Vinnie

Your welcome.

I may not be familiar with every single one but I think I know most of the common ones. I did reference Kirby's page in that article so that should constitute prima facie evidence that I am aware of at least some of the pro/con arguments as he lays them out quite well.

The larger passage was clearly interpolated (at least partially or fully). The shorter passage appears early as it seems to have been in the copy of Antiquities that Origen read. Simply pointing out the "possibility" of interpolation is not enough here. For the shorter reference, the burden of proof rests solely on those who want to argue it was interpolated. Given that it is not a "Christian" way of referring to Jesus gives presumption to the text as it has come to us. Give me really good reason/s to doubt the passage and I will. Thus far, I have seen nothing in my studies that argues convincingly that the shorter passage was interpolated. I really hate arguing this subject but if persisted I will jump in. It just keeps getting rehashed over and over again.

The translators decided to translate it "brother." If you can provide evidence substantiating a better translation feel free to do so. I've seen some Catholics argue against that translation. Some think Mary was an ever-virgin so yes, I take it they see these passages different (as a half brother, cousin or something else?).

Yeah, I am aware of what "interpolation" means and I am aware that some posit this reference was interpolated. Raymond Brown, regarding the integrity of 1 Corinthians had this to say "No widely agreed-on major interpolations., althought there is some debate about 14:34-35 and chap. 13; a lost letter preceded (1 Cor 5:9)." As far as I can see, the mythicist position has incorporated yet another fringe view into its thesis. All the frigness makes it seem like the opposite of Mcdowell-like apologists arguing for inerrancy. Both theories are "loony" and disconnected from reality.

I would like to think that ALL Christian scholars think there was at least a little interpolation going on in Antiquities 18.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Given that it is not a "Christian" way of referring to Jesus gives presumption to the text as it has come to us. Give me really good reason/s to doubt the passage and I will. Thus far, I have seen nothing in my studies that argues convincingly that the shorter passage was interpolated. I really hate arguing this subject but if persisted I will jump in. It just keeps getting rehashed over and over again.

There's a discussion of this going on right now, on the Ant 20.200 passage. I had a new take on it, or at least one I haven't seen before. Ed and Peter seem to have shot it down pretty hard, but you might enjoy the review.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede:
[QB]Besides, you have shown a propensity to believe anti-Christian mythology such as the Pius XII Nazi legend, priests hunting cats etc with much less evidence than we have for Jesus's cricifixion under Pilate. Your scepticism is selective to say the least.[/b]

&gt;Yawn&lt; I'd be happy to believe that Christians hunting cats in the Middle Ages is a legend, if only you had even the tiniest shred of an argument or evidence saying that this widespread belief is a myth. My usual MO is to take widespread beliefs for myths. So give me some reasons, I'll be happy to adopt your position. You haven't so far -- just that story about the 18th century that you hilariously misunderstood.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000699&p=3" target="_blank">Readers may find the cats discussion here, starts 1/3 of the way down</a> Bede never produces any documentation to support his claims, and then runs away when he realizes that he has mistaken an influential article on a single event in the 18th century for support for his case. The entire thread, on Christian atrocities, is well worth reading for Bede's hapless attempts to use personal insults and blanket attacks instead of arguments, and most especially his priceless comment about the genocide of the Aztecs... "These last ones did indeed conquer much of America although it is hard to say that wiping out the Aztecs was a bad thing."

I don't believe in revisiting the failures of others, but you brought up this thread, Bede.

As for Pius XII and the Nazis, agreements between them are a matter of public record and a couple of books, and need not be repeated here. The Church's record of cooperation with Italian, German, Spanish and Balkan facism -- including dismantling the Catholic opposition to Hitler, the Church's close support of Mussolini, allowing a Catholic cleric to act as dictator of Slovakia and another to run a death camp in Yugoslavia -- is despicable, but understandable in light of its own authoritarian tendencies.

What I don't understand is why you keep revisiting arguments that you got soundly thumped on. Any time you want to discuss the evil of the Church in its relations with Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and Balkan facism, let me know. I'd be happy to review the historical record and you can correct my errors.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Now for your other quote:

It's a shame then that Crossan wasted so much time writing a long book doing exactly what he claims is impossible. And just because Crossan says something doesn't make it true. Bultmann was as wrong in his own time.

Crossan did not write a long book to do the impossible. Crossan's POV is that what you conclude depends critically on how you see the relationship and dating of the various texts. These are presuppositions one brings to the table. You can do the work, but methodology is critically dependent on presuppositions. That is a point you have not acknowledged either. No methodology is possible because the very idea that there could be history in the texts is a presupposition.

It is worth noting that mythers and NT scholars take very different approaches methodologically. NT scholars, without effectively showing that they are working with historical materials, nevertheless use historical methods in working with the Jesus texts. Mythers tend to be extremely comparative, treating the Jesus stories as the legends they are and looking at them in the light of other legends and similar modern movements.

In any case, you have not yet put up any reason for me to assume Crossan is wrong. If you had the methods, you would just put them up and end the debate. Your long piece is garbage; rehashing the criteria that Crossan and others have long ago exposed as ridiculous.

Vorkosigan

The Lost Number

I will, but first, let's take some time to determine just what a "fabrication" is. If I just give condensed and stated defintions without references, I'll probably be criticised for it. So I'll go straight to the source. This is from merriam-webster online:

Main Entry: fab·ri·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "fa-bri-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the act or process of fabricating
2 : a product of fabrication; especially : LIE, FALSEHOOD

Though most Christ mythers don't think every single detail of Jesus is a 100 percent, bona fide LIE by those who made it, they don't adopt the same attitude with FALSEHOOD:

Main Entry: false·hood
Pronunciation: 'fols-"hud
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : an untrue statement : LIE
2 : absence of truth or accuracy
3 : the practice of lying : MENDACITY

Note defintions 1 & 2 of falsehood - they represent basically everything Christ mythers believe about Jesus. Since they think Jesus never existed, that he was simply made up, that pretty much every relevant ancient writing about Jesus operated under the assumption that he existed, and that these assumptions would automatically be rendered invalid if in fact Jesus was a complete and total work of fiction, this therefore would mean that any of the said assumptions about Jesus must be untrue, or lacking in accuracy, which means they were falsehoods, which means they were also fabrications. Thus my original statement: Christ-mythers just come up with any "fabrication", outrageous conspiracy theory-type idea to "explain" away evidence that Jesus existed, is true.

As for the statements being "outrageous", just look at some of the stuff Christ mythers say. Tacitus is a relatively trustworthy historical source...unless we read what he said about Jesus, in which case his writings just "had to be" fabrications. Josephus is a relatively trustworthy historical source...unless we read what he said about Jesus, which, though being interpolated to some extent, must automatically (for no apparent reason) be complete, 100 percent fabrications. The criterion of embarassment is a very reliable concept when applied to history...unless we do that with the story of Jesus being crucified, where it miraculously becomes next to worthless. And so it goes, on and on and on, with every bit of evidence you give them. It's all just a fabrication of some sort in the Christ-mythers mind.
See above.
Like a ton of them. First off, the entire basis of the Gospels is that God split himself in half, named one of his halves "Jesus", sent himself down to earth, then, after performing magic tricks and pissing people off, he sacrificed himself to himself so that humanity could be saved from himself, all because of a mistake he hade himself. This is logically absurd to the point of simply being impossible. You cannot reconcile this with the actions of a loving, caring, fair, omniscient, omnipotent being. It is therefore a fabrication. And just one of many.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: The Lost Number ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Ilgwamh
The larger passage was clearly interpolated (at least partially or fully).
Are you talking about Antiquities 20? If so, what exactly do you mean by the "larger passage"?
Which parts do you agree are interpolated? (I need to know so that I dont bring up arguments on what you have conceded to be interpolated)

Simply pointing out the "possibility" of interpolation is not enough here.
Why? Does pointing out that pobability render the passage doubtful at least?

Given that it is not a "Christian" way of referring to Jesus gives presumption to the text as it has come to us
What would it take for a phrase to qualify to be considered as a christian way of referring to Jesus?
If the phrase can be demonstrated satisfactorily to be a Christian way of referring to Jesus ,would that make you concede that the passage was interpolated?

I really hate arguing this subject but if persisted I will jump in.
Hate? Why does the subject distress you emotionally? Do you believe you are capable of staying objective regarding an issue that you hate arguing?

It just keeps getting rehashed over and over again.
What would be the possible reasons for this?

so yes, I take it they see these passages different (as a half brother, cousin or something else?).
And how do YOU take it?

I would like to think that ALL Christian scholars think there was at least a little interpolation going on in Antiquities 18.
Thank you, and what do YOU think?

Lost Number
You have talked a lot but you have not provided any evidence that christ mythers come up with ANY fabrication. "ANY" in the context you used it, implied a haphazard, chaotic and senseless manner of claiming fabrication. You have yet to demonstrate that they come up with senseless arguments for fabrication.
You have so far indicated that they come up with some arguments for fabrication.

If you think parts of the Gospels have been fabricated, on what basis do you then believe the rest are not fabricated? Because they are plausible? Are you asserting that the only sections we should rightly consider to be fabricated are the incredible and illogical ones?
Do you then believe something just because its easy to believe?

Steven Carr

Antiquities 20 must be a fabrication because the Vatican says Jesus had no brothers.

Ted Hoffman

I think the Vatican is wrong about many things - largely because they cannot affort to be honest about Mary's so-called perpetual virginity hey, it would mean someone else shagged Gods wife! That would make "Virgin Mary" look bad.

GThomas has Jesus referring to James as James The Just.
James never refers to Jesus as his brother.
Jesus never refers to James as his brother.
Josephus tells us Jesus was James brother. But Josephus does this all alone in a disputed passage whereas no other 1st century writer even mentions Jesus. Paul is the only other person who refers to James as "the Lords Brother", but paul's use of the word brother was not tied down to blood relations alone.

NOGO

Funny, my experience is that believers do this type of thing and then they have the gall to accuse others of it.

NOGO

Not so.
Surely you do not follow the rule that you set forth here. The net result is that anything anyone wrote which is meant to be history is all true.

During the gulf war there were many reports which were published in the newspapers as fact which turned out to be fabrications. But there were published as fact. Newspapers gather information and sometimes their sources are not as good as they would like to believe.

Where did Tacitus get his information?

Bede and others argue that Jesus did not make a big splash even in Israel. So it is not surprizing that the Pagan world ignored him.

Well, you can't have it both ways. If Jesus was by and large ignored even in his own country then it is reasonable to believe that Tacitus got his information about Jesus from Christians.

This is not special pleading.