J-D

That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'disturb', 'MJ theory', 'unreliable sources', 'myth fables', 'historical Jesus', 'historically accurate', 'canonical Jesus', and 'myth'.

Toto

This is what Julian wrote in Against the Galileans

You can see that Julian's point is that Jesus and Paul were insignificant, the sort of religious charlatans who would be happy to delude maidservants and slaves and women. He says that none of the well know writers of the time even mentioned them.

Tacitus was a well known writer. What do you conclude from this?

arnoldo proposed the well known story from Tacitus as an answer to Julian. If arnoldo is correct, it would appear that Julian had not read this section of Tacitus, which makes it highly improbable that the section of Tacitus was available to Julian.

Now this is all a matter of probability and interpretation, hardly proof, but it is the sort of intertextual evidence that scholars consider.

archibald

I conclude from this, as any reasonable and objective person would, that whatever Julian's particular point was, 'writers of the time' clearly refers to 'a certain time', the reign of two emperors. It's in the Text. Later writers don't come into it, nor is there any reason for them to.

It seems I am not going to have to apologise. You are way off beam. Not surprising, given the skew of your arguments generally.

Moreover this:
.....is erroneous and rationally meaningless, unless the 'missing' text is quoted by authors. So far, you haven't confirmed.

archibald

Furthermore, it's not even that Tacitus is not of the time Julian is enquiring about, though that is enough in itself to render it non-relevant, it's also that the Tacitus text would not have added anything to the context of Julian's particular enquiry!

To try to find an 'absence of evidence' of Tacitus in that passage is both lame and embarrassing, and symptomatic of the kind of weak reasoning prevalent in this forum.

Btw, Toto, contrary to what you seem to think, I have been well aware of what the actual issue is since first responding to your post. It's you who appears to be confused.

Huon

Tiberius 14-37 CE
Caïus Caligula 37-41 CE
Claudius 41-54 CE

Tacitus is a later writer... especially when his text is suspected of having been interpolated.

archibald

Huon, I'm not sure you're following the point here. Yes, Tacitus is a later writer.

The point is whether Julian's passage is or isn't 'very interesting' in relation to the interpolation argument for Tacitus.

archibald

Look, no hard feelings, honestly. I am willing to try to do things your way, Toto.

Let's have another look at Against the Galileans to see what else there might be.

Holy Crap, look here!

'However this evil doctrine did originate with John'

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ju...ans_1_text.htm

How did you miss this? Clearly, Christianity started with John.

Though, as ever, the 'very interesting' question is what this line might tell us about Tacitus.

Guys, this is definitely fun, but let me know, Am I doing it wrong? Is there any way to tell?

mountainman

This is reposted from another thread.
The text of Julian's "Against the Christians" is a reconstruction job.
The source text is from Cyril's "Against Julian".

Please cut the unjustified dramatics! The question cannot be answered authoritatively. From what authority or evidence does such an implied assumed authority derive? The answer is the 5th century Doctor of Heresiology Cyril. What an authority!


What is clear is that "Contra Julian" (from which REFUTATIONAL text "Against the Christians" was reconstructed) was authored by the corrupt heresiologist Cyril of Alexandria who refuted Julian's three books with ten of his own.

The "fabrication of the Galilaeans" refers to the "fabrication of the Christians" whom in Julian's rule, due to his laws, were legally called "Galilaeans". It is arguable whether Cyril's "Against Julian" can be used as a authoritative source for Julian on the basis that Cyril was a low down murdering thug, terrorist boss, pyromaniac and general anathetizing scumbag who cannot be viewed as anything else other than a HOSTILE WITNESS for Julian.

" "When Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 CE one person suggested that
a heavy stone be placed on his grave to prevent his soul returning
to the world when it was thrown out of hell as being evil even for there."

-- Cited from Charles Freeman's "Closing of the Western Mind"

Academics know that Cyril misrepresented the cases and statements of those whom he refuted and anathemetized, such as - for example - Nestorius. If Cyril consistently misrepresents the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople (Nestorius), do you expect him to be fair in representing a pagan and anti-Christian emperor?

tanya

Then, does it follow that two versions of the same automobile repair manual, one which included the engine, and one which omitted reference to the engine, would be evaluated as being of approximately equal value?

How about two documents, both claiming to represent Socrates famous dialogue with Gorgias by Plato? One of them includes Callicles' criticism of Socrates, the other omits this section of the text.

Would you suggest that such an omission would not impede a "general evaluation of the document"?

Here is the OP:
Is HJ not the more likely overall explanation, meaning, is not an historical person, an actual living human being, a more likely representative of the character, Jesus of Nazareth, described in the gospels, including Mark?

To answer that OP in the affirmative, one ought, it seems to me, have some evidence of the human qualities of this character, elaborated in the gospel according to Mark.

Instead, what one finds is a dearth of reference to Jesus' humanity, within Mark, and, beginning with the very first sentence of the gospel, an emphasis on defining Jesus' mythical character. But, then, on closer inspection, we find, that not only is the first sentence elaborating the mythical, rather than historical nature of Jesus, but further, this very verse is presented to us, in two completely different versions, as though, at least one of them, or perhaps both, versions, had been tampered with, since the time of Mark's original composition.

The question raised by me, is simple: If this source of information about Jesus' presumed, genuinely human aspect, as suggested by the OP, includes the gospel of Mark, then, why should not this passage, Mark 1:1, be considered as evidence of myth, rather than history, examining not only the meaning of the text itself, but based also upon the fact that our extant copies present such mutually exclusive, contradictory, opening statements?

Same apply for "daughter of God"?

Do you feel the same way about two manuscripts, one which elaborates Euripides' explanation that Helen was the daughter of Zeus, another omitting this piece of data?

archibald

Mutually exclusive? Contradictory? You think? :constern01:


A figure like this, a god who had descended to earth in the form of a man, about whose early life very little is known or described until the time of his supposed preaching, who didn't write anything himself, who performed numerous miracles, who appeared in visions and in the flesh to his followers after his death. Does this really strike you as all that unusual?

Do you know which divine human I am describing above?

I'll give you a clue. He's so bloomin' recent, he appears in photographs, and yet people still wrote that sort of fluffy crap about him.

Point being, this is exactly the sort of fruity garbage we would expect (and usually get) from religious devotees throughout history. It's devotees not believing in the existence of a recent religious leader/prophet that is a rarity. Mark appears to be close (within 30 years). Paul even closer. Those referred to by Paul as being before him closer still. I am not assuming anything about these indicators, just that they are the indicators in the extant ancient texts, and within an historically short distance, apparently.

This is not meant to be conclusive. It's simply a comparison between what is common in descriptions and what is unusual. Whatever about the veracity or otherwize of the apparently early indicators, though they are without doubt a feature of the stories, my main point is that there does not, at any rate, appear to be any grounds for puzzlement over the sort of human-divine combo described in Mark 1:1, since it could easily refer to someone believed to have actually lived and died recently.