FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-20-2013, 01:06 AM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
It seems to me that Verenna and Thompson (V&T) are saying that since the NT is such a dubious source, we should be somewhat skeptical of Jesus' existence to the extent that it's based on this source.

James seems to understand this as saying that if a figure appears in a dubious source then that "disproves the historicity" of that figure.

Am I misunderstanding V&T or McGrath?
I haven't had my hands on V&T, but I do know that JFMcG tends to assume mythicism (in those who don't stimulate him the right way) and ask questions later.
spin is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 04:45 AM   #12
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 219
Default

From the review of James McGrath at least becomes clear that the evidence for Jesus’ historicity collapses into very few points:
- the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19
- Tacitus Annals 15.44
- the testimony of Origen that Josephus mentioned Jesus but did not regard him as the Christ, which according to him confirms the consensus view that there was an original reference to Jesus by Josephus behind the later Testimonium Flavianum as redacted by Christians

If there is a way to convincingly nullify these points, the case will collapse completely.
ph2ter is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ph2ter View Post
From the review of James McGrath at least becomes clear that the evidence for Jesus’ historicity collapses into very few points:
- the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19
- Tacitus Annals 15.44
- the testimony of Origen that Josephus mentioned Jesus but did not regard him as the Christ, which according to him confirms the consensus view that there was an original reference to Jesus by Josephus behind the later Testimonium Flavianum as redacted by Christians

If there is a way to convincingly nullify these points, the case will collapse completely.
Here's a shorter (and expanded!) version:

- Gal 1.19
- Tacitus
- the 'original' TF
- "Who would invent a crucified Davidic messiah?"
hjalti is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 06:31 AM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ph2ter View Post
From the review of James McGrath at least becomes clear that the evidence for Jesus’ historicity collapses into very few points:
- the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19
- Tacitus Annals 15.44
- the testimony of Origen that Josephus mentioned Jesus but did not regard him as the Christ, which according to him confirms the consensus view that there was an original reference to Jesus by Josephus behind the later Testimonium Flavianum as redacted by Christians

If there is a way to convincingly nullify these points, the case will collapse completely.
Regarding James, see if you can make any substance of McGrath's responses in this dialogue.

On Annals 15.44 see my blog entry as a start.

This blog entry is a very basic examination of Origen on James as derived from Hegesippus (a name thought in ancient time to be derived from "Josephus", as in Pseudo-Hegesippus, a Latin reformulation of Josephus with an anti-Jewish bent).
spin is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:04 AM   #15
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 156
Default

As Carrier points out, who would invent a castrated saviour?

Religious people, that's who.
Tenorikuma is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:23 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 75
Default

I'm grateful that James McGrath would take the time to review the volume. I do not agree with his assessment on the contributions, but that is precisely what I expected. Maybe one day he will convince me or I will convince him (or someone else will). It remains to be seen.

To answer your question:

Quote:
"James seems to understand this as saying that if a figure appears in a dubious source then that "disproves the historicity" of that figure.

Am I misunderstanding V&T or McGrath?"
If James is construing our introduction as a pro-mythicist position, he is wrong. Doubting is not the same as denying. Neither Thomas Thompson or I took a strong mythicist position in our introduction or in our individual contributions to the volume. The issue we were raising, quite plainly, is that if Joseph of Arimathea and Lazarus and even Joseph, Jesus' step-father, can be dismissed by scholarship as literary creations, why do we stop short at Jesus? This isn't a de facto pronouncement in ahistoricity; it is merely asking the question that no one else seems to want to ask.

I like James, but it seems he has an agenda at times that clouds his ability to read sympathetically. But that's fine. Bad reviews are typical when dealing with such a controversial issue.

I hope that answers your question.
Tom Verenna is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:26 AM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Verenna View Post
I like James, but it seems he has an agenda at times that clouds his ability to read sympathetically.
You only see the agenda when he opens his mouth.
spin is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 12:32 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ph2ter View Post
From the review of James McGrath at least becomes clear that the evidence for Jesus’ historicity collapses into very few points:
- the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19
- Tacitus Annals 15.44
- the testimony of Origen that Josephus mentioned Jesus but did not regard him as the Christ, which according to him confirms the consensus view that there was an original reference to Jesus by Josephus behind the later Testimonium Flavianum as redacted by Christians

If there is a way to convincingly nullify these points, the case will collapse completely.
Regarding James, see if you can make any substance of McGrath's responses in this dialogue.

On Annals 15.44 see my blog entry as a start.

This blog entry is a very basic examination of Origen on James as derived from Hegesippus (a name thought in ancient time to be derived from "Josephus", as in Pseudo-Hegesippus, a Latin reformulation of Josephus with an anti-Jewish bent).
Do we have any clear evidence that Origen knew the works of Hegesippus ?

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 04:28 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ph2ter View Post
From the review of James McGrath at least becomes clear that the evidence for Jesus’ historicity collapses into very few points:
  • the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19
  • Tacitus Annals 15.44
  • the testimony of Origen that Josephus mentioned Jesus but did not regard him as the Christ which, according to him, confirms the consensus view that there was an original reference to Jesus by Josephus behind the later Testimonium Flavianum as redacted by Christians
If there is a way to convincingly nullify these points, the case will collapse completely.
There is no way of knowing if the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19 is reference to a true sibling, or a fellow member of a group.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 makes reference to Chrisitians and the nebulous 'Christus' they believed in - "a most mischievious superstition"
Quote:
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius under the procurator, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome,
The alleged writings of Josephus are too hard to contextualize, as are interpretations of interpretations.

The historical-Jesus proponents only have highly tenuous of connections.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:13 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
It seems to me that Verenna and Thompson (V&T) are saying that since the NT is such a dubious source, we should be somewhat skeptical of Jesus' existence to the extent that it's based on this source.
That seems like a very reasonable position. Let's remember that the Romans did not notice xtians until the second century.
Minimalist is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:40 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.