RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2900Goal: $6000

Talk:Jesus myth theory/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 25 March 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)(back)

The actuality[edit]

Joshua bin Joseph itinerant carpenter (fishing boats a speciality) and 'hedge priest' existed along with a lot of others promoting particular interpretations of the religious texts, and many, many versions of the Judean Popular Front, or the Wise Men Following the Star (tm) and other groups. Jesus of the Bible (in all his many and varied forms, whether or not kissing on the (blank)) is the actual myth, being a composite person/the several different versions needed at the times of writing all the gospels, acts, letters, apocalypses and other writings. And next week I will cube the sphere (and what is it impossible to tesseract one dimension up?). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Or something that actually conforms to the available reliable evidence viz. Truthiness:
The original gospel was composed at a time when many different Jewish sects existed (thus a very fragmented Jewish culture), some were breaking away from the mainstream and and denigrating the mainstream temple cult as being corrupt, i.e. countercultural proto-Christians. The gospel of these proto-Christians proclaimed that by mystical visions, Jesus (the first born angel) had revealed that he had tricked Satan (the second born angel) by becoming incarnate and then had subsequently been crucified by Satan. Thereby atoning for all of their sins as the precursor to the Apocalypse.
Therefore the temple cult was no longer relevant and there was no need to pay taxes or participate in the secular world, etc. Since a river of fire was on its way to burn up all the damned sinners and all proto-Christians coincidently. But the proto-Christians (those previously dead and buried & those newly burnt up) would be given new bodies and a new world, to go forth and gambol like new calves turned out from the stall. --69.197.181.194 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Elements of Zoroastrianism with the river of fire?

As with 'King' Arthur and Robin Hood there were probably real persons to whom the stories became attached - who would not recognise themselves in the various narratives (but who might enjoy/approve of some components thereof).

Is it time for an archive page? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Or as with Ned Ludd, John Frum —there were probably no real persons to whom the stories could be attached.
Religious syncretism of Judaism/Zoroastrianism — can it really be true ?
The 'wise men'/magi are said to be Zoroastrians (or the equivalent at the time). 31.51.113.250 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it time to read Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus ? --69.197.181.194 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As #some# of the texts were written when there were still people alive who were around at the time (equivalent of WWII/the 1930s, given our longer lifespans), there was probably some factual basis (enough people saying 'yes, there was a street-shouter who said some of those things' for them all to fuse). 31.51.113.250 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Until you offer a robust and comprehensive definition of a minimal Jesus (cf. Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 34.) your point is the same as saying "If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle". - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The problem with the "when there were still people alive" argument is of all the writings in the New Testament only Paul's writings have a known chance of of fitting this criteria (assuming the c 8 BCE to c 36 CE time frame is correct and not the c 100 BCE one that is suggested from time to time) and his writings carefully avoid putting Jesus in a specific time period. There is no evidence any of the four canonal Gospels were written before 100 CE and all we have from c 130 to c 180 CE is vague fragments that could have been woven into the Gospels at a later date.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Viz. Bart Ehrman, "My view is this: when Mark was writing his Gospel (the first to be written) in say 65 or 70 CE, there probably were indeed people still living who were familiar with Jesus." ehrmanblog May 14, 2012 - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Again there is no evidence that Mark was written c 70 CE. Ehrman also implies the existence for a historical Jesus (who had a hand in forming Christianity) is on par with the Holocaust and the Moon Landing. I need not tell you just how many levels of RIDICULOUS that is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. [...] Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

This aritcle should have a paragraph on the the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians and their ridiculous appeal to un-sceptical assertions. - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

So were there people around in the area of Palestine/Judea 'during the time of Augustus and Tiberius' (and even later) of a similar type to 'Jesus' (as well as to Joshua bin Joseph) - and what other 'actual sources' could the Biblical-and-Apocrypha-writers have made use of (other than 'this is a direct link to X from what we now call the Old Testament texts')? 86.191.127.41 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
YES: Judas the Galilean: The Flesh and Blood Jesus by Daniel T. Unterbrink
viz.
NO: A robust and comprehensive definition of a minimal historical Jesus by Carrier per On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 34. However Carrier notes that the crucifixion story was likely sourced from Josephus who described the crucifixion of a zealot, but said zealot does not conform to the given definition of a minimal historical Jesus. - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some of this is covered in the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article so repeating it here IMHO needlessly bloats this article:

Atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians: "Moreover, some such as Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, state that Biblical Studies in its current state doesn't properly follow the historical method, and has major systemic problems so bad that the field needs a total overhaul on how it does things. Richard Carrier in his personal blog is even more critical regarding New Testament studies stating the epistemology and methodology being used is of lower quality than that seen anywhere else in the field of history.[note removed] One only need look at the problems regarding the presentation of Thallus as "evidence" for a historical Jesus[note removed][note removed] to see that the field does have some methodology issues but then again other fields (like archeology) had similar methodology issues when they were only about 50 years old."

Regarding Josephus, AFAICT Carries makes no such claim that "he crucifixion story was likely sourced from Josephus". In fact, Carries goes into the many issues with Josephus (pg 332-342) nearly all of which are in the Josephus article. It is also pointed out in the Evidence article "Carrier's example of John Frum has a sting in the tail regarding Carrier's version of the Christ Myth (Jesus was and remained a celestial being); three natives are known to have taken up the name John Frum in a 7 year period which if there were several "Jesuses" that had been conflated into one that would also explain the unusual brevity of Josephus." If you look at everything Carrier presents it is clear he supports the idea that the "Testimonium Flavianum" is a forgery likely inserted into the work in the 4th century.

To claim the passage is genuine Gary J. Goldberg must conclude that "Josephus and Luke may have used similar or identical sources in composing their passages. This explanation appears to be the simplest." Except that doesn't explain why no Christian before the 4th century (even when they cite Josephus at length) make no mention of the passage with Origen's Against Celsus being the most problematic. Goldberg doesn't seem to realize that by saying Luke and Josephus used similar (if not the same source) that Josephus as an independent source is completely destroyed. Never mind the conclusion comes off as an attempt to salvage a really questionable passage that based on John Frum and Ned Ludd doesn't prove anything.

The Jesus myth theory and Evidence... articles need to be kept separate as mixing them together just makes a big mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Jesus ben Ananias per Josephus' Jewish War:
  • "In the Gospels, it’s not conflation, but deliberate emulation. For example, it’s already in mainstream literature that Mark appears to have modeled the crucifixion narrative on the story of Jesus ben Ananias who died in the 60s during the siege of Jerusalem. (I discuss this and cite the literature in OHJ.)" --Comment by Richard Carrier April 10, 2016, 11:03 pm @ [1]
  • Robert M. Price discusses this at time 00:12:50 per the 12/20/2013 episode of Bible Geek. @ [2]
  • Theodore Weeden: gMark v. Josephus' Jewish War @ [3]
69.197.181.194 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This paragraph [the "Testimonium Flavianum"] is so heavily to the Gospel of Luke we can be certain that that is its source: [long description of Gary J. Goldberg position], He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and the later is wholly impossible (Josephus would have treat such a source more critically, creatively and informatively" - OHJ pg 333n81.
"We really have no evidence that Mark was written any earlier then 100, in fact, so its that puts his Gospel in the firth century." - OHJ pg 265-6 Carrier points out that he could spend seven years sifting through the historical material for alternative dates but it wouldn't help in the long run.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand your points as;
1) The content of the TF forgery was sourced from from gLuke.
2) Carrier concedes that we have to argue from the historicist strongest position, i.e. 70 CE as the composition date for gMark. While pointing out how ridiculous it is to hold an un-sceptical position on it. - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
1) There is so much wrong with the TF that seems to be the most logical conclusion.
2)"I suspect Mark was written in the 70s or 80s, but only because its author seems to have the Jewish War still in mind as a relatively recent event, but that's a largely subjective Nevertheless, I will leave it at that until someone proves otherwise." - OHJ pg 266
I should mention that the Evidence... article points out the inconstancy in how Mark is dated by comparing comparing it to 1 Clement which despite giving the impression of the Temple is still intact is dated 80-140 CE. Carrier himself dates 1 Clement to before 70 CE making it the closest work to Paul's writings. 1 Clement also states that the Gospel for 1 Clement 's author was Paul not what we refer to as the Gospels ("What wrote he {Paul) first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?" - 1Clem 47:2)--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias at unreal levels[edit]

If one goes to Wikipedia.com, they get a relatively fair, unbiased look at the Jesus myth theory. However, the Rational page on Jesus is clearly so contrived, biased, and incoherent in thousands of its details that it seems to me that it is an embarrassment to even exist for skeptics who go to Rationalwiki to get real information, rather than such nonsense. In my view, the garbage on this page sounds like it was written by a frantic 14 year old angrily denying Jesus' historicity, rather than an actual unbiased look at the facts. There is so much error here that I am putting in this new section to propose a complete makeover of most of the page, removing elements of bias for or against the Jesus myth theory, and removing entire sections (including the part about David Strauss, who was a nobody and a theologian mythicist to make it all the worst, it's strange how his name is somehow worth enough to get on this page, the section on the Remsburg list also needs to be removed ASAP as the Remsburg list is so stupid that it gives me terminal cancer to even think it was added on this page, the part titled "The Historical Jesus spectrum or color me completely confused" needs to go, as well as the "star of bethlehem" which is completely useless and not even relevant).

I also think the mentioning of Robert Price and Richard Carrier is also an embarrassment, considering just how insane these people are, but I suppose there are few others to mention when talking about the Jesus myth theory. So (some of) that can stay.

Atheists should NOT look at completely biased, frantic lunatics like Richard Carrier for advice on the historicity of Jesus, who is a fringe historian and remains perpetually unemployed because no university is stupid enough to accept his resume, they should listen to atheists like Maurice Casey, who was one of the worlds leading historians in the entire field (prior to his death a few years ago, RIP) and was the same man who said “This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." - Again, I want to note, THIS is the type of atheist that other atheists should be looking to for information.Korvexman (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki is allowed to be biased. The article is bronze not gold, so if you feel there's something wrong with the article, you can edit it under the assumption there's room for improvement.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I presume you mean that the bias is "OVER 9000!"?--JorisEnter (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I must admit that I've kind of lost interest in this topic as it's pretty clear that Jesus, if he existed, did not have a secretary walking around with him taking notes. But the article being objected to is remarkably less strident the the objection above. Nevertheless, if the article is factually wrong then I'm sure that corrections would be welcome.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. [...] Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.[1]
Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey, were neither published by academic presses, nor underwent any formal peer review. [...] the Historicity of Jesus ...was published by an academic press and did pass formal academic peer review.[2]
69.197.181.194 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC) & 00:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry bud, but there is no conceptually coherent, valid or methodologically accurate way to come to the conclusion that the existence of Jesus is even questionable. The data is hard beyond any reasonable doubt. Instead of claiming that all, literally ALL of biblical historians use atrocious method, and thereby dismissing an entire academia with a wave of your hand because you read too much nonsense on richardcarrier.info, you should think that perhaps all of academia isn't wrong, maybe your claims are just nonsense. Historical scholarship has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gospels are in fact just as reliable as any other source for the time, which annihilates the concept of mythicism. Anyways, I'm not here to discuss the historicity of Jesus. If anyone thinks that the subject is even open for debate, go to my talk page and be pummeled. Richard Carrier's book is hardly "peer-reviewed", considering there were literally no more than two peer-reviewers that got his book published, and what's worse then that, he hand-picked the peer-reviewers. The entire point of peer-review is for academics in the field to anonymously examine a paper for its credibility, and yet here we have a guy who literally is picking his peer-reviewers, and no more then two at that. Carrier is one of the biggest fringe scholars in the world. If I had to make a top 10 worst historians on Earth, Carrier's name (as well as Dorothy Murdock and Price) would definitely be on it.
It is false to claim that only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey are the only scholars to really argue Jesus' existence in any recent time, but even if this claim were somehow true -- it should only be obvious. Most competent scholars aren't going to waste their time with such a nonsense question, it's like saying that Thutmose III never existed. It's nonsense. The first edit I will make will remove a ton of irrelevant information, and I'll be getting to the actual facts in later edits.Korvexman (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Prior to Ehrman and Casey, only Case 1912 made a case for historicity:

"[Per S. J. Case, 1912] Professor Case’s summary which declares: “The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus’s earthly career, and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question. Not only does Paul make the historical personality of Jesus a necessary preliminary to his gospel, but the whole situation in which Paul moves shows a historical background in which memory of this individual is central. The earliest phases of Gospel tradition have their roots in Palestinian soil and reach back to the period when personal associates of Jesus were still living while primitive Christology shows distinct traces of Jesus the man of Galilee behind its faith in the heavenly Christ. The disciples’ personal memory of this Jesus of real life is also the fountain from which the peculiarly forceful type of the new community’s vitality takes its start.” [...] The assertion that “the New Testament data are perfectly clear etc.” ignores the whole symbolic interpretation set forth in Ecce Deus. If this interpretation be in large measure correct, then the New Testament data would seem to be perfectly clear in their testimony against the historicity in question Unless the error of that interpretation be shown, this leading argument in Professor Case’s summary falls to the ground, and what is said about “the early framers of tradition etc.” loses all its meaning." (p.613f)[3][4]
References
  1. Raphael Lataster (December 18, 2014). "Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.". 
  2. Carrier, Richard (December 2, 2015). "Lataster on the Historicity of Jesus Being a Debate Among Atheists". 
  3. Smith, William Benjamin (1912). "The Historicity of Jesus". In Paul Carus. The Open Court, a Monthly Magazine. 26.10. The Open court publishing co.. pp. 604–618. "Case, S. J. (1912). The Historicity of Jesus. University of Chicago Press. p. 269f." 
  4. Richard Carrier (23 December 2016). "The Real War on Christmas: The Fact That Christmas Is Better Than Christ". "[Per the books for the historicity of Jesus] by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey—outside fundamentalist apologetics, the only two books defending the historicity of Jesus written in nearly a hundred years; neither of them peer reviewed—in fact, to this day, there has never been a peer reviewed defense of the historicity of Jesus, not since Shirley Jackson Case wrote an absurdly outdated treatise on it in 1912 (yes, 1912; merely updated in 1928...)." 
69.197.181.194 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC) & 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
What is "Ecce Deus"? Invoking nonsense "interpretations" and concluding Casey's bulletproof case fails is ridiculous, something not even to consider. There is no case for mythicism, and the fact that you insert the word 'Ecce Deus', do not explain it, and conclude Casey's case fails is hilarious. This is why historians do not take mythicism seriously -- as I acknowledged in the beginning, there is no validity behind mythicism and thus all thesis's set forth in its motion are doomed to utterly fail. It was shown that your only objection to Casey's facts was "if Ecce Deus is correct" -- 1) What is Ecce Deus? 2) Why is it correct? -- it should be clear now that the New Testament data is in fact perfectly clear, and thus we can rule out such nonsense being invoked by mythicists.Korvexman (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Except as the article points out "mythicism" has been applied to people who accepted that Jesus was a human being. These include David Strauss, Remsburg, and G. A. Wells all of whom have been called "mythers". "The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth."
Logically, if "there is no validity behind mythicism " and per the Times quote David Strauss who "held that there was verily a historic Christ" was proposing a "mythical theory" then the premise that Jesus was historical has no validity. Carrier made fun of the idea of taking the Gospel stories literally in one of his lectures. Remsburg who accepted that Jesus was a flesh and blood man through out the Gospels because they contradicted each other and that view of Christ myth was reiterated in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia both in the 1980s and 1990s
Regarding the nonsense about there being something "wrong" with the peer-review process Carrier used, that nonsense was addressed in the Evidence.. talk page:
"The section for potential authors on Sheffield Phoenix Press's website says, 'Manuscripts offered by the author will always be sent for evaluation to a series editor or a reader for the Press.
http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/authors.asp
That's absolutely standard for history books published by UK academic presses, although frequently it's two readers, often one of series editors and an outside reader.
Series editors will be major experts in the field covered by the series. That they are the editors of a particular series is not secret. Typically the one who will read it will be whichever of them is most qualified. If a second reader is used, this will usually be an outside expert. The series editors then take a collective decision on whether to accept the book. Obviously the views of the one who has read the book tends to carry the most weight. Given that one of the readers' reports will probably be by a series editor, it may not be too difficult for the author to work out who wrote that particular report. But the author will know that it's the series editors who have the final say anyway. The author may well also find out who the other reader was, as this is where the publishers get their blurbs from. Or the reader may just tell the author.
The process for collections of essays in history is usually much the same. Most academic presses will send them out to one outside reader. That's because the editor(s) of the collection will usually have invited the contributors to contribute and so cannot be considered independent.
Academic publishers will sometimes ask authors for recommendations for possible readers. But of course they do so in the full knowledge that authors will recommend names they think will be sympathetic. This can be used as a way of working out who not to send the book to." . - How Does Peer Review Work for Books in the Academic Discipline of History? StraightDope
So the process of peer review Carrier used is supposedly "absolutely standard for history books published by UK academic presses" and the academic publisher has final say regarding the approval of any reviewer that an author may present. Furthermore in the case of Sheffield Phoenix one of those reviewers will always be a "series editor or a reader for the Press".
Carrier seems to have the followed the peer review requirements our brethren across the pond have to the letter.'' You and others may not like it but that is the way it is. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
LOL! Seeing a mythicist trying to apply logic is a rather funny sight. As explained above, the statements of a press mean nothing, because it is a fact that Carrier's work was reviewed by under 3 people, and they were ALL hand-picked, which is the most disturbing part about this -- thus, this type of "peer-review" is probably the most illegitimate form of "peer-review" something could possibly undergo and still be called peer-review. This is a fact.
Christ mythers are not people who simply claim Jesus was a human, they are the trolls who say He didn't exist in the first place. And thus, there is indeed no validity to mythicism. As seen by centuries of peer-review, in contrast to Carrier's one fringe work. The matter is closed, historians do not doubt Jesus' historicity -- indeed, there is literally less doubt about the existence of Jesus in a room of historians as there is in a Sunday Bible study at your nearest Mormon Church! LOL. Even quoting Remsburg is humiliating. Anyone who has read Remsburg's list, and actually knows something about the names on it, would be embarrassed to think he even went through with publishing it. The funniest part about the stupid list of people who supposedly should have mentioned Jesus, is when he quotes people that actually DID mention Jesus LOL (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Phlegon etc). Doesn't that itself plunge the heart of mythicism? Furthermore, Bruce, I see that your edits reflect your agenda. After edits by namrokvex, adding in very useful information regarding discussion of the authenticity of the Tacitus and Josephus passage, you removed all discussion of its authenticity for no reason, aside from it contradicting the cancerous meme of mythicism. Indeed, you are highly dishonest and its unfortunate that I must waste my time addressing your feeble, self-contradictory nonsense.Korvexman (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As the article shows people who accept the claim Jesus was a human but the Gospels didn't tells us anything about that man have been called Christ Mythers. These include Frazier, Mead, Remsburg, G.A. Wells from Did Jesus Exist? on, and others.

In fact, Ehrman stated a Jesus who existed but did not "found" Christianity is part of the Christ Myth. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J. went even further with it's definition that the Christ Myth was the idea that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes...". Some of those stories were built around real people like Phayllos of Kroton, Milo of Croton, Poulydamas, and Ladas of Sparta. As the article mentions the story of Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn is "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." but that does not mean there wasn't a Davy Crockett.

As for agendas, the only "agenda" I have is FACT.

Even supporters of Josephus admit that "Testimonium Flavianum" has problems and when you compare it to what else Josephus writes it is clear at best all he is repeating is an Urban Legend.

The claim that Suetonius' mention of "Chrestus" is of Jesus is nonsensical at best. He clearly states that Jews (not Christians) were driven from Rome during the reign of Claudius and if we take the second passage as genuine he clearly knew the different between Jews and Christians.

Only the most desperate apologist would use Phlegon as evidence of Jesus because what we have shows the earthquake happened some 900 kilometres away from Jerusalem. Even other apologists throw this out. Besides one of the people Paul comments as one of his brother in Christianity is Phlegon (Romans 16:14) so the name was relatively common to that time. As Carrier notes elsewhere "First of all, it has long been noticed that Josephus says nothing about this "freedman" composing any literary work, and thus it is already a leap to suppose it would be the same man."

We have no idea where Tacitus got his information and given later Christians had had their own stories of how Nero dealt with then and made no mention of being blamed for the fire until c 400 CE the passage is suspect.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"These include Frazier, Mead, Remsburg, G.A. Wells" -- naming three pseudo-historians who have no professional career beyond their own popularity with wacky mythicists is NOT an argument LOL. Please name one single professor of any form of history in any university ON EARTH who actually rejects the historicity of Jesus. If I had to list all the ones that DO accept Jesus' historicity, it would take up so much space that I would actually crash RationalWiki. Next, you're going to quote people like Carrier... Oh wait.
As for your semantics regarding the Jesus myth theory, these terms do not mean anything similar at all -- these are entirely different concepts you're speaking of. The "Jesus myth" you're talking about is the view that Jesus wasn't who the New Testament says He is, but MYTHICISM is the view that Jesus actually did not exist. Not up for debate.
As for agenda, the only agenda I have is FACT LOL! Fact is your WORST ENEMY. You are a mythicist. There is no possibility to ignore the wholesale rejection of basic history required for accepting mythicism, or thinking something as convoluted as the Ossuary of James being forged or whatever. As for the Testimonium Flavium, it DOES have problems, but as previously explained, scholars do not think that it is a forgery, they find it a partial interpolation. Scholars have known for a while now that the quotation is only partially interpolated, and that the original does in fact mention Jesus, no problem. Furthermore, Josephus also speaks of Jesus in Jewish Antiquities XX.9.1, which there isn't a shred of evidence of forgery, or even interpolation for. Tacitus was a Roman historian and got his information from Roman records, to finish. So our sources on Jesus are rather enormous.Korvexman (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Korvexman Consider getting rid of the asshole attitude, m'kay? My two cents: While peer review does matter, it does not mean a non-peer reviewed source is automatically bullshit, though this it is a safe assumption that it isn't the best source to use. Also, Korvexman might be a fan of the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Josephus scholars who believed the Testimonium to be a complete forgery include: Schurer, Niese, Norden, Zeitlin, Lewy, Juster, von Dobschutz, Karl Kautsky, S.G.F. Brandon, Charles Guignebert, and Twelftree.
  2. Concurring is Nicholas Allen - dissertation: Allen, N. P. L. (2015). Clarifying the scope of pre-5th century CE in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 CE) (Doctoral dissertation).
  3. Per Richard Carrier's Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can’t Cite Opinions Before 2014 the question to ask of those holding an un-informed & un-sceptical postition on Josephus is:
  • At what point does pigheaded incompetency become dishonesty?
69.197.181.194 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair much of what we have is this kind of unintentional short circuiting of the scientific method where at an unconscious level that someone somewhere must have written about Jesus that shows he existed as a human being.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unneeded info[edit]

This article is unnecessarily, unbelievably long and has a lot of useless information. The entire section on "defining" terms like 'historical Jesus' and 'mythicism' is useless as mythicism is explained in the beginning of the page. It is to be removed, especially considering it makes the page seriously lack structure and look like a convoluted mess.— Unsigned, by: Namrokxev / talk / contribs

As JorisEnte has stated ""Imma delete this and if you disagree take it to the talk page" is not how we do things around here)" and I agree. The unsigned was by Namrokxev who removed the material in the first place. Yes the article needs to be trimmed back but cutting huge chunks out of the article with only "All useless information and semantics" and the above as a fig leaf is not the way to do it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I just reverted the edits (which BruceGrubb reverted) and write-protected the page so only sysops and above can edit. I'm just an observer here, so ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── User_talk:Namrokxev has this: You appear to be a sockpuppet of Korvexman; it doesn't help your arguments. Bongolian (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A check with the User contributions for Namrokxev shows that Namrokxev edited only this article and did so for just over 45 minutes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)