Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[bilby]

not when you are a zombie

All un-lives matter.

 

[ruby sparks]

Jameses and Jesuses are replete in Josephus. For a better understanding of the whole 'name game' in epistle and gospel work, with 'James' front and center, try reading Robert Eisenman's James, the Brother of Jesus, in which he makes it ever so clear the muddled ambiguity of scriptural name references. Pick one. Pick more than one. I think that you must assume that all the 'sources' have been tampered with. Repeatedly.

Sorry, just popping in. I have a lot of time for Eisenman. I think he has a decent theory. But you did this with Ehrman. At some point, if you want to make a case that Jesus didn't exist (which you may or may not, it's not clear) you are going to have to stop citing the good work done by people who think he did.

Seriously though, 'Paul' didn't even claim to be part of the original Jerusalem gang and he wasn't even Judean. 'Paul' may have invented the version of Christianity that won out and that we know today but he didn't found the cult or even claim to. Best place to look for the figure who probably did (there usually is someone) is in what we can find out about the dead Jewish preacher guy the earlier Jerusalem sect were followers of.

Imo, the basic idea that there was some charismatic dude in 1st C Judea is far superior, as a plausible starting point, to the theories that no one existed at all, or was a figure from a hundred years earlier or was (imo most wingnut of all) initially considered never to have lived on earth. I think Carrier is barking up the wrong tree because he ill-advisedly bought into the ropey 'outer space Jesus' theories of Earl Doherty.

 

[none]

I believe that "Christ" is an interpolation, we already know there is forgery in the documents
the precedent of forgery is evident
do you care to discuss the entire paragraph ruby?
Jesus in the text is the son of the son of Damneus, the interpolation changes the importance of the reporting that Josephus was engaged in
having forged the Christ reference is evident...
If mentioning "Christ" is of great importance to Josephus why is there interpolation, forgery?

 

[none]

here is the entire passage, the interpolation of "Christ" is unnecessary in the narrative
https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-james/

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 [to exercise his authority]. 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]; 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. (24) 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.

 

[ruby sparks]

So would you just take out the 'who was called Christ' bit in the middle of the passage?

 

[none]

just as easily as it was inserted
I'm not sure why you wouldn't do the same...
I am curious

 

[ruby sparks]

So your version would be:




"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 [to exercise his authority]. 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, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; 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. (24) 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."




You don't need to read it all. I've only taken out the 'who was called Christ' bit.

 

[whollygoats]

If mentioning "Christ" is of great importance to Josephus why is there interpolation, forgery?

*sigh*

If mentioning 'christ' is so forking important, why is it that this chronicler and apologist of the Jewish people only uses the term twice in three extensive documents on the Jews? And, for an historian writing for his elite Roman benefactors, Josephus was quite rigorous about explaining Jewish concepts to his Grecophonic readers, yet this incendiary term seems to have punctiliously avoided definition for his readers.

And..."Called the Christ"? Jesus, called the unguent? Why is he called that? Who is this greasy Jesus, anyway? Some kind of athlete?

 

[none]

If mentioning "Christ" is of great importance to Josephus why is there interpolation, forgery?

*sigh*

If mentioning 'christ' is so forking important, why is it that this chronicler and apologist of the Jewish people only uses the term twice in three extensive documents on the Jews? And, for an historian writing for his elite Roman benefactors, Josephus was quite rigorous about explaining Jewish concepts to his Grecophonic readers, yet this incendiary term seems to have punctiliously avoided definition for his readers.

And..."Called the Christ"? Jesus, called the unguent? Why is he called that? Who is this greasy Jesus, anyway? Some kind of athlete?

I don't know

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just wished to comment on the recent exchanges.

Copying these works was as some have said, more art than science. I've met folks who have insisted that these works were perfectly transcribed and interpreted because there was divine intervention. We all know that is not true. Imagine for example a painting on paper back in the day and copiers making new copies. Can you imagine the changes that would take place over the generations? We might have some basic original theme pictured but the details of the original would be gone forever. This is literally what happened.

Copiers were constantly interpreting and reinterpreting and correcting and adding and guessing in creating the finished document. They were simply doing their best work. Nothing nefarious likely occurred until the religion was imperialized and variants were persecuted, their copies and additions destroyed, their religion persecuted. But even before that there were many variants of chrestian freely circulating along with their followings.

Today we have literally a few scraps of the time and hundreds of "interpreters" telling us what those scraps mean. It is a good example of what was experienced in those earliest centuries.

 

[none]

So your version would be:




"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 [to exercise his authority]. 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, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; 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. (24) 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."




You don't need to read it all. I've only taken out the 'who was called Christ' bit.

great, now answer why you don't think it is a forgery
not sure what it said before the interpolation
maybe answer when you are drive by posting

 

[ruby sparks]

Just wished to comment on the recent exchanges.

Copying these works was as some have said, more art than science. I've met folks who have insisted that these works were perfectly transcribed and interpreted because there was divine intervention. We all know that is not true. Imagine for example a painting on paper back in the day and copiers making new copies. Can you imagine the changes that would take place over the generations? We might have some basic original theme pictured but the details of the original would be gone forever. This is literally what happened.

Copiers were constantly interpreting and reinterpreting and correcting and adding and guessing in creating the finished document. They were simply doing their best work. Nothing nefarious likely occurred until the religion was imperialized and variants were persecuted, their copies and additions destroyed, their religion persecuted. But even before that there were many variants of chrestian freely circulating along with their followings.

Today we have literally a few scraps of the time and hundreds of "interpreters" telling us what those scraps mean. It is a good example of what was experienced in those earliest centuries.

This is true. A lot (hundreds at least, maybe thousands) can be detected by comparing two extant texts that differ (as they often do). Others have to be speculated about, and by golly are they speculated about. Were there ever a set of texts more pored over in the history of the world? I don't just mean ahistoricists or mythicists. Professional bible scholars too. At best, they get to varying degrees of agreement or disagreement with each other, the high point being 'virtual consensus'. The problem is, for me, that there almost always seems to be a remnant bias in favour of certain things. It's almost unavoidable. This is as much of a problem for ahistoricists as historicists.

Also, to speculate that there was this or that interpolation is one thing, but to speculate that any interpolation was ever made to convince anyone that Jesus existed is going a bit further, especially given the lack of any evidence that anyone, including early doubters, heretics and opponents, ever argued that he didn't exist.

- - - Updated - - -

So your version would be:




"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 [to exercise his authority]. 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, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; 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. (24) 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."




You don't need to read it all. I've only taken out the 'who was called Christ' bit.

great, now answer why you don't think it is a forgery
not sure what it said before the interpolation
maybe answer when you are drive by posting

I don't see how you can get from that to the first Jesus being the son of the son (grandson?) of Damneus?

 

[whollygoats]

Just wished to comment on the recent exchanges.

Copying these works was as some have said, more art than science. I've met folks who have insisted that these works were perfectly transcribed and interpreted because there was divine intervention. We all know that is not true. Imagine for example a painting on paper back in the day and copiers making new copies. Can you imagine the changes that would take place over the generations? We might have some basic original theme pictured but the details of the original would be gone forever. This is literally what happened.

That, and more. It is called 'transcriptionist fatigue'. Add in competing 'interpretations' and you get polemic corruptions (these were quite active, with the likes of Marcion active early in the second century), even further mudding the waters. Then, when the faith garners imperial sponsorship, the unorthodox are pruned and the whole history is rewritten to serve the purposes of the ascendant orthodox...thank you Eusebius, the Liar.

According to Steve Mason, Eusebius is the first source to acknowledge the TF. That's in the fourth century.

2.C. The strongest evidence that Josephus did not declare Jesus' messiahship is that the passage under discussion does not seem to have been present in the texts of Antiquities known before the fourth century. Recall that we do not possess the original Greek text that Josephus wrote; we have only copies, the earliest of which (known as P and A) date from the ninth and tenth centuries. These relatively late copies provide the basis for our current Greek editions and English translations of Josephus. But we know of about a dozen Christian authors from the second and third centuries who were familiar with Josephus' writings. Since many of them were writing to help legitimize the young church, drawing upon every available means of support, it is noteworthy that none of them mentions Josephus' belief in Jesus. If the famous, imperially sponsored Jewish historian had declared Jesus to be Messiah, it would presumably have helped their cause to mention the fact, but they did not.

Most significant, the renowned Christian teacher Origen (185-254) flatly states, in two different contexts, that Josephus did not believe in Jesus' messiahship. Commenting on Josephus' (allegedly favorable) description of James, the "brother of the one called Christ," Origen expresses his wonder that the Jewish historian "did not accept that our Jesus is Christ" (Commentary on Matthew to Matt 10.17). Similarly, in his apologetic work Against Celsus, he directs the reader to Josephus' own defense of Judaism, but then laments that he "did not believe in Jesus as Christ." (1.47) Origen knew Josephus' writings quite well: he cites accurately from War, Antiquities, and Against Apion. But it is hard to see how he could have made these statements about Josephus' unbelief if he had known of the testimonium that we find in our copies of Josephus. Evidently, his copy of Antiquities, like those of his predecessors, did not contain it.

That is Mason's reason 2.C. of a much longer and more detailed exposition as to why the Testimonium Flavium is fraudulent.

Copiers were constantly interpreting and reinterpreting and correcting and adding and guessing in creating the finished document. They were simply doing their best work. Nothing nefarious likely occurred until the religion was imperialized and variants were persecuted, their copies and additions destroyed, their religion persecuted. But even before that there were many variants of chrestian freely circulating along with their followings.

Today we have literally a few scraps of the time and hundreds of "interpreters" telling us what those scraps mean. It is a good example of what was experienced in those earliest centuries.

Copyists also tended to add marginal notes and those marginal notes could end up being subsumed in to the text...which is an excellent postulation as to how the undefined incendiary term came to be added in later. A copyist (it needn't even be a Christian one, just one familiar with the controversy), sees the James reference and wonders if this is the James the Christians are always on about....adds margin note. Next copyist thinks it needs to be added....

 

[none]

great, now answer why you don't think it is a forgery
not sure what it said before the interpolation
maybe answer when you are drive by posting

I don't see how you can get from that to the first Jesus being the son of the son (grandson?) of Damneus?

why?not really giving me much to work with here^
Matter of fact I'm not certain I understand what you are saying

 

[ruby sparks]

That is Mason's reason 2.C. of a much longer and more detailed exposition as to why the Testimonium Flavium is fraudulent.

Mason, as far as I know, favours only partial interpolation. In other words, that there was an original TF reference to Jesus.

Sheesh. You keep citing experts who don't actually agree with you as much as you imply. So far that's Mason, Ehrman and Eisenman.

Much more of this and I might start thinking it's you who's being fraudulent.

 

[ruby sparks]

great, now answer why you don't think it is a forgery
not sure what it said before the interpolation
maybe answer when you are drive by posting

I don't see how you can get from that to the first Jesus being the son of the son (grandson?) of Damneus?

why?not really giving me much to work with here^
Matter of fact I'm not certain I understand what you are saying

You said:

Jesus in the text is the son of the son of Damneus..

I was just asking you to explain that. Make a case for it.

 

[none]

why?not really giving me much to work with here^
Matter of fact I'm not certain I understand what you are saying

You said:

Jesus in the text is the son of the son of Damneus..

I was just asking you to explain that. Make a case for it.

besides the statement that Jesus is the son of Dammeus which is included in the paragraph?

 

[ruby sparks]

You said:



I was just asking you to explain that. Make a case for it.

besides the statement that Jesus is the son of Dammeus which is included in the paragraph?

Hey, if you don't actually want to try to make a case, I'm fine with that.

 

[none]

You said:



I was just asking you to explain that. Make a case for it.

besides the statement that Jesus is the son of Dammeus which is included in the paragraph?

Hey, if you don't actually want to try to make a case, I'm fine with that. I probably wouldn't if I were you.

That isn't the issue, the issue is that the text says Jesus is the son of Dammeus, better yet your dodging my question to begin with
what makes you think that there was no forgery of the text?
do you acknowledge that the text says Jesus is the son of Dammeus?
why would I have to make an additional assessment of the text if it already says Jesus is the son of Dammeus?
is your line of thinking "there were a number of Jesus, but only one Christ, and this interpolation proves it"??
I asked you about your assessment before you tried to avoid answering me, if your motive is to be deceptive I can accept that, but can you??

 

[ruby sparks]

do you acknowledge that the text says Jesus is the son of Dammeus?

At the end, yes, not where you wanted the bit taken out.