Nomad

Toto:

Do you ever read anything except from the hyper sceptical community? If so, I would like to know what kinds of books or articles you have chosen to read.

As for Bill's (and Doherty's and Richard's) unwillingness to defend his views on these forums, I am very aware of this fact. Such is his choice, of course. Any of us can choose to debate whomever we wish.

Nomad

P.S. Were you pleased with Doherty's success in having the moderator of the Jesus Mysteries Board removed, and ALL of his posts deleted? After all, the man did dare to challenge Doherty's translation of Koine Greek, and Doherty properly blew a gasket and demanded (obviously successfully) that he be banned. Yet another victory for free speech no doubt.

Toto

Hey - I read your stuff. I've read that Soapbox Prof you like. I've even read the Bible, but it wasn't in the original Greek, so many that doesn't count.

I tried that link you posted that was supposed to prove that Josephus knew Luke, but I think you posted the wrong link - it refers to an argument that Josephus used Luke in the disputed part of the Testimonium, but doesn't flesh it out. It's not very persuasive by itself. But this was more interesting:
http://user.aol.com/fljosephus/eisler.htm

And, while I find it a source of interesting ideas, I haven't followed the politics of the Jesus Mysteries group, so I can't comment on anything else in your post.

boneyard bill

posted by Peter Kirby:

My question wasn't intended as a reference to anything you had said. It was semi-rhetorical in the context of the entire thread. Doherty's thesis rests on the claim that Mark's gospel is an independent invention of Mark. If Mark is using an oral tradition, the Doherty's claim that there is no historical Jesus must not only show that there is none in Paul, but that there is none in the "oral tradition" that Mark is using. The easiest solution is to say that Mark is not using an oral tradition.

So I was asking what is he using?
The only thing left is Old Testament scripture. But then what's he trying to prove? The only thing I can think of is that he's trying to prove the Pauline tradition which means, that if he didn't have Paul, he must at least have had the Pauline tradition. Is that a reasonable assumption or is even that a subject of debate? If even that can't be reasonably ascertained, Doherty's position doesn't look very good to me.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

boneyard bill

Peter Kirby:

That's a great web site you've got going. All the early Christian documents and even relevant non-Christian ones. I've added it to my favorites list. Thanks again for the link.

Peter Kirby

I thought I should point out that this author believes that Luke and Josephus at least shared a documentary source, not necessarily that Josephus knew the finished Luke.

For what it matters, I don't agree since I don't believe that any of the Testimonium is authentic.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

Nomad

Personally I do not think that Luke or Josephus knew of the other, although it does not seem to be a stretch to accept that they shared some sources independently of one another.

As for the Tesimonium, I don't see why it needs to be treated as a complete fabrication (I would lean towards arguing for some interpolation of an authentic core, although I am left to wonder why the Christian scribe that supposedly did this would have stopped here), but rarely use it in historical Jesus debates, since it usually becomes the focus of the discussion, and detracts from the overall debate itself.

Nomad

Peter Kirby

I have no problem with your debating tactics... I would tend to agree that the discussion of Josephus can loom large and overtake the important issues, which concern the Christian record itself.

Concerning the Testimonium, since it is clear to both parties that the Testimonium has at least some tampering, shouldn't we be asking for reasons to salvage a core rather than demanding further reason to reject the passage in toto? I mean, if someone uses an argument from the silence of Josephus, I would expect that person to give some good arguments that show Josephus' complete silence, but if someone uses the testimony of Josephus, I would expect that person to give some good arguments that show Josephus' partial authenticity.

On your first paragraph above, I did not say that you believed that there was any connection between Luke and Josephus. I was pointing out that the web site mentioned as a cite isn't precisely what you said it was.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

SingleDad

Nomad, is English your first language? Do you understand the difference between the meaning of the words "bulk" and "only"? I ask because in ordinary English, there is a substantive difference between these two words, and your objection seems to apply to the extremism of "only", which of course does not apply to Bill's actual comment.

However, I fear that Bill's comment is a tad over-general; certainly we have quite a lot of information about first-century Judea & Samaria from archaeological evidence. Perhaps Bill was referring only information from to textual evidence.

But in any case, quibbling over subtleties of phrasing and the dating of Luke/Acts is kind of a hijack, especially since the controversy has been well debated in another thread.

In this thread boneyard bill notes:

• Mark inaccurately conflates Passover with the Feast of Tabernacles in the Fall
• Mark references an obscure accurate fact about the location of the cemetary.

Firstly there seems to be a contradiction. Both historical accuracy and inaccuracy are given as evidence of the existence of a particular person. Clearly it seems that Mark is relying on some sort of historical source, be it Josephus, an oral history about a real Jesus or something else.

However, my question is, how do background historical details, accurate or inaccurate, relate to the existence of a particular character? We have merely determined that Mark probably had at some sort of semi-accurate historical details about first-century Jerusalem. Whether this information was gathered from Josephus or another source, while an interesting question in and of itself, is irrelevant to whether the accuracy or inaccuracy of specific background historical details affects the probability that a specific character set in a semi-accurate historical setting is actual or fictional.

SingleDad

boneyard bill

I think this is a false dilemma. If Mark were writing specifically historically (by the standards of the day), then this would be a stronger point. But as I understand it, Doherty essentially claims that it is reasonable to hypothesize that Mark is writing historical fiction with the intention not of accurately portraying history but rather of embedding a theological story in an historical setting.

Obviously one cannot capture a now-defunct oral tradition. One must infer its contents from the textual materials at hand. Since we have other evidence that Mark was not necessarily speaking historically (the parallels with the Odyssy, the pacing of the story to match the liturgical year), we are not entitled to infer the a priori accuracy of Mark's representation of a hypothetical oral tradition. Thus, while historical verisimilitude in Mark is certainly evidence of historical authenticity, it is not absolute falsification of the mythicist position.

Nomad

I think one of the better reasons for accepting the Testimonium at least in part is because of Josephus' second refernce to Jesus in Antiquities 20 in relation to James the Just. The absense of any elaboration by Josephus about Jesus Himself in this second reference suggests very strongly that his readers already knew who Jesus was (more or less). If Antiquities 18 does not mention Him, nor does Josephus bring Him up anywhere else, then this is a curious assumption on the part of Josephus. I can only imagine the 1st Century reader saying "James the brother of who? I thought there were all kinds of Messiah figures running around, and the name Jesus is pretty common... so which one is this one again?"

If the same reader had already encountered Jesus in Antiquities 18, then this problem would not have existed, and he or she would know full well who Josephus was referring to.

I know you have been down this debate road a number of times before, and I don't really have much interest in going over it again myself. At the same time, the existence of a second shorter version of the Testimonium as preserved by the Arabs (together with my argument above) leads me to agree with J.P. Meier, J.D. Crossan, Malhon Smith and others that there was a core tradition preserved in book 18.

Be well,

Nomad