Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 02-17-2002, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Don Morgan:
Apologists will tell you that the two names (Emmanuel and Yeshua, or Jesus) -- which seem completely different to us -- both mean "God with us." (I'm not saying that they are right. In fact, this seems contrived to me, but the point is that to the author of Matthew and to apologists there seems not to have been an obvious inconsistency.)

Emmanuel means "God with us". Jesus (Joshua) is a shortened form of Jehoshua, and means "Yaweh is help". They are not the same name. The text says "they shall call his name Emmanuel". The "they" most likely refers to "people" (i.e. They/People will call his name Emmanuel - God with us.) However, the angel directly told mary to name the child "Jesus".

Quote:

The so-called testimony of Josephus (which is considered spurious by many scholars) would make Joseph a believer himself (in fact, that is one of the main reasons that it is thought to be spurious). In other words, if you are going to talk about Josephus giving a reiteration of the life of Jesus (which he may or may not have actually done) then I think that you are also going to have to accept that Josephus believed that Jesus was the Messiah.

There are scholars, such as John P. Meier (among others), who believe that the testimony of Josephus is not complete interpolation. There is an Arabic Josephus that leaves out the part where Josephus calls Jesus the "Messiah". Many scholars believe that this version is closer to the original. Meier reproduces the text that he believes was the original in his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385264259/qid=1013990592/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/104-8669314-1809532" target="_blank">A Marginal Jew (Book 1)</a>. He also does an analysis of the remaining Greek and comes, quite convincingly, to the conclusion that the words are likely those of Josephus.

Quote:

With regard to Pliny, so far as I know he did NOT give "a reiteration of the life of Jesus" at all. So far as I know, all that he did was to report to Trajan (~AD 112) that "Christians appear to be harmless people who meet at daybreak and sing hymns to the honor of the Messiah as to a god." [Note: this tells us only that there were Christians in AD 112. It tells us nothing about Jesus.] If you know of something more, than you should let us know about it.

You are correct.

Haran

Haran · 02-17-2002, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:
I think this is the real reason behind the multiple synoptic Gospels: Rather than try to correct the errors in the first one (Mark), a new and improved version (Matthew or Luke) was ?found,? a version that better supported the version of events that the preacher wanted to convey. When the preachers wanted to change things further, yet another version of the story was ?discovered.? (John) I suspect that the audience was expected to forget the earlier Gospels and focus on the one at hand. The lack of general literacy and the rarity of written copies would only make this easier.

I, personally, find this scenario rather implausible. The church fathers never make any mention of the Biblical texts being "found". Many of them state who they believed wrote them, why, and when. Had the texts been mysteriously produced, there would be much more said about it in early church literature.

Haran

RyanS2 · 02-17-2002, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:


I think this is the real reason behind the multiple synoptic Gospels: Rather than try to correct the errors in the first one (Mark), a new and improved version (Matthew or Luke) was “found,” a version that better supported the version of events that the preacher wanted to convey. When the preachers wanted to change things further, yet another version of the story was “discovered.” (John) I suspect that the audience was expected to forget the earlier Gospels and focus on the one at hand. The lack of general literacy and the rarity of written copies would only make this easier.

If you want to know what the issues of the time were, look at the material that was added, changed, or deleted between the versions.

Reminds me rather of "D", one of the authors of the Penteteuch, whose book is "found", though hitherto unknown to the Hebrews, that preaches laws dealing with centralized sacrifices and the authority of the priests. Ah, politics and religion, glorious harmony....

Haran · 02-17-2002, 03:07 PM

Quote:

waxm:
The dead sea scrolls are contemporary writings that offer a dispute of later claims, whereas my own observations about the unlikely behaviour and claimed reactions to this, are evidence to be presented and critiqued.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure that I understand the point you are trying to make about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Thanks,
Haran

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.