GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1089978611


From: "Barrie J. Wright" <>
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:20:11 +0930
References: <20040715101224.2459.qmail@web41701.mail.yahoo.com>


Dear Francisco [re Martin],

I am puzzled how you know that it is 'an obvious
> interpolation, the whole reference' [to Jesus].
Are you an expert on these ancient texts?

You must be one of the very few who have come to the conclusion
that Josephus -who was in a very good position in his whole career to
know something of Jesus - did not in ANY way comment on him.
It might be thought strange if he hadn't alluded to him, even if his own
words were added to later by pious Christians.
You are alleging Christian fraud, without any proof.

I am even more puzzled that, as a genealogist, you believe:

> I'm not saying that Jesus never existed; on the
> contrary, what I'm saying is that the historical Jesus
> was an amalgam of several historical individuals.

Uuhhh?
[I am aware of the ironic use of 'historical Jesus' by sceptics]
So three or more goes into one 'historical person'??
Cloning in reverse?
Postmodernist Gobbledegook

Anyway, Which, exactly??

As others have written, if you reject the evidence of four gospels,
all written and agreeing on the same individual, most before about 70 AD,
still in the lifetime of his immediate disciples, plus the writings of Paul
[about 50AD+] and the Acts by Luke, who both give accounts of
the local followers of the same singular person, you need to come up
with some contemporary documents that fudge the issue- that present
SOME alternative historical figures as convincing candidates.

Yet we don't even know any of the 'Essene' sect as individuals, only
some well-known zealots that the gospels even allude to openly, and
so distinguish from Jesus. There were plenty of strong opponents of
young Christianity then -are you saying you know relevant contradictory
texts - pointing to an 'amalgam'? Any sceptical texts - even ONE?

Your argument is merely from silence -hardly convincing.
Please don't cite Gnostic 'gospels' dated some 200 years later.
Even these trade on the one historical gospel figure, with very
obvious distortions.
The idea that the four gospels' Jesus must have had multiple 'creative
contributors' building a fictional 'tradition' over just a few decades is
itself
an unsupported and highly unlikely conspiracy theory, popular though it has
been with fanciful scholars.
Are you living in a sort of Bultmannian 1950s, a highly imaginative
scholarly past?

With the popularity of Da Vinci Code excesses et al, this is unfortunately
a rather relevant discussion right now.
Genealogists are supposed to respect [near] contemporary documents
and avoid conspiracy theories lacking any decent evidence at all.

By the way, the gospels do NOT claim Jesus was a formal rabbi -just that
he spoke and had the authority expected not only of a teacher [rabbi], but
of a prophet too. He never is said to have had a strong local base or
synagogue, just that he attended one. The authors obviously knew as much
about the relevant rules for rabbis as you do, don't you think? That's a
very
reasonable reason why they didn't claim he was one, even though it might
have
helped his cause among many Jews if they had done so. Read the end of
'John'.
He values truth highly, as you might expect of a disciple.

And Jesus was probably middle class [from a family of home
builders/carpenters]
and so educated and possibly Greek-speaking as a second language too, like
Peter
and Co, the well-off boat-owning fishmongers [one of these exhumed large
boats is
on display in Israel, as you may know].

If all else fails, just read the texts themselves. Easy to come by anywhere.

Barrie Wright

PS
This reminds me of the multiple authorship claims for 'Shakespeare' - in
both cases
quite enough good facts exist to convince reasonable people, but it takes
all sorts....
[If you're wondering, I have degrees in both English literature and
theology]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Antonio Doria" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Jesus


> Dear Martin,
>
> This definitely is far from my current interests, but
> let me stress why I said that. It was in the 60s, when
> Joel Carmichael published his book _The Death of
> Jesus_, which plagiarizes Robert Eisler's ideas. I was
> in the late teens, into the zen/religion thing (it was
> the 60s) and avidly read Carmichael's piece.
>
> I then went out to check all of Carmichael's
> arguments. Some of them fail (he mentions ``pais tou
> theou'' - child/servant of God - while the quote is in
> fact huios tou theou - Son of God), but there were a
> few quite intriguing one, like the unmarried rabbi
> thing - a possibility, but an aberration - plus
> Yehoshua bar Abba, which is unexplained in ordinary
> exegesis, and finally the Josephus interpolation. I
> went there and looked for myself - it's an obvious
> interpolation, the whole reference.
>
> I'm not saying that Jesus never existed; on the
> contrary, what I'm saying is that the historical Jesus
> was an amalgam of several historical individuals.
>
> fa
>
> --- "Martin E. Hollick" <> escreveu: >
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail agora com 100MB, anti-spam e antivírus grátis!
> http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> ______________________________



This thread: