The First Century Void

[Minimalist]

They have to.  It is a corner they have painted themselves into. 

Without the TF the earliest mention of this jesus character does not show up in the record until c 180. 

They can't face the reality of that so they have to try to do CPR of the mummy that is the TF!

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, like one Jesus freak writer, Origen in 2nd century, who actually complained in his treatise "Contra Celsum" that there is no historical mentioning of Jesus "is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility"
chapter 42 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

So TF would have been his ace in the hole and yet he has never heard of TF although he knows works of Josephus very well.

Where do you see that in chapter 42? It seems a stretch, to connect your quote cited, with the unquoted part. Where is he complaining that there is no historical mention of Jesus?

Seems to me, that moreso, he is complaining about the difficulty of debating history with the selective hyperskeptic, and those who throw the baby out with the bath water. Apt for the discussion, but not for the reasons you imply.

---

They have to.  It is a corner they have painted themselves into. 

Without the TF the earliest mention of this jesus character does not show up in the record until c 180. 

They can't face the reality of that so they have to try to do CPR of the mummy that is the TF!

For those who are interested....
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-...the-bible/

---

Are Christians still trying to argue the  forgery of Josephus isn't a forgery . Wow just wow .

Actually the scholarly debate is still quite active as to the extent of the interpolation.
I've asked others, but do you care to provide evidence that all versions are a complete forgery! That there is no core nuclei that was original as many scholars believe.

[Fake Messiah]

Yes, like one Jesus freak writer, Origen in 2nd century, who actually complained in his treatise "Contra Celsum" that there is no historical mentioning of Jesus "is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility"
chapter 42 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

So TF would have been his ace in the hole and yet he has never heard of TF although he knows works of Josephus very well.

Where do you see that in chapter 42?  It seems a stretch, to connect your quote cited, with the unquoted part.  Where is he complaining that there is no historical mention of Jesus?

Seems to me, that moreso, he is complaining about the difficulty of debating history with the selective hyperskeptic, and those who throw the baby out with the bath water. Apt for the discussion, but not for the reasons you imply.

Well then look into book 2, ch 33 maybe it'll make you clearer that Origen never ever encountered TF http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm
there Celsus asks him what miracles Jesus performed, Origen answers that Jesus' life was indeed full of striking and miraculous events, "but from what other source can we can furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives?"

Origen could have quoted TF which contains: "...for he was a doer of wonderful works... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him". But since he never heard of TF he stated only the Gospels.

Not just that but back in book 1 ch 47 he claims that Josephus never mentioned Jesus "Antiquities of the Jews" (the very same book that today contains TF) because he was a Jew:

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

And yet in TF Josephus apparently had no problem to say that it was because of Jews that Jesus was hanged, from TF: And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross

[Amarok]

Jees it's dead Christians

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12085

The Arabic version won't help you

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071

The original version help you

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437
Got over it

Does this demonstrate Jesus didn't exist no . So there is no reason for Christians to cling to this .

[Minimalist]

Well, again.  It is all they have.  And when you don't have much that which you do have becomes over-valued.

No one knew this better than Eusebius, himself.

[Cyberman]

Let's grant, for the moment, that the TF is only a partial interpolation; that Josephus mentioned the character as a thing believed by xtians, but all the cocksucking was added later.

Why? Why 'sex up' any of it, if there was any contemporary and compelling evidence at all? Why the need to fabricate evidence?

I'll wait.

[Minimalist]

J. Warner Wallace?  That's the best you can do, RR?  Like I said, you are embarrassing yourself.

Let's move on to First Clement which is an intriguing pile of shit with no stated ties to anyone named "Clement" and which is proving difficult to date.
EarlyChristianWritings cites dates between 80 and 140 but again, it really doesn't matter when it was first written, what matters is what happened after the last editors got through with it.

Tradition dates it to c 95 AD due to a line supposedly referring to the persecution of Domitian.  The problem there is that there was no persecution by Domitian, at least not of xtians.  He may offed a few Jews and/or political rivals associated with his father's and brother's campaigns in Judaea.

But Carrier is arguing, mildly, for a date closer to 60 AD for 1 Clement on the grounds that he does not seem to know about the destruction of the temple.  Yet, no where in the entire work is there so much as a mention of Jews.  (Most of it seems to be a re-hash of OT gibberish and post proto-orthodox power grubbing.  [Obey your bishops, obey your king, obey, obey, obey, you dumb fuck xhristards.]  In short, whoever wrote 1 Clement did not give a flying fuck about the Jews or their temple but was ostensibly trying to exert some authority for the "Church of Rome" in xtian circles which it most certainly did not have until much later.  This is a chastisement of xtians in Corinth. Thus why Carrier expects to see a reference to the temple being destroyed escapes me.

However, where Carrier is correct is that First Clement does not know fuckall about any recent historical jesus.  Much as with the earliest "pauline" writings jesus is nothing more than a cosmic figure who does his thing in outer space.  He, like "paul" has never heard of Mary, Pilate, Nazareth or any of the named gospels which jesus freaks swear were so important.

Even more oddly, our earliest manuscript dates from the 11th century but was not found until 1873 in a Greek text which was found in Constantinople.  We do know it was written by a scribe named "Leo" for all the good that does us!

[Secular Elf]

It's all well and good to assert that there are 7 authentic pauline epistles except we know they have been tampered with.

http://vridar.org/2017/05/26/why-many-in...ry-likely/

William Walker, Jr’s conclusion, then, is that

But, perhaps even worse....

https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/pa...tions.html

This notes the detected interpolations but the old adage "when one lie is detected a thousand must be suspected" comes into play.

Where does the "authentic" part come in?

One of the more interesting aspects of New Testament literature, is that not all of the supposed authors of these books were actually written by the men who were said to author them. When scholars apply the principles of textual criticism and redaction, comparisons of lines within and between texts, etc. etc., there are doubts and even certainties that books like First Epistle of Peter (1 Peter) were not actually written by Peter the Apostle. To quote from the Wikipedia article on First Epistle of Peter, it says that " Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language."

This is especially true of writings alleged to be written by Paul. Out of all the writings attributed to Paul, some are judged to not actually been written by him.

[Minimalist]

In order for the first epistle of peter to not be a fraud there would have had to have been a "peter."  He's like Little John or Sir Lancelot.  Just a made up character in someone elses story.

[Secular Elf]

J. Warner Wallace?  That's the best you can do, RR?  Like I said, you are embarrassing yourself.

Let's move on to First Clement which is an intriguing pile of shit with no stated ties to anyone named "Clement" and which is proving difficult to date.
EarlyChristianWritings cites dates between 80 and 140 but again, it really doesn't matter when it was first written, what matters is what happened after the last editors got through with it.

Tradition dates it to c 95 AD due to a line supposedly referring to the persecution of Domitian.  The problem there is that there was no persecution by Domitian, at least not of xtians.  He may offed a few Jews and/or political rivals associated with his father's and brother's campaigns in Judaea.

But Carrier is arguing, mildly, for a date closer to 60 AD for 1 Clement on the grounds that he does not seem to know about the destruction of the temple.  Yet, no where in the entire work is there so much as a mention of Jews.  (Most of it seems to be a re-hash of OT gibberish and post proto-orthodox power grubbing.  [Obey your bishops, obey your king, obey, obey, obey, you dumb fuck xhristards.]  In short, whoever wrote 1 Clement did not give a flying fuck about the Jews or their temple but was ostensibly trying to exert some authority for the "Church of Rome" in xtian circles which it most certainly did not have until much later.  This is a chastisement of xtians in Corinth. Thus why Carrier expects to see a reference to the temple being destroyed escapes me.

However, where Carrier is correct is that First Clement does not know fuckall about any recent historical jesus.  Much as with the earliest "pauline" writings jesus is nothing more than a cosmic figure who does his thing in outer space.  He, like "paul" has never heard of Mary, Pilate, Nazareth or any of the named gospels which jesus freaks swear were so important.

Even more oddly, our earliest manuscript dates from the 11th century but was not found until 1873 in a Greek text which was found in Constantinople.  We do know it was written by a scribe named "Leo" for all the good that does us!

Exactly. I remember reading that 1 Clement was quite a popular book among Roman and Italian Christians but was later rejected as canon.

The Wikipedia article on the subject is quite interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement