spin wrote:
You misunderstand the notion of "manipulated past". Your facile notion of inaccurate records doesn't cut it. We are dealing with Josephus and Tacitus supposedly bearing witness to Jesus, not the mishmash of developing christian traditions. Josephus has been falsified, a fact that is beyond denial. At least part of the TF is accepted by the vast majority of scholars as being fake.

Ok so, the vast majority of scholars accept a small portion was altered

I think those who go for the partial acceptance are simply apologetically arbitrary.

But these same scholars (if youre going to refer to them as avast majority) who are quite aware of the small corruption and better skilled than you or I dont see what you imagine is there. They don't agree with you on the extent of the corruption, and for some pretty good reasons too.
If you think it is arbitary then you dont know the meaning of the word arbitrary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary

People who disagree with you "don't understand"...they have "facile notions"....And so the insults come out.
The whole thing has been gone over in the other thread. You came off second best, but so what? You just don't have sufficient evidence to convince. If the evidence in insuffcicient then there is no shame in that.

One can find you week after week, month after month year after year in forum after forum posting on this same topic. As it has been gone over in a still active thread, why now start a "poll" on it? You seem to be providing evidence for the claim made about you in the other thread about being obessive.

The cultural influence of chrsitianity is an area where there are genuine problems. Why put so much energy into this dead horse.
What are you hoping to gain? What good are you hoping to do?

magikrooster wrote:

spin wrote:
You misunderstand the notion of "manipulated past". Your facile notion of inaccurate records doesn't cut it. We are dealing with Josephus and Tacitus supposedly bearing witness to Jesus, not the mishmash of developing christian traditions. Josephus has been falsified, a fact that is beyond denial. At least part of the TF is accepted by the vast majority of scholars as being fake.

Ok so, the vast majority of scholars accept a small portion was altered

I think those who go for the partial acceptance are simply apologetically arbitrary.

But these same scholars (if youre going to refer to them as avast majority) who are quite aware of the small corruption and better skilled than you or I dont see what you imagine is there. They don't agree with you on the extent of the corruption, and for some pretty good reasons too.
If you think it is arbitary then you dont know the meaning of the word arbitrary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary

An art collector has a rarely seen Canaletto painting which has been damaged so that the surface has lost an area of paint. The collector hires an expert to reconstruct the surface area lost so that the damage doesn't cause loss of value in an eventual sale. The expert knows how to apply the appropriately aged oils and their composition, and is an excellent painter in his own right, so he is able to give the painting the appearance of being the intact item, working from photos of Venice. However, the independent evaluator notes a tiny anachronism due to a known architectural change in a Venetian building seen in the painting. This leads to the collector admitting that a tiny section of the painting was restored. The logic is copping to a smaller crime to get away with a bigger one. How can one tell just how much of the painting is actually the work of the "restorer"? The only reason we know there is a problem is through the expertise of the evaluator, who spotted one problem, but we do not know the extend of the new work. Would you be happy to assume the collector selling the painting is telling the truth?

It is not sufficient to point to the problems that present themselves and assume that these mark the limit of the secondary effort. One gets lucky and spots a problem. Had there been nothing to catch the eye, one would never have been aware of anything. But that eye catcher poser a problem in itself: how does one know the extent. Being satisfied that it is limited to the noted problems is arbitrary.

magikrooster wrote:

spin wrote:

I think those who go for the partial acceptance are simply apologetically arbitrary.

But these same scholars (if youre going to refer to them as avast majority) who are quite aware of the small corruption and better skilled than you or I dont see what you imagine is there. They don't agree with you on the extent of the corruption, and for some pretty good reasons too.
If you think it is arbitary then you dont know the meaning of the word arbitrary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary

A point I've raised with spin before. He's offered no substantive explanation of why the Josephus reconstruction is "arbitrary", beyond the fact that spin thinks it is.

As your link notes, something that's arbitrary is something that proceeds according to whim. The Josephus reconstruction proceeds according to a stated method -- removing content which attributes Christian beliefs of Josephus -- and ipso facto it isn't arbitrary. Spin can certainly argue that it's wrong, but the arbitrariness claim makes no sense. In light of spin's demands for linguistic preciseness, I'm surprised by the error.

spin wrote:Being satisfied that it is limited to the noted problems is arbitrary.

So, confining ourselves only to suspecting interpolation where there is evidence for interpolation is...arbitrary?

Proceeding according to a stated methodology is apparently "arbitrary", so it's at least a consistent view ... whatever the view is!

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

spin wrote:Being satisfied that it is limited to the noted problems is arbitrary.

So, confining ourselves only to suspecting interpolation where there is evidence for interpolation is...arbitrary?

...Tasteless image omitted...

The use of an image of a person with Down's doesn't make you witty or humorous, just distasteful.

Byron wrote:

magikrooster wrote:

spin wrote:

But these same scholars (if youre going to refer to them as avast majority) who are quite aware of the small corruption and better skilled than you or I dont see what you imagine is there. They don't agree with you on the extent of the corruption, and for some pretty good reasons too.
If you think it is arbitary then you dont know the meaning of the word arbitrary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary

A point I've raised with spin before. He's offered no substantive explanation of why the Josephus reconstruction is "arbitrary", beyond the fact that spin thinks it is.

As your link notes, something that's arbitrary is something that proceeds according to whim. The Josephus reconstruction proceeds according to a stated method -- removing content which attributes Christian beliefs of Josephus -- and ipso facto it isn't arbitrary. Spin can certainly argue that it's wrong, but the arbitrariness claim makes no sense. In light of spin's demands for linguistic preciseness, I'm surprised by the error.

Putting aside Byron's ramblings, how does one know where the partial interpolation in the Testimonium Flavianum ends? We know what the evidence is for the text containing interpolated material, but is there any reason to decide that the interpolater could only produce problematic material? There is no logical reason to conclude such a thing. In fact there is no way of knowing the extent of the interpolation, though we know that it is at least as big as the evidence and no bigger than the passage itself.

spin wrote:Putting aside Byron's ramblings ...

Breezy assertion: easy. Explaining how a method-governed edit is "arbitrary": not so much.

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:Putting aside Byron's ramblings ...

Breezy assertion: easy. Explaining how a method-governed edit is "arbitrary": not so much.

OK, it seems you are just beyond hope. You get the dejuror treatment.

If anyone else is still interested in the evaluation of the TF, I posed the question of how one can know where the interpolation ends. If you have a response I'll be pleased to read it.

If you can get hold of it there is an interesting survey of views on the TF in

Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), Walter de Gruyter, 1984

which shows the range of scholarly views in the time period given. You'll find that the problem of extent, just how one can know what is and what is not interpolation isn't enunciated well. If you can't say how you know something, the knowledge is dubious at best.

spin wrote:

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

spin wrote:Being satisfied that it is limited to the noted problems is arbitrary.

So, confining ourselves only to suspecting interpolation where there is evidence for interpolation is...arbitrary?

...Tasteless image omitted...

The use of an image of a person with Down's doesn't make you witty or humorous, just distasteful.

That sounds like a...personal comment.

Hmmm...


ETA: I'd have to say that my taste in "humorous" images is about as questionable as your judgment of arbitrariness...

spin wrote:

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:Putting aside Byron's ramblings ...

Breezy assertion: easy. Explaining how a method-governed edit is "arbitrary": not so much.

OK, it seems you are just beyond hope. You get the dejuror treatment.

You accuse me of rambling for criticizing a use of "arbitrary" you've yet to explain, and you're the one taking a tone?

Random Skeptic wrote:
Josephus mentions Jesus. Tacitus mentions the Christ. If these two are not good enough evidence for the HJ, then what is?

Arguments have moved way past the superficiality of "Josephus mentions Jesus. Tacitus mentions the Christ."

What is important is how they mention Jesus or the Christ - vaguely - and other peripheral issues. That has been discussed in many places on the web.

Why didn't both Josephus and Tacitus claim that he never existed if Jesus was a myth?

They hardly said he did exist. Tacitus refers to 'Chrestianos", and Josephus simply mainly refers to someone who was called the Christ, when Christ could simply mean annointed one or special one.

As outlined on the first page of this thread, the earliest surviving documents that outline Josephus and Tacitus date to the 11th Century, allowing for 1,000 years of 'editing'.

Where is the genuine evidence of an MJ?

There is plenty of evidence early stories, and other concurrent belief systems like docetism, etc., were steeped in a mythical being. Many have described how the stories were elaborated into a bodily figure of a real person, and how a second coming was promised to deal with the failure to produce a real figure.

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:

Byron wrote:
Breezy assertion: easy. Explaining how a method-governed edit is "arbitrary": not so much.

OK, it seems you are just beyond hope. You get the dejuror treatment.

You accuse me of rambling for criticizing a use of "arbitrary" you've yet to explain, and you're the one taking a tone?

Just typical misdirection of the born huckster -- which is what most mythies really are.

Stein

Gday,

willhud9 wrote:No, but why are biblical sources automatically chucked out the door when dealing with historical fact? No one has to trust anything. You reach conclusions based on facts gathered. I know that Paul of Tarsus wrote many letters to different cities, we have several of them. I know that there was a Jesus of Nazareth because of the gospels. Did they exaggerate? sure. Did they completely come up with Jesus out of thin fucking air? Most likely not.

Who said he was ?

The JMers do NOT claim Jesus was made up "out of thin air", as I have reminded you a dozen times or more.

What a pity you can't grasp that, after all this time.


K.

Gday,

Nicko wrote:For me, the most compelling argument for a historical Jesus is the obvious fabrications involved in having the dude born in Bethlehem. If someone was just going to make up the character of Jesus out of whole cloth,

The Jesus Myth Theory does NOT claim that Jesus' story was "made up out of whole cloth", as I have reminded posters here a dozen times or more....

What a pity HJers here still have no idea what the JM theory is about.


K.

Kapyong wrote:What a pity HJers here still have no idea what the JM theory is about.

If that's the case, please explain it. What is the JM theory all about?

Gday Byron and all,

Well, the specific issue I refer to here is about the basis for the Jesus stories.

There are 3 popular types of Jesus Myth theory :

1. Heavenly Jesus (e.g. Earl Doherty) - who argues the Jesus stories are largely based on the OT.

2. Astro-theology Jesus (e.g. AcharyaS) - who argues the Jesus stories are from astrology.

3. Fraud Jesus (e.g. Atwill) - who argues the Jesus stories are based on Julius Caesar.

NONE of them argue Jesus was made-up "out-of-thin-air".

But no matter how many times I point this out here, we still see endless repeats of this very straw-man - e.g. willhud dismissing JM theory because a Jesus made up "out of thin air" is not plausible! When no-one even argues that at all!

Indeed - one of the main points of the various Jesus Myth theories is that the Jesus stories were based on something prior!
A Jesus made-up "out of thin air" is a strawman - will willhud et al ever stop beating that drum I wonder?

I see essentially this argument repeated endlessly on the 'net :
Either it's real history, or it's all made-up "out of thin air" - therefore Jesus existed.


K.

Kapyong wrote:Gday Byron and all,

Well, the specific issue I refer to here is about the basis for the Jesus stories.

There are 3 popular types of Jesus Myth theory :

1. Heavenly Jesus (e.g. Earl Doherty) - who argues the Jesus stories are largely based on the OT.

2. Astro-theology Jesus (e.g. AcharyaS) - who argues the Jesus stories are from astrology.

3. Fraud Jesus (e.g. Atwill) - who argues the Jesus stories are based on Julius Caesar.

NONE of them argue Jesus was made-up "out-of-thin-air".

But no matter how many times I point this out here, we still see endless repeats of this very straw-man - e.g. willhud dismissing JM theory because a Jesus made up "out of thin air" is not plausible! When no-one even argues that at all!

The thing of it is is that I rarely see any of those taking a "myth" position defending any of those "theses" or anything else that could be graced with the name "theory". They content themselves with taking ill conceived potshots at the existing evidence without bothering to present a coherent explanation of their own.

Kapyong wrote:There are 3 popular types of Jesus Myth theory :

1. Heavenly Jesus (e.g. Earl Doherty) - who argues the Jesus stories are largely based on the OT.

2. Astro-theology Jesus (e.g. AcharyaS) - who argues the Jesus stories are from astrology.

3. Fraud Jesus (e.g. Atwill) - who argues the Jesus stories are based on Julius Caesar.

NONE of them argue Jesus was made-up "out-of-thin-air".

I personally wouldn't call Atwill a mythicist. His position is that it was made up based on Caesar--just as Sherlock Holmes was based on Joseph Bell--, hence no myth input. I'd call Atwill's (and Carotta's) position fictional. It still amounts to a non-historical figure, just not a myth theory.