Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
i'm aware the quote is questionable and almost certainly doctored based on christian doctrine, but my understanding is that josephus did in fact refer to jesus even if he didn't oringinally call him the messiah or whatever. i got this impression mostly from bart ehrman's book on the historicity of jesus so my memory on the details is a bit hazy. but he made a pretty convincing case for jesus having existed. josephus wasn't the crux of his argument but was cited as an early non-biblical reference to jesus.
Bart Ehrman on ‘Did Jesus Exist? Part Four |
The problem with Ehrman is as the years go by he seems to be turning more and more into a Christian. Much of what he says here is sheer nonsense. The Testimonium is a fraud--plain and simple. It's stuck between two paragraphs that are obviously meant to be read together, it's out of place and was unknown to anyone before the 4th century--that can't accounted for by any other means than it is a fraud.
His statement:
"And it is extremely useful for establishing the existence of Jesus. If we had only one ancient source that indicated that Jesus lived, we would not be able to make a very strong case. But the reality is that we have lots of sources. Whether or not these sources are biased is immaterial when it comes to this criterion. In addition to Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus – which are not biased in favor of Jesus’ existence, but which are too late to be of supreme importance (since they are so many years after the fact)"
Makes me question this man's credibility (and I'm well aware of his credentials since I have one of his books written he seemed to be far more of a skeptic). Here is a Pliny letter concerning Christians and you tell me if this sounds Christ must have existed:
Pliny and Trajan on the Christians
He's talking about Christians and their belief in Christ and nothing more. it establishes absolutely nothing in terms of whether this Christ really lived.
Tacitus wrote this in 64 AD:
Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius...
What does Tacitus say that he could not have gotten from any Christian source? Clearly, it wasn't taken from official Roman records. For one thing, Pilate was not a procurator. Again, it only tells us what Christians believed about Christ.
What Ehrman does not mention is that the Romans did not know anything about a Jesus Christ. If you read their statements they talk only of Christ or Christus or Chrestus. The name Jesus is never mentioned. The problem is that Christ was used as a title for a whole host of gods, priests and governors. In fact, the Christ that Pliny refers to is probably Serapis not Jesus. As Hadrian wrote in 134 AD:
"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."
In truth, many of the Roman emperors were called Serapis. They were called miracle workers and saviors of the world. They were called sons of god. That was what ticked off the Roman authorities about the Christians in Judea is that they were aping the Imperial Cult by applying it to their religion regarding the coming of a messiah and calling him a savior (Jesus means "savior") as had been done with the emperors.
Ehrman states:
"...we have numerous Christian sources (on which the non-Christian ones are not dependent). In addition to Paul (who is quite clear and explicit that there was a man Jesus!) we have our first Gospel, Mark, itself based on numerous earlier sources, some of them demonstrably circulating at one point in Aramaic, the native language of Jesus."
Ehrman seems shockingly unaware that Paul provides NO historical details whatsoever about Jesus Christ and Paul was supposed to be a contemporary!!! He doesn't tell us where Jesus walked or when!! He tells us not a single detail that happened in the life of this Christ. In fact, Paul stated he got his information of Christ from no man but from a vision. That completely DESTROYS the notion that Paul was talking about a flesh and blood human being of history! Ehrman has no excuse for being ignorant of that.
When Paul recounts going to Jerusalem in Galatians, he never once made reference to it as the city where his lord was crucified, He never claimed to have visited the spot where it happened. He mentioned meeting Peter, John and James but never said these men actually knew Jesus. He never mentions anyone in any of his epistles that he claimed ever met the historical Jesus. And he never called James "the Lord's brother" that is a dishonest translation from the Greek. He was James, the brother of the Lord. That's a title, not a familial relationship. Paul mentions these Brothers of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 9:5 specifically as a religious order.
As for Mark, Ehrman himself admits in his books that this gospel has been appended and changed so many times (he cites 8 documents prior to the NT Mark that leave out calling Jesus the son of god, for example). There is no credible reason ANY of the church literature should be counted on as factual. That's no different than saying the bible is a book of inerrant truth because it is a book of inerrant truth.
Hmm, interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esus
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ-great-britain.html