|
|
Post by sandwiches on Dec 16, 2010 11:52:31 GMT
"He mentions Jesus twice - in Antiquities XVIII.63-64 and XX.9. But the first of these has been added to by Christian scribes or is perhaps a wholesale Christian forgery, so we can't be sure of it at all. Which leaves us with Antiquities XX.9, where he mentions the execution of Jesus' brother James. That's it."The views of Vermes are here: www.standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermesCertainly one of the references in Josephus has been "messed about" but it is very difficult to imagine it was wholly fabricated by Christians, given some of its terminology as Vermes mentions.The very crudity of the supposed interpolations demonstrates what must have been the difficulty for early Christians in accepting that anyone could have described Jesus in the remaining terms accepted by most scholars to be original. Even the shorter mention is strong evidence on its own - Josephus was a young man n Jerusalem when James was killed so his reference to James as brother of Jesus is a reference to James by a non-Christian contemporary who identifies him by reference to his better known brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Dec 21, 2010 2:35:46 GMT
But, if you have right, then Geza Vermes, Hershel Shanks, Michael Baigent, Rymond E. Brown, all BAR and others are wrong about archaeology and Bible. Michael Baigent is a crackpot and an idiot and if he's ever been right about anything in his whole useless life it would have been entirely by accident. The others you mention, however, are good scholars, especially Vermes. What exactly would they be "wrong" about if I am right? I'm not following you here. I'd be willing to bet a large sum that Vermes, for one, has NEVER claimed that archaeology proves the existence of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by noons on Dec 21, 2010 2:55:51 GMT
Tim, I think discussing things with David is a little futile, not because he is stubborn (he might be) but because the language barrier might be just too much. He said he's from Southern Europe, which means either Italy or the Balkans. From what I remember, there were some areas where he may have agreed with you, but it came out like he was arguing. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in environments where neither party has enough vocabulary in the other's language to have a complicated discussion, I can tell when it's best to let something go.
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Dec 21, 2010 8:14:05 GMT
Michael Baigent is a crackpot and an idiot and it he's ever been right about anything in his whole useless life it would have been entirely by accident. Tim, it is unfortunate but crackpots manage to sell books. I have seen Baigent's rubbish in bookshops everywhere. On the other hand, besides the odd copy of Vermes and Sanders, the only other historian of note that I can recall seeing on book shelves in my home town (Geelong) was a single copy of Ron Number's The Creationists at the Borders book franchise. The general public seem to have an appetite for trash history. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Dec 21, 2010 9:57:29 GMT
The general public seem to have an appetite for trash history. I find good history, well told sells pretty well if marketed the right way. I think we have publishers to blame more than the public. I often find books by Baigent and other kooks and idiots in the history section in bookshops. Being a kindly soul, I do the shop and the buying public a favour by taking them and reshelving them in the New Age section or, failing that, on the fiction shelves. |
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Dec 21, 2010 11:32:49 GMT
The general public seem to have an appetite for trash history. I find good history, well told sells pretty well if marketed the right way. I think we have publishers to blame more than the public. I often find books by Baigent and other kooks and idiots in the history section in bookshops. Being a kindly soul, I do the shop and the buying public a favour by taking them and reshelving them in the New Age section or, failing that, on the fiction shelves. Precisely - that makes two of us ;D |
|
|
|
Post by david on Dec 21, 2010 14:07:47 GMT
Hi Mr. O'Neill! That was very good on Michale Baigent. He is an idiot.  Well, other use archaeological evidence for Jesus, especially Hershel Shanks and Raymond Brown(I'm reading his books now) and also BAR and ABR, for G Vermes, I saw that he used them in one book, but don't know which. And I forgot mentioned Ernest Renan and William M. Remsey. And what is your thinking about Edward Gibbon? Thanks for the good answer.  |
|
|
|
Post by david on Dec 21, 2010 14:08:44 GMT
Yes, I'm from Balkan.
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Dec 21, 2010 14:15:31 GMT
Yes noons, our English in my country is very low among persons. They don't speak it well.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Dec 22, 2010 3:39:55 GMT
Well, other use archaeological evidence for Jesus, especially Hershel Shanks and Raymond Brown(I'm reading his books now) and also BAR and ABR, for G Vermes, I saw that he used them in one book, but don't know which. And I forgot mentioned Ernest Renan and William M. Remsey. How do any of these people use archaeology as an argument for the existence of Jesus? How could they do this? Simply noting that there is archaeological evidence for a place or a building mentioned in the New Testament doesn't indicate that the things in the gospels happened or even that Jesus existed. I've explained this to you in detail before and I can't think of any way I can explain it any more simply than I already have. I think he's totally irrelevant to this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Dec 22, 2010 9:17:00 GMT
Well, other use archaeological evidence for Jesus, especially Hershel Shanks and Raymond Brown(I'm reading his books now) and also BAR and ABR, for G Vermes, I saw that he used them in one book, but don't know which. And I forgot mentioned Ernest Renan and William M. Remsey. How do any of these people use archaeology as an argument for the existence of Jesus? How could they do this? Simply noting that there is archaeological evidence for a place or a building mentioned in the New Testament doesn't indicate that the things in the gospels happened or even that Jesus existed. I've explained this to you in detail before and I can't think of any way I can explain it any more simply than I already have. Hi Tim. I've been following your exchange with David and found it interesting. I been to Israel quite a lot and of course visited all the sites as a tourist must. I hope you don't mind me asking but what is your opinion on these sites? I'm of course talking about the 'mount', 'tomb of Jesus' and 'Golgotha' (sp) as well as all the towns and cities I heard about when growing up. Besides the towns and cities do these archaeological 'sites' have some reverence to history as in where they used as stated in the gospels (not just specific to Jesus?) Are they the best guess of later Christian apologist? Or just made up 'tourist traps?' Also I have read that Nazareth at the time of Jesus was just a couple of farms and the Jews wouldn't have built a town so near to a 'cave of tombs', what is your take on this? Thanks in advance. |
|
