Chaucer

So show me where a known Cynic says it. I asked the same question of GuruGeorge.

Chaucer

Chaucer

Bultmann and many another secular scholar of modern times.

Chaucer

Chaucer

It's not a side issue. It's one of the possible components in constructing a possibly historical Jesus. If you want to say that it originates with the writer of Matthew, fine. That's at least better than saying it doesn't matter. This saying has had huge repercussions, good or bad, depending on the point of view. So it is important to know with whom it originates.

Chaucer

spin

Here it is the table I've already referred to in this thread:

[T2]Agapius|
TF = Eus. E.H.1.11.7b-8|
Jerome (On Famous Men, 13)|
Michael Chronicle||
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.|
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man,|
At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man,|
In these times there was a wise man named Jesus,||
-|
if indeed one ought to call him a man,|
if indeed it is proper to say that he was a man;|
if it is fitting for us to call him a man.||
His conduct was good,|
for he was a doer of wonderful works,|
for he was an accomplisher of marvelous works|
For he was a worker of glorious deeds||
and (he) was known to be virtuous.|
a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.|
and a teacher of those who freely receive true things;|
and a teacher of truth.||
And many people from the Jews and other nations became his disciples.|
He won over many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.|
he also had very many followers, as many from the Jews as from the gentiles,|
Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples.||
-|
He was the Messiah;|
and he was believed to be Christ.|
He was thought to be the messiah,||
-|
-|
-|
but not according to the testimony of the principal men of our nation.||
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die.|
When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,|
When by the envy of our principal ones Pilate had affixed him to a cross,|
Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross and he died.||
But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.|
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him,|
those who had first loved him nevertheless persevered;|
For those who had loved him did not cease to love him.||
They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion, and that he was alive;|
for he appeared to them alive again the third day,|
for he appeared to them on the third day living;|
He appeared to them alive after three days.||
accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah|
-|
-|
-||
concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.|
as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;|
many things, both these and other marvelous things, are in the songs of the prophets who made predictions about him.|
For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous things.||
-|
and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.|
Even until today the race of Christians, having obtained the word from him, has not failed.|
And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till this day.
[/T2]
The relationship between Eusebius, Jerome and Michael is patently obvious. Michael's text is clearly in the tradition that includes the others. Agapius is also using the text that Michael used because of the examples shared between them I've already indicated. The easiest solution is that Agapius (or someone between him and the source that Michael would use) has intervened to change the text. Once again it falls on the shoulders of Agapius for straying from the tradition visible in the table.

Calling Jesus the messiah or having people call him thus requires explanation which is more outstanding for its lack of explanation, given Josephus's wont to explain Jewish things to his Roman audience. This messiah reference is in glaring contrast to the frequent opportunities not taken to mention the term. Given the religious nature of the term, it cries out for pedagogical expansion or editorial omission.

The expression is immediately followed by "for he was one who wrought surprising feats", as illustrated in all but Agapius, which is sufficient to cure you of the hope for irony.

What follows is a walk up the garden path. We are trying to understand the origins of the TF.

aa5874

Well, the phrase "Love your enemies" may very well be an EMBELLISHMENT fabricated by the author of gMatthew.

If "Love your enemies" had such HUGE repercussions then the author of gMark should have FELT its effect but he did NOT.

The author of gMark quoted the very same passage as the author of gMatthew yet did not mention "Love your enemies"

The author of gMark had a PERFECT opportunity to mention that Jesus said "Love your enemies" in gMark.

Mr 12:30-31 - What happened to "Love your enemies"? It is MISSING. "Love your enemies" was supposed to be HUGE.

"Love your enemies" is very likely to be an EMBELLISHMENT.

steve_bnk

There was sedition and rebellion in the air in Israel. An HJ would have been one of many 'messias'.
You only have to look at the turmoil in the region today to get a sense.

JC did not appear to preach against Rome, but a characteristic reformer preaching a return to tradional values. According to my Oxford commentary, in the language he spoke it would be pun-like and pointed criticism. The meaning of his words would be crystal clear. He hurled accusations of hypocrisy at the wealthy Jewish power elite.

The fact that the mainstream Jews would be after his head would be obvious in the times. Caling a relationship to god was the highest blasphemy. The NT Jesus generally seems to be on the run moving in the outskirts.

He would have been one of many rabble rousers, not important enough to get into the Roman records. The Jews had a long history oif abusing their prophets who presumed to proclaim the errors of their ways.

If you substitute Israel for 'the world' and the end times it all makes sense. He was preaching unless the Jews got it together, the end of the Jewish strate was in sight. He was a Jewish rabbi perching to Jews about Jewish issues,

The majority Jews would not want to hear about fasting and prayer, they wanted a leader to return them to geopolitical power.

Given that an HJ existed as an hypothesis, he would have been one of manyand about whom a mythology grew.

'Hey did you hear about that guy who raised th dead...' becomes a fact.

You can even look at the conservative mythology that has grown around Reagan to see the process.
.

steve_bnk

The NT Jesus presented nothing new in a philosophy. You can find similar sentimnents in the Old Testament. He quoted the OT and the Jewish prophets.

...I came to fulfill not overturn...


Job is restored by god when he forgives those who tormented him when he waas down. Salvation through forgiveness.

There was a PBS show that looked at the common themes in all religions.


What may have been new was the theology of eternal salvation for all those who believe.

The late Tibetan Buddhism scholar Evans-Wentz made a connecetion between the NT wine and bread ceremony to Eastern rituals.

I'd have to find the links again. From what I read, the deity incarnate who carries the weight of the world(his people) and dies in the act of saving is an old one in many forms. The consumption of the incarnate diety who goes back to the godly realms is common.The leader as a blood relation of the god/gods.

Given for argument there was an HJ, the NT symbolism was nothing new. The sacrfificial lamb who's blood cleans. The blood of Christ became an important invocation.

maryhelena

From the website of mountainman:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...philosophy.htm

The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Kersey Graves (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I can find no reference to where Philo says that the Essenes loved their enemies - so, if mountainman, or anyone else who might have the book, could check if a source is mentioned, it would be appreciated.

Perhaps what is going on is that someone has taken, what appears to be, Philo’s Essene pacifism, and concluded that that means his Essenes loved their enemies.....A philosophical ideal translated into a code of social interaction in an immoral world....a code that could only reap disaster.

However, once Philo’s Essenes are viewed as a philosophical ideal (Rachel Elior) then their pacifism does lead to a ‘love your enemies’ intellectual context - which then does tie in with the gospel account of ‘loving your enemies’...Mind and Matter, the two elements of our humanity that function according to two very different, very separate, codes of action.

So there you are, Chaucer - Philo is your man.....

steve_bnk

I thought the Essenes wre apocalyptic preparing for the uktiate battle between good and evil.

renassault

Wait a second, you're complaining about something which someone has stated is their opinion about how the historical method works? Can you complain about everything else that doesn't agree with your highly misguided opinion. When you so effortlessly divorce history from the full content of the Gospels don't you kind of think you're taking the Gospels' error for granted and then using that to support that the Gospels are mythology buddy? Not to mention I can complain that you, nor any of the other HJ or otherwise skeptics here can name one part of the Gospels that they can show as more likely inauthentic than authentic historically. And yes, I do include Mt 24/Lk 21/Mk 13 for that