Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Thoughts on this paragraph
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2011 - 1:59AM #1
Community.beliefnet.comstone
Posts: 180
I'm curious: What might be your takeaway from this paragraph?  What kinds of implications do you find in what the writer says, and can you give a detailed paraphrase of what's written here, please?



"There are earlier references, but they aren't any good. They either  just repeat what Christians were telling them -- Christians who were  just riffing on the New Testament -- or they're actually fabricated by  Christians themselves and the most famous example is a whole paragraph  in the early Jewish historian, Josephus, which nearly everyone agrees  was snuck into that book by a later Christian scribe, who was evidently  annoyed that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus, so when he copied the  book out he made sure to -- you know -- just add a paragraph. You  generally don't have to add paragraphs to other people's history books  for a guy who actually existed. Pretty much if you're inserting a guy  into history who wasn't there before, usually that means he really  wasn't there before. Now that leaves us just with the New Testament..."



Thank you,

Walther
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2011 - 10:59AM #2
teilhard
Posts: 51,872

Indeed the Documents we have are the Documents we have ... There are no known Photographs of "Jesus" or of any of The Apostles ... All we have are The Texts ... But we DO  HAVE them ...


As to whether "Josephus" was amended by later copyist-editors and when that may have happened and who they were and what their motives may have been -- THAT is nothing BUT sheer Speculation ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 26, 2011 - 2:35AM #3
whatson2nd
Posts: 2,936

 


The paragraph appears self explanatory, at least to me. Jesus appears to have gone completely un-noticed by non-Christians, there are no early non-Christian references to Jesus, nothing until well into the second century aside from the questionalble references to Christ in the works of Josephus that date to about 90CE.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 28, 2011 - 12:16PM #4
teilhard
Posts: 51,872

Western Cultures and Civilization took some sweet Time about it, but NOWADAYS, "Jesus" gets PLENTY of Attention ...


To be Fair, one could also note that it took The (outside; broader) World some Time ALSO to notice Lord Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, Greg Mendel, et al. ... This is not so much a Problem as a FACT ... MANY Artists go about their Work for DECADES in relative Obscurity -- and Poverty -- until they DIE ...


Feb 26, 2011 -- 2:35AM, whatson2nd wrote:


The paragraph appears self explanatory, at least to me. Jesus appears to have gone completely un-noticed by non-Christians, there are no early non-Christian references to Jesus, nothing until well into the second century aside from the questionalble references to Christ in the works of Josephus that date to about 90CE.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 7:13AM #5
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Out of context, Walther, and it is disingenuous to paraphrase (or quote, as you did,) out of context, but it deals with the fact (and it is a fact) that there is hardly any non-Christian reference to Jesus until the second century. In fact, there is no non-Christian reference until at least after Mark and Matthew were written, or if one wants to take a conservative view that the gospels were all written before about 85-90 ce there is no reference to Jesus until after them. Josephus "Antiquities" was in the nineties, Seutonius and Tacitus in the second century. There are problems with all three of these references, but if one takes a conservative view of the dating of the gospels, since all are after the writing, they very easily would have been merely looking at the gospels for their source, which leaves no early non-Christian sources.


There are no implications. Literate people interested in the historical Jesus have long noted this and those uninterested in the historical Jesus don't really care. Apologists (as we find in one of the frequent responders) will blubber on about how it doesn't matter... And, to Christians, it doesn't matter. They have absolutely nothing to do with a historical Jesus, hung up on their blood and guts eucharists, believing in rotting corpses coming to life, virgins giving birth, and the like. To them, there are no implications.


The three early references are of little consequence, as the author says. Even Josephus was written after Mark and around the same time as Matthew. As an aside, it is interesting that Luke/Acts is now seen as being written between 110-130, and as having used Josephus' Antiquities, with the original Markan Passion story coming from Josephus' Wars. Writers using what other writers wrote is a part of the literature of antiquity. There is nothing "sacred" in the "sacred texts."


Back in another week.


Feb 25, 2011 -- 1:59AM, Community.beliefnet.comstone wrote:

I'm curious: What might be your takeaway from this paragraph?  What kinds of implications do you find in what the writer says, and can you give a detailed paraphrase of what's written here, please?



"There are earlier references, but they aren't any good. They either just repeat what Christians were telling them -- Christians who were just riffing on the New Testament -- or they're actually fabricated by Christians themselves and the most famous example is a whole paragraph in the early Jewish historian, Josephus, which nearly everyone agrees was snuck into that book by a later Christian scribe, who was evidently annoyed that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus, so when he copied the book out he made sure to -- you know -- just add a paragraph. You generally don't have to add paragraphs to other people's history books for a guy who actually existed. Pretty much if you're inserting a guy into history who wasn't there before, usually that means he really wasn't there before. Now that leaves us just with the New Testament..."



Thank you,

Walther




Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 11:58AM #6
teilhard
Posts: 51,872

Yes ... So what ... ???


Neither do we have any Contemporaneous Accounts of The Life and Teachings of The Historical Lord Siddhartha Gautama Buddha (ca. 563 to ca. 483 B.C.E.) from OUTSIDE his Culture and Community ...


This is NOT a Problem ... It's just a FACT ...


hint: They didn't HAVE "Mass Communication" Technologies "back then" ... It is WILDLY Anachronistic to expect that a First-Century "CNN" would have had Correspondents traipsing around after The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth taking Notes and Photos ...


NEITHER, I'm sure, could any New York Times Reporters have interviewed The Historical Lord Siddhartha Gautama Buddha after His Enlightenment ...


Sheeeeesh ... !!!


Mar 1, 2011 -- 7:13AM, Dennis wrote:


... the fact (and it is a fact) that there is hardly any non-Christian reference to Jesus until the second century. In fact, there is no non-Christian reference until at least after Mark and Matthew were written, or if one wants to take a conservative view that the gospels were all written before about 85-90 ce there is no reference to Jesus until after them. Josephus "Antiquities" was in the nineties, Seutonius and Tacitus in the second century. There are problems with all three of these references, but if one takes a conservative view of the dating of the gospels, since all are after the writing, they very easily would have been merely looking at the gospels for their source, which leaves no early non-Christian sources.


There are no implications.

 


Feb 25, 2011 -- 1:59AM, Community.beliefnet.comstone wrote:

I'm curious: What might be your takeaway from this paragraph?  What kinds of implications do you find in what the writer says, and can you give a detailed paraphrase of what's written here, please?



"There are earlier references, but they aren't any good. They either just repeat what Christians were telling them -- Christians who were just riffing on the New Testament -- or they're actually fabricated by Christians themselves and the most famous example is a whole paragraph in the early Jewish historian, Josephus, which nearly everyone agrees was snuck into that book by a later Christian scribe, who was evidently annoyed that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus, so when he copied the book out he made sure to -- you know -- just add a paragraph. You generally don't have to add paragraphs to other people's history books for a guy who actually existed. Pretty much if you're inserting a guy into history who wasn't there before, usually that means he really wasn't there before. Now that leaves us just with the New Testament..."



Thank you,

Walther








Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 7:00PM #7
whatson2nd
Posts: 2,936

Unilike Siddartha there is nothing unique about the teachings attributed to a Jesus but I degress, this is not about Siddartha.


 


There are no non-Christian writings, nothing non biblical about Jesus until well into the second century. That silence speaks volumes in this case. The very historicity of Jesus becomes questionable, with the exception of die hard believers of course.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 7:35PM #8
teilhard
Posts: 51,872

And see, my Point -- which you seem to have missed -- is that it isn't a PROBLEM, but a FACT (of The HISTORY of Real-Life PERSONS), that even a SINGULAR Historical Person may not have attracted "outside" Notice INITIALLY ...


It WASN'T only The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth, but ALSO Lord Siddhartha Gautama Buddha who LATER (and, not that MUCH later) attracted the Interest of "Outsiders" ...


That FACT doesn't really get to the Question of The Historicity of those Singular Persons ...


THAT is my Point ...


Mar 1, 2011 -- 7:00PM, whatson2nd wrote:


Unilike Siddartha there is nothing unique about the teachings attributed to a Jesus but I degress, this is not about Siddartha.


 


There are no non-Christian writings, nothing non biblical about Jesus until well into the second century. That silence speaks volumes in this case. The very historicity of Jesus becomes questionable, with the exception of die hard believers of course.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 7:37PM #9
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Mar 1, 2011 -- 7:00PM, whatson2nd wrote:


Unilike Siddartha there is nothing unique about the teachings attributed to a Jesus but I degress, this is not about Siddartha.


 


There are no non-Christian writings, nothing non biblical about Jesus until well into the second century. That silence speaks volumes in this case. The very historicity of Jesus becomes questionable, with the exception of die hard believers of course.





Well stated... And, a critique of the "Historical Siddartha" will yield the same results as have those about the "Historical Jesus." It is interesting that, in comparing the data of no valid references to Siddhartha extant in his lifetime, if he had one, to data of Jesus, one tacitly admits that there are no valid references about Jesus outside the Xian literature. Comparing two diverse cultures is a slippery business, just right for slithering creatures who oft will fall in a hole of irrelevancy, as has Teil. As usual.


Teil, I am glad that you accept the non-Christian sources as invalid, or at least as irrelevant. Slowly but surely, you are beginning to learn. I realize it is at an infinitesimal rate, but keep hanging on in there. Surely, you can grasp some of this! I have faith (pistis)! 


Dennis


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 7:43PM #10
teilhard
Posts: 51,872

Who says that "Non-Christian" Historical Sources about "Jesus" (OR about Siddhartha) are "invalid" ... ???


I'm simply pointing out that their BEING "later" has  N-O-T-H-I-N-G  to do  -- AT  ALL -- with the "validity" Question ...


Again ... GOOD Scholarship on these such Questions MUST avoid The Anachronism of ASSUMING that ONLY "Modernity" is "valid" ...


Mar 1, 2011 -- 7:37PM, Dennis wrote:


Mar 1, 2011 -- 7:00PM, whatson2nd wrote:


Unilike Siddartha there is nothing unique about the teachings attributed to a Jesus but I degress, this is not about Siddartha.


There are no non-Christian writings, nothing non biblical about Jesus until well into the second century. That silence speaks volumes in this case. The very historicity of Jesus becomes questionable, with the exception of die hard believers of course.





Well stated... And, a critique of the "Historical Siddartha" will yield the same results as have those about the "Historical Jesus." It is interesting that, in comparing the data of no valid references to Siddhartha extant in his lifetime, if he had one, to data of Jesus, one tacitly admits that there are no valid references about Jesus outside the Xian literature. Comparing two diverse cultures is a slippery business, just right for slithering creatures who oft will fall in a hole of irrelevancy, as has Teil. As usual.


Teil, I am glad that you accept the non-Christian sources as invalid, or at least as irrelevant. Slowly but surely, you are beginning to learn. I realize it is at an infinitesimal rate, but keep hanging on in there. Surely, you can grasp some of this! I have faith (pistis)! 


Dennis


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook