Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ethan
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by Ethan »

But Josephus doesn't mention Paul
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by John T »

Atheist, Tim O' Neill, has written extensively over the recent years about the Jesus Mythicist cult lead by Richard Carrier who are practicing bad history with bad faith.

"History for Atheists regularly features responses to and critiques of Jesus Mythicism – the idea that not only was Jesus not what Christianity claims, but also that there was no historical Jesus at all. Despite this being a thesis with little academic support and accepted by no more than a handful of fringe scholars, it is enthusiastically supported by many atheists, particularly of the New Atheist variety."...Tim O' Neill

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:36 pm Atheist, Tim O' Neill, has written extensively over the recent years about the Jesus Mythicist cult lead by Richard Carrier who are practicing bad history with bad faith.

"History for Atheists regularly features responses to and critiques of Jesus Mythicism – the idea that not only was Jesus not what Christianity claims, but also that there was no historical Jesus at all. Despite this being a thesis with little academic support and accepted by no more than a handful of fringe scholars, it is enthusiastically supported by many atheists, particularly of the New Atheist variety."...Tim O' Neill

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
O'Neill is not the ultimate authority about what Josephus said about Jesus.

Consider the following:
Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:28 am
ABuddhist wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 5:06 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 12:10 am Because I need to do this lest karavan declares me too a Carrier supporter (which I am not by any stretch of the imagination), I must say: I am not a Carrier supporter... or a mythicist. I agree with mythicists on basically most things except that there was a historical Jesus (which is arguably the least consequential or meaningful part of looking at Christian origins, imo). Now I'm just chiming on this one bit here.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:34 pm 3. If one bothers to see that post that I said supplied the scholarly responses on the date, one will find there listed about ten scholars and their various proposals for dates of the different parts of the AscIsa. There is another link to more detailed engagement with the scholarly literature. For some reason I overlooked one of the most significant authorities on the AscIsa in that list, Norelli. Norelli (along with others iirc) argues that the Vision existed before the Martyrdom chapters and is hence earlier.

In other words, my post pointed out that there is scholarly disagreement about the date of the Vision of Isaiah and it is misleading for any scholar to blatantly assert -- without citation or qualification -- that the Vision "is dated to the early second century". Oh, what deceits we can slip in beneath the passive voice! ;-)
I have Norelli's commentary (literally in arm's reach) and Neil is entirely correct here. Norelli argues that the Vision predates the Martyrdom section. Litwa does cite Norelli on the authenticity of the long-ending, what Carrier calls the "pocket gospel" in AscIsa, and argues that the long version is a part of the coherent whole of the rest of the Vision. However, the martyrdom he still ascribes to a later author.

To my knowledge, the only person who argues for a complete unity of the entire AscIsa, including the Martyrdom, is Richard Bauckham. Regardless, Norelli's work has been largely taken as the majority position when it comes to issues of text criticism and unity. As far as dating, I have seen dates range anywhere from the late first to the third century CE, and there seems to be little agreement from what I can tell.

So yeah, Neil is completely correct K. You should probably drop it.
Would you be kind enough to confirm that you think that both references to Jesus Christ in Josephus are interpolations and that you attracted condemnation from another user on r/academicbibilcal for making such a claim? I ask because karavan disbelieved my claims to that effect within this topic.
I think both references to Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities are wholesale interpolations, with the Testimonium Flavianum likely an invention on the part of Eusebius. And yeah, Tim O'Neill and a few others have all lost their minds on me for daring to take this position.
Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:41 am
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 4:21 pm P.S. Proof that Chris Hansen has been "condemned" for his views on Josephus ANYWHERE? The only people who condemned and literally suppressed Chris Hansen was mythicists, who forced him to revoke himself from some of the public conversation on the subject.
Chris Hansen here:
(2) And yes, I was pretty actively condemned. The AcademicBiblical threads on Reddit are a pretty terrible place, and Tim O'Neill and his pals run rampant on there. Tim O'Neill among others were continuously degrading and insulting to me for taking the position that all the Josephan passages on Jesus were interpolations (yes, I think ALL of them are, and I'm undecided on his passage on John the Baptist; at the very least I think it is partially interpolated). I've also taken flack for advocating ethical citation methods, for my position that Tacitus was not an independent source and likely relied on information garnered from Christians (through Pliny the Younger, imo), for my position that historical Jesus studies are largely functioning under Christian Protectionist doxa, and for my position that the Baptism of Jesus is a complete fiction made up by the author of Mark.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:36 pm Atheist, Tim O' Neill, has written extensively over the recent years about the Jesus Mythicist cult lead by Richard Carrier who are practicing bad history with bad faith.
Tim O'Neill uses insult and bullying and bombast to cover up his flawed reasoning and ignorance of historical methods of historians who study ancient sources.

He is on record as saying he finds mythicism embarrassing because it makes atheism look intellectually bad. In other words, he is not neutral and his posts have a personal ego agenda.

His followers are just as ignorant and habituated in the ways of ridicule and insult when confronted with evidence of O'Neill's limited background reading and logical fallacies.

Though an atheist himself, he has relied heavily upon the works of historians who are demonstrably biased towards religious views. As far as I am aware, O'Neill has never shown any awareness of the biases in the secondary sources he cites.

I have repeatedly invited O'Neill for a public exchange on condition that he refrain from insult and ridicule. He has always declined by responding with personal insult.

I have drawn attention to some of O'Neill's more blatantly false claims on my blog.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

John T wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:36 pm Atheist, Tim O' Neill, has written extensively over the recent years about the Jesus Mythicist cult lead by Richard Carrier who are practicing bad history with bad faith.

"History for Atheists regularly features responses to and critiques of Jesus Mythicism – the idea that not only was Jesus not what Christianity claims, but also that there was no historical Jesus at all. Despite this being a thesis with little academic support and accepted by no more than a handful of fringe scholars, it is enthusiastically supported by many atheists, particularly of the New Atheist variety."...Tim O' Neill

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
Yeah I know. I helped him with a few of his articles, including his one on Romans 1:3 and on his Testimonium Flavianum one. I have the emails and message remainders to prove it. Tim is hardly authoritative and, honestly, there are infinitely better critiques of mythicism out there.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by schillingklaus »

Carrier is not an atheist as his god is Ockham's razor.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by John T »

Chris Hansen wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 4:35 pm
John T wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:36 pm Atheist, Tim O' Neill, has written extensively over the recent years about the Jesus Mythicist cult lead by Richard Carrier who are practicing bad history with bad faith.


https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
Yeah I know. I helped him with a few of his articles, including his one on Romans 1:3 and on his Testimonium Flavianum one. I have the emails and message remainders to prove it. Tim is hardly authoritative and, honestly, there are infinitely better critiques of mythicism out there.
Who would you say has a better critique? Please don't respond once again with; "please read all my papers first." :cheers:
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:17 pm
Chris Hansen wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 4:35 pm
John T wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:36 pm Atheist, Tim O' Neill, has written extensively over the recent years about the Jesus Mythicist cult lead by Richard Carrier who are practicing bad history with bad faith.


https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
Yeah I know. I helped him with a few of his articles, including his one on Romans 1:3 and on his Testimonium Flavianum one. I have the emails and message remainders to prove it. Tim is hardly authoritative and, honestly, there are infinitely better critiques of mythicism out there.
Who would you say has a better critique? Please don't respond once again with; "please read all my papers first." :cheers:
You may find the following thread to be interesting: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9717
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by perseusomega9 »

I'm trying really hard to remember why I once unblocked alt-right fundy JohnTroll.
Post Reply