aa5874

Well, well, well!!!! Now, you don't even understand what MUTIPLE SOURCES mean.

Well let me explain.

The Jesus character in gMark based on:

1. Jesus son of Ananus--Wars of the Jews 6.5

2. Jesus son of Sapphias--The Life of Flavius Josephus.

3. Jesus the brother of James--Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

4. The crucifixion of Jesus is based on Hebrew Scripture.

5. The Three crucified and One survived is from the Life of Flavius Josephus.

maryhelena

And the historical evidence for these figures is???

Did you not just mention "MULTIPLE sources"....???

And the historical evidence for these three crucified figures is???

aa5874

And the historical evidence for Antigonus is???

The Hebrew Bible is a COMPILATION of Multiple Sources.

And the historical evidence for the flogging, mocking and beheading of Antonigus is????

la70119

I've read that article.

Basically the gist of it is, they had to establish CANONS because TOO MANY books were at variance one from another, kind of like a written version of Chinese Whispers.

And if there were WRITTEN versions of Chinese Whispers, what then do we make of theses Oral Traditions that went on ~ or supposedly went on ~ before anything was written? Well, given the fabulous fate of Judas Iscariot handed down by Papius, we KNOW that the so-called Oral Traditions could only be one thing.

Chinese Whispers.

spin

I was pointing to what interested me: your manipulation of the data and misrepresentation of it to get a 4th c. fait accompli. It's rubbish and doesn't reflect what we can see in the sources.

And if you want to start an evidence-based thread to support your claim as to when Tertullian wrote that goes against the indications of he himself, I'll read it.

Grog

In response to your comments, I am going to quote David Carr's excellent paper, Torah on the Heart.

Carr:

On the one hand, since the 1700s, scholars have developed many theories, some quite compelling, about sources and layers of redactional revision in the texts of the Pentateuch/Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy) and other parts of the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, very few have explored concretely how such sources were created or revised, other than to posit some general sort of transition from oral traditions/cycles to written compositions/sources/redactions.

Me: Carr here describes exactly what your belief is about "oral tradition."

Can you give some evidence of how Jesus legends changed in the first century depending on the geographic location in which they heard? If you are talking about oral tradition about the life and times of Jesus Christ in the first century, please point me to some evidence of that existing.

evidence, please. You are making assumptions.


You had different communities each with their own traditions and sources for their personal legend of jesus, oral tradition was the most common of all tradition's, even gmark's author or scribe used a combination of sources, Paul would have mainly relied on oral tradition for his legend.

Carr: Together, these themes—emerging largely independently in these different disciplines—point to education and socialization of leading elites as a primary context, if not the primary context, for the transmission of the kind of long-duration literature seen in the Bible, as well as literature such as Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, or Homer.

Here are some more quotes for you to consider:

Written copies of texts served a subsidiary purpose in this system—as numinous symbols of the hallowed ancient tradition, as learning aids, and as reference points to insure accurate performance.

Me: Notice what Carr here says is what I have continually tried to impart to you since I first came on this board.

More from Carr:
"Though scholars decades ago deconstructed the idea that there was a 'great divide' between orality and literacy, a remarkable number of high quality publications still work with a strong distinction between the two, or at least a 'continuum' with orality at one end and literacy at the other."

"On the one hand, biblical texts and similar texts in other cultures were
'oral' in the sense that they were memorized, and—in certain cases—publicly performed. On the other hand, written copies of these texts were used in this process to help students accurately internalize the textual tradition, check their accuracy and correct it, and/or as an aid in the oral presentation of the text."

You are misunderstanding the role of oral tradition in the transmission of these texts.

An excellent paper on this is Teeple's "The Oral Tradition that Never Existed" which helped me move along the path I am right now. This paper for me was an "Aha" and opened my eyes to my own naive acceptance of "oral tradition" being a source for the Jesus story written down 30 or so years after the facts.

maryhelena

Re. the historical evidence for Antigonus:





http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cat...monean Dynasty

Your turn now - historical evidence, please, for the six figures you referenced in your earlier post...

aa5874

You don't seem to understand that the past is NOT re-constructed in a Vacuum or in isolation.

Thanks very much for confirming that Josephus is a CREDIBLE writer.

The writings of Casius Dio and the artifacts you presented are evidence in support of Josephus as a credible writer therefore unless it can be shown otherwise the works of Josephus can be accepted to be fundamentally accurate when he mentioned Jesus Son of Sapphias, Jesus son of Ananus, Jesus the brother of James and the three crucified.

Josephus is VINDICATED. Other credible sources of antiquity CORROBORATE his writings.

Adam

Back at you both--Cassius Dio was born long after Josephus died. He could undermine Josephus if he disagreed with him, but agreement could just be based on copying Josephus. And Cassius Dio does differ from Josephus, so that does undermine you as much as help, aa.

maryhelena

Oh my - so now the Jesus of the TF is a historical figure???

:banghead: