fromdownunder

I did not arbitrarily remove them. Take it up with Lowder, and ask him for his sources, not me.

And your evidence for this is....

Yes, but Lowder argues, as do I, that this was part of a later interpolation which took a reference to a minor Gallilean rabbi (or maybe not even that) and translated it into a fake reference for a super-being.

Why? Josephus was obviously not all that interested in Jesus, but any interpolator, who slanted a pretty harmless "historical" quote into something which supported a religious polemic obviously would.


No, there is not, and that is why this particular part of the Josephus text is considered an interpolation by a later author who had a vested interest in making a very ordinary human seem like a God. Again, see Lowder.

It is equally plausible that Josephus could not give a fuck about Jesus, as his references were pretty much irrelevant to his overall history, but that an iterpolator would have a huge vested interest in at least attempting to make Jesus into something "special"

But that does not say that there is not some sort of historical reasoning behind the myth. Thor existed, because thunder existed. And Paul was writing to "Christians" as early as the late 40's CE. Where did they come from?

Two refences, both from Josephus. They may be, or they may not be interpolations. But this is speculation, not evidnce.

What if was just an ordinary guy with delusions of grandeur, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time (or perhaps the right place at the wrong time) Even Ron L. Hubbard, Joseph Smith and Madame Blavatsky have followers. Does that make them divine, or mythical? Or do you not accept that these were real people either?

I agree, although I have never met a Devil follower, I will take your word for it that they exist - but see my comment immediately above.

Norm

fromdownunder

Yes, I accept this as a point, but I cannot simply sit here and say "this just aint so". We need to investigate what is available, so thanks for the links. That is what I asked for.

But, when we reach the point of asking "Did Paul write Paul, and When?", is the plot getting lost just a little? Intellectually it might be a bit of fun and stimulating, but for those who have faith no amount of evidence will alter what they think, and for those who do not, who actually cares, outside of debate and specialists of that particular historical era and location.

(Yes, I know this is off topic)

Norm

aa5874

Have ever it dawned on you that you shouldn't take it up with me? Deal with my sources, not me!

Can you ask Lowder if he has any extra-biblical evidence of the historicty of Jesus, other than the interpolated passage from Josephus?

Roger Pearse

According to Alice Whealey's recent book on the history of scholarship on Josephus (Josephus on Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)), this view was held a century ago, but no longer. Today apparently the idea that there is a genuine core is generally held.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

You are centuries from reality.

fromdownunder

OK, fair enough. Provide me a link to your sources, and I will read them, and if possible will talk to them directly. Thanks.

Norm

aa5874

My source is mainly the Christian Bible (KJV).

In Luke 11:14, 'And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered'.

Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be doing the works of God, but we now know that the devil does not cause people to be dumb. Jesus never did that miracle and no-one could have seen him do it. There was no eyewitnesses to any deaf, dumb or blind devils.

The miracles were fabricated, the crowd was fabricated, Jesus himself was fabricated.

rlogan

No problem.

I think it is very interesting indeed, and complicated. You begin to form an opinion that rests on a reconciliation of a tremendous number of conflicting pieces that must be brought into an "argument from best explanation" for the whole.

Our interpretations of how Tacitus, Seutonius, Josephus, the Ignatia, Paulina and etc. all fit togetherare all affected by a revelation from one more piece.


Earl Doherty has of course a popular Jesus Puzzle piece that will get you "in" to all the IIDB parties, and earn you scorn from the ugly ducklings who never take any of the hot babes home:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

I'm sorry you did not get along with spin there - and understandably there is not a lot of patience for repeating the same thing over and over as the years go by.

I think his position is actually the safest on scholarly grounds insofar as being agnostic on Jesus, not being able to date the Pauline corpus and so forth. It's just not as exciting as walking out on the ice.


The Doherty "thesis" clashes with any view assigning the Pauline corpus to a later date like Detering and some of the other uber-cool Dutch Radicals.

But you might like it anyways as a model that begins with spirit-plane mumbo-jumbo and ends up with a historical Jesus in the 2nd century.

Perhaps these two mythical type scenarios can be reconciled if we view the early stuff as an oral tradition that ultimately is codified in fabricated letters by Marcion as the proto-catholics are busy laying the groundwork for a phony line-of-succession power play.

fromdownunder

I am not sure how this follows. You seem to be arguing that because a specific event (a miracle) was fiction, then everything surrounding that event must be a miracle. That is like arguing that WW2 never happened because Yossarian is a fictional character.

The person (Jesus) may have existed, but those who followed and wrote about him exaggerated, admittedly hugely, the events of his life.

Nobody here is defending miracles, especially me. If the Bible is your exclusive source, then, as I will be doing in the next few days, I suggest that you expand your level of knowledge about first century Middle East, and explore the possibility that the character known in the Bible as Jesus may have existed, but not as the synoptics portrayed him - in any way, shape or form.

Norm

fromdownunder

Thanks rlogan, I am familiar with Doherty's theory, but not convinced by his points.

I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence that the letters actually attributed to Paul were not written by him, without a convoluted conspiracy type theory which could ultimately lead to "last Thursdayism"

But I will chase up the links provided here, especially the Early Christian Writing link you provided.

Norm