Ted Hoffman

When you do so, wake me up. Whether or not Kirby has changed his stance is totally irrelevant to me. But I thought he had made some good arguments. I still do. I just highlighted his arguments against the authenticity of the passage because there are certain HJ proponents that have stated before that its an unquestionable passage that points to the existence of a HJ.

Even before Kirby presented his arguments here, its always been the case that the word "brother" (1) is open to interpretation (that is, assuming Antiquities 20 is authentic) and (2) an argument for interpolation can always be made - especially considering the TF is interpolated and thus that Jesus, at that point is not known by readers because he has not been introduced.

None of these are dependent on Kirby's position. It depends on what one finds plausible in view of all other known things concerning xstianity, the gospels and what was happening in 1st century palestine.

So, dear Vinnie, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned, Antiquities 20 is inconsequential, whether its authentic or not. There are many arguments that can be made but I have spent enough time on Antiquities 20 (in other threads and places) and I feel no need to discuss it further. If it interests you, please yourself. There are lots of other things I know nothing about. I'd rather spend my time learning about them.

Maybe you ought to know that I lose nothing if mythicism is proved wrong. I just engage in argumentation concerning the historicity of Jesus for sport. I have been a myther for less than a year and I will be glad to be shown that I am dead wrong.

The thing about my kind of atheism is that even if its a fact that God exists, I still wouldn't believe in him. The basis for it are far much bigger than a claim that a man calles Jesus existed. So whether Jesus existed or not really isn't an issue. Stick to argumentation and stop this nye, nye, nye, nye c***

It's all a sport . And its fun. I don't know about you.

the_cave

I'll bite. How about Mark 6:3? Even Price claims, in his review of Eisenman's James, the Brother of Jesus, that the line would originally have read "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and Joses, and brother of James, and John, and Judas, and Simon?" (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html) Even if this were true (who knows?), where did this carpenter come from?

Vorkosigan

Eisenman links Mark 6 reference to carpentry to a larger trend of artisan/craftsmanship among the groups from whom Christianity sprang. See p309 and again p330 in James the Brother of Jesus.

MacDonald sees it as another Odysseus parallel, carpentry being one of his many skills.

<shrug> Can you offer some reason to believe that this is a historical reference? I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that the gospels are largely, if not entirely, fictional. Why should we accept this detail as a historical reference?

Vorkosigan

the_cave

Thanks Vork, I will go have a look at Eisenman again.

I really have never bought the Odysseus parallel, FWIW.

But why shouldn't it be a historical reference? Furthermore, where on earth does Mary come from? I guess if you argue that Ignatius preceded Mark, it could come from there--but then where does Ignatius get his claim that Jesus was born of her? And if Ignatius preceded Mark, why is he so insistent that Jesus was a historical person? (Ignatius makes clear that his "in the flesh" is an earthly existence, and not at all heavenly.)

Toto

Ignatius was trying to shore up the authority of the Christian church by claiming that there was a line of authority running from Jesus himself through the apostles to the early church fathers. So Jesus has to be in the flesh here on earth.

Vinnie

Ignatius wrote ca 110 ad did he not? This seems very strange to place Mark after 110 ad? I didn't even think the ultra-skeptics here would go that far!

Its even more problematic if you think the letters of Ignatius were later forged in his name (ca 130 ad?). Mark (and consequenlty Mark's material) simply can't be dated that late.

Of course Ignatius preceded Mark if we mean canonical mark as it is today

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Don't act surprised Vinnie. Ellegard (100 years before Christ?) dates all the gospels to the 20th century and believes Ignatius was the "creator" of the HJ. I have argued with you about this before. Remember our long synagogues argument that turned out to be too taxing for you? It wont go away.

Toto above gives a plausible motive for why Ignatius would have done this.

Quote:

Its even more problematic if you think the letters of Ignatius were later forged in his name (ca 130 ad?). Mark (and consequenlty Mark's material) simply can't be dated that late. Of course Ignatius preceded Mark if we mean canonical mark as it is today Vinnie

Please support this assertion. How many layers of Mark do we have and how do you date them?

Ted Hoffman

Why should it be? Dionysus had a mothe called Semele - does that make Dionysus a historical figure?

Quote:

Furthermore, where on earth does Mary come from?

Salome and JBap Motif? (especially from GThomas replete with decrees and all) Manoah's wife and Samson motif (the angel of the lord came over both women)? Mary could be drawn from so many already available birth legends her inclusion is no puzzle at all.

Secular Pinoy

Wow, how'd he manage to date them that late? I have that book, BTW. It's Jesus - One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study in Creative Mythology.

keyser_soze

I think he meant 2nd century...But I haven't read the book, so I'm extrapolating...