Blood Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 Bible Scholars haven't pointed it out because they're theologians, and they desperately want and need Josephus to refer to Jesus Christ. I believe G.A. Wells did notice it, and of course Carrier has written extensively about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 Bible Scholars haven't pointed it out because they're theologians, and they desperately want and need Josephus to refer to Jesus Christ. I believe G.A. Wells did notice it, and of course Carrier has written extensively about it. Thanks. It's good to hear that a couple have mentioned it. In what little looking I did online a while back, I never saw anyone address it. When things slow down at work I'll have to try to set aside some time to read some of Wells and Carrier's writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted July 20, 2016 Author Share Posted July 20, 2016 Dr Tom Dykstra has a new peer reviewed article... From Richard Carrier... Dykstra on Ehrman & Brodie "Dykstra also opens with a good brief on the Thomas Thompson parallel (which ended in the field’s acceptance of OT mythicism), illustrating how Ehrman’s (and McGrath’s) threats to destroy the career of anyone who even tries arguing against historicity in the field have a frightening precedent in biblical studies that scholars today are still embarrassed by. Even more material on that comes up later as well (pp. 20-21)." “Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship,” "If you apply criteria that help determine intertextual relationships and reach the conclusion that Mark was created by reworking Pauline epistles and Old Testament texts, and if he was writing in a genre characterized by historicized fiction, that changes your whole approach to interpreting Mark. It forces you to recognize that the text does not have a historical focus, but rather has a didactic or polemical focus. The Gospel was written in order to build or strengthen a community and tell people how to behave within that community. It was written to provide an authoritative argument against opposing views of how the community should be constituted. History, if present at all, is taking a back seat to making a point. Even if you find that something in Mark is historical, that doesn’t reflect on the historicity of everything else in it. (pp. 17-18)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Dr Tom Dykstra has a new peer reviewed article... From Richard Carrier... Dykstra on Ehrman & Brodie "Dykstra also opens with a good brief on the Thomas Thompson parallel (which ended in the field’s acceptance of OT mythicism), illustrating how Ehrman’s (and McGrath’s) threats to destroy the career of anyone who even tries arguing against historicity in the field have a frightening precedent in biblical studies that scholars today are still embarrassed by. Even more material on that comes up later as well (pp. 20-21)." “Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship,” "If you apply criteria that help determine intertextual relationships and reach the conclusion that Mark was created by reworking Pauline epistles and Old Testament texts, and if he was writing in a genre characterized by historicized fiction, that changes your whole approach to interpreting Mark. It forces you to recognize that the text does not have a historical focus, but rather has a didactic or polemical focus. The Gospel was written in order to build or strengthen a community and tell people how to behave within that community. It was written to provide an authoritative argument against opposing views of how the community should be constituted. History, if present at all, is taking a back seat to making a point. Even if you find that something in Mark is historical, that doesn’t reflect on the historicity of everything else in it. (pp. 17-18)" The links don't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted July 22, 2016 Author Share Posted July 22, 2016 Dr Tom Dykstra has a new peer reviewed article... From Richard Carrier... Dykstra on Ehrman & Brodie "Dykstra also opens with a good brief on the Thomas Thompson parallel (which ended in the field’s acceptance of OT mythicism), illustrating how Ehrman’s (and McGrath’s) threats to destroy the career of anyone who even tries arguing against historicity in the field have a frightening precedent in biblical studies that scholars today are still embarrassed by. Even more material on that comes up later as well (pp. 20-21)." “Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship,” "If you apply criteria that help determine intertextual relationships and reach the conclusion that Mark was created by reworking Pauline epistles and Old Testament texts, and if he was writing in a genre characterized by historicized fiction, that changes your whole approach to interpreting Mark. It forces you to recognize that the text does not have a historical focus, but rather has a didactic or polemical focus. The Gospel was written in order to build or strengthen a community and tell people how to behave within that community. It was written to provide an authoritative argument against opposing views of how the community should be constituted. History, if present at all, is taking a back seat to making a point. Even if you find that something in Mark is historical, that doesn’t reflect on the historicity of everything else in it. (pp. 17-18)" The links don't work. Really weird...Here is a new link. Dykstra on Ehrman and Brodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Jesus the Son & God the Father both exist, but only in the minds of believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.B. Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 I wonder how many of these scholars have ever taken into account the idea that "Christianity" is not the religion that Jesus taught, if one takes his words in the bible as legit. Christianity, including all of its insistence upon HUMAN blood sacrifice, it's adoption of and acceptance of pagan practices not limited to idolatry and priestcraft, is an entirely Gnostic/Gentile/pagan exercise. Jesus, if he really existed, would no more have approved of people praying to the ghost of his mother than he would have approved of eating pork. The assemblies of so-called believers (all of whom were Jews or converts to Judaism) were driven out of the synagogues and ultimately out of Jerusalem entirely. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 Ad, the entire old sacrificial system was done away with - and in its place, in both Jewish and Gentile assemblies, were individual meeting places and entirely new systems of "worship", because the leaders had to come up with new traditions now that their ties to the source material were severed completely. It's easy to see that any historical Jesus was NOT the magical man we read about in the Bible, but that the stories had to be overlaid onto a character. The rulers of the new magical priestcraft religion had to justify their existence and their authority somehow, so they took the magical stories that were concocted by their people, gave the authors Jewish names and "disciple/apostle" backstories, and then grandfathered themselves into authority - with power to CHOOSE which of the magical stories are "canon" and which are not. See how it works? We have the power to choose what you will read and believe or not - after all, see here where the book says Peter is the Rock on which Jesus will build his church? Well, he's clearly talking about US, since we are the ones who say that Peter founded our church! Now play nice, or we won't say the magic spells for you - and then you don't get to eat the magic cookie - and WOE unto him who eateth not of the magic zombie cookie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts