J-D

It's obviously not possible for a religion to be started by an event that did not take place.

It is, of course, possible for a religion to be started by people saying that an event has taken place, but that immediately raises the question of why people said it took place and why other people accepted what they said.

aa5874

Your statement is completely absurd.

We have the Religion of the Mormons which was started with False claims by Joseph Smith about the Angel Moroni and Golden Plates.

There is no historical Angel Moroni.

J-D

If the question were asked 'What started Mormonism?' and the answer were given 'It was started by the angel Moroni delivering a revelation to Joseph Smith', I would respond, correctly, that no such event ever took place and that therefore it could not have started Mormonism. A possible answer to the question 'What started Mormonism?' is 'It was started by Joseph Smith making claims about receiving revelations and other people accepting those claims'. The angel Moroni delivering a revelation to Joseph Smith is not an event that ever took place, so it can't have started a religion. Joseph Smith making claims about having received a revelation is an event that did take place and so could have been the start of a religion. Failing to distinguish is absurd, not that that ever stops you.

TedM

Is there a good link to see the scholarly discussion?




Ok, but if part of the passage shows signs of either 1. authenticity or 2. the attempt to 'look' Josephean and another part shows a complete disregard for looking Josephean then those two parts indicate a likelihood of 2 authors -- ie the 'Josephean' part preceded the 'non-Josephean' part. That argues for the Josephean part being as original as any other part of Josepus' writings.



Again, this same logic could be used of any passage of Josephus: Find a phrase that is uncommon to Josephus, and you must throw out the entire section because it isn't 'Josephean'. Yet few are willing to do this. One must recognize that within any person's grammar/dialogue will be commonly used phrases/terms/words/ideas (frequently used by the person) mixed with uncommon ones (infrequently used by the person).


I"m not sure what you mean here. If there was an original about Jesus, that debunks the mythical Jesus theory outright. I'm not saying there is, but am answering the question of why it would be significant. It simply makes no sense to conclude that on the one hand one person cleverly included phrases intended to 'mask' as Josephus, and on the other hand had Josephus declare that Jesus was the Christ. It seems whatever experts can make of that to recover as 'original' would be significant. Why not recover ALL that is not 'non-Josephean', since that would be equivalent to any other Josephean passage?

TedM

No, you didn't address my 6 claims. Instead you brought up gMark, which I hadn't even mentioned. I don't want the thread to disintegrate any further, sliding off-topic. As I said in the OP, I'm assuming the Jews WERE the first Christians. Since you don't agree, the thread really isn't for you. People can judge for themselves.

TedM

I know you were making another point, but the question really is why those that accept outrageous claims, do so. In the case of Mormonism early on perhaps it was a number of things:

1. the need to rectify the injustice of American Indians living in ignorance of Jesus for 1800 years

2. an apparent remarkable ability for J Smith to have written the Book of Mormon, which appeared highly unlikely and suggests a divine hand

3. a desire to believe in revelation


In the case of early Jews accepting the idea of a Savior who was crucified and rose from the dead, either mythical or human, may too have required that needs have been met (perhaps Salvation offered under Rome's oppression was a component), and a compelling 'unlikely' confluence of events that suggest a divine hand (a new interpretation of the Bible along with perhaps a time -urgency like the 70 weeks of Daniel, OR the claim of resurrection of a popular preacher-healer), along with the desire to believe in revelation.

Toto

Are you unclear on peer review? It generally takes place in the editor's office. It is supposed to guarantee the basic accuracy of what is published.

Or there was one author who didn't care if he looked Josephan or not, because he was convinced that he was adding something that ought to have been there.

I think you have created an unnecessary dilemma here. Some of the scholars who have worked over this passage have tried to claim that some of the language is Josephan. But none of it has his fingerprints on it. None of it is so unusual that you could be sure that it was either written by him or by someone trying to imitate him.

In the case of the TF, of course, we have much stronger indications that just words that are not Josephan. We have concepts that go against everything else we think we know about Josephus - the use of the term Christ for a failed prophet. And we have language that is very characteristic of Eusebius.

Debunking the mythical Jesus theory would not prove that Christianity is true. It would not make much difference to anyone other than a few people who have staked out a position for a mythical Jesus.

And notice that even the analysts who claim to be able to extract a valid original cannot get much more information out of it than Jesus existed, had followers, was crucified, and followers maybe thought he rose from the dead and continued to hold him in esteem. But none of this comes from Josephus' personal knowledge - it could just be second or third hand hearsay. This passage would not absolutely prove that there was a historical Jesus even if it were original.

TedM

Sure, but that doesn't mean the peers agreed with the conclusions of the author or how questionable theoretical statistics have been employed. That's why I'd like to see what they have to say.



But, if either of your 2 ending scenarios is right, it contradicts what you said just prior:

It is illogical to propose that one person was both 'imitating' Josephus but also 'didn't care if he looked Josephan'. As stated here http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...html#authentic:





I'm not trying to do that.

This is baffling. It would go a long way toward establishing credibility of the basic outline. I think few would consider it to be a story without foundation, if coming from Josephus, a historian born and raised in Galilee in 37AD. He had nothing to gain from reporting the story, would not have reported it unless it was a significant event during Pilate's reign, and therefore would easily have been able to verify those basic events. And, just the fact of his reporting it would indicate that Jesus had been a highly popular figure, and not some preacher with a small following unworthy of mention. It would be very significant.

maryhelena

my bolding

Yes, indeed significant - but not in the manner in which you are suggesting. Even with any suspect words removed from the TF; even with a remainder of words that suggest they are Josephan words - these words would not support a historical gospel JC (of whatever variant). That would be an unwarranted assumption. The Josephan writer was not just a historian - that writer has been viewed as a 'prophetic historian' and as a 'prophet'. There is nothing in that TF that gives 'victory' to the JC historicists - on the contrary, any remainder of the TF would indicate that the Josephan writer had a finger in that pseudo-historical gospel pie.

TedM

Toto, I looked up the article by Goldberg, which Carrier mentions on his blog, in reference to the TF, and similarities between the TF and the Emmaus passage in Luke. Whether he was onto something or not, I found this quote by him particularly relevant to the current discussion: