What is my bias in this discussion? I have departed from fundamentalist views and as such don’t hold as high of a value on “textual criticism” or modern anthropology extrapolating truth from pottery shards in as high of a regard as I did while a cult member.
Thank you for pointing out that the author of the epistles to Timothy, who was pretending to be Paul, identified himself as Paul in the letter he wrote pretending to be Paul.
I was starting to question his competence.
On the who pretended to be whom front do you have any anthropological references on Pauline epistles? What are your sources?
There is a common storyline of Paul in prison verbally dictating letters to a scribe. Where does this fit in to forgery theories or allegations?
Indeed, the "he was Christ" was not quoted by Eusebius and others, but Steve Mason argues that it would not be unusual for Josephus to give nicknames to his characters, so, it's possible, but not probable. Christ means anointed. If Josephus wrote the disputed clause, it would be a nickname meaning "the smeared one."
Thank you. From sentence 4 the scholarly consensus if you have to call it that was that it has an “authentic nucleus” with interpolations.
Correct. I accept scholarly consensus on this one, but not because of the consensus. I am compelled by the arguments for it.
A few years ago I rejected the authenticity of TF, as Raf does now, not because it's contrarian or fringe, but because I was compelled by Carrier's argument.
Indeed, the "he was Christ" was not quoted by Eusebius and others, but Steve Mason argues that it would not be unusual for Josephus to give nicknames to his characters, so, it's possible, but not probable. Christ means anointed. If Josephus wrote the disputed clause, it would be a nickname meaning "the smeared one."
Well thankfully we have RC history to describe it in Latin, label it FT for obscurity, and assign a priest with a doctoral degree to safeguard it as “doctrine”.
I’ve read literary works translated from their original language to English. I think I miss a fair deal of context from just that. Chaucer might not communicate the same Over Google Translate.
Josephus from my impression - did he run a local Hebrew newspaper? It was all 3rd party info he described not direct interaction and contact.
Eusebius if I remember right was 2nd century I have to read up again on him it’s been a while. I think he supposedly quotes Josephus also. But I remember thinking when reading Eusebius that whoever writes down their opinion becomes the surviving view of the time. There were not multiple people writing with different viewpoints. I think the harmony of the gospels seems like the first attempt at a consolidated history.
Correct. I accept scholarly consensus on this one, but not because of the consensus. I am compelled by the arguments for it.
A few years ago I rejected the authenticity of TF, as Raf does now, not because it's contrarian or fringe, but because I was compelled by Carrier's argument.
So to clarify my bias I kinda rejected giving a f about a priests opinion written in Latin about a biased history account written around Christs lifetime.
Maybe this is a fundamentalist argument that I do not care about enough to give proper attention to all the arguments of the anthropologists dusting pottery shards.
I haven’t read Carrier all the way just a summary so I will to grasp that perspective.
Indeed, the "he was Christ" was not quoted by Eusebius and others, but Steve Mason argues that it would not be unusual for Josephus to give nicknames to his characters, so, it's possible, but not probable. Christ means anointed. If Josephus wrote the disputed clause, it would be a nickname meaning "the smeared one."
So the Google translate of the 2nd century did a real bad job translating jokes?
I guess that is why TWI latched onto George Lamsa and the other manners and customs guy so hard. Any language departing from the direct description and going into ideology or myth or stories doesn’t translate well at all.
And vague language gives plenty of room for extreme interpretation.
And extreme fundamentalist interpretation is where VP lived breathed and made his fortune off of unsuspecting dupes like us.
Well thankfully we have RC history to describe it in Latin, label it FT for obscurity, and assign a priest with a doctoral degree to safeguard it as “doctrine”.
I’ve read literary works translated from their original language to English. I think I miss a fair deal of context from just that. Chaucer might not communicate the same Over Google Translate.
Josephus from my impression - did he run a local Hebrew newspaper? It was all 3rd party info he described not direct interaction and contact.
Eusebius if I remember right was 2nd century I have to read up again on him it’s been a while. I think he supposedly quotes Josephus also. But I remember thinking when reading Eusebius that whoever writes down their opinion becomes the surviving view of the time. There were not multiple people writing with different viewpoints. I think the harmony of the gospels seems like the first attempt at a consolidated history.
Yes, Eusebius quotes Josephus. Josephus was not the only historian of the time. There was also Tacitus who mentions Christos (or did he misspell it Chrespus).
Josephus is not the only evidence. It's one piece of a historical picture. The topic is On the Historicity of Jesus.
Methodologies used in doing history are not the same methodologies employed for theology.
The point about the harmony of the gospels! Yes. But do they harmonize? I think historians point to the disharmony and contradictions as reasons to question the historicity.
So the Google translate of the 2nd century did a real bad job translating jokes?
I guess that is why TWI latched onto George Lamsa and the other manners and customs guy so hard. Any language departing from the direct description and going into ideology or myth or stories doesn’t translate well at all.
And vague language gives plenty of room for extreme interpretation.
And extreme fundamentalist interpretation is where VP lived breathed and made his fortune off of unsuspecting dupes like us.
To be clear. "The smeared one" is Steve Mason's phrasing of what Josephus might have meant if he actually wrote the clause. Greek was not Josephus' first language. Not every Jew at that time would have been expecting and looking for the messiah. Christos in other Ancient Greek texts meant the smearing, as of plaster, according to Mason.
Josephus was a historian and propagandist for the Flavians. He wasn't writing scripture.
Yes, Eusebius quotes Josephus. Josephus was not the only historian of the time. There was also Tacitus who mentions Christos (or did he misspell it Chrespus).
Josephus is not the only evidence. It's one piece of a historical picture. The topic is On the Historicity of Jesus.
Methodologies used in doing history are not the same methodologies employed for theology.
The point about the harmony of the gospels! Yes. But do they harmonize? I think historians point to the disharmony and contradictions as reasons to question the historicity.
Yeah and also we have the VPW “new and improved harmony of the gospels 2.0” in the book written by Charlene’s co-workers “Jesus Christ Our Passover”.
The lack of harmony produced a gap allowing Metallica to insert a band in there and make their own harmony with “Enter the Sandman” and “Nothing Else Matters”.
As an obscure reference, this also won’t translate lol
To be clear. "The smeared one" is Steve Mason's phrasing of what Josephus might have meant if he actually wrote the clause. Greek was not Josephus' first language. Not every Jew at that time would have been expecting and looking for the messiah. Christos in other Ancient Greek texts meant the smearing of plaster, according to Mason.
Josephus was a historian and propagandist for the Flavians. He wasn't writing scripture.
Ok so we have an immigrant who doesn’t speak the common language writing history in the new language. And he might have mixed in a few inappropriate colloquialisms like me learning all the cuss words in Spanish first? And we don’t see any problems here with arriving at “sola scripture” through external sources?
Sheesh the first 100 yards of this walk is nothing but garbage laying around.
Josephus from my impression - did he run a local Hebrew newspaper? It was all 3rd party info he described not direct interaction and contact.
That is my understanding, but that's how history was done back then. Third party transmission from authority was the primary method. That in itself should be cause for questions
That is my understanding, but that's how history was done back then. Third party transmission from authority was the primary method. That in itself should be cause for questions
3rd party from the authority.
Its the North Korea News Network
oh the dictator is so smart, accomplished, beautiful, desired, intelligent. Long live the dictator.
And we don’t see any problems here with arriving at “sola scripture” through external sources
Sorry. I am missing something. Probably the joke. My fault, I'm sure. Sola Scriptura is a theological doctrines.... but we're talking about history, right?
Sorry. I am missing something. Probably the joke. My fault, I'm sure. Sola Scriptura is a theological doctrines.... but we're talking about history, right?
The essence is questioning the reliability of Josephus given nobody claims divine inspiration for his writings but many want to squeeze that last bit of profit making juice out of scriptural writing.
The essence is questioning the reliability of Josephus given nobody claims divine inspiration for his writings but many want to squeeze that last bit of profit making juice out of scriptural writing.
If Josephus or anyone else claimed his writings to be divinely inspired, I would be even more skeptical.
I've said many times here on GSC: The one who claims to speak for God is surely the one who does not.
I apply that to victor and to any charlatan wearing that glove and also to those with misapprehensions and mental illnesses. And it is one of many reasons why I question Saul of Taurus.
If Josephus or anyone else claimed his writings to be divinely inspired, I would be even more skeptical.
I've said many times here on GSC: The one who claims to speak for God is surely the one who does not.
I apply that to victor and any charlatan wearing that glove and also to those with misapprehensions and mental illnesses. And it is one of many reasons why I question Saul of Taurus.
Saul of Tarsus could become the linchpin in someone’s faith I guess.
I mean if you just compare surface stories it might show similarities between Saul of Tarsus, Joseph of Utah, and Victor of Ohio.
Should we do a harmony of the meeting Jesus stories?
I can imagine how badly talked about Paul was in his day.
Easy to do so for anyone familiar with human nature and how challenging accepted orthodoxies can cause massive consternation. I suspect that's not substantially different now than it was two millennia ago.
I suspect those talking badly of Paul were in the minority, limited to a few orthodox sects of Judaism. Maybe even those who received the secret teachings directly from Jesus himself did, also. Or maybe they ignored him as they ignored all the other apocalyptic preachers who just knew that they knew that they knew God’s timeline.
I might say, poor Paul…
….But Paul won!
Even among the various Christian sects, later called heretics like the Marcionites and gnostics, Paul was championed.
So, I won’t say, poor Paul. He got what I suspect he always wanted: the last word.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
60
36
29
24
Popular Days
Feb 25
41
Feb 27
25
Mar 3
17
Feb 29
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 60 posts
cman 36 posts
chockfull 29 posts
Nathan_Jr 24 posts
Popular Days
Feb 25 2024
41 posts
Feb 27 2024
25 posts
Mar 3 2024
17 posts
Feb 29 2024
12 posts
Popular Posts
cman
I doubt your conclusions Raf, though I respect your right to voice them.
Rocky
Hallelujah!
Nathan_Jr
Been thinking about why Peter and James didn't squash Paul. Who knows... Maybe because they had received intimate, secret training. Maybe they had been taught to guard the secrets and were warned
Posted Images
chockfull
Thank you. From sentence 4 the scholarly consensus if you have to call it that was that it has an “authentic nucleus” with interpolations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What is my bias in this discussion? I have departed from fundamentalist views and as such don’t hold as high of a value on “textual criticism” or modern anthropology extrapolating truth from pottery shards in as high of a regard as I did while a cult member.
Disclosure statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
On the who pretended to be whom front do you have any anthropological references on Pauline epistles? What are your sources?
There is a common storyline of Paul in prison verbally dictating letters to a scribe. Where does this fit in to forgery theories or allegations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Indeed, the "he was Christ" was not quoted by Eusebius and others, but Steve Mason argues that it would not be unusual for Josephus to give nicknames to his characters, so, it's possible, but not probable. Christ means anointed. If Josephus wrote the disputed clause, it would be a nickname meaning "the smeared one."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Correct. I accept scholarly consensus on this one, but not because of the consensus. I am compelled by the arguments for it.
A few years ago I rejected the authenticity of TF, as Raf does now, not because it's contrarian or fringe, but because I was compelled by Carrier's argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well thankfully we have RC history to describe it in Latin, label it FT for obscurity, and assign a priest with a doctoral degree to safeguard it as “doctrine”.
I’ve read literary works translated from their original language to English. I think I miss a fair deal of context from just that. Chaucer might not communicate the same Over Google Translate.
Josephus from my impression - did he run a local Hebrew newspaper? It was all 3rd party info he described not direct interaction and contact.
Eusebius if I remember right was 2nd century I have to read up again on him it’s been a while. I think he supposedly quotes Josephus also. But I remember thinking when reading Eusebius that whoever writes down their opinion becomes the surviving view of the time. There were not multiple people writing with different viewpoints. I think the harmony of the gospels seems like the first attempt at a consolidated history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So to clarify my bias I kinda rejected giving a f about a priests opinion written in Latin about a biased history account written around Christs lifetime.
Maybe this is a fundamentalist argument that I do not care about enough to give proper attention to all the arguments of the anthropologists dusting pottery shards.
I haven’t read Carrier all the way just a summary so I will to grasp that perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So the Google translate of the 2nd century did a real bad job translating jokes?
I guess that is why TWI latched onto George Lamsa and the other manners and customs guy so hard. Any language departing from the direct description and going into ideology or myth or stories doesn’t translate well at all.
And vague language gives plenty of room for extreme interpretation.
And extreme fundamentalist interpretation is where VP lived breathed and made his fortune off of unsuspecting dupes like us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Yes, Eusebius quotes Josephus. Josephus was not the only historian of the time. There was also Tacitus who mentions Christos (or did he misspell it Chrespus).
Josephus is not the only evidence. It's one piece of a historical picture. The topic is On the Historicity of Jesus.
Methodologies used in doing history are not the same methodologies employed for theology.
The point about the harmony of the gospels! Yes. But do they harmonize? I think historians point to the disharmony and contradictions as reasons to question the historicity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
To be clear. "The smeared one" is Steve Mason's phrasing of what Josephus might have meant if he actually wrote the clause. Greek was not Josephus' first language. Not every Jew at that time would have been expecting and looking for the messiah. Christos in other Ancient Greek texts meant the smearing, as of plaster, according to Mason.
Josephus was a historian and propagandist for the Flavians. He wasn't writing scripture.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah and also we have the VPW “new and improved harmony of the gospels 2.0” in the book written by Charlene’s co-workers “Jesus Christ Our Passover”.
The lack of harmony produced a gap allowing Metallica to insert a band in there and make their own harmony with “Enter the Sandman” and “Nothing Else Matters”.
As an obscure reference, this also won’t translate lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ok so we have an immigrant who doesn’t speak the common language writing history in the new language. And he might have mixed in a few inappropriate colloquialisms like me learning all the cuss words in Spanish first? And we don’t see any problems here with arriving at “sola scripture” through external sources?
Sheesh the first 100 yards of this walk is nothing but garbage laying around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
That is my understanding, but that's how history was done back then. Third party transmission from authority was the primary method. That in itself should be cause for questions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
3rd party from the authority.
Its the North Korea News Network
oh the dictator is so smart, accomplished, beautiful, desired, intelligent. Long live the dictator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Sorry. I am missing something. Probably the joke. My fault, I'm sure. Sola Scriptura is a theological doctrines.... but we're talking about history, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Yeah. Reliability should be rightfully questioned.
Ironically, this goes to the heart of why mythicists doubt the historicity of Jesus. And I can understand that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The essence is questioning the reliability of Josephus given nobody claims divine inspiration for his writings but many want to squeeze that last bit of profit making juice out of scriptural writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If Josephus or anyone else claimed his writings to be divinely inspired, I would be even more skeptical.
I've said many times here on GSC: The one who claims to speak for God is surely the one who does not.
I apply that to victor and to any charlatan wearing that glove and also to those with misapprehensions and mental illnesses. And it is one of many reasons why I question Saul of Taurus.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Saul of Tarsus could become the linchpin in someone’s faith I guess.
I mean if you just compare surface stories it might show similarities between Saul of Tarsus, Joseph of Utah, and Victor of Ohio.
Should we do a harmony of the meeting Jesus stories?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Or we could compare victor’s letters to “his corps” with those Paul wrote to his more problematic ekklesiae.
A tone of whiny passive-aggression pervades both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I can imagine how badly talked about Paul was in his day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Easy to do so for anyone familiar with human nature and how challenging accepted orthodoxies can cause massive consternation. I suspect that's not substantially different now than it was two millennia ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the ugly side of human nature
"accepted orthodoxies" has nothing to do with it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I suspect those talking badly of Paul were in the minority, limited to a few orthodox sects of Judaism. Maybe even those who received the secret teachings directly from Jesus himself did, also. Or maybe they ignored him as they ignored all the other apocalyptic preachers who just knew that they knew that they knew God’s timeline.
I might say, poor Paul…
….But Paul won!
Even among the various Christian sects, later called heretics like the Marcionites and gnostics, Paul was championed.
So, I won’t say, poor Paul. He got what I suspect he always wanted: the last word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.