TedM

Because they have nothing to do with my point. Why do I bother answering you? It's because you sometimes make good points. But then you put in your irrelevant hobby horse issues...


Yes, as I said he was popular.

I answered that already..



And no one claimed Paul was as popular as Jesus. Why should there have been more stories and letters by non-Christians? That's just your subjective opinion. And I disagree with it.


Clearly it was interpolated though because miracles can't happen, right? Big deal. We also have the TF. What's the difference?

TedM

What objection did not meet? I thought I answered everything you put forward.



But you are claiming whole cloth interpolation. Yet you haven't met my objection that the passage contains evidence that the forgerer was clever enough to imitate Josephus but too dumb to exclude the passages that are obviously not Josephan. Your explanation was that Eusebius 'absorbed' Josephus so that it just subconciously slipped out-- and that there was no intention to deceive. I showed why I think that is not likely. You simply disagree without a real response, NOW introducing the old idea of marginal glosses--which is NOT Eusebius whole cloth interpolation. Which is your position as to the more likely interpolation approach? Whole cloth by one person(Eusebius, or other)? Or all interpolations by more than one person? The second IMO is significantly more likely than the first, but also signficantly less likely than an original direct from Josephus.

aa5874

Well, you have exposed your "hobby horse". You have NO interest in the description of Jesus in the very Gospels. You are posting here to promote FALSE assumptions and become exceedingly angry or disgusted when posters do not accept them.

This forum was not initiated for the propagation of False Assumptions.

Posters here are extremely interested in the description of the Jesus character in the Gospels.

In the Gospels the Jesus character was described as the Resurrected Son of a Ghost, God the Creator and a Transfiguring sea water Walker.

This description is incredible essential because it can be easily deduce logically that the Jesus character was a product of Mythology and the very earliest author of the Jesus story show that the Jews REJECTED the Jesus character as Christ and the Son of God.

Even, Peter, on the day Jesus died claimed and implied he did NOT KNOW of Jesus and was NOT with him.

There is no evidence from antiquity anywhere that Jews worshiped a man as God.

Philo, the Jew of Alexandria, claimed it would have been far easier for a God to become a man than a man to become a God.

Philo's Embassy to Gaius

TedM

I was making a point that had nothing to do with your comments. Thus I see no need to respond to them.

I don't think I was trying to promote the idea that Christianity began with the Jews, even though I think it did. I was really curious what people think started Christianity among the Jews, if they are willing to accept that premise. Several here, including you, have voice the opinion that it didn't start with the Jews, but that wasn't the original purpose of the thread.


Really? Funny, I don't recall feeling this way. Ok, perhaps a little disgusted and how close-minded some people here are. But not angry, just a little frustrated when smart people like spin and toto, for example, refuse to back up viewpoints that seem irrational to me. It is also a little frustrating when people like you ride that hobby horse to death, continually riding it when you can't provide the opinion about the Jews belief system I'm curious about since you don't accept the op assumption, per your example below:

Toto

Nope.


There is no such evidence. You have a passage written in Koine Greek, and you separate out the possibly Josephan words from the words that he would not have written. Then you claim that the forger was a clever imitator in one case and incompetent in the other. You have created this dilemma.

And you don't know the interpolators motives. Modern forgers try to make a profit so they try to give a good imitation of what they think the original would be. Eusebius was not trying to pass this off to a wealthy collector. He was just trying to do his Christian duty to present a history that glorified Jesus.

That you think it is not likely does not make it not likely.

Most likely - Eusebius, based on Ken Olson's analysis. Least likely - a Josephan original.

TedM

If some of the Jewish people had become desperate enough to think that a Roman Ruler was the Messiah, how much more reasonable is it to think they were desperate enough to think that one of their own, who some claimed had been the Messiah, really was?

aa5874

You seem to have forgotten that your post are recorded. You are promoting False Assumptions

Examine an excerpt of your own post #31.

Examine an excerpt of your own post #81. You actively promote the idea Christianity began with the Jews.

Your "hobby horse" is to promote False Assumptions because you very well know that in gMark that there were NO Jewish Christians up to the day Jesus was crucified and it was in the Fiction called Acts of the Apostles where a Ghost came down from heaven who gave power to the disciples.

On the Day of Pentecost, when the Promised Ghost came down heaven 3000 PERSONS Believed that the Jews Killed Jesus and REPENTED.

Acts 21. The Jews killed Jesus in Acts.

2. The Jews killed Jesus according to Aristides.

3. The Jews killed Jesus according to Justin Martyr.

4. The Jews killed Jesus according to Tertullian.

5. The Jews killed Jesus according to Hippolytus.

6. The Jews did not admit that the Christ had come.

There were NO Jewish Christians.

It was Vespasian the Emperor of Rome who was the Prophesied Messianic ruler and Savior who did miracles in the 1st century.

There was NO Messianic ruler called Jesus the Son of God whom the Jews worshiped for Remission of Sins and abolished their Laws.

TedM

I hear you. That is the danger -- one keeps what is 'convenient' to authenticity and call the rest interpolation. I think it is a matter of degree. If 90% of the passage appears authentic that is more significant than only 5%.


True. I guess all you really can to argue against what I said is to claim that either Eusebius was really stupid if the was trying to be a clever forgerer (not a good argument) or that he accidently allowed Josephan phrases to slip into what he had wished Josephus said in his history. The latter to me isn't something that happens 'accidentally', which takes us back to the 'stupid' argument. Neither seem likely to me, but I take it that you are ok with the latter one.




Then, the marginal slip is not likely in your opinion. Yet we still have the issue mentioned above. Was he or was he not trying to sound like Josephus? Or, is the TF overwhelmingly full of phrases not found in Josephus, but that ARE found in Eusebius, as Olson argues?

TedM

You have a very odd definition of the word 'promote'. If I believe something, and mention it, and defend it, that doesn't mean my objective from the beginning was to 'promote' it.

andrewcriddle

The fact that an article passes peer review definitely does not mean that the reviewers agreed with the conclusions.

Peer review in the case of Richard Carrier's article would seek to ensure that the raw data (What our text of Josephus says what Hegesippus says what Origen says etc) is presented in an accurate and non-misleading fashion and that a clear plausible and interesting argument is developed on the basis of the raw data. If a reviewer held that the paper satisfied these criteria it would be quite wrong to oppose publication just because the reviewer personally held that there was a better explanation of the raw data.

Andrew Criddle