Gregg

Bernard, I can only suggest that you check out Earl Doherty's arguments against both Josephus passages at www.jesuspuzzle.org.

Cheers,

Gregg

{edited by Toto to fix URL}

Gregg

Jim, I don't see a "lot of speculation" I see a lot of evidence and some reasonable conclusions drawn from that evidence.I don't know why you should think calling the gospels "allegorical fiction" belittles them in any way. "Mark" was trying to express his understanding of Jesus and of Jesus' sacrifice in the spiritual realm by writing an allegorical tale about him, based on OT passages. This would not have been surprising in a Hellenistic world, where it was believed that the Greek myths and legends, while "fictional" and allegorical, nevertheless expressed spiritual truths.

Toto

Jesus the Great Debate is an evangelical work. It claims that the Shroud of Turin is genuine.

Pilate was an historical figure outside of the gospels. To make a case that he was fictional, you would have to believe that Josephus made him up, and that Philo also was in on the story, or that later forgers wrote all of their works. But there is no motive to do this, and if a Christian had done it, they surely would have made Pilate's character more consistant with that shown in the Gospels, or fit him into a mythic archetype.

I do not know of any scholar (or even an amateur nutcase) who thinks that Pilate was a myth. I think that this falsehood was started by Christians who wanted to tell the story of archeology proves the Bible, and warped the facts to fit the story. I suspect that if you dig into Jeffrey's references, you will find an unreliable source.

Jim Larmore

Gregg,
I reject "alegorical fiction" because I believe Mark and the other gospel writers were reporting what they witnessed as a matter of "fact" not "fiction". The O.T. passages were primarily prophecies looking foward to the messiah , which Jesus' life and actions fulfilled. I don't think it matters that the gospel writers lived in a Helenistic world at the time, their narratives report truths of a "Biblical" nature not "mythical" Helenistic philosophies.

Some people can "conclude" logically but erroneosly on anything.

Steven Carr

Grant Jeffrey!!! (ROTFLMAO)

And who exactly are these sceptics who disputed the existence of Pontius Pilate until 1961?

Perhaps not a liar, but somebody who swallows all he is told....

And why does your quoted web site give evidence that Daniel was in existence before 170 BC? Please explain where that comes from

Steven Carr

A certain Robert Turkel wrote 'Harris also explains, in an amusing footnote, that to Greek ears, the name "Christos" would have sounded like something drawn from medical or building technology, meaning either "anointed" or "plastered"! (The Romans who heard these Jews talking about "Christus" assumed that, perhaps, another type of "plastering" was going on!) So, they switched it to the more comprehensible "Chrestus," which means "useful one." Harris further indicates, via a quote from the 4th-century Latin Christian Lactantius, that Jesus was commonly called "Chrestus" by those who were ignorant.'

----------------

So Christian apologists explain away 'Chrestus' by saying that readers were puzzled by Christos.

Indeed, not only Christian apologists say that Christos would have been puzzling to Josephus's readers

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html


First, the word "Christ" (Greek christos) would have special meaning only for a Jewish audience. In Greek it means simply "wetted" or "anointed." Within the Jewish world, this was an extremely significant term because anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Israel had been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their assumption of God-given authority (Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1). The same Hebrew word for "anointed" was mashiach, which we know usually as the noun Messiah, "the anointed [one]." Although used in the OT of reigning kings and high priests, many Jews of Jesus' day looked forward to an end-time prophet, priest, king, or someone else who would be duly anointed.
But for someone who did not know the Jewish tradition, the adjective "wetted" would sound most peculiar. Why would Josephus say that this man Jesus was "the Wetted"?


-------------------------------


So can we be certain that educated Romans (like Suetonius) would have been familiar with the name 'Christos'?

Jim Larmore

Gregg,
I know it was silly why do you think I put the smiley face at the end

Seriously though, your arguement could be used in reverse if you look at this way. These guys , if they did intend to deceive and add in, alla "forgery" . Don't you think they would have been smarter than to make it look like one ( a forgery )? Even a 12 year old could have done a better job of making it look like Flavius' writings than that what we see. I believe its an arguement for Josephus actually doing the writing than not for this reason. The people who would have done this alledged forgery would have been "scholarly" and would have "immulated" Flavius much better.

Another perspective on this is when critics analyze writers they get a " flavor" or "style" of a writer to show comparative analysis for possible add ins or forgerys. Haven't you ever just put something off the wall in your narratives that could be viewed as unlike you? Is Josephus above this type of activity?

Bernard Muller

Gregg wrote:
Bernard, I can only suggest that you check out Earl Doherty's arguments against both Josephus passages at www.jesuspuzzle.org.

I read it, lot of Blablablah and assumptions/speculations/interpretations, which could be counteracted by a lot of other Blablablah and assumptions/speculations/interpretations.
I did not see any hard evidence presented.
Earl is attacking Kirby on his former position, when poor Peter was still a novice on that. So of course, Earl looks good.
My position has always been, the more Blablablah, the more suspicion the guy's position is not solid at all. And we all know Earl has to eliminate every things about a human Jesus (causing him to fight alligators in the swamp) because of his initial premise.

I also addressed Ant.20 on my site (including the spurious bit), explaining the how & why & when & where, and occasionally replying on some of Earl's comments on the matter.

Best regards, Bernard

{edited by Toto to fix that damn URL AGAIN}

Jim Larmore

You obviously don't read the other posts before you post . Bernard talked about the times of Daniel in his posts. The quoted web-site I gave also mentioned that Daniel was a part of the minor prophets that was placed in translation by the Alexandrian 70 septuigent translators before this time.

Bernard Muller

Steven Carr wrote:
why would Josephus say that this man Jesus was "the Wetted"?

I agree. Josephus could not have used 'Christos' if he knew his audience had NO knowledge about "Christos" as the alleged founder of the Christian sect.
In other words, if his audience did not know about that "Christos", then they would have thought Josephus was referring to a guy who was always wet, which would be rather stupid from Josephus.
So my conclusion from that is Josephus knew his audience was aware of the Christian "Christos".
Good point. I may use that in my site.
Thanks
Best regards, Bernard