Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Bernard Muller »

Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?
I have 5 good reasons which separately, or better, put together, makes me certain:
Paul's epistles, "Hebrews", gMark, Josephus' Ant. 20.20 & Tacitus.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by hakeem »

John T wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:17 am
hakeem wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:02 pm The author of Church History did not quote Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 because there is no person called James the Just and no claim that things happened to the Jews to avenge his murder in the writings of Josephus. Virtually everything in Church History about the dating, authorship and chronology of NT books have been rejected by Scholars almost universally and all events with Jesus did not happen.
Toe stub number 4.

You are both right and wrong at the same time.

Right in that Eusebius never quoted came from Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. Wrong because Eusebius never claimed he was but rather that he is quoting Josephus from another known work, which is not extant. Please take the time to actually read what Eusebius wrote and not take the word of Mythicist web-site or book.
Infinite Toe Stub

You are caught mis-representing yourself. Examine your earlier post. You specifically made reference to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
John T wrote:The historian Josephus who witnessed first hand the Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation wrote that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9, 1.....
Your claim is a blatant fallacy that AJ 20.9.1 mentions " one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus."
John T wrote:As far as, almost all scholars reject the New Testament as history, well I got some magic beans you should buy.
Jesus was manufactured--never a product of history.

The virgin birth of Jesus by Mary and the Holy Ghost.
The walking on the sea of Galilee
The feeding of thousands
The Baptism
The Temptation
The Transfiguration
The instant healing of the deaf, blind and dumb.
The crucifixion of Jesus and the two thieves
The Resurrection
The Ascension
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

hakeem wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:30 pm
You are caught mis-representing yourself. Examine your earlier post. You specifically made reference to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
John T wrote:The historian Josephus who witnessed first hand the Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation wrote that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9, 1.....
Your claim is a blatant fallacy that AJ 20.9.1 mentions " one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus."
Toe stub number 5.

That is a common problem with mythicists, they read into things that aren't there as well as take things out of context. Just like Marcion.

My point was that Josephus made more than one historical entry regarding James, the brother of Christ besides; The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9.
Eusebius claims he was directly quoting from Josephus' and that a key cause of the Jewish War was the murder of James the Just based on Josephus interpretation not his. Just because the quote is not in the Antiquities does not mean Eusebius made the quote up.

Perhaps you are confused because you didn't know James the Just was a significant figure just prior to the Jewish War.

If the murder of James the Just by Sanhedrin was a nothing burger in the scheme of the Jewish revolt then why would Jospehus write an entry? If you actually read Chapter 9 you would know that Josephus goes into great detail about how the murder outraged the people to a point they forced a response from king Aprippa and the procurator of Judea, Porcius Albinus.

The dilemma is this: If the mythicists acknowledge that James the Just existed then they have to acknowledge that his brother Jesus existed, hence the push to erase the history of James as well.

Got it now?

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

John?
Eusebius claims he was directly quoting from Josephus' and that a key cause of the Jewish War was the murder of James the Just based on Josephus interpretation not his. Just because the quote is not in the Antiquities does not mean Eusebius made the quote up.
Eusebius claimed he was quoting what is now designated as Antiquities 20.9.1.

Immediately before that (Church History II.23.20), Eusebius characterized, not quoted, Josephus' views, and agreed with Origen's characterizations of them. Eusebius claimed no quote there, neither of Origen nor of Josephus.

Eusebius didn't make anything up (not here anyway), he relied on what Origen wrote. Origen had remembered his reading incorrectly, but in my view, understandably so.

Josephus actually did cite divine retribution as a factor in the cataclysm of 70, and did touch on much of what Origen remembered, all in chapters 8 and 9 of Book 20 of Antiquities. What Origen misremembered was whether all of that was about James the brother of some Jesus. No, just the irregular trial and its verdict were about that James.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... o-do-that/
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

I guess supplemental material is needed to put this to rest.

Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius), Book 2, Chapter 23, is titled: "The martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord".

Eusebius cites several sources in his compilation on this major historical event, e.g. Hegesippus, Clement. Chapter 23 is not based on a sole source i.e. The Antiquities of the Jews Book 20/chapter 9, 1. Even so, Josephus is quoted more than once in chapter 23 and from more than one of his works. Likely because Josephus was the best known historian of that era.

How many ways can I stress it? Josephus was quoted in chapter 23 from two different works of his, Antiquities as well as his added testimony.

It is this added testimony/commentary not Antiquities that Esuebius (20) quotes Josephus as saying; "These thing," said he, "happened to the Jew to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ, and whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his pre-eminent justice." Eusebius in (21) goes on to say the same writer [Josephus] also* {*emphasis mine} related his [James] death, in the twentieth book of his Antiquities...

Translation: Josephus had written more than once regarding the murder of James the Just. One was straightforward history (Antiquities) and another was commentary, call it an op-ed piece if you will.

This explanation is buttress by Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius) Book 3, Chapter 10 titled; "The manner in which Josephus mentioned the Holy Scriptures", Where in Eusebius points out that Josephus wrote other books, including commentary on peculiar opinions of the Jewish nation and other subjects. It is likely one of these peculiar opinions of Josephus that Eusebius glossed from.

Historians are aware of these kind of things, mythicists---not so much.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

Since you feel historians are on your side with respect to Eusebius QUOTING Josephus here, why not humor us and find a historian - those guys all agree with you - who identifies Eusebius as citing Josephus here as you say he does?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by hakeem »

John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:09 am...My point was that Josephus made more than one historical entry regarding James, the brother of Christ besides; The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9.

Infinite Toe Stub

Your claims are fallacious. You made reference to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 in your post however the passage does not mention anyone called James the Just and does not say that the cause of the Jewish War was the murder of James.
John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:09 am...Perhaps you are confused because you didn't know James the Just was a significant figure just prior to the Jewish War.
Again, James the Just in Christian writings is not the James in AJ 20.9.1
James the Just in Christian writings was alive up to at least the 14 year of Nero or 67-68 CE.
James in AJ 20.9.1 was stoned to death around c 61-62 CE.
John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:09 am Eusebius claims he was directly quoting from Josephus' and that a key cause of the Jewish War was the murder of James the Just based on Josephus interpretation not his. Just because the quote is not in the Antiquities does not mean Eusebius made the quote up....
Just because the author of Church History implied he was quoting from Josephus does not mean he actually was. The writing called Church History attributed to Eusebius is riddled with many uncorroborated or false claims not only about Josephus but also about Philo and other writers.

Look at another example where the author made false claims about the writings of Josephus .

Church History 2.10.2
....We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he clearly bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the following words:
.............. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above his head.
Antiquities of the Jews 19.8.2
But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head...
The existing copy of Antiquities of the Jews is evidence that the author of Church History made false claims and manipulated the writings of Josephus.

It is clear that so-called Christian writers manufactured a character called Jesus with implausible events and then manipulated and falsified the writings attributed to contemporary writers like Josephus and Tacitus.

Jesus was always a fabrication--always propaganda--never ever history.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ulan »

hakeem wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:57 pm
John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:09 am...My point was that Josephus made more than one historical entry regarding James, the brother of Christ besides; The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9.

Infinite Toe Stub

Your claims are fallacious. You made reference to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 in your post however the passage does not mention anyone called James the Just and does not say that the cause of the Jewish War was the murder of James.
John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:09 am...Perhaps you are confused because you didn't know James the Just was a significant figure just prior to the Jewish War.
I guess this has at this point long left "toe stub" territory and advanced to "fall on face" stage. It's been a long time that I've seen someone so stubbornly refuse to admit of having made a mistake that is still there in the open, for everyone to see.

No matter what you believe Eusebius talked about, mistaken attribution or lost texts, John T specifically used Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chapter 9,1 as a source for his claim, and this is false. That's basically the end of it.

The point that he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a mythicist is just icing on the cake. But what does one additional error of judgment matter to a purely ideological warrior?
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:15 pm Since you feel historians are on your side with respect to Eusebius QUOTING Josephus here, why not humor us and find a historian - those guys all agree with you - who identifies Eusebius as citing Josephus here as you say he does?
The translation of Eusebius comes from C.F. Cruse and the translation of Antiquities comes from William Whiston. Perhaps you should find a historian that agrees with you instead. An no, mythicists don't count as historians. :cheers:

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

Ulan wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:00 pm
No matter what you believe Eusebius talked about, mistaken attribution or lost texts, John T specifically used Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chapter 9,1 as a source for his claim, and this is false. That's basically the end of it.

The point that he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a mythicist is just icing on the cake. But what does one additional error of judgment matter to a purely ideological warrior?
Toe stub number 6.

Actually, I didn't deny it, just your false interpretation of what I posted. Nor do I believe it is due to a reading comprehension problem on your part because I clarified my point six ways to Sunday. Rather, it appears you were too embarrassed to admit you didn't know there were others sources or perhaps if you are a mythisict you don't want others to know. Either way, out of intellectual dishonesty you default to attacking the messenger.

But in doing that you painted yourself in a corner by dismissing out of hand the writings of Eusebius and Josephus regarding James the brother of Jesus. Something no historian would do but a mythicist sure would.

If the shoe fits wear it but you probably shouldn't with that big fat toe blister. ;)

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply