.

Dear Mike (the author)

.

« Even if there is no God, there was still an historical Jesus. »

In that hypothesis there is no need to write the word “god” with a capital “g”. Also, the “historical Jesus” to whom you refer (in that hypothesis) could not have existed because he could not have been the son of a god who did not exist. Consequently, a more precise formulation of your hypothesis would be:

« Even if there is no god, there was still an historical Jesus who was not the son of god. »

That is not the only problem with your term: “an historical Jesus”. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jesus at the time. Jesus was a very common name. There may have even been several Jesus of Nazareth. There were certainly many historical Jesus – perhaps even some corresponding to one or more of those ten events on the check-list you indicate.

I should be interested to know if there is also a check-list of events which scholars are equally confident raise serious doubts about the existence of the “historical Jesus”. Why, for example, wipe away all physical trace of “the historical Jesus” on earth? Was there something to hide, that nobody should know about? Why, for example, should “god” take human form if it was just to do the disappearing act so that nobody could check the facts out seriously?

That seems closer to the conjuror or the illusionist than the divine, which, I imagine, was not the intent. In fact, in the final analysis, the whole operation appears to have been more of a failure than a success. Wouldn’t you agree?

.

McvReal wrote:

"OR, the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation."

Ummm, no. Perhaps you don't understand what "scholarly consensus" means. The majority of scholars accept that the Flavian reference has been added to but is not a wholesale interpolation. The latter position is held by a shrinking minority.

""The reference to the execution of Jesus' brother in *Antiquities* XX.9.1" ... is dubious..... the term 'brother' had other meanings."

So here is where you need to provide evidence that it has some other meaning in Josephus' mention of James. Simply waving around the mere possibility that it meant something else is not good enough. So, what have you got?

"Moreover, the vague reference to Jesus in Antiquities* XX.9.1 is weird. It may well be a scribal error as carrier has argued in a peer-reviewed journal article -"

Carrier's article is his usual weak, supposition-laden crap. Origen quotes the passage in question, *with* the key phrase "the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah" no less than three times. Carrier's attempt at waving this away with some weak nonsense about how Origen was muddling up Josephus and Hegesippus is undermined by the fact that he quotes Josephus word for word each time - this is not some memory, it's a reference to the text. Carrier also seems unaware that the phrase in question is a use of the *casus pendens* - a Semiticism typical of Josephus. And his claim that the "Jesus" in question was Jesus son of Damneus fails about about three count, not least of which being the fact that this Jesus goes on to become friends with the former high priest Hanan - who according to Carrier has just killed ben Damneus' brother! Carrier's argument is nonsense, which is why that article has sunk without trace.

"Lastly, Tacitus Annals 15 does not refer to Jesus; only Chrestians (sic) following a Christ."

Yes, a Christ who was executed by Pilate in Judea during Tiberius' reign. Sound like anyone you know? Get a clue please.

AJ Philips wrote:

"So much anger, TimONeill."

Anger? I'm perfectly calm thanks. Or maybe just slightly amused at the usual crappy Myther arguments being wheeled out yet again.

" No-one here has claimed that this means they mustn’t have existed."

The lack of contemporary attestation has been raised here as some kind of problem when it comes to Jesus' historicity. And it isn't.

"Your third quote was also rubbish. No-one said that."

It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. And someone did say that.

"ou provided no examples of your assertions."

No examples of what? The weak arguments of the Mythers? All my paraphrases are examples of those.

"Your final paragraph was just as pitiful with an ad hominem attack on Richard Carrier that contained no reasoning to support your attacks, just assertions."

I can back them up in great detail if you like. Give me an argument by Carrier that you find persuasive and I'll show you why real scholars don't.

"In amongst all this outrage and scoffing at Jesus Mythicicsts, you Christians miss an even bigger problem for your theology ..."

I'm an atheist. If you want to rant against Christianity, I'm not your man. My interest is in the objective analysis of history and debunking ideologically driven pseudo historical crap.

Timmy,

quote> "OR, the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation."

Ummm, no. Perhaps you don't understand what "scholarly consensus" means. The majority of scholars accept that the Flavian reference has been added to but is not a wholesale interpolation. The latter position is held by a shrinking minority. <<

ah, so the latter position - "the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation" - IS held by some scholars!
.
.

Brother = adelphos http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family;

6. brethren of Christ

... a. his brothers by blood; see 1 above.

... b. all men: Matthew 25:40 (Lachmann brackets); Hebrews 2:11f (others refer these examples to d.)

... c. apostles: Matthew 28:10; John 20:17.

... d. Christians, .. who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly doxa/opinion/glory which he enjoys: eg Romans 8:29.

So, let me recap: the whole cosmic edifice of a god-given creation; the making of humans; the fall; the redeemer; the salvation or damnation of billions of souls; etc.etc., all of these hang on a couple of lines, likely to be apocryphal, by an obscure first century historian named Josephus who is probably only read by a few hundred scholars in each generation? I am, quite simply, gobsmacked.

I would hate to see you upset then, TimONeill.

<<Anger? I'm perfectly calm thanks.>>

Your entire manner of communication is emotive, and people tend to use emotive language (and paraphrasing) only when they are emotionally invested in a topic.

<<The lack of contemporary attestation has been raised here as some kind of problem when it comes to Jesus' historicity. And it isn't.>>

But that’s not the same as what you “paraphrased” now, is it? And I would say that it is a problem, as it is with any historical figure for which there are no contemporary records.

<<It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. And someone did say that.>>

Paraphrasing is still supposed to accurately reflect what was said, and what you said didn’t.

No-one so much as alluded to a conspiracy. This was just your emotive method of communication at work again. I did, however, suggest that cultural bias was the main reason why Mythers are in a minority, but it’s not necessarily the only reason (if I thought it were the ONLY reason, then I would have said so). Unless you claim that the average Joe on the street has all the knowledge of Biblical scholars to make an informed decision? Of course not. It’s assumed by the average Joe that an historical Jesus existed.

As for expert opinions, I concur with what Richard Carrier said, which is why I've quoted it and linked to a page where he elaborates.

To me, the best evidence for the Jesus myth theory are the tell-tale signs that the Gospel of Mark was a deliberate work of fiction and that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide that.

By the way, I don’t believe you’re an atheist. No-one gets this flustered over the existence of an historical figure. I’ve seen this kind of claim-to-atheism made here several times before in a grab for credibility, but I’ll run with the assumption anyway.