Amaleq13

IMHO, it is a mistake to attack Doherty's book piecemeal (actually, that is probably true of any book critique). Why not read the entire book and then present a comprehensive argument? You could still present it on a chapter-by-chapter basis but your arguments might change given knowledge of what it coming later.

spin

As a matter of accuracy, the Greeks introduced crucifixion into Judea in around 167 BCE. The Hasmonean Jewish king, Alexander Jannaeus (circa 100 - 76 BCE), crucified very many Pharisees. There is nothing inherently Roman about crucifixion.


spin

Amaleq13

In reply to my statement:
After rereading my post, I think I need to be more clear about my reference to Mark's audience. When I say that they would have made the connection, I am not suggesting they would assume that they were baptized because Jesus was baptized. I would expect that sort of claim to be a much later development in Christian thinking. I was saying that Mark's audience would connect their own experience of baptism with that of Jesus (i.e. rebirth as a new being).

Vinnie wrote:
Because I didn't understand the basis of your confusion. Actually, even when I wrote the above statement I wasn't sure it addressed your objections since, IMHO, they have yet to be presented coherently.

Vinnie

Tell that to Doherty since he pronounced himself the victor of the entire debate only 4 pages into the book. I was not very charitable to his final paragraph on page 15.

LMAo!!! :notworthy

I'm not sure of your point. Yes Doherty's argument in the end will be treated collectively but but why do his arguments that 1Thess 2:15-16 is an interpolation need to be taken in tandem with the rest of the book? They should stand on their own, like so many other positive arguments made by Doherty. Why would his arguments on say Josephus need to be taken collectively. Is he engaging in harmonization like an apologist, or history like a histoian? I am interested in the latter.

Why should his nonsense on the Gospel of Thomas not be treated alone? Why must it be taken collectively?

Its somewhat silly to say that I can't comment on positive truth claims as they are made.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Vinnie,


Selecting out individual arguments is different from taking the book on one chapter at a time. I got the impression from your post that you intended to do the latter.

Meanwhile, I've been banging this "brother of the Lord" thing around and looking up relevant research. I think it was Layman who questioned whether Doherty's interpretation had any external support and I think he may be right that it does not. It appears, so far, to be entirely speculative. That doesn't mean it is wrong but it may turn out to be the weak link in Doherty's argument and may be sufficient to bring the whole mythical notion down BUT(you knew there would be one, didn't you?) I'm not so sure it doesn't present just as much a problem for the historical perspective.

I'm waiting for Layman to provide the context for the other mentions to Josephus' "short reference before" I post but I've run into some weirdness considering this reference to James entirely from an historical perspective.

Vinnie

State the weirdness and we'll see if we can un-weird it

The shorter James//Jesus reference and the partial reconstruction of the TF by Meier (VI Marginal) are basically accurate and should be accepted as genuine IMO. I may skip ahead in my review and treat the section on Josephus before moving on in JP with my own commentary.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I think all this, including your critique, belongs in the "Problems for Dohery's Thesis" thread so that's where I'll post my thoughts on the "brother of the Lord" stuff.

OK?