Board index ‹ Jesus

[Laughing]

> Then we have a problem. There was no herald crying out 40 days previous to Jesus' death. He was arrested by suddenly by cover of night and executed the next morning. There is no known public announcement of his death as is here alleged. So though the tractate mentions the death of Jesus as a historical event, we have wonder about the accuracy of the telling. Since it was written 3rd-5th c., we have to weigh its historicity.

What I think you mean to say is that the narrative in the Talmud, doesn't match the NT's narrative. I think there is plenty room to look here for an historical Jesus, for a number of reasons.

> Hmm. Sounds snarky to me. I looked at the link and noticed there seems to be more scholars against the idea that this refers to Jesus (Dalman, Jeremias, and others) than in favor of it (Dunn). So your assertion of "and puts his lifetime about 75 years earlier that does the NT" is questionable.

If you mouse-over the links provided in that paragraph you read about those scholars, you'll see that what they are against is the entire Talmudic discussion about Yeshu being a reference to the NT's Jesus. That includes the one you mentioned earlier. The chances are slim that the passage I brought here is linked to the one you mentioned previously are not referring to the same character as they share the same name and are accused of the same crime.

[jimwalton]

> What I think you mean to say is that the narrative in the Talmud, doesn't match the NT's narrative.

Yes, I think that's a fair assessment of what I was saying. And since the NT is a contemporary narrative derived from the testimony of eyewitnesses, and we have 4 such records, and the Talmud is a set of teachings from several centuries later, there is possibly more reason to trust the Gospel accounts.

> I think there is plenty room to look here for an historical Jesus, for a number of reasons.

I agree. We are always on the hunt for the historical Jesus.

> The chances are slim that the passage I brought here is linked to the one you mentioned previously are not referring to the same character as they share the same name and are accused of the same crime.

Granted. So we have to assess the authenticity of the reference, again seeking the historical account. If the Talmudic account of Jesus is false, we still have the testimonies of Josephus, Tacitus, Ignatius, Lucian, Thallus, and possibly Mara bar Sarapion, along with the four Gospels. If the Talmudic account of Jesus is deemed true, it flies in the face of the other accounts as listed above, contradicting their accounts. To me the weight of evidence makes it more plausible that Jesus was crucified, not stoned.

[Sonogram]

Why are you repeating Josephus and Tacitus after their deficiencies as historical evidence for Jesus have been explicitly stated?

As for your bullet points:

There is nothing logically absurd about God bailing on experiencing discomfort during crucifixion. So, that's a fail.

There is nothing about bailing on experiencing discomfort during the crucifixion that is contrary to God's nature. Fail again.

I have no idea what changing the past has to do with anything. I also find it bizarre that you believe God can't f*** around with time, which he created.

As for suffering for sins, maybe being human and experiencing indigestion, foot blisters, and the occasional sunburn was enough and he took a pass when it came to the crucifixion. No reason for him to go nuts over the whole suffering thing.

[jimwalton]

> Why are you repeating Josephus and Tacitus after their deficiencies as historical evidence for Jesus have been explicitly stated?

This statement ("And Josephus and Tacitus give historical evidence of Christians, not Jesus"), which I assume is the one to which you are referring, is patently false, as I gave evidence:

* Josephus (Antiquities 18.33): "He was Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggesting of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross..."
* Tacitus (Annals XV 44): "The founder of the sect, Christus, had been put to death by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was emperor."

> There is nothing logically absurd about God bailing on experiencing discomfort during crucifixion. So, that's a fail.

It's not a fail. Of course it's not logically absurd, but it is theologically impossible. Jesus specifically states that he came to suffer (Lk. 9.22 and others).

> There is nothing about bailing on experiencing discomfort during the crucifixion that is contrary to God's nature. Fail again.

This is not a point I made nor an argument I posed. Therefore it's not a fail when you shoot down an argument I didn't make.

> I have no idea what changing the past has to do with anything.

It's one explanatory point of the truth that God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can do anything and everything. That's not what omnipotence means. Omnipotence doesn't mean he can do logically absurd and self-contradictory things, like make a square circle. Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can contradict himself and his own nature. Those are explanatory examples to prove that omnipotence categorically does NOT mean that God can do everything.

> As for suffering for sins, maybe being human and experiencing indigestion, foot blisters, and the occasional sunburn was enough and he took a pass when it came to the crucifixion. No reason for him to go nuts over the whole suffering thing.

Now you're dipping into the absurd. A foot blister counts as suffering for humanity? You're ignoring key theological concepts by creating a small and meaningless example.

[Laughing]

The thing is, Josephus and Thallus are only available to us through Christian hands. Tacitus is suspected to be an interpolation. And Lucian came long enough after the events, that he may have only been repeating what Christians of the time were claiming. I think it should be obvious that the same is true for Mara b. Sarapion. On the other hand, the Talmud was written in Babylon where the Christian hand did not reach.

[jimwalton]

> Josephus and Thallus are only available to us through Christian hands.

I have run into many conversations on this forum that wants to use Josephus discriminately. When Josephus writes about Quirinius, they're perfectly willing to use him to discredit the Bible. When Josephus writes about Jesus, they're perfectly willing to demonize Josephus to discredit the Bible. Ultimately we have to come to some consistent hypothesis about Josephus: is he reliable or not? From the many scholars I have read, they prefer to be discerning: There are places where Josephus is deemed reliable, and other places where his information is suspect. Therefore I think we are remiss to just toss out Josephus altogether because he is only available to us through Christian hands, Eusebius, if I am remembering right. There are many passages of Josephus that are deemed historical and accurate. The larger question is: is this passage about Jesus historical? In the Testimonium Favianum (Antiquities 18.33), the source of this quote, it is widely agreed that it is very unlikely that the whole segment is a forgery. It is concluded by a wide spectrum of scholars, however, that the mention of Jesus as a historical person and the reference to his crucifixion are authentic and historical. Many historians respect Josephus's writings, and seem to be fairly well aware of where he diverged from the truth. It is also fairly well established where later Christians added to the Testimonium Flavianum. iven these analyses, it seems quite safe to say that Josephus is recognized as a reliable extra-biblical witness to the historicity of Jesus.

As far as Thallus is concerned, the evidence is weak and the reliability questionable. The reference, quoted by Julius Africanus, is highly debated as to its authenticity. Still, as we examine every piece of evidence we have, and turn over every rock to see what's under it in our search for the historical Jesus, every possibility becomes part of the total picture.

> And Lucian came long enough after the events, that he may have only been repeating what Christians of the time were claiming.

Possibly, but possibly not. The bottom line is that he refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. Everything else Lucian says rings true (here's the quote from *The Passing of Peregrinus*): he alludes to Jesus as "…the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. … Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." Since Lucian was a rhetorician and a satirist, his writing provides credible corroboration of the crucifixion of Jesus.

But you also have to give credence to the quote by Tacitus, who is generally regarded as the greatest historian of the Roman Empire and a reliable source. According to historian Robert Van Voorst, Tacitus used Tacitus used his sources responsibly, and his "basic accuracy has never been seriously impeached."

[Sonogram]

Some say that's what Josephus wrote. Even if he did write it exactly as we see it, it is plausible to interpret the passage as merely reporting Christian doctrine - which no argues wasn't in circulation at the time of his writing - rather than historical fact. A reasonable argument can be made, though, that the passage is at best the victim of heavy tampering and at worst not written by Josephus at all. See https://www.academia.edu/37321029/A_Narrative_Anomaly_in_Josephus_Jewish_Antiquities_xviii_63

Please note that the argument is not that it is a fact that the passage reports doctrine rather than history, or that the passage was fatally altered, or that it wasn't written by Josephus. The argument is that it is plausible that the passage was interpolated or so altered. So, it is plausible that the passage is not evidence for Jesus. Therefore, you'll need something stronger to be convincing evidence of historicity.

The Tacitus passage suffers similar defects. At best, it is not clear if it is diligent research into a historical event or reporting on the doctrine being circulated by Christians. On the other hand, a reasonable argument can be raised that's its an interpolation. See https://sci-hub.tw/10.1163/15700720-12341171

Again, this is not an argument that either of these possible defects are, in fact, proven to be defects. Rather, it is plausible that they are. So, it is plausible that the passage is not evidence for Jesus. Therefore, you'll need something stronger to be convincing evidence of historicity.

ou keep saying he came to suffer (a la "Lk. 9.22 and others"). Then you brush off things I suggest such as indigestion, blisters and sunburns as absurd even those alone would infinitely gratuitous things for an omnipotent god to endure. What is your evidence that these are not enough? OP's position seems perfectly valid. Being omnipotent, he could have declined to suffer during the crucifixion.

In your prior post regarding the topic of suffering and crucifixion, you said"

> God can't act contrary to his nature.

I replied: "There is nothing about bailing on experiencing discomfort during the crucifixion that is contrary to God's nature."

To which you responded: "This is not a point I made nor an argument I posed."

To which I now reply, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't expect me to.

Finally, re: the whole time thing. God created time, and I assume in your theology is "outside" of it, so why do you think he can't change it? Something has "already happened" only from our current perspective from inside of time. If God changes an event that we now perceive as our past, then our perception of the present would change accordingly, and there is no paradox or contradiction. This would fit nicely with the B-theory model of time, in fact.

[jimwalton]

> Even if he did write it exactly as we see it, it is plausible to interpret the passage as merely reporting Christian doctrine - which no argues wasn't in circulation at the time of his writing - rather than historical fact

I'm confident we can agree that just because Josephus not written during the lifetime of Jesus doesn't mean it's historically inaccurate. We have only 4 biographers of Alexander the Great, none of which were during his lifetime but rather centuries later, and yet we give credit to them. We presently have several excellent biographies of Abraham Lincoln, none of which were written during his lifetime. It doesn't require that we ignore them as fictional.

>A reasonable argument can be made, though, that the passage is at best the victim of heavy tampering and at worst not written by Josephus at all.

Whether or not that is a "reasonable argument" is subject to discussion and debate. There is heavy consensus that the material was added to, and yet there are efforts to distinguish between genuine and redacted. Only minimalists claim none of it was written by Josephus.

> So, it is plausible that the passage is not evidence for Jesus.

I would take opposition to your choice of term "plausible." It is widely believed that the passage is evidence for Jesus. What is debated is how much of it originated with Josephus and how much was added later.

> The Tacitus passage suffers similar defects.

I disagree with this assessment also. The Tacitus passage is widely regarded as authentic and accurate.

> At best, it is not clear if it is diligent research into a historical event or reporting on the doctrine being circulated by Christians.

Again I disagree. I would assert "at *worst*, it is not clear if...", rather than your minimizing "at best."

> Again, this is not an argument that either of these possible defects are, in fact, proven to be defects. Rather, it is plausible that they are.

You keep using "plausible" when the arguments aren't that strong. They are only remotely possible, not plausible.

> You keep saying he came to suffer (a la "Lk. 9.22 and others"). Then you brush off things I suggest such as indigestion, blisters and sunburns as absurd even those alone would infinitely gratuitous things for an omnipotent god to endure.

Well, let's discuss this. The Bible claims that Jesus came to suffer for the sins of humanity (Isa. 53.4-5; 1 Pet. 2.24). That he bore the iniquities of the world on his shoulders (Isa. 53.4-5). That his suffering represented the suffering of humanity. The Bible speaks of him being crushed while experiencing the wrath of God for us, of anguish of soul (Isa. 53.10-12), of being poured out as a sacrifice (Mark 14.24). That's why I brush off indigestion, blisters and sunburns contending they are not enough.

> OP's position seems perfectly valid. Being omnipotent, he could have declined to suffer during the crucifixion.

Suffering was the whole point, as I have shown. It is not possible that Jesus could have declined to suffer.

> To which I now reply, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't expect me to.

Oh, I very much know what I'm talking about. God cannot act contrary to his nature. It's impossible. But his suffering on the cross, or bailing on it, has nothing to do with his nature. It has, rather, to do with his purposes in coming and what he was here to accomplish. I was not making a point that suffering was contrary to God's nature, so when you argued that "There is nothing about bailing on experiencing discomfort during the crucifixion that is contrary to God's nature," I responded with "I wasn't making that argument." And I wasn't. God can't act contrary to his nature; suffering or not suffering during the crucifixion is not a question of God's nature but rather of His purposes. Therefore you statement was moot.

> God created time, and I assume in your theology is "outside" of it, so why do you think he can't change it?

What we know about God has been revealed to us. We can only know what we've been told. We have been told nothing that would lead us to believe he can change time. There are never examples of Him changing time. There is never a mention that he could or would change time. And even though there were many occasions where changing time might have been a strategy, God never does it. Based on the revelation we have received we have to conclusively argue that God cannot change time. While speculations from physics are intriguing, we have no justification for building that theology.

[jimwalton]

> I have run into many conversations on this forum that wants to use Josephus discriminately. When Josephus writes about Quirinius, they're perfectly willing to use him to discredit the Bible. When Josephus writes about Jesus, they're perfectly willing to demonize Josephus to discredit the Bible. Ultimately we have to come to some consistent hypothesis about Josephus: is he reliable or not? From the many scholars I have read, they prefer to be discerning: There are places where Josephus is deemed reliable, and other places where his information is suspect. Therefore I think we are remiss to just toss out Josephus altogether because he is only available to us through Christian hands, Eusebius, if I am remembering right. There are many passages of Josephus that are deemed historical and accurate.

I think we shouldn't conflate two different questions of accuracy. One is whether Josephus himself was writing accurately. The other is whether others later interpolated historical inaccuracies into his work. I didn't mean to say that Josephus was totally unreliable, the parts where there is no reason to suspect Christian influence (or Josephus' bias towards Rome), might be quite reliable. The question is about Christian influence.

> The larger question is: is this passage about Jesus historical? In the Testimonium Favianum (Antiquities 18.33), the source of this quote, it is widely agreed that it is very unlikely that the whole segment is a forgery. It is concluded by a wide spectrum of scholars, however, that the mention of Jesus as a historical person and the reference to his crucifixion are authentic and historical. Many historians respect Josephus's writings, and seem to be fairly well aware of where he diverged from the truth. It is also fairly well established where later Christians added to the Testimonium Flavianum. iven these analyses, it seems quite safe to say that Josephus is recognized as a reliable extra-biblical witness to the historicity of Jesus.

It's impossible to say that Josephus was an extra-biblical witness, having been born between half a decade to a decade following the suggested dates of the crucifixion. He can at most tell us, what people were saying 60 years later when he wrote his Antiquities. But again, I'm not denying the existence of an historical Jesus. Considering the issues with this particular passage, I do not understand what basis there is to believe that any part of it is authentic, let alone the crucifixion. And without the context of the passage, the description of a crucifixion seems irrelevant.

> As far as Thallus is concerned, the evidence is weak and the reliability questionable. The reference, quoted by Julius Africanus, is highly debated as to its authenticity. Still, as we examine every piece of evidence we have, and turn over every rock to see what's under it in our search for the historical Jesus, every possibility becomes part of the total picture.

I do not think that a fourth century quote of an unknown author from an unknown time-period quoting an event that took place almost 1000 kilometers from Jerusalem is useful without some heavy rationalizing. The most use I would grant this, is that after having established the fact from some other source, we might be inclined to say that this source may be talking about the same event. Otherwise we're just fishing for keywords.

> Possibly, but possibly not. The bottom line is that he refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. Everything else Lucian says rings true (here's the quote from The Passing of Peregrinus): he alludes to Jesus as "…the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. … Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." Since Lucian was a rhetorician and a satirist, his writing provides credible corroboration of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Of course it would ring true, if he's simply reporting what other Christians told him happened and those Christians were basing their history on the NT in circulation at the time.

I think it's important to question a basic assumption: that the death of Jesus would have made any waves in the world. I would argue, not. There were many itinerant preachers walking around Judea. There were many self-proclaimed messiahs walking around Jerusalem. There were many who were stoned by the Jewish Sanhedrin and crucified by the Romans. The only people who would be inclined to take note of such an event were early Christians and the Jewish leadership who would be involved in keeping the religion unified. Who else would take note? So if someone in the second century were to look for information on the history of this small sect, who else could they turn to? And so we have competing narratives.

> But you also have to give credence to the quote by Tacitus, who is generally regarded as the greatest historian of the Roman Empire and a reliable source. According to historian Robert Van Voorst, Tacitus used Tacitus used his sources responsibly, and his "basic accuracy has never been seriously impeached."

Again, we have to differentiate between the historian's reliability and the reliability of the texts we have in our hands today. There are numerous questions on the copies of Tacitus we have today and they all bring us back to my original point: these works that survive to us through Christians hands are heavily suspect.

[jimwalton]

> The question is about Christian influence.

I agree whole-heartedly. The parts of Josephus that are generally regarded as later insertions I have marked in italics.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, **if indeed one ought to call him a man**. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. **He was the Christ**. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. **He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him**. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

> I think it's important to question a basic assumption: that the death of Jesus would have made any waves in the world. I would argue, not.

I think it's implausible to suggest that the death of Jesus didn't make any waves around the world. Two of the most obvious facts of history are that (1) the disciples were convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them, and (2) their spreading of this message changed the world and history.

> Tacitus ... these works that survive to us through Christians hands are heavily suspect.

Wow, that's a pretty critical historical position to take, but you are welcome to it. Western civilization was mostly preserved by the monasteries. We would have close to nothing if it weren't for their copying discipline. It's interesting, though, that most scholars take Tacitus to be reliable and accurate. You take a very different tack. That's your prerogative, but it's a minority one.