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

[steve_bank]

Philo and Josephus are the authors who lived closest in space and time to where Jesus Christ had supposedly lived. Both of them might have been willing to mention and discuss JC and his career. So let's see how it goes.

Philo was interested in eccentric Jewish sects. But he never mentioned JC.

Josephus discussed such self-styled prophets as Theudas and "The Egyptian", but he never mentioned JC among them. He described an incident where a Roman soldier provoked a riot in the Jerusalem Temple by exposing himself in it, but he never mentioned JC's Temple temper tantrum. Josephus also made some much-argued-over possible references like the Testimonium Flavianum, as it's called. My favorite theory about the TF is that it was some scribe's note that got interpreted as part of the original text. It is very out of character for Josephus, and the language looks wrong for him.

So if there was a historical Jesus Christ who lived around 30 - 33 CE, the Gospels were just plain wrong about how famous he had been.

The Greek Herodotus who penned what is considered the first general history was called Herodotus The Liar. He made claims of travels and observations he did not personally make, and liberally interpolated.

Par for the course in those times.

I do agree there likely was an historical figure on whom the tale was based.

 

[steve_bank]

There are certainly issues with Israel. That being said, anyone who equates modern Jews with Nazis is displaying a deep and utter ignorance the history of the Nazi regime.

OOPS wrong thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

What's important is the evidence, not opinion. If one wants an historical Jesus one also needs a TF before Eusebius invents one hundreds of years after the supposed fact.

So at least Mason is being consistent, for the sake of being consistent I guess.

 

[ruby sparks]

What's important is the evidence, not opinion. If one wants an historical Jesus one also needs a TF before Eusebius invents one hundreds of years after the supposed fact.

So at least Mason is being consistent, for the sake of being consistent I guess.

We don't know that Eusebius invented it. There could easily have been an original, shorter version. Some of the language in the passage is non-christian and is typical Josephan. That's why Mason, along with most, opts for partial interpolation. Also, asking why and how they usually interpolated it is a useful question. It should be seen in context, as part of a pattern of interpolations generally. Partial insertions and embellishments were much more common. Also, too often, ahistoricists tend to take it that the writers were trying to justify his existence, just like they, the modern ahistoricists, are. That doesn't seem to have been the case, as far as we can tell, though it might slightly skew how texts are read by some ahistoricists now.

I understand this holding out for more before accepting thing, but we already have much more evidence for Jesus than for any other similarly minor religious figure from that time and place and we have more for him than for many figures from ancient history generally. That's where consistency comes in.

If you think there wasn't some leader at the start of the cult, you'd need to make a good case, imo. The evidence that we have doesn't go away all by itself. 'Paul' is apparently really early, and he refers by name to prior, contempoaneous followers in Jerusalem. I'd need to see a case that they weren't probably followers of a dead Jewish preacher guru (possibly militant) guy. I'd need an alternative explanation for that in particular. And I don't just mean 'coulda been invented'. I mean a detailed case, that explains the evidence. If 'coulda been invented' is enough for you then fine, but I'm sure you can at least understand why it isn't enough for most people trying to do basic, non-religious history on this.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo there are three key dates.

6 AD Romans occupy Judea

26 - 36 AD Pontius Pilate's time in office

66 AD First Jewish War against the Romans starts


To try to understand how a new, initially quite insignificant splinter Jewish cult/movement might have started in Judea during that time and place (which it apparently did, one of several) I think one needs to take account of all the historical, political and religious factors and the context, or as much of them as one can.

Since that time, most new cults or movements that say they had a recently living founder usually did, or at least it is usually accepted that they did.

And if you want conclusive proofs, don't do ancient history.

 

[whollygoats]

O, joy!

Mithras is historical.

Serapis is historical.

Herakles is historical.

Asklepios is historical.

Attis is historical.

Krishna is historical.

Guatama Siddhartha is historical.

Lao Tsu is historical.

As if.

 

[whollygoats]

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.

What's important is the evidence, not opinion. If one wants an historical Jesus one also needs a TF before Eusebius invents one hundreds of years after the supposed fact.

So at least Mason is being consistent, for the sake of being consistent I guess.

Hmmmm...I'm not so sure. The introduction of such a potentially incendiary term in to his narrative without providing any explanation or background of its meaning seems entirely out of place with Josephus. It also raises questions of if we know it was tampered, but not exactly how it was tampered with...the implication is that the XX.9 cite existed before the TF...if so, what did it reference earlier in the text which would explain the term to his readers? So far as I know, Josephus does not put himself out to explain to his Grecophonic readers what a 'christ' was amongst his Hebrew brethren. In any context. In Wars, he made an oblique reference to a base (Sibylline?) superstition amongst the Hebrews of a 'world ruler' arising in Palestine, but dismissed it as fulfilled in Vespasian.

So, we have a TF unknown until the fourth century. A curious spurious passing mention unsupported by any explanation is mentioned a century prior that sure looks like a marginal note subsumed in to the text.

Yeah. That is definitive, all right.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Imo there are three key dates.

6 AD Romans occupy Judea

26 - 36 AD Pontius Pilate's time in office

66 AD First Jewish War against the Romans starts


To try to understand how a new, initially quite insignificant splinter Jewish cult/movement might have started in Judea during that time and place (which it apparently did, one of several) I think one needs to take account of all the historical, political and religious factors and the context, or as much of them as one can.

Since that time, most new cults or movements that say they had a recently living founder usually did, or at least it is usually accepted that they did.

And if you want conclusive proofs, don't do ancient history.

That's not a new argument. I've encountered the 'argument from socioeconomic political necessity' before.

HJ is the author who first told the Jesus tale according to Mark. That person is your founding figure. People started believing and building and expanding on that popular nugget and the story was historicized.

Fiction lets you do this. If you've read enough fiction you encounter characters whom the author uses as a mouthpiece, and people like repeating what they've heard, like urban legends, probably more so in places like religiously charged, occupied Judea.

Hey, and aren't you supposed to be on sabbatical?

 

[lpetrich]

The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already - Richard Carrier -- he argues that it is a fake on vocabulary and stylistic grounds.

The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at academia.edu).

He quotes Hopper:

We have seen that aorist verbs [in Josephus] typically report single prominent actions associated with the protagonist of the story. They play a crucial role in the event structure of the narrative, and while they cannot alone support the story line, they work to anchor clusters of other kinds of verbs to create episodes. This could hardly be said of the aorists in the Testimonium, however. The aorists here seem to belong in a different genre altogether, one which argues and defends rather than reports.

...
There is an element of protest in the voice of the author of the Testimonium that is impossible to attribute to Josephus, the sober historian: “There must be some truth in all this, because his followers haven’t gone away, in fact they haven’t stopped worshipping him.”

After discussing how the TF differs from the rest of Josephus's narrative, like portraying Pontius Pilate differently, RC quotes Hopper again:

The narrative grammar of the Testimonium Flavianum sets it sharply apart from Josephus’s other stories of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. The most likely explanation is that the entire passage is interpolated, presumably by Christians embarrassed at Josephus’s manifest ignorance of the life and death of Jesus.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

O, joy!

Mithras is historical.

Serapis is historical.

Herakles is historical.

Asklepios is historical.

Attis is historical.

Krishna is historical.

Guatama Siddhartha is historical.

Lao Tsu is historical.

As if.

At least Lao Tzu "wrote" his book. That can't even be claimed of Jesus. This isn't the Gospel according to Christ, but the Gospel of Jesus... according to four other guys.

 

[whollygoats]

O, joy!

Mithras is historical.

Serapis is historical.

Herakles is historical.

Asklepios is historical.

Attis is historical.

Krishna is historical.

Guatama Siddhartha is historical.

Lao Tsu is historical.

As if.

At least Lao Tzu "wrote" his book. That can't even be claimed of Jesus. This isn't the Gospel according to Christ, but the Gospel of Jesus... according to four other guys.

It seems that the Christian world is locked in to the concept that their founder was horribly butchered in this world as a some kind of sacrificial atonement for humanity's 'sins'. I'm still not sure why this sacrifice needs to be made in the material world. There were, after all, seven heavens (Paul himself admits to at least three) and the angels and demonic beings struggled for control on the lower ones....

There were lots of similar stories floating around the Roman-guided world at the time. I'm far more likely to believe that characters like Jesus of the gospels were fabricated from whole cloth...scriptures already extent...used as heuristic tools to teach new modes of morality and build new communities. Midrash unleashed amongst the gentile world with a superhero fashioned to offer salvation to the individual soul, if they but believe and accept inclusion. Jesus was no more real than Mithras, or Asklepios, or Herakles, or any of the others. They all served similar purposes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems that the Christian world is locked in to the concept that their founder was horribly butchered in this world as a some kind of sacrificial atonement for humanity's 'sins'. I'm still not sure why this sacrifice needs to be made in the material world. There were, after all, seven heavens (Paul himself admits to at least three) and the angels and demonic beings struggled for control on the lower ones....

Not to derail, but indeed the death of Jesus is quite possibly the most nonsensical form of apologism ever.

A: Why did he die?
C: Because he had to atone for mankind's sin.
A: Why?
*crickets*
A: I asked why?
C: I know you don't believe, so it doesn't matter why. I know in my heart...

 

[ruby sparks]

That's not a new argument. I've encountered the 'argument from socioeconomic political necessity' before.

Suggesting that we try to understand the historical context as much as we can is not an argument from anything, because it's not even an argument, it's just standard good historiographical advice. The evidence should be seen in the context, that's all.

HJ is the author who first told the Jesus tale according to Mark. That person is your founding figure. People started believing and building and expanding on that popular nugget and the story was historicized.

Forget the gospels just for a moment. A much earlier writer calling himself Paul names even earlier followers in Jerusalem. Who was the writer likely referring to?

Fiction lets you do this. If you've read enough fiction you encounter characters whom the author uses as a mouthpiece, and people like repeating what they've heard, like urban legends, probably more so in places like religiously charged, occupied Judea.

Ah yes, the fiction thesis. The one you've never fleshed out or applied to the epistles. I wonder how that would go. Let me guess. They were made up fiction.

Hey, and aren't you supposed to be on sabbatical?

I'm a weak fool. Hopefully, I won't be here much longer. But being in this thread has prompted me, wisely or unwisely, to order a couple of books:



and



They're both controversial. You might find the second one particularly interesting. It's nearly almost as good as ahistorical. The author visited Secular cafe a while back (as all the best authors do, obviously) and I had an extended discussion with him. Jobar might recall. I didn't entirely buy his thesis (it has one big hole in it for instance) but it did have a lot of explanatory power. For example, it explains why Jesus or Paul don't turn up very often in Josephus (or at all in Paul's case), because they did turn up there, as Judas the Gallilean rebel and Saul the Herodian respectively, according to the hypothesis.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It seems that the Christian world is locked in to the concept that their founder was horribly butchered in this world as a some kind of sacrificial atonement for humanity's 'sins'. I'm still not sure why this sacrifice needs to be made in the material world. There were, after all, seven heavens (Paul himself admits to at least three) and the angels and demonic beings struggled for control on the lower ones....

Not to derail, but indeed the death of Jesus is quite possibly the most nonsensical form of apologism ever.

A: Why did he die?
C: Because he had to atone for mankind's sin.
A: Why?
*crickets*
A: I asked why?
C: I know you don't believe, so it doesn't matter why. I know in my heart...

Any spirituality that can't be explained without being self referential is suspect. And the authorized texts do nothing else.

The kerygma can be explained in a common sense manner: living on earth, we suffer, and suffering brings with it awareness and choice. Some choices are good, some are not. The good choices we can organize into a set, and we can periodically gather to reflect on and discuss them. We find that adherence to the good choices makes for a better life, and so venerate them. This awareness of suffering and ability to select, evaluate and celebrate or condemn choice is our most precious possession.

 

[ruby sparks]

One of the reasons I like 'the wrong man' hypotheses more than others is that I think they're just inherently the most plausible. New movements that say they have a recent founder usually do (I know I say this a lot, but imo it's a reasonable starting possibility) and if Jesus existed, he was almost certainly distorted, it would be just a question of how much. I don't buy the 'totally fiction' idea, though I accept that there's religious fiction in the so-called 'histories' (gospels), but I can't easily read the epistles as being of that genre, and I can't see a good reason to think that the gospels were written from scratch as intentional fiction.

Myth...not for me. Far too recently attested to in relation to his alleged life it would seem. Not that that rules it out, it just makes is less likely imo. No point at all in comparing to Mithras for example. As for outer space Jesus, that's just a basic misreading of the epistles and nothing much more, imo.

I could be all wrong of course. It's just my personal opinion, fairly well-informed, I'd like to think, but still just my opinion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One of the reasons I like 'the wrong man' hypotheses more than others is that I think they're just inherently the most plausible. New movements that say they have a recent founder usually do (I know I say this a lot, but imo it's a reasonable starting possibility) and if Jesus existed, he was almost certainly distorted, it would be just a question of how much. I don't buy the 'totally fiction' idea, though I accept that there's religious fiction in the so-called 'histories' (gospels), but I can't easily read the epistles as being of that genre, and I can't see a good reason to think that the gospels were written from scratch as intentional fiction.

Myth...not for me. Far too recently attested to in relation to his alleged life it would seem. Not that that rules it out, it just makes is less likely imo. No point at all in comparing to Mithras for example. As for outer space Jesus, that's just a basic misreading of the epistles and nothing much more, imo.

I could be all wrong of course. It's just my personal opinion, fairly well-informed, I'd like to think, but still just my opinion.

Two fairly new religious movements are Scientology and Mormonism, both of which have clear founders. And both founders penned their religions into existence, unless you're also looking for the historical Xenu and Moroni.

And thank-you for the book suggestions.

 

[lpetrich]

Two fairly new religious movements are Scientology and Mormonism, both of which have clear founders. And both founders penned their religions into existence, unless you're also looking for the historical Xenu and Moroni.

One can even follow how it happened -- there is enough documentation of them for us to do so.

That's what we lack for the New Testament. It's as if the most that we have on Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard is what their followers wrote about them some decades later.

 

[ruby sparks]

Two fairly new religious movements are Scientology and Mormonism, both of which have clear founders. And both founders penned their religions into existence, unless you're also looking for the historical Xenu and Moroni.

And thank-you for the book suggestions.

Scientology is a perfect example of a cult that did have a founder. Not sure why you're citing that one, even with 75-million-years-ago Xenu.

Mormonism is.....partially comparable, but not as much as at first sight. Founder said he saw a vision of an angel (very common). Founder did not say he had joined an existing cult. Did not say the angel had come to earth as a man. No accounts of the earthly life of the angel or of anyone following the angel.

Do you know how many Jewish messianic claimants and other assorted nutjobs and militants there were in those times (and before and after)? None of them wrote anything and we don't have first-hand reports of any of them. Are you going to say none of them existed?

I'm not saying people don't make shit up or that some man called Jesus necessarily did exist or that he could not have been made up, only that the thesis is not as convincing, imo, all things considered. That somebody started the cult is obvious, and Jesus is the most plausible candidate. I can't think of anyone more plausible. Of course, Jesus coulda made shit up, it's just that he's be the original founder making shit up. 'A man called Jesus' is just the most likely answer to the question, 'who started it all?' I haven't yet heard a better answer from anyone, including you.

You are welcome to the book recommendations. They are due to arrive today. Hopefully they and christmas will help me get out of this thread.

Interestingly, the writer of the second one suggests that his thesis partly explains why Paul didn't say much about the deeds of 'Jesus', because 'Jesus' was Judas of Galilee, whose exploits were criminal and unsavoury and anti-Roman, and Paul was trying to whitewash his hero and make him appealing to Greeks and Romans.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's as if the most that we have on Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard is what their followers wrote about them some decades later.

Indeed. That's what a historicist would say (so I'm slightly surprised to hear you saying it). Though bear in mind that unlike in modern history, 'some decades later' is early referencing for figures from ancient history.

 

[ruby sparks]

Some of you guys would just love Daniel Unterbrink's thesis, that 'Jesus' was Judas the Galilean, a near contemporary figure. There are some interesting parallels. According to Josephus, Judas cleansed the Temple. Judas was involved in a prisoner release episode, where someone was released to appease a crowd, except in Judas' case, he was released and someone called Barabbas was not (the opposite of the gospel version where a Barabbas is released and Jesus not). Judas pronounced himself king of the Jews. He refused to pay taxes to the Romans (one of the charges made against Jesus). In the Slavonic version of Josephus, John the Baptist is a disciple of Judas the Galilean. Interestingly, the Slavonic Josephus has a star of Bethlehem insert (probably Christian) which coincides with Judas' birth date, not Jesus'. There are other parallels, including also those between the NT Paul (who was previously a Saul) and a Herodian Saul that turns up a few times in Josephus.

Imo, and as some of you might realise, I'm not easily given over to wild speculation without evidence, there is definitely enough in the written accounts to take this Paul/Saul mix-up (cover up?) thing seriously, of itself (including the lack of a death in the texts for Paul). But once you do that, other things appear to fall into place more readily than in the orthodox accounts. As someone once pointed out to me back at Secular Cafe, when Jesus was arrested, even according to gospel accounts, one of his gang cut off the ear of one of the policeman with a sword, which is at least slightly puzzling as to the sort of company he kept.

Unterbrink's suggestion is that the TF is a partial interpolation, but was originally about the crucifixion of Judas. Unterbrink constructs a timeline of events. Josephus spends quite a bit of time on Judas and later recounts his sons being crucified for being rebels, but he is pretty quiet about Judas' death. Unterbrink (and wiki) says that Josephus does not mention it, but he does strongly allude to it, which imo is a weak point in the thesis, as is his redating of Pilate's rule, imo. Also, most scholars consider the Slavonic Josephus very corrupted. It just seems to be corrupted in an unusual way. The consensus is that the corruptions were made to suit 10th-11th Century Macedonians.

Whatever the merits and demerits of the 'The Jesus handed down to us was a cleaned-up version of a Jewish rebel' hypotheses, they are at least, imo, far superior to any of the others (because unlike most, they join up the historical dots in a more coherent and plausible way) and Richard carrier for one, imo, is barking up the wrong tree completely with his outer space Jesus.