Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:So, I can't recall exactly what your comment in reference to Doherty was but I don't think he ignored the passage.....it just sounds like he doesn't think it was meant to assume a genuine family relationship.

Because, despite his waffling, he cannot show another person in a legitimate Pauline letter whom Paul refers to as "τον αδελφον του κυριου."

Also "en"--εν--means "in" not "of." There is a wonderful word for "of" in Greek well known--δε.

Such mistakes is one of the reasons Doherty is not taken seriously. He wants desperately to believe in his myth. The problem is he needs the evidence. He also needs to study Greek and not try to make an argument based on how someone else translates a phrase.

In the rain.

--J.D.

That seems like a mighty thin basis to accept a historical 'jesus' when there is no other source indicating he lived.

Minimalist wrote:That seems like a mighty thin basis to accept a historical 'jesus' when there is no other source indicating he lived.

Positive evidence is all you need. There is no prize for "thickness."

--J.D.

And if there were "positive" evidence, I would agree.

Such positive evidence might include, but is not limited to:

A) Some complaint by Philo that Pilate was an asshole for killing the messiah among his other crimes;

B) Roman historians discussing the riots that went on when the Messiah was crucified and the so-called "multitudes" that followed him rebelled or even the crucifixion itself.

C) Some indication in Jewish sources of a Yeshua bar Yosip being crucified just like the records they have of Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin being killed by the Romans for various and sundry revolts.

But some guy claiming to be the brother of a guy who no one else ever seems to have heard of does not rise to that level in my book.

Minimalist wrote:And if there were "positive" evidence, I would agree.

Such positive evidence might include, but is not limited to:

A) Some complaint by Philo that Pilate was an asshole for killing the messiah among his other crimes;

B) Roman historians discussing the riots that went on when the Messiah was crucified and the so-called "multitudes" that followed him rebelled or even the crucifixion itself.

C) Some indication in Jewish sources of a Yeshua bar Yosip being crucified just like the records they have of Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin being killed by the Romans for various and sundry revolts.

But some guy claiming to be the brother of a guy who no one else ever seems to have heard of does not rise to that level in my book.

The lower the profile the broader the canvas for creative "elaboration". After all, if there were a record that said 500 people were at the Sermon on the Mount you have been dealt 500 people. If, on the other hand there is no record it seems that you are pretty free to 1) define the event and 2) enumerate the faithful.

You must go watch Wag the Dog again.

Naked Science on National Geographic took a look at the Sermon on the Mount and concluded it was horseshit.

Minimalist wrote:A) Some complaint by Philo that Pilate was an asshole for killing the messiah among his other crimes;

Why is Philo any more reliable? Maybe he is a fogery. Maybe he made a deal with Ignatious the Flatulent.

B) Roman historians discussing the riots that went on when the Messiah was crucified and the so-called "multitudes" that followed him rebelled or even the crucifixion itself.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam for I have not argued that any of that happened or mere existence justifies believing anything like that happened. One would have to read my writings with "a singular inattention" to come to that erroneous conclusion.

But some guy claiming to be the brother of a guy who no one else ever seems to have heard of does not rise to that level in my book.

Your book is irrelevant. "No one else ever seems to have heard of" you cannot sustain given the letters, documents and the like. A lot of people heard of him, the question is whether what they heard is accurate or not. I would, frankly, argue it was all inaccurate given the progression of mythmaking, contradictions, et cetera.

It is what the evidence supports, no more, no less. You have no more of a justification to ignore it because it sinks a belief you would like than a fundi to deny you cannot reconcile the birth narratives because it sinks his belief in inerrancy.

"Sauce for the goose, Mr. Savik."

Incidentally, I think one of the more uncomfortable realizations of scholarship searching for a "Teachings of Junior" that would make him Schweitzer's "immeasurably great man" is that the Sermon on the Mount is probably a pile that stinketh more than archaeologist's underwear [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . right . . . sorry . . . archaeologist's favorite hack poet.

Or as I like to remind, why "keep" the "happy bits" you can put on a kitten poster and discard all of the "nasty bits" that you can put on . . . oh . . . I do not know . . . a Hilary Clinton poster [Stop that!--Ed.]. Indeed, taking a lesson from textual criticism, it is far more likely for scribes and the like to make up acceptable sayings/events and the like than make up unacceptable events.

Fucking fig tree. . . .

--J.D.

Your book is irrelevant. "No one else ever seems to have heard of" you cannot sustain given the letters, documents and the like. A lot of people heard of him, the question is what did they heard is accurate or not. I would, frankly, argue it was all inaccurate given the progression of mythmaking, contradictions, et cetera.

No more so than your's.

People dress up in Star Wars costumes....people claim to have seen Elvis...people claim to see Mary in a lump of melted chocolate or a cheese sandwich. People do lots of stupid stuff and they believe lots of stupid stuff...see the earlier threads on Creationism.

At this point all you have asserted is that Paul's comment, let us assume for the moment that it is an accurate presentation of what he said, is proof enough for you to accept the reality of an actual Jesus.

I think you have a low standard of proof.

Minimalist wrote:No more so than your's.

Save mine is actually relevant, and I do not claim possession.

Erroneous analogy follows. . .

At this point all you have asserted is that Paul's comment, let us assume for the moment that it is an accurate presentation of what he said, is proof enough for you to accept the reality of an actual Jesus.

I think you have a low standard of proof.

What you think is irrelevant to reality and evidence.

--J.D.

What you think is irrelevant to reality and evidence.



hheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

WHACK.

yassuh, doctor archaeologist.



j



ps.

professionals built the titanic.

amateurs built the ark.

You are very selective in what you accept, Doc.

If you are so easily swayed, why don't you believe the rest of the story?

Minimalist wrote:You are very selective in what you accept, Doc.

Pot meet Kettle.

If you are so easily swayed, why don't you believe the rest of the story?

I believe that sentence encapsulates your bias better than I ever could.

As for the rest, I am sure should this "john" ever contribute something of coherence I will be informed of what will be a truly extraordinary event.

--J.D.

Impasse.

We fail to convince each other.


I can live with it.

"The Biblical archaeologists seem to have experienced pareidolia; seeing what they want to see in ambiguous patterns or images."


j

Not true of all biblical archaeologists.