Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

You forgot to post your references.

Don't need them. The argument is implied.

It's likely an Arabic and Syrian translation of what's in Church History according to the latest research.

So then, you have no references for that assertion.

None are required for something that is self evident.

[Bucky Ball]

Don't need them. The argument is implied.

It's likely an Arabic and Syrian translation of what's in Church History according to the latest research.

So then, you have no references for that assertion.

None are required for something that is self evident.

That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

[Free]

[/size]

So then, you have no references for that assertion.

None are required for something that is self evident.

That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.

[Bucky Ball]

None are required for something that is self evident.

That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.

So you can't point to the research .

[Minimalist]

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work?

Does it have to be an intentional, almost criminal, act?  Languages are intricate things and translations are are dependent on the skill and knowledge of the translator.  Some are better than others.  Someone with a desire to translate something into Syriac is probably a native Syriac speaker who might not be as accomplished in Greek as he thought he was.

IOW, he could simply have fucked up the translation.  Then add in the obvious issues of translating from Syriac into English and who knows what a mess you come up with?

I once posted a side-by-side translation of the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon by two different groups of scholars.  You would have thought they were speaking different languages, which they may have been.  The paleo-Phoenician script was apparently utilized by different ethnic groups speaking different languages/dialects.  I wonder if I can find it again.  It is illustrative of the point.

[Free]

That's not at all self evident, or virtually EVER scholar in the world would agree. 
They don't.
It's a specific position among many. Wow. 
You're even more slimey than I thought.
You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.

So you can't point to the research .

To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.

[Bucky Ball]

How is an argument here not self evident?

Did someone interpolate/alter Eusebius' work? 

After all, if the Arabic translation came from Eusebius, yet it bares no real resemblance to what we see in Eusebius' works, then was Eusebius altered by a Christian scribe AFTER the Arabic translation?

It's a simple and logical train of thought.

So you can't point to the research .

To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.

You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

[Free]

So you can't point to the research .

To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.

You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

Dude ... you posted a link to Carrier's website where he quotes Alice Whealey and others. You yourself posted a link that leads to the latest research.

Jesus.H.Christ.

Also, this Swedish scholar makes a compelling argument:

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/...ns-jerome/

[Bucky Ball]

To support what I am saying? Of course I can. I expected you to already know.

At the introduction of De Viris Illustribus, Jerome writes himself that when he was writing this book he had the utmost assistance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Yet Jerome's translation of the TF has a stark difference between the textus receptus in that Jerome says "and was believed to be Christ."

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium says: "he was perhaps the Messiah"

Michael the Syrian’ says: "He was thought to be the Christ."

All of them got their info from Church History, yet the Church History version is basically verbatim to what we see in Josephus.

So if Josephus was altered, so was Eusebius.

Obviously some Christian scribe did both. That means there's a missing link, and that missing link is somebody between Eusebius and Jerome.

You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

You said "in the latest research, bla bla bla ... ". If that were true, it would be published somewhere, and you could point to it.
I think you're just trying to fake it. As in everything.

Dude ... you posted a link to Carrier's website where he quotes Alice Whealey and others. You yourself posted a link that leads to the latest research.

Jesus.H.Christ.

Also, this Swedish scholar makes a compelling argument:

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/...ns-jerome/

It's from 2017 ... "the latest research" ?. 
You failed to mention that Viklund just happens to be the only listed "comment" in the Carrier reference I posted. 
You're so full of shit.

[Free]

You really don't think I'm *that stupid*. 
I want a reference to what you claimed. 
You said "latest research" ... show it to us. 

Dude ... you posted a link to Carrier's website where he quotes Alice Whealey and others. You yourself posted a link that leads to the latest research.

Jesus.H.Christ.

Also, this Swedish scholar makes a compelling argument:

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/...ns-jerome/

It's from 2017 ... "the latest research" ?. 
You failed to mention that Viklund just happens to be the only listed "comment" in the Carrier reference I posted. 
You're so full of shit.

How fast do you think this research on this topic goes?

Okay so you didn't read your own link.

That figures.

[Minimalist]

Here is a link to the post referenced above about the oddities of translating ancient writing.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid189960

[Free]

Here is a link to the post referenced above about the oddities of translating ancient writing.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid189960

I don't think we can fairly compare the knowledge and resources we have for translating a proto-Phoenician script to the knowledge and resources we have translating Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc.

We are really not translating, but interpreting, and since we have so many ancient resources and so much modern scholarship for peer review to draw from in regards Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc, the difference is night and day.

[Dom]

Language is not precise like math. Language means different things to different people, in different times, holds different connotations and is easily bent to fit a pre-conceived narrative.

Unless you have simple descriptions of things and situations in one short phrase (Mary goes to school, the mountain is big, etc. ) the meaning can be manipulated.

To wit computerized translation. Computers are too logical to understand language with all it's idioms, inflections, colloquialisms etc.

In translation, you are always guessing at meanings and fine points, while staying as close to the original as you can. So, even translation from languages we think we understand are defective. One can only work with what one can see and understand.

[airportkid]

... even translation from languages we think we understand are defective ...

One has only to read the degree of misunderstanding embodied in the posts of just this thread to recognize that "mis"translation hobbles communication within a common language itself, let alone across multiple languages.

Voice recognition software will only reach a bare utilitarian effectiveness, good for opening doors or setting the temperature.  But when we can't even perfectly communicate between ourselves using a shared language how on earth would we program a computer to do it?

A farmer was asked how he spent the day.  "We rayzd  the south barn" he said.  Did he say they'd "razed" the barn, or "raised" it.  The meaning is impossible to determine from the spoken sentence - yet the possible meanings are exactly opposite.

[Dom]

Many moons ago I taught German language and English composition at a Junior college, then I taught German and English at Berlitz, then moved on to becoming a court interpreter. On the side I worked on a computer program teaching German, written in basic back then. 

So, I looked at language from several perspectives, and the court interpretations were the most challenging. By far. Apart from requiring instantaneous translation, it required perfect precision. Even almost unintelligible testimony had to be rendered with the exact same unintelligibility. It was often very tempting to clean it up, for speed and clarity. That would not have been a proper translation and is a no-no for simultaneous translators.

Translators in less pressured situations do often clean things up to make them easier to comprehend in the other language.

I don't think I have ever seen a written translation that was truly accurate.

[Minimalist]

Here is a link to the post referenced above about the oddities of translating ancient writing.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid189960

I don't think we can fairly compare the knowledge and resources we have for translating a proto-Phoenician script to the knowledge and resources we have translating Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc.

We are really not translating, but interpreting, and since we have so many ancient resources and so much modern scholarship for peer review to draw from in regards Koine Greek, Latin, Syrian etc, the difference is night and day.

True, but all rely on the inherent biases of the interpreter.  I recall one time trying to get an exact reference to a quote by Cicero.  I found multiple translations, all differing to one degree or another.

Of course, Eddie Izzard has explained some of the problems with Latin!

 

[Minimalist]

Many parallels between this jesus guy and Romulus. 

From the Bullshit Makes The Flowers Grow school of archaeology.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51587892

Romulus mystery: Experts divided on 'tomb of Rome's founding father'

A sarcophagus discovered in the remains of an ancient temple in Rome is causing a stir among historians who cannot agree if it belongs to the Italian city's legendary founder, Romulus.
The stone tomb, along with circular altar, dates from the 6th Century BC.
According to legend, Romulus founded the city on Palatine Hill in 753 BC after killing his twin brother Remus.
But experts are divided over whether the empty tomb can be linked to Romulus - or if the brothers even existed.

It wont hurt tourism, of course.  And that is what matters!

[Minimalist]

Forgetting this jesus guy for a moment, here is an artifact which DOES exist and which seems to, or at least should, pre-date any of the current jesus stories we are subjected to on a daily basis by religitards.

In essence the inscription tells the tale of a supposed messiah who was killed and should have come back to life at the end of the first century BCE.  That was a time of revolts in Judaea as Herod the Great had died and divided his country among his children.  That did not go over well so the then Governor of Syria, Publius Quinctillius Varus ( later to gain "fame" in the Teutobergerwald disaster in Germany ) crushed those revolts.  This thus is 35-40 years before any jesus shit was devised.

Anyway.... the implication is that the concept of a messiah who was killed and resurrected existed before the godboy and the xhristards lost their minds over it.  Still, the artifact exists and has been authenticated and supported by one of the foremost scholars of Hebrew writings, Ada Yardeni.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world....html?_r=0

Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

[Free]

Forgetting this jesus guy for a moment, here is an artifact which DOES exist and which seems to, or at least should, pre-date any of the current jesus stories we are subjected to on a daily basis by religitards.

In essence the inscription tells the tale of a supposed messiah who was killed and should have come back to life at the end of the first century BCE.  That was a time of revolts in Judaea as Herod the Great had died and divided his country among his children.  That did not go over well so the then Governor of Syria, Publius Quinctillius Varus ( later to gain "fame" in the Teutobergerwald disaster in Germany ) crushed those revolts.  This thus is 35-40 years before any jesus shit was devised.

Anyway.... the implication is that the concept of a messiah who was killed and resurrected existed before the godboy and the xhristards lost their minds over it.  Still, the artifact exists and has been authenticated and supported by one of the foremost scholars of Hebrew writings, Ada Yardeni.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world....html?_r=0

Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

From my perspective, it's just more evidence of how the early followers of Jesus superimposed a legend unto the corpse of a dead man.

[Minimalist]

Figuring the stone dates from 2-1 BCE, that's a good guess.  The whole point is that the concept of a dying messiah existed in Judaea in spite of the fact that no one bothered to write anything about it.

I am intrigued by the fact that the inscription is written in ink on the stone.  Who would bother?  As soon as you displayed it the sun and the wind would eradicate the inscription.  George Athas, who has done some great work on the Tel Dan stele notes that the way such inscriptions were written would be to have a scribe write the inscription out in ink and then have a mason comes along and chisel out the individual letters.  He even calculated where the scribe who wrote the text of the Tel Dan was sitting when he had to reach out across the stone to write the letters.  There is a slight but obvious curve to the lines based on how far the scribe had to reach! 

So we are left with three possibilities.

1.  Whoever commissioned the Gabriel Revelation Stone was a dumb fuck who didn't know what would happen.

2.  They had the stone written out and ready for the mason when one of Varus' legionaries stuck his sword through the mason or the guy who was going to pay the mason.

3.   Like most religious horseshit, on the 4th day when their messiah was a no-show they said "fuck it" and abandoned the whole project, leaving the stone in a cave where the inscription was more or less protected from the elements.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that when Gabriel said "In three days, live, I Gabriel com[mand] yo[u]" that Simon remained as dead as a doornail.  Perhaps his remaining followers were smarter than early jesus freaks and buggered out of town?

[Bucky Ball]

Dying and rising deities was a common theme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-...ng%20cycle.

[Minimalist]

Agreed, Buck, but xhristards and jews have always claimed that jews were different.  Apparently, they weren't all that different nor were they exempt from the philosophical trends of the age.

[Minimalist]

Spotted this on another site.

As noted elsewhere in the thread there are 3 jesuses

The biblical jesus - which I shall call BJ.

The historical jesus - referred to as HJ.

And the mythical jesus - which I call Bullshit jesus - or BSJ

Anyway this Brunner guy was a true believer in Holy Horseshit and said this:



--
Emil Brunner

[Dancefortwo]

Spotted this on another site.

As noted elsewhere in the thread there are 3 jesuses

The biblical jesus - which I shall call BJ.

The historical jesus - referred to as HJ.

And the mythical jesus - which I call Bullshit jesus - or BSJ

Anyway this Brunner guy was a true believer in Holy Horseshit and said this:



--
Emil Brunner

Faith is also a bunch of bullshit.  ALL  religions use faith as a means of believing in whatever god is being proposed.  The Greeks used faith to believe in Apollo, the Hindus use faith to believe in Vishnu.  If faith can lead people to believe in any number of different gods then faith is a totally useless method of finding out whether something is true or not.   So someone who says, "Well, you just gotta have faith that Jesus is the messiah" doesn't understand how meaningless and completely empty faith really is.

[vulcanlogician]

Faith is also a bunch of bullshit.  ALL  religions use faith as a means of believing in whatever god is being proposed.  The Greeks used faith to believe in Apollo, the Hindus use faith to believe in Vishnu.  If faith can lead people to believe in any number of different gods then faith is a totally useless method of finding out whether something is true or not.   So someone who says, "Well, you just gotta have faith that Jesus is the messiah" doesn't understand how meaningless and completely empty faith really is.

The thing is, faith (in an ordinary sense, not in a "belief in the otherworldly" sense) is kinda useful in our daily lives and interpersonal relationships. That's part of the problem. It's so useful, people think they can figure out cosmic truths with it. But they can't. Its usefulness only goes so far.

I agree that "faith is a totally useless method of finding out whether something is true or not." Evidence, analysis, skepticism... these are way better at sussing out the truth than faith. And faith has no business anywhere near investigations into the truth. But it still has its uses.