Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 09-29-2012, 06:12 PM

sotto voce, during the 2008 presidential campaigns, both John McCain and Barack Obama cut ties with their long-time churches because of the pastors' political problems. I don't know if you followed the American political news closely. If you didn't catch that news, I can dig it up for you, if you care.

sotto voce · 09-30-2012, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

sotto voce, during the 2008 presidential campaigns, both John McCain and Barack Obama cut ties with their long-time churches because of the pastors' political problems. I don't know if you followed the American political news closely. If you didn't catch that news, I can dig it up for you, if you care.

No, I recall both of these difficulties. They stem from the practice that is opposed by Christianity of having a single 'pastor', who is actually a mentor, in the sense that Jesus condemned in Mt 23:8-10. In Europe, the baneful inheritance of Rome makes this local monarchy more to be expected; but in the USA, founded by those who were often escaping religious authoritarianism, one might expect the democracy that Jesus in effect specified. But, lured by lucre, poacher has turned gamekeeper.

In the USA, religion is common and often more than a bit zany, and politics has very little that can be called left wing to make for balanced, realistic debate. So they are likely to impinge and conflict more than in other countries. But the state as such is not here attempting to modify religion. This is popular opinion, democracy, excluding more extreme religious ideas, as perceived; which may be considered an advantage of democracy, that limits state actions. But these are possibly limited by the media to rather superficial controversies. The problem is that democracy often seems to be blind to statism in religious matters. So, in the UK, there are skeptics complaining of religious state involvement (or interference) in education, yet, come election time, this is all forgotten, or at least, not publicised.

James The Least · 09-30-2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I went to see the movie and heard some of the post movie discussion, but I went with someone who wasn't all that interested in the subject matter so I didn't hang around to talk to Atwill.

...Atwill and Hudson are smart, and both seem to come from a business rather than an academic background. But Hudson has presented papers to the SBL.

The movie and Atwill kept repeating that Christianity has done some good things! But also some bad things! and it's important to realize that governments issue propaganda that is false and tries to control things. But I got the impression that Atwill does not have an ulterior political motive. He just thinks that the parallels between the gospels and Josephus are important and fascinating.

Afterward, Eisenman talked a bit about the DSS and said he didn't know what he had unleashed in Atwill. He said he would differ with Atwill on the question of a conspiracy, because Christian literature was too vast and complex. Atwill said it was okay for scholars to disagree.

In the Q&A afterwards, a filmmaker got up who had directed a movie on Jesus in India, and asked how Atwill could account for the evidence that Thomas brought Christianity to India in the first century. Eisenman said that Thomas in India could only date to the third century.

I didn't have an opportunity to raise any objections, such as why did the conspiracy create four contradictory gospels?

Thanks for this review.

It seems to me like Atwill is hoping to hop on the Jesus conspiracy theory bandwagon that Dan Brown took to the bank.

There is of course a connection between Josephus and the NT writers. They read him and incorporated some of his info, especially Luke. No "conspiracy" was involved, unless you count pretending to be a historian (Luke) a conspiracy.

Atwill's theory fails right out of the gate because neither Josephus nor the New Testament was read by Jews. If any did, they saw through the bullshit immediately.

ApostateAbe · 09-30-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I went to see the movie and heard some of the post movie discussion, but I went with someone who wasn't all that interested in the subject matter so I didn't hang around to talk to Atwill.

...Atwill and Hudson are smart, and both seem to come from a business rather than an academic background. But Hudson has presented papers to the SBL.

The movie and Atwill kept repeating that Christianity has done some good things! But also some bad things! and it's important to realize that governments issue propaganda that is false and tries to control things. But I got the impression that Atwill does not have an ulterior political motive. He just thinks that the parallels between the gospels and Josephus are important and fascinating.

Afterward, Eisenman talked a bit about the DSS and said he didn't know what he had unleashed in Atwill. He said he would differ with Atwill on the question of a conspiracy, because Christian literature was too vast and complex. Atwill said it was okay for scholars to disagree.

In the Q&A afterwards, a filmmaker got up who had directed a movie on Jesus in India, and asked how Atwill could account for the evidence that Thomas brought Christianity to India in the first century. Eisenman said that Thomas in India could only date to the third century.

I didn't have an opportunity to raise any objections, such as why did the conspiracy create four contradictory gospels?

Thanks for this review.

It seems to me like Atwill is hoping to hop on the Jesus conspiracy theory bandwagon that Dan Brown took to the bank.

There is of course a connection between Josephus and the NT writers. They read him and incorporated some of his info, especially Luke. No "conspiracy" was involved, unless you count pretending to be a historian (Luke) a conspiracy.

Atwill's theory fails right out of the gate because neither Josephus nor the New Testament was read by Jews. If any did, they saw through the bullshit immediately.

It is unlikely that any of the gospel authors ever read of a word of Josephus. For one, it would take at least a generation before the writings of Josephus are available to anyone outside the Roman upper class, and Josephus would be only one of many existing texts by a historian written at the time, so we would need a good argument before connecting the gospels with Josephus. If Luke read from Josephus, then we may expect the information in Luke or Acts to match that in Josephus. But, the accounts of John the Baptist are very different between Luke and Josephus. For example, Luke claims that John baptized for forgiveness of sins, and Josephus directly contradicts that claim (apparently in an attempt to discount existing Christian belief). Luke claims Herod imprisoned John (no mention of death), and Josephus claims that Herod killed John (no mention of imprisonment). It is of course still possible that Luke sourced from Josephus, but of course possibility is not the key point.

Dave31 · 09-30-2012, 06:55 PM

So, Acharya S doesn't support all the claims in Atwill's 'Caesar's Messiah' Documentary DVD or book.

Apparently, her disagreements were edited out and put on a separate DVD that may or may not be for sale in the near future.

Quote:

"Note that I do not endorse the overall thesis of the Flavians, although I do concur with Atwill that Christ is a fictional character. At least he's cracking open that door."

- Acharya S

ApostateAbe · 09-30-2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

So, Acharya S doesn't support all the claims in Atwill's 'Caesar's Messiah' Documentary DVD or book.

Apparently, her disagreements were edited out and put on a separate DVD that may or may not be for sale in the near future.

Quote:

"Note that I do not endorse the overall thesis of the Flavians, although I do concur with Atwill that Christ is a fictional character. At least he's cracking open that door."

- Acharya S

Thanks, we were all gasping to hear what Acharya S thinks about Atwill.

Dave31 · 09-30-2012, 07:30 PM

Well, she's in the documentary but, all of her criticisms showing where Atwill is wrong were edited out. So, people should be made aware of that fact.

Toto · 09-30-2012, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
It is unlikely that any of the gospel authors ever read of a word of Josephus. For one, it would take at least a generation before the writings of Josephus are available to anyone outside the Roman upper class, and Josephus would be only one of many existing texts by a historian written at the time, so we would need a good argument before connecting the gospels with Josephus. ....

Steve Mason has a good argument. Richard Carrier's summary: "Luke and Josephus"

Steve Mason ... concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.

(see the link for citations.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

If Luke read from Josephus, then we may expect the information in Luke or Acts to match that in Josephus. ...

Not necessarily. Luke need not have used Josephus as a source of truth, only as a model and a source of ideas.

Sheshbazzar · 10-01-2012, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The theory is basically stupid. But so is the standard model inherited from passive believers in an unworkable hypothesis. All that 'serious scholarship' does is make the bullshit we've inherited from our ancestors 'sound scientific' and reasonable. Not much to aspire to.

One (more) that admits it.
Jeremiah stated that the Gentiles in time would come to say; "Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit."
Oh, for that day when when all men's eyes will be opened, and all alike will admit it.
And at long last we as whole nations, can finally drag ourselves out of that viscous clinging muck of stupid religious traditions and false 'history' that has been our collective inheritance.

Step by step we will learn what is true and right, and will finally let go of that which proves false and wrong.

Clivedurdle · 10-01-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8).

The census under Quirinius is notable for three reasons. First, Josephus uses the census as a key linchpin in his story, the beginning of the wicked faction of Jews that would bring down Judaea (and the temple), whereas Luke transvalues this message by making this census the linchpin for God's salvation for the world, namely the birth of Christ (which also would result in destruction of the temple) [7].

Second, no other author did or was even likely to have seen this census as particularly noteworthy--Josephus alone uses it as an excuse for him to introduce his villains, a group that scholars doubt existed as a unified faction--and therefore it is perhaps more than coincidence that it should appear as a key event elsewhere, even more so since only Josephus, precisely because of his apologetic aim, associates the census with Judas the Galilean, and thus it is peculiar that Luke should do so as well.

Third, Matthew does not mention anything about it in his account of the nativity, thus one is left to wonder where Luke learned of it. Given the first two points, the answer could be that Luke borrowed the idea from Josephus, and therefore it probably does not come from any genuine tradition about Jesus. Finally, it is most unlikely that Josephus got the information from Luke, for Josephus provides much more detailed, and more correct information (e.g. he knows exactly when and why the census happened, that the census was only of Judaea, not the whole world, etc.), such that it is far more likely that Luke was drawing upon and simplifying Josephus than that Josephus was expanding on Luke [8].

The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).

It seems quite a remarkable coincidence that Luke should even mention these men at all (no other Christian author does), and that he names only three rebel leaders, and that all three are the very same men named by Josephus--even though Josephus says there were numerous such men (JW 2.259-264; JA 20.160-9, 20.188) and he only singled out these three especially for particular reasons of his own. In fact, to use only the rather generic nick-name "The Egyptian," instead of, or without, an actual name of any kind (there were millions of Egyptians, and certainly thousands in Judaea at any given time), though explicable as an affectation of one author, seems a little strange when two authors repeat the same idiom.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...djosephus.html

Maybe we are looking at a co-evolution. Mark writes a story. Josephus writes something, it gets repeated by Luke. It is realised hang on, this could be important politically, and gets further amended.

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

09-29-2012, 06:12 PM	#51
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	sotto voce, during the 2008 presidential campaigns, both John McCain and Barack Obama cut ties with their long-time churches because of the pastors' political problems. I don't know if you followed the American political news closely. If you didn't catch that news, I can dig it up for you, if you care.

09-30-2012, 07:30 PM	#57
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	Well, she's in the documentary but, all of her criticisms showing where Atwill is wrong were edited out. So, people should be made aware of that fact.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.