GoodK "Marshall Gauvin wrote: In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
In what looks like a pattern, Marshall’s assertions don’t appear to be valid.
From here [3rd century] to the Italian Renaissance, with its re-awakening of interest in the ancient authors, there are few mentions of Tacitus in Western literature. As Moses Hadas stated in the preface to my copy of the collected works, "From the fifth century to the fifteenth, he is mentioned not more than two or three times." (Page xxii, see below for full citation)
You make mention of the Ryland Papyrus. What about 7Q5? I will dig some information to post on this. It puts, if memory serves me right (no promises!) Mark at an earlier date and well within an eyewitness time frame. Either that or I've got it confused with something else. I shall go dig!
Nevo wrote:Yeah, infidels.org is a real treasure trove, isn't it? Yet this seminal essay from Marshall Gauvin's magisterial Fundamentals of Freethought (1922) doesn't show up in any of the surveys I've read of twentieth-century scholarship on the historical Jesus. Strange, eh?
No way. If you would have told me that this doesn't show up in any of the surveys YOU have read I would have not only discarded the entire essay, but smashed my computer monitor for allowing me to view such a dubious source.
Give me a break Nevo, you have no footing to stand on here. Just admit that your beliefs are faith based, not evidence based, and salvage any integrity you may have left.
Nevo wrote: Apart from two passing references in Josephus, the New Testament is the only historical evidence for Jesus.
Glad you said that.
Marshall Gauvin wrote:There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died... The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
I feel a bit like John McEnroe. You can't be serious. The Diatessaron by Tatian, a harmony of the four gospels, dates from 150-160. Marcion's canon, circa 140, includes part of Luke. Or is the weasel phrase "in their present form" the key here.
I won't comment on anything else besides the fact that you are saying 140 AD is better than what Marshall Gauvin stated - 190 AD. Still, a hundred years plus after Jesus was allegedly alive.
Nevo wrote:Yeah, infidels.org is a real treasure trove, isn't it? Yet this seminal essay from Marshall Gauvin's magisterial Fundamentals of Freethought (1922) doesn't show up in any of the surveys I've read of twentieth-century scholarship on the historical Jesus. Strange, eh?
No way. If you would have told me that this doesn't show up in any of the surveys YOU have read I would have not only discarded the entire essay, but smashed my computer monitor for allowing me to view such a dubious source.
I did tell you that. And I agree with you--you should discard the entire essay. But "rend your heart, and not your computer monitor" (Joel 2:13).
Nevo wrote: Apart from two passing references in Josephus, the New Testament is the only historical evidence for Jesus.
Glad you said that.
Marshall Gauvin wrote:There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died... The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
I feel a bit like John McEnroe. You can't be serious. The Diatessaron by Tatian, a harmony of the four gospels, dates from 150-160. Marcion's canon, circa 140, includes part of Luke. Or is the weasel phrase "in their present form" the key here.
I won't comment on anything else besides the fact that you are saying 140 AD is better than what Marshall Gauvin stated - 190 AD. Still, a hundred years plus after Jesus was allegedly alive.
The point is that by 140 Luke (and ten of Paul's letters) was sufficiently well known that a leader in Rome would use them as his canon. And also that Mr. Gauvin is not a reliable scholar.
Nevo wrote:Yeah, infidels.org is a real treasure trove, isn't it? Yet this seminal essay from Marshall Gauvin's magisterial Fundamentals of Freethought (1922) doesn't show up in any of the surveys I've read of twentieth-century scholarship on the historical Jesus. Strange, eh?
No way. If you would have told me that this doesn't show up in any of the surveys YOU have read I would have not only discarded the entire essay, but smashed my computer monitor for allowing me to view such a dubious source.
Give me a break Nevo, you have no footing to stand on here. Just admit that your beliefs are faith based, not evidence based, and salvage any integrity you may have left.
Goodk, you are being unfair to Nevo. And I would write this regardless of whether he was agreeing or disagreeing with me. Nevo is probably the best scholar on this MB. Read this posts on this MB and MAD and I think you will agree with me.
Nevo wrote:Yeah, infidels.org is a real treasure trove, isn't it? Yet this seminal essay from Marshall Gauvin's magisterial Fundamentals of Freethought (1922) doesn't show up in any of the surveys I've read of twentieth-century scholarship on the historical Jesus. Strange, eh?
No way. If you would have told me that this doesn't show up in any of the surveys YOU have read I would have not only discarded the entire essay, but smashed my computer monitor for allowing me to view such a dubious source.
Give me a break Nevo, you have no footing to stand on here. Just admit that your beliefs are faith based, not evidence based, and salvage any integrity you may have left.
Goodk, you are being unfair to Nevo. And I would write this regardless of whether he was agreeing or disagreeing with me. Nevo is probably the best scholar on this MB. Read this posts on this MB and MAD and I think you will agree with me.
Richard, how can I have any scholarly respect for someone who makes such a weak case for the evidence of Jesus, in such an arrogant way?
I don't believe him to be the best scholar on this MB. And if you had seen his postings over at the How much do LDS apologists get paid thread you will see some very odd reasoning and logic posited by Nevo.
Regarding the above, he did not address anything substantive, rather attacked the source of information.
I guess that is typical of the top LDS apologists...
GoodK wrote:Richard, how can I have any scholarly respect for someone who makes such a weak case for the evidence of Jesus, in such an arrogant way? I don't believe him to be the best scholar on this MB. And if you had seen his postings over at the How much do LDS apologists get paid thread you will see some very odd reasoning and logic posited by Nevo.
For the record, I'm not a scholar. I'm a frustrated scholar--which partly explains the arrogant and pedantic tone that too frequently finds its way into my posts. I started an MA in History at the University of Toronto a number of years ago but never finished it. While at the UofT I took a graduate course on the parables of Jesus from John S. Kloppenborg but otherwise my only academic training in New Testament studies is at the undergraduate level. Currently, I'm a technical writer and I live in my mom's basement. Okay, I'm kidding about the last part. But as you can see I'm no great shakes (Richard's encomium aside). That said, I beg to differ with your assertion that I "did not address anything substantive" in addressing Marshall Gauvin's criticisms.
GoodK wrote:Richard, how can I have any scholarly respect for someone who makes such a weak case for the evidence of Jesus, in such an arrogant way? I don't believe him to be the best scholar on this MB. And if you had seen his postings over at the How much do LDS apologists get paid thread you will see some very odd reasoning and logic posited by Nevo.
For the record, I'm not a scholar. I'm a frustrated scholar--which partly explains the arrogant and pedantic tone that too frequently finds its way into my posts. I started an MA in History at the University of Toronto a number of years ago but never finished it. While at the UofT I took a graduate course on the parables of Jesus from John S. Kloppenborg but otherwise my only academic training in New Testament studies is at the undergraduate level. Currently, I'm a technical writer and I live in my mom's basement. Okay, I'm kidding about the last part. But as you can see I'm no great shakes (Richard's encomium aside). That said, I beg to differ with your assertion that I "did not address anything substantive" in addressing Marshall Gauvin's criticisms.
I get wary when people post their resumes or credentials here.
Like I said earlier, dressing your posts up with bullet points and MLA style references don't impress me much...