No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[fallingblood]

Perhaps Eusebius came to realize that his biblical Jesus was actually a fictional character, and he decided to try to make him look legitimate by incorporating mention of him in the works of a respected first century historian who was not a Christian, thus supposedly providing some outside verification for the existence of Jesus. Perhaps Eusebius felt he had to add very affirmative passages because the biblical Jesus had supposedly been very convincing. Of course I am just speculating as I have no records with Eusebius explaining why he did what he did.

No one was doubting the existence of Jesus though. Even the opponents of Jesus and Christianity never even suggested that Jesus was not a historical figure. Simply, there was no suggestion that Jesus didn't exist. So why try to verify something that everyone already agreed upon? Why run when no one is chasing you?

To sum up, your argument makes no sense as no one was doubting that Jesus existed. We have no record of anyone doubting Jesus existed. It would not be until much much later that the idea would pop up.

 

[Quagmire]

Perhaps Eusebius came to realize that his biblical Jesus was actually a fictional character, and he decided to try to make him look legitimate by incorporating mention of him in the works of a respected first century historian who was not a Christian, thus supposedly providing some outside verification for the existence of Jesus. Perhaps Eusebius felt he had to add very affirmative passages because the biblical Jesus had supposedly been very convincing. Of course I am just speculating as I have no records with Eusebius explaining why he did what he did.

How does this address either of my questions?

Go back and look at my last post. Your post here is answering a question I didn't ask and ignoring the questions I did ask.

 

[Quagmire]

If I had not read it then how would I know about the sloppy attempts he made to try to supposedly prove his preconceptions?

Fairly sure you had this determination all set to go before you even clicked on it.

 

[Tellurian]

No one was doubting the existence of Jesus though. Even the opponents of Jesus and Christianity never even suggested that Jesus was not a historical figure. Simply, there was no suggestion that Jesus didn't exist. So why try to verify something that everyone already agreed upon? Why run when no one is chasing you?

To sum up, your argument makes no sense as no one was doubting that Jesus existed. We have no record of anyone doubting Jesus existed. It would not be until much much later that the idea would pop up.

O ya?!

Welcome to Enlightenment! ? Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

There are many gullible people throughout time and around the world who have believed that thousands of different gods have existed, but the more intelligent people are more skeptical and require some evidence, such as sources OUTSIDE of the religion supporting the religion's various beliefs.

Tellurian

 

[Quagmire]

Welcome to Enlightenment! ? Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth Humphreys


Tellurian

Sorry, you can't just post a link without adding your own commentary explaining what you see as it's relevence to the conversation.

Aside form the fact that it's a cop out, it's a rule violation.

 

[Tellurian]

Sorry, you can't just post a link without adding your own commentary explaining what you see as it's relevence to the conversation.

Aside form the fact that it's a cop out, it's a rule violation.

How do I go back and change a post so it conforms to that rule?

 

[Quagmire]

How do I go back and change a post so it conforms to that rule?

Use the edit button in the lower right corner of the post and then just add a line or two explaining the point you're trying to make with the link.

 

[godnotgod]

If you won't take the time to actually read what I write, or make an attempt at a logical discussion, I see no reason to continue to offer rebuttals to your information.

I read everything you write. Here you did not provide any reference to what I had said. Please provide the quote from me you are responding to, otherwise I don't have a clue to what you are referring.

 

[Tellurian]

How does this address either of my questions?

Go back and look at my last post. Your post here is answering a question I didn't ask and ignoring the questions I did ask.

Why would there be interpolations to begin with?

That was your question that I was trying to answer.

 

[Quagmire]

That was your question that I was trying to answer.

Do you know what interpolations are?

 

[Tellurian]

Do you know what interpolations are?

I am not sure the definition you are using, but to me an interpolation is a redaction that is added to a text, and in the case of the works of Josephus the interpolated redaction was the insertion of passages to make it look like Josephus had written about the biblical Jesus, which he had not done. What is your definition?

 

[Quagmire]

That was your question that I was trying to answer.

Do you know what interpolations are?

Anyway, to clarify: it's generally acknowledged by scholars in all camps relating to the TF issue that, regardless of who the original author was or when it was written, the version Eusebious is using is an altered version of an original passage.

What that means is: someone wrote the TF, and then later someone else came along and altered the TF.

The point I'm trying to make is that if Eusebious wrote the version of the TF that he was using whole cloth, that would mean that he wrote the forgery, and then turned around and added interpolations (and bad ones) to his own forgery.

Why would he do that?

 

[Tellurian]

Anyway, to clarify: it's generally acknowledged by scholars in all camps relating to the TF issue that, regardless of who the original author was or when it was written, the version Eusebious is using is an altered version of an original passage.

What that means is: someone wrote the TF, and then later someone else came along and altered the TF.

The point I'm trying to make is that if Eusebious wrote the version of the TF that he was using whole cloth, that would mean that he wrote the forgery, and then turned around and added interpolations (and bad ones) to his own forgery.

Why would he do that?

It seems to me that the whole TF is a redaction. What interpolations do you think Eusebius added to his TF passages?

 

[Quagmire]

It seems to me that the whole TF is a redaction. What interpolations do you think Eusebius added to his TF passages?

I'm not saying Eusebious added anything to the TF, that's my point. There were obviously 2 authors of the version of the TF he was using.

I'm not able to look at the TF and definitely highlight all the portions that are generally considered by scholars to be interpolations (I can either spot or remember most but not all of them) but I'll try to find a site that shows what they are.

 

[Quagmire]

Couldn't find one so I'll do the best I can from memory:

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

The parts in red are, I believe, almost universally acknowledged by scholars to be later additions/alterations.

There are other parts that are disputed, but the issue is considered settled on these.

 

[Tellurian]

So why do you consider only those words in red to have been added later instead of ALL references to the biblical Jesus as having been added in the 4th century?

 

[Quagmire]

So why do you consider only those words in red to have been added later instead of ALL references to the biblical Jesus as having been added in the 4th century?

"Added" doesn't apply to the overall text, since we're talking specifically about the internal integrity of the TF, not it's overall legitimacy as it relates to Antiquities as a whole (that's another topic).

The important point is that there were two authors responsible for the finished product (and in order for me to explain coherently why almost all scholars are certain this is so I'll have to brush up on my reading a bit) . That being the case it disqualifies Eusebious as the author. It doesn't prove that the TF is legitimate (like I said, that's another topic), but for this and other reasons the idea that the TF is a creation of Eusebious, which seems to be the most popular arrow in the forgery theorists quiver these days (online at least), doesn't hold water.

I'd like to continue this discussion but I just realized that we've strayed completely from the topic in this thread (got kind of caught up and didn't notice).

If you're willing, I'd like to move our entire conversation out of this thread and into it's own thread.

Would you mind if I transferred some of your posts into a new thread so we can pick it up there?

 

[fallingblood]

O ya?!

Welcome to Enlightenment! ? Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

There are many gullible people throughout time and around the world who have believed that thousands of different gods have existed, but the more intelligent people are more skeptical and require some evidence, such as sources OUTSIDE of the religion supporting the religion's various beliefs.

Tellurian

Where does that say that people in the first, second, third, or so centuries doubted that Jesus existed? Like I said, even the opponents of Jesus, such as Celsus, accepted that Jesus was a historical figure.

 

[fallingblood]

I read everything you write. Here you did not provide any reference to what I had said. Please provide the quote from me you are responding to, otherwise I don't have a clue to what you are referring.

Your arguing that the hometown of Jesus was not Bethlehem shows that you were not reading what I wrote. You continued to argue that point, that Bethlehem was not the hometown of Jesus, even though I never argued that it was. Your response had little to do with what I actually wrote.

 

[fallingblood]

Just an added not on the shorter paragraph in Josephus about Jesus. It is almost positive that it was not forged by Eusebius. The reason being that Origen had most likely paraphrased the reference in Josephus. So even disregarding the TF, we still have a shorter passage in Josephus, that still refers to Jesus.