Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 01-02-2006, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I'm suggesting that an argument for accidental marginal gloss would necessarily include an assumption that the original text just gave the name "Jesus".

I agree with you. This to me is unlikely because of the way Josephus normally referenced people. That's why I conclude it is more likely to be an intentionally interpolated deception, or an authentic reference to Christ with no relationship between Jesus the Christ and Jesus, son of Damneus.

Quote:

He passed on a story about him bloating (from guilt?) to such an extent that a passing chariot squished him. Thus should die the myth of the reliability of early oral tradition.

Interesting. However, one should expect much less clear tradition about a man who had been rejected from the group as opposed to the leader of them (James).

Quote:

This is straw man. I did not say James was a "wrongdoer" nor that he was "justly stoned". I said that, contrary to your inclusion of it as a common feature, Josephus does not tell us that the sentence was actually carried out. It doesn't appear to be required for the story. Albinus was angry for the same reason the other men were upset which does not require that the sentence actually be carried out. Just trying to abuse his power before the new procurator arrived was the problem.

You are right. I misrepresented your opinion regarding James' guilt or innocence. Upon reading again I agree that the passage doesn't seem to report on the innocence of James, focusing instead on Ananus' breach of proper protocal. As for the stoning, I agree that it isn't required, but believe it is implied.

Quote:

You'll have to ask Richard about the specifics of how he imagines the passage to have accidently resulted from a marginal gloss.

Do you think it was interpolated, and if so with the intent to deceive?

ted

Amaleq13 · 01-02-2006, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

However, one should expect much less clear tradition about a man who had been rejected from the group as opposed to the leader of them (James).

The notion of the reliability of "tradition" is a joke and Papias is the punchline. The identity of the particular individual simply does not matter because humans have tremendous difficulty avoiding embellishment and fabrication in their attempts to produce a story others want to hear.

Quote:

Do you think it was interpolated, and if so with the intent to deceive?

I do not think it is genuine given the unique features I've already mentioned but I have no idea whether its introduction was deliberate or accidental.

mikem · 01-02-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

A nitpick: Neoplatonism is a product of the Third Century. Paul's beliefs were influenced by Middle Platonism. Doherty has proposed that part of Middle Platonists' beliefs included one of "a sub-lunar realm separate to but overlapping our own reality" in which 'fleshy' events can occur.

Unfortunately there is simply no evidence for this - Doherty confuses Plutarch's allegorical approach with Middle Platonistic cosmology, for example. Paul's use of terminology makes it impossible that Christ was incarnated anywhere else on earth. I regard this as conclusive evidence which refutes Doherty's thesis.

I stand corrected. However, do you MEAN Plutarch, or Philo? Philo was certainly allegorical in his treatment of OT themes, as was Paul in Galatians I think, where he allegorised Sarah and Hagar.

If you mean Philo I don't think that Doherty's case is refuted if he has misunderstood Philo. Philo and Paul were contemporaries, and both Jews. They would both have been familar with the writings of the "intertestamental period", I am thinking of Daniel here with his battle in the heavens between Michael prince of the Jews, and the prince of Persia, angelic figures whose fight determined the future of God's people. Paul's "principalities and powers", and "rulers" may be in this mould. Paul does have a great deal to say about demonic powers. This would lend itself to Doherty's overall interpretation, but as I indicated earlier, I am not sure. I would be interested to know however, what precisely you had in mind by "Paul's use of terminology" then we can perhaps argue specifics instead of swelling on generalities?

TedM · 01-02-2006, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The notion of the reliability of "tradition" is a joke and Papias is the punchline. The identity of the particular individual simply does not matter because humans have tremendous difficulty avoiding embellishment and fabrication in their attempts to produce a story others want to hear.

I agree that people have a strong propensity toward embellishment but I strongly disagree with the notion that the identity of the particular individual (ie the details of the source for tradition) is irrelevant. The degree to which embellishment is successful depends on many factors and one of them is the degree of checks and balances against the truth. If Judas' death was not in the public eye and James' was, I'd expect a different degree of embellishment.

Quote:

I do not think it is genuine given the unique features I've already mentioned but I have no idea whether its introduction was deliberate or accidental.

I agree that the wording is unique enough to conclude that as it now reads it is unlikely to be original, but don't see why a decent case can't be made for the original referencing Jesus, son of Joseph. Why Carrier concludes that one can't also be made for an intentional falsification, I don't know. I don't think a good case can be made for an accidental interpolation from an original which clearly links James to Jesus, son of Damneus.

ted

ted

Julian · 01-02-2006, 07:31 AM

I am curious as to why Photius' summary goes like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photius Codex 238

Ananias son of Ananias took the office of high priest after having stripped Joseph of it; he was bold, daring and bold to the extreme; he was, indeed, a follower of the sect of the Sadducees and those were hard in their judgements and inclined to every audacity. Thus, this Ananias, when Festus had died in Judaea and before Albinus had entered office,assembled the Sanhedrin on his own authority and accused James, the brother of the Lord, and others with him, of disobeying the laws and he ordered their death by stoning. On top, the most moderate Jews and king Agrippa himself, deeply affected, drove him out after three years of office and put in his place Jesus son of Damnes.

From here.

Why wouldn't Photius be more specific in pointing out James's relationship with Jesus. Was it not in his version?

Julian

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.