Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Of course, no one can speak for all ahistoricists, but I would never claim to be assuming nothing. What I would claim instead is that I am assuming nothing that is not also assumed by historicists, but that they are assuming some additional things that I don't assume.

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday all,

OK, here's a point that bugs me -
frequently we get claims that the JM theory requires many assumptions that have no evidence.

And when I asked archibald for some examples, he came back with examples like this :

* Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus all interpolated on this Jesus citation thing.
* Nazareth interpolated into Mark.
* Numerous interpolations in Paul, amounting to as much as 50% of the texts.

But of course, that's simply FALSE !

JMers do NOT assume that Suetonius was interpolated.
JMers do NOT assume that Tacitus was interpolated.
JMers do NOT assume that Nazareth was interpolated.
Numerous interpolations in Paul is a common view - not a JMers assumption.
Josephus being interpolated is a common view - not a JMers assumption.

So, in fact, NONE of archibald's allegations were actually un-evidenced assumptions made by JMers.

But when I pointed that out - I got a stupid brush off :
"None of the above makes any sense. A lot of it is just plain incorrect. I don't think you can have been reading the thread, or reading it properly, or familiar with the things posted elsewhere I was referring to. You are just getting your knickers in a twist for nothing. Again. "

Pardon?
It made perfect sense - it's quite simple - archibald's claims did NOT stand up to scrutiny. My points are NOT "incorrect at all" - e.g. JMers do NOT claim Suetonius was interpolated - archibald got it completly wrong.

Archibald implies I failed to read where posters claimed e.g.
"So, Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus all interpolated on this Jesus citation thing."

In fact, I HAVE read the thread, and there is NO claims by JMers to match archibald's assertions.

Which is probably why he tried to brush me off with a stupid non-answer - but still tried to pretend there are many more, without even coming up with ONE valid example !

So,
let's start from scratch - WHAT are these many "un-evidenced assumptions" made by JMers. Because so far, archibald's list turned out to be completely without foundation.

Come on archi - can you actually come up with ONE? That is, one un-evidenced assumption that actually comes from a JMer, and not just your fertile imagination?

Or can anyone else provide any examples of "un-evidence assumptions" that JHers rely on? I'll keep a running list here.

Here is the list so far :

Un-evidenced assumptions made by JMers:
<none>


K.

Whoops - can a mod change title to "Un-evidenced" pls?

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Of course, no one can speak for all ahistoricists, but I would never claim to be assuming nothing. What I would claim instead is that I am assuming nothing that is not also assumed by historicists, but that they are assuming some additional things that I don't assume.

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

The MJ argument is most interesting, for me, when it departs very little from HJ scholarship's results, and uses that as a basis.

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I have concluded, based on the evidence, that many of the instances mentioned above are indeed interpolations. This is of course, subject to change, as long as Andrew Crittle cares to contribute to my understanding.

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Well, if you want to argue that Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus and Nazareth are all interpolated, feel free to start a thread discussing it.

But THIS thread is about un-evidenced assumptions of the JM theory.

So far the score is :
<none>


K.

Originally Posted by RavenSky

this looks like a fasinating conversation but I need some help with the abbreviations

HJ = historical Jesus

Does MJ = Mythical Jesus? And then what does JM stand for?