Evidence for Christ

File: smug bara man.png (214KB, 394x301px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 394x301px

The Tacitus source does not particularly prove the existence of a historical Jesus: it merely mentions that there were people in the city of Rome at the time who believed in a person called Chrestos. The same applies to Pliny the Younger: he merely reports the presence of a group who who believe in some deity called Christ.

The academic consensus concerning Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum passage is that the thing is an interpolation, an edit made by a later scribe. The phrases used to describe Christ are atypical of a Jew or pagan of the time, and correspond to much later Christological developments. Also, the passage does not match Josephus' earlier tone or even choice of words; the passage stands out as different, when compared to the rest of the work. A forgery, in other words.

>people who witnessed Christ's greatness firsthand are not a valid historical source

>>1979644
>be leftist "historian"
>don't like something someone wrote
>just say "this doesn't sound like that guy" and discard it

>>1979667
No one who saw the living Jesus left a written account, the gospels are at least second hand, most likely 3rd hand or further down the line.


>In before someone sites a Christian writing a hundred years removed and widely dismissed by academics

>>1979644
I agree with you on Josephus completely, but the academic consensus has changed to that it is only in part an interpolation. I don't agree with this, just correcting you on the fact

>>1979667
The Gospels were not eyewitness accounts, and that's the scholarly consensus.

>>1979672
The Arab version of the Testimonium Flavianum lacks any form of Christian terminology, telling us that the Greek version that was known to the West was edited, possibly by Eusebius, who was famous for his lying.

In context, the Testimonium Flavianum breaks the flow of the narrative, and appears to be an intrusion that does not sound at all like Tacitus' own writing.

No Christian apologist ever mentioned the Testimonium Flavianum as evidence of Jesus until the 4th century, despite the fixation of early apologists in attempting to prove the existence of Jesus as a historical person.

OP here:
The person who sent me this article is a citation fag. Any links I can use to debate with?

>>1979714
>"One of the key internal arguments against the total authenticity of the Testimonium is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates the presence of some interpolations"

>"the phrases 'if it be lawful to call him a man' suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation."

Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

>"the 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium (discovered in the 1970s) lacks distinct Christian terminology while sharing the essential elements of the passage indicates that the Greek Testimonium has been subject to interpolation."

Kostenberger, Andreas J.; Kellum, L. Scott; Quarles, Charles L. (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament

>"Origen's statement in his Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17) that Josephus 'did not accept Jesus as Christ', is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the Testimonium in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to 'he was Christ' in the Testimonium must be a Christian interpolation"

-Maier, Paul L. (2007). Eusebius: The Church History.

>>1979738
You're literally saving my thanksgiving from being an ad hominem hell hole. Thank you.

>>1979714
>>1979750
>"Another example of the textual arguments against the Testimonium is that it uses the Greek term poietes to mean "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works") but elsewhere in his works, Josephus only uses the term poietes to mean "poet," whereas this use of "poietes" seems consistent with the Greek of Eusebius."

-Josephus and the New Testament by Steve Mason 2003

>having dinner with Christfags

I sincerely feel for you. Must be awful. Good luck, though!

File: 1189467294287.png (76KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x480px

>>1979672
Must be nice to be so ignorant of proven methods of textual analysis.