Last week I mentioned an email exchange that I had with Nate who has been struggling with some Christ Myth arguments so when I came across a post I wrote two years ago that had links to a series that Darrell Bock did in response to Christ Myther Earl Doherty’s book The Jesus Puzzle I sent it along to Nate. He emailed me back with some doubts about Josephus’ usefulness as a reference to the historical Jesus. This is what he said:
Thanks, I have been looking over it this afternoon. [This is?] What I have been thinking about Josephus lately. So Joe was a Jewish guy from Galilee, who fought the Romans and then sided with them when he lost. He wrote a couple books Antiques and War, it is said he wrote more but we don’t have them. Now, in Antiques there is a reference to Jesus called the Testimonium Flavianum, but most consider it corrupt but believe it does mention Jesus. One problem, the earliest copies of that part of Josephus are from the 11th century and the early church fathers never mention the TF, even the partial, until Eusebius, and he endorsed lying to spread the Gospel. Am I missing something? Josephus doesn’t seem to be a good reference for the historical Jesus.
Here’s my response:
I must be missing something in your reasoning. I’m trying to figure out why Josephus wouldn’t be a good reference for the historical Jesus. To start, there are two references to Jesus in Antiquities (18.63; 20.200) and the latter is not disputed at any point while the former, as you mention, is disputed but still believed to originally have mentioned Jesus without the trumped up ‘wise man messiah’ language. But if Eusebius writing in the fourth century quotes the Christian interpolation of the passage, it means that the unaltered text occurs at least before the fourth century, so how would the earliest extant manuscript dating to the eleventh century be a ‘problem’ exactly? Also, again, we need to discern the genre of writing in which Eusebius quotes Josephus. Eusebius wrote a ‘history’ of the church. The other church fathers that preceded him didn’t. They wrote apologies, homilies, commentaries on the Bible, etc. Furthermore, the existence of Jesus was never a point of dispute (just as is the case in Paul) so there was never a need to argue for his existence. Also note that Eusebius doesn’t quote Josephus for the reason of proving Jesus’ existence. Also keep in mind that the material that Eusebius quotes from Josephus with regard to John the Baptist is not in dispute, so if your reference to Eusebius endorsing lying to spread the gospel is supposed to intimate that perhaps he fabricated the quotation then I’d have to say I highly doubt it. In any event, I just can’t see why Josephus isn’t a good reference for the historical Jesus.
And coincidentally Mark Goodacre just posted a video with Geza Vermes talking about the Testamonium Flavianum from 1984:
Oh, and while we’re on the subject, apparently you can win $1000 if you prove that Jesus didn’t exist.
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
He really needs to look at N. T. Wright’s “New Testament and the People of God” to get a thorough and balanced appropriation of Josephus.
Oh, the Christ mythers :(
Anthony: Speaking of which, I’ve been meaning to read that book for ages. I keep telling myself that I’ll go through it before the year is out but seeing as we only have less than two months left I doubt it will happen.
Ari: There’s never been a group I felt more free to ignore. ;-)
Nick,
I have the same relationship to Wright as you do to Hurtado. I’ve read his Christian Origins Series (what he’s done so far!) twice.
p.s. – It’s not a big deal but could you call me “Tony” instead of “Anthony?” Anthony usually meant that I was in trouble with my parents, and perhaps I’ll use it as a scholars name (hence a d hunt) someday, but I like to think we’re casual enough that you could use my more common moniker.
You might also want to send him to the following link:
http://publicchristianity.org/Videos/josephus.html
Tony: Sure, I’ll use Tony. I generally call folks by the name that appears on their comment (hence my calling you adhunt when you first started commenting over here) but since all your posts on your blog say Anthony Dale Hunt I figured you went by Anthony.
Concerning Wright, I have NTPG and I’ll be picking up the other two volumes soon, but I’ve not been able to make the time to give it a thorough reading. I’ve referenced it at times by using the index but I don’t believe I’ve really read past chapter 1. It’s crazy too because I know how important of a contribution it is, and I know how relevant it is to my main study interests. There’s really no excuse for me not having read it, especially since I’ve owned it for over 2 years and I bought it back when there was hardly anything in my library!
Erlend: Thanks!
I can use the money, but how can one prove a negative?
I would point him to John P. Meier’s Marginal Jew series, which treats all the evidence pretty thoroughly and in a balanced manner.
Hey Nick. Sorry this isn’t in hyperlink (Im on my Iphone as my computer is presently on the fritz), the Eusebius charge is repeated ad nauseum all over the place. Take a look here:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm
for a nice breakdown of the various charges brought against E from all over the place. We DO have two other works from Josephus btw random myther dude. Against Apion and his biography. But these works arn’t quotes until many years after their purported dates of publication. And the manuscripts come to us from nearly 1000 years after the fact. Oh dear God, I think I just proved Josephus didn’t exist….
I wonder what the guy who says Eusebius lied is saying: that Eusebius wrote Josephus’ description of Jesus? I mean, liar or not, Eusebius is still referring to something, right?
James: It’s tough, but if anyone can do it, a Christ Myther can! ;-)
Mike: Good recommendation. I’ll make sure to bring it up to him the next time we speak, if he doesn’t see your comment before then.
Derek: The beauty of WP is that it hyperlinks it automatically! Just for clarification, Nate’s not a ‘random myther dude’ so far as I know. He’s just a guy who isn’t quite at the place where he’s realized that mythers aren’t worth taking seriously yet. But yes, you’re correct, there are other works by Josephus, and I thought to mention them in the email, but they weren’t pertinent to my point. BTW, I think you DID prove that Josephus didn’t exist! That’s gotta be worth at least $50! ;-)
James: I wasn’t exactly sure why he made the reference to Eusebius advocating lying to promote the gospel. I can’t see that anyone who knows anything about either Eusebius or Josephus suspects that Eusebius fabricated the passage, so he might have had another point, maybe just that we can’t take Eusebius’ word for it. Either way, yes, Eusebius is referring to something (and keep in mind that he presupposes the existence of Jesus in all of his writing before his referring to Josephus).
Ha! I’ll take it. What do I get if I prove you don’t exist Nick? :P Btw, r u looking forward to Assassin’s Creed 2? The first one was just so dang much fun to play.
Derek: Sadly, I never played the first one. The commercials for AC2 look cool, but I’ve been duped by commercials before. At the moment I’ve been spending some time playing Batman: Arkham Asylum which is pretty fun.
It would be great to ignore them, Nick, but they just grow in numbers on the internet. I guess once Dawkins, Hitchens and others endorsed it as a legitimate historical view many sceptics have been all over it.
@Tony, that is amazing that you have read through Wright’s three volumes twice! I haven’t been able to finish it all once! But it is has been at the top of my list for such a long time.
For those who like to see both sides of an argument, Robert Price lays out the arguments for TF being a complete fabrication.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10
But isn’t Price (and Doherty’s) game to write off everything about a historical Jesus as a fabrication?
You need to create the conspiracy of silence before you can assert it. For example, Doherty calls the numerous references to a historical Jesus in the Pauline epistles a later interpolation (e.g. 1 Thess. 2:15-16.) as does Price (e.g. 1 Cor 15 creed in JHC).
Howdy, I thought people were talking about me somewhere on the internet ;) I’m not a myther, I’m just a Christian who has never taken the time to investigate my faith on a serious level. I started looking at common objections and one (thought many Christians don’t take it serious) is that Jesus is a myth. Nick sent me a link of Dr. Bock going through the 12 points or steps (kinda like AA) of the Jesus Puzzle (that was the “this” I was going through in my email Nick). The 2nd point is that there are no outside 1st century references to Jesus. Of course Joe’s TF in Antiquities comes up. The earliest extant copy of TF comes from the 11th century (If I understand correctly) However, Bock makes the point that we have lots of early parts of Joe’s Antiquities from earlier centuries and the texts appear to line up well through the centuries of scribing. In addition, there is a later reference to James in Antiquities, as the brother of Christ. The way the passage is written seem to allude to an earlier reference to Christ.
The problem
1) We only have TF in 11th Century texts.
2) The only reference to the TF by the early church fathers is by Eusebius. As far as E being a liar, there is a quote of him condoning lying to spread the gospel, I don’t know the context of the quote, so he might be saying something different. Jesus mythers think that Eusebius inserted the entire TF
3) I read an argument that the paragraphs before and after follow easier without any TF.
4) Also, the quote about James could be a later interpolation as well, or as least the Christ part.
5) Since most scholars (even Bock) agree that TF has been added to, why believe any of it.
If I am totally wrong please let me know. Just trying to learn.
Hey Nate,
Christian’s aren’t the only ones who don’t take the Christ myth argument seriously. They are right on par with scholarship on this. Jesus as a historical figure is independently attested to in Christian, Jewish and ‘pagan’ sources. We have no doubts of his historicity in any of these early historical layers.
Regarding Josephus, we have two mentions. As you have noted, the TF has been edited. However, we have the latter reference which seems to strongly imply there was an earlier reference.
If one were to argue that the TF was entirely fabricated – how would one explain away the Arab manuscript tradition which, although containing the TF, does so in a far more neutral way. Some have argued that this reflects the original.
Regarding the point about Eusebius being a liar inventing the TF, the question would be “why?” What reason did he have to insert it? Jesus’ existence was not in doubt.
On your final point on why believe it at all, it would be for the reason above. The second reference to Jesus presupposes an earlier one. Also, the TF contains non-Christian vocabulary. Calling Jesus simply a “wise man”, calling the Christians a tribe, etc.
Ari,
Exactly! In the article Vinny cites, Price accuses “Christians” (Price does not say that only himself and a handful of other extremely anti-Christian authors, most of whom are not historians of anything themselves, deny that Jesus lived) of begging the question. “The TF only looks genuine if we assume Jesus existed.” What! How about, “The Gallic Wars can only be authentic if we assume Julius lived.” We have a wide range of authors within 150 years of Jesus’ life who speak about him. Many more than Julius Caesar. Even if this backdrop was accurate, would this affect the TF? No. What if the TF was our only reference to Jesus? What does this do to others like Honi the Circle Drawer, or the Egyptian, or Gameliel? Price is WAY off base here. No one takes him seriously, and this article shows why.
Vinny,
Many thanks for citing Price here. It’s good to keep the discussion open and even. Nevertheless, the best reason you cited this is because it shows how weak the myther arguments against the TF are. Just to summarize his arguments and comment briefly:
“The passage contains overtly Christian content.”
This is deceptive. The reason most scholars see the TF as partially authentic is because when the obvious Christian glosses are removed, the remaining passage is thoroughly Josephean. This speaks to partial authenticity.
“The overall passage is positive towards Jesus, even if the overtly Christian parts are removed”
This is simply not true. The Christian glosses excised, the passage is neutral to negative regarding Jesus. Very much like the neutral language used to describe John the Baptist (who, according to Price’s logic, we have no reason to believe existed since Josephus does not mention him in Jewish War and he is not mentioned anywhere else save the Gospels).
“The passage interrupts the continuity of the writing”
Again, not true. Josephus is notoriously known as a “patchwork writer”. Sometimes, Josephean scholars cannot be sure what is in chronological order and what is not. (A big disadvantage since much of what we know of first century Palestine comes from J) The discussion of Jesus occurs during Pilate’s reign. Where else should it occur? If it was recounted during the time of Moses, then it would be out of order!
“Jesus is not mentioned in the Table of Contents”
Interesting, but irrelevant. Had the table referred to Jesus, Price would say, “it is obviously from a Christian hand since Josephus did not refer to Jesus.” The tablet neither refers to John the Baptist, James’s martyrdom, or the death of Herod. All things Christians would love to highlight. Basic point, the tablet is meant for easy reference for the ancient reader of Josephus, not for pointing out everything that occurs in the text.
“There are stylistic variations from Josephus’ style”
Yeah…..they are the interpolated elements. The remaining passage is completely Josephean. Unless you want to argue that the interpolator intentionally made it this way….in which case you’d be a paranoid question-beggar.
“The passage is not referenced by anyone prior to Eusebius in the 4th century”
Again, Price does not tell anywhere near the whole story. Why should anyone refer to it? Roger Pearse shows that most of the Fathers had limited knowledge of Josephus. The remaining ones like Origen have NO reason to refer to the TF. This certainly does not count as positive evidence of the TF inauthenticity.
“The section on Pilate is similar to another section on Pilate in Josephus’ earlier writing The Jewish War, which does not contain the Jesus reference”
The Jewish War was about the Jewish/Roman war. Not Jesus or early Christians. The story following Jesus in the Antiquities is not in the Jewish War. Neither is the John the Baptist or the martyrdom of James. Useless as an indicator of the TF in the Antiquities.
“Josephus never wrote anything else about Jesus”
Oooookayyyy…..Price first automatically writes off the second reference to Christ (against ALL scholars who UNIVERSALLY REGARD THE BOOK 20 reference as genuine) But using this logic, Jesus the son of Damneus (who Price says is the James in book 20, not Jesus’ brother, because he argues the words “so-called Christ” are interpolated) didn’t exist. Neither did John the Baptist
“The reference is quite small considering the subject matter, and the fact that Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other “false prophets””
How does this help the inautheticity argument? Jesus is mentioned before John (contrary to a Christian interpolator who would use the Gospels template of mentioning John as Jesus’ precursor) and it is smaller than John’s. A Christian would certainly see Jesus as more important than John, and so would interpolate far more than what is in the reconstructed TF. Check out the Slavonic Josephus from the 10-11th centuries. They added pages to the Antiquities. This is actually a strong argument for authenticity.
“Full insertion of the paragraph is more likely than multiple different alterations”
Nonsense! What a remarkably impotent view of manuscript dispersion. First, he assumes that Origen is quoting a manuscript that attributes the destruction of Jerusalem to James’s martyrdom (after assuming Origen was so stupid he mistook a completely different James for the brother of his Lord in book 20!) This is not at all clear. As a matter of fact, Origen uses Josephus in clever and creative ways many times. Check out Christopher Price’s article in Shattering the Christ Myth. The use of a core, authentic passage for all these interpretations is far more likely than Christians who just went nuts without leaving ANY manuscript evidence and didn’t arouse ANY suspicions from pagans when they changed texts willy-nilly.
Price then argues that the James and Jesus in book 20 are totally unrelated to the biblical characters because:
“Josephus doesn’t mention Jesus”
How is this not a begged question?
“The one Jesus named is the Jesus son of Damneus”
Again a begged question, and leads into this one:
“The phrase “the so-called” Christ is an interpolation”
This is insane! Price reaches this conclusion simply because, well, he says so! Because Jesus didn’t exist because Josephus didn’t mention him. There is NO manuscript or syntactical support for the idea that this phrase is an interpolation! In fact, an interpolator would NOT call Jesus the “so-called” Christ. He would call him “the Christ”, as in the TF interpolations, or “the Brother of the Lord”. This again, works against the inauthenticity argument. Price attempts to save this by arguing “Christ simply means “anointed” hence the Jesus who became the high Priest in Anaus’s place. Making the story one of retribution. Ananus murders James’ the brother of Jesus, and Jesus who is Damneus’s son becomes the high Priest as retribution.
The problem? Josephus says none of this!!!! It is a made-up, desperate scenario envisioned by Price to explain away a clear reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Christ DOES mean anointed, but this is BEFORE the death of James. Price notes the names Jesus and James were common. He should realize that’s why Josephus differentiates between the two Jesus’, one “called Christ” and one “the son of Damneus”, mentioned within close proximity to one another. Besides, Josephus clarifies who James is by mentioning his famous brother, Jesus “the so-called Christ”. He does not say, “James, the brother of Jesus who would become the High priest, who was the sons of Damneus”.
This is simply fanciful by Price, and indicative of why he is largely ignored.
By now, anyone can see these arguments fail. None hold up under scrutiny.
But I do thank you Vinny. I have never seen these articles before.
Derek
Nate,
Hey man! You cannot know how much I sympathize with you my brother in Christ. I am so sorry for being a jackanapes earlier. (Foot in mouth), I deal with mythers all day, every day. Because of my faith problems earlier (about four years ago) I have become somewhat of a specialist in this regard.
I’ve also fallen in love with antiquity, from the ANE, to Greece and Rome. I love it all! That’s why I’m going to school. To help others who are having worries similar to the ones I had. My advice to you is keep digging. Keep reading and analyzing the arguments from every angle. Your objections show you think critically and that’s awesome! In fact, the problem the mythers have is this is the thing they do not do at all. You made a good move coming to Nick. He makes me embarrassed that I’m the one paying for school! Here are some book you may find useful:
Jesus outside the New Testament (Van Voorst)
A Marginal Jew series (Meier)
The New Testament and the People of God series (Wright)
Shattering the Christ myth (Holding, who operates tektonics.org)
Fabricating Jesus (Evans)
Reinventing Jesus (Wallace)
The Jesus Legend (Boyd, Eddy)
And some sites and blogs:
http://www.bede.org.uk/
http://www.tektonics.org/
http://christiancadre.org/cpricevirt.html
http://www.christiancadre.org/metacrockvirtualoffice.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
As for you objections, I’m no expert….yet….but I have studied Josephus (and Tacitus) from every conceivable angle and since Ari nailed it pretty well, I’ll just launch into a tirade about Price’s ridiculous treatment of Josephus
God Bless and keep learning!
Hey Nate,
Check that link about “Eusebius the lair” above. There is NO reason to suppose Eusebius either advocated untruths nor that he wrote the TF. One is bad exegesis and the other is nonsensical speculation. If you read the Price articel, you’ll se to what crazy lengths critics have to go to explain away the good historical evidence for Jesus.
in Christ,
Derek
Hi Nate,
I’m glad you are taking the time and effort to investigate things.
I have a few thoughts.
(1) Jesus was from the outsider’s perspective a failed, provincial, Jewish leader; who also failed to attract any large number of supports during, or after his death. He did nothing of importance that a Graeco-Roman historian would consider worthy of note, especially given his apolitical stance. That we have any plausible contemporary historians writing about Jesus is in itself remarkable! So can I ask you a question: Why do you think there should be these accounts, and if you can’t find them this is so remarkable, so anomalous, that this means there is a problem? I think before you ask your question you need to first ask this one.
(2) We should also remember that we have so little extant classical historical writings. I believe scholars working in this particular area believe we have less than 1% of written documents from classical antiquity. Now combine this along with your demand for a contemporary historical account written within 60-70 years after the event and you should be aware that you are asking for something really rather special in ancient history. Further add to this the demand for neutral (i.e. a non-confessional) account of Jesus’ life and you are narrowing the evidence further. So again I hope you see how these extremely limited barriers which you set for the evidence means you shouldn’t be surprised that a whole tome of sources haven’t been amassed.
Now the following examples are well known, but they are worthy repeating to set your question’s parameters in context . Look at the manuscript evidence for these key Graeco-Roman historical works. The Roman History by Livy, earliest best copy around 400 years after the original; the Histories of Tactitus, 700-900 years after the original; the ‘father of history writing’ Thucydides’ History, earliest best copy around 1300 years after the original.The list could go on and on- and these were important works in the Graeco-Roman literate world, not works valuable to a small, penury stricken Jewish sect. There are also so many fascinating historical works that are only alluded to that we have never seen (Works by Augustus for example). So, again, that we have any evidence for Jesus existing at all is remarkable. Truly, truly remarkable.
Also you might want to look at the following resources which I can highly recommend:
http://www.publicchristianity.com/jesusevidence.html
http://is-the-bible-reliable.org/newtestament.xml
Good luck in the quest for knowledge.
Erlend.
Ari: You mean people actually take Dawkins and Hitchens seriously? I’d put them in the same category as Price and Doherty, i.e., they aren’t worth anyone’s time or attention.
Vinny: I’ll pass on Price but thanks for the link.
Nate: I think I addressed your concerns in my email to you so I’d have little to add at this point, and others have addressed your concerns well, I think. I will say that the idea that the paragraphs before and after the TF read easier without it is a bit subjective, don’t you think? I happen to think that they read perfectly fine with the entire TF in there, just as well with the believed interpolations removed, and they make perfect sense in the context of Josephus’ writing at that point since he was talking about Pilate punishing Jews for sedition. So to mention a Jesus, who had a following, whom Pilate had crucified at this point is consistent with what Josephus was saying.
Also, I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying, “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” and I think it applies here. An addition doesn’t corrupt the entire passage so that we need to do away with it all. If that’s the case then why stop with that small passage and not throw out everything that Josephus ever said about anything? Is it because Christ Mythers don’t take issue with other things that Josephus said? Should we toss out the entire Gospel of John because of the Pericope Adulterae or all of Mark’s Gospel because of the long ending? That’s just not how historians actually ‘do history.’ And as Ari said, it’s not just Christian scholars who say that parts of the the passage are authentic. Geza Vermes in the video above says it and he’s a Jew who has nothing to gain or lose from it.
Ari: Very true. No decent critical scholar takes the Christ Myth argument seriously, and yes, my statement presupposes that anyone who does take it seriously is not a decent critical scholar. ;-)
Derek: Those are good recommendations. Anything from Glen Miller (Christian Think-Tank) is worth checking out and I know that this is a particular specialty of Holding. In fact I sent Nate a link to Holding’s stuff a couple weeks ago. I’ve yet to read a couple of the books you mention so I’ll have to add them to my collection sooner than later.
Erlend: Good points. One thing I’ve always wondered about was the criteria set by Mythers and skeptics. They’re certainly not the criteria used by historians in general. William Lane Craig has pointed out in numerous places that people generally don’t object to Jesus’ historicity, or the historicity of the resurrection, etc. on historical grounds, but rather for philosophical reasons. I think he’s absolutely correct.
Erlend,
According to Price, Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other holy men of the day so that it is not unreasonable to think that his works would have contained more references to Jesus that would not be subject to question.
Most of the responses I see to the Jesus Myth arguments seem to be reasons why we shouldn’t expect to see much evidence of the historical Jesus in the writings of Paul or in secular histories of the day.
While I don’t find most of these reasons completely convincing, even if I did, it would still leave me with the conclusion that we don’t see much evidence of the historical Jesus in the earliest Christian or secular sources which in turn leaves me with the conclusion that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is difficult to eliminate.
On the other hand, I don’t agree with the Mythers who claim that the lack of evidence is sufficient to establish their position either. For me the lack of evidence is a lack of evidence both ways.
Vinny: Maybe you can tell me, since I won’t bother to read it, why Price thinks that Josephus’ references to John the Baptist are not subject to question?
And it’s a bit misleading to say that the response to Myther arguments is that “we shouldn’t expect to see much evidence of the historical Jesus in the writings of Paul.” It assumes a disconnect between the so-called “Jesus of History” and the “Christ of Faith.” I don’t think that most people (at least not the ones I’ve read) who defend the existence of Jesus grant legitimacy to this bifurcation. The argument is more along the lines of “We shouldn’t expect Paul to write a gospel when he was writing epistles.”
Ari – I did skip a bit of “Resurrection of the Son of God” the second time around. Mostly his stuff on Paul just because it gets ssssssssooooooo boring. But he finishing act is on the Gospel accounts and that was spectacular.
Now we just have two or three more volumes to go! If he ever gets around to doing it.
Nick: I don’t think he addresses precisely that question in the article. My guess based on what he did write is that Josephus’ discussion of John the Baptist is consistent with his discussion of other first century religious figures in tone and depth. One of the reasons he gives for rejecting the partial authenticity of the TF even as redacted is that Josephus takes a negative attitude towards others who might have been viewed as rabble-rousers by the Romans. Based on pro-Roman attitude, Price thinks it unlikely that Josephus would not have been overtly negative towards someone who had been executed by the Romans. I think this is logical, but I would like to read those other passages for myself.
However you want to bifurcate the question about Paul, it still comes down for me to the fact that he includes almost nothing about the life or teachings of Jesus prior to the night he was crucified. That he was writing epistles rather than gospels may explain why he didn’t, but it doesn’t make it any easier to establish what Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ earthly ministry was or if he had one.
Maurice Casey completely debunks the current mythers in his forthcoming book. Bye bye mythers.
Vinny: Apparently Price does claim that the passages in Josephus about John the Baptist are spurious as well (see p. 2 of this review).
Steph: Ooh, ooh, have him send me an autographed copy! ;-) What’s the name of the book?
Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of his Life and Teachings. September 2010 T&T Clark.
;-)
Steph: Sounds great. Please beg him to send me an autographed copy! ;-)
Nick:“nd yes, my statement presupposes that anyone who does take it seriously is not a decent critical scholar. ;-) ” – is there any other way?
Tony: Fair enough. Now I know what I’ll be able to skip first time over :p
Steph: Please beg him to send me Nick’s copy.
Vinny,
I don’t want to harp on you man, just to let you know. These are common questions about the TF so I’ll lay down some brief answers for those who have never seen them before and then leave this issue alone.
“According to Price, Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other holy men of the day so that it is not unreasonable to think that his works would have contained more references to Jesus that would not be subject to question.”
First, this is no argument. If Josephus refers to Jesus once, then he does so once (in fact he refers to him twice). That’s just the way it is. We cannot suppose Josephus looked at his information about “holy” men and thought, “I better make sure these guys are all covered evenly.” Price’s argument also relies on the begged question that the second reference is either an interpolation (no evidence for this) or misunderstood (just plain nutty). Second, Price is again deceptive with his data. Josephus DOES say more about John the Baptist, and other “holy” men. Then again, some he doesn’t cover that extensively at all. It’s was all based on what Josephus deemed important, not what we think we should see. To Josephus, Jesus would have meant next to nothing. So, he only mentions him where he feels it is warranted. In fact, Josephus covers the ten year time period around which Jesus died with about 6 pages in the Antiquities, and a mere 1 page in the War. There isn’t that much room here. Finally, the smallness of the passage only aids the partially-authentic argument. A later Christian would NOT have allowed for such an impotent summary of who he believed was the most important person who ever lived vs. John the Baptist or a handful of other “holy” men. Price’s expectations are completely unreasonable.
“Most of the responses I see to the Jesus Myth arguments seem to be reasons why we shouldn’t expect to see much evidence of the historical Jesus in the writings of Paul or in secular histories of the day.”
That’s the point. If there was a silence in Paul, there would be nothing. There is not nothing. Paul mentions events in Jesus life, some of his teaching material as in 1 Cor 11 (interestingly almost all the obvious ones are in 1 Cor), people who surrounded his ministry and activities (Gal 1-2; 1 Thess 2:15; 1 Timothy 6:13) etc. The mythers attempt, like with the TF, is to either insist that these are not genuine or have always been misunderstood by everyone until the mythers themselves realized they had to presume Jesus didn’t exist FIRST, and then look at the evidence. There is not much in Paul, but there is no “silence”. The mythers are simply not listening. And the question remains. Of all the historians for whom we have extant works. Who should mention Jesus? Who would care that much? Almost all we know of 1st Century Palestine in texts comes from Josephus and the Gospels/Acts. The Jesus reference is right were it should be.
“While I don’t find most of these reasons completely convincing, even if I did, it would still leave me with the conclusion that we don’t see much evidence of the historical Jesus in the earliest Christian or secular sources which in turn leaves me with the conclusion that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is difficult to eliminate.”
No historians agree with you my friend. These guys aren’t the first to question the existence of Jesus. In fact, there is an interesting contrast here between how historians have handled hypothesis that question Jesus’ existence and how scientists have handled the whole “ID” thing. Whereas every time Jesus’ existence has been questioned, it has been met by in-depth analysis by historians and has every time been found wanting, the evolutionists simply refuse to discuss ID. I am very confident this time will be no different. Your conclusion is also wrong. What are the Gospels? What is Acts? 1 Clement, Ignatius, Marcion? This is the background data we MUST use to evaluate other early Christian literature. We can’t just pretend they don’t exist.
“One of the reasons he gives for rejecting the partial authenticity of the TF even as redacted is that Josephus takes a negative attitude towards others who might have been viewed as rabble-rousers by the Romans. Based on pro-Roman attitude, Price thinks it unlikely that Josephus would not have been overtly negative towards someone who had been executed by the Romans. I think this is logical, but I would like to read those other passages for myself.”
Look them up. Price is again only reporting like, 25% of the relevant data (something you’ll notice from other scholarly sources he is notorious for). Josephus uses the same tone in recounting John the Baptist’s death. The Baptist was killed by the Roman-appointed King Herod; he does not spare him criticism just because he was a Roman darling. The two passages are quite similar, and they should be. Neither John nor Jesus led any revolts of any kind and both were killed unjustly. Josephus also reports that Pilate gave Jesus over to crucifixion at the suggestion of the “principal men” of Jerusalem, so it’s not clear that he would have viewed Pilate as the wrong-doer here. But even if he did, Josephus reserves some of his harshest criticism for Pilate as one of the main catalysts for the Jewish/Roman war in the Jewish War (also in Ant 18:55; 18:60-62). He also, is not spared because he is a Roman. And a Roman ruler no less. Just after his disastrous reign is recounted, he is recalled to Rome to answer Jewish charges of wrongdoing and is never discussed again (Ant 18:85-89). Price doesn’t understand that Josephus would not want to offend the current Roman hierarchy (the Flavians), not the people who may have led to the very war the Flavians themselves had to put down.
“However you want to bifurcate the question about Paul, it still comes down for me to the fact that he includes almost nothing about the life or teachings of Jesus prior to the night he was crucified. That he was writing epistles rather than gospels may explain why he didn’t, but it doesn’t make it any easier to establish what Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ earthly ministry was or if he had one.”
The key word there is “almost”. Paul DOES give info about Jesus. We CAN know what Paul thought based on his own letters and other early Christian lit. The myther argument dies here. The fact that people like Price and Doherty need to come up with these elaborate, just-so scenarios (Price’s outrageous argument about the James in Ant. Book 20; Doherty’s looney insistence that there is not any evidence for a historical Jesus, but there was instead an huge elaborated cosmic-Christ-cult that flourished for nearly a hundred years and then died out without leaving any evidence except for a handful of letters that sound remarkably like they’re discussing the same Jesus I read about in Matt, Mark, Luke and John but I can’t be because Jesus didn’t exist…..) shows how much one needs to stretch credulity and indeed sanity before they can reasonably come close to concluding that Jesus mythicism has anything going for it.
My two cents
Peace
Ps
Steph, thanks for letting everyone know about that Maurice Casey book! I cannot wait!
Nick: it’s the postage Nick! Oh, and I don’t beg. He’s very kind and I would never ever take advantage of him! You could always write to the publisher when it’s announced and Maurice can send you a wee note to stick inside. :-)
Derek: it’s a pleasure. I feel quite passionate about this work. And don’t worry. The mythers get mashed, critically and rationally.
Steph: Well, you can’t blame me for trying! ;-)
Never Nick!! I love you Nick! ;-) And I appreciate the value you give to Maurice’s pen!
Derek,
I love the way that conservative Christians accuse liberals and skeptics of being deceptive or misleading. You say, “The reason most scholars see the TF as partially authentic is because when the obvious Christian glosses are removed, the remaining passage is thoroughly Josephean. This speaks to partial authenticity.” Doesn’t Dr. Price acknowledge this in the article? That he didn’t address them in the particular sentence that you quoted doesn’t suggest either deception or desperation on his part.
It is much like the accusations that apologists make against Bart Ehrman. I wish I had a nickel for every Christian who has cited Ehrman’s statement about the number of variants in the New Testament manuscripts and proclaimed it misleading because most of them are trivial. They simply ignore the fact that whenever Ehrman cites the number of variants, he promptly explains the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are easily resolved. The only time I know of that he didn’t was when he was on the Colbert Report, but he was having a tough time keeping up with Stephen Colbert’s zingers so I doubt that it was an intentional omission. Nevertheless, apologists act as though they have caught Ehrman in a lie when they are simply pointing out something that he points out all the time.
You are absolutely correct about Dr. Price’s position being in the extreme minority; however that doesn’t make him unworthy of respect. Many scholars with minority positions are worth reading. What matters is whether he deals with the evidence fairly and from what I can see, he does. Whenever, I have seen other scholars address Price’s arguments directly, whether in writing or in debates, the disagreement has always been on the interpretation of the evidence or the weight to be given particular evidence, not because he misstates or conceals evidence.
For example, you claim that it is untrue that “[T]he passage interrupts the continuity of the writing.” You then immediately contradict yourself by saying “Josephus is notoriously known as a ‘patchwork writer’.” So in fact you are acknowledging that Price is telling the truth about the discontinuity. You simply believe that there is another explanation for it and that it does not deserve the weight that Price is giving it. Of course the fact that there are other discontinuities in Josephus isn’t really sufficient to establish that interpolation isn’t the cause for this one.
While it is true that few credible scholars would go so far as to posit an entirely mythological Jesus, I think there are many who would acknowledge the possibility that the historical Jesus may have been so thoroughly mythologized as to be virtually unrecoverable. I think there are many scholars who would acknowledge the plausibility of most of the myther arguments that Price makes on particular points. The problem is that for Price’s overall thesis of a purely mythological Jesus to be true, the myther explanation would have to be the right one in each and every case and the historical one wrong in each and every case. The probability of this seems small to me, but not trivial.
For me, the biggest problem with the myther position is that so many of them are so obnoxious. Like the worst of their conservative opponents, they have an annoying tendency to simply repeat the arguments for their positions without fairly addressing the good points that their opponents make. They also share the inclination to proclaim any plausible argument on their side to be irrefutable proof of their position. However, I would exclude Price from this category along with Richard Carrier.
I would also agree with you that there is a remarkable similarity between the Jesus described in Paul and the Jesus I read about in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I just don’t know how much that supports the case for historicity because Paul’s Jesus may have one of the primary sources for the Jesus of the gospels. Since Paul says he got his understanding by direct revelation from Christ himself, using the similarity to establish the connection to a historical person is problematic.
I find it interesting that you mention 1 Clement since I find that a very puzzling writing from a historical Jesus perspective as it doesn’t demonstrate any greater familiarity with the Jesus of the gospels than Paul’s epistles despite being written forty years later. While it is true that Clement wasn’t writing a gospel any more than Paul was, he was trying to show the Corinthians that they were wrong to have replaced their elders. If Clement had known the gospel stories and regarded them as authoritative, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t have used some of the stories in which Jesus commissioned the apostles to show how the authority of the deposed elders could be traced back to Jesus himself.
Just as strange in Clement is the way he uses the legend of the phoenix to explain the resurrection rather than relying on the gospel accounts of the empty tomb or the appearances of the risen Christ. This suggests to me that early Christian leaders might not have drawn a clear distinction between mythological and historical events. It also suggests to me that the gospels were either not yet written, not yet in general circulation, or not yet regarded as authoritative.
Vinny, you had better look out for Maurice Casey’s book as well. He is an independent secular historian and a biblical scholar. His expertise in ancient languages is phenomenal, his profound knowledge of the early sources and history is profound and his integrity and honesty is impeccable. He can’t even tell a white lie. And far from debunking history he is committed to honest critical scholarship and has exposed the mythers’ arguments as false with evidence you won’t be able to refute. He’s not interested in dubunking Christianity either. You’ll all be very surprised at his conclusions I think.
I look forward to it Stephanie. It will be so nice to have everything settled beyond dispute.
oh you’re such a cynic ;-)
Steph: The way you keep talking about this book I can’t not read it!
Stephanie: Remember the words of Lily Tomlin (at least that’s who I attribute the quote to), “No matter how cynical you get, it’s almost impossible to keep up.”
Table of contents to Maurice Casey’s book http://tiny.cc/idg9Z
Looks goods no?
Erlend: Looks real good!
Nick: I can’t help it, I have read it chapter by chapter, several times and even talked about it often through the day … :-)
Vinny: nice quote
Vinny,
Out of all the random tangents to discuss from this thread, I don’t know why I’ll pick up on this one outside of my love for Clement’s letter. I probably won’t have time to discuss it or even check for response, but here goes anyways.
Point 1: Clement is obviously most familiar with Hebrews, but also regularly uses 1st Corinthians and Romans…one could easily make a case for other Pauline texts, and possible use of a gospel sayings list or proto-gospel.
Point 2: Although the quotes do not come directly from the synoptic tradition, Clement is aware of some type of gospel or proto-gospel source…for instance, in 13:2 he quotes the Jesus “Show mercy, so that you may receive mercy; forgive, so that you may be forgiven. As you do, so shall kindness be shown to you. With the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Compare with Luke 6:37-38 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” Similar quotes are found in Matthew 6:14, 7:1-2. Obviously the wording is not identical, but it clearly comes from a similar tradition whether from this specific text or from another no longer extant saying.
Point 3: Outside of Wellborn (who oddly dates it at 140), most Clementine scholars are trending earlier. Most seem to date between 69-79 now (following Herron…who follows others that I can’t think of right now), although others still hold to the traditional date around 95. If the earlier dates are correct, then including references from M and L surely wouldn’t be expected, even if they had already been written and started circulating…that’s just too early to expect every letter to quote from the gospels…heck, I’m not surprised that Ignatius (writing in the earliest of the 2nd century) only seems to use Matthew (and possibly Luke)…why would we expect every Christian letter to include gospel references, even if they were known? I’ve written entire devotionals, sermons, journal articles, etc. on Christian topics and never quoted the gospels…does that somehow mean that I’m unfamiliar with the synoptic tradition? ;)
Point 4: Clement fills his letter with secular references as he’s writing from a gentile church to a gentile church. He’s particularly fond of using Stoic thought, as I’m sure you know. Using an Egyptian myth (which most believed to be true) to make a general reference about the “resurrection theme in nature” wouldn’t be surprising. To be honest, he probably thought the phoenix was a real bird in Egypt (he shows no signs of not thinking it real), as plenty of people throughout the world have thought similar stories to be true. I know that where I lived in China, people claimed to believe in a Firebird with similar characteristics…either way, the usage by Clement is simply to illustrate how God has created the concept of resurrection into the fabric of life. Since he’s not talking about specific arguments for Jesus’ resurrection to counter skeptics, but is writing as a Christian leader to a Christian church, why would we expect him to lay out the arguments for Jesus’ resurrection instead of simply assuming it as he does throughout this letter (particularly in 24:1)?
Point 5: Even outside of the last point, he’s talking about the general resurrection anyways and not specifically about Christ’s resurrection (24:1-2). He then lists several examples of a “resurrection theme” in nature (24:2-26:3): Day/Night, Springtime/Harvest, Phoenix. I’ve heard plenty of sermons on resurrection that never mention the empty tomb or appearances of Christ, and simply assume that the congregation is familiar with the story. Since you’ve been around to plenty of churches in your past, I would bet you have as well. Since he assumes that they are familiar with the resurrection of Jesus (ala 24:1), using other illustrations to talk about the hope for a future general resurrection isn’t strange at all.
Point 6: Ignatius is clearly familiar with Matthew and maybe Luke (though not Mark, although some have made the case for references to John I don’t think they are compelling). Anyways, he’s dealing with very similar leadership issues and emphasizes time and time again to respect the leaders and submit to the authority of the apostolic line. Why doesn’t he use the story of Christ commissioning the twelve? My answer: Who knows? It’s for this same reason that I would see your argument from Clement lacking reference to this story (and your extrapolation to assume that he was unfamiliar with the gospel tradition) as not very strong. Ignatius, who is familiar and faces a similar issue, also doesn’t refer to that story…so what? Clement makes it clear that he’s at least familiar with some gospel or proto-gospel tradition.
Steph: I think the family is going to take a trip down to New Zealand around Summer 2011, so just keep Nick’s copy and I’ll pick it up from you in person to save postage, okay? ;)
Ranger: Good points. I pray all is well with you.
Ranger,
Thank you for your input. That is by far the most thoughtful response I have ever gotten when raising questions about 1 Clement. I was not in fact aware that Clement was “particularly fond of using stoic thought,” though it is kind of you to assume that I was. I would note, however, that Clement fills his letter with references to the Old Testament, too, so I really don’t see the explanatory power of characterizing the letter as “from a gentile church to a gentile church.”
I guess I would concede that Clement demonstrates some familiarity with “some proto-gospel tradition,” however, as bishop of Rome, might we not expect him to have personally known Peter, Paul, Mark, and Luke? Dating him earlier may help to explain the lack of direct quotations from the written gospels, but it places him closer to the apostles and evangelists and the stories that form the basis for the gospels.
Back in my church going days, I have no doubt that I heard sermons that discussed the resurrection without mentioning the empty tomb or the post resurrection appearances. I suspect that I also heard sermons that didn’t mention any of the miracles Jesus performed. I probably heard ones that didn’t reference his interaction with his apostles or his exchanges with Jewish leaders of his day. Nevertheless, I doubt that I heard them week in and week out for any extended period of time.
One of the complaints I see frequently leveled against Robert Price is his penchant for dismissing inconvenient passages as interpolations. While it is undoubtedly true that any individual passage could be an interpolation, the probability that they all are is small. I am having the same problem with the argument that early Christian writers assumed their audiences familiarity with the gospel stories about Jesus’ life and ministry. One or two letters that simply assumed familiarity with the historical Jesus of the gospels is one thing, but I think it strains credulity to resort to that explanation for the scarcity of references in the entire body of first century Christian writings.
Vinny: I’m not sure why you think it incredulous for first century Christian writings to presuppose the so-called historical Jesus. Take into account the type of culture it was (J. P. Holding following a number of social-scientific commentators refers to it as a ‘high context’ culture) and it’s not so incredulous. It’s not so strange to talk about people nowadays without detailing their entire lives or everything they’ve done. When I teach or preach at my current church I make regular reference to my former pastor, a man whom most of the congregation has never met, yet when I mention him I don’t rehearse his ministerial career for the purpose of making my point. They’re familiar with who he is from things I’ve said about him previously.
I’m no sociologist Nick, but I cannot see how the churches that were the recipients of Paul’s letters could possibly considered high context cultures. The letters themselves don’t indicate any uniformity of tradition and experience within the congregations or between Paul and the members of the congregation. On the contrary, the congregations had been formed relatively recently out of people from a variety of backgrounds and newcomers were joining everyday. This is not the kind of high context environment in which Paul could have assumed that everyone shared his understanding of Jesus’ life and ministry and, in fact, his letters often dealt with the fact that they didn’t.
Vinny: The Ancient Mediterranean at large at the time period is considered a high context culture, at least according to social-scientific commentators (e.g., Jerome Neyrey; Bruce Malina; John Pilch). For example, Malina & Pilch say in their Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul:
That the recipients of his letters were familiar with Jesus before receiving the letters is without question (all the more since in most cases they were churches that he had established!). He doesn’t argue that Jesus exists, he just talks about Jesus because they already know about Jesus. You might like more reference to Jesus’ public ministry, but as Malina and Pilch say: “Paul, like the other New Testament writers, did not have modern Americans in mind when he wrote.” (ibid., p. 3) I’m sure you’d agree.
Also, in stating that his “letters dealt with the fact that they didn’t” (leaving aside the obvious that there is no such “fact”) aren’t you then suggesting that Paul provides exactly the kind of information that you claim he doesn’t? It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. Either Paul doesn’t give witness to Jesus’ life and ministry or he does to deal with the fact that his audience isn’t familiar with such things. Which is it?
Ach – beware of the ‘ethnocentrism’ of the Context Group Nick :-)
So what if Paul’s letters don’t talk about Jesus’ life. They were letters written to communities about current issues like conduct and faith. Jesus WAS crucified but IS very much risen, according to Paul…
Steph: Exactly. And I will beware. Are they any more ethnocentric than all those 19th century German scholars?
What about the 20th century Nazi German scholars? Good parallel. I think James is redoing a paper related to Malina and co for SBL. It’s brilliantly funny ironically. He’s written on them in various places and Maurice has written an article on Nazi scholarship.
Actually no – Maurice has written an article on anti Semitic assumptions in the TWNT and also an essay on the quest of the historical Jesus which included Nazi scholarship, in a book edited by James and Christian Karner.
I am sure that Neyrey, Malina, and Pilch are all very bright men, but they are all theologians rather than anthropologists or sociologists. I am not sure that they can be considered authorities on the question.
When I say that Paul’s letters dealt with the fact that his audience did not share his understanding of Jesus’ life and ministry, you could fairly argue that I am impliedly admitting that there was some understanding to be shared. That was not my intent, however. What I was thinking of was Paul needing to straighten out his audience on theological issues. When Paul writes to the “foolish Galatians,” he is doing so precisely because they either didn’t understand what he had told them before or they had become confused about it. This would seem to be a contra-indicator of high context culture.
I have no doubt that the recipients of Paul’s letters had already heard of Jesus. My question is what they understood about what Jesus did during his life and what he taught. Paul’s letters don’t give me much evidence with which to answer that question. I wouldn’t expect Paul to argue about Jesus’ existence and the fact that he doesn’t talk about Jesus’ teachings or his miracles doesn’t prove that he didn’t know about them. It simply leaves the question unanswered.
Maybe Steph can help out more with this thought, but I’d say it’s fair to assume that the first century church was probably familiar with the Sermon on the Mount.
The passage quoted above from Clement seems very similar to passages that both Luke and Matthew include in the Sermon on the Mount.
The Two Ways section of the Didache, which is early, quotes sections from the Sermon on the Mount.
Of course, the 1st Cor. 7 section where Paul refers to a saying from the Lord comes in Mark 10 and Luke 16, but Matthew places it in the Sermon on the Mount (5:32).
Anyone have more thoughts on this, or can you think of other 1st century non-gospel texts where the Sermon on the Mount is in reference?
Steph: Tell him to post it on his blog when he’s done with it! I have Casey’s article on antisemitism in TWNT but I’ve yet to read it.
Vinny: I don’t see how a genetic fallacy calls into question their assessment of the ancient Mediterranean.
I think you’re probably misunderstanding what a high context culture is. That the Galatians would have necessary background information so that Paul doesn’t need to spell certain things out for them (like the existence of Jesus or who Abraham was) is what is meant. Not that they can’t fall into theological or doctrinal error and need to be corrected. Their conflict with the Judaizers doesn’t evince their unfamiliarity with the Gospel Paul preached to them, just a misunderstanding about what it all meant.
And to keep repeating myself, Paul does talk about things that Jesus said and did; that he doesn’t do them with the frequency that you’d prefer only leaves a question that shouldn’t be asked of the text in the first place unanswered.
Ranger: Off the top of my head, no. I’ll dig around and see what I can find.
Hi Ranger: I’m working on sources of the Matthew and Luke’s ‘sermons’ at the moment. I think it’s fair to say on other grounds that it’s plausible they knew sources and gospels as well.
I see no reason to think the life of Jesus was important to Paul’s audience. What was important was that he had risen from the dead as evidence of who he really was (however you want to interpret that). And Paul was not giving them lessons in recent history, and he was not writing biographies, – he was … writing letters! :-)
And Nick, I tell nobody to do anything! ;-)
Steph: Okay, suggest it then. ;-)
Amazing! Such a long thread of comments… I don’t even have time to read that all, but I was wondering, for Nick or whoever else…
I’m thinking about getting Wright’s series on Christian origins… does it matter which one I read first? I wasn’t sure if one builds on top of the other..
Any recommendations on which one to start with?
Mike: I have the first volume but haven’t read the majority of it. I haven’t even seen the other two volumes, so I can’t answer your question. I think it would be logical to read them in order though. I’m sure Wright has a purpose in writing them that way.
Mike,
Lots of people go straight to “Jesus and the Victory of God” and apologists (and a few anti-apologists) often skip the first two books altogether and go straight to “Resurrection,” but I think starting with “New Testament and the People of God” is essential. Besides it being one of the best books I’ve ever read, I think it lays the foundations for the others.