Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 07-24-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

The census of Quirinius is one of the most troublesome Biblical problems. Many solutions have been offered, including alternate translations, but none are totally satisfying. Certainly there is credible historical evidence of the existence of Jesus but not necessarily the one described in the NT. It would seem that if Jesus was not borned in Bethlehem that first century Jews would have cried foul, but that is also not a full proof.

I'm not following this.

1. The alternate to Bethlehem was Nazareth. If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, then it was Nazareth. Why would the 1st century Jews have cried foul over that?

2. Are you sure they would have cared enough to cry foul - and leave behind a record of it as well?

Toto · 07-24-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Such as?

If you want to debate the point, please go elsewhere.

That's pretty brash for a newbie who just barged into a thread, don't you think?

Quote:

In case your question is serious, let me offer three tidbits...if you search, you will find more.

If you seriously search, you will find that your tidbits have no substance and that there is no good evidence that Jesus ever existed.

Quote:

1. I do not know of too many serious historians who doubt the existence of Jesus (actually, I could not find any in a quick internet search, but there must be some; apparently I looked in the wrong places.)

Read this and come back:
www.jesuspuzzle.com

Quote:

2. The Bible itself is a historical document whether one chooses to believe every word in it, or is more choosy.

The gospels in the New Testament were not obviously written as historical narratives.

Quote:

3. Josephus usually the first source cited outside the Bible:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
(Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3)

"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."
(Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1)

This contains obviously forged elements. The most thorough young scholar who analyzed this passage concluded that it was written by Eusebius in the 4th century. No scholars accept that the passage from the Antiquities is completely authentic, although some have tried to reconstruct what the original text contained. But once you have admitted that the text has been corrupted, you can't be sure of what it originally contained.

Quote:

If you search, you will find more. They will not necessarily paint the same picture of Jesus that is in the NT, although some will.a

(NOTE: For disclosure and my personal typing ease since I could not locate my on-line Josephus, I took the above quotes from Christopher Price.

Thanks,

Go back and do your homework. :wave:

Christopher Price used to post here as Layman. He got tired of losing arguments.

Timetospend · 07-24-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This contains obviously forged elements. The most thorough young scholar who analyzed this passage concluded that it was written by Eusebius in the 4th century. No scholars accept that the passage from the Antiquities is completely authentic, although some have tried to reconstruct what the original text contained.

If you could take the chip off your shoulder, I would interested in your support for this claim. especially given its absolute nature.

Thanks,

Toto · 07-24-2007, 08:03 PM

Dear Timetospend: what chip? I am laughing at your brash ignorance, but feel no need to pick a fight.

You are talking about an issue that has been discussed, dissected, sliced and diced on the boards and in the scholarly community for quite some time. Please look around, learn to use the search function. I think there is at least one thread on Josephus going on right now.

For starters, why would Josephus, a Jew writing a book to explain Judaism to the Romans, refer to a Galilean as "the Christ," or ask if it would be lawful to call him a man. That's a Christian writing that.

The only debate is between those who think that the entire paragraph is a forgery, and those who think that Josephus wrote something about Jesus that was enhanced by a later Christian forger.

Check out Ken Olson's article "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum," CBQ 61 (1999): 305-322

Minimalist · 07-24-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

If you want to debate the point, please go elsewhere. In case your question is serious, let me offer three tidbits...if you search, you will find more.
1. I do not know of too many serious historians who doubt the existence of Jesus (actually, I could not find any in a quick internet search, but there must be some; apparently I looked in the wrong places.)
2. The Bible itself is a historical document whether one chooses to believe every word in it, or is more choosy.
3. Josephis usually the first source cited outside the Bible:

That's about what I figured you'd come up with. The usual dreck.

1. There's another thread going with a whole list.
2. Historical documents should have some facts. The bible (NT) has none; the OT has few.
3. Josephus is a forgery.

Like I said, I expected very little.

chrisrkline · 07-24-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisrkline

But the whole notion of Joseph having to go to Bethlehem for the census is silly, and an obvious mythical element added to fit scripture.

The census of Quirinius is one of the most troublesome Biblical problems. Many solutions have been offered, including alternate translations, but none are totally satisfying. Certainly there is credible historical evidence of the existence of Jesus but not necessarily the one described in the NT. It would seem that if Jesus was not borned in Bethlehem that first century Jews would have cried foul, but that is also not a full proof.

I was curious if you had any real data to support the "silly"/"mythical" claim made in your post.

Thanks,

Well, I am no scholar, and I mainly just read stuff here, but I did decide to post. It makes no sense that Joseph would have to go from Galilee to Bethlehem for a census. There is no evidence that anyone else in this worldwide census had to do this. But this point is made better by others here, and I tend to agree with the assessments I have read from Robert Price, Carrier and others.

But the very fact that Luke, the great historian, had to borrow so much directly from Mark and Q concerning Jesus' public ministry, I am amazed that he seemed to know so much about what happened during Mary's pregnancy.

Minimalist · 07-24-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

There is no evidence that anyone else in this worldwide census had to do this.

There is no evidence that there was a "worldwide census" in 6 AD. What there was was a minor census, in the newly formed prefecture of Judaea, which was being added to the Roman province of Syria.

"Joseph" (if he existed in Luke) would have lived in Galilee, in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas which was not included in the census as Galilee continued to be a separate country for another 40 years or so.

aa5874 · 07-24-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

As far as I know, there is none. There is just the Micah "prophecy" that some took to mean that he must have been.

Luke goes so far as to make up a bogus census (that never happened) to get him there. Who ever heard of going to the hometown of an ancestor to register for a census? Doesn't one have to register where one lives?

Ray

It appears to me that the census by Cyrenius was probabably not bogus, it is the story of the virgin birth of Jesus that seems bogus.

If Antiquities of the Jews book XVIII,CH 1-2 is read, Cyrenius did carry out a census or taxation sometime around the 37th year of Caesar's victory of Anthony at Actium, which battle is said to have occured September 21, 31 BC. This would place the taxation or census, according to Josephus, sometime at around 6 CE. See http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...hus/ant-18.htm

See alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Actium

chrisrkline · 07-24-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

There is no evidence that anyone else in this worldwide census had to do this.

There is no evidence that there was a "worldwide census" in 6 AD. What there was was a minor census, in the newly formed prefecture of Judaea, which was being added to the Roman province of Syria.

"Joseph" (if he existed in Luke) would have lived in Galilee, in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas which was not included in the census as Galilee continued to be a separate country for another 40 years or so.

Yes, I meant to put the worldwide in quotes. I know there is no real evidence for it in the historical record.

I don't like to post on this forum because I am not at the level of some of you and I like to learn. My original interest was whether Luke, in making up the birth story, which I believe he did, tried to work backward 30 years from John the Baptist's death, according to Josephus, in about 36, and found a possible solution for how to tie Jesus to both Nazareth and Bethlehem?

Minimalist · 07-24-2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

My original interest was whether Luke, in making up the birth story, which I believe he did, tried to work backward 30 years

That's as good a guess as any. Christians seem to have as much trouble with the death date as they do with the birth date, though. I've gotten year of death dates from 29-36 from various Christian posters, here and on other boards.

You'd think they would have made an effort to nail that down better, wouldn't you?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2007, 08:03 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Dear Timetospend: what chip? I am laughing at your brash ignorance, but feel no need to pick a fight. You are talking about an issue that has been discussed, dissected, sliced and diced on the boards and in the scholarly community for quite some time. Please look around, learn to use the search function. I think there is at least one thread on Josephus going on right now. For starters, why would Josephus, a Jew writing a book to explain Judaism to the Romans, refer to a Galilean as "the Christ," or ask if it would be lawful to call him a man. That's a Christian writing that. The only debate is between those who think that the entire paragraph is a forgery, and those who think that Josephus wrote something about Jesus that was enhanced by a later Christian forger. Check out Ken Olson's article "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum," CBQ 61 (1999): 305-322

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.