krosero

The silence of Josephus is also an argument against Doherty's thesis that sublunar-theologies were popular. In short, the "claim that followers of Jesus Christ was [sic] insignificant, or so small that Josephus would not have noticed appears to be invalid, if" Doherty is to be believed (though I admit I still don't know what you, aa, make of Doherty's mythicism; or which form of mythicism you're proposing).

How confident are you that there can't be any other reasons -- other than the falseness of the NT -- for Josephus' silence about Christianity? For example, what did you make of the argument I linked to, by Goguel?

Kevin Rosero

gstafleu

1) Christianity being too small for Josephus to notice is only a valid explanation for his silence if there is other evidence for the existence of Christianity before Josephus.

2) What evidence is there for the existence of Christianity before Josephus? Notice: existence of Christianity, not of Christ.

Gerard Stafleu

krosero

Actually there is no need to ask this question as if the burden of proof lay with finding such evidence. We have Paul's letters and the notice by Tacitus that Christianity was in Rome at the time of the Great Fire.

Now both these things can be questioned. I take it you have Paul writing later, and regard the Tacitus note as unreliable?

Just asking if these are your positions.

Kevin Rosero

aa5874

You are confusing me with Doherty. My username is aa5874, I am not Doherty, and I am proposing fiction in the NT.

You have stated that Josephus never mentioned 'Christians' because they were so small, and I have pointed out that the book of Acts, which is regarded to been written after the death of Jesus Christ, claimed that there were multitudes of followers, in excess of 8,000. I just debunked your hypothesis.

Please read my posts carefully, I wrote that there are other hypotheses, I only dealt with 2 of them.

And by the way, do you have any other hypothesis as to why the sect called Christians are not known or written about in the 1st century?

gstafleu

I don't really have a position on that (nor am I in any position to have a position, to be honest ). I'm just wondering what the earliest evidence for Christianity is, and how reliable that evidence is seen to be.

Gerard Stafleu

spin

Do you trust it? If so what exactly does it have to do with Tacitus's subtle attack on Nero? This attack ostensibly ends at the beginning of 15.44 leaving the reader to believe that despite Nero's efforts to shake the blame for the fire he wore it nevertheless. It is followed by the riotously unTacitean brutal description of the so-called Neronean persecution. The previous passages had been a sustained beautifully written piece of anti-Neronean propaganda, one of suggestion and aspersion, which suddenly drops into the christian bloodbath with crackly sunsets and the gross conclusion about Nero that it was all done "to glut one man's cruelty".


spin

krosero

I certainly don't think you're Doherty. But if you're using sarcasm here, then I apologize for associating your views too closely with his; I had hoped, by stating frankly that I did not know your relationship to Doherty's theory, that I was not publicly conflating you with him; but I appreciate your clarification.

Actually I never stated that. I've said in this thread that I did not find the argument to be especially strong, but was considering how much weight I should give it. I presented it to you as the inevitable argument, not of people such as myself, but of those who claim interpolation: because if the TF is wholly interpolated, then Christianity cannot have been more than a small movement, or a complete fiction (your argument) in his time.

I hold that the sect was known and written about in the 1st century, by Josephus. It is your argument, not mine, that 1st-century Christianity consisted only (or mostly) of authors writing fiction.

Your questions from the opening post may be applied to your argument about the NT, now that I know what it is: why doesn't Josephus mention a movement that was given over to writing fictional stories about Messiahs and miracles and the apocalypse?

I mean, he writes about other theologies and stories. Why not this one?

Is it because the Christian stories had not yet been written when he wrote? That's one thing I'm unclear about still, with regard to your proposal: do you hold that the NT was fiction, written in the late first century or afterwards?

Just trying to get clarification now.

Kevin Rosero

krosero

I do trust it, despite your good questions about it; what I'd like to be able to review at some point, in deciding whether the notice is basically trustworthy, is a comprehensive argument for interpolation. Can I ask you to point me to what you think is the best argument for that?

Thanks in advance.

Kevin Rosero

aa5874

What did you say?

rlogan

Such a pretense at critical thinking except, of course, where religious material from anonymous sources is proven unquestionably to be false - and in cases where the (christian) source has obviously perpetrated outright fraud.

It is obvious hypocrisy when the advocate proposes the only thing that appears to save his cherished assumption as opposed to the opposite.

Do you see me making the obvious counterclaim to this seat-of-the-pants apologia by claiming that maybe Josephus actually showed a preference for Messianic movements? No, I don't.

You seem to have missed what I thought was obvious - that Josephus does in fact mention many people who were named Jesus, which is a title in the manner it is used as opposed to a given name. Copernic understood that, at any rate.

Many mentions of false prophets, perhaps the best known of which are those urging zealots and the like onward in the battle of Jerusalem. All of this flies in the face of an assertion that a person like Jesus would not be mentioned.


This is an argument from silence. Just because Josephus does not positively scorn southpaws does not allow one to conclude he's "even-handed". And if Jesus was right handed then Josephus would surely have mentioned him.

Just giving you a taste of the same medicine...

This is merely an assertion, and the pretense that there is "evidence" you are submitting when there is none.

A pious Jew would not call someone the Christ personally, no. But that is a bogus reason for not mentioning someone at all.

I see. So what we do is throw out bogus arguments we do not even agree with so long as they serve apologia for an HJ position.


The allegation of ten thousand miracles by the hand of Jesus in the TF makes it so preposterous as to demand rejection were there no other problems in the first place. Even a fraction of that would have made him the most famous person in the world.



No, you misunderstand the use of "apologia", and apply some nonexistent rule to use of the term. One can be an apologist for Republicans, for slavery, or any number of things. I have never said you were a "Christian canon apologist", so stop pretending I have.

It is not apologia for orthodox Christianity. It is apologia for a blind faith, nevertheless. The blind faith in a "Historical Jesus".

At every turn the explanation is sought as to how a historical Jesus myth can be fashioned around all of the evidence. Do you proceed with the same generosity to the opposing view? No. That is by definition being an apologist.

You bring me some archaeological evidence of Christian refugees from Jerusalem in Pella, for example, and my thinking on this subject will be immediately revised. I'm not going to invent reasons why it would be there despite the nonexistence of Christians.