Toto

Alice Whealey appears to live in Berkeley, has a PhD in European history and has taught at UC Berkeley, but there is hardly any personal information about her on the web, except that she is a historian specializing in the intellectual history of Europe, has a son in Berkeley public schools, and has published Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times.

Vorkosigan

Totally incorrect. Except for two verses that went AWOL, the text is basically uncorrupted from Chap 12 on. It is also essentially uncorrupted from Chap 1-5. Only in Chap 6-11 has there been corruption, including interpolation of several stories, and re-arrangement of others. It is nothing like 50%.

I'd love to see your source, though.

Michael

Didymus

Seems like you've jumped to lot of very speculative and unorthodox conclusions. Alas, that makes you an easy target and puts MJ theory in an unfavorable light.

The gospels do not have even Jesus identifying himself as such. So who else are you referring to? Specific identities, please.

Whether or not Nazareth existed is a minor issue; historicity does not succeed or fail on that question. You need to do MUCH better than that!

What are you trying to say about these works? Try using complete sentences; they communicate your thoughts better.

Why is that a more likely date?

In the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (105-115), he unequivocally presents Jesus as a historical figure. Although he does not specifically refer to any of the canonical gospels, he does repeatedly refer to a "gospel." And there are many other pre-180 examples that prove that Jesus "came into his own" as a pseudohistorical figure during the early part of the second century.

You need to be careful how you make your case. Despite its merits, MJ Theory does not currently enjoy a golden mantle of academic respectability. Hopefully that will change, but it is not helpful to put forth half-baked conjectures based on "research" that obviously hasn't scratched the surface.

It's a valid point that the credibility of Mark is damaged by the four-or-more decade interval between the purported fact - the Crucifixion - and his writing of the gospel that supposedly records it. But it's not necessary to prove an extremely late dating for the gospels in order to make a strong case that Jesus didn't exist.

Why is that a problem? All educated men in the eastern Mediterranean spoke and wrote Greek. But it is interesting to note that the gospel authors, as Hellenized Jews, would have been familiar with Greek myths and with the Greek mystery religions.

Seems like something you could have researched yourself.

Yes, we have copies of Mark written 300 years after the original, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

The writers of Matthew and Luke lifted a great deal from Mark, so it can be said that those gospels were copies of a sort.

Is there any reason we shouldn't make such an assumption? Evidence?

Not quite right. Have you actually read Paul? There's abundant reference to Jesus as a man or manlike figure who was the Christ. What's missing is the historical context that appears in the synoptic gospels.

Incorrect.

Also incorrect.

You've done a pretty good job of demonstrating that, just as it's possible to reach the wrong conclusions despite knowing the basic facts of the case, it's also possible to reach the RIGHT conclusion ABSENT critical information.

Didymus

Juliana

The most reliable information on the historical Jesus I've found so far is here:
www.carotta.de
See also Vorkosigan's blog which will soon contain a very thorough review.

Spanky

After reading this complete thread I can safely say that no one has given sufficient proof for a HJ.
This was the qustion posed by the OP, no?
So until I hear this proof I will have no reason to believe in HJ. History is history. Myth is myth.

Side question. . .do these kind of daebates/questions arise about other figures? e.g Mohammed (sp?), etc. Was he real?

Vorkosigan

It's not available in Taiwan. But I'll get to it soon. Thanks for the reminder. Carotta's work is garbage, of course, and a search on his name will reveal several threads. Juliana is just here to advertize.

Vorkosigan

Juliana

Well, we know by now who it is that makes remarks such as the above: a rabid and at the same time clueless wanna-be gospel scholar. Some call him "tiger" though :rolling:
Most of his outpourings on Carotta's discovery which he has problems reading, can be found in this thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=109654&page=12

Juliana