You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Archeological data and primary sources for New Testament characters
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Then don't. No one cares that you are now going to just insult me and won't address any point. No one expects you to be a decent person.
That's all you have???? Do you think that's an argument? Seriously. This is what you do. You cite authorities and then your debate points all come down to "This authority says this".
Try framing the debate in your own words for a change. Try THINKING about the topic and not just quoting other people.
As I said I'm still on the fence. That's a very good point. But it does leave the weaker mention as the legitimate one. The other mention appears to be a forgery and it is the stronger one.
But again, and I can't stress this enough: I don't know one way or the other. I'm OK with it being fully 100% correct. But my point still stands: does it matter?
And, again, why does it matter? Do you think it means the miracle stories of the Bible are necessarily true? It's not a big deal if there was a real live Jesus but I think we can all agree he didn't do miracles and he didn't come back from the dead.
The message is the important bit and that could just as easily have been made up from whole cloth as parts of the Gospels appear to be.
Nope. You haven't read about this topic enough, and on Google you can always find fringe opinions that confirm your preconceived conclusions.
You still have not explained how Josephus knew about other important New Testament characters, but somehow all his references to Jesus are conveniently totally fabricated.
You can even just ignore he Greek copies of Josephus. The Arabs also translated Josephus into Arabic and the Arabic translations also have the references to Jesus in their translations, although it is slightly different and lacks some of the Christianizing elements found in the Medieval Greek versions. The Arabic translations give a non-Christian view into Josephus.
I cannot believe you would ask why Jesus matters.
Jesus is the most important person in the history of western civilization, hands down.
His moral teachings, his stories, his parables, his aphorisms, his values permeate western culture and even if you are atheist or agnostic you still follow/admire/incorporate his teachings into your life, even when you don't realize it.
Nope. You haven't read about this topic enough,
May I ask you to try, just TRY discussing the topic?
and on Google
Nope. Catholic Encyclopedia. Do you have a problem with that?
you can always find fringe opinions that confirm your preconceived conclusions.
This is not fringe. Sorry. As noted many scholars think the Testimonium Flavianum is generally considered a forgery. But, again, it doesn't reallyl matter does it?
You still have not explained how Josephus knew about other important New Testament characters, but somehow all his references to Jesus are conveniently totally fabricated.
I cannot stress enough that I'm not saying with any degree of certainty that the T.F. is a forgery. You are quite correct (read that again, please) that the second mention which basically just says James' brother was called Christ was likely a real citation.
The TF is usually what apologists go for because it is far more explicit.
But, again, can't say this enough for my point: it doesn't matter.
I cannot believe you would ask why Jesus matters.
And as per usual you didn't follow the point. I NEVER SAID Jesus doesn't matter. His teachings are amazingly powerful and important. I've said that about a billion times now.
I'm not sure why you INSIST on lying all the time about me, but I sense your rage and hatred get the better of you.
Have you ever actually READ the words of Jesus?
I know you and I have had our differences but you seem incapable of setting those aside. This might help you. The guy you seem to be focused on said this and it might help you: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
You don't have to "love" me, but you sure could dial back your hatred a bit. Especially when you are being a defender of the teachigns of Jesus.
Jesus is the most important person in the history of western civilization, hands down.
Yet you seem wholly unfamiliar with his teachings.
His moral teachings, his stories, his parables, his aphorisms, his values permeate western culture and even if you are atheist or agnostic you still follow/admire/incorporate his teachings into your life, even when you don't realize it.
Your lies and misrepresentation of my points show your inherent dishonesty.
Jesus also said an important thing about you:
" Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
I know you. You espouse moral teachings but lack morality. You espouse ethics but have none. You lambaste others for lying yet you lie like most people breathe.
And you can't let go of your hatred long enough to read what was said.
So if you could please just stop talking about Jesus as if he is important to you. Clearly he is not.
Last edited:
May I ask you to try, just TRY discussing the topic?
Nope. Catholic Encyclopedia. Do you have a problem with that?
This is not fringe. Sorry. As noted many scholars think the Testimonium Flavianum is generally considered a forgery. But, again, it doesn't reallyl matter does it?
I cannot stress enough that I'm not saying with any degree of certainty that the T.F. is a forgery. You are quite correct (read that again, please) that the second mention which basically just says James' brother was called Christ was likely a real citation.
The TF is usually what apologists go for because it is far more explicit.
But, again, can't say this enough for my point: it doesn't matter.
And as per usual you didn't follow the point. I NEVER SAID Jesus doesn't matter. His teachings are amazingly powerful and important. I've said that about a billion times now.
I'm not sure why you INSIST on lying all the time about me, but I sense your rage and hatred get the better of you.
Have you ever actually READ the words of Jesus?
I know you and I have had our differences but you seem incapable of setting those aside. This might help you. The guy you seem to be focused on said this and it might help you: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
You don't have to "love" me, but you sure could dial back your hatred a bit. Especially when you are being a defender of the teachigns of Jesus.
Yet you seem wholly unfamiliar with his teachings.
Your lies and misrepresentation of my points show your inherent dishonesty.
Jesus also said an important thing about you:
" Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
I know you. You espouse moral teachings but lack morality. You espouse ethics but have none. You lambaste others for lying yet you lie like most people breathe.
And you can't let go of your hatred long enough to read what was said.
So if you could please just stop talking about Jesus as if he is important to you. Clearly he is not.
It's your militant atheism that keeps you from learning. You have passed from being skeptical to being recalcitrant. Not a good attitude for anyone who desires to be a lifelong learner.
Not a forgery. Majority of scholars with expertise in the field agree on this. It is most likely a genuine reference to Jesus, but probably modified with Christianizing elements. This is corroborated and supported by independent Arabic translations done by the Arabs, and by the references in Josephus to other important New Testament characters.
Even the preeminent agnostic/atheist religious scholar Bart Ehrman considers the Jesus reference to be genuine, even though it's probably been decorated with Christianizing elements.
If you don't want to learn, that's fine. Clinging to preconceived notions is what people who refuse to learn typically do
You are obviously not a skeptical thinker. You are recalcitrant, and cling to preconceived notions.Frankly I'm surprised that @Cypress hasn't banned from this thread. I've asked a couple questions and he's already raging about that. Usually by this point I'm mysteriously banned from his threads.
You leaped to a conclusion without even having all the pertinent information.
-Before you read my posts, you had no idea that Josephus knew about other important New Testament characters.
-You didn't know Josephus specifically identified James the Just as the brother of Jesus.
-You didn't know that the Arabs had independently produced Arabic translations of Josephus corroborating the references to Jesus.
-You didn't know that Bart Ehrman and the majority of scholars with expertise in the field consider Josephus' references to Jesus to be genuine, even if subsequently decorated with some Christianizing elements.
Your knowledge of Josephus must have been based on a few blog posts you read on atheist websites.
If all knowledge that's available out there has to be filtered through your militant atheist lens and has to compete with your preconceived ideas and recalcitrance, your capacity to grow your knowledge faces severe handicaps.
It's your militant atheism that keeps you from learning. You have passed from being skeptical to being recalcitrant. Not a good attitude for anyone who desires to be a lifelong learner.
How many times do I have to tell you I am not 100% convinced the TF is a forgery? Are you incapable of understanding how someone could consider it to be one thing but ALSO consider the opposing side?
Not a forgery.
You have only so far mentioned Ehrman's blog as your citation. I'd be curious if you have any REASON other than the word of someone.
Majority of scholars with expertise in the field agree on this.
You see, I have NOT seen that. In fact everything I've seen says the opposite about the Testimonium (not the secondary mention, that one still appears to be real)
I would LOVE to see some scholarship and reasoning as to why you consider the TF to be generally agreed to NOT being a later interpolation.
This is corroborated and supported by independent Arabic translations done by the Arabs, and by the references in Josephus to other important New Testament characters.
What independent Arabic translation are you talking about? Genuinely curious. And, again, why didn't Origen mention the TF in Contra Celsum?
Even the preeminent agnostic/atheist religious scholar Bart Ehrman considers the Jesus reference to be genuine,
Yes we know you prefer argument from authority. Try reasoning through it or look at what Ehrman says is the reason for his conclusion. Don't just scream "Ehrman says it!" over and over again.
If you don't want to learn, that's fine. Clinging to preconceived notions is what people who refuse to learn typically do
I'm utterly fascinated. You must realize now that I am not 100% wed to this being a forgery. How many times do I need to say it to you?
Why do you insist on mischaracterizing my position?
You are obviously not a skeptical thinker. You are recalcitrant, and cling to preconceived notions.
Actually quite the opposite. Unlike you I'm open to considering BOTH sides of the debate. I have only ever really heard the one side but I'm open to considering the other.
What I'm NOT open to considering is just having someone shout at me "Famous Theologian X said it!"
You leaped to a conclusion without even having all the pertinent information.
Wrong. I leapt to NO conclusions.
-Before you read my posts, you had no idea that Josephus knew about other important New Testament characters.
Wrong. But i understand YOU need to be the smartest person in the room. No one can know what Cypress knows.
In fact I've actually read many Ehrman books and love his stuff. I've read extensively in Christian history for many years now and I even hit up the Catholic Encyclopedia from time to time for the real meaty stuff.
-You didn't know Josephus specifically identified James the Just as the brother of Jesus.
I will admit I wasn't that familiar with the secondary mention where it simply states that James the Just's brother was called Christ.
-You didn't know that the Arabs had independently produced Arabic translations of Josephus corroborating the references to Jesus.
I still don't. Mayhaps you could point me in that direction.
-You didn't know that Bart Ehrman and the majority of scholars with expertise in the field consider Josephus' references to Jesus to be genuine, even if subsequently decorated with some Christianizing elements.
Everything I've read seems to indicate that most scholars think the TF section is a forgery. i understand you have something from ONE theologian, but it doesn't really establish that the "majority" of theologians think that.
That's why I asked. And, as per usual, you blew a fuse because someone noted that you don't really have more behind your point.
Your knowledge of Josephus must have been based on a few blog posts you read on atheist websites.
Nope. Reading many years ago. But, again, you MUST be the smartest person in the room.
If all knowledge that's available out there has to be filtered through your militant atheist lens and has to compete with your preconceived ideas and recalcitrance, your capacity to grow your knowledge faces severe handicaps.
If you can't actually understand what I have written I will have to say it calls into question ALL your reading skills. So far you have missed my point by a mile, maybe a hundred miles. You constantly misrepresent it and build strawmen about it.
Learn.To.Read.
The first Hebrew writing about a man-god of peace dates back before Babylon invaded Judah in 597 BCE. Jews were forced to relocate to Babylon where they learned about crucifixion. I can also bring in the Egyptian influence on the composite religion of christianity.Between 180 BC and 135 AD the Jews were involved in a series of revolts against their overlords of the Seluecid and Roman empires.
That's what the Nazis thought.
Again, jews were tired of endless war 700 years before the biblical Jesus. There was no internet back then so it took many centuries to spread new ideas about a god of peace.
Since @Cypress is unable to support his claim of an Arabic translation of Josephus that retains the TF I have decided to look on my own.
Indeed, one such thing appears to exist! And has been critiqued and debunked by some.
It appears that it is the "Chronicle" by Agapius? But it was written in the 10th century....honestly I don't know how that could confirm the TF since it appears fully 1000 years after the TF was supposedly written. But, according to Alice Whealy, writing in the journal New Testament Studies the Chronicles were actually a translation of Eusebius (who is the first person to even note that the TF existed loooooong after the TF was written) (SOURCE, Full Article HERE). So even the Arabic translations cannot be counted on to support the claim that the TF is original to Josephus.
Obviously I'm no Syriac scholar but at least this shows that there is legitimate criticism of the TF. I will gladly grant that some thought contains the "partial interpolation" that Cypussy mentioned however it is not as clear cut as Cycunt would have you think. The accession that the TF is real vs a forgery has been ongoing since the 18th century. For quite a long time people before the 20th century thought it was a forgery. Then in the 20th opinion shifted, but now it appears scholarship may be reopening the debate.
Indeed, one such thing appears to exist! And has been critiqued and debunked by some.
It appears that it is the "Chronicle" by Agapius? But it was written in the 10th century....honestly I don't know how that could confirm the TF since it appears fully 1000 years after the TF was supposedly written. But, according to Alice Whealy, writing in the journal New Testament Studies the Chronicles were actually a translation of Eusebius (who is the first person to even note that the TF existed loooooong after the TF was written) (SOURCE, Full Article HERE). So even the Arabic translations cannot be counted on to support the claim that the TF is original to Josephus.
Obviously I'm no Syriac scholar but at least this shows that there is legitimate criticism of the TF. I will gladly grant that some thought contains the "partial interpolation" that Cypussy mentioned however it is not as clear cut as Cycunt would have you think. The accession that the TF is real vs a forgery has been ongoing since the 18th century. For quite a long time people before the 20th century thought it was a forgery. Then in the 20th opinion shifted, but now it appears scholarship may be reopening the debate.
Jews were forced to relocate to Babylon where they learned about crucifixion. I can also bring in the Egyptian influence on the composite religion of christianity.
A lot of Christian thought, especially as concerns the afterlife, was lifted largely from Greek influence from what I understand from my reading. I think we can all agree Christianity is a re-mix religion that takes in a large number of other influences (probably as all religions do)
But, again, the larger point: what if there were no historical Jesus? Would it matter? For an atheist, no it doesn't matter. What matters is the TEACHINGS OF JESUS which are put down in the Gospels.
I will agree it is fun to find evidence that certain semi-mythical people actually DID exist. History is replete with that sort of thing. And it definitely enriches us as a species.
HOWEVER the primary goal of pushing (especially as HARD as some on here do) the 'historical Jesus" is normally to firm up the reliance on the Bible as a source for actual historical truth. Of course none of the Gospels were written for that reason. Probably few in the ancient world actually DID understand what a "history" would entail anyway.
The Gospels are all written for some political/theological reason. Matthew was written for the second generation of Christians in Judea and is most closely aligned with Judaism (SOURCE). Luke was writtten primarily for a Greek-speaking audience of Gentile converts, etc. There are jarring discontinuities between the Gospels but that's not a surprise. They were written from a particular bias and they often introduced infromation that reflects that bias.
The main point being that one does not necessarily NEED Jesus to be a historical figure to appreciate the TEACHINGS. One however, does NOT need the supernatural stuff that comes along with all the "proof of his historical existence".
If you have a preconceived conclusion, you can always Google and find fringe opinions that support your supposition.Since @Cypress is unable to support his claim of an Arabic translation of Josephus that retains the TF I have decided to look on my own.
Indeed, one such thing appears to exist! And has been critiqued and debunked by some.
It appears that it is the "Chronicle" by Agapius? But it was written in the 10th century....honestly I don't know how that could confirm the TF since it appears fully 1000 years after the TF was supposedly written. But, according to Alice Whealy, writing in the journal New Testament Studies the Chronicles were actually a translation of Eusebius (who is the first person to even note that the TF existed loooooong after the TF was written) (SOURCE, Full Article HERE). So even the Arabic translations cannot be counted on to support the claim that the TF is original to Josephus.
Obviously I'm no Syriac scholar but at least this shows that there is legitimate criticism of the TF. I will gladly grant that some thought contains the "partial interpolation" that Cypussy mentioned however it is not as clear cut as Cycunt would have you think. The accession that the TF is real vs a forgery has been ongoing since the 18th century. For quite a long time people before the 20th century thought it was a forgery. Then in the 20th opinion shifted, but now it appears scholarship may be reopening the debate.
There is obviously a lot of information about Josephus' Antiquities you were totally unaware of until you read my posts.
You didn't know there were Arabic translations, you were unaware Josephus identified James as the brother of Jesus, you were unaware that Josephus knew about other important New Testament figures, you were unaware that Bart Ehrman and most of the mainstream scholarly opinion is that there are genuine refences to Jesus in Josephus
You seem to have based your conclusions on incomplete information and postings on atheist blogs.
Since you have been unable to credibly dismiss all the lines of evidence that supports the authenticity of Josephus, you obviously just have an emotional need to cling to your preconceptions that text in Josephus are lies and fabrications.
Actually quite the opposite. Unlike you I'm open to considering BOTH sides of the debate. I have only ever really heard the one side but I'm open to considering the other.
What I'm NOT open to considering is just having someone shout at me "Famous Theologian X said it!"
Wrong. I leapt to NO conclusions.
Wrong. But i understand YOU need to be the smartest person in the room. No one can know what Cypress knows.
In fact I've actually read many Ehrman books and love his stuff. I've read extensively in Christian history for many years now and I even hit up the Catholic Encyclopedia from time to time for the real meaty stuff.
I will admit I wasn't that familiar with the secondary mention where it simply states that James the Just's brother was called Christ.
I still don't. Mayhaps you could point me in that direction.
Everything I've read seems to indicate that most scholars think the TF section is a forgery. i understand you have something from ONE theologian, but it doesn't really establish that the "majority" of theologians think that.
That's why I asked. And, as per usual, you blew a fuse because someone noted that you don't really have more behind your point.
Nope. Reading many years ago. But, again, you MUST be the smartest person in the room.
If you can't actually understand what I have written I will have to say it calls into question ALL your reading skills. So far you have missed my point by a mile, maybe a hundred miles. You constantly misrepresent it and build strawmen about it.
Learn.To.Read.
Your reasoning lies on assuming that all the lines of evidence supporting the authenticity of Josephus' text are lies, fabrications, deceptions.
Someone who within fifteen minutes and some cursory frantic googling can just dismiss multiple lines of evidence - evidnce they weren't even aware of 48 hours ago - is not practicing genuine skepticism.
That is not a skeptical approach. That is an approach of someone who is recalcitrant and wants to cling to a belief they got from reading a blog ten years ago about Josephus.
I'm not sure what your point is. Did the Christian bible borrow stories from other Mediterranean religions? Yes, obviously. The first Christian evangelists to the gentiles, like Paul, Luke, and Timothy, were Hellenized so they were bringing Greek ideas into Christian belief and theology.The first Hebrew writing about a man-god of peace dates back before Babylon invaded Judah in 597 BCE. Jews were forced to relocate to Babylon where they learned about crucifixion. I can also bring in the Egyptian influence on the composite religion of christianity.
Again, jews were tired of endless war 700 years before the biblical Jesus. There was no internet back then so it took many centuries to spread new ideas about a god of peace.
As a child I mastered the board game Risk and beat all adults by controlling the trade route that connects Asia with Africa and Europe. I was amazed at how easy it was for me to outthink adults so it led to my fascination with the Levant region, especially as Palestinians started taking over my neighborhood.A lot of Christian thought, especially as concerns the afterlife, was lifted largely from Greek influence from what I understand from my reading. I think we can all agree Christianity is a re-mix religion that takes in a large number of other influences (probably as all religions do)
But, again, the larger point: what if there were no historical Jesus? Would it matter? For an atheist, no it doesn't matter. What matters is the TEACHINGS OF JESUS which are put down in the Gospels.
I will agree it is fun to find evidence that certain semi-mythical people actually DID exist. History is replete with that sort of thing. And it definitely enriches us as a species.
HOWEVER the primary goal of pushing (especially as HARD as some on here do) the 'historical Jesus" is normally to firm up the reliance on the Bible as a source for actual historical truth. Of course none of the Gospels were written for that reason. Probably few in the ancient world actually DID understand what a "history" would entail anyway.
The Gospels are all written for some political/theological reason. Matthew was written for the second generation of Christians in Judea and is most closely aligned with Judaism (SOURCE). Luke was writtten primarily for a Greek-speaking audience of Gentile converts, etc. There are jarring discontinuities between the Gospels but that's not a surprise. They were written from a particular bias and they often introduced infromation that reflects that bias.
The main point being that one does not necessarily NEED Jesus to be a historical figure to appreciate the TEACHINGS. One however, does NOT need the supernatural stuff that comes along with all the "proof of his historical existence".
I gravitate to principled people simply because honesty comes out of the oppressed. Something long forgotten by judeo-christians.
There is obviously a lot of information about Josephus' Antiquities you were totally unaware of until you read my posts.
You're pathetic. Really. You just HAVE to be the smartest little boy in the room.
You didn't know there were Arabic translations,
That's called BEING HONEST. Try it some time you pathetic scum.
Your reasoning lies on assuming that all the lines of evidence supporting the authenticity of Josephus' text are lies, fabrications, deceptions.
All you do is lie. Why is that?
My point is evidence. Archeological data always favors white European interpretation of reality. We live in a time when everything we were taught is now being questioned.I'm not sure what your point is. Did the Christian bible borrow stories from other Mediterranean religions? Yes, obviously. The first Christian evangelists to the gentiles, like Paul, Luke, and Timothy, were Hellenized so they were bringing Greek ideas into Christian belief and theology.
You're pathetic. Really. you pathetic scum.
Explain why it makes you angry for me to tell you things about Josephus' antiquities you were not aware of until I told you.
That fact that you so quickly and curtly dismissed all the supporting lines of evidence as lies, deceptions, fabrications show you are not a skeptical thinker. You are an emotional thinker with preconceived notions you desire to cling to.