an example of the kind of thing to avoid

[Solo]

I argue, in harmony with Galileo, that the earth rotates about the sun. I am not seeking to "deride the opposite belief". There is only ONE truth, Jiri. Not two. Your idea, that Galileo is entitled to his opinion, and the RCC entitled to their opinion, though, Galileo never imprisoned any church officials, nor bestowed unspeakable horrors upon those who dared to repudiate the Vatican, is false. Do you honestly believe, that when Galileo published his masterpiece, his goal was to "badmouth" the RCC? I believe that he published his epic research to prove his point, not to disprove someone else's.

Jesus is a myth, just like Herakles, the model upon which the gospel writers depended. There is only ONE truth, here, Jiri. Either Jesus existed, and we have no evidence for that, else he did not exist, and we do possess evidence that he did not. Here, as with Herakles, the evidence is overwhelming that the figure described is superhuman, hence, a work of fiction, not historical biography.

Avi,
this is the type of argument that is unhelpful. Your starting point is manifestly fallacious. That the gospels describe Jesus as superhuman does not any way guarantee that the figure they lionize did not exist. We have a number of examples of pseudo biographies of figures who allegedly possessed supernatural powers who were undoubtedly historical. Carrier cites the example of Saint Genevieve whose posthumous hagiography listed her miraculous cures, (and causing blindness to thieves in reversed cures), calming storms and righting capsized vessels, casting and summoning demons. The greatest of 'bogatyrs', all-purpose rescue heroes of 'Russian' folktales, Ilya of Murom was a character spliced from two related historical figures. The Slovak highlander Robin Hood named Juro Janosik who was said to uproot hundred-year old oak trees with his bare hands and fight off a regiment of soldiers single-handed, was a real-life highwayman who was hanged in 1715 by the Hungarian authorities. The certificate of his execution is still around. So while I agree that the gospel events are fictional, or at any rate, mostly so, there is nothing I am aware of that would logically exclude the possibility that the fantasies reference a historical figure.

FWIW, your Galileo example is ironically proving my point. He had some very powerful admirers in the Church, chief among them cardinal Barberini, the future pope Urban VIII who was to become his jailer. Urban VIII became famous for his reaction to the passing of the man called Grey Eminence, ' if there is God, cardinal Richelieu has much answer for, if there is no God he has done very well.' Believing himself to be invulnerable, Galileo broke the agreement he had with the Church in which he was allowed to discuss Copernicus heliocentric theory as 'a hypothesis' (even though the teaching was placed on the prohibited "index" by the Inquisition). He became inceasingly challenging to the established Church hierarchy, finally creating a pamphlet (Dialogue in the Flux and Reflux of the Tides) in which he ridiculed (through a character called Simplicio or Simpleton, the Ptolemaic cosmology on which the Church relied. The story of Galileo is really very interesting and far from a story of good (science) vs bad (religion). Suffice it to say that Galileo was bluffing with his challenge to the Church ( he was also plainly wrong vis-a-vis Kepler) even though he was vindicated later by Newton's theory of gravity. There is an excellent account of the whole Galileo affair in Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers.

Best,
Jiri

[MrMacSon]

... Either Jesus existed, and we have no evidence for that; else he did not exist, and we do possess evidence that he did not ...

There were lots of Jesuses at the time - Josephus lists ~19 (I think).

A key issue might be whether any were the basis for aspects of the biblical character; Jesus of Nazareth.

Key Jesuses might be Jesus ben Damneus or Jesus ben Ananias ... [add] or previous others, such as Jesus Son of Sirach

[Leucius Charinus]

... Either Jesus existed, and we have no evidence for that; else he did not exist, and we do possess evidence that he did not ...

There were lots of Jesuses at the time - Josephus lists ~19 (I think).

A key issue might be whether any were the basis for aspects of the biblical character; Jesus of Nazareth.

Key Jesuses might be Jesus ben Damneus or Jesus ben Ananias ... [add] or previous others, such as Jesus Son of Sirach

Thanks Avi and Mac,

This exchange is really getting at one of the key issues. I have been guilty in the past of taking a hard-line approach in order to totally stress-test the various interpretations of the evidence, and the various ways in which the evidence is being valued by various parties. But just before the FRDB "melt-down" I was essentially forced to acknowledge and confront the very real possibility (I rated it as about 90%) that this Dura Fragment 24 predated Constantine, and that therefore Constantine most likely did not fabricate the gospels etc out of "whole cloth" but that there was at least something there (ie: DF24) before he arrived.

This has forced me to re-evaluate all my ideas and the process of revaluation is still in progress. One of the likely implications is that there was a story in circulation during the mid 3rd century (near Dura Europos) about a figure which, in the text, was represented by the "IS" nomina sacra code. This figure may have been historical but who was it? I don't know. I still don't buy Eusebius. But the point is that I have had to rethink through the possibilities and probabilities, in order to adequately address the evidence in probabilistic terms.

One thought about this at the moment was that the "story Jesus" could have been any one of countless unknown "divine men" who were butchered and persecuted by the greedy ruthless barbaric power-hungry Roman military machine in the 1st or 2nd (or even 3rd) centuries. I just thought I'd mention this change in my perspective for the record of these discussions.

For those who may not have yet read the story of Jesus ben Ananias, here it is:

Jesus son of Ananias: A Voice from the East


But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,

"A voice from the east,
a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides,
and a voice against this whole people!"

This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon the magistrates, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was,

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.
Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come.
This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force,

"Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the Holy House!"

And just as he added at the last,

"Woe, woe to myself also!"

there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

SOURCE: Josephus War 6.5.3 (thanks spin)

[spin]

When you cite material such as ancient sources or books, please state specifically where it comes from. It allows other people to consult it.

[MrMacSon]

... the process of revaluation is still in progress. One of the likely implications is that there was a story in circulation during the mid 3rd century (near Dura Europos) about a figure which, in the text, was represented by the "IS" nomina sacra code. This figure may have been historical but who was it? I don't know. I still don't buy Eusebius. But the point is that I have had to rethink through the possibilities and probabilities, in order to adequately address the evidence in probabilistic terms.

One thought about this at the moment was that the "story Jesus" could have been any one of countless unknown "divine men" who were butchered and persecuted by the greedy ruthless barbaric power-hungry Roman military machine in the 1st or 2nd (or even 3rd) centuries. I just thought I'd mention this change in my perspective for the record of these discussions.

There is some discussion that one/some of the gospels may be based on Jesus ben Ananias (Luke? Luke-Acts?)

As for Eusubius, Richard Carrier recently commented that Eusebius seems to have been "a bit of a drip", and acquired stuff from Pamphilus of Caesarea and Origen.

In defense of Aslan’s conclusion (not necessarily his wording), Olson has blogged about how the most common arguments against Christian authorship of the TF are ironically among the best arguments for its forgery by Eusebius (a Christian): see The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus. In that analysis (well worth reading) he cites his past and present work, and that of his critics, and mentions why they are wrong. Combined with his chapter [“A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum”] in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations (Harvard University Press, 2013), I think the case is now pretty strong that Eusebius did indeed fabricate the TF.

Or…that Pamphilus of Caesarea did.

This is a possibility Olson does not consider, but that I think deserves equal attention. My impression from the work of Eusebius is that he is kind of a doof and didn’t actually know where passages like this came from. I suspect he is not the forger [of the Testimonium Flavium]. But Olson’s evidence entails that if Eusebius is not the forger then his teacher and predecessor almost certainly is, and that’s Pamphilus of Caesarea. We have almost none of what was written by that man, thus we can’t check directly, but all the evidence Olson finds of Eusebian authorship of the TF could be remnants of vocabulary, idioms, and ideas Eusebius inherited from his teacher. And the timeline fits (I argue the accidental interpolation in the other passage occurred under Pamphilus’s watch as well, since it’s clear Eusebius didn’t know that had occurred, as I show in my article, yet it must have occurred after Origen, as I also show in my article, and Pamphilus was Origen’s successor; I also demonstrate there that all present copies of Josephus derive from the copy Eusebius held in his library, which was Pamphilus’s library, inherited from Origen).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4391

[Leucius Charinus]

As for Eusubius, Richard Carrier recently commented that Eusebius seems to have been "a bit of a drip", and acquired stuff from Pamphilus of Caesarea and Origen.

Thanks Mac. Yes I have read Carrier's alternative possibility ....

I think the case is now pretty strong that Eusebius did indeed fabricate the TF.

Or…that Pamphilus of Caesarea did.

This is a possibility Olson does not consider, but that I think deserves equal attention.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4391

I would like to see Carrier's exposition of Baye's Theorem applied to this forgery, or to forgeries in general, and expect that this will appear in his forthcoming book.