Historical jesus

Given that the mentioning of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum has been debunked as 3rd century forgery, are there any real period sources on the historic person of Jesus?
Or was he simply not important enough to make the papers at the time?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9CUVjg888m0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bump with based hooknose

Almost any hebrew history from that point in time mentions him, as do many roman historians, such as cicero.

No, they don't. Otherwise feel free to post a source.

>cicero
Died 43 BC. Wanna try again?

Literally unimportant. Unwashed filthy peasant from the backwater of Galilee.

youtube.com/watch?v=9CUVjg888m0

The historic Jesus's indisputable first mentioning by non Christians was in Tacitus Annales , so somewhere between 110-120 CE.

Fuck off nigger

>Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum has been debunked as 3rd century forgery
>Or was he simply not important enough to make the papers at the time?
Jesus is by far the most well known person attested in the ancient world who came from little to nothing fame.

Here is a bucket list of people who mentions Jesus outside of the primary historical source which are the gospels (majority of scholar believe the gospels to being a legitimate source):

1. Tacitus
2. Pliny the Younger
3. Mara Bar Serapion
4. Suetonius
5. Thallus
6. Emperor Trajan in response to Pliny
7. Talmud

From the primary sources in the gospels and Paul's letters in order:

1. Pre-Markan resurrection narrative in 1 Corinthians 15
2. Christology of Jesus in Philippians 2
3. Pauls meeting with James the brother of Jesus and Peter in Galatians
4. The Christian sermon in Acts 2 is early
5. Markan Aramaic sayings (such as Abba)
6. The empty tomb narrative in Mark
7. The use of to this day by Matthew in his resurrection narrative assumes that the Jews and Romans were saying that the disciples stole the body this is their only defence
8. Jesus crucifixion narration appears a majority of Paul's letters
9. These were written less than 100 years after Jesus' death, this would lend much more higher credibility since other historical writings were usually written 100+ years after the events themselves

Was Jesus a Palestinian?

Hey can't have been that famous when the first confirmed source is a good 100 years after his death. None of his contemporaries mention him at all.

There were thousands of failed Messiahs during the time of Jesus, travelling around performing magic tricks and attracting followers, we think of Jesus as some special figure but he really wasn't. Compare him to the likes of Simon Magus and Saint John and you'll soon see that he was just one of a type, not important enough to be written about during his time.

>majority of scholar believe the gospels to being a legitimate source
What scholars please and legitimate in what sense? Same guys that claimed he could walk on water and the earth stood still when he died?
Not exactly what I'd call an unbiased source.

Shit he looks like Mark Zuckerberg. Guess maybe Jews aren't Khazars after all

>(majority of scholar believe the gospels to being a legitimate source)

This is simply a lie, the scholarly consensus is that the letter of Paul came first, the gospels are fanfiction written in response to the disastrous Jewish Revolt of 79AD.

Also not one of your list of people was even born during the time of Jesus, so yet another lie from you.

>lie

>Given that the mentioning of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum has been debunked as 3rd century forgery,
This is absolutely not the case. There is an interpolation into his mention of Jesus but the mention of Jesus was in the original, as we can see by Origen's quotation of the original.

This has been the academic consensus for nearly 40 fucking years. Are you lying to try and generate discussion or are you just stupid?

>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Ya, Christians totally made up that they commit cannibalism.

>This has been the academic consensus for nearly 40 fucking years. Are you lying to try and generate discussion or are you just stupid?
No, thats not correct, it is pretty much agreed that the part about Jesus is a later addition. Even Origen writes explicitly that FJ didn't believe in Jesus. Other Church founders also don't mention this part, despite quoting FJ excessively on pretty much everything else. So the first mention we have about FJ and Jesus is from the 4th century.

Nothing's changed

Consider that the most comprehensive biography of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, was written a few decades after his death.

Also consider that the first comprehensive biography of Alexander the Great was written nearly 500 years after hospital death.

Massive gaps between the writing of a biographical work and the life of the subject are the norm in the ancient world, not the exception.

Also
>the mentioning of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum has been debunked as 3rd century forgery
This is an outright lie. Consensus is that the passage was tampered with but Jesus was mentioned in the original passage.

Also, Josephus actually mentioned Jesus twice. Once in the Testimonium Flavianum, and once in the Antiquities, where he mentions that Jesus' brother James was executed.

I'm not sure what drove you to lie about this, OP, but you shouldn't do it in the future.

We can't really know. Josephus wrote all his works in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek and we don't know if anything was changed. We don't have the original Hebrew anymore.

Thats Tacitus from 120 CE, read the thread before you post, stupid nigger.

Your autism is showing. History books all contained reports of miracles back then. You pretty much have to throw out all of human history by your standards.

Saying something you know to be false is lying, yes. I know that Christians literally can't stop lying because they think they're lying for a good cause so it makes it okay, but for the rest of us you are just liars.

>Consensus is that the passage was tampered with
Thats the consensus indeed.
Euphoric Christians think that even if the passage is fake, it might have had a real entry. Nobody knows and for sure there is no consensus here.

Sorry If I don't take cool aid drinkers as unbiased historic source.

The passages before and after the Jesus passage read as direct continuations of one another, the whole passage is a later forgery.

>it is pretty much agreed that the part about Jesus is a later addition
It absolutely isn't. There is an interpolation in the passage in which he mentions Jesus. The interpolated text doesn't match up with the vocabulary or style of Josephus. The interpolated text is written in such a way to make it look like Josephus was considering converting to Christianity.

The text is not an interpolation wholesale, and the idea that it's a "3rd century forgery" as OP claims is laughable. Christians weren't in any position to forge anything in the 3rd century.

Origen says that Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. To find people who "didn't believe in Jesus" in the sense that they didn't believe he existed, you have to go to the early modern period.

>"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

This second reference to Jesus is difficult for Mythers to deal with. Dismissing it as another interpolation does not work, since a Christian interpolator in a later century is hardly going to invent something as significant as the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus which, unlike the interpolated elements in the Antiquities XVII.3.4 passage, makes no Christian claims about Jesus. Then there are the three citations and quotations of this passage by Origen mentioned above. Fitzgerald seems totally oblivious to these, but Origen was writing in the mid-Third Century AD, which shows this mention existed in Josephus then - ie while Christianity was still a small, illegal and persecuted sect and so much too early for any Christian doctoring of this text.

Γίνεται δὲ kατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσkαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, kαὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ kαὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνιkοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. kαὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηkότος Πιλάτου οὐk ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε kαὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηkότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐk ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον

Face it , it is fake as fuck, the text rhythm is broken, FJ would never call Jesus the Messiah and a lot of other things don't rhyme up.
Worst case (and most likely), it is full Christian fake. Best case for you, it is just an alteration of a historic paragraph FJ wrote, but in a much more neutral form.

>Worst case (and most likely), it is full Christian fake. Best case for you, it is just an alteration of a historic paragraph FJ wrote, but in a much more neutral form.

Unfortunately for Christians, since it is certainly at the very least tampered with, it can't be used as evidence for an historical Jesus.

>Hey can't have been that famous when the first confirmed source is a good 100 years after his death.

So Muhammad never existed either?

>who was called Messiah,
That is not in the original source.
Common consensus is that in this paragraph that Jesus bar Damneus is mentioned and not Jesus of Nazareth.

The historicity of Jesus hinging on a few spurious passages make the whole thing look improbable.

Oh Muhammad had contemporary sources. Privilege of being a warlord holding actual power.

Of Mohemmed we have eye witness accounts and living descendants, of Jesus we have accounts several generations after the facts and of course Jesus has no genetic legacy, Dan Brown notwithstanding.

To be fair, Jesus more than likely existed. The question of this thread is not about that, but about contemporary sources on Jesus, as in how to measure his imediate impact.

...

An intellectually honest application of Bayes' Theorem would most likely conclude that Jesus more than likely didn't exist, even in his more modest representation in Mark.

>this is simply a lie
refute it
>the scholarly consensus is that the letter of Paul came first
thanks for that it not like I deny it, you should read what wrote, Pre-markan means it was known as a hymn before mark or paul wrote his letters.
> the gospels are fanfiction written in response to the disastrous Jewish Revolt of 79AD.
give evidence of this, find it in the gospels. Calling it a fanfic when you nothing to accuse it being such is frankly not enough to convince anyone.
>79AD
Then why don't you address why even secular scholars like Maurice Casey and James Crossley who put Mark just 10 years after Jesus death on the cross? (and I don't agree with them on that). Why is it was likely that the Markan author's first language was Aramaic since it has been syntactically analysis that it was the case? All the gospels are very much Jewish in nature, with John being the highest of Christology.
>What scholars please and legitimate in what sense? Not exactly what I'd call an unbiased source.
You would then be committing the genetic fallacy, it doesn't matter where the source comes from, you assess on whether it's true or not. Today it is less likely to meet a scholar who believes that they were not historical biographies. It started with Richard Burridge who sought to deny this claim but only to conclude that they were historical biographies, his work has change the way scholars do NT studies. Some scholars of the top of my head would be
1. Bart Ehrman
2. Dale Allison
3. John P Meier
4. Geza Vermes
5. Maurice Casey
6. Gerd Ludemann
7. James Dunn
8. Raymond E. Brown
the list goes on, these are some of the most prominent and are not evangelical scholars who have doubt in one way or another about certain parts of the historicity of Jesus.

Go home, Richard, you've already made the money from your blog. There's a reason actual New Testament scholars don't agree with you.

>Also not one of your list of people was even born during the time of Jesus, so yet another lie from you.
Why does that matter? Do you only rely on ancient source that are written during that time? Gosh, I guess Herodotus the Histories goes right out the window eh? Or even biographies about Alexander the Great. Second, so Paul doesn't count even though he actually met James the BROTHER OF JESUS and Peter when he went to Jerusalem? The amount of skepticism from you shows very little credibility amongst any secular scholars.

I would poorly argue that it is against many biblical scholars interest to agree with him. Their livelihoods could be in jeopardy if they hop fence.

Flavius Josephus