TrueMyth

Can you link me to which ones? I haven't found any.

Agreed, and see my response to Alf for a full reconstruction of the TF as scholars see it. My logic is this: that the burden of proof is on the person challenging Josephus' passage, since almost all (if not all) of his other work is above reproach. Of course, we must not assume that b/c he is reliable in most areas, he is reliable in this one: this would be an inverse Poisoning the Well. However, we can state that the burden of proof lies with the challenger in this circumstance.


Be careful of equating awkwardness in English with awkwardness in the original language. Also, this is the only translation I have seen which has this awkwardness. Most say, "James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ [or, 'who was called the Christ']. Thus, I do not find this to be convincing evidence of the inauthenticity of the Book 20 reference.

I'm not sure you understand the Poisoning the Well fallacy adequately. It is of this form:

1. Matt says that the Cubs won today.
2. Well, Matt is a Republican
3. Oh. Well, then, Matt can't have been right.

This fallacy diverts attention away from the central question (Is Josephus reliable when he references Jesus?) to an unrelated attack on separate beliefs of the speaker (Josephus was polemic in unrelated subjects), and drawing a conclusion regarding the proposition as a result (Josephus' reference to Jesus is unreliable). You must prove that Josephus was polemic in a way related to the central concern in order to cast doubt on his reliablity. In fact, he was not a Christian and highly critical of Messiah claims, so it is actually the other way around.

TrueMyth

Can you link me to which ones? I haven't found any.

Agreed, and see my response to Alf for a full reconstruction of the TF as scholars see it. My logic is this: that the burden of proof is on the person challenging Josephus' passage, since almost all (if not all) of his other work is above reproach. Of course, we must not assume that b/c he is reliable in most areas, he is reliable in this one: this would be an inverse Poisoning the Well. However, we can state that the burden of proof lies with the challenger in this circumstance.


Be careful of equating awkwardness in English with awkwardness in the original language. Also, this is the only translation I have seen which has this awkwardness. Most say, "James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ [or, 'who was called the Christ']. Thus, I do not find this to be convincing evidence of the inauthenticity of the Book 20 reference.

I'm not sure you understand the Poisoning the Well fallacy adequately. It is of this form:

1. Matt says that the Cubs won today.
2. Well, Matt is a Republican
3. Oh. Well, then, Matt can't have been right.

This fallacy diverts attention away from the central question (Is Josephus reliable when he references Jesus?) to an unrelated attack on separate beliefs of the speaker (Josephus was polemic in unrelated subjects), and drawing a conclusion regarding the proposition as a result (Josephus' reference to Jesus is unreliable). You must prove that Josephus was polemic in a way related to the central concern in order to cast doubt on his reliablity. In fact, he was not a Christian and highly critical of Messiah claims, so it is actually the other way around.

Solo

Actually, it was not a "semi-common knowledge" but an example of Paul misapprehending a well-known saying from Proverbs, which then gained some currency in his communities as "wisdom" coming from the Lord, and as such was later put in the mouth of Matthean Jesus preaching on the Mount.

In Romans 12:14-21 (KJV) Paul teaches:

14. Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
15. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
16. [Be] of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Verse 20 paraphrases Proverbs 25:21-22 except, in the old Jewish wisdom, the heaping of "coals of fire" suggests provoking intense shame (in one's enemy), rather than hell and damnation that Paul invokes (through the bolded text of 19).

Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
22. For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

The Proverb saying intimates that humanity (even in conflict) triumphs over hatefulness, and that the Lord shall reward those who show mercy and largesse d'esprit in dealing with adversaries. It says nothing of Lord's eschatological vengeance upon them. That was Paul's license. As I consider it extremely unlikely that HJ misread the saying the same way as Paul, I think the apostle should be credited with the injunction of loving one's enemies as an expedient of sending them to hell.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

Although the seven day astrological week certainly entered roman culture independently of Christianity (thanks for a clear explanation of the astrological week BTW) it is less clear that it entered prior to Christianity.

On the whole it probably did become known in roman society slightly before Christinity arose, but our first unambiguous evidence seems to come from Pompeii, in the 70's CE.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Are the key ideas of the sermon of the mount, turning the other cheek and other similar ideas are adaptations of proverbs via chinese whispers of Paul and others and then put into the mouth of jesus?

Solo, please define your HJ - I assume it excludes Matthew's.

The gospels to me look even more like teaching materials possibly via a play or plays with Jesus as the main character.

I read that as further evidence of a mythical christ evolved into a human character in a story.

I see no reason, having excluded one type of Jesus, to assume the bottom one in this series of russian dolls, is a real one.

jakejonesiv

Frank Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources

Once you admit that an interpolator has been at work in the TF, the burden of proof is on the proponent of partial authenticity.

Jake Jones IV

TrueMyth

jakejonesiv--

I asked you to provide me with links to other, non-Jesus-referring, parts of Josephus' writings, and the Antiquities in particular, which have been questioned by respected scholars. Instead, you provided a link to a book on Jesus' nonexistence, which is not what I was requesting, and irrelevant to the point that I was making: that apart from the Jesus references, Josephus is unquestioned by respected scholars. Do you have anything of this sort?

Solo

...something like that

A wandering apocalyptic preacher from Galilee with an unorthodox, disturbing and/or disturbed vision of the messianic kingdom.

Or it could be that Jesus posthumously developed first into a metaphor for mystical enthusiasts and shortly after into a gargantuan religious idol in a culture that would have been alien to him.

Go on, believe in a myth of a Godman who was laughed out of his home province when he offered his miracles and when he did get to perform them in the south, the astonished, mesmerized and duly impressed authorities nailed him to a piece of crude carpentry, without much ceremony. Go on, believe this Jesus originated as winged Wisdom in middle Platonism.

Jiri

aa5874

Those verses were used to exploit the poor and have them disenfranchised. The exploiter/enemy brings the word of God to the ones to be exploited, knowning in advance there is no God, and says, 'I wil rob you and do all manner of evil to you, but don't worry God will take care of everything.

Those verses are not the words of the wise, they are the words of deception. Slavery was prolonged with those words of deception.

J-D

You responded to this post of mine, in which I included a link. When it became clear that you weren’t following what I was saying, and hadn’t clicked on the link, I pointed out again that there was a link. And here it is again. It’s a link to a thread in which I discussed a book whose authors openly acknowledge the presence of a speculative element. But the book is not pure speculation. There’s substantial hard information as well.

Obviously I can’t reproduce the whole book here, or even its whole argument. But if you click on the link you will find my attempt to explain its general approach, and I am happy to expand, to the best of my ability, on any specific aspect you care to nominate.