Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Mark, the 60's? How about 70 CE at the earliest...
Of course with regards to John you are right, likely composed in the 90's...CE it is independent of Mark...
The Testimonium does not have an authentic nucleus and has been tampered with by Christian apologists over and over.
Antiquities is likely also an interpolation.
Tacitus was likely tampered with as well; for one thing he calls Pilate a procurator...
I personaly don't understand what you are trying to say here. Paul was not one of the disciples that followed Christ around. He came to know Christ after He appeared to him, after Christ's death and resurrection, why would Paul know the details of Jesus' ministry, like the disciples knew it? In fact, if Paul did give the details of Jesus' ministry instead of leaving it to the original disciples, I would have assumed that he copied it.An yet none of the Gospel story details is contained in the epistles of Paul, although they date much earlier. He makes no mention of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph or any of the other events. The way he describes Christ is 'Christ Jesus', not Jesus of Nazareth, an actual historical person who lived in recent times. Surely if Paul knew of all the details of the Gospel story of a human Jesus he would have provided them. If you look at the choice of verbs in the Greek it also hints at a Cosmic Son of God not an historical figure who was tried and crucified by Pilate.
no, not a hoax but all critical scholarship agrees that the NT Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of anything and are almost entirely literature...listen to Bart Ehrman talk about how stories were added and removed from the Gospels through copiests...for example...
The point is that Paul's Christ Jesus is wholly unrelated to the Gospel human Jesus....they are not the same figures...I personaly don't understand what you are trying to say here. Paul was not one of the disciples that followed Christ around. He came to know Christ after He appeared to him, after Christ's death and resurrection, why would Paul know the details of Jesus' ministry, like the disciples knew it? In fact, if Paul did give the details of Jesus' ministry instead of leaving it to the original disciples, I would have assumed that he copied it.
Could you please explain?
Tacitus is worthless; he is merely repeating what the Christian in 115 CE were saying or it is a Christian insertion. Regardless he writes almost a century after...No.
Correct.
Yes, it does have an authentic nucleus, and you just contradicted yourself here. If there were no authentic nucleus then there would be nothing to tamper with. See Agapius' version, among others.
Pull the other leg.
So what? He anachronistically uses the title from his day for Pilate; he was not immune to error.
[SIZE=+1]1. Absence of textual variation irrelevant - The practice of imitation and Christian interests operating before the earliest extant manuscripts of the 10th century would ensure that all copies show the two references to Jesus.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]2. Did Josephus identify James by the “brother of Jesus” reference? - The reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20 could be Christian, since it echoes the phrase in Matthew 1:16 and John 4:25. The argument that this is not a Christian mode of expression is weak.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]3. What did Josephus know, or choose to say, about James? - Josephus may have used some other piece of information to identify Jesus, or he may have said something like “a certain James by name” (which the present wording would suggest), perhaps because he knew next to nothing about James or chose not to elaborate. Either way, a dissatisfied copyist would have inserted the present reference, not making a longer one because of space and content considerations. The order of ideas, Jesus first, James second, is suspicious.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]4. Would Josephus have identified Jesus by “the one called (the) Christ”? - The Antiquities 20 phrase implies an earlier reference to “the Christ,” but scholars reject the one in Antiquities 18 as an insertion. Any “Christ” reference would require treatment of the Jewish Messiah tradition, but Josephus gives none and seems to avoid the subject entirely. He should have preferred to identify Jesus by referring to his crucifixion by Pilate.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]5. Was the reference to Jesus a marginal gloss? - In the absence of any descriptive phrase for James, a marginal gloss would have been natural, and the phrase referring to Jesus has that shape and character. The copyist might have mimicked Matthew 1:16 as an affirmation that Jesus had been the Messiah. (A marginal gloss may be superfluous in view of No. 9.)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]6. Did Josephus refer to James as “brother of the Lord”? - Josephus may originally have referred to James as “brother of the Lord,” as Paul does in Galatians 1:19, this perhaps being a widely-used cognomen of James as head of the Jerusalem brotherhood, one Josephus may have been familiar with and even understood as referring to God. Being in a non-Christian work, it may have been changed to reflect the new historical reality of Jesus with a more general audience in mind. (This is no longer my preferred option.)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]7. James as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem - The “lost reference” to James’ death as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem contained the identical phrase about Jesus that we have in Antiquities 20. This may have been the source of Origen’s “brother of Jesus” phrase and not Antiquities 20, leaving only Eusebius is a witness to it before our extant manuscripts.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]8. What was the source of the “lost reference” idea? - The James-Jerusalem link is almost impossible to accept as a Jewish product, since James was a Christian and it would imply that Christianity was supported by God; nor would Jews have been likely to heap that kind of condemnation on themselves. Eusebius’ report that Jews believed this does not seem to refer to his own time, and would be unreliable for an earlier period.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]9. Did Christians originate the James-Jerusalem link? - Instead, it makes better sense that Christians originated it, as a (perhaps taunting) explanation for the Jews’ misfortune. They could choose James’ death rather than Jesus’ crucifixion because the idea of an historical Jesus had not yet developed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]10. Could Josephus have written the James-Jerusalem link? - The idea contradicts Josephus’ own account of James’ death, and would have impelled much fuller treatment of James had he caused such a dramatic effect. Throughout his writings, Josephus identifies the causes of the Jewish War as the revolutionary movement and the actions of the governor Florus. For his gentile readers, he would have been unlikely to portray the Romans and his patron Flavians as pawns in the Jewish God’s retributive purposes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]11. Was there a dual interpolation of the “brother of Jesus” reference? - If the lost reference, with its “brother of Jesus” phrase is necessarily a Christian insertion, this increases the likelihood that the phrase in Antiquities 20 is an insertion as well. The best postulation is a process of imitation from the lost reference to Antiquities 20. (And see No. 3 above.)[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]12. Losing the lost reference - Rather than removal, I suggest that the manuscript lines which contained the lost reference died out, while other lines never had it.[/SIZE]
Tacitus is worthless; he is merely repeating what the Christian in 115 CE were saying or it is a Christian insertion. Regardless he writes almost a century after...
Non sequitur.Mark mentions the destruction of the Temple which occurred in 70 CE, it follows from that fact that 70 CE is also the earliest possible date for composition. It was probably composed even later.
That is because the ancients had the good sense not to question the historicity of Jesus.The Testimonium has nothing original to Josephus in it.
The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum.
You are obviously unaware of the fact that ancient Jews despised Josephus as a traitor. Josephus survived to write his texts only because he shrewdly ingratiated himself with Vespasian.The Dialog With Trypho the Jew, written about a hundred years after the death of Jesus, is Justin the Philosopher's account of a dialog between himself and a Jewish rabbi named Trypho. In it two men debated about whether Jesus was the promised Messiah. Justin makes no mention of the Testimonium in his efforts to persuade the rabbi, even though: (1) Justin was a noteworthy scholar and was known to have pored over the works of Josephus, whose Antiquities had been written fewer than fifty years earlier; (2) the passage was directly relevant to their discussion; (3) the rabbi would certainly have been impressed by a relevant evidentiary citation from the greatest known Jewish historian.
This is not difficult, so try to follow along. The ancients did not question the existence of Jesus Christ, so the original text (i.e., before the Christian glosses were added) would not have been of use to them.Justin also fails to mention the passage in his . In fact, the absence of references to the Testimonium is consistent throughout the work of the Christian writers and apologists of the years 100-300 A.D. It is never mentioned by any author of those two centuries, Christian or otherwise. This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (ca. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but contextual analysis indicates that it seems to have been unknown to Justin the Philosopher (ca. 140), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 192), Tertullian (ca. 193), and Origen (ca. 230), although each of them was acquainted with the work of Josephus.
I still don't understand, could you please give some examples? Because I completely see that they are related.The point is that Paul's Christ Jesus is wholly unrelated to the Gospel human Jesus....they are not the same figures...
Most Christians do.The point is that Paul never mentions an earthly ministry, virgin births, a slaughter of innocents, a trial by Pilate, healings, trips on donkeys...the only thing he talks about the death and ressurrection. If you read Paul carefull and don't read things into it you want to read and see you will see that his Christ Jesus has nothing to do with a recently crucified man in recent history. To him it all took place in a mythical realm like many of the deities worshipped in antiquity...I still don't understand, could you please give some examples? Because I completely see that they are related.
I still don't see it.Most Christians do.The point is that Paul never mentions an earthly ministry, virgin births, a slaughter of innocents, a trial by Pilate, healings, trips on donkeys...the only thing he talks about the death and ressurrection. If you read Paul carefull and don't read things into it you want to read and see you will see that his Christ Jesus has nothing to do with a recently crucified man in recent history. To him it all took place in a mythical realm like many of the deities worshipped in antiquity...
Most Christians do.The point is that Paul never mentions an earthly ministry, virgin births, a slaughter of innocents, a trial by Pilate, healings, trips on donkeys...the only thing he talks about the death and ressurrection. If you read Paul carefull and don't read things into it you want to read and see you will see that his Christ Jesus has nothing to do with a recently crucified man in recent history. To him it all took place in a mythical realm like many of the deities worshipped in antiquity...
Yes, I can't understand this line of thinking either. It doesn't make any sense to meso your point is that because Paul didnt write a Gospel then his Jesus isnt the same as the Jesus in the Gospels? thats absurd. Paul's epistles were largely for the purpose of correcting erros, not retelling the life of Jesus.
Strobel is bad; read http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-V...9843951?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185196398&sr=1-2I used to doubt this a lot too, but then I read the book 'A Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel, and it really helped meI recommend it to anyone struggling with this.
The truth will set you free...
Focus on faith and not the facts; that's how religion has always thriven and continues to thrive...Yeah, if you're an atheist
Strobel's book may not be perfect, but it's not bad. I personally would rather focus on the Faith and not argue about facts.
If you read Paul carefull and don't read things into it you want to read and see you will see that his Christ Jesus has nothing to do with a recently crucified man in recent history. To him it all took place in a mythical realm like many of the deities worshipped in antiquity...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?