Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus. 
[/quote]

No, the claim as stated is not accurate. It reflects a common mythicists’ (Jesus-never-existed) position, but it is an overstatement that does not withstand critical scholarly scrutiny. Here’s a balanced breakdown of the current consensus among secular, non-confessing historians and classical scholars (i.e., people who are not doing apologetics):

The Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.63–64)
Current scholarly consensus: Partially authentic with Christian interpolation. The passage as it stands in all surviving Greek manuscripts contains obviously Christian-sounding phrases (“He was the Messiah,” “he appeared to them alive again the third day…”) that virtually no secular scholar thinks Josephus (a non-Christian Jew) originally wrote.

However, the majority of specialists in Josephus and Second Temple Judaism (including Louis Feldman, Steve Mason, John P. Meier, Gerd Theissen, James Carleton Paget, Alice Whealey, and most recently Serge Bardet and Ken Olson in different ways) believe there was an original, shorter, neutral core written by Josephus that was later expanded by a Christian scribe, probably in the early 4th century.

Key evidence for a partial-authentic view:
1. A 10th-century Arabic version (Agapius) and a Syriac version (Michael the Syrian) preserve a more restrained text that lacks the most blatant Christian affirmations.
2. The passage’s vocabulary and style are largely Josephan except for the obviously interpolated clauses.
3. Removing the three or four most suspicious phrases leaves a notice that fits perfectly with what a 1st-century Jew might say about a messianic claimant who was executed by Pilate and had followers afterward.
4. A minority (e.g., Richard Carrier, Paul Hopper, Ken Olson in his most recent work) argue it is a wholesale forgery, but this remains a minority position even among non-Christian scholars.

The James Reference (Antiquities 20.200) Greek: “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James.” Current scholarly consensus: Overwhelmingly regarded as authentic (or at worst only very lightly touched by a scribe).
Reasons: The phrasing “who was called Christ” (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ) is exactly the kind of distancing, non-committal formula Josephus uses elsewhere when mentioning things he doesn’t personally endorse (e.g., “Jesus who was called Messiah” instead of “Jesus the Messiah”). The passage has no obvious Christian theological agenda and is embedded in a context about the illegal execution of James by the high priest Ananus in 62 CE. No manuscript variant omits the phrase, and Origen (3rd century) already quotes this exact passage from Josephus, showing it existed before Eusebius. Virtually every specialist in Josephus (Feldman, Mason, Whealey, Paget, etc.) and almost all New Testament scholars (even skeptical ones like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) accept its authenticity.

Mythicist attempts to dismiss it usually involve claiming “Christ” is a marginal gloss, but there is zero textual evidence for that, and the grammar works perfectly without it being an addition.

Summary of the scholarly consensus (2020s.) Among secular historians and classicists who publish on this question (not theologians or apologists):
- ~85–95 % accept that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus twice: once briefly in Book 18 (core of the Testimonium) and once unambiguously in Book 20.
- Even most scholars who are agnostic or skeptical about the historical Jesus (e.g., Ehrman, Casey, Crossley) treat both passages (or at least the James passage) as independent corroboration that a historical Jesus existed and was executed under Pilate.
-The “complete forgery” position on the Testimonium and the “probably interpolated / only shows a James existed” position on Book 20 are defended almost exclusively within mythicist circles (Carrier, Doherty, Price, Lataster, etc.) and are rejected by the broad mainstream of ancient history and classics departments.

So the short answer: No, the claim you made is not true according to the current consensus of non-confessing scholars. The James passage in particular is considered solid evidence that a Jesus known as “Christ” existed and had a brother James, and the Testimonium is now widely seen as containing an authentic core.[/quote]

You’re using a curated list of scholars who fit a specific consensus bubble, while misrepresenting the counter arguments.

The Consensus Problem
First, the "scholarly consensus" argument is often a fallacy of appealing to authority. Consensus changes. The consensus once held that the world was flat, or that the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) was entirely authentic. The majority can be wrong, especially when the field is dominated by those trained in theological departments rather than rigorous, secular, classical history departments.

The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is a Wholesale Forgery
The idea of a "partial authentic core" is wishful thinking designed to rescue the passage, rather than an evidence-based conclusion.

1. The "Authentic Core" is a Fiction:
The argument for an authentic core relies on removing specific clauses, leaving a bland statement. This "subtraction method" assumes the forger only added specific phrases to an existing text. But, it is far simpler to forge the entire short passage from scratch. A forger needs context, and inserting the whole thing in one go, including the context, is a standard scribal practice in antiquity.

2. Vocabulary and Style (The Stylometry Argument):
The claim that the style is "largely Josephan" ignores key anomalies. The passage uses terms and syntactical structures that are either unique within Josephus's Antiquities or highly unusual for him in that specific context. The style argument cuts both ways, and specialists who actually run quantitative analyses often find the passage anomalous.

3. The Arabic and Syriac Versions are Secondary:
The 10th-century Arabic (Agapius) and Syriac versions cited are not independent witnesses to an "original" Josephus. They are later citations of Eusebius’s highly edited version of Josephus, or other Christian sources. They reflect a later Christian attempt to clean up the TF to make it more palatable and less obviously a forgery, showing Christian manipulation across centuries, not an authentic core.

4. The Contextual Flaw (The Lacuna Argument):
The TF interrupts a continuous narrative flow. Josephus is discussing various calamities and troublemakers in Judea under Pilate. The passage immediately before the TF talks about a Samaritan uprising, and the passage after it talks about a scandal involving Isis worship in Rome. The TF doesn't bridge these ideas; it creates an abrupt, jarring void in the text, typical of an insertion. If Josephus wrote anything about Jesus there, it would have been about a problem or sedition, not a neutral notice, and he would not have interrupted the narrative flow the way the current text does.

The James Reference 
The James passage is claim is weak, and your argument relies on special pleading.

1. Brother of Jesus who was called Christ
The phrase in question is “who was called Christ” (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ). Your claim it's typical Josephan distancing language. It is exactly the kind of "on the side" explanation that a later scribe would add to clarify which James (probably James the Just, a famous figure) the author was referring to for a Christian audience. The fact that the grammar "works perfectly without it" is precisely the point. The sentence works better, flows better, and is more Josephan without that parenthetical identification.

2. Origen's Evidence Contradicts the Consensus:
Origen (3rd century) quotes the passage. Yes, he does. But Origen also explicitly states in Contra Celsum and Commentary on Matthew that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Crucially, Origen mentions that Josephus referred to James as "the brother of Jesus on account of the crime of James," suggesting the name Jesus was only included as a secondary identifier for James.

If the full "who was called Christ" was in Origen's version, he would surely have mentioned it to Celsus to prove Josephus did acknowledge the title. He doesn't. The phrase most likely appeared in the text after Origen's time but before Eusebius (early 4th century), who standardized the Christianized texts we have today.

There is no independent, non-Christian, first-century evidence for a historical Jesus. Josephus is the only potential candidate, and the evidence shows his texts were thoroughly corrupted by later Christian interpolators. The "scholarly consensus" cited here is simply the current iteration of Christian apologetics dressed up in academic language.
[/quote]

More...[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics