Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SpaceMonkey · 07-07-2003, 09:01 PM

It seems quite relevant to much of the discussion on this forum. I actually recieved a 7 (the top mark you can get) for this essay.

I'd be interested to hear what the people here think of it.

I hasten to add that I use the bone box as evidence that some guy called Jesus existed prior to the arrival of the evidence that it's a fake.

Doesn't matter anyway. Kind of makes my point for me.

My Sexy Essay

Peter Kirby · 07-07-2003, 09:34 PM

"Many historians point out that it is likely that some phrases have been added to this document by Christian editors corrupting Josephus' description of Jesus (Olson, 1999: 305-322)." Did you read Olson's essay? Olson argues that the Testimonium as a whole was written by Eusebius and that no evidence exists for an earlier form. That is, Olson opts for utter spuriousness, not corruption of a Josephan description.

"Doherty points out that the earliest copies of the New Testament can be dated no later than 300CE". Do you mean no earlier? Do you want to add the word "complete," given that there are mss. fragments as early as 200 CE?

"It seems possible that religious intolerance is not a good base upon which to build an understanding of Jesus as an historical figure." Are you accusing Doherty of religious intolerance?? And you neglect to make it clear that Doherty "does not suggest an alternative method by which an individual might attempt to construct an accurate image of Jesus" because Jesus, according to Doherty, did not exist.

"Ultimately Mayer's aforementioned book is just as historically accurate as many historians' attempts to find the true Jesus." This is impossible. If Mayer's book is historically accurate, opposing theories are historically inaccurate. And vice versa.

"Yet it cannot be denied that the Jesus that he draws through his analysis of the evidence bears a striking resemblance to himself." I can deny it. Crossan is a high profile figure in Jesus studies, so you are going to see this kind of stuff bandied about, but it's not proven and amounts to a fallacy anyway. And citing Shanks??

best,
Peter Kirby

SpaceMonkey · 07-07-2003, 10:45 PM

"Did you read Olson's essay? Olson argues that the Testimonium as a whole was written by Eusebius and that no evidence exists for an earlier form. That is, Olson opts for utter spuriousness, not corruption of a Josephan description"

No, I had no idea that such a theory existed. I do now though.

"Do you mean no earlier? Do you want to add the word "complete," given that there are mss. fragments as early as 200 CE?"

Yes, I do. That was just a stupid mistake.

"Are you accusing Doherty of religious intolerance??"

Yes, I am. On hindsight I should have directly quoted what he had written on his site. I think there is a reference pointing to the article in question, if not, I'll find it if you ask me to. But what he had written amounted to religous intolerance. I think it related to September 11 and blaming it solely on religion. I argue one could point equally to politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware religion does contribute to violence. However it is unfair to hold religion accountable on its own. No?

"And you neglect to make it clear that Doherty "does not suggest an alternative method by which an individual might attempt to construct an accurate image of Jesus" because Jesus, according to Doherty, did not exist."

You're right.

" This is impossible. If Mayer's book is historically accurate, opposing theories are historically inaccurate. And vice versa."

Aha! Exactly! This gets to the central tenet of my essay. You'll have to think about it more.

Relating to your point. I say just as historically accurate. Not historically accurate. Perhaps my expression could be clearer. It didn't get picked up by my lecturer though. This is an epistemolgical issue relating to the futile quest for an historical Jesus. Something I cofess I haven't got my head completely around. But, do you see what I'm saying now?

"I can deny it. Crossan is a high profile figure in Jesus studies, so you are going to see this kind of stuff bandied about, but it's not proven and amounts to a fallacy anyway."

This is actually a pretty high profile theory isn't it? The idea that an historian quite often throws a great deal of himself into his subject? Especially when trying to construct the character of Jesus.

"And citing Shanks??"

You don't have an embarrased emoticon I can use. Clearly you're better versed in this area than I am. What's wrong with Shanks? Bit of an apologist?

Anyway, thanks for reading it.

I've been thinking about doing Honours by correspondence because this stuff is just so damn interesting.

07-07-2003, 09:01 PM	#1
SpaceMonkey Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 37	Here's a little something I wrote It seems quite relevant to much of the discussion on this forum. I actually recieved a 7 (the top mark you can get) for this essay. I'd be interested to hear what the people here think of it. I hasten to add that I use the bone box as evidence that some guy called Jesus existed prior to the arrival of the evidence that it's a fake. Doesn't matter anyway. Kind of makes my point for me. My Sexy Essay

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2003, 09:34 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	"Many historians point out that it is likely that some phrases have been added to this document by Christian editors corrupting Josephus' description of Jesus (Olson, 1999: 305-322)." Did you read Olson's essay? Olson argues that the Testimonium as a whole was written by Eusebius and that no evidence exists for an earlier form. That is, Olson opts for utter spuriousness, not corruption of a Josephan description. "Doherty points out that the earliest copies of the New Testament can be dated no later than 300CE". Do you mean no earlier? Do you want to add the word "complete," given that there are mss. fragments as early as 200 CE? "It seems possible that religious intolerance is not a good base upon which to build an understanding of Jesus as an historical figure." Are you accusing Doherty of religious intolerance?? And you neglect to make it clear that Doherty "does not suggest an alternative method by which an individual might attempt to construct an accurate image of Jesus" because Jesus, according to Doherty, did not exist. "Ultimately Mayer's aforementioned book is just as historically accurate as many historians' attempts to find the true Jesus." This is impossible. If Mayer's book is historically accurate, opposing theories are historically inaccurate. And vice versa. "Yet it cannot be denied that the Jesus that he draws through his analysis of the evidence bears a striking resemblance to himself." I can deny it. Crossan is a high profile figure in Jesus studies, so you are going to see this kind of stuff bandied about, but it's not proven and amounts to a fallacy anyway. And citing Shanks?? best, Peter Kirby

07-07-2003, 10:45 PM	#3
SpaceMonkey Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 37	"Did you read Olson's essay? Olson argues that the Testimonium as a whole was written by Eusebius and that no evidence exists for an earlier form. That is, Olson opts for utter spuriousness, not corruption of a Josephan description" No, I had no idea that such a theory existed. I do now though. "Do you mean no earlier? Do you want to add the word "complete," given that there are mss. fragments as early as 200 CE?" Yes, I do. That was just a stupid mistake. "Are you accusing Doherty of religious intolerance??" Yes, I am. On hindsight I should have directly quoted what he had written on his site. I think there is a reference pointing to the article in question, if not, I'll find it if you ask me to. But what he had written amounted to religous intolerance. I think it related to September 11 and blaming it solely on religion. I argue one could point equally to politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware religion does contribute to violence. However it is unfair to hold religion accountable on its own. No? "And you neglect to make it clear that Doherty "does not suggest an alternative method by which an individual might attempt to construct an accurate image of Jesus" because Jesus, according to Doherty, did not exist." You're right. " This is impossible. If Mayer's book is historically accurate, opposing theories are historically inaccurate. And vice versa." Aha! Exactly! This gets to the central tenet of my essay. You'll have to think about it more. Relating to your point. I say just as historically accurate. Not historically accurate. Perhaps my expression could be clearer. It didn't get picked up by my lecturer though. This is an epistemolgical issue relating to the futile quest for an historical Jesus. Something I cofess I haven't got my head completely around. But, do you see what I'm saying now? "I can deny it. Crossan is a high profile figure in Jesus studies, so you are going to see this kind of stuff bandied about, but it's not proven and amounts to a fallacy anyway." This is actually a pretty high profile theory isn't it? The idea that an historian quite often throws a great deal of himself into his subject? Especially when trying to construct the character of Jesus. "And citing Shanks??" You don't have an embarrased emoticon I can use. Clearly you're better versed in this area than I am. What's wrong with Shanks? Bit of an apologist? Anyway, thanks for reading it. I've been thinking about doing Honours by correspondence because this stuff is just so damn interesting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.