Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

[Jayhawker Soule]

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

[Cephus]

I would like to see something more than "Based on acts and josephus the historical Jesus exists'. like.. WHY for instance.

Especially since there's no reason to think that Josephus is valid, but he simply dismisses that because it screws up his blind assertions.

The blind declaration of it, then hand waving the oppositions disagreements away just does not cut it with me.

Nor with me. Nor with anyone with half a brain.

[Cathar1950]

My half a brain thinks Acts and Josephus are some of the worse in answering anything historical about Jesus.
Acts even contradicts Paul's writing and half of them are suspect.
Paul has little interest in a human Jesus in the flesh. He also claims to have a different vision of the Christ then the "Pillars" that are reported to have known him.
Given it could even be a title, "Jesus" or Yeshua was a common name.
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic discoveries have helped us see the variety of thinking as well as some common themes.
At this point all we have is possibilities.

[Cephus]

Precisely. How desperate do you have to be to rely on a completely discredited source and one that contradicts half of what you believe?

The mind boggles.

[Rathpig]

....

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

I will have to chime in here that so far nastiness by way of rebuttal from the OP does nothing to support the claims made. The burden is clearly on those who claim historicity, and moreover the burden is far from met with the given sources or commentary in support of those sources.

The default position given the complete lack of contemporary evidence must be doubt.

Jayhawker Soule, so far you have shown nothing to support your claim.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The default position given the complete lack of contemporary evidence must be doubt.

Nonsense. The default approach of historiography (and, for that matter, science), is abduction, i.e., inference to best explanation (IBE). While one can and should question the accuracy and objectivity of Acts, there is no basis to claim that the Torah-observant Jerusalem sect depicted in Acts is a literary fiction. And this presumption of historicity is reinforced, no matter how modestly, by the Josephus reference and, perhaps, the Ebionites.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Precisely. How desperate do you have to be to rely on a completely discredited source and one that contradicts half of what you believe?

The mind boggles.

Your mind boggles easily. Please show me where the Josephus reference has been discredited. As for contradicting "half of what you believe", the assertion is simply inane.

[Goat]

The default position given the complete lack of contemporary evidence must be doubt.

Nonsense. The default approach of historiography (and, for that matter, science), is abduction, i.e., inference to best explanation (IBE). While one can and should question the accuracy and objectivity of Acts, there is no basis to claim that the Torah-observant Jerusalem sect depicted in Acts is a literary fiction. And this presumption of historicity is reinforced, no matter how modestly, by the Josephus reference and, perhaps, the Ebionites.

So, the default position would be that Hercules existed, based on the illiad, and that the world wide flood happened.

As for Josephus's, antiquities 18 is an out right interposition from the 4th century. I would also ask you to explain why the phrase used in antiques 20 is a word for word copy of from the gospels.

To further say about Acts, assuming that the writer of Acts did travel with Paul (big assumption considering it is very probably that the author of luke/acts used antiquities as a source for historical references), is that they believed the stories told about Jesus from someone who even act will admit 'saw Jesus in a vision'.

Since Acts said that their source 'Met Jesus in a vision', how can you say that it is evidence that the man "Jesus" existed? Can you connect the dots between a hallucination and actuality>?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The default position given the complete lack of contemporary evidence must be doubt.

Nonsense. The default approach of historiography (and, for that matter, science), is abduction, i.e., inference to best explanation (IBE). While one can and should question the accuracy and objectivity of Acts, there is no basis to claim that the Torah-observant Jerusalem sect depicted in Acts is a literary fiction. And this presumption of historicity is reinforced, no matter how modestly, by the Josephus reference and, perhaps, the Ebionites.

So, the default position would be that Hercules existed, based on the illiad, and that the world wide flood happened.

That was a remarkably stupid statement that in no way flows from my comments.

As for Josephus's, antiquities 18 is an out right interposition from the 4th century.

You meant 'outright interpolation'. While the adjective 'outright' is redundant here, I agree that the TF is a likely interpolation.

I would also ask you to explain why the phrase used in antiques 20 is a word for word copy of from the gospels.

From Kirby:

• If we assume that there was originally a note in the margin identifying this James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" and that this note was later incorporated into the text, then there would be no intentional interpolation, and the idea that the interpolator would have wanted to more definitely assert messiahship collapses.
  
  On the other hand, if we assume that the passage was intentionally modified, it could have been modified by a slightly sophisticated interpolater. It has often been suggested that Jerome, whose quotation has "Credabatur esse Christus" in a place in the Testimonium, altered the original "He was the Christ" -- he knew that Josephus wouldn't think so. This interpolator would have inserted the reference to "Jesus who is called the Messiah" on the same basis; the interpolator realized that Josephus would not actually consider call Jesus the Christ. The plausibility of this suggestion is also seen from the reference in Matthew 27:17, in which the author of Matthew puts words on the lips of Pilate that refer to Jesus as "Jesus who is called Messiah."
  
  While the argument concerning the non-commital nature of the reference isn't quite conclusive, it is certainly quite suggestive. The significance of the references to "called Christ" in the New Testament is exaggerated. Van Voorst observes:
  

  • For the few occurences of the phrase "called Christ" in the New Testament, see Matt 1:16 (Matthew's genealogy, where it breaks the long pattern of only personal names); Matt 27:17, 22 (by Pontius Pilate); John 4:25 (by the Samaritan woman). Twelftree, "Jesus in Jewish Traditions," 300, argues from these instances that "called Christ" is "a construction Christians used when speaking of Jesus" and therefore an indication that this passage is not genuine. He also cites John 9:11, but there the phrase is "called Jesus" and so does not apply to this issue. But if these passages are indicative of wider usage outside the New Testament, "called Christ" tends to come form non-Christians and is not at all typical of Christian usage. Christians would not be inclined to use a neutral or descriptive term like "called Christ"; for them, Jesus is (the) Christ.

  Furthermore, I note that no extracanonical works in the second century use the phrase "Jesus who is called Christ," even though this would be the period when an interpolation would have to have been made. [source]

To further say about Acts, assuming that the writer of Acts did travel with Paul (big assumption considering it is very probably that the author of luke/acts used antiquities as a source for historical references), is that they believed the stories told about Jesus from someone who even act will admit 'saw Jesus in a vision'.

No, nor have I asked you to do so. The question that I ask is whether or not you claim that the Torah-observant sect depicted in Acts is a complete fiction or, as you so cleverly suggest, an "out right interposition". Nothing else. If you have trouble understanding or answering the question, feel free to ignore it.

By the way, John P. Meier's point (item 5 in Kirby's discussion referenced above) is a strong one to which should be added Whealey's argument concerning:

• ... the implausibility of a second or third century Christian at all forging a passage about one of Jesus' brothers. Already by the mid to late second century the mere fact that Jesus had brothers or even half-brothers was becoming highly problematic in Christian circles ... because they are concerned to maintain the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, without contradicting Luke 2:7 that Jesus was her first-born son. ... Given the reluctance of many Christians to affirm openly that Jesus had brothers or half-brothers even as early as the middle to late second century, the idea that Josephus' passage about "James the brother of Jesus called Christ" was composed by some ancient Christian can be safely laid to rest.

While Whealey may overstate the case, there seems sufficient reason to provisionally accept the authenticity of the reference (as does Kirby).

Also, it should be remembered that nascent Christianity was not the most popular theory on the block. So where are the 2nd and 3rd century mythicists? Certainly folks back then would be in a far better position than you or I to attack the Jerusalem sect as a total fabrication.

Finally, how does one explain the Ebionites and 'Judaizers' if one wishes to claim the Jerusalem sect as fiction?

By the way, are you familiar with G.A. Wells?

[Cathar1950]

Finally, how does one explain the Ebionites and 'Judaizers' if one wishes to claim the Jerusalem sect as fiction?

By the way, are you familiar with G.A. Wells?

I am familar with Wells.


I think historically it is more of a case of Gentilizers(I think Wells might have used this term) then 'Judaizers'. Where 'Judaizers' would be the default and Paul the heretic.
But Eisenman and others suggest a reversing of many of the positions in the Acts accounting having Peter act like Paul and downplaying the Jewish positions often reversing the historical case. I think the main objection to Acts is that it is propaganda that conflicts with Paul's account which may not be much better and is clearly one-sided.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Finally, how does one explain the Ebionites and 'Judaizers' if one wishes to claim the Jerusalem sect as fiction?

By the way, are you familiar with G.A. Wells?

I am familar with Wells.

From Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories site:

• Wells argues that most of what is said of Jesus in the canonical gospels is put in question by the fact that it is not confirmed by extant Christian documents which are either earlier than the gospels or early enough to have been written independently of them, i.e. composed before they or the traditions underlying them had become generally known in Christian circles. Paul, for instance, wrote before any gospel existed, and his Jesus lived on earth as a shadowy figure of the indefinite past. Such early Christians developed their beliefs in the tradition of Jewish Wisdom speculation about a supernatural personage who sought an abode on earth but was rejected by man and who then returned to heaven.
  
  However, in his latest books, Wells allows that such a complex of tradition as we have in the synoptic gospels could not have developed so quickly (by the end of the first century) without some historical basis; and so some elements ascribed there to the life of Jesus presumably derive ultimately from the life of a first century Galilean preacher. The essential point, as Wells sees it, is that this personage is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the Pauline and other early documents, and that the two have quite separate origins. The Jesus of the earliest Christians did not, on this view, preach and work miracles (or what were taken for such) in Galilee, and was not crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem.

I would agree with this.

I think historically it is more of a case of Gentilizers(I think Wells might have used this term) then 'Judaizers'.

Perhaps the more accurate term would be "Hellenizer".