Littlejohn

For all it can serve, I would remind my conclusions about the fact that, almost certainly (if not certainly) the name "Jesus" has nothing to do with the environment Jewish, being a term of Greek origin. Fraudulently one has tried to approach it, for reasons of mystification, to the hebraic "Yehoshuah," whose meaning is "God save" or "God is salvation".

We have the irrefutable proof that Jerome, in his Vulgate, transliterated the hebraic Yehoshuah Joshua) with IOSUE and not with Iesus. (different names, both from the point of view grammatical than that phonetic)..

All the "Jesus" that appear in the works of Josephus, certainly they were originally "Yehoshuah" (or, in the form contracted, "Yeshuah", that does not mean Jesus, as you try to pretend), having been this name quite spread among the Jews of the time. Jesus comes from the Latin 'Iesus', which in turn derives from the ionic greek 'Ihsous' (in the Attic form " Iasous ").

The meaning of this term was originally "healer". With Jesus, in the Ionian provinces of Asia Minor, the term also acquired the meaning of savior, even because in ancient times the term was approached to the figure of Asclepius: the healer for excellence (Iasous was the masculine form of female term "Iaso", the healing greek goddess). Asclepius was also invoked as "soter" (saviour). Hence the alleged significance of savior associated with the "nickname" Ihsous. From bear in mind that the juxtaposition of Jesus to the figure of Asclepius was very strong in his day.


Littlejohn
.

No Robots

You can find a discussion of the Jesus/Iaso question here. See, in particular this post on page 1:

_As can be seen by comparing these entries from the authoritative Liddel-Scott there is no connection between Ia_sô/Iêsô and Iêsous, none! Those who continue to push this absurd idea must explain why a man would be called "Healing Goddesses", feminine, plural! Evidently they would have us believe that throughout the past 1900+ years of history, until now, there has not been a single faithful believer who recognized this and/or protested it.
_____And they continue to concoct bizarre theories to villify/demonize the name Iêsous, twisting grammar, inventing definitions, trying desperately to show some pagan origin, Esus, Hesus, Zeus, Sus, Ieso. When one wild theory is exposed as false, without missing a beat, they charge right on with a new one!
_____Why is this necessary?

Iasion

Hiya,

No, he doesn't.
But, apologists often claim he did.

The actual passage reads :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,"

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."


Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses?
No.

Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses?
No.


All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to :
"Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us."

That's ALL he says about eye-witnesses.
In a nut-shell : "many have written ... based on eye-witnesses"

No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

THEN
Luke describes his OWN VERSION :
"after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you"

NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY.


In summary,
the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on Luke's writings.

Luke was not an eye-witness,
Luke met no eye-witnesses,
Luke identified no eye-witnesses,
Luke does not directly connect his writing with any eye-witnesses.

Iasion

Iasion

No, he doesn't.


Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

(From
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html)


Iasion

Iasion

You wrongly claimed Luke had access to eye-witnesses.
Now, you seem to be changing that claim.
Can you admit you were wrong?


Iasion

Littlejohn

from: http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/001510.html

For further clarifications see:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...=247096&page=2

(Littlejohn - 5468063: In memory of a "lemma" disappeared)


Greetings

Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

The speech on the pagans is different from that on the Jews. The pagans were massacred as opposed to the attempt of Catholics to obtain the religious hegemony. They had the worst fate and were exterminated (at least those not wanted to convert they to the cult Catholic). Only the pagans could try to oppose the hegemonic design of Catholics, because of their millennial organization and the number of sympathizers.

While in the second century were many, among the pagans, to know the truth about Jesus and what the founders had done for give life to the Catholic worship, thanks mainly to the informations provided by Gnostics (which deny firmly that Jesus had been crucified) and by Jews (v.Celso and Justin Martyr), in the third and fourth century were mainly the pagan scholars (see Porfyros and Hierocles) to take an interest about the facts concerning Christians. This means that, in practice, Catholics did not have much to fear from the revelations of pagan scholars, because what they wrote was "confined" in a restricted circle of erudite people.

For Jews the speech was radically different, since the truth about Jesus was quite common among Jews of all conditions, and they also lived in close contact with the romano populace and the rest of the empire. All this facilitated greatly the dissemination of knowledge among the pagans, who could find into the statements and doctrines of Gnostics many confirmations about that were saying the Jews of the diaspora. Hence the need for Catholics to "stamp out" this tool of diffusion through indiscriminate persecution.

It's obvious that this phenomenon occurred only when Catholics could count on sufficient political-military force and, above all, on the decisive support of imperial power. This means that before of Constantine everything was not absolutely possible.


My best


Littlejohn
.

Ben C Smith

Okay, let us see what your objections have to do with English (or Greek, or language in general, for that matter). I did not join this thread to debate whether or not Luke actually interviewed eyewitnesses; I mentioned that I am undecided. What I was pointing out is that the language used (the wording, the terms, the syntax) implies nothing either way.

This has nothing to do with English. This is an argument from what the writer should or should not have said.

This was one of the conventions in the appeal to eyewitness authority. Refer to Bauckham, chapter 6 of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. This convention had nothing to do with how distant the events were in time.

You may be right about modern authors.

Ancient writers frequently omit all mention of their sources, and frequently appeal to anonymous witnesses. Consider Tacitus, for example, who writes concerning the healing of a crippled man and a blind man that Vespasian supposedly performed: Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood (Histories 4.81).

Who are these persons who attest to these miracles? I do not know, because Tacitus does not say. Suetonius, in Life of Vespasian 7.2-3, records the same miracles as if they really happened, but does not give any sources.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

The connection is not syntactically between the eyewitnesses and the actual writing of Luke; the connection (whether direct or indirect) is between the eyewitnesses and Luke himself, as a presumed member of the us to whom the tradition was handed down.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Zechariah 3.3:

Now Joshua [Hebrew יהושע, Yehoshuah; Greek LXX Ιησους; Latin Vulgate Iesus] was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel.

Ben.