GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1089899964
From: (John Ravilious)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 15 Jul 2004 06:59:24 -0700
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Thursday, 15 July, 2004
Dealing strictly with issues chronological here -
You gave dates for the Book of Mark and Paul's Letters as being
written 'about 60 BCE' and 'from the 50s BCE'. I assume you meant
'CE' in these cases, as BCE ['Before the Common Era'] would, if
correct, imply major historical and theological problems.....
(Martin E. Hollick) wrote in message news:<>...
> That is not quite true. The interpolation as you put it, was not by
> Josephus, who does mention Jesus, but by the medieval monks who upon
> reading the manuscripts added things like "Son of God" and "Messiah, "
> etc. and thus today we cannot be really sure what Josephus actually
> had to say on the subject.
> However, for historical evidence you need to account for the gospels
> and Paul's Letters themselves as historical documents. The Book of
> Mark was written about 60 BCE and Paul's Letters date from the 50s
> BCE. Not to include these documents as historical evidence would be
> as narrow-minded as believing they are the words of God. The truth
> lies somewhere in between, wouldn't you say?
> (Francisco Antonio Doria) wrote in message news:<>...
> > No, there is no historical evidence; just an
> > interpolation in Josephus, IIRR - an obvious one, btw.
> > I think that we deal with Him through a composite of
> > several figures, and the contradiction I've pointed
> > out - a rabbi who is single - might arise from that
> > fact.
> > This is just conjecture, let me add.
> > fa
|Re: Jesus by (John Ravilious)|