Casper

Are you disputing Josephus as well? According to him, Jerusalem was leveled and the entire population dispersed and/or slaughtered. I'm sure there is some Hyperbole in there, but the picture from him is clear enough. Preterists even rely on it to give Revelations an early dating (pre 70CE).

Brother Daniel

Who here has made serious attempts at writing fiction? I have. Chronological bloopers happen very easily. For example, if your first decision for the timing of an event doesn't work (for whatever literary reason), and you decide to move it, you can easily leave behind remnants of the earlier version after imperfect editing. This can happen even to writers with access to word-processing software, which I imagine Eusebius probably didn't have.

How is the mistake of depicting an imaginary author as writing over the course of a century less likely than the mistake of misrepresenting a genuine author (whose memoirs are right in front of you) as writing over the course of a century?

Brother Daniel

You revealed the real issue earlier, when you declared (Ex Cathedra, as it were) your prior decision that:
This is apparently your excuse for thinking that your sneering and blustering counts as "refutation".

C'mon, Bede, grow up.

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just a guy who likes to read BC&H from time to time, on and off. I want to see arguments on both (all) sides.

I'm nobody around here. I'm not part of the "choir". I have no emotional investment whatsoever in the MJ position. And it's not the MJ-proponents whom I see discrediting themselves.

Are your contributions of this past week typical of your modus operandi? Based on a small amount of interaction with you on GRD, I had thought you had both the knowledge and the rationality to be a decent spokesman for your viewpoint. I'm finding out otherwise, and I'm deeply disappointed.

If you truly can't see the damage you've done to your own credibility, then I can only pity you.

Bede

I actually I can. The trouble is that when you see the same stuff so many times, you can lose patience. I have refuted Raskin's thesis. What I haven't done is convinced Jacob. And I never will.

Look at the E/C forum here. How much respect do you see creationists getting? Do you regularly drop in there and repremand the people refering to cretinists and generally insulting anyone who is not a neo-Darwinist.

In fact, I have time for the JM thesis when put intelligently by Earl Doherty (which some respected non-theist posters here do not) but not for people who just produce pet theories without doing the leg work. Raskin should have checked PLG for all references to H before he made any remarks about him. He should have ensured the Greek backed him up (IIRC my insistance on using the original language was called desperate or something similar. Can you imagine a scholar ever saying such a thing!). He should have asked where Jerome got his info and why H's memoirs appear to survive until the 16th century. He should have asked how H's pope list got used by authors before Eusebius. Until all this work is done the case is closed.

You are absolutely right that as far as public relations is concerned, infinite patience would be preferable. If I was Job, I might be better a poster. But look at how long ago I joined and how often I have posted here. Look at the track record of Raskin (who used to claim Tertullian, a Latin writer, rewrote the NT which is in Greek), and of those who defend F&G. I pretty much proved that the Orpheus amulet was a fake but this 'slipped the mind' of Toto who is a mod here when a newbie asked for info on it. Is it not surprising that I get awful frustrated at times? I should do what non-Christians Rick, Vinnie and Peter do, which is simply refuse to address the Jesus myth. As these three are the most respected and knowledgeable NT experts ever to post on these boards, perhaps their opinion might cut more ice with you.

But I'll slink off for a while until I get my breath back...

B

Toto

Have you dropped by the E/C forum lately? Creationists are referred to carefully prepared lists of facts and arguments that do not leave them a leg to stand on. There is no need to resort to insults.

Your insistance on the equivalence of creationism and Jesus Mythicism is getting stale, if not moldy.

I cannot find any reference to Raskin saying that insistance on using the original Greek was desparate. I quoted Raskin on his familiarity and sources for Greek, and he has not shown any disrespect for the use of the original language. You have not indicated where there is a linguistic dispute that would change the apparent meaning of the text.

Have you produced a reference to Hegesippus that Raskin missed?

Do you have evidence that Jerome got his information on Hegesippus from anyone other than Eusebius?

Are you sure that Hegesippus' pope list did not predate him - and that Eusebius attributed the list to Hegesippus?

You have only an indication, but not a proof, that there were texts of Hegesippus surviving in the 16th century. For all we know, Eusebius did forge an entire text - without those purported texts, we will never know.

The case is definitely not closed.

As I explained to you, I was more interested in correcting the idea that the amulet dated to 200 BC than in the possibility that in stating the possibility that it was a forgery. You have a lot less evidence of forgery in that case than Raskin has for his thesis. When you have something more definite than an indication that a few experts rejected it for reasons you are not clear on, you will let us know, I'm sure.

As far as I know, Raskin is still entertaining the hypothesis that Tertullian edited the New Testament. His website is down, but eventually he will get it back up.

The JM list contains a lot of trail balloons. Some float and some don't. The criteria in each case is not whether the idea is so outlandish that Bede considers it ridiculous, but which way the evidence points.

This thread is not about the Jesus myth and never has been. You are the only one to bring that up.

Peter, of course, is respected and knowedgeable. I was not aware that he simply refuses to address the Jesus myth.

Vorkosigan

Why do you keep making this entirely bogus claim? There is no good evidence for the survival of H's memoirs into the 16th century. Several of us have already pointed that out to you.

Kirby does not do that, Vinnie simply lacks the methodological resources to challenge it, and Rick, who claims that neither side has good methodology, nevertheless maintains it as a faith statement that the mythicists are wrong.

I have noticed, though, that mythicist--opponents keep wanting to interject the Jesus Myth into every thread. Why do you suppose that is?

It's paragraphs like this that do not reflect well on you...

Consider that:

Apparently it is you who have not been checking the references. Tertullian certainly understood Greek, since he wrote in it. His Greek writings have been lost.

Who defends Freke and Gandy here? Names, please.

You didn't prove the Orpheus amulet was a fake. What you did was dig up a reference that said that in the thirties a German expert concluded, based on the arguments of two Christian apologist-scholars from the 19th century, that the amulet was a fake. In fact, no compelling arguments that the amulet was a fake were provided by you, Bede.

That paragraph is basically canonical for you, consisting of (1) an outright error followed by (2) a smear without naming anyone and (3) a claim of having done something you never did at all.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

You apparently haven't convinced Brother Daniel, either.

I know you haven't convinced me even though I started out thinking yours was the more reasonable position.

I'm not sure what definition of "refuted" you are using but all I've seen in the way of actual evidence is a 16th century reference indicating Hegesippus' memoirs were included (and the legitimacy of that evidence has been called into question). Other than that, you've been offering speculative opinions about what certain authors meant as opposed to what they've actually written. I wouldn't say I'm completely sold on Raskin's theory but, unlike your alleged refutation, it seems to only involve what the texts actual state rather than reinterpretations of what they "really" meant.

Shouldn't an actual refutation have more substance?

Peter Kirby

I continue to address issues that impinge on Jesus-myth theories. For example, I still plan to write a review of F&G's book, and I am reading some articles that will help me write a revised edition of my Testimonium article. Just recently I participated in the "diabolical mimicry" discussion.

It is true that I don't seek out "did Jesus exist" threads. After doing that for a couple years on Usenet, a couple years on JesusMysteries, and a couple years on IIDB, I should get some kind of veteran status. I will comment if I feel like it. In any case, I am not claiming that Jesus did exist (as I did for a while on Usenet) or that he didn't (as I did for a while on JesusMysteries). I certainly don't believe that persons such as Wells, Doherty, or Price are "loony."

I think I said a short while ago that I am more interested in "narrow" questions, including the kind that have to be answered before the historicity of Jesus can be evaluated. There are a lot of interesting things to discuss other than that question.

Indeed, Raskin's Hegesippus hypothesis is one such. It has no direct relation to the "Jesus Myth" thing. Although I am studying other things right now (in addition to starting the semester today, ugh), I will review Raskin's proposition if he puts it into some kind of "finalized" format (such as a web page).

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Actually, I thought Raskin was just plain wrong -- although in a highly imaginative and productive way -- until Toto pointed out the parallels in the construction of the two passages. I'm not near my home. Does Eisenman say anything about this? He was a big one for parallels.

Vorkosigan

Toto

I have Eisenman's tome in front of me. He accepts Hegesippus as a good source - he likes the confirmation that James underwent dramatic stuff that has analogies to Stephen. But that's just one passage I was able to look up from the index. I suspect it would be worth while to track down more refernces.