J-D

No, the questions raised by the differences don't necessarily affect the general evaluation of the document: it depends on the specific details of the case.I expressed no such expectation.Some of the statements in Mark in which the name Jesus is used describe behaviour which might be that of a phantom; some of the statement in Mark in which the name Jesus is used describe behaviour which might be that of a human.

aa5874

Such a statement cannot disturb the MJ theory.

It is a fact that Jesus in gMark is said to have WALKED on the sea and Transfigured. Mark 6.49 and 9.2

It is a fact that it is stated that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost in gMatthew and gLuke.

Jesus in the Gospels satisfies the description of a PHANTOM.

The fact that Jesus was said to have walked on the sea and transfigured in the presence of the disciples MUST be Fiction and renders gMark and the Gospels as UNRELIABLE sources.

Unreliable sources cannot disturb the MJ theory.

The Gospels can be considered Myth Fables.

Myth Fables are UNRELIABLE sources and cannot be used to argue for an 'historical Jesus"

ALL we know with reasonable certainty is that gMark and the Canonical Gospels cannot be historically accurate with respect to Jesus and the disciples.

Myth Fables are certainly NOT considered to be historically accurate.

The Canonical Jesus can be reasonably considered a MYTH based on the Gospels.

aa5874

And what else Toto? What other passage did Julian NOT know?

Julian did NOT know of "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

Now, we know that Eusebius did NOT write all of "Church History" if he wrote anything at all.

Based on Julian's challenge, "Church History", wholly or in part, was MANIPULATED or written AFTER 362 CE and AFTER the death of Eusebius.

archibald

'Very interesting, if 'X',this would then confirm the suspicion that in fact 'Y'

Is this from 'The Big Book of Conspiracy Theorist's Methodologies', whoops I mean mantras, or what? Lol.

Seriously though Toto, this sort of wooly-headed thinking is nothing more than scrabbling around for weak support out on the limb of pre-conceived notions and hopeful suspicions. It doesn't even qualify as 'absence of evidence' except perhaps when being considered by fans of the tenuous. What one would need, if one were willing to be temporarily objective, is some context or premise in which Julian might have been expected to be challenging that there were, say, Jesus-worshiping Christians in Rome as early as the turn of the 1st Century, or something like that, because otherwize there is no good reason for him to try to 'prove' something he already appears to accept and is not challenging.

Toto

I don't understand your objection. This is not about whether there were Christians in Rome, or Christians in the first century, or whether Julian wrote about them. It is just the sort of ordinary evidence that historians routinely consider when they try to reconstruct the past.

Julian wrote that no contemporary writers mentioned Jesus or Paul. (His point, of course, was that Jesus and Paul were insignificant nobodies who did not do the wondrous deeds recorded in the gospels and Acts.) He probably had read Tacitus; perhaps he did not consider Tacitus to be a contemporary writer, but perhaps the passage noted by arnoldo was missing from his copy of Tacitus, and this is an indication that the passage is a later interpolation.

The question of whether the lurid description of Christian martyrs in Rome under Nero is a later interpolation is a question that comes up in this forum periodically. You can find some detailed threads in the archives.

Please try to keep your Mythicism Derangement Syndrome under control.

Toto

There you go editing your posts again. Who knows how it will end up?

You completely misunderstood my point, you realize. Julian was not challenging the existence of Christians in Rome. But he apparently didn't read the same passage in Tacitus that arnoldo referred to.

archibald

No, Toto, the above is just what you think Julian's purpose was, because you are a mythicist, and it is you, not Julian who has that agenda. As a consequence, you have misdescribed Julian's purpose to suit your own.

It is most certainly not the sort of routine evidence that historians consider. That is the point. Unlike your skewed approach, objective historians would not consider a reference to be conspicuously missing unless it would have been expected to be present.

Toto

Did you even read that or understand it? Julian was not challenging the existence of Jesus or Paul or Christians. He had the same view of Jesus that you do - an insignficant nobody.

:huh:

Toto

It is exactly the sort of evidence that historians use to try to reconstruct early texts - when the text is quoted by authors.

archibald

If you show me that he didn't read the same passage, I will eat humble pie and apologize profusely. I was not aware that Julian had cited the passage at all, or even mentioned Tacitus in relation to the topic. If he had, then that would indeed be evidence.