Raf, You may be familiar with Steve Mason, historian of Greco-Roman Judea and an important expert on Josephus. I find his analysis and argument for the authenticity of TF convincing. (He also makes a compelling case for the author of Luke-Acts relying on heavily on Josephus, which would put the dating of that gospel into the 2nd century.)
Mason is an excellent teacher, but he can be excruciatingly methodical, granular, long-winded, tangential, even austere. His understanding of the language, style, substance and nuance of Josephus and other ancient writers is astonishing. Though clearly a highly respected authority on the subject, he is not dogmatic. He does not begin with conclusions, but with an open mind to inquire. When challenged with an alternative, he seems willing to admit the possibility. Even Carrier cites him on his website as open to the possibility of mythicism, though Mason is not a mythicist.
Mason has been interviewed on several podcasts over the past few years, and he usually brings a power point presentation. The pods with him are loooong.... 1.5 - 3.5hrs. This one has time-stamped chapters, thank gawd! The TF discussion starts around 48:00.
He doesn't think the whole TF is authentic, does he? Most scholars stop at partial authenticity. I found Carrier's argument, that it's all phony, more convincing because it better explains the lack of citations from people who would have been very excited to quote it.
He doesn't think the whole TF is authentic, does he? Most scholars stop at partial authenticity. I found Carrier's argument, that it's all phony, more convincing because it better explains the lack of citations from people who would have been very excited to quote it.
No. Not the whole thing. The clause, "He was (called/so-called) Christ," was likely interpolated. And a few others. He gets to it in the last five minutes.
He explains how the flow is typical of Josephus, that it's not disjointed - the A-B-A structure. Mason's whole academic life is revolves around Josephus, not the NT. He doesn't have an agenda. I heard him say on another pod that he is Christian culturally, as a born and raised participant in Western Civilization. Lol.
It's clear to me he really understands the text and Josephus' style. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. It doesn't matter either way to me. I went down the mythicist rabbit whole a few years ago with Carrier and Robert M. Price and Steve Mason's work played a part in pulling me out.
I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, Rocky. I cited my broad sources in my opening post [Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist , and Richard Carrier: On tge Historicity of Jesus] and I made it clear I would not treat this thread as a doctoral dissertation service.
Honestly for the sake of a casual conversation I'm satisfied with the Wikipedia entry on the TF which neatly summarizes the various viewpoints without really taking sides.
Never met him. Saw him in visions. Swore up and down he never learned from those later alleged to be his closest friends and family? Never referenced the empty tomb. Never talked about his disciples. Is Paul REALLY useful?
From the timeline and his own letters and testimony, Paul’s accounts were meeting Jesus Christ after his resurrection.
So from a straight logical perspective if Paul was traveling in Pharisee circles prior to his conversion he would not have and did not by any account have any live interaction with Jesus.
So no Paul might not be useful in establishing facts about the life of Jesus pre resurrection. From any point of logic regardless of beliefs.
No. Not the whole thing. The clause, "He was (called/so-called) Christ," was likely interpolated. And a few others. He gets to it in the last five minutes.
He explains how the flow is typical of Josephus, that it's not disjointed - the A-B-A structure. Mason's whole academic life is revolves around Josephus, not the NT. He doesn't have an agenda. I heard him say on another pod that he is Christian culturally, as a born and raised participant in Western Civilization. Lol.
It's clear to me he really understands the text and Josephus' style. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. It doesn't matter either way to me. I went down the mythicist rabbit whole a few years ago with Carrier and Robert M. Price and Steve Mason's work played a part in pulling me out.
I have not delved in depth into the current climate of archaeology and sociologists on this topic of the authenticity of Jesus earthly life from a scientific proof perspective. I don’t really know how that would be a fruitful endeavor given the scarcity of external resources.
We have Josephus and Eusebius I’m aware of and have looked at. The TV you guys are referencing seems to be just a small section in Josephus where he writes about Jesus being the Messiah. The common scholar views on it contain 2 extremes - it is 100% true it is 100% false and also the consensus seems to be down the middle with it having some accurate accounts and some interpolation and cross referencing.
The whole field of sociology extrapolates stories and thesis papers from pottery. So I am not real sure what the goal is in this exercise.
Raf is correct about the scholarly consensus. Google is your friend.
Even poor victor paul wierwille talked about scholarly consensus while from whole cloth crafting imaginary definitions and gloves. Poor victor was correct about the scholarly consensus, too.
I have not delved in depth into the current climate of archaeology and sociologists on this topic of the authenticity of Jesus earthly life from a scientific proof perspective. I don’t really know how that would be a fruitful endeavor given the scarcity of external resources.
We have Josephus and Eusebius I’m aware of and have looked at. The TV you guys are referencing seems to be just a small section in Josephus where he writes about Jesus being the Messiah. The common scholar views on it contain 2 extremes - it is 100% true it is 100% false and also the consensus seems to be down the middle with it having some accurate accounts and some interpolation and cross referencing.
The whole field of sociology extrapolates stories and thesis papers from pottery. So I am not real sure what the goal is in this exercise.
Well, it's history. We are talking about historians doing history. Josephus was an ancient historian. The ancients did history very differently from modern historians like Mason.
I currently accept that both passages mentioning Jesus and the one mentioning his brother, James, to be passages written by Josephus - for the most part.
The Bible is not history, it is scripture. It is not a reliable historical record of fact, that includes accounts of Jesus. I think some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are close to what he said, but most of the text are literary constructions supporting the narrative.
i've said before, it needn't be factual to be true.
There is no Christianity without Paul. Paul makes great claims for himself. He knew that he knew that he knew, but he didn't know Jesus by his own admission.
Raf is correct about the scholarly consensus. Google is your friend.
Even poor victor paul wierwille talked about scholarly consensus while from whole cloth crafting imaginary definitions and gloves. Poor victor was correct about the scholarly consensus, too.
My point was that rather than someone providing a fictional story about their opinion of what “scholarly consensus” means for the sake of conversation can we just post the links plus a summary? This is now 3 posts in the off topic category and this one seems designed to make me new friends.
He doesn't think the whole TF is authentic, does he? Most scholars stop at partial authenticity. I found Carrier's argument, that it's all phony, more convincing because it better explains the lack of citations from people who would have been very excited to quote it.
So to clarify terms here what you are saying is that “scholarly consensus” is that TF contains partial authenticity and Carriers argument is an outlying opinion from “scholarly consensus”.
It seems Google plus a tad of logic is your friend lol. Just quoting N there not spinning you up.
My point was that rather than someone providing a fictional story about their opinion of what “scholarly consensus” means for the sake of conversation can we just post the links plus a summary? This is now 3 posts in the off topic category and this one seems designed to make me new friends.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
36
29
27
Popular Days
Feb 25
41
Feb 27
25
Mar 3
17
Feb 29
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 63 posts
cman 36 posts
chockfull 29 posts
Nathan_Jr 27 posts
Popular Days
Feb 25 2024
41 posts
Feb 27 2024
25 posts
Mar 3 2024
17 posts
Feb 29 2024
12 posts
Popular Posts
cman
I doubt your conclusions Raf, though I respect your right to voice them.
Rocky
Hallelujah!
Nathan_Jr
Been thinking about why Peter and James didn't squash Paul. Who knows... Maybe because they had received intimate, secret training. Maybe they had been taught to guard the secrets and were warned
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
Raf, You may be familiar with Steve Mason, historian of Greco-Roman Judea and an important expert on Josephus. I find his analysis and argument for the authenticity of TF convincing. (He also makes a compelling case for the author of Luke-Acts relying on heavily on Josephus, which would put the dating of that gospel into the 2nd century.)
Mason is an excellent teacher, but he can be excruciatingly methodical, granular, long-winded, tangential, even austere. His understanding of the language, style, substance and nuance of Josephus and other ancient writers is astonishing. Though clearly a highly respected authority on the subject, he is not dogmatic. He does not begin with conclusions, but with an open mind to inquire. When challenged with an alternative, he seems willing to admit the possibility. Even Carrier cites him on his website as open to the possibility of mythicism, though Mason is not a mythicist.
Mason has been interviewed on several podcasts over the past few years, and he usually brings a power point presentation. The pods with him are loooong.... 1.5 - 3.5hrs. This one has time-stamped chapters, thank gawd! The TF discussion starts around 48:00.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He doesn't think the whole TF is authentic, does he? Most scholars stop at partial authenticity. I found Carrier's argument, that it's all phony, more convincing because it better explains the lack of citations from people who would have been very excited to quote it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
which is easier or harder, proving something doesn't exist or proving it does exist
there is only one thing that can prove anything, the spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And we're supposed to take your word for it?
I think it would be gracious of you to at least give us a link for where you came up with your claim about "scholarly consensus."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Is that how rational reasoning works?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
No. Not the whole thing. The clause, "He was (called/so-called) Christ," was likely interpolated. And a few others. He gets to it in the last five minutes.
He explains how the flow is typical of Josephus, that it's not disjointed - the A-B-A structure. Mason's whole academic life is revolves around Josephus, not the NT. He doesn't have an agenda. I heard him say on another pod that he is Christian culturally, as a born and raised participant in Western Civilization. Lol.
It's clear to me he really understands the text and Josephus' style. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. It doesn't matter either way to me. I went down the mythicist rabbit whole a few years ago with Carrier and Robert M. Price and Steve Mason's work played a part in pulling me out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, Rocky. I cited my broad sources in my opening post [Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist , and Richard Carrier: On tge Historicity of Jesus] and I made it clear I would not treat this thread as a doctoral dissertation service.
Honestly for the sake of a casual conversation I'm satisfied with the Wikipedia entry on the TF which neatly summarizes the various viewpoints without really taking sides.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mason also covers every patristic writer's reference of the TF. It's a thorough, methodical analysis. Again, he doesn't have an axe to grind.
His methodical argument for Luke-Acts using Josephus (often erroneously) I also found to be fascinating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Oh...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
or you can rely on thought, yours or someone else that's good, just test it against your spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've always been partial to tea leaves, although this one time, at Delphi...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Road to Damascus? Imagine having a life-changing experience from the Lord himself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
From the timeline and his own letters and testimony, Paul’s accounts were meeting Jesus Christ after his resurrection.
So from a straight logical perspective if Paul was traveling in Pharisee circles prior to his conversion he would not have and did not by any account have any live interaction with Jesus.
So no Paul might not be useful in establishing facts about the life of Jesus pre resurrection. From any point of logic regardless of beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I have not delved in depth into the current climate of archaeology and sociologists on this topic of the authenticity of Jesus earthly life from a scientific proof perspective. I don’t really know how that would be a fruitful endeavor given the scarcity of external resources.
We have Josephus and Eusebius I’m aware of and have looked at. The TV you guys are referencing seems to be just a small section in Josephus where he writes about Jesus being the Messiah. The common scholar views on it contain 2 extremes - it is 100% true it is 100% false and also the consensus seems to be down the middle with it having some accurate accounts and some interpolation and cross referencing.
The whole field of sociology extrapolates stories and thesis papers from pottery. So I am not real sure what the goal is in this exercise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Is this like the quote on how 95% of statistics are made up on the fly including this one?
Would it not be more helpful to summarize the scholarly consensus and provide detail like so we all can trace the logic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And you have a sarcastic wit like myself which can help or hinder research lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I mean sometimes time and political climate in a local area can completely affect not seeing any history or resources on a topic.
Like for example let’s go research the history of the detractors of Kim Jong Un. Just for fun.
How does Fox’s Book of Martyrs come into play evaluating the climate for Christian narrative and writings of the time?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Raf is correct about the scholarly consensus. Google is your friend.
Even poor victor paul wierwille talked about scholarly consensus while from whole cloth crafting imaginary definitions and gloves. Poor victor was correct about the scholarly consensus, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Well, it's history. We are talking about historians doing history. Josephus was an ancient historian. The ancients did history very differently from modern historians like Mason.
I currently accept that both passages mentioning Jesus and the one mentioning his brother, James, to be passages written by Josephus - for the most part.
The Bible is not history, it is scripture. It is not a reliable historical record of fact, that includes accounts of Jesus. I think some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are close to what he said, but most of the text are literary constructions supporting the narrative.
i've said before, it needn't be factual to be true.
There is no Christianity without Paul. Paul makes great claims for himself. He knew that he knew that he knew, but he didn't know Jesus by his own admission.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
My point was that rather than someone providing a fictional story about their opinion of what “scholarly consensus” means for the sake of conversation can we just post the links plus a summary? This is now 3 posts in the off topic category and this one seems designed to make me new friends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So to clarify terms here what you are saying is that “scholarly consensus” is that TF contains partial authenticity and Carriers argument is an outlying opinion from “scholarly consensus”.
It seems Google plus a tad of logic is your friend lol. Just quoting N there not spinning you up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Her ya go. Sentences 4 and six from the top of the article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.