rlogan

I think to paraphrase, Spin - it's not sufficiently diplomatic language in your view.

Well, when you kill people over it I have a hard time being so diplomatic.

I'm not saying diplomacy is without merit. It's just not easy.

spin

It's more that you don't enter into the mindset that produced the literature. Forgery is about deception via a literary medium for usually remunerative gain. Such a word goes in the wrong direction.

I'm willing to concede that much ill can come out of this sort of thinking, yet there is a certain necessary honesty at the same time. You basically don't lie over what you believe.


spin

GakuseiDon

Josephus (Jesus, James the Just), Tacitus (Christians in Nero's time), Pliny the Younger. These were only mentioned because they got mixed up in politics and were killed.

rlogan

That's right, Spin.

That's what they were doing. Power and control. Money and all the other goodies stem from that.

Not exclusively. But they were human.


Jesus was not recorded to have said

"go ye forth and bear false witness in my name"...

spin

There are no xians in Josephus, though you might argue for the validity of the Flavian testimony. James the Just was a Jew.

Both Tacitus and Pliny were writing in the 2nd century. I asked about the first century.


spin

spin

This is merely skepticism in the ordinary sense. You have to believe that religious people were fundamentally dishonest and that position, I think, will lead you away from understanding the religious writing and writer. I even find it difficult to believe that you would want to argue such a dishonesty. Political maybe, but religions are fundamentally about how to deal with the world, especially a world that can't be explained, other than as a religion can.

Science has changed things a lot with its explanatory power, perverting the religious thinker into compromising between his/her belief and the current scientific thought. This is why you get so many modern contortions trying to make each system work, or repudiating some science or twisting some of the cultus. Still, the religious apologist is defending beliefs not trying to gain for gain's sake, or perhaps trying to proselytise because the religion advocates it.

Naturally you'll find some dishonest people in all situations, but this won't be the norm in the development of religious thought. It generally doesn't make sense.


spin

Amaleq13

But the earliest references to a phrase in Josephus containing a mention of "James, the brother of Jesus" appear to be in a context other than it is found currently. They do not testify to 20.9.1 but to some other passage that has since been deleted. The "lost" reference can be considered an early interpolation because it had Josephus attributing the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James the Just where, elsewhere, he describes his actual belief that it was due to the whole rebel movement starting with Judas the Galilean.

Doesn't it seem a little suspicious that a previously unmentioned phrase (i.e. our 20.9.1) doesn't get mentioned until after an apparent interpolation containing that same phrase?

Paul doesn't tell any stories about the "man" except that he was crucified. From there on it is all about the Risen Christ.

Those are examples of the kinds of things we don't find said about Jesus until after the first Gospel story was written.

Amaleq13

I don't consider the analysis of Q conducted by folks like Kloppenborg or Mack to be examples of "radically changing a text" to fit their views. Besides, their views can hardly be considered in support of a mythical Jesus so their analysis can't be understood as an attempt to circularly support an assumed conclusion that Jesus was a myth.

These are simply attached to sayings and sometimes only include "he said". It is clear that the sayings could easily have existed independently and the attribution added later.

How do you determine Paul was dealing with specifically Thomasine believers?

Vinnie

I was speaking of Thomas not Q. The latter is an example of seeing how far speculation can go.

Many consider the earlier layer of Thomas to have included the statement by Jesus to go to James the just. At any rate, Thomas is a text with a bunch of "Jesus saids". If the mythicist case depends on removing Jesus from THomas then you have simpyl provided ample evidence of my statement. Mythicism reads itself, rather, forces itself into the texts.

I am not sure they were Thomasine but they shared similar sayings and ideology. See this article:

http://www.acfaith.com/wisdomcorinth.html

Vinnie

Vinnie

Different media. Epistles and sayings docs should not be expected, let alone required to have these details.

Vinnie