while the original thallus manuscript was discovered.. not filtered through an apologist who was pushing a viewpoint .

By that reasoning we can discard your opinions and those of any non-Christian as those of an apologist for their position and someone pushing a viewpoint. Yours is nothing but a big ad hominem argument.

What exactly are you saying, that Julius Africanus made up the Thallus bit? Is this part of the big conspiracy, with yet again no evidence?

[Mithrae]

I think we can safely infer, as implied earlier and as you've agreed, that he didn't delve into any vault of official records; not just because of Pilate's title, but moreso because 'Christus' is used as Jesus' personal name, and indeed because a non-citizen from Galilee may not have appeared in any official records - and surely not outside of Judea/Syria - in the first place.

You make a good point that reference to Jesus' crucifixion would merely be a further slur on Christianity - but it would still be rather a rather sloppy approach to some historical trivia involving a Roman official. Like I say, he might have merely repeated Christians' claims. Largely for that reason I'd say that his comments stand well behind Paul, Josephus and the gospels in terms of historical value regarding Jesus. But I don't think we have sufficient reason to dismiss their usefulness entirely; I don't think we can say with any high probability that Tacitus was simply repeating their claims.

Conversely we cannot say with any high probability that he was not!

If Tacitus was not repeating common knowledge about the Christians, from where or from whom did he gather his information? As you suggest it is unlikely he would have troubled himself with trawling through the records regarding such a contemptible group as the Christians.

For my part I doubt there were any official sources to quote. And Tacitus possible acquaintance with witnesses sufficiently close to the actual event of Jesus crucifixion would also be highly improbable given the major disruption caused by the intervening Jewish wars.

From a quick glance at Wikipedia it looks as though Josephus would have been in Rome while Tacitus was a senator there - and in the years before he wrote The Life of Agricola and Germania it seems quite possible that Tacitus could have been interested in histories and cultures besides Britain and Germany. Of course that's just speculation. Perhaps he was familiar with some other credible source/s of information; perhaps with some written historical work/s now lost to us. We simply don't know one way or the other. So we can't really say (as some Christian apologists do) that he provides strong evidence of Jesus' existence and crucifixion and nor can we say (as some other apologists do) that he was merely repeating Christian claims.

All we can say for sure is that a credible late 1st/early 2nd century historian wrote such-and-such.

But as you've pointed out, he didn't actually call Vespasian Christ, nor explain that as a term which could describe Jewish apocalyptic uprisings. As far as the extant text of Josephus is concerned, the term Christ is associated only with Christians. Associating that term with Vespasian or with Jewish movements requires reading something more into the text. Josephus himself obviously would have known that 'Christ' applies to those movements, to the Jewish priests and kings, and to his portrayal of Vespasian - but he chose not to convey that to his audience.

So unless we presume on their part some knowledge of Jewish culture and translated terminology beyond what Josephus is giving them, we have reason to suppose only that they'd understand 'Christ' as reference to Christians - whether from general knowledge of Nero's persecution, or from a hypothetical unaltered original TF (or both).

In short, as far as we can tell, describing Jesus as the one called Christ would not have drawn attention either to Jewish movements or to Vespasian.

While not necessarily agreeing, I follow your line of reasoning. Certainly most gentiles e.g. in Rome, perceived ‘Christos’ to be Jesus’ name, rather than a title. Indeed Χ�ιστός [Christos] and Χ�ηστός [Chrestos] looked and sounded very similar. As a name, the use of the term could be quite innocuous.

However I keep coming up against what I perceive to be two basic problems.

Firstly, Origen’s assertion that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.

This must surely preclude Josephus’ use of the expression ‘He was the Christ’.

And if we argue that Josephus’ use of the expression ‘the one called Christ’ was simply a reference to Jesus’ name and not an acknowledgement of the title, thereby permitting Josephus to use the term whilst not conceding that Jesus was the Christ, then perhaps we might level the same accusation at the authors of Matthew & John because they also use this expression of Jesus!

Origen said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ in the same passage as his quotation of Antiquities 20, so clearly Origen (who knew what 'Christ' means) did not see a problem with that. Christians did indeed consider Jesus to be the Christ. He was called Christ. Mentioning Christians' beliefs (as in Antiquities 20) is not the same as sharing Christians' beliefs (as in the TF). I must not be seeing the problem here.

Matthew also says that Jesus was called Christ - an accurate though slightly odd phrase for a Christian, and the only such occurance in the NT. John uses a similar phrase in explanation (4:25), but not of Jesus directly.

Consequently it should be evident that the expression ‘the one called Christ’ is sufficiently imprecise as to mean either the designation of a name or a title; neither use is precluded. Would Josephus use such an ambiguous expression in these circumstances?

Secondly, the use of the term ‘Christ’ would have drawn the attention of anyone familiar with the Septuagint such as members of the Jewish Diaspora or the Christian community. Both groups used the Septuagint and would have been familiar with the special use of the term ‘Christ’. Perhaps this is why the Jewish community in Rome was caused to riot by Suetonius’ ‘Chrestus’!

We can be sure that the presence of the term, whether interpolated or not, certainly excited later Christians!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Most Christians - certainly those who'd read/heard their gospels - would have known that Jesus was a Jew and 'Christ' was an expected prophetic figure. Most Jews probably knew that the Christians considered this 'Christ' to have come in the person of Jesus. Josephus' comments about James/Jesus are not telling either of these groups anything new, except by clearly identifying the James who was killed. Possibly, since the division between the two groups was growing quite pronounced by the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, the identification may even have served as a hint for who those others killed were, and why - religious disagreement between the Christians and the priests - though obviously that's speculation.

Honestly, I don't understand what's considered strange about the passage. It doesn't commit Josephus to any personal view of Jesus. It doesn't raise any new issues for Christians or Jews that they'd otherwise have been unaware of. It doesn't raise any issues for pagans who didn't know what 'Christ' meant to Jews. It's not very informative for anyone who'd never heard of the Christian sect, which is a big problem for theories which suggest that the only somewhat-informative bit is not original. But for those readers who through general knowledge of Nero's persecution etc. had heard of the Christian sect, it offers some passing identification of the James who'd been killed. The James whose identity and residency is elsewhere confirmed by Paul, and whose broad outline in manner and time of death is elsewhere suggested by Hegesippus.

There's no mysteries there, except those raised by alternative speculation.

[Nickman]

Probably thousands in the case of Judas of Galilee - according to Wikipedia the whole zealot movement is traced by Josephus back to his revolt against taxation. But apparently not a peep was said about him by Philo, Seneca or Pliny the Elder So we can conclude that your argument from silence is a bad argument, even if we take the absurd position that the gospels' miracles and great numbers are a reliable basis for historical consideration.

That is a good point. I can't claim the argument of silence for Jesus and not honor that for Judas or Theudas.

On the gospel claims; I wouldn't say that the gospels are reliable for historical consideration. I would make the claim that if we were to use them as accurate then Jesus would be a highly popular man and he would have made quite a stir. Enough to be reported as such by historians. It may be that the figure that has been embellished (Jesus) was not what the gospels claim. That is most likely a more accurate assumption.

(And you are being even more absurd, calling him "the most popular man of all time," which the gospels do not suggest.) The 1st century population of Jerusalem is estimated at some 600,000, the whole of Judea and Galilee obviously even moreso. The largest crowd ever mentioned in the gospels or Acts is less than 1% of that.

If we go by the gospels he was pretty popular. My exaggeration was for humour. If we were to go by the gospels, Jesus did more than any other man. He made miracles, healed many, people rose from the dead (Lazarus and the zombies), and walked on water. He also got the entire Sanhedrin in a fluster and also caused Pilate have to deal his trial. It would have been a pretty big scene. I take the stance, however, that if he was real he didn't make the scene or do the things that were written in the gospels.

"Such-and-such didn't mention this" is nothing more than an observation of trivia, unless you have first shown that such-and-such should have mentioned this; but obviously as far as we can infer by comparison, those people had no reason to mention every semi-famous or notorious Jew who popped up over the decades. Josephus, of course, was apparently a fairly thorough historian and does mention Judas of Galilee, and Theudas, and John the Baptist, and Jesus who was called Christ.

Ill disagree on the Jesus part and a portion of the John the baptist text. You know my argument on Jesus in Josephus. I find it to be an interpolation. I think Student has done quite well on the subject of Jesus in Josephus.

I would like to add more to the story on Josephus' account that brings more light to Book 20 and shows why it is interpolated.

We start with a clash between members of two sects of the sanhedrin. Ananus and Jesus bar Damneus. While members of the sanhedrin were away, Ananus took it upon himself to assemble the sanhedrin without consent of Agrippa and Albinus.
He did so for his own gain. This is the point of the story, not James. Ananus took advantage of their absence to assemble the sanhedrin and he formed accusations against Jesus' bar Damneus brother i.e. James. There was strife among the sanhedrin. You claimed earlier that they wouldn't be fighting amongts one another but in Josephus, as we will see, there was a fight over the high priest position.


"... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin 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 [Agrippa], 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 sanhedrin without his consent.

It wasn't about the death of James that was disliked, it was the assembling of the sanhedrin without consent that was disliked and unlawful.

Let's continue.

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.

The same Jesus whose brother died at the hands of Ananus after his unlawful assembly of the sanhedrin while members were away is Jesus bar Damneus.

If we read further in 20.9.4

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

The whole story is about a sedition with the high priests. It has nothing to do with a Jesus of Nazareth. The words "who is called Christ" are an interpolation. It detracts from the actually story of a priestly sedition to gain supremacy. People just don't like to read. Josephus is recording a fight between two sects of the high priesthood and someone saw opportunity to add words that don't fit for their christian agenda, just like they did in book 18. It just doesn't fit.


Same goes for JohnnyTB. I find Christian overtones in the text that do not appear to be from a Jewish historian.

You're dredging up an obviously, blatantly unreliable source as a counter-point to discussion of Paul's first-hand information regarding James. This is an exceptionally bad style of argument.

Paul wrote to the Galatian church:
"Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins. . . .
...after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."

Isnt Paul's words stating "the lord's brother" hearsay as well? Who told him? Nothing is written by James. Nothing is written by Peter either to confirm this. Peters letters are of unknown authorship. How do we know what was written in the gospels about James is correct? Do we have anything to verify Paul's story?

To the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 9) he wrote:
"Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
On both occasions Paul specifically distinguishes people as brothers of Jesus, unlike Peter or the apostles. Catholic apologetics aside, please provide your evidence that when Paul says 'brother' he does not mean brother.

Why is James nothing in the gospels? He has no influence other than total opposition. He is vaguely passed by in all of the gospels, yet in Acts he is the head of the Jerusalem church. We have nothing concrete about this figure James either. John never mentions James at all as being Jesus' brother, yet he later becomes the head of the church? The stories do not jive, and in a court of law would be thrown out.

You have not provided any credible evidence supporting your suggestion that when Paul says 'brother' he does not mean brother. This bait-and-switch approach is another bad kind of debating technique.

As you've mentioned, the gospels confirm that Jesus did indeed have brothers who were not his followers (by Peter's interpretor in Mark 6:1-5, and by Jesus' disciple in John 7:1-10). Paul relates a tradition that James converted after Jesus' alleged resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). Reading Acts we see from the beginning the circle of 12 disciples and the prominence of Peter (who is imprisoned by Herod), John and James of Zebedee (who is executed by Herod); but by the time of the council in chapter 15, perhaps 15-20 years after Jesus' death, we see that it's James who makes the final decision regarding Gentile converts. James' gradual rise to pre-eminence within the movement which Acts suggests is hard to explain unless he was indeed Jesus' oldest brother and thus, in a manner, the 'heir' to his leadership. How else would the prominence of Peter and John be overshadowed? Thus the gospels, and especially Acts, converge quite neatly with Paul's first-hand knowledge.

Your source that "Ananus was against the Zealots" when he was high priest?

Here and here

The zealot temple seige occurred years after the killing of James the brother of Jesus. It has no relevance to our discussion of that passage. This is a very bad argument.

You haven't provided any reason to suppose that scholars' views are wrong, and that the high priest had decided to kill members of other priestly families without Josephus bothering to explain why.

Your failing to realize that Josephus parallels the story in both his works, Antiquities and Wars. We see nothing of this James brother of Jesus in the Wars text, which goes even more in depth on Ananus.

If the incident was as significant as you claim it was - a high priest killing the member of another priestly family and "some others," and indeed the whole reason why Jesus ben Damneus got the job! - that's very strange indeed. Why do you think Josephus didn't mention it in Jewish War? Intelligent discussion does not follow the format "Here's a discrepancy, therefore my conclusion is correct," especially when that alleged discrepancy is problematic to your view more than the other fellow's.

Tacitus was not a Christian. He didn't like the Christians. So the source we have here is a credible non-Christian historian who was a Roman senator in the late 1st century.

He may have been a credible historian but all he had were Christian sources. So are many historians through the centuries, yet they also used the only sources they had. Can you show any sources he could have drawn from other than Christian ones? There are none. That is the whole point of my argument. Hegessipus is in the same boat.

There's at least one very obvious possible source, which I had already mentioned to Student: Josephus is a non-Christian source who mentioned Jesus (the one called Christ) and was in Rome while Tacitus was a senator there. You're trying to make an argument from ignorance here; we can't confirm what other source Tacitus might have used, so we should presume that it was Christian information.

I'm working on the rest and will reply when I have the full post.

[Nickman]

@ Mithrae, Historia, Eden and Stubbornone

As I said before I am looking for a real answer to whether or not Jesus existed or if we can say with some sort of certainty that a man existed who was latter embellished. Thus far I have argued against to see where that would lead. It is all part of getting to the truth. Some of you guys have made some very good points. In my research I have for an article from Bart Ehrman that I feel needs to make it into this thread. It makes a good point for an actual figure that was later embellished. Here is the source link and below I am posting some of the article with highlights.

The short version: even though Paul is not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, he personally knew two people (at least) who were: Jesus’ closest disciple Peter, and his brother James. This is as close as you can get to eyewitness testimony as you can imagine, without an eyewitness actually writing up a report himself. It’s very good evidence.

The other argument is at least as important, even though it’s a bit complicated. Most Christians today think that the Jewish messiah was *supposed* to die and be raised again (showing that he was the messiah). The reality, however, is that ancient Jews had a variety of expectations of who the messiah would be – some thought he’d be a great warrior king like David, others that he would be a cosmic judge of the earth (a Son of Man figure), others that he would be a powerful priest who judged God’s people. In NONE of these expectations was there any sense at all that the messiah would be someone who would be executed by his enemies, squashed by his opponents. Christians who think that is what the messiah was supposed to be have been influenced by OT passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, which seem to speak about a future suffering person whose death will make people right with God. But ancient Jews did not interpret these passages as referring to the messiah (and in fact, the messiah is not mentioned in these passages). On the contrary, for ancient Jews, these passages were decidedly NOT speaking about the messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not someone who was weak and powerless.

This means that if the followers of Jesus were going to make up the claim that he was the messiah they would not ALSO make up the claim that he was crucified, since that was the LAST thing that would happen to the messiah. But the reality is that Christians did call Jesus the messiah, and yet did indicate that he was crucified. How can we explain that? If a group of Jews wanted to make up a messiah (as the mythicists claim) they would not have made up a crucified messiah, since there was no such thing as the idea of a crucified messiah in Judaism at the time. And so they must not have made up Jesus. Instead, the historical reality was this: Christians thought that Jesus was the messiah, and they KNEW that he had been crucified. And so they developed the idea that the messiah was supposed to be crucified. (And they started to appeal to non-messianic texts such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in support of their views.)

That is why Paul talks about the crucifixion as the greatest “stumbling block� for Jews. Most Jews thought it was ludicrous to say a crucified man was the messiah. This is the reason they rejected the Christian message.

In short, Jesus must have existed, and must have really been crucified – since if Christians wanted to convert Jews, they would not have made up the idea that a crucified man was their messiah. But the reality is they had no choice. They thought Jesus was the messiah and they knew he had been crucified, and so they devised the idea that the messiah had to be crucified. Christians today would say that these early Christians were *right*; non-Christians would say they were *wrong*. But for the question of whether Jesus existed or not it doesn’t matter which side of that issue you stand on. The fact that Jesus was declared as the (crucified) messiah shows that he could not have been made up by his Jewish followers. And so he must have really existed, and been crucified.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

[stubbornone]

Interesting that Thallus from your list of extra-Biblical references to Jesus, even references the darkness at the time of the crucifixion.

This comment by Thallus is not extant. It's known by a vague allusion in the work of 2nd/3rd century Christian writer Julius Africanus.

That work of Julius Africanus is not extant either. It is known by quotation in the work of 9th century Christian author George Syncellus.

Julius Africanus wrote:

• This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?

Obviously, this is not a direct quote of what Thallus wrote.

So what did Thallus actually write? Without knowing what he wrote, all we've got is speculation, not evidence. However it seems that Eusebius quoted two non-Christian sources which made reference to some kind of darkness/eclipse which he (Eusebius) identifies with the gospel story. One of those sources he identifies as Phlegon - the other one is probably Thallus:

• Jesus Christ..underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius [32 AD]. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... allus.html

Obviously if that first quote was from the work of Thallus, it is not a direct reference to Jesus' crucifixion. In fact as I briefly discussed with Catalyst earlier in the thread, both of those quotes appear to be in reference to the eclipse which NASA informs us passed over Bithynia (north-western Turkey) around midday in November 29CE.

"Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun."

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-n ... dor-people

In fact, Thallus is cited SEVERAL times by muliple authors, thus we can be reasonably certain that there was a Thallus and that he was accurately quoted by multiple sources.

Indeed, we see the same pattern here, the picking a choosing of evidence. The source I listed provides half a dozen sources of various degrees of certainty - just as a start - but rather than take a look at all of them and acknowledge that there is a consistency that supports Jesus ... we hold that we should disregard quotations of known authors because their original works are lost to antiquity ...

I wonder how much of our knowledge, with the burning of the Library in Alexandria, foe example, would thus be lost to history as unverifiable?

And that is why we must use a set of objective standards to weigh the evidence that is available to seek the larger truth.

It is, given the repeated citation of Thallus, far more reasonable to assume that he lived and produced works than it would be to assume that he was randomly mentioned by various authors. Thus, when quoted directly, he becomes another source of FURTHER verification, not a source in an of itself to prove alone.

Its merely confirmation of the prediction that, were Jesus alive, we should ... and indeed do, find references to him outside the Bible.

Well, this is the problem.. the only thing we know about Thallus is that he talked about an eclipse.. and we got that from Julius Africanius. ... who was saying "No it wasn't"

We don't have what Thallus actually said. we just have the interpretation of an apologist who was trying to use Thallus to show there was 'darkness at noon'. .. and was trying to say that was the same incident as was recorded in the Bible.

Since we don't have Thallus' original work, but rather the interpretation of an apologist, that is second hand information from someone with a strong agenda.

Now, it would be MUCH more worth while the original thallus manuscript was discovered.. not filtered through an apologist who was pushing a viewpoint .

By that reasoning we can discard your opinions and those of any non-Christian as those of an apologist for their position and someone pushing a viewpoint. Yours is nothing but a big ad hominem argument.

What exactly are you saying, that Julius Africanus made up the Thallus bit? Is this part of the big conspiracy, with yet again no evidence?

That is exactly what he is saying, his ideas are not a conspiracy because everything else is the real conspiracy.

Besides, we know that first and second century Romans were notoriously pro Christian ... And demonstrated this by routinely rounding them up and torturing them.

Why does anyone think the Jesus Myth is anything other than utter delusion?

[Lux]

Moderator Intervention

There is a RIDICULOUS number of reports on this topic, and the saddest part is that many of them are warranted. This is a particularly interesting debate topic, but a handful of users have managed to turn this thread into a practically worthless finger-pointing session with more personal comments, one-liners and lack of support than fruitful debate. With apologies to those actually making an effort for civil debate here.

I'm going to point out and clarify a few rules, and I'm also going to warn everyone here that next person to throw a personal comment gets a warning, and next time there is a problem in this thread, it will be closed.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

Otseng put it eloquently: think of writing a post as writing a paper. You wouldn't tell your professor to go through a huge list of Google links in order to find something that supports your claim. The best way to support your claims is to take the relevant information, post it as a quote and provide the link to the reputable source you took it from.

On the other hand of that coin, a post that amounts to nothing more than "you haven't supported your claim, this is a blanket statement, where's the evidence" is nothing more than a one-liner (even if it's more than one line, go figure) which is also against the rules.

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about any person that is negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

This means ANY negative personal comments. Calling someone a liar is a personal attack. Condescending statements about a poster are uncivil. If you look at the debating style of the best debaters in the site, they practically never even mention the other debaters are all. There is no need to.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

Comments of the like of "typical atheist tactic" and "when Christians are losing a debate they always..." are useless in debate, inappropriate and inflammatory. Attacking your opponents with blanket statements is the opposite of skilled debate.

I hope we are all clear now and that this debate can move forward with no more provocative comments or finger-pointing, with good supporting evidence and sourcing.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[stubbornone]

@ Mithrae, Historia, Eden and Stubbornone

As I said before I am looking for a real answer to whether or not Jesus existed or if we can say with some sort of certainty that a man existed who was latter embellished. Thus far I have argued against to see where that would lead. It is all part of getting to the truth. Some of you guys have made some very good points. In my research I have for an article from Bart Ehrman that I feel needs to make it into this thread. It makes a good point for an actual figure that was later embellished. Here is the source link and below I am posting some of the article with highlights.

The short version: even though Paul is not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, he personally knew two people (at least) who were: Jesus’ closest disciple Peter, and his brother James. This is as close as you can get to eyewitness testimony as you can imagine, without an eyewitness actually writing up a report himself. It’s very good evidence.

The other argument is at least as important, even though it’s a bit complicated. Most Christians today think that the Jewish messiah was *supposed* to die and be raised again (showing that he was the messiah). The reality, however, is that ancient Jews had a variety of expectations of who the messiah would be – some thought he’d be a great warrior king like David, others that he would be a cosmic judge of the earth (a Son of Man figure), others that he would be a powerful priest who judged God’s people. In NONE of these expectations was there any sense at all that the messiah would be someone who would be executed by his enemies, squashed by his opponents. Christians who think that is what the messiah was supposed to be have been influenced by OT passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, which seem to speak about a future suffering person whose death will make people right with God. But ancient Jews did not interpret these passages as referring to the messiah (and in fact, the messiah is not mentioned in these passages). On the contrary, for ancient Jews, these passages were decidedly NOT speaking about the messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not someone who was weak and powerless.

This means that if the followers of Jesus were going to make up the claim that he was the messiah they would not ALSO make up the claim that he was crucified, since that was the LAST thing that would happen to the messiah. But the reality is that Christians did call Jesus the messiah, and yet did indicate that he was crucified. How can we explain that? If a group of Jews wanted to make up a messiah (as the mythicists claim) they would not have made up a crucified messiah, since there was no such thing as the idea of a crucified messiah in Judaism at the time. And so they must not have made up Jesus. Instead, the historical reality was this: Christians thought that Jesus was the messiah, and they KNEW that he had been crucified. And so they developed the idea that the messiah was supposed to be crucified. (And they started to appeal to non-messianic texts such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in support of their views.)

That is why Paul talks about the crucifixion as the greatest “stumbling block� for Jews. Most Jews thought it was ludicrous to say a crucified man was the messiah. This is the reason they rejected the Christian message.

In short, Jesus must have existed, and must have really been crucified – since if Christians wanted to convert Jews, they would not have made up the idea that a crucified man was their messiah. But the reality is they had no choice. They thought Jesus was the messiah and they knew he had been crucified, and so they devised the idea that the messiah had to be crucified. Christians today would say that these early Christians were *right*; non-Christians would say they were *wrong*. But for the question of whether Jesus existed or not it doesn’t matter which side of that issue you stand on. The fact that Jesus was declared as the (crucified) messiah shows that he could not have been made up by his Jewish followers. And so he must have really existed, and been crucified.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

No source.

Plagiarizing the Internet is not debate.

I refuse to treat the results of a random google search dumped onto a forum as if its the result of research and intellect.

All this proves is that people posts their thoughts on the Internet and young atheists can use google word searches to dump their stuff on a forum.

This is the ONLY behavior that even gives the Jesus Myth the pretense of respectability. I for one see its clearly a pretense, and see little or no point in rebutting an argument when it will be immediately forgotten about and replaced by a different random google result.

A reminder, instead if reading only those who support your preconceptions, I highly suggest you use those massive google abilities to search out the evidence for Jesus and cut and paste that. You will quickly discover that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of Jesus, and that those who deny him ... Have issues with integrity.

Again, it is how I started, inviting people to look at the record. What I get, as always with he Jesus Myth, is random google support that deliberate avoids the actual evidence.

[historia]

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

I agree with Ehrman completely. The ideas he's expressing here in this interview, and in the book Did Jesus Exist?, are shared by virtually all scholars. I'm glad you've finally hit upon some scholarly material!

I also think that the non-biblical references to Jesus in Josephus, Tacitus, etc., don't really amount to much. They are fun to debate, though.

It seems that this thread is long overdue in being shut down. Perhaps we should move some of the more interesting discussions to a new thread (or two).

[Nickman]

@ Mithrae, Historia, Eden and Stubbornone

As I said before I am looking for a real answer to whether or not Jesus existed or if we can say with some sort of certainty that a man existed who was latter embellished. Thus far I have argued against to see where that would lead. It is all part of getting to the truth. Some of you guys have made some very good points. In my research I have for an article from Bart Ehrman that I feel needs to make it into this thread. It makes a good point for an actual figure that was later embellished. Here is the source link and below I am posting some of the article with highlights.

The short version: even though Paul is not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, he personally knew two people (at least) who were: Jesus’ closest disciple Peter, and his brother James. This is as close as you can get to eyewitness testimony as you can imagine, without an eyewitness actually writing up a report himself. It’s very good evidence.

The other argument is at least as important, even though it’s a bit complicated. Most Christians today think that the Jewish messiah was *supposed* to die and be raised again (showing that he was the messiah). The reality, however, is that ancient Jews had a variety of expectations of who the messiah would be – some thought he’d be a great warrior king like David, others that he would be a cosmic judge of the earth (a Son of Man figure), others that he would be a powerful priest who judged God’s people. In NONE of these expectations was there any sense at all that the messiah would be someone who would be executed by his enemies, squashed by his opponents. Christians who think that is what the messiah was supposed to be have been influenced by OT passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, which seem to speak about a future suffering person whose death will make people right with God. But ancient Jews did not interpret these passages as referring to the messiah (and in fact, the messiah is not mentioned in these passages). On the contrary, for ancient Jews, these passages were decidedly NOT speaking about the messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not someone who was weak and powerless.

This means that if the followers of Jesus were going to make up the claim that he was the messiah they would not ALSO make up the claim that he was crucified, since that was the LAST thing that would happen to the messiah. But the reality is that Christians did call Jesus the messiah, and yet did indicate that he was crucified. How can we explain that? If a group of Jews wanted to make up a messiah (as the mythicists claim) they would not have made up a crucified messiah, since there was no such thing as the idea of a crucified messiah in Judaism at the time. And so they must not have made up Jesus. Instead, the historical reality was this: Christians thought that Jesus was the messiah, and they KNEW that he had been crucified. And so they developed the idea that the messiah was supposed to be crucified. (And they started to appeal to non-messianic texts such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in support of their views.)

That is why Paul talks about the crucifixion as the greatest “stumbling block� for Jews. Most Jews thought it was ludicrous to say a crucified man was the messiah. This is the reason they rejected the Christian message.

In short, Jesus must have existed, and must have really been crucified – since if Christians wanted to convert Jews, they would not have made up the idea that a crucified man was their messiah. But the reality is they had no choice. They thought Jesus was the messiah and they knew he had been crucified, and so they devised the idea that the messiah had to be crucified. Christians today would say that these early Christians were *right*; non-Christians would say they were *wrong*. But for the question of whether Jesus existed or not it doesn’t matter which side of that issue you stand on. The fact that Jesus was declared as the (crucified) messiah shows that he could not have been made up by his Jewish followers. And so he must have really existed, and been crucified.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

No source.

Open your eyes. It is sourced to Bart Ehrman as I stated in the introduction of my post and I also prvided a link directly to the quotation.

Plagiarizing the Internet is not debate.

Get outta here. I don't have time for your foolishness. Obviously you don't understand what a source is and how to comprehend a hyperlink connected to the source with reference to the author Professor Bart Erhman. Plagiarism? Please look up the word and get aquainted with the definition and discontinue your slanderous accusations.

I refuse to treat the results of a random google search dumped onto a forum as if its the result of research and intellect.

Ok then stop posting. You do have a choice. The funny thing is that you have no rebuttal and so you resort to personal attacks.

All this proves is that people posts their thoughts on the Internet and young atheists can use google word searches to dump their stuff on a forum.

This is an article from the Professor himself. He, unlike some other scholars, likes to actually associate with his readers and correspond. This is also him paraphrasing from his book "Did Jesus Exist".

This is the ONLY behavior that even gives the Jesus Myth the pretense of respectability. I for one see its clearly a pretense, and see little or no point in rebutting an argument when it will be immediately forgotten about and replaced by a different random google result.

Obviously you don't read posts and I am not even gonna guide you to certain things I said which you have ignored. Anything you don't like and which is against you, you ignore and throw accusations at and break the rules doing so.

A reminder, instead if reading only those who support your preconceptions, I highly suggest you use those massive google abilities to search out the evidence for Jesus and cut and paste that. You will quickly discover that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of Jesus, and that those who deny him ... Have issues with integrity.
Again, it is how I started, inviting people to look at the record. What I get, as always with he Jesus Myth, is random google support that deliberate avoids the actual evidence.

You have not invited anyone to do anything other than "here's a book read it" which is improper debate and I doubt you will ever get anyone to take you seriously. Also, posting a random link to a website that most people on this forum have in our favorites (because we use it to disprove your ideas) is not debate either. You first need an argument, then support that argument by citing your source and quoting from it and then wait for a rebuttal. Next maintain civility and give a counter rebuttal to disprove the other's rebuttal. That's how it works. Don't worry you will figure it out one day.