Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-04-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But not based on the Testamonium. Peter Kirby, along with Steve Mason, relies on the short reference to "James the brother of Jesus called Christ." Read the conclusion:

And what difference does it make for the OP? The position is that there is no historical source mentioning Jesus the Christ prior to Pliny and Tacitus, while Josephus is at any rate such a source.

Quote:

I am not sure why you think that a single paragraph from the beginning is "the main point." Is that where you stopped reading?

The main point – let me insist – is that everything about the TF is, at the very best for you, highly controversial. This is a point that Kirby summarizes rather well in that single paragraph.

The TF contains obvious forgery, and once you admit that, you can't claim that you know how it originally read. The fact that scholars have tried to reconstruct an actual reference to Jesus is only a testament to the lack of any other reference to a historical Jesus.

The very brief mention of a Jesus in 20.9.1 is also somewhat controversial, mostly likely a marginal comment that was incorporated into the main text.

I would agree that the OP overstates the certainty of its author's conclusions.

Tristan Scott · 07-04-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But not based on the Testamonium. Peter Kirby, along with Steve Mason, relies on the short reference to "James the brother of Jesus called Christ." Read the conclusion:

And what difference does it make for the OP? The position is that there is no historical source mentioning Jesus the Christ prior to Pliny and Tacitus, while Josephus is at any rate such a source.

Quote:

I am not sure why you think that a single paragraph from the beginning is "the main point." Is that where you stopped reading?

The main point – let me insist – is that everything about the TF is, at the very best for you, highly controversial. This is a point that Kirby summarizes rather well in that single paragraph.

That's really the problem isn't it, and it can cut both ways.
A vast majority of the documents of antiquity were under Church control for 2000 years, documents that may have confirmed that a mortal person Jesus actually lived, or died would have been redacted , rejected, destroyed or squirrelled away. Everything had to point to the triune god, don't forget the church was in a steady state of upheaval and disarray for the first three hundred years, who knows what documents were destroyed or confiscated. Anyway, the point is that the results could leave the perception that Jesus never existed, which could be true, or it could just be that he was some small time preacher that became a catalyst, or anything in between.

Remember though, that archaeology is a relatively young science, new documents are being discovered all the time, and we are getting a better picture. But ,there is still the Church, they are still an obstacle to discovery as illustrated by the DSS fiasco.

aa5874 · 07-04-2009, 11:31 AM

Once AJ 18.3.3 is regarded as not authentic, then immediately all references to Jesus called Christ after AJ 18.3.3 MUST be questionable.

AJ 20.9.1 on its own, with reference to Jesus called Christ, cannot be properly analysed.

Who is this Jesus called Christ? When did this Jesus call Christ live? Without the TF, there can be no answer.

And who is James?

Now, once it is admitted that the Jews expected a character called Christ, a character like Simon bar Cocheba who fought and defeated the Romans albeit for a short period, then it is almost certain that this Jesus was not Christ or known to be Christ during the days of Pilate or at any time in the first century.

There was no Jesus, like Simon bar Cocheba, recorded anywhere in the extent history of antiquity who fought the Romans or encourage Jews to die rather than to be slaves of the Romans.

And, to show that it is almost certain that Josephus did not write that Jesus was Christ, he had already claimed that Vespasian was the prophesied Messiah in an earlier work, Wars of the Jews 6.5.4.

See www.earlyjewishwritings.com

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4

Quote:

....But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea...

And once it is realised that Josephus was at one time a captured prisoner of war in Rome, it would have been suicidal for him to claim Jesus was Christ after he had written that Vespasian was the prophesied ruler of the habitable earth as found in Jewish scriptures.

Kapyong · 07-04-2009, 02:39 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here is a historical detail. . .

I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

Yes,
but I am discussing Clement, Polycarp, and the Didakhe.

K.

Kapyong · 07-04-2009, 02:45 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

I was being facetious. Of course it would stand that he came before them, neh? They speak of him in the past tense do they not? Did you expect them to say "He lived in the first Century CE."?

But none of them dates Jesus to the 1st century at all, none of them mention Pilate e.g.

Of course he came BEFORE, that does NOT mean they are saying he came from the 1st century - could have been long before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

On Edit: I read on down the thread and noted that Andrew fond the passage I was seeking, it was 13, not 16.

Yes, you're right.

K.

arnoldo · 07-04-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here is a historical detail. . .

I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

Yes,
but I am discussing Clement, Polycarp, and the Didakhe.

K.

With reference to 1 Clement the following may be alluding to a historical detail, note;

Quote:

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS

Translated by J.B. Lightfoot.

1Clem prologue:1

The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.

1Clem 1:1
By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so
alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and
self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your
name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men,
hath been greatly reviled.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

According to the following source, "the sudden and repeated calamities" may or may not be a reference to Domitian's actions, note;

Quote:

Evidence for persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is slim. Most often, reference is made to the famous account by Dio Cassius (67.14.1-2) of the execution of Flavius Clemens, a Roman consul and cousin of the Emperor, and the banishment of his wife, Flavia Domitilla, to the island of Pandateria, for "atheism" (athotês) and practicing Jewish customs (ta tôn Ioudaiôn). Many interpreters have suggested that such persons were really Christians.

Keresztes observes that charges of "atheism" against Christians and consequent pogroms "certainly existed before Hadrian's time, under Trajan, in the Greek areas of the Empire and it is only fair to assume that they must have has a much earlier start in these areas where the Imperial cult had its origin and most enthusiastic supporters." (262) -- but the only evidence he cites is from Eusebius.

In any case, however, Keresztes nevertheless observes that the references here to "atheism" and "practicing Jewish customs" do not necessarily mean that Flavius and his wife were Christians. Far more probable is that they were converts to Judaism who attempted to evade payment of the fiscus Iudaicus - the tax imposed on all persons who practiced Judaism. (262-265).
http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/chris.../domitian.html

For an explanation why christian writers who wrote to each other in the first century didn't put in their letters details which 21st readers expect these letters to have note the following;

Quote:

Not "No Interest" But "No Need"

"It cannot be dismissed as some inconsequential quirk, or by the blithe observation made by New Testament scholarship that early Christian writers 'show no interest' in the earthly life of Jesus." As we have seen, it is not a "quirk" at all but the normal functioning of a high-context society that explains this perceived lack. The answer is, indeed, not that there was no interest - rather, the answer is that there was no NEED.
http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.html

Toto · 07-04-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

... For an explanation why christian writers who wrote to each other in the first century didn't put in their letters details which 21st readers expect these letters to have note the following;

Quote:

Not "No Interest" But "No Need"

"It cannot be dismissed as some inconsequential quirk, or by the blithe observation made by New Testament scholarship that early Christian writers 'show no interest' in the earthly life of Jesus." As we have seen, it is not a "quirk" at all but the normal functioning of a high-context society that explains this perceived lack. The answer is, indeed, not that there was no interest - rather, the answer is that there was no NEED.
http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.html

This was somewhat ripped apart in a recent thread. It makes no sense. Why are 14 generations of Jesus' geneology (more or less) recorded, but the date of his birth is obscure?

Did society in the first few centuries suddenly go from high context to low context, so more and more details of Jesus' early life are added to later works?

Tristan Scott · 07-04-2009, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

... For an explanation why christian writers who wrote to each other in the first century didn't put in their letters details which 21st readers expect these letters to have note the following;

This was somewhat ripped apart in a recent thread. It makes no sense. Why are 14 generations of Jesus' geneology (more or less) recorded, but the date of his birth is obscure?

Did society in the first few centuries suddenly go from high context to low context, so more and more details of Jesus' early life are added to later works?

Is that odd really. What dating system would have been used for a first c. baby in rural Palestine?
I really don't know. I'm asking.

Toto · 07-05-2009, 12:42 AM

Dates were calculated as years from the formation of the city of Rome (AUC) or as years in the reign of the emperor. (Matthew and Luke date the birth of Jesus by reference to local rulers, but are inconsistent.) There was a separate Jewish calendar. Dates can and were converted from one system to the other.

I'm not sure what the question was. Do you think that rural areas in Palestine did not have a concept of measuring time?

wordy · 07-05-2009, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Hypotheses that propose that an ethereal or gnostic Logos Cult type of Christianity (with a mystical Christ) predated the more orthodox version of Christianity would be supported by what we find.

-evan

That could be true.

suppose they kept that rather secret so it could go on for a long time without getting known by authorities?

But Jesus could be the counter movement when the Gnostic version got known.

They did burn all the documents they could find of the Gnostics?

Could one not see the Jesus thing as the Authorities way to crush the Gnostic Christ?

So Jesus was invented by the Authorities to get political control over the many sects?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-05-2009, 12:42 AM	#99
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Dates were calculated as years from the formation of the city of Rome (AUC) or as years in the reign of the emperor. (Matthew and Luke date the birth of Jesus by reference to local rulers, but are inconsistent.) There was a separate Jewish calendar. Dates can and were converted from one system to the other. I'm not sure what the question was. Do you think that rural areas in Palestine did not have a concept of measuring time?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.