BBC "Documentary" Concerning Jesus

[Mange]

I read in the Swedish TV Guide that a new documentary series about Jesus Christ ("Son of God") would start on BBC Prime and that the first episode would deal with whether or not Jesus Christ was a historical character. I kept thinking before the show started, "Do not bring up Josephus as proof that he existed". What was the first thing they did? They brought up Josephus and claimed that Josephus proved that Jesus had lived and died (and the presenter also mentioned 80 other non-specified "sources").
The next thing they did was to turn to the gospels. The presenter, Jeremy Bowen, said that they "were the best sources for the life etc. of Jesus Christ" and claimed that the writers of the gospels did what he would've done if he was to write a book about World War II: talk to survivors. It also didn't matter that the gospels were written forty years after his death. I then turned the television off.
I think it's highly problematic that a) that the presenter didn't mention the controversies surrounding the passage in Antiquities (not least the fact that early church fathers, such as Chrysostom, didn't mention the highly important passage), but that it was presented as an undisputed fact and b) the gospels are highly internally inconsistent and what evidence are there that the writers spoke with witnesses. Did they travel around Palestine, crossing off potential witnesses? Who was the witness that relayed what had transpired during the meeting of the high priests, for example? And comparing how the existence of the gospels came around with how he would write a book about WWII? WWII is a widely known event, Jesus existence isn't. Contemporary Jewish historians, such as Justus of Tiberia (not far from where Jesus often visited according to the gospels) or Philon, doesn't mention Jesus. Is such a program even worth to be called a "documentary"?

[Mange]

Oh, I found the homepage for the show, where they among other things say:

Son of God used breakthroughs in archaeology, astronomy, forensic science and history to help viewers make up their own minds about the man who changed the world.

Make up their own minds indeed...

BBC's Site

[Nephtys]

Again, documentaries vary. Don't forget 'Alien History Month' on the History Channel... make up your mind: Did the Government cover up Area 51, or was it a shadowy splinter faction of the Illuminati?

[Mange]

Again, documentaries vary. Don't forget 'Alien History Month' on the History Channel... make up your mind: Did the Government cover up Area 51, or was it a shadowy splinter faction of the Illuminati?

Yes, I know, but this was BBC which I thought had higher standards.

[Pick]

Now don't get me started on the History Channel special about Hell.

[Rye]

Josephus did mention Jesus. He mentions him twice, once in the testimonium flavianum, which is widely regarded as interpolated by everyone. He also mentions it in antiquities 20.9.1, as follows:

Festus was now 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, [or, some of his companions]

This passage is not considered interpolated by any serious scholar; this passage references not only a James with a brother called Jesus (who Mark and Paul also testify to independent of Josephus), but he explains why Jesus he's talking about; the one who is called Christ.

Josephus didn't think Jesus was the messiah, but he made sure everyone knew which jesus and james he was talking about here.

The BBC documentary was quite accurate from what I saw, when i saw it ages ago. Josephus does mention a historical Jesus, like it or not. The only people that dispute 20.9.1 are the biblical scholarly version of IDers disputing evolution being responsible for irreducible complexity or what have you.

For some irritating reason, there's a lot of crap, usually a spinoff from Doherty or "The Jesus Mysteries" book on the internet that a lot of nonchristians take at face value. Usually, it revolveds around the flimsy premises that there's no eyewitness/contemporary evidence, therefore Jesus was mythical.

They tend to ignore that independent people reference James, Jesus' brother, they tend to ignore how there's parts of Q that don't fit with either first century christianity or judaism, which is not something you would expect to find if the source was completely mythical. They also ignore the weird little things in the gospels, like how Jesus couldn't do miracles in his home town. Why the hell would they include something like that if he was totally mythical?

[Mange]

Rye, there are things that infers that the passage in 20.9.1 has been worked on. The quote:

As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was not dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a sanhedrin, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

This was mentioned in passing. As Jesus wasn't mentioned elsewhere in Antiquities, why does this suddenly appear without context? Why isn't anything else mentioned about Jesus? The site, Christian Censorship in Josephus, is very interesting.

[Vendetta]

This was mentioned in passing. As Jesus wasn't mentioned elsewhere in Antiquities, why does this suddenly appear without context? Why isn't anything else mentioned about Jesus? The site, Christian Censorship in Josephus, is very interesting.

It's also broken. 404 errors are only interesting as a curiosity.

Josephus was prone to digressions, and the rest of the text was dealing with general Jewish uppitiness.

The style of the passage is mostly like Josephus, but with a few odd phrases. The likelyhood is that he did mention Jesus or someone matching his description in passing, but that the passage may have been embellished by Christian interpolation in the meantime.

[Rye]

Rye, there are things that infers that the passage in 20.9.1 has been worked on. The quote:

As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was not dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a sanhedrin, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

This was mentioned in passing. As Jesus wasn't mentioned elsewhere in Antiquities, why does this suddenly appear without context? Why isn't anything else mentioned about Jesus?

What the shit are you talking about? The context is the death of James. Which James? James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. Josephus' audience are supposed to know who that means. Paul and the author of the gospel of Mark also mention James, brother of Jesus. Oh but hey, let's start ignoring any and all references to family members if we don't like christianity. I mean, none of it must be true, right? A cult's never started based on a real person.

The site, Christian Censorship in Josephus, is very interesting.

That doesn't work, but I find it difficult to take any site seriously that has links to a book about sapient dinosaurs killing each other through nuclear war too seriously. Looking at the christianity sections, it's the same old bullshit about christianity having pagan sources rather than jewish origins. This implies to me it's more stupid bullshit with an antichristian agenda, rather than an honest presentation of the facts. Most of these types of arguments can be applied to other people, like Hillel, or some other relatively minor character in world history.

The style of the passage is mostly like Josephus, but with a few odd phrases. The likelyhood is that he did mention Jesus or someone matching his description in passing, but that the passage may have been embellished by Christian interpolation in the meantime.

Who says that about 20.9.1 rather than testimonium?

[Kitsune]

The next thing they did was to turn to the gospels. The presenter, Jeremy Bowen, said that they "were the best sources for the life etc. of Jesus Christ" and claimed that the writers of the gospels did what he would've done if he was to write a book about World War II: talk to survivors. It also didn't matter that the gospels were written forty years after his death. I then turned the television off.

The Gospels are thought to have basically copied off each other and just rewritten a bit

[Mange]

Rye, there are things that infers that the passage in 20.9.1 has been worked on. The quote:

As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was not dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a sanhedrin, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

This was mentioned in passing. As Jesus wasn't mentioned elsewhere in Antiquities, why does this suddenly appear without context? Why isn't anything else mentioned about Jesus?

What the shit are you talking about? The context is the death of James. Which James? James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. Josephus' audience are supposed to know who that means. Paul and the author of the gospel of Mark also mention James, brother of Jesus. Oh but hey, let's start ignoring any and all references to family members if we don't like christianity. I mean, none of it must be true, right? A cult's never started based on a real person.

Acts doesn't mention that James was murdered. This is also quite interesting:

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

This is not easy to find an explanation to. The simplest explanation is that the phrase "who was called Christ" was inserted later. In any case, it shows that the James that Josephus mentions was the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, not Jesus, the son of Joseph. Worth mentioning is that the father of James and Jesus that Jospehus mentions, Joshua ben Damneus, wasn't a craftsman or carpenter, but was the high priest in 63 AD.

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 site, Christian Censorship in Josephus, is very interesting.

That doesn't work, but I find it difficult to take any site seriously that has links to a book about sapient dinosaurs killing each other through nuclear war too seriously.

I never visited the first page. Forget about it.

In any case, even if the passage is unaltered, it doesn't in any way prove that Jesus Christ, as described in the gospels, ever existed. As I mentioned earlier, contemporary Jewish writers didn't mention Jesus and the Antiquities was written some 60 years after the purported death of Jesus.

[Rye]

Acts doesn't mention that James was murdered.

So? It still mentions that he existed and was the brother of Jesus, something independently attested to by Josephus and Mark.

This is not easy to find an explanation to. The simplest explanation is that the phrase "who was called Christ" was inserted later.

Actually no, the simplest explanation is that it's not been inserted or reconstituted. As I said, it is generally accepted that 20.9.1 is authentic, if you can provide a decent case for interpolation, please present it.

18. 63-64 is considered a reconstruction of a genuine entry, and with good reason. This is also apparently the last Jesus he references before the one in 20.9.1.

There is an arabic version of the 18.63-64 mention of jesus, and it doesn't include a prochristian slant, in fact, it's pretty neutral.

Worth mentioning is that the father of James and Jesus that Jospehus mentions, Joshua ben Damneus, wasn't a craftsman or carpenter, but was the high priest in 63 AD.

No, that's a different Jesus. That's why he says "Jesus who is called Christ" and "Jesus son of Damneus."

[Rye]

In any case, even if the passage is unaltered, it doesn't in any way prove that Jesus Christ, as described in the gospels, ever existed.

Whoa whoa whoa, where are you going with those goalposts? I'm not going to argue that the gospels are entirely accurate, they are obviously mythologised, but that does not discount certain factors that come up in them; James, Q, Pilate, crucifixion, Nazareth and so on.

Cults do crop up around living people, this is a known fact. It is also a known fact that there existed messianic cults in first century Judea. It is hardly a leap of faith from the evidence to "a historical basis for this character most likely existed and did some of the parts that weren't mythologised, first century hero-worship."

As I mentioned earlier, contemporary Jewish writers didn't mention Jesus and the Antiquities was written some 60 years after the purported death of Jesus.

Okay, let's see what you said before:

read in the Swedish TV Guide that a new documentary series about Jesus Christ ("Son of God") would start on BBC Prime and that the first episode would deal with whether or not Jesus Christ was a historical character. I kept thinking before the show started, "Do not bring up Josephus as proof that he existed". What was the first thing they did? They brought up Josephus and claimed that Josephus proved that Jesus had lived and died

I think bringing up Josephus, Paul and the gospels brings a pretty convincing argument, as I've already outlined. The levels of evidence demanded by internet atheists tend to be unrealistic and uncritical. Like "you can't use anything from the gospels to support Jesus" when critically reading them, and the parts where the historical source for Q says things that would only really make sense in the context of an actual historical person, since a mythic source would, presumably, say things totally in line with christian teaching of that time.

(and the presenter also mentioned 80 other non-specified "sources").
The next thing they did was to turn to the gospels. The presenter, Jeremy Bowen, said that they "were the best sources for the life etc. of Jesus Christ" and claimed that the writers of the gospels did what he would've done if he was to write a book about World War II: talk to survivors. It also didn't matter that the gospels were written forty years after his death. I then turned the television off.

Uh, it WOULD be like talking to people in germany today, now 60 years after the war. If I talked to them about the war, and wrote a book about it, should my book be automatically discounted? If my book entails some mythological flourishes based on a historical person in WW2, but several points of reference appear in other people's books as well as mine, should we all be thrown out? What if most other history about ww2 didn't exist any more, and my book and the other sources that corroborate a few things, should we all be ignored?

[Mange]

In any case, even if the passage is unaltered, it doesn't in any way prove that Jesus Christ, as described in the gospels, ever existed.

Whoa whoa whoa, where are you going with those goalposts? I'm not going to argue that the gospels are entirely accurate, they are obviously mythologised, but that does not discount certain factors that come up in them; James, Q, Pilate, crucifixion, Nazareth and so on.

Cults do crop up around living people, this is a known fact. It is also a known fact that there existed messianic cults in first century Judea. It is hardly a leap of faith from the evidence to "a historical basis for this character most likely existed and did some of the parts that weren't mythologised, first century hero-worship."

You misunderstood me. I meant that even if Josephus proves that there has existed a person called Jesus that doesn't mean that it's the same person described in the gospels. In other words, you can't say that Josephus proves the existence of Jesus in the manner as it was stated in the show (the show referred specifically to the Testimonium Flavianum).
As for the specific characters etc. you refer to. By "James", I assume you're referring to "the brother of the Lord" (there are plenty of other Jameses), but where is his place in the gospels? Pilate existed, that much we know, as for the crucifixion, that's more problematic. According to the Gospels, Jesus was sentenced by the Sanhedrin, not by the Romans (although with Pilate's blessing), and because of that he should've been stoned to death (then of course there are some problems with how the crucifixion is told in the gospels, particulary the Gospel of John, 19:34). Nazareth is an interesting place. Josephus didn't mention Nazareth, neither did the Old Testament. There are some archeological remains that supports that there existed a settlement in the area, but mostly dozens of tombs have been found (oh, strangely the Gospels didn't mention the city of Sepphoris about 5 km north of Nazareth where there's plenty of archeological remains).

As I mentioned earlier, contemporary Jewish writers didn't mention Jesus and the Antiquities was written some 60 years after the purported death of Jesus.

Okay, let's see what you said before:

read in the Swedish TV Guide that a new documentary series about Jesus Christ ("Son of God") would start on BBC Prime and that the first episode would deal with whether or not Jesus Christ was a historical character. I kept thinking before the show started, "Do not bring up Josephus as proof that he existed". What was the first thing they did? They brought up Josephus and claimed that Josephus proved that Jesus had lived and died

I think bringing up Josephus, Paul and the gospels brings a pretty convincing argument, as I've already outlined. The levels of evidence demanded by internet atheists tend to be unrealistic and uncritical. Like "you can't use anything from the gospels to support Jesus" when critically reading them, and the parts where the historical source for Q says things that would only really make sense in the context of an actual historical person, since a mythic source would, presumably, say things totally in line with christian teaching of that time.

You can't use the gospels to prove themselves. I'll discuss some of the problems with the gospels further below.

(and the presenter also mentioned 80 other non-specified "sources").
The next thing they did was to turn to the gospels. The presenter, Jeremy Bowen, said that they "were the best sources for the life etc. of Jesus Christ" and claimed that the writers of the gospels did what he would've done if he was to write a book about World War II: talk to survivors. It also didn't matter that the gospels were written forty years after his death. I then turned the television off.

Uh, it WOULD be like talking to people in germany today, now 60 years after the war. If I talked to them about the war, and wrote a book about it, should my book be automatically discounted? If my book entails some mythological flourishes based on a historical person in WW2, but several points of reference appear in other people's books as well as mine, should we all be thrown out? What if most other history about ww2 didn't exist any more, and my book and the other sources that corroborate a few things, should we all be ignored?

That isn't at all what I implied. The problem with the gospels is that you don't have any contemporary sources to corroborate them with in the first place. If we stick with Josephus, he didn't mention the infanticide that the Gospel of Matthew claims Herod carried out, nor did any other contemporary historian. The gospels weren't static, things were added and altered later. Furthermore, the gospels are internally inconsistent and contradicts each other (even the Synoptic Gospels). As for the Jesus character himself, his history and deeds, are amalgations of Middle Eastern beliefs (such as Egyptian deities and Mithra. In the same way the history of the Moses character was taken directly from the legend of Sargon of Akkad) with some elements lifted straight out of them.

I respect your faith and your opinion that Josephus proves Jesus as an historical character, but it's problematic.

[Rye]

You misunderstood me. I meant that even if Josephus proves that there has existed a person called Jesus that doesn't mean that it's the same person described in the gospels. In other words, you can't say that Josephus proves the existence of Jesus in the manner as it was stated in the show (the show referred specifically to the Testimonium Flavianum).

The testimonium does cover him having a cult and getting crucified by Pilate without the christian interpolation, also, the next mention of a Jesus is "Jesus who is called Christ brother of James". Frankly, the burden of proof has turned to you to show they're talking about another Jesus, rather than the historical basis for the character as depicted in the gospels.

You know, the historical Jesus.

Furthermore, "proves" is a retarded level of evidence, all that is required is a reasonable amount of evidence to make "this was based on a real person" a logical conclusion.

Take, for instance, Unas the Pharoah. According to his tomb, he was an ancient king that killed and ate the gods. Other people probably attest to his existence, though I personally don't know of any offhand. Do you think Unas was mythical? Can you make any argument for Jesus' mythicism that doesn't also apply to Unas or Hillel?

As for the specific characters etc. you refer to. By "James", I assume you're referring to "the brother of the Lord" (there are plenty of other Jameses), but where is his place in the gospels?

After a quick google:

Mark 6:3 and subsequently Matt 13:55 "Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."

I'm sorry, you're going to have to show that the best explanation for this, and Paul's references to him, and Jospehus' references to him are best explained by Jesus being mythical.

You can't use the gospels to prove themselves. I'll discuss some of the problems with the gospels further below.

I'm not using the gospels to prove themselves you dumbass, I'm using them to support a historical character basis for them. A historical Jesus is not dependent on the fucking gospels being true! However, they agree with other sources, so I have no justification to dismiss them on this point.

That isn't at all what I implied. The problem with the gospels is that you don't have any contemporary sources to corroborate them with in the first place. If we stick with Josephus, he didn't mention the infanticide that the Gospel of Matthew claims Herod carried out, nor did any other contemporary historian.

So? Why does that mean then, that the ENTIRE accounts are mythical? Why does it mean we can ignore everything in them, even when they agree with other independent sources?

Look, the synoptic gospels, Luke and Matthew, copy heavily from Mark, and a hypothetical second document called Q, the collected sayings of Jesus, now, some of these sayings do not fit with first century judaism or christianity. So, how would you explain that, from a mythicist stance? There is a reason that jewish NT Scholars conclude Jesus was based on a real person, you know. They're not just giving in to "peer pressure" or some such bullshit. The mythicist arguments are just not solid, and thus are fringe bullshit, like ID.

The gospels weren't static, things were added and altered later. Furthermore, the gospels are internally inconsistent and contradicts each other (even the Synoptic Gospels).

Autobiographies on Elvis are mutually contradictory too, even ones that use the same sources. Nobody is saying the gospels aren't largely mythical, but to go from that to "Jesus was invented," is just plain nutty. There's no reason at all to conclude that.

As for the Jesus character himself, his history and deeds, are amalgations of Middle Eastern beliefs (such as Egyptian deities and Mithra.

No, that is bullshit, the mythological parts are extensions of movements and themes already existent in judaism. The alt-history nonsense is agenda driven and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, never has (though it fooled me a few years ago). If you want to try and argue what things specifically came from Egypt and Roman Mithraism, preferably with more than just "OMG Mithra was born in a cave (virgin birth) and slayed a bull (omg saviour), that's just like christ!!" go for it.

And preview your goddamn post next time so you can see when you fuck up with your quotes.

[Mange]

The testimonium does cover him having a cult and getting crucified by Pilate without the christian interpolation, also, the next mention of a Jesus is "Jesus who is called Christ brother of James". Frankly, the burden of proof has turned to you to show they're talking about another Jesus, rather than the historical basis for the character as depicted in the gospels.

You know, the historical Jesus.

There are serious doubts that Testimonium Flavianum is genuine to begin with. There are a dozen different Jesuses in Antiquities and Origen (3rd Century) stated that Josephus didn't believe any of them to be the Christ. Then, a century later, we have not one, but two references to Christ as the T.F. was referenced for the first time. Then it must suddenly have disappeared again as later Christian scholars such as Chrysostom (5th Century), Methodius (9th Century) or Photius (9th Century) never referred to the T.F. in their respective works based on Josephus. It's also very curious that Josephus, who according to T.F., thought very highly of Jesus only mentioned him in one short paragraph which doesn't add anything that we already didn't know from the Gospels (when other Messiahs and cultleaders are dealt with in more detail). There are other problems as well. According to T.F., Jospehus wrote: "...and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Elsewhere when Josephus refers to "tribes", he refers to ethnicity, not sects (see for example how the word "tribes" is used in 8.2.3., 20.9.6. and elsewhere).

The Jewish writer Hayyim ben Yehoshua states that:

In the Christian edited versions of the Jewish Antiquities there are two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.

Source: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html

Furthermore, "proves" is a retarded level of evidence, all that is required is a reasonable amount of evidence to make "this was based on a real person" a logical conclusion.

Yes, I agree, that's why I reacted so strongly to this documentary. After all, being publically funded, BBC aims for being "impartial and honest" and as such, they should've produced a documentary that at least had mentioned the fact that the authencity of T.F. is disputed instead of using it as an undisputed fact that "proves" the existence of Jesus as told in the gospels.

Take, for instance, Unas the Pharoah. According to his tomb, he was an ancient king that killed and ate the gods. Other people probably attest to his existence, though I personally don't know of any offhand. Do you think Unas was mythical? Can you make any argument for Jesus' mythicism that doesn't also apply to Unas or Hillel?

As you've implied, mythical elements doesn't negate the existence of a character. In the case of Unas, we at least have artifacts that shows his existence (the pyramid which is rather well preserved IIRC), from Jesus we have nothing, no contemporary, independent accounts. As I mentioned above, the Jewish historian Justus, who lived near Capernaum (1st Century), never mentioned Jesus despite the fact that the gospel states that Jesus visited Capernaum (which is particulary strange as Jesus, according to the Gospel of Mark, caused quite a stirr when he taught on the Sabbath in the synagogue and that it was from the events in Capernaum that "... immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee)", Mar 1:21), nor did Philon of Alexandria who wrote extensively about various Jewish sects.

After a quick google:

Mark 6:3 and subsequently Matt 13:55 "Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."

I'm sorry, you're going to have to show that the best explanation for this, and Paul's references to him, and Jospehus' references to him are best explained by Jesus being mythical.

Now that we come to James again: you mentioned the following earlier and I forgot to comment on it:

What the shit are you talking about? The context is the death of James. Which James? James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. Josephus' audience are supposed to know who that means.

How? If the T.F. indeed is a forgery then Jesus "the so-called Christ" should've been mentioned elsewhere or the audience wouldn't know who this Jesus "the so-called Christ" character was.

Mark 6:3 is amusing, James (along with the rest of the family) was rejecting Jesus, but the Gospels never elaborates on when he converted.

I mentioned this earlier, but in a discussion I was involved in it was pointed out that taking 20.9.1. in context (Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX) it shows that the James that Josephus refers to was the brother of Jesus, but not Jesus Christ but Jesus, son of Damneus, who seems to have been involved in some sort of conflict (the impression that the text gives is that the sanhedrin was summoned in order to discredit one of the factions competing for the seat for the high priest and that as a result of the unrightful stoning, James' brother, Jesus son of Damneus, became the high priest). Josephus continues 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.

I'm not using the gospels to prove themselves you dumbass, I'm using them to support a historical character basis for them. A historical Jesus is not dependent on the fucking gospels being true! However, they agree with other sources, so I have no justification to dismiss them on this point.

I apologize, I misunderstood you. We are currently discussing Josephus, but what other sources agrees with the N.T.? I'm not aware of a single contemporary source that independently corroborates anything about Jesus as told in the Gospels (or the very existence of Jesus Christ) or any eyewitness accounts for that matter.

So? Why does that mean then, that the ENTIRE accounts are mythical? Why does it mean we can ignore everything in them, even when they agree with other independent sources?

As I mentioned above, I'm not aware of a single source that agrees with the Gospels. If we look at known facts in the gospels, there are some facts which are correct (such as the existence of certain characters such as Herod and Pilate) and other times when facts screws up badly (for example the Gospel of Luke 2:1-2 and 3:1 which specifies the time of Jesus' birth. Lysanias, which is referenced to in Luk 3:1, had been dead for more than thirty years when the census, which also Josephus refers to, took place in 6 AD).

Look, the synoptic gospels, Luke and Matthew, copy heavily from Mark, and a hypothetical second document called Q, the collected sayings of Jesus, now, some of these sayings do not fit with first century judaism or christianity. So, how would you explain that, from a mythicist stance? There is a reason that jewish NT Scholars conclude Jesus was based on a real person, you know. They're not just giving in to "peer pressure" or some such bullshit. The mythicist arguments are just not solid, and thus are fringe bullshit, like ID.

I'm not an expert on first century judaism. However, the article by ben Yoshua I referred to earlier elaborates on this.

Autobiographies on Elvis are mutually contradictory too, even ones that use the same sources. Nobody is saying the gospels aren't largely mythical, but to go from that to "Jesus was invented," is just plain nutty. There's no reason at all to conclude that.

The Elvis example is outstanding as it shows how quickly myths develops even in modern times. I've discussed earlier how the gospels lacks independent corroboration.

No, that is bullshit, the mythological parts are extensions of movements and themes already existent in judaism. The alt-history nonsense is agenda driven and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, never has (though it fooled me a few years ago). If you want to try and argue what things specifically came from Egypt and Roman Mithraism, preferably with more than just "OMG Mithra was born in a cave (virgin birth) and slayed a bull (omg saviour), that's just like christ!!" go for it.

Let's face it, it's not very much that Jesus does or elements surrounding him as told in the gospels that are unique. I fully agree that the mythology surrounding Jesus is mostly Jewish in origin (such as the Messiah myth etc.), but that there are other elements as well. I'll have to get back to you on this one.

And preview your goddamn post next time so you can see when you fuck up with your quotes.

I'm sorry about that, I was in a tight spot yesterday.

[VT-16]

The Gospels, if describing a real person, should be held at highest scrutiny of all sources, being made, as claimed, by followers of a religious cult. I do not expect objectivity from any such source in today's world, why should I then take similar accounts from millennia past more seriously?

[God Fearing Atheist]

I mentioned this earlier, but in a discussion I was involved in it was pointed out that taking 20.9.1. in context (Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX) it shows that the James that Josephus refers to was the brother of Jesus, but not Jesus Christ but Jesus, son of Damneus, who seems to have been involved in some sort of conflict (the impression that the text gives is that the sanhedrin was summoned in order to discredit one of the factions competing for the seat for the high priest and that as a result of the unrightful stoning, James' brother, Jesus son of Damneus, became the high priest).

What is the evidence for this? I seriously doubt that "tou legomenou Christou" is a gloss, considering:

-Josephus simply does not use adelphonymics without further specification when the name is common or the figure is Palestinian (and not, for example, Roman, like in Wars 2). It would be unprecedented if the identification were to occur only at the end of the paragraph, particularly when we consider that, had his audience had a high priest in mind, it would be impossible to distinguish between the son of Damneus and the son of Gamaliel. Josephus just didn't write like that.

-The language is very unchristian. Without exception, James is always refered to as "ho adelphos tou kyriou" or "ho adelphos tou soteros," the brother of the Lord or the brother of the Savior respectively, in Christian literature. If the gospels are any indication, "tou legomenou Christou" is spoken primarily by nonchristians, the single exception being Matt 1.16.

-It is known as early as Origen, e.g. Contra Celsum 1.47, 2.13, Commentary on Matthew 10.27.

I apologize, I misunderstood you. We are currently discussing Josephus, but what other sources agrees with the N.T.? I'm not aware of a single contemporary source that independently corroborates anything about Jesus as told in the Gospels (or the very existence of Jesus Christ) or any eyewitness accounts for that matter.

First of all, "the NT" is not a single document; it is a collection of several first and century second documents, plenty of which are literarily independent of each other. Paul and GMark independently attest to Jesus' crucifixion and having a brother James, for example.

To this we can add some noncanonical Christian sources and the Roman historian Tacitus. These are not contemporary, obviously, but that hardly matters.

[God Fearing Atheist]

There are serious doubts that Testimonium Flavianum is genuine to begin with. There are a dozen different Jesuses in Antiquities and Origen (3rd Century) stated that Josephus didn't believe any of them to be the Christ. Then, a century later, we have not one, but two references to Christ as the T.F. was referenced for the first time. Then it must suddenly have disappeared again as later Christian scholars such as Chrysostom (5th Century), Methodius (9th Century) or Photius (9th Century) never referred to the T.F. in their respective works based on Josephus.

Let me ask you this: what occassion would the early Fathers familar with Josephus have to quote the (reconstructed, ala Meier 1991) Testimonium? Its not enough to simply say they didnt.

There are other problems as well. According to T.F., Jospehus wrote: "...and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Elsewhere when Josephus refers to "tribes", he refers to ethnicity, not sects (see for example how the word "tribes" is used in 8.2.3., 20.9.6. and elsewhere).

Josephus uses that language for alot of things. Women (13.16.6), locusts (2.14.4), gentile nationalities and communal groups, and so forth. The only thing unusal about it is its coupling with "Christians," which is to be expected here and no where else.

Let me also sorta switch gears and add something else about the crucifixion: it is a very improbable thing to invent since it was, in an honor/shame culture like theirs, an ignoble way to meet your end. Josephus (in Wars 7) describes crucifixion as "a most miserable death," Paul (Gal 5.11) calls it an "offense" and Seneca, in his 101st epistle, says he "should deem [Maecenas] most despicable had he wished to live up to the very time of crucifixion." Even suicide were preferable to the cross and its "long drawn-out agony."

It was a source of dispersions cast on Christians by critics. The pagan Caecilius in M. Felix's Octavius claims "the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross," and that these two deserve each other; the wretched man, punished for wicked crime, and the equally wicked Christians who worship him. This sort of depiction was appearently widespread. Even Paul admits (1 Cor 1.23) that the crucifixion of Jesus appears "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." I could go on.

Considering how early and frequently his crucifixion is attested to, and taking into account these other considerations, just what exactly can better account for the evidence?

[God Fearing Atheist]

Paul and the author of the gospel of Mark also mention James, brother of Jesus. Oh but hey, let's start ignoring any and all references to family members if we don't like christianity. I mean, none of it must be true, right? A cult's never started based on a real person.

Maybe there were two dudes named James with brothers named Jesus who were martyred at the Temple (since both Clement and Hegesippus also report that that is where James [the Just] met his end)!

Speaking of which, something just occured to me: Josephus account of James' martyrdom departs in quite a few ways from Hegesippus' and Clement's, certainly from the "accepted version" of the early fathers that turns on these two (e.g. Eusebius). Again, not really the thing that we can imagine flowing from a Christian pen.

[God Fearing Atheist]

As I mentioned above, the Jewish historian Justus, who lived near Capernaum (1st Century), never mentioned Jesus despite the fact that the gospel states that Jesus visited Capernaum (which is particulary strange as Jesus, according to the Gospel of Mark, caused quite a stirr when he taught on the Sabbath in the synagogue and that it was from the events in Capernaum that "... immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee)", Mar 1:21)...

Why would we expect Justus to have mentioned Jesus? As Photius tells us in his Bibliotheca, Justus' work was entitled "A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy," and dealt with the "history with Moses" and subsequent rulers all the way down until "the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews."

Photius also tells us that he suffered from "the common fault of the Jews." Justus was a Jewish non-Christian and, presumably, would not have thought of Jesus as kingly. Why then should Justus have included him in a work that appears to detail Jewish royal history?

[Rye]

There are serious doubts that Testimonium Flavianum is genuine to begin with. There are a dozen different Jesuses in Antiquities and Origen (3rd Century) stated that Josephus didn't believe any of them to be the Christ.

Ineed, as I recall, Josephus thought the Emperor was the messiah.

The Jewish writer Hayyim ben Yehoshua states that:

I have no idea who this person is or why their view is important. All I can find on him is he wrote the thing you quoted, and it's made the rounds on antimissionary sites.

In the Christian edited versions of the Jewish Antiquities there are two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.

The bold part is frankly a non sequitur. There's nothing in the text to suggest it, and it's certainly not a majority-accepted view as far as I've seen.

Yes, I agree, that's why I reacted so strongly to this documentary. After all, being publically funded, BBC aims for being "impartial and honest" and as such, they should've produced a documentary that at least had mentioned the fact that the authencity of T.F. is disputed instead of using it as an undisputed fact that "proves" the existence of Jesus as told in the gospels.

The documentary ends on something akin to "did Jesus exist? Probably, did he raise from the dead/perform miracles/be the son of god? That will remain an item of faith."

As you've implied, mythical elements doesn't negate the existence of a character. In the case of Unas, we at least have artifacts that shows his existence (the pyramid which is rather well preserved IIRC),

But you can't use the pyramid to prove itself! Am I right?

from Jesus we have nothing, no contemporary, independent accounts.

An argument from silence would only work where we would expect to find such evidence. As it stands, there is still no reason to conclude he was mythical. How many independent, contemporary accounts do we have of Unas? Why does contemporary material matter so much to you anyway? It's a brainbug, nothing more.

So? Why does that mean then, that the ENTIRE accounts are mythical? Why does it mean we can ignore everything in them, even when they agree with other independent sources?

As I mentioned above, I'm not aware of a single source that agrees with the Gospels.

I've already given two (Paul and Josephus) that independently agree with the gospels to the extent of his area of activity, his brother, and his death.

If we look at known facts in the gospels, there are some facts which are correct (such as the existence of certain characters such as Herod and Pilate) and other times when facts screws up badly (for example the Gospel of Luke 2:1-2 and 3:1 which specifies the time of Jesus' birth. Lysanias, which is referenced to in Luk 3:1, had been dead for more than thirty years when the census, which also Josephus refers to, took place in 6 AD).

So, when the gospels say Herod existed, and Josephus agrees, it's admissable, but when the same applies for Jesus, you're unconvinced?

Look, the synoptic gospels, Luke and Matthew, copy heavily from Mark, and a hypothetical second document called Q, the collected sayings of Jesus, now, some of these sayings do not fit with first century judaism or christianity. So, how would you explain that, from a mythicist stance? There is a reason that jewish NT Scholars conclude Jesus was based on a real person, you know. They're not just giving in to "peer pressure" or some such bullshit. The mythicist arguments are just not solid, and thus are fringe bullshit, like ID.

I'm not an expert on first century judaism. However, the article by ben Yoshua I referred to earlier elaborates on this.

It appears to be propaganda rather than the accepted view in ancient history. Fringe antichristian bullshit, as I already said.

The Elvis example is outstanding as it shows how quickly myths develops even in modern times. I've discussed earlier how the gospels lacks independent corroboration.

They don't though, Paul predates the gospels, and Josephus attested to a Jesus (called Christ) and his brother James, as well as the information in the arabic TF, and later on as the christians were more visible, Jesus gets more famous.

Let's face it, it's not very much that Jesus does or elements surrounding him as told in the gospels that are unique. I fully agree that the mythology surrounding Jesus is mostly Jewish in origin (such as the Messiah myth etc.), but that there are other elements as well. I'll have to get back to you on this one.

Remember there was a whole load of apocryphal jewish folklore around at the time preceding Jesus and the writing of the gospels, that includes divine children, and a whole host of other christian gospel themes. If there exists a supposed pagan theme in the gospels, and it already existed in jewish folklore of the time or close to it, there's no reason to jump to the CHRISTIANITY = PAGAN camp.

The rest Mr. GFA has already responded to, so to welcome him to the board: GUTEN ABEND

[Ryushikaze]

Even if there was a historical Jesus on whom the gospels were based on the question remains "Is the historical jesus the biblical jesus?"

Or put another way- How much of Jesus's message is Jesus's, and how much is the invention of the writers? What parts of the tale are true, and what parts were pulled straight from sunshinelessland?

[God Fearing Atheist]

Even if there was a historical Jesus on whom the gospels were based on the question remains "Is the historical jesus the biblical jesus?"

Or put another way- How much of Jesus's message is Jesus's, and how much is the invention of the writers? What parts of the tale are true, and what parts were pulled straight from sunshinelessland?

Thats something we have to evaluate on a case by case basis. There is plenty that is reasonably secure (the crucifixion, his family members, the Kingdom of God message, etc), plenty that is reasonably ahistorical (the Cana miracle, the overturning of food laws, etc), and stuff that could go either way.

[God Fearing Atheist]

How about one more (im not patient enough to respond to it all in one sitting)...

According to the Gospels, Jesus was sentenced by the Sanhedrin, not by the Romans (although with Pilate's blessing), and because of that he should've been stoned to death (then of course there are some problems with how the crucifixion is told in the gospels, particulary the Gospel of John, 19:34).

Ignoring for a moment that Judea was under Roman capital jurisdiction, Josephus' reports (An 4.8.6) that the specific penalty for blasphemy (stoning, Lev 24.16) had apparently been combined with the more general "punishment for sin worthy of death" (hanging from a tree, Deut 21.22-23). By the first century (and perhaps well before, e.g. 4QpNahum) this latter punishment had been equated with crucifixion (11QMiqdas 64.7-13, Gal 3.13, Acts 5.30).

The real point, though, is that execution was matter for the Prefect. They could typically give two shits about Jewish legal prescriptions or religious prohibitions, instead ruling according to Roman law and dolling out appropriate Roman punishments.

This is almost certainly true for Pilate, a dick if there ever was one. The man was the sine qua non of cultural insensitivity.