The Bishop

Well, I was responding to Steven Carr, whose answer to my contention that Jesus wasn't important enough to be recorded in contemporary Roman history, was essentially to claim that the Bible says he was important enough, as if that would tie me in some kind of theological knots. It seemed right to clarify my position on the HJ/MJ question whilst giving my answer that if I make a statement as a generalisation of the "Bible story", I'm not particularly stymied by an argument that assumes, simply because I believe that the Gospels are a reasonable historical source, that I therefore hold them inerrant.

It seems to me, therefore, that the way I reached the conclusion about the historicity of Jesus overall is somewhat off-topic here.

As a newbie here myself, I personally welcome the chance to air my views on a particular problem regardless of how extensively it has been discussed in the past on archived threads I can't add my two-pennorth to, or would be shouted down for resurrecting (as a moderator I'm always on the lookout for "zombie" threads). In contrast to your teacher, Chris, I never negate the possibility that an old question might be asked in a new way.

BTW, I referred to Peter Kirby as "Kirby" - I'm afraid I'm just not used to having the real life front-line generals in these battles actually being contributing members of the forum. I can't edit the post and i will try to be more careful in future! I've been on the point of saying some nasty things about Earl Doherty before now, and one does post pretty much on the basis that people you talk about aren't going to read what you say!

(P.S. Chris, please note that I edited my post, because I don't believe "in" Yeshu, I believe "there was" a Yeshu).

spin

Ad hominem is no substitute for argument. Neither is leaning on the opinions of the multitudes. You have not proferred any evidence on the subject, yet you claim I am "full of hot air and misinformation". The forum rules specifically say, "Comments about other users, insults and flames are not acceptable." You should either supply some evidence to justify your breach of forum rules or apologize.

Good scholarship is based on evidence, not beliefs.

What has been said in this thread that isn't found in the archives? I would love someone to add something new to this subject.

It is normal in internet to say RTFM just as it is here to say RTFA. The reason why one says "RTFA" is that a subject has been done to death without anything being added in its successive iterations.

Oh, do Phlox.


spin

Ben C Smith

That would be incorrect. I did know that Simon ben Giora had been mentioned before in previous books. I also knew that these prior mentions were irrelevant to your claim, which was:

The previous mentions of Simon ben Giora in Jewish War are not in any way grammatical antecedents (your words, not mine).

In your PM to me you accosted me for not having read the original thread in its entirety, for clutching at a particular uncontextualized phrase of yours and then wringing its throat. So I went back and read that entire thread (which I have linked to above), naturally assuming, based on your words, that somewhere in it you had clarified that by grammatical antecedent you really meant any previous mention. Alas, I could find no such clarification.

In other words, you added a qualification (unless the person has been mentioned previously somewhere) to your rule just for my benefit, on the spot and ad hoc. I therefore stick by what I said elsewhere: If spin wishes to change the parameters of the argument, that is fine, but it should be acknowledged that the point is no longer one of grammar.

Ben.

spin

It would be interesting for you to open a thread to justify this belief, perhaps indicating along the way whether you find the less popular gospels just as reasonable.

Who exactly are you referring to with the phrase "your teacher"? It would seem to me to be a deliberate breaking of forum rules with its imputations on Chris.


The reason why archives exist is so that they may be consulted, rather than reinventing the wheel. I would dearly love something new to be said about the TF.


spin

Phlox Pyros

No, but it is good for pointing out who should be listened to and who shouldn't.

You got your knowledge from somewhere, Spin...

Because I have nothing new to add (neither do you). I lean toward Meier's analysis among others.

I will not as I feel there has been an abuse of power and friendship of your behalf.

Yet, what you present is exactly that. Beliefs. Only you present it with profanity as if that solidifies your beliefs somehow and that everyone else should listen or get out of your way.

Present something new, and then we'll have something to discuss.

Either way, I'm done with my own rant. I'm simply annoyed today and irritated that you are taken as some sort of expert. I think the threads presented above speak to whether you are or are not, but some here will see things their own way, obviously.

spin

Thank you for the clarification.

You have consistently clung to a loose phrase as though it were the ultimate of statements without having read what went before it.

The previous mentioning of Simon son of Giora makes your pointing to the later irregular form irrelevant.

(I thought it was you accosting one of my statements.)

Wringing the phrase by the throat seems fair to me. You show no evidence of having taken note of what I had actually said before on the subject, which should have reduced your clinging to the phrase so that you understood what I may have intended.

In a thread involving Bernard Mueller I said, "It is natural, when establishing a relationship with someone you were just talking about, to go from the known to the unknown person with who the someone had the relationship." The notion of prior mention is not new to the discussion, nor is it "just for [your] benefit, on the spot [or] ad hoc".

Let me polite suggest that you read the archives.


spin

spin

You are simply wrong. It merely shows that you are willfully breaking the rules. Nothing more.


I go to the texts, not the opinions.

I don't care who you lean towards. You seem unable to deal with what I said. The ad hominem usually reflects such inability.

You entered this thread apparently just to ad hominem me several times. I think you should be reprimanded for flaunting the rules.

Is it a belief that AJ has the term xristos nowhere other than the Jesus passages? Is it a belief that Josephus identifies himself as a devout, rather orthodox-type Jew (-- to whom the notion of messiah could not equate to someone who apparently died ignominiously)? Is it a belief that xristos to a non-christian audience would have meant ointment?

Still can't deal with anything, can you? You are very consistent at changing the subject.

How would you know what is and is not new?

I have seen you provide conventional conservative christian views on so many things on this forum... on the servant poems, on ps.22, on p52 and now on the TF. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you could tell what is or is not expert.


spin

Ben C Smith

Anytime.

Correct (except that I would not call it a loose phrase). No one (not you, not Amaleq13) mentioned at the time that you had ever written anything else on the Testimonium on this forum. Now that I know you have, I may take you up on your invitation.

Furthermore, even if I had already read everything you had ever written on the topic, it would have been remiss of me not to point out that your rule, as phrased in your OP on the thread to which I was referred, did not hold.

My pointing to this instance falsified the rule as you had stated it in the post to which Amaleq13 referred me.

Correct. I accosted one of your statements. Then you accosted me.

There is no harm in falsifying a misleading, misworded, or misguided statement. Call it what you will, but I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Correct. In fact, I did not at the time even know that you had said anything about it before on this forum, let alone what you had said about it.

What thread is that?

And... going from the known to the unknown person... how does this apply to a son of Giora, a certain Simon? In what sense was Giora a known person? AFAICT, Josephus never mentions Giora except with relation to Simon.

Ben.

spin

As I used it, I think I'm in a better position to identify it that way.

I did mention it to you privately.

You are back to wringing it by the throat.

You are literally correct. This is why I wrote to you privately to say that you are taking me out of context by not having read the archives on the subject. I said here,

"It is syntactically strange the Jewish familial relationship always has some grammatical antecedent, either a) name or b) description."

I omitted the even rarer occasions when the fronting was caused by previous reference. It was after all a summary and not an unexpergated version. ("As a summary of the case against the presence of the phrase "Jesus called Christ" in Josephus AJ 20.9.1, here are the arguments I have put forward:" *)

There is no harm in trying to understand what you are writing about.

Here.

The reference to Simon is not a first reference, so the form you refer to isn't comparable with the singular "brother of Jesus, who was the christ, called James".


spin

Amaleq13

Your belief is mistaken. New Rules/Registration Agreement and Statement of Purpose

You broke the rules and he did not. There is nothing absurd about it.

You agreed to follow the rules when you joined. If you have a complaint about moderation, please start a thread in the complaint forum. Discussing moderator action anywhere else is also prohibited.