Historicity of Jesus - 2

[ramana]

A few posts from BRF GDF thread...







svenkat:

Sushuptiji,very good catch.The true nature of gora christism in its 'glorious' nakedness.Sikular Britain.Sikular West.



Christism by definition is political.



Watch out for this guy.Dr Richard Carrier.A Ph.D. in ancient history from University of Columbia.



Richard Carriers blog

my peer reviewed article on Josephus just came out: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.



The official description is:



Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.



My proof of that is pretty conclusive. But this article also summarizes a sufficient case to reject the Testimonium Flavianum as well (the other, longer reference to Jesus in Josephus), in that case as a deliberate fabrication (see note 1, pp. 489-90, and discussion of the Arabic quotation on pp. 493-94). And I cite the leading scholarship on both. So it’s really a complete article on both references to Jesus in Josephus.



Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication lies in an article I didn’t cite, however, but that is nevertheless required reading on the matter: G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). There are some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very improbable on any other hypothesis than dependence.



Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and contrary to what Goldberg concludes, the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly).



That, combined with the arguments I assemble in my article for JECS, spells the final death knell for any hope of restoring any part of the Testimonium Flavianum. It is 100% Christian fabrication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus



WE need to understand the Imperialist project that christism is ,that they will go to any lengts to fabricate history.It is these people who are talking about Aryans coming into India in 1500 BC.It is these people who are espousing dalits,muslims,dravidian idntity .



Let me make it clear that dalit emancipation is a challenge to Indian socirty.Indias linguistic pluralism is a fact.But we need to understand the white christist hatred of India.This is not to condone our inhumanity,corruption,inefficiency.



And some poster thinks there is some problem with consistency in early christian history and missing links in Jesus Life.



Jesus life has zero historicity.we hindus have no problem with the Jesus of Faith.If fellow Indians are morally elevated by this messenger of God,so be it and we respect that.



It is quite possible that the biblical christist establishment will kill this reaearch of Dr Carieer as they have done in general with all critical reaearch on Jesus.Atleast some Hindus must archive this material.

and

Turdesai,

Nothing can atone your sins.When you deliberately malign others just to hold on to your cushy jobs,you deserve the Hell that christism believes in.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Joseph Hoffmann has stated that the issue of historicity of Jesus has been long ignored due to theological interests.

Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, he maintains that, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work and that it is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.



John Meier, Professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has said "...people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they're doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed..." Dale Allison, Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary too says, "...We wield our criteria to get what we want...We all see what we expect to see and what we want to see...."

Look at the methods at work-unsound historical practice,theological bias,reliance on consensus than on rigor or primary sources.Sounds familiar.isnt it ?



Even the biased wikepedia cannot but include this in its spin article.