Jeffrey Gibson

Why? He's not an historian and makes no pretenses to being one.

And where -- in what work of his -- would you have expected him to mention Jesus?

Really? Where are his comments on Hillel or Shammai? On Judas of Gamala? On Caiaphas? On John the Baptist? Does he mention everything about Pilate that Josephus does? Any hint that he knows of the incident of Herod's Golden Eagles or the name of the Pharisaic leader who urged his students to pull them down? Does he give us much about the Maccabees let alone the names of the major players in the revolt?

Jeffrey

Mythra

Isn't Philo the one who talks about the Therapeutae near Alexandria? Is that found in "Embassy to Gaius" ?

Mythra

Sorry. I should've just googled first. It's in De Vita Contemplativa.

I can't fathom the amount of information that some here have committed to memory. I find it staggering. (and somewhat intimidating)

Toto

I have read some of Brown, I know that he does quality work. But what does the Imprimatur mean to you? To me, it means that there are some conclusions that are not acceptable, and that there are constraints on freedom of thought.

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's speed things up.

JW:
He says he was Peter the apostle but he wasn't and that he witnessed the crucifixion but he didn't.

JW:
Does not say Jesus was crucified.

JW:
"John" refers to the beloved disciple. It is not by the beloved disciple.

Here's another claim:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm (emphasis mine)

Here we have a claim by Eusebius, the official/most important Church Historian of all time, that Abgarus who knew Jesus through correspondence, claimed Jesus was crucified. Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship though Confesses to us that the letters Eusebius refers to were probably Forged.

A summary so far:

1) Nothing from Jesus claiming he was crucified.

2) Probably nothing from anyone who knew Jesus claiming he was crucified.

3) Probably a few Christian Forgeries claiming that someone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.

Paul looks like the earliest extant witness who Promotes Crucified Jesus but:

1) Emphasizes Revelation.

2) Has little interest in Historical witness.

3) Claims a Crucified Jesus as the basis of Faith.

4) Proof-texts a Crucified Jesus with a Tree hanging from the Jewish Bible.

Richard Bauckham, respected by Jeffrey Gibson as a Qualified authority on the Christian Bible, writes "That Jesus was crucified may be indubitable". This seems to be the opinion of Mainstream Bible scholarship. But what exactly is this opinion based on? Not extant first hand witness per the above.

So let's make this easier:

Do you have anything from anyone who knew someone who knew Jesus stating that the person who knew Jesus said he was crucified?



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Minimalist

No, he was commenting on Jewish religious matters and, if there was any truth to any of this miracle-working, being-worshipped-by-multitudes-as-the-messiah, coming-back-from-the dead, bullshit, I'd expect him to have mentioned him.

squiz

Watch out Toto. Jeffrey once brought out a criticism of Price by one George Montague. When I dared to answer his criticism that Price is committed to his conclusion (of the mythical Christ) with the observation that Montague is a committed charismatic catholic, I was told that I would be ignored from now on for using a pseudonym. Be careful that doesn't happen to you.

Again, instead of informing us of the subtleties of the imprimatur process and how that has no bearing on his use of Brown as an example of a daring scholar who "puts paid to the idea that biblical scholars are afraid to challenge traditional Christian beliefs..for fear of their jobs", you are simply (again) told that "you are speaking beyond your knowledge".

I should count the number of times Jeffrey has answered questions with such a put down. There are a few in this thread already even. I wonder if this is how he deals with his students? Time to check out rate my professors.

I am an interested amateur, as most are here I guess. I still haven't made my mind up about many of the issues being discussed, but having to put up with such unhelpful arrogance from the most prominent (although who knows how distinguished) academic here is fuelling any prejudices I might have had against such people.

JoeWallack

JW:
Brown was an excellent scholar by Christian Bible scholarship standards but a poor scholar by Scientific standards. The book he needed to write from a scholarship standpoint was The Resurrection of the Messiah since that is what Christianity is based on but I would assume his Priestly standing would not let him since he knew that because the Canonical resurrection accounts are so different he would primarily be creating Doubt with such a book.

Also, even though his Birth of the Messiah is still probably the best detailed commentary on the subject he has his share of ridiculous comments there. After demonstrating in excruciating detail that "Matthew" and "Luke" contain original, formulaic Infancy instruction and reaction that has been Edited he gives his opinion that they were Edited by the original authors! Another low point is he indicates that the probable source for the Virgin Birth stories is Jewish writings because he spends most of his time and does demonstrate that the Form of the Infancy Narratives follows the form of Infancy Narratives in Jewish writings. What he fails to spend time doing and demonstrate is that the Form of the Infancy Narratives also follows the form of Infancy Narratives in Pagan writings and the Substance (pun intended) of the Virgin Birth can be found nowhere in Jewish writings and everywhere in Pagan writings.



Joseph

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Jeffrey Gibson

Presume away. But I once asked Ray about whether he was going to write a full length book about the Resurrection narratives and his reason for not doing so was only one of time.

Moreover, your claim, Joseph, about Ray's priestly status preventing him from writing on the resurrection accounts and detailing their differences is belied by a fact that you seem to be totally (but not atypically) ignorant of: that he was commissioned by Roman Catholic priests to write the article on the resurrection accounts from a "scholarship standpoint" for the Jerome Biblical Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk), and that he took up the task.

You also seem to be unaware that prior to this, he had already written a book on the Resurrection.

Good one Joe!

Jeffrey

Toto

I'll make it even easier. There is no direct evidence that Jesus was crucified. The reason that the NT guild considers it an "indisuptable" fact is that 1) early Christians said that Jesus was crucified, combined with 2) the NT guild cannot imagine a reason for early Christians to make up something that was not to their benefit, something embarrassing and degrading.