Toto

Doherty has published a review in the Journal of Higher Criticism

As for family members of historicized legends, William Tell had a son, necessary for the plot line. I don't know if anyone actually claimed descent from him, but there seems to be a fictional claim in this work of fiction:

I could probably find some more claimed descendents of mythical persons if I didn't have to do some real work.

spin

I know of well reputed scholars who have difficulty publishing certain kinds of material. You have no point there. (I've been able to publish things myself, specifically because I'm not in the system.)

But what would it take you, an autograph without the "Jesus called Christ"?

1) Is it reasonable that a Jew would use a term of such importance without giving a lot more information about this messiah?

2) Is it reasonable that a writer go against the form of everything of the same type he has written?

3)Is it reasonable for a writer to use a term which his audience was sure not to understand?

Paul who? We are doing history, no? As you know, the apostle Paul specifically says he never met Jesus. Paul is not a witness.


No offence to Peter, but this is not an argument. Peter can have his opinion, but he is not arguing it here and I think he's wrong and over the last few days I've given a fair amount of evidence on Josephus to render him at present unable to support the claim. Paul disqualifies himself as having no direct relevance. And the nt as a historical source for Jesus is a farce. You have produced no evidence, so you have shown no-one worthy of a place in history. It is that simple.


spin.

Gooch's dad

I've already said what it would take. Doherty claims that Paul didn't invent Jesus out of whole cloth, he simply wrote down the views of an extant mystery cult which had been around for quite a long time. So support this. Show me an earlier reference to this mystery cult.

Of course it is reasonable. Nobody else was ever called "Christ", and Josephus had sound reasons for avoiding messianic writings. He saved his own butt by hailing Vespasian as the messiah and king of the Jews.

Please support this. I don't read Greek, do you? Who says it is written incorrectly? What exactly is wrong with Josephus writing it this way? Again, on Peter Kirby's TF page, he claims that the Greek form of the reference is sound Greek.

If it was effectively seen as a nickname for Jesus, then what's the problem?


For starters, where do you get this bizarre idea that history is ONLY written by eyewitnesses? Do you think Suetonius, Tacitus, or any other ancient or even modern historian was/is an eyewitness to everything they document? That's just plain silly. Show me where there's this "historical standard" that a person didn't exist unless they were written about by an *eyewitness*. I've asked you already to show this supposed "standard of history'" that you are adhering to. Why won't you provide this?

Secondly, I'm not saying that Paul met Jesus. Paul refers to James as the "brother of the Lord", and nobody else. It is quite likely that Paul met James, or people who knew James, since he was a Jewish general during the revolt of 70 CE.


Pardon me, but that is unsupported assertions followed by hyperbole.


I find it odd that Jesus Mythers present Origen as a way to discredit the Josephus 20.9.1 reference on one hand--the idea of the "missing James reference"--but in the same breath refuse to recognize that Origen's mention of this reference means that Josephus DID mention James as the brother of Jesus. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and Toto, thanks for that journal reference. That's cool. Has anybody responded to it?

Kelly

spin

Foul.

Rubbish. Read the LXX.

This is an argument against the reference.

Enough.

Me.

The familial relationship, based on the Jewish idea, has no antecedent to be attached to, no name of the person or description. Josephus is translating the idea from Hebrew into Greek, eg Yeshua ben Yusef.

He is not looking at the problem I have specifically mentioned.

How can he see "messiah" as a nickname??

There are two types of sources: eye witnesses and expert witnesses. Josephus on the Jewish war was an eye witness. Most of his other data which has been checked has proven to be correct, such as how the sieges of Gamala and Masada went, regarding the Roman approaches to the affairs.

Polybius was an eye witness to a lot of his history and only wrote about his period. (This is also true for Thucidydes.) Tacitus has so often proven himself an expert, while Suetonius a lot less so. What historians are turning to more and more these days are not such sources for the backbone of the history, but to inscriptions and coins, the solid evidence and then Tacitus et al. are used to supply the detail.

That's because you are not up with the situation.

You misunderstand. That someone is not historical doesn't mean that the person didn't exist. You just can't talk about the person as if they did exist.

Read modern historiography. Look at what modern historians of ancient history are now using for evidence and how much extra they work with their sources.

What does the expression mean in Paul?? As I have pointed out the Hebrew name Ahijah means "brother of the Lord". Who are the 500 brothers that Paul takes about in 1 Cor 15:6?

Do you mean Josephus here (not Paul!?)? You can in no meaningful sense supply such probabilities.


Please make a clear analysis rather than this unjustified attack.

If you don't understand my comments perhaps you should read the Josephus threads rather than unreasonably talking of unsupported assertions. If you don't like my comments about the nt, perhaps you can supply, real authors of the texts, when they were written, who were they written to, why were they written and where. None of this information is available. And guesses to answer these questions are a waste of time.

I'm not a Jesus myther. You misrepresent the logic of my comments.

1) Josephus mentions James (but not Jesus: it is the weird phrase "brother of Jesus called Christ", unattached to anything, that is not there).
2) Origen acknowledges that mention of James, though doesn't quote the passage, and gives a commentary on it adding information such as Josephus didn't believe in Jesus as Christ (get that point?); he tells us that Jesus was the brother of James and also cites Paul as you did.


spin

Gooch's dad

spin, I've asked THREE TIMES now for some support for your supposed "standards of history". All you've done is re-assert that you have some standards, and explain what you think these standards are. Where are these supposed standards?

That's what I'm asking, man. Is that not clear? You say "go and look at how history is done". Go where and look?

I'm sorry, but that smacks of the same tactics that fundies use, when they tell us at IIDB to go do research, and then we'll believe their side of the story. C'mon, why should I have to ask more than 3 times?

Kelly

spin

I have already given indications here. There are set texts of historiography. Even Carr is a starting point.

Try any theory of history course of a well-reputed university.

What you have done is refused to deal with your assumptions by trying to shift the burden onto me. Talking about fundies. You make statements then hide from them, talking about other people's opinions and flying from evidence. It's all fine to have unsupported opinions, but not in this context.

You made wrong claims about the use of the term xristos. You haven't answered how "messiah" could be a nickname which a devout Jew would use. You have avoided the analysis which I gave you regarding the "brother of Jesus called Christ" as a clarification.

Do you have anything to say other than you aren't up with historiography?


spin

Gooch's dad

spin, that is simply uncalled for. I'm asking you to support your assertions. Regarding the use of Christos, I provided Peter Kirby as a reference. You simply ignored it and said that you know better.

That is a classic case of an unsupported assertion. As are all your claims about what the "standards of history" are. If I were discussing the scientific method in the S&S or E/C forum, I would refer someone to online resources for the philosophy of science and the scientific method, of which there are many.

YOU made claims about standards of history. How is it shifting the burden of proof for me to ask you to support those claims? Telling me to "go take a history class" isn't supporting your claim.

Gooch's dad

Spin, just to be clear about who has the burden of proof: From Peter Kirby's TF page http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tml#authentic2

You claimed in one of your posts that you have argued with Peter and won, on this point. Can you show me the thread where you achieved this? I'd like to read that. Thanks.

Kelly

Toto

Christians artificially inflate the historical worth of their sources by claiming that the burden of proof lies on those who claim any interpolations, and then making that burden so heavy that it cannot be met.

We know that there were interpolations in many if not almost all ancient texts. They arose from the common methods of copying marginal notes into the text. We know that there is at least one significant interpolation in Josephus. Why should the burdern of proof be on those claiming an interpolation? And if there is such a burden, could it not be met by the simple linguistic observations that spin has made?

As for the standards of history, I think that Richard Carrier (a professional historian) made some comments in his review of Doherty.

Gooch's dad

Yeah, Toto, I have read Richard Carrier's review of Doherty. I don't recall him mentioning anywhere anything about "expert witness" or "eyewitness" testimony, but I'll check again.

What I remember was the argument by best explanation. Yes, it's just my opinion, but I don't see any explanation at all in any of Doherty's writings for the early tradition of James and the rest of Jesus family.

That's a whole different argument, dealing with the "best explanation". I think Doherty makes some major errors in his early chapters, especially in how he deals with Paul's references to the earthly Jesus.