FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-27-2012, 09:44 PM   #291
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena
Interpolation is not the only way to attempt to get out of the Josephan quagmire.
Hi MaryHelena!

but, is it a quagmire? I have the impression that LegionOnomaMoi considers this text within the range of possibilities, for someone like Josephus.

I think it is a quagmire, but not because I understand the linguistic arguments--I do not.

I think it is a simple interpolation, perhaps botched, or maybe not, I don't know, but I doubt that Josephus ever heard of jesus of Nazareth, let alone, wrote about him.

Hi, tanya

You don't like my use of 'quagmire'? How about puzzle?

tanya, have you ever seen anything I've ever posted that suggests, in any way whatsoever, that anything in the Josephan passages related to JC are referencing a flesh and blood gospel JC figure? (of whatever variant)
maryhelena is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 09:47 PM   #292
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post
As far as word order goes, Legion claims there is nothing particularly un-Josephan about the phrase in Antiquities 20. OK, I'll acknowledge that.

Once the possibility is admitted that Josephus could have written "called christ" - then one has to face any implications, however unwelcome, that possibility will present.

Attempting to claim that the gospel JC story was written after the death of Josephus is a very long shot in the dark. And all for what - so one can deny the possibility, a possibility that you, yourself, have admitted, that Josephus could have written "called christ"...
Well, I can see that one of your problems is being unable to comprehend what you read. Look at the quote above. It does not say, and I have never said, that "Josephus could have written 'called Christ'." I said that I can acknowledge that the word order as word order is not in principle un-Josephan. That is a far cry from saying that I think or admit that Josephus could have written that particular phrase in that word order.

Instead of banging your head against the wall--which rarely helps comprehension--you should be more careful in interpreting what you read.

Earl Doherty
So, you acknowledge the word order - but want to remove 'called christ' from that word order? Cherry-picking, Earl, cherry-picking....:banghead:
maryhelena is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 10:25 PM   #293
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post

Well, I can see that one of your problems is being unable to comprehend what you read. Look at the quote above. It does not say, and I have never said, that "Josephus could have written 'called Christ'." I said that I can acknowledge that the word order as word order is not in principle un-Josephan. That is a far cry from saying that I think or admit that Josephus could have written that particular phrase in that word order.

Instead of banging your head against the wall--which rarely helps comprehension--you should be more careful in interpreting what you read.

Earl Doherty
So, you acknowledge the word order - but want to remove 'called christ' from that word order? Cherry-picking, Earl, cherry-picking....:banghead:
It isn't cherry-picking. He's saying that his basis for believing the line has been altered has little to do with word order, and that the "questionable" nature of the word order was always a minor point in his argument such that without it nothing changes.
LegionOnomaMoi is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 10:43 PM   #294
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post

Well, I can see that one of your problems is being unable to comprehend what you read. Look at the quote above. It does not say, and I have never said, that "Josephus could have written 'called Christ'." I said that I can acknowledge that the word order as word order is not in principle un-Josephan. That is a far cry from saying that I think or admit that Josephus could have written that particular phrase in that word order.

Instead of banging your head against the wall--which rarely helps comprehension--you should be more careful in interpreting what you read.

Earl Doherty
So, you acknowledge the word order - but want to remove 'called christ' from that word order? Cherry-picking, Earl, cherry-picking....:banghead:
It isn't cherry-picking. He's saying that his basis for believing the line has been altered has little to do with word order, and that the "questionable" nature of the word order was always a minor point in his argument such that without it nothing changes.
And his basis for believing the line has been altered is? Nothing to do with linguistics? So, what then is Earl doing in a debate over linguistics if his argument re interpolation has nothing to do with word order or linguistics?

Earl's position is that the gospel JC is not a historical figure - therefore - Josephus did not write the words regarding "called christ" in the James passage. If that is the basis for his argument for interpolation - then, again, what is he doing in a debate over linguistics?

Perhaps Earl would care to clarify just what his interest is in a debate over linguistics when the linguistics of this case are of no concern to his argument...
maryhelena is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 10:54 PM   #295
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post

And his basis for believing the line has been altered is? Nothing to do with linguistics? So, what then is Earl doing in a debate over linguistics if his argument re interpolation has nothing to do with word order or linguistics?

Earl's position is that the gospel JC is not a historical figure - therefore - Josephus did not write the words regarding "called christ" in the James passage. If that is the basis for his argument for interpolation - then, again, what is he doing in a debate over linguistics?

Perhaps Earl would care to clarify just what his interest is in a debate over linguistics when the linguistics of this case are of no concern to his argument...
This thread did not begin as a linguistics debate. I should know, given that I started it. Much of it has concerned linguistics, or rather the misapplication of a particular theory within a particular linguistic approach. However, Doherty's main arguments (as detailed in Neither God nor Man), however inadequate or not, are almost solely on other matters. I have addressed some of these here, including in my latest response to his post, but he has not responded.
LegionOnomaMoi is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 11:20 PM   #296
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena
Interpolation is not the only way to attempt to get out of the Josephan quagmire.
Hi MaryHelena!

but, is it a quagmire? I have the impression that LegionOnomaMoi considers this text within the range of possibilities, for someone like Josephus.

I think it is a quagmire, but not because I understand the linguistic arguments--I do not.

I think it is a simple interpolation, perhaps botched, or maybe not, I don't know, but I doubt that Josephus ever heard of jesus of Nazareth, let alone, wrote about him.

Or if he did, he was just repeating hearsay. Jesus was an obscure character that no one ever heard of, despite the gospels saying his fame spread far and wide. Itself been a contradiction.
angelo is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 11:26 PM   #297
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Or if he did, he was just repeating hearsay. Jesus was an obscure character that no one ever heard of, despite the gospels saying his fame spread far and wide. Itself been a contradiction.
Even if Jesus was entirely a myth, and no such person ever existed, rarely do we find so much written about a single figure in so short a span of time, mythical or no. If mythical, this mythical Jesus popped out of nowhere within a rather obscure group (a minority Jewish sect), and within a few generations had more written about him than most rulers. If he was historical, he certainly wasn't as popular in his day as the gospels portray, but he must have made somewhat of an impact, and Josephus in AJ 20.200 is not dealing with Jesus directly, but with James. Josephus would have been alive around the time of this execution.
LegionOnomaMoi is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 04:31 AM   #298
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Or if he did, he was just repeating hearsay. Jesus was an obscure character that no one ever heard of, despite the gospels saying his fame spread far and wide. Itself been a contradiction.
Even if Jesus was entirely a myth, and no such person ever existed, rarely do we find so much written about a single figure in so short a span of time, mythical or no. If mythical, this mythical Jesus popped out of nowhere within a rather obscure group (a minority Jewish sect), and within a few generations had more written about him than most rulers. If he was historical, he certainly wasn't as popular in his day as the gospels portray, but he must have made somewhat of an impact, and Josephus in AJ 20.200 is not dealing with Jesus directly, but with James. Josephus would have been alive around the time of this execution.
Yes, the obvious conclusion is that the JC figure is reflecting history, Jewish history. The question is what history? The JC historicists hold to the assumption that that history relates to some variation of the gospel JC figure. The ahistoricists/mythicists say that gosepl JC figure is not historical. Where many ahistoricists/mythicists fall down is in their assumption that there is no Jewish history there of any relevance to the gospel JC story. Big mistake. Just because the gospel JC figure is not historical does not mean that Jewish history was not relevant to the creation of that composite gospel JC figure.

The relevant Jewish history? Detailed in the link below.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

The choice is not between some variation of the gospel JC and a mythical JC. That is a false dichotomy. There is only one choice - and that is history, Jewish history.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 06:21 AM   #299
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi, post 19
word order in Greek, as you well know, is much freer than English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi, post 58
My point is, and has always been (as I said in my first post, when I discussed the flexibility of greek word order), that the variation in Josephus when it comes to introductions/identifications is vast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin, post 282
Word order in ancient Greek is quite flexible, though there are "default" word orders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi, post 289
When, why, and according to whom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi, post 290
As Greek is quite free when it comes to word order,...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya
I think it is a simple interpolation, perhaps botched,...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOM, post 290
Out of curiousity, how does one "botch" an interpolation?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/ta...sAnnals15.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.
Quote:
With ultra-violet examination of the Second Medicean manuscript the alteration was conclusively shown, even though it wasn't possible to say "who altered the letter e into an i.
The examination was made by Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao of the Laurentian library in Florence, in 2008. The alteration is also visible in an ultra-violet photograph.
...
Both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin, post 23
The whole historical Jesus farce is based on Jesus not being famous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi, post 26
So the references to a Christ in Roman sources are also interpolations, or what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin, post 27
Which Roman sources? Tacitus A.15.44? At best 2nd c. hearsay, but almost certainly a poor interpolation.
tanya is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 09:25 AM   #300
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
Even if Jesus was entirely a myth, and no such person ever existed, rarely do we find so much written about a single figure in so short a span of time, mythical or no. If mythical, this mythical Jesus popped out of nowhere within a rather obscure group (a minority Jewish sect), and within a few generations had more written about him than most rulers. If he was historical, he certainly wasn't as popular in his day as the gospels portray, but he must have made somewhat of an impact, and Josephus in AJ 20.200 is not dealing with Jesus directly, but with James. Josephus would have been alive around the time of this execution.
What CONFUSION!!! What Presumptions!!! Your response does NOT make much sense.

HJers like Ehrman claim THEIR Jesus was Scarcely known but still we have MORE books were written about Jesus the Son of God than King Herod the Great, Cyrenius the Governor, Tiberius the Emperor, Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest, and Herod the Tertrarch supposedly BEFORE the death of Nero.

HJers claim Paul wrote letters to Churches in the Roman Empire even BEFORE the death of Nero.

Jesus was WELL-KNOWN as Christ, Savior and Son of God that was Crucified and Raised from the dead throughout the Roman Empire including Jerusalem based on the Pauline letters.

In the Pauline letters Paul claimed Jesus had a NAME above every name in the UNIVERSE and that EVERY knee should bow before Jesus.

The claim by HJers and Ehrman that HJ was an OBSCURE preacherman of Nazareth is COMPLETELY unsupported by the VERY claim that the Pauline letters were early.

An EARLY Paul UTTERLY destroys Ehrman's OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth.

The supposed early Paul NEVER claimed his Jesus was from Nazareth and also NEVER claimed his Jesus was OBSCURE.

Philippians 2
Quote:
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father....
Amazingly, if Paul was EARLY as HJers and Ehrman suggest then the Historical Jesus was the MOST SIGNIFICANT person in the Roman Empire.

An OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth is a WORTHLESS idea and contradicted by the very Pauline letters.

Jesus was known as LORD, Savior, Messiah and Son of God who was crucified and Raised from the dead since the time of King Aretas if Paul was EARLY. See 2 Cor.11.32-33.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.