Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 04-17-2003, 06:11 AM

Feldman's count: 4 scholars regard as completely genuine, 6 mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

So in fact, it is not really beyond the Pale to regard this passage as a total interpolation, then is it? Thanks for the info, Meta.

Can someone tell me....what is the methodological principle that allows us to determine that there are Christian additions to the passage and then enables us to cut them out?

Vorkosigan

Vinnie · 04-17-2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

And was not one of his friends a TRUE miracle worker(meaning he healed people) also? Perhaps I am mistaken, and josephus was a rock of professional journalism....

Almost everyone was friends with a miracle worker in the ancient world

Vinnie

keyser_soze · 04-17-2003, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Almost everyone was friends with a miracle worker in the ancient world

Vinnie

Exactly my point...:banghead:

We must read everything with a grain of salt, even from noted historians. If josephus is the one I am thinking of, he gave only a slight mention to the brother of jesus, but gave much more to the roman who was curing people by spitting on them. And to have witnessed a birth "a la impossible" of one animal birthing another(eyewitness no less), then we must at least accept the possibility that he wasn't being 100% factual. If we had such a witness "farmer joe swears that he saw the murder, because he was watching a cow have a pig at the time and took notice of it" I think any statements he made would be ignored by the jury. And most likely he would have been placed in medical care to boot. The methodology is flawed, the sources used to lead the method to a presupposed destination are corrupt, sketchy, altered, etc.... So where are we to go with this? These are the very reasons why there is a schism of HJ and MJ in the first place. There is no evidence to either side beyond conjecture and bad conjecture at that. That's only to deal with the issue of jesus as a real existing person! Now, take it up a notch to godhood? The difficulty in persuading anyone is even worse. And then to take it one step further, leaving jesus totally out? Then we have a segment of the population that wishes to convert the world to only one of 2500 different gods, using only a book that is poorly written and organized, containing obvious forgeries, alterations, and some truly hard to stomach stories that go beyond simple superstition. And with such a history(excuse me but the christian faith is quite violent historically)...who would want to join this cult? I mean, if you force away the women(due to being subservient, who could slight them for avoiding the faith), gays, cripples, and those with a history of enslavement...And you have a bunch of old white guys left. Even with all the evidence, all the reasons not to follow this religion contained within the bible itself, people surprisingly still follow it. I am more astounded by this fact that anything else.

Apikorus · 04-17-2003, 09:58 AM

Criticism and defense of scholarly methodology have been thick in this thread, but little progress seems to have been made. This is more an exchange of opinions rather than a discussion. From my point of view, it would be interesting to compare and contrast the case for historicity of Jesus with that for the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness. Clearly there are aspects of each community, Qumran and early Christianity, which must be regarded sui generis, but both figures emerged in the same general time and location. (In many respects, the Qumran community is like early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism rolled into one - their sectarian writings reflect the apocalyptic eschatology of early Christianity as well as the hypernomianism of Rabbinic Judaism.)

Do the JMers here also deny the historicity of the Teacher of Righteousness? Why or why not? Can a clearly articulated scholarly methodology be applied to both the ToR and Jesus?

Metacrock · 04-17-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Tell you what, I'll give you core on josephus. I'm sure vorks will do the same. But it has been modified, without much doubt. And while we're using him as the "defacto" historical proof, perhaps you can tell me more about the other things in his volumes, including, if I'm not mistaken, one species of an animal giving birth to another species? And was not one of his friends a TRUE miracle worker(meaning he healed people) also? ....

Ok see now this is a prime example of ignoring the assumptions that real historians make. The assumption here missed, namely, We accept that people belong in their times! WE don't expect them to be part of our time!

So Joe had some ideas that we today know are silly? He believed in the supernatural, which we tend (in large measure but certainly not all of us) don't tend to believe in. So you write him off. Everything he said was a lie because he was wrong about some things and he had some ideas some of us today find to be silly. But that his not doing history! NO profession historian would conclude that everything he said was a lie based upon such flimsy and irrational assumptions!

I got news for you dude,

The story will be the same with all acient world people. All people of antiquity will have such views! So you have to write off all of history. All of history was a lie becasue everyone who recorded anything in the ancient world thought things we find to be strange. That just wont cut it with historians.

You also ignore the fact that [u]most scholars agree he mentioned Jesus!

Quote:

Perhaps I am mistaken, and josephus was a rock of professional journalism

A journalist? Who would expect any ancient world writter to be a journalsit? Do you not know that journalism didn't exist then? Neither did history for that matter. There were no academic historians in the sense in which they exist today in that era. it's absurd to expect anyone from late antiquity to be a historian as we know the term, or a journalist!

He didn't play at Woodstock either! What kind of modern celebrity is this guy?

Yes, the Bible is the Word of God

Goliath · 04-17-2003, 02:04 PM

Vinnie,

Why do you keep ignoring me? Please face the fact that your taking Jesus' existence as an axiom completely refutes your argument that Jesus existed, since you're assuming what you're trying to prove.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vinnie · 04-17-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

We must read everything with a grain of salt, even from noted historians.

Who suggested otherwise?

Quote:

Vinnie,

Why do you keep ignoring me? Please face the fact that your taking Jesus' existence as an axiom completely refutes your argument that Jesus existed, since you're assuming what you're trying to prove.

Because I am only going to repeat what I stated before. Jesus' historicity is self-evident given the sources.

Vinnie

keyser_soze · 04-18-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
So Joe had some ideas that we today know are silly? He believed in the supernatural, which we tend (in large measure but certainly not all of us) don't tend to believe in. So you write him off. Everything he said was a lie because he was wrong about some things and he had some ideas some of us today find to be silly. But that his not doing history! NO profession historian would conclude that everything he said was a lie based upon such flimsy and irrational assumptions!

No, I don't write him off, and I am not saying a belief in superstition is the problem, we all believe in one type of superstition or another, I am saying that he claimed to personally EYE WITNESS miracles exceeding those of jesus attributed to a roman general, and having seen one species of animal give birth to another. That is not BELIEVING superstition, that is writing it first hand. WHICH IS WHERE THE 5 POUND GRAIN OF SALT COMES IN.

I got news for you dude,

The story will be the same with all acient world people. All people of antiquity will have such views! So you have to write off all of history. All of history was a lie becasue everyone who recorded anything in the ancient world thought things we find to be strange. That just wont cut it with historians.

That is not what I'm doing, I'm merely calling into question the validity of the sources. I would hardly write off history, as it is a personal passion of mine! Why are you trying to poison the well in this manner? I simply refuse to accept a historians word as FACT when that historian was not only NOT an eye witness, but wrote of observing several things that would indicate that he might perhaps not be the most credible person on earth. So I am anti-history for questioning an authors work? Poor sportsmanship vinnie.

You also ignore the fact that [u]most scholars agree he mentioned Jesus![/b]

I am not ignoring any such thing. I gave you the core, that he was mentioned! I won't give you that it is entirely unedited by the church however, and I assume you know why, since it was one of your arguments in the past that convinced me![/B]

A journalist? Who would expect any ancient world writter to be a journalsit? Do you not know that journalism didn't exist then? Neither did history for that matter. There were no academic historians in the sense in which they exist today in that era. it's absurd to expect anyone from late antiquity to be a historian as we know the term, or a journalist!

He didn't play at Woodstock either! What kind of modern celebrity is this guy?[/b][/color]
Again, with the strawmen? I think you get the point, don't play obtuse on it. I mean ethics in writing, and you are very much aware that it is the point! I don't expect any more out of josephus than any other writer. After all, did not plutarch write about the greek statues of gods bleeding in the temples? Does that mean I should take it at face value, or do you think I should exhibit a little common sense and assume that he just MIGHT be wrong, or passing down something he HEARD? Or would that be anti-history? Is a short statement about james in the works of josephus to be our PROOF that jesus existed. Despite an obvious point that it was questionable. Give me a break. All we did is critique the method that you asked us too, why have you gone off on such a tangent, ignoring our point and throwing down straw men at every turn? Thanks, I think I will simply assume that you do not seek a neutral opinion and do not mean it when you ask for something in the future. We simply pointed out the flaws in a methodology, we didn't call into question anyone's faith, or belief system. We didn't argue historicity vs. mythology even. We were just looking at getting a baseline, an accepted list of vocabulary so that the conversation could proceed. You have turned it into a personal attack! Debate it with vorks, I am through with you.

godfry n. glad · 04-18-2003, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Because I am only going to repeat what I stated before. Jesus' historicity is self-evident given the sources.

Vinnie [/B]

If you repeat it often enough it becomes a chant. If you chant it enough, it can induce a stupor...oh...I'm sorry... you're already there.

Nevermind.

keyser_soze · 04-18-2003, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
If you repeat it often enough it becomes a chant. If you chant it enough, it can induce a stupor...oh...I'm sorry... you're already there.

Nevermind.

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

04-17-2003, 06:11 AM	#131
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Feldman's count: 4 scholars regard as completely genuine, 6 mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation. So in fact, it is not really beyond the Pale to regard this passage as a total interpolation, then is it? Thanks for the info, Meta. Can someone tell me....what is the methodological principle that allows us to determine that there are Christian additions to the passage and then enables us to cut them out? Vorkosigan

04-17-2003, 09:58 AM	#134
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Criticism and defense of scholarly methodology have been thick in this thread, but little progress seems to have been made. This is more an exchange of opinions rather than a discussion. From my point of view, it would be interesting to compare and contrast the case for historicity of Jesus with that for the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness. Clearly there are aspects of each community, Qumran and early Christianity, which must be regarded sui generis, but both figures emerged in the same general time and location. (In many respects, the Qumran community is like early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism rolled into one - their sectarian writings reflect the apocalyptic eschatology of early Christianity as well as the hypernomianism of Rabbinic Judaism.) Do the JMers here also deny the historicity of the Teacher of Righteousness? Why or why not? Can a clearly articulated scholarly methodology be applied to both the ToR and Jesus?

04-17-2003, 02:04 PM	#136
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Vinnie, Why do you keep ignoring me? Please face the fact that your taking Jesus' existence as an axiom completely refutes your argument that Jesus existed, since you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Sincerely, Goliath

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.