Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-04-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

IIRC, Josephus uses it elsewhere in reference to either Elisha or Elijah.

Elisha in Antiquities 9:8:6

Quote:

He [Elisha] also performed wonderful and surprising works by prophecy

Andrew Criddle

So what exactly did Elisha do? I read the passage and nothing wonderful specifically is mentioned.

aa5874 · 08-04-2007, 10:47 AM

Based on the information I have read on Apollo, the Greek God, even if Josephus mentioned Apollo in any of his writings, I would still regard Apollo as mythical.

Bsed on the information in the NT and early Christian writings, Jesus can be considered mythical, and this appears to be confirmed in the TF, in the only 'wonderful event' mentioned, Jesus came to life after being dead three days. See Ant, 18.3.3. This is clearly the actions of a mythical figure.

angelo · 08-05-2007, 04:36 AM

There is little doubt that the figure of an exalted Jesus was mythical. Let alone a historical figure. If the events of 2.000 years ago in Palestine are seen thrugh historical and not mythical lens, you will find no mention of a historical Jesus at all. There were more than a dozen people like Josephus writing at the time. no one mentions a Jesus. Christians yes, but no Jesus.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-05-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

There is little doubt ...

What a convenient (though baseless) belief. How do you sustain it?

angelo · 08-05-2007, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

The chances of any eye witness surviving to the nineties are very remote.

Well, the nineties are a terminus ad quem. Actually, Josephus was commander-in-chief of the Jewish armies in Galilee during the war against the Romans, that is, in the sixties. Galilee was an initial stronghold of Christianity (Mk 16:7). Those being, say, in their twenties or thirties when Pilate was a governor, would be in their sixties or even fifties thirty-five years afterward. Josephus there had opportunity to interview tens if not hundreds of such people.

Moreover, people in their fifties or sixties, who possibly might have seen Jesus personally, would be the elders of towns and villages thirty-five years later. Josephus’ War of the Jews frequently mentions the difficulties he met to levy men and collect money to boost the war effort. Jesus’ story, as told by those many people, would no doubt differ from person to person, but a core might conceivably have provided a political argument: “Those powerful tycoons in Jerusalem, who conspired with the Romans to give Jesus an unlawful death, now want us to sacrifice our children and money to wage a war on the same Romans for the sake of the Law? ¡No, thanks!”

This argument is the main reason I cannot believe in a historical Jesus. There are to many contradictions in the tale. Take Pilot interrogating Jesus for example. Jesus spoke Aramaic, Pilot Latin. How on earth would they communicate without an interpreter. The story probably originated in the mystery religions
and was passed on to new generations over the years by hearsay.

Chris Weimer · 08-05-2007, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

This argument is the main reason I cannot believe in a historical Jesus. There are to many contradictions in the tale. Take Pilot interrogating Jesus for example. Jesus spoke Aramaic, Pilot Latin. How on earth would they communicate without an interpreter. The story probably originated in the mystery religions
and was passed on to new generations over the years by hearsay.

Wow. Fucking wow. Pilot? Josephus spoke Aramaic, the Romans didn't - Josephus must never have met with the Romans!!!11!

Steven Avery · 08-05-2007, 05:41 AM

Hi Folks,

Thank you, Roger. That was a good explanation.
I've been thinking about this issue a bit, so I'll be a ruminatin' .

The biggest issue of "fraud" or "forgery" is when someone writes "I am Abraham Lincoln.." or "I am Peter the apostle and I was with Jesus .. " when in fact the whole writing was written by someone at a different date and/or place who never knew the person and/or had no authority to so represent themselves. The major example of recent days would be the Hitler diaries in 1983. Although there is also a movie "The Hoax" about the Clifford Irving-Howard Hughes autobiography, which would be another recent brouhaha involving a public figure.

Now in much modern 'scholarship' we do have defacto accusations of forgery and fraud against books of the NT (the Pastorals and 2 Peter are the most prevalent). Although the accusations are given the dressing of a nicer word, forgery and fraud is what it boils down to, as the skeptics understand better than the liberal "Christian" scholars who so accuse.

The issue of material that is appended or modified in another's writings is far more complex. There are copyist problems and liberties, editing and redaction, good faith and bad faith. In the case of the TF if it is an interpolation (totally unclear) then it is only a potential case of fraud. It could also be simply a copyist mixup of various types, as Roger carefully points out above. If it was not Josephus.

Take the issue of the longer letters of Ignatius. From what I understand .. spurious, likely, meaning not from the pen of Ignatius. Let's assume so for now. So .. fraud or forgery ? Are those proper words ? Does the writer in the extra material say "I am Ignatius" ?. Or did an editor come across the material and presume it was his and simply append it. I simply throw this out for consideration as a middle ground example. A writing can be spurious yet not forgery or fraudulent.

Another example is a prologue of Jerome's (with major first-person elements) that the scholars have declared a forgery, yet their accusations of a late-date forgery were totally refuted by a later discovery. Yet the forgery accusation remained intact, apparently by inertia and scholastic preference rather than substance, with the falsity of the original accusation theory barely considered.

If there are other good examples that have substance (perhaps some of the apocryphal NT Gospels, as Roger has pointed out Tertullian mentions how a scribe involved in that enterprise was exposed) share away. Well, Tony Bushby writes falsely of Eusebius (sans quotations) for Nexus, a very recent example. Perhaps it is a little early to call that his 'fraud' until he explains his thinking, perhaps he was using another imaginative source (maybe one of the automatic writing sources). I don't think the apocryphal Gospels are the best discussion, though, since they have so many charged distractive elements for this forum. Are there other good examples, e.g. among the early church writers or others. Share away.

Shalom,
Steven

Jayhawker Soule · 08-05-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

This argument is the main reason I cannot believe in a historical Jesus. There are to many contradictions in the tale.

The main reason no less! This is really silly, angelo. You seem genetically incapable of distinguishing between the question of divinity and the question of historicity. The fact is, ambiguous and/or contradictory stories fabricated about an historical figure are clearly possible. Therefore, ambiguity and contradiction fail as conclusive arguments against historicity, though they are apparently more than adequate to prop up an article of faith.

Steven Avery · 08-05-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Folks,Thank you, Roger. That was a good explanation.

Actually I thought I was saying that to an explanation that Roger gave about how copyists sometimes incorporate text into a margin, a gloss, and such. That accusations of fraud and forgery should be very slow without real solid evidence. A conversation I think with Toto (maybe uphill or on another thread). However I see in this thread more recently we have --

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I'm not done yet, but I'd like to pause at this point and ask whether you are with me so far. Do you have any problem with what I'm calling the conventional alternative? Do you think it reasonable to believe that the extant TF represents an altered original, or do you think it more reasonable to believe that Josephus wrote the entire TF as we now have it?

On this one, sure I follow your gist and I'll take Roger's response for 200 ...

Shalom,
Steven

aa5874 · 08-05-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Folks,

Thank you, Roger. That was a good explanation.
I've been thinking about this issue a bit, so I'll be a ruminatin' .

The biggest issue of "fraud" or "forgery" is when someone writes "I am Abraham Lincoln.." or "I am Peter the apostle and I was with Jesus .. " when in fact the whole writing was written by someone at a different date and/or place who never knew the person and/or had no authority to so represent themselves. The major example of recent days would be the Hitler diaries in 1983. Although there is also a movie "The Hoax" about the Clifford Irving-Howard Hughes autobiography, which would be another recent brouhaha involving a public figure.

There is a major difference between determining that a person actually lived and veryifying events surrounding that person.

Abraham Lincoln actually lived regardless of the stories told about him, true or not. His birth is documented and his death is recorded. There are eyewitness accounts of him.

Hitler actually lived regardless of the stories about him, true or not. His birth and death are recorded. There are eyewitness accounts of him. The same can be said of Howard Hughes and Clifford Irving.

There are no documented records of Jesus, no extra-biblical eyewitness accounts only stories and these are not verified to be true. And to compound the problem, these stories are internally inconsistent.

Jesus is presented as a god that actually lived in Nazareth, as a human or some other form, that moved in and out of the supernatual and natural realm at will. He eventually left for heaven, leaving behind no evidence of his life, just an empty tomb.

How do we know that this very story is true?

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

08-04-2007, 10:47 AM	#62
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Based on the information I have read on Apollo, the Greek God, even if Josephus mentioned Apollo in any of his writings, I would still regard Apollo as mythical. Bsed on the information in the NT and early Christian writings, Jesus can be considered mythical, and this appears to be confirmed in the TF, in the only 'wonderful event' mentioned, Jesus came to life after being dead three days. See Ant, 18.3.3. This is clearly the actions of a mythical figure.

08-05-2007, 04:36 AM	#63
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	There is little doubt that the figure of an exalted Jesus was mythical. Let alone a historical figure. If the events of 2.000 years ago in Palestine are seen thrugh historical and not mythical lens, you will find no mention of a historical Jesus at all. There were more than a dozen people like Josephus writing at the time. no one mentions a Jesus. Christians yes, but no Jesus.

08-05-2007, 05:41 AM	#67
Steven Avery Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 2,293	Hi Folks, Thank you, Roger. That was a good explanation. I've been thinking about this issue a bit, so I'll be a ruminatin' . The biggest issue of "fraud" or "forgery" is when someone writes "I am Abraham Lincoln.." or "I am Peter the apostle and I was with Jesus .. " when in fact the whole writing was written by someone at a different date and/or place who never knew the person and/or had no authority to so represent themselves. The major example of recent days would be the Hitler diaries in 1983. Although there is also a movie "The Hoax" about the Clifford Irving-Howard Hughes autobiography, which would be another recent brouhaha involving a public figure. Now in much modern 'scholarship' we do have defacto accusations of forgery and fraud against books of the NT (the Pastorals and 2 Peter are the most prevalent). Although the accusations are given the dressing of a nicer word, forgery and fraud is what it boils down to, as the skeptics understand better than the liberal "Christian" scholars who so accuse. The issue of material that is appended or modified in another's writings is far more complex. There are copyist problems and liberties, editing and redaction, good faith and bad faith. In the case of the TF if it is an interpolation (totally unclear) then it is only a potential case of fraud. It could also be simply a copyist mixup of various types, as Roger carefully points out above. If it was not Josephus. Take the issue of the longer letters of Ignatius. From what I understand .. spurious, likely, meaning not from the pen of Ignatius. Let's assume so for now. So .. fraud or forgery ? Are those proper words ? Does the writer in the extra material say "I am Ignatius" ?. Or did an editor come across the material and presume it was his and simply append it. I simply throw this out for consideration as a middle ground example. A writing can be spurious yet not forgery or fraudulent. Another example is a prologue of Jerome's (with major first-person elements) that the scholars have declared a forgery, yet their accusations of a late-date forgery were totally refuted by a later discovery. Yet the forgery accusation remained intact, apparently by inertia and scholastic preference rather than substance, with the falsity of the original accusation theory barely considered. If there are other good examples that have substance (perhaps some of the apocryphal NT Gospels, as Roger has pointed out Tertullian mentions how a scribe involved in that enterprise was exposed) share away. Well, Tony Bushby writes falsely of Eusebius (sans quotations) for Nexus, a very recent example. Perhaps it is a little early to call that his 'fraud' until he explains his thinking, perhaps he was using another imaginative source (maybe one of the automatic writing sources). I don't think the apocryphal Gospels are the best discussion, though, since they have so many charged distractive elements for this forum. Are there other good examples, e.g. among the early church writers or others. Share away. Shalom, Steven

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.