Tim O'Neill's Jesus Mythicism blog series

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2881
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Tim O'Neill's Jesus Mythicism blog series

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:13 am
maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:42 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:21 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 amFinding fault, as O'Neill does with Jesus mythicists is the easy bit - what he cannot do is establish historicity for the gospel Jesus figure.
O'Neill is an atheist, so I doubt very much that he is interested in establishing the historicity of the gospel Jesus figure. It's worth pointing that out because he gets called a "secret Christian" all the time.
Yep, I know all that.....
I first came across O'Neill over 10 years ago on the Richard Dawkins forum (which has unfortunately closed down.....)
Those who were on that forum will remember O'Neill charging 'spin' with plagiarism ('spin' operating under a different name at the time) 'spin' took the matter to the moderators - and after a back and forth with the plagiarism charge not being taken seriously by the moderators of a public forum he ended up asking the moderators to ban him. (which they did but back he came with another name - and got himself banned....... Great pity 'spin' is not around here these days....I do miss his considerable wit.......
Amen to that. :D
spin wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:39 am Hi, my name's spin and I'm a recovering biblical pundit. I haven't flagellated anyone for several hours. I'll let you know my progress as it happens.
Hard to believe that spin would retire...... surely he has not lost interest...... just content to fade away..... :?:
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tim O'Neill's Jesus Mythicism blog series

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:15 pm Agree or disagree, it's worth checking out:

https://historyforatheists.com/category ... mythicism/

One of the most useful tidbits from this series is the way that he dispenses with the hypothesis that "called the Christ" was a gloss added in Ant. 20.200. It's a simple and elegant argument. If this were the gloss, either the name Jesus was introduced without any context, or there was previously a context provided ("ben Damneus") that is repeated verbatim a few lines down. Yet neither option in this dilemma is tenable, from an analysis of the other references in Josephus and the way people are introduced in his works. That leaves the most likely conclusion: either the name Jesus was present with the identification standing there, or the interpolation was at least somewhat larger.

I recall that Doherty favored a hypothesis where "a certain James" stood there originally. This is one of a few ways that Doherty's slender original 1999 book The Jesus Puzzle still outshines many other attempts in the same vein, even though every more recent writer is familiar with it.
The mutual ad hominems between O'Neill and Carrier are tiresome and tend to obscure the real arguments they are making. Both of them justify their ad hominems by suggesting the other deserved them and, from the comments, some of their readers appear to agree.

O'Neill's argument that if Josephus had identified Jesus as the son of Damneus, he would not have needed the identification again in his very next mention of Jesus is strong.

His argument that "who is called Christ" is rare in early Christian literature is false or at least extremely misleading. Five cases (Matthew 3, Justin 1, Origen 1), three in a canonical gospel, is not exactly rare, and the number of cases in non-Christian ancient Greek literature is zero (with the possible exception of the case in dispute, of course). This is the sort of argument Whealey frequently makes as well, she'll point out that Eusebius does use X a few times, but he more often uses Y, which she takes to mean it's unlikely he would use X in the specific case under consideration.

Neither Carrier nor O'Neill, IIRC, discusses that Josephus never uses λεγόμενος in the sense of "alleged" to bring someone's right to the name they are called into dispute (there is one case sometimes claimed as an exception that is not really an exception). If "who is called Christ" were authentic to Josephus (which I'm not conceding), I think it would have to mean: "who is called Christ" by his Greco-Roman audience, not by the Jews whom he is writing about in the Antiquities of the Jews.

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Tim O'Neill's Jesus Mythicism blog series

Post by andrewcriddle »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:52 am In the eleventh century, the Muslim writer Ali ben Ahmad Abn Muhammed ibn Hasm reports of Josephus that he speaks favourably of John and his baptism but 'says nothing more of the history of Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, on whom be peace'.
ibn Hazm is referring to Josippon not our Josephus.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tim O'Neill's Jesus Mythicism blog series

Post by MrMacSon »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:14 am ... on the topic of the mention of a certain James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ in our manuscripts of Ant. 20.200 (I agree with O'Neill that the argument that this originally referred to Jesus son of Damneus is not well founded) ...
  • I agree.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2881
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Tim O'Neill's Jesus Mythicism blog series

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:46 am [ If "who is called Christ" were authentic to Josephus (which I'm not conceding), I think it would have to mean: "who is called Christ" by his Greco-Roman audience, not by the Jews whom he is writing about in the Antiquities of the Jews.

Best,

Ken
Even if, for the sake of argument, ''who is called Christ'' in the James passage, and ''who was the Christ'' in the TF, were both interpolations, the reflection, the allusions, to figures in the gospel story remain. (one reason, one could argue that the interpolations were made). But to reason from reflection and allusion to historical Josephan support for a historical gospel Jesus is unwarranted. Yes, obviously, if one upholds a historical gospel Jesus figure then par for the course. Bingo......historical support for the gospel Jesus figure. Simple, game set and match.....

However, the other side of the gospel debate - that the gospel Jesus is a literary figure - removes this simple historicist equation from it's supposed relevance. Yes, the reflection and illusions to gospel figures remains in the writing of Josephus - thus requiring a rethink as to their relevance to the gospel story. If these Josephan reflections are not support for a historical Jesus then what is their relevance ? Support for the gospel story is indicated. Support for the gospel story not support for the historicity of gospel figures within that story.

So, it's back to the drawing board. What is the gospel Jesus story about? History of the figures it tells stories about - or history reflected through the gospel figures in the story.

Josephus can be a help here. What is he doing with his two gospel reflections? One way to consider is where he has placed his two reflections.

1. The TF is placed around the expulsion of Jews from Rome - around 19 c.e. That year is 49 years from 30 b.c. - the year in which Josephus places the execution of Hyrancus by Herod. (49 being 7x7)

2. The James passage is placed around 62/63 c.e. That is 100 years from the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.

Josephus is placing his gospel reflections in time slots that reflect Hasmonean history. Indicating that it is that history, Hasmonean history, that is reflected within the gospel story.

As to the controversy over the 'who is called Christ' and 'who was the Christ'..........both Hyrancus and Antigonus were Kings and High Priests - both in effect, anointed to their respective positions.

For all the ink that has been spilled over the Greek wording of these two Josephan passages controversy still remains. Perhaps it's time for a very different approach.

--------------
From another thread.


Hasmonean historyChronologyJosephus
37 b.c. Antigonus executed100 years63 c.e. James stoned
30 b.c. Hyrancus executed*70 c.e. unnamed man crucified
7 year end of Hasmoneans *7 year time frame to 70 c.e.

I would suggest that this is what Josephus is doing in his story about having the unnamed man taken down from the cross : remembering past history; remembering the last 7 years of Hasmonean history. Replaying the historical tape as an undercurrent for the stories he writes in regard to the war of 70 c.e. No need whatsoever to time-shift the crucified man of 70 c.e. back to the time of Pilate. - that gospel man is a literary creation. Josephus has already, by his use of a seven year parallel - indicated what Roman execution he is remembering from 37 b.c. A real historical Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews.

(Historically, two Hasmoneans were executed. No, not brothers, an uncle and a nephew, but from the family of Hasmonean Kings. )

Post Reply