Vinnie

Josephus wrote his works 60+ years after the stated date of the crucifixion, and was also born after that date. He could not have been an eyewitness.

Contemporary primary data is not required but could have been availavke for Josephus.

It is also extremely unlikely that he could have known any eyewitnesses given the average lifespan in those days. He also did not mention who his witnesses were regarding the comments on Jesus.

Really. None of Jsus followers could have lived to 70 c,e,? What makes you so sure Joseph only heard about Jesus in the year he wrote? Have you read Kirby's article about the material on James going back to contemporary primary data?

Even if Josephus did write those passages, they prove only that the concept of Jesus was known at that time, something we already knew from Paul's much earlier writings. It still provides little, if any, significant evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

They demonstrate evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Your special pleading is not a valid form of argumentation.

Vinnie

Vinnie

There works are so well known, so well read by scholars and discussed the question is essentially irrelevant.

Vinnie

spamandham

Perhaps, but that is pure speculation. Josephus did not state his sources for this information.

It's possible, assuming they existed, but again, Josephus did not mention them. The very brief mentions of Jesus give no indication that he is reporting anything more than a mythical story he had heard.

They provide no evidence of historicity of an actual Jesus. If they are legitimately his words, they provide only historicity of what he had heard from an unnamed source.

Vinnie

I notice several concessions in your post.

I just recently dealt with this whole issue at Randi forums:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=38583

Feel free to respond to any of that over here. I am not in the mood to rehash it all from scratch.

Vinnie

Xeno

Who's doing the special pleading now? Dorherty is well-read by the mythics, is that an argument?

spamandham

I'm not aware that he has denied it. But what he has done is make a powerful case for the mythology behind the Jesus movement, that seems relevant to the discussion.

Perhaps you've read more of his works than I have. In which of his works did he reconstruct a historical Jesus from Q?

Vinnie

There is no doubt Meier and Crossan are "scholars". Freke and Gandy, well that is certainly not anassumption I am willing to grant!

I didn't start this discussion. It was said that "mythicism constitutes a significant and important minority of critical scholarship." I challeneged this. If you agree with the sentiment you obviusly are not well versed in said sholarship.

Mark without Q is a significant and importantly minority. Freke and Gandy and their mythicism are not.

Vinnie

Vinnie

He has but he is hardly unique in this. Crossan and others have done the same with the passion narratives. No critical scholar takes the Gospels and such at face value anymore. Not even the ones with nihil obstats in their writing (e.g. Brown, Meier, etc).


See p. 245. The first page of his epilogue on the Lost Gospel of Q.

The book aims at reconstructing the text of Q and also the earliest layer of the Jesus movement. This is a little hard to miss if you ask me.

Vinnie

spamandham

I assume you're referring to "Lost Gospel: The Book Of Q & Christian Origins"? (The Lost Gospel of Q was written by Marcus Borg, not Burton Mack).

Reconstructing the text of Q and the Jesus movement is not quite the same as reconstructing a historical Jesus. Terms such as 'Christ Cult' and 'Christ Myth' used throughout both this book and his other works give a clear indication of his personal perspective. If there was a historical Jesus behind Q, it has not been shown in Mack's books. What am I missing?

rlogan

Hey Gooch's dad - you're a big origen fan. Let's just review what he said:

(Against Celsus, Book 1 Ch XLVII):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm


Gosh - the problem is that Josephus absolutely does not say that the destruction of Jerusalem has anything to do with James. If someone can please contradict me on that I'll be glad to oblige. I guess that is why Amaleq13 is calling this the "lost passage".

From JW Book 1:

"For that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it, and that they were the tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us, who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy temple..."


So I am curious, Gooch's Dad, what you think we can take from this passage above, especially in view of the lack of any Josephus reference to James and the destruction of the temple.