Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by arnoldo » Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:00 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:27 pm
to Hakeem,
So there is no Nazarene in gMark and no prophecy about a Nazorean or a Nazarene in the books of the prophets.
For your first sentence, you are absolutely right.
gMark has no 'Nazorean', gMatthew has only 'Nazorean', gLuke has one 'Nazorean' and two 'Nazarene'. gJohn has four 'Nazorean' and one 'Nazarene'. Acts has seven 'Nazorean' and no 'Nazarene'. So 'Nazorean' in gMatthew appears also in gLuke, more so in gJohn and Acts.
In Acts 24:5, Paul is said to be a leader of the sect of the Nazoreans.
It seems to me a Jewish sect whose members were called "Nazoreans" was existing when the gospels were written.

But, according to https://i-cias.com/e.o/mandeans.htm. Complete text on Encyclopaedia of the Orient: Mandeans
"The only surviving Gnostic religion, now with not more than 20,000 adherents, living in southern Iraq and south-western Iran. They are often called the Christians of Saint John, as he is held as a very sacred person, but not indispensable, in their theology. Their name is Aramaic for 'knowledge', i.e. a translation from the Greek 'gnosis'.

TEACHING and PRACTICE
John the Baptist is central in their teaching, as a representative for their faith. Jesus is also central, but he plays a totally different role than in religions like Christianity and Islam, and is a false prophet, almost depicted as evil.
[this appraisal of Jesus probably dates from the early years when communities of latter followers of John the Baptist were competing against the early (Jesus based) Christianity]
` ... Baptism is central to the cult of Mandeans, and the Mandean sanctuary, Mandi is a very simple, and small, house with slanting roof. In front of this a pool, connected to a nearby river, is placed. This one, called 'Jordan', is used for baptism. The whole area is surrounded by a high fence or a wall. Baptisms are performed on Sundays, and every believer pass through this several times every year. Mandean baptism can be compared to the Christian communion, and the Muslim prayer, salât. ...
The ethics of Mandeans are not all too different from Jewish ethics, and the same rules applied to all. Monogamy, dietary laws, ritual slaughtering, alms-giving are central acts. Death is the day of deliverance, the soul leaves the body, and starts on a dangerous journey to the realms of light. It is only Mandeans and non-sinners who manages to pass the whole journey — everyone else ends in hell. This hell is not everlasting, at the end of the world, a judgement is made on who will be wiped out for ever, and who will rise to the realms of light.

ORIGINS and HISTORY
... The Mandean religion could be pre-Christian, or it could date to 1st or 2nd century AD. It could actually be John the Baptist who founded the sect, or they could be a continuation of the Jewish sect that John the Baptist belonged to (guessed to be the Esseneans). Elements of the languages indicate that the community is of Jewish origin. One of the texts of the Mandeans tell about a flight of a group called 'Nasoreans', from areas that probably were in today's Jordan, to the Mesopotamian region, in the times of the Jewish wars following the destruction of Jerusalem in year 70 AD. The Mandeans appears first to have gained a strong position in Babylon, ..."

Cordially, Bernard
The Emperor Julian allegedly uses the term in question in the following manner.

Now I will only point out that Moses himself and the prophets who came after him and Jesus the Nazarene, yes and Paul also, who surpassed all the magicians and charlatans of every place and every time, assert that he is the God of Israel alone and of Judaea, and that the Jews are his chosen people.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm


Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:42 pm

to cora.
I am not a god, I am just an investigator.
The work of an investigator is based on precised and documented evidence. So I cannot consider you as an investigator, and you should also remove "investigator" describing yourself.
But according to the reactions on your website, you must be at least a demi-god. Do you think so yourself too?
I am not a demi-god. But I consider very highly the evidence. The evidence is more important than me.
The more I read on this forum, the more I see myself as being an exception.
That's true.
I thought I could talk here about my findings. But I can't.
Yes you can, and you did that already many times.
Should I really repeat Ehrman's blunders here? Writing that there were many papers from 30-70, on which the gospels are based? Which are not there.
Ehrman wrote many things I disagree upon. But you change the subject about Ehrman: you talked about him saying the gospels were written after 185 CE.
Saying that Paul did not have to talk about Jesus' life, because everybody knew it already?
That, I would mostly agree with him (at least concerning the converts of Paul in Corinth), and with evidence, which I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/20.html
And Paul did talk a bit about Jesus' life: "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27) http://historical-jesus.info/djp1.html#skandalon
If I would be able to talk with him, I would be done with him in half an hour. But he does not accept mail from people without a PhD.

If you did that, you would be massacred in less than one minute. And the only thing he would need to say: where did you get that?
Yes, scholars in this domain tend to be not willing to deal with amateurs. I tried to get in contact with Ehrmann with no response. However, I am not a member of his blog (you have to pay a fee in order to get in). Here, he may be dealing with amateurs.
On the other hand that Richard Carrier also produces nothing interesting, don't you agree?
Sometimes, on the matter of Jesus (existing or not), he said some good things, and I even quoted him in some of my webpages.
At other times, when I was participating in his blogs, he set me straight on some points and I had to make corrections on my webpages (only if I thought he was right).
But overall I don't agree on almost everything he wrote in OHJ, and I made it plain on many points in my so-called blog: http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html
You name as your subject: THE REAL JESUS.
The name of my website is Jesus, a historical reconstruction, In-depth & documented research on the historical Jesus and the beginning of Christianity, from available evidence & critical methodology.
Notice the "a" in the title. I did not write "the".
And that reconstruction is mostly the result of many deconstructions, as shown on most of my webpages.
Actually that is wrong. It means you assume a Jesus already, from the NT.
That's what the evidence tells me.
But it has not been proven that a Jesus existed at all, except from the gospels.
Paul's epistles proved the existence of an earthly human Jesus:
Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27).

Which could just be fake, written in someone's interest (which actually is the case).
Speculations
As I see it you want to write about the gospel Jesus from the catholic church, who certainly existed.
NO, it was never my intention.
Why? Because the catholic church says so.
There are many (some very critical) things I found in my research that the catholic church (and any other churches) would be rejecting. Actually my "historical Jesus" shows that Christian beliefs have been made up early on, therefore destroying the validity of the churches' preaching. If my "historical Jesus" was accepted, these churches should ceased to exist.
I do something totally different. I do not study the content of the NT. I want to find out all the circumstances in which the NT was written: who wrote it, when was it written, ...
And you have answered these questions: Irenaeus, Irenaeus. But where is the the back up evidence (not speculations)
What was all happening between 0 and 200? When did the catholic church start? What was before? Who was living when exactly? This means reading and reading and searching.
So, what did you read?
Also on the internet yes, if you don't mind.
Where on the internet?
There is there much better information than in the books of Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and the whole forum together.
What informations? provide the evidence for each.
This is called historical study. By which you can find answers that are not in the bible themselves. I mean, the NT I know by now. It is not about the content. It is about what happened and where it comes from. And now I am done I know also a lot more about the content.
It is not historical study if it is based on speculations, and you are unable to provide the precise evidence to support it.
That goes as follows: you get a subject, often in the form of a question, and a list of books you must use. You read and search, trying to answer the question and everything about it, you make notes. When you are done, YOU WRITE THE STORY.
So what are the books you read, what are the notes you made? On the matter of early Christianity.
That goes as follows: you get a subject, often in the form of a question, and a list of books you must use. You read and search, trying to answer the question and everything about it, you make notes. When you are done, YOU WRITE THE STORY. You don't make notes, you do not tell where it all comes from,
Sure, you do that everywhere.
In the back you make a list of the books you have used. Practical all history books work like that.
So where is your list?

You are talking about the ones who reformate and combined other historical books. They don't have to provide evidence because their subject is not controversial. But they are not real historians. Real historians go to the earliest sources to find relevant valid evidence in order to write their works. That's a painstaking job, but that what I did but you did not do.
I had to do it that way, and I still do it that way. It is the only way I know.
You should know better.
In history is the word story. It is always about telling a story. So I tell parts of my story here, proud that I have found so much new. And get heavily criticised or ignored. Mostly ignored. I don't get that. People should be happy, but they rather remain ignorant, and turn their back on me.
Stories can be fictional or true.
By now, you should know why you get heavily criticised or ignored. Mostly ignored.
You are the one who is ignorant: probably a dozen times, maybe more, I have proven you wrong. But you ignored that. And only around 2 months ago, maybe less, you were totaly not interested by Justin because he as an apologist. Now there is a lot of Justin in yout posts. And you are very presumptious about treating people on this forum as ignorant. You are on an ego trip. You think you are a demi-god.
I don't get that trouble about evidence and giving sources.
What evidence and sources you gave? the internet, unamed books, invisible notes, your speculations, your hatred for the catholic church.
You can leave it to me to discern between serious articles and bull shit.
Oh no, I cannot leave it to you. What are these serious articles? Are you bluffing again?
I don't have to give ancient sources, which most of the time are not there anyway. And I don't have to present evidence for everything I say.
Oh, a big admission, ancient sources, which most of the time are not there anyway
The evidence is already being weighed in the investigation
So from where that evidence come from, if not from ancient sources.
The evidence is already being weighed in the investigation. That is how we do that. That does not mean that I have wild opinions, or am speculating. Not at all.
And we have to trust you about this undocumented investigation. :D Well with no defined evidence to back up your viewpoints, what is left is wild opinions and speculations.
Everything is investigated as historians do
Not as true historians do.
I shit on comments from people who do not understand how I work.
But I understand how you work.
Who think that staring in the gospels day in day out brings anything new or exciting. The last 100 years prove It doesn'tWho think that staring in the gospels day in day out brings anything new or exciting.
I did bring many things new and exiting, according to my readers (see my next post to you). But not only from the gospels, but a vast array including Christian, Pagan and Jewish texts.
And I have to say that your telling me all the time in the past, that you can prove me wrong with evidence, is ridiculous.
But I did that many times.
Your evidence comes from the NT itself and the catholic church. The catholic church you can never trust of course, they have everything to loose. And the NT is no evidence of anything, except of what the writer wanted exactly. And who is the writer? There are 2. And Mark and Mathew are not biographies, but catholic propaganda and theology. I suppose you let Marcion out of you study? Too bad, because he was one of the most important persons of the 2nd century.
Speculations again: And I prove that the (still unnamed) four gospels (including gLuke) and Paul's epistles were written before Marcion.
I started reading one of your chapters, and I think it is not bad what you pick out of the gospels until now. Not bad at all.
Coming from you, what a surprise!
I cannot follow what Nasarenes are exactly.
Nazarene: of Nazareth. Nazoreans, something different, as I posted to hakeem recently.
Latest discovery: Justin Martyr invents the name Jesus. Paul and Marcion had another name. This name still exists. He wrote: the name means Man or Jesus. They took Jesus. In that sense Jesus did not exist at all, because they gave him the name Jesus, Justin and Irenaeus.
Speculations. Where does the name given by Paul & Marcion still exists. What was that name?
You should remember that because of your new recent discovery.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:01 pm

to Cora,

As extracted from my readers' feedback
(complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)

General observations:
* "Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."
* "I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."
* "I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."
* "Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."
* "This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."
* "I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."
* "You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."
* "Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."
* "Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"
* "The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."
* "I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."
* "... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality ... Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."
* "Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."
* "Pages are a little long, but easy digest. But most importantly, he usually supports his arguments with evidence, and never indulges in religious rhetoric and baseless speculations."
* "And in addition to that, I would suggest the following site for further in depth studies on "the historical Jesus". Very educative, I may say: ..."
"Yes, that is probably the best source for the historical Jesus that I have encountered. Glad you posted that link again, ..."
* "I am speechless ... Now, after reading most of your site, I can see that my simple view of Jesus was closer to the truth. Thank you for helping me see this. I am still in shock. There is much to catch up on. Many ideas to rethink ... I can see that a rational or scientific view is very helpful ..."
* "I visited your website and found it quite thorough and informative ... I thought that your comments at your site regarding the beginning of Christianity, proto-Christianity, and the later date for Acts, and its problems of continuity with 'Luke' and 'Luke's' discontinuity with the rest of the Gospels to be accurate observations that have been made by many scholars. Excellent stuff. ...
I realize English is not your native tongue, but I do hope someone sometime will re-edit your articles or utilize them in their own work, since they contain some excellent observations."

* "... Truly, thank you for being so kind and taking the time to help me find answers to the questions I have never been able to resolve on my own. Your scholasticism simply amazes me. It is so honest and pure. Yes, I am very familiar with the works of other scholars who begin with a "belief" and are "bent" on proving it ...
Sorry, but so little information is available to me. I go on line to find information, and it is almost like "mission impossible". Now, you see why I am so intrigued by your web site. I am still stunned and amazed by the hours of research you invested in making this knowledge available. Thank you, again ...
Time for me to get back to your site and uncover more of the truth that I have been searching for."

* "... I feel I have wasted much time and energy piecing ideas together from my own readings, when you have done such a thorough job already!
... these
[3-4] years have given me an appreciation of the work you must have put in, both in painstakingly reading, re-reading and comparing, as well as scrupulously arranging your material into coherent topics and valid conclusions.
So this sums up my second amazement, which is my real joy at seeing the elegant, lucid and compelling arguments you make - 'arguments' is almost the wrong word: since you rely so much on primary sources to tell the story, your own interpretations are almost unnecessary. The texts, when arranged and compared as you do, reveal their secrets quite readily for those with eyes to see. I ... had cause to laugh out loud in pleasure at the novel (to me anyway) but straightforward and undeniable conclusions that your patient research has yielded.
And for this, I thank you.
... I shall sign off there. Once again, let me register my deep admiration and appreciation for your wonderful work, which is at the same time so unlike any of the other Jesus resources available on the web, and so reassuringly transparent despite the obvious weight of reading and careful scholarship behind it."

* "... I suspect that you, as I, dislike the intellectual shallowness, strident vulgarity of expression and bad mannered tactlessness of the "New Atheists".
What really provoked this e-mail, however, was your clear concise and commonsensical methodological rules of thumb. I had to drop a line saying how much I was enjoying your work.
Many thanks"

* "... I found your site a few years ago and was very impressed. I remember it being one of the best "historical Jesus" sites I've seen on the web... And I think you've come up with one of the most plausible reconstructions of a possible historical Jesus that I've seen.
To everyone else here, I would say that Mr. Muller's site is well worth reading whether or not you buy into all of his conclusions. He brings in a wide range of sources (apocryphal accounts, writings of early church fathers, etc.) which are not often discussed in one place, and provides some excellent deconstructions and analyses of the primary texts. ..."

* "I just want to thank you tremendously for your site. For quite some time now I have been researching the historical jesus, reading and reading books upon books. I find it fascinating how one man could have altered the course of human history. Your theories are by far and away 1, the most plausible, and 2, the best sourced. It is simply just occam's razor spelled out for anyone to read. ...
This is by far and away, the most honest approach to a historical Jesus I have ever seen. Started from completely non-biased, completely objective, detective work.
I am an atheist, however, I have received catholic school education from kindergarten all through college and have always been interested about who the man they were teaching actually was, outside of the faith. I wish I would have had one professor who was open and honest to an approach such as this, sadly they don't exist because they are blinded by faith.
For years I have been doing my own independent research (starting as a part time hobby such as yourself), and concluded an end to a means extremely similar to yours but couldn't exactly put it to words the way you masterfully have. I stumbled upon your site about 1 year ago from earlychristianwritings.com and haven't been able to stop devouring every bit of information you have on it. ...
Again, thank you for all the work you have done, especially since this is your free time you work on this and thank you for putting out the best theory on a historical Jesus that exists."

* "Fantastic work. Your blog has been great, and I am reading it as a Christian!"

About "Q", the gospel of Thomas, etc.:
* "... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

About the epistles of Ignatius:
* "I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."
* "I discovered your admirable essay only yesterday. Your methodology is impeccable, your points are apropos & well explicated, your research is thorough and satisfying, and your speculative reconstruction of the writing of the epistles is persuasive and imho very likely to be true. I'm eager to explore & learn from the rest of your site. Thanks again, Bernard, for the opportunity to think with you on this fascinating episode!"

About a fully mythical Jesus:
* "First of all, congratulations for such a great job you have done! I have made some research by my own about this topic and I am very agreed with you. Earl Doherty has some good points about the mythological side of the Jesus conundrum but his underpinning thesis about a whole mythological Jesus is plain wrong, as you have very well proved. ... I have found very insightful your research methodology, it is closer to natural sciences than human sciences, making the arguments based on empirical evidence more than in speculations, this is a strong point on your side, summed up in honest and realistic statements. Congratulations."
* "Carrier, like all mythicists in my humble opinion, really finagles a lot ridiculous things to get to his point. To me it's mind boggling how he could have success with his theories. Not to mention, I've seen his comments to you on some of his articles, and he is rude and an egomaniac."

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
billd89
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by billd89 » Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:11 pm

Not sure this has been linked before.

Shlomo Pines, "The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries According to a New Source", Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. II, No. 13 (1966) : LINK.

An Arian Nazorean source, c.450 AD but w/ much earlier material, disguised in the c.950 AD Tathbit Dald’il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Muhammad, ‘The Establishment of Proofs for the Prophethood of Our Master Mohammed’:

p.18:
Know—may God have mercy upon you—that these three sects65 {Jacobites, Nestorians & Orthodox} do not believe that God revealed to Christ in one way or another a Gospel or a book. Rather, according to them, Christ created the prophets, revealed to them the books and sent to them angels. However, they have with them Gospels composed by four individuals, each one of whom wrote a Gospel. After (one of them) came (another) who was not satisfied with (his predecessor's) Gospel and held that his own Gospel was better. (These Gospels) agree in certain places and disagree (72b) in others; in some of them (there are passages) which are not (found) in the other.

fwiw: this history omits Marcion's Gospel. Marcion was out before he was in? Pseudo-Clementine - from a similar Judeo-Christian group - seems to address Marcionites, in a post I added elsewhere. Period Arabic & Jewish sources that might mention Marcion but don't should be telling.

cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by cora » Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:13 pm

I did not know there were jewish-christians, it seems a contradictio in terminis. AD 450 the Marcionites, or actually the chrestians, might be murdered out and their scripture destroyed. Seems you do not know that the catholic church was in power, and the gnostics were the main enemy.
Very telling for their destruction by the catholic/Christian church. You have a problem with Marcion?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:19 am

From The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity
According to a New Source
by SHLOMO PINES
page 17:
However, they have with them Gospels composed by four individuals, each one of
whom wrote a Gospel. After (one of them) came (another 66) who
was not satisfied with (his predecessor’s) Gospel and held that his
own Gospel was better. (These Gospels) agree in certain places and
disagree (72b) in others; in some of them (there are passages) which
are not (found) in the other. There are tales concerning people—
men and women—from among the Jews, the Romans, and other
(nations, who) said this and did that. There are many absurdities,
(many) false and stupid things and many obvious lies and manifest
contradictions. It was this which people have thoroughly studied
and set apart. However, a person who reads it becomes aware
of this 67 if he examines it carefully. Something—but little—of the
sayings, the precepts of Christ and information 68 concerning him
is also to be found there.

page 18:
Each one of them was of the opinion (wakana ‘inda kull wahid min ha‘ula’) that the man 69 who had composed a Gospel before him, had given a correct account of (certain)
things and had distorted (akhalla) others, and that another (Gospel)
would be more deserving of recognition and more correct. For if his predecessor70 had succeeded in giving a correct account, there
would have been no need for him to compose another, different his predecessor.

page 24:
‘Know. . . that these Christian sects 87 are the most ignorant
people in the world with regard to Christ, his history 88 and that
of his mother and that everyone among the authors of these Gospels learnt whatever he has written only a long time (al-dahr altawil) after Christ and after the death of his companions (ashāb)
from (people) who lacked knowledge and were ill-informed (man lā
ya'rifu wa-lā yuhassilu).'

Right on :D

Cordially, Bernard

cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by cora » Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:57 pm

B, What do you want? Yes there were four gospels which appeared in 200. It is about centuries, not a century. He is saying they must have been written long after Christ died and his companions too (according to the church that is after 100, when John died). By people who lacked knowledge and were ill-informed. So?
By people who lacked knowledge and were ill-informed, after 100, that is true. I don't know what you are after. From when is this source? It is the same as the one more up, which comes from 450!!!!! You don't know that roman church Christianity was the only religion allowed in the whole roman empire in 400? What should the jews say? They decided to recognise Christianity (they had to) but they as you can see totally disapproved of the gospels (which had arrived there too). So they acted if Christ had lived (I don't see any Jesus) to please the church, but condemned the gospels (the only source for Jesus Christ). Very clever, very jewish. In reality they had never heard of him. The first Christians arrived in their country in the 4th century, under Constantine. How do I know that all? Education, including studying jews. Are we done? If you are trying to catch me, you can't. My general knowledge goes much wider than Christian papers, most of the time false.
Why don't you go over to normal conversation?

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by rakovsky » Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:16 am

Ben, what makes people think that Pliny was using Marcus Agrippa (1st century BC) as his source?

In an essay, "The Location of Tarichaea," a city in Galilee destroyed in 66 AD, which Pliny described, Nikos Kokkinos writes that Pliny was using the governor of Syria in the mid-late 1st century AD as his source on Galilee's geography:
Little doubt may remain as to whether Tarichaea would have been known enough to Pliny, whose main source for this part of his work was evidently C. Licinius Mucianus, the legatus Augusti pro praetore in Syria at the very time of the destruction of Tarichaea (Jos., War 4.32; B. W. Jones 1984, 35, 39; Da˛browa 1998, 58–59), as has been argued elsewhere (Kokkinos 2002, 729–733).

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8863
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:48 am

rakovsky wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:16 am
Ben, what makes people think that Pliny was using Marcus Agrippa (1st century BC) as his source?
Jones' arguments. (This is in the section on Pliny.)
In an essay, "The Location of Tarichaea," a city in Galilee destroyed in 66 AD, which Pliny described, Nikos Kokkinos writes that Pliny was using the governor of Syria in the mid-late 1st century AD as his source on Galilee's geography:
Little doubt may remain as to whether Tarichaea would have been known enough to Pliny, whose main source for this part of his work was evidently C. Licinius Mucianus, the legatus Augusti pro praetore in Syria at the very time of the destruction of Tarichaea (Jos., War 4.32; B. W. Jones 1984, 35, 39; Da˛browa 1998, 58–59), as has been argued elsewhere (Kokkinos 2002, 729–733).
Do you have the 2002 article he references in which he apparently makes this argument? If so, what does he say?

Not being an expert on Pliny, I am reliant upon the same sets of sources, both ancient and modern, that anyone else is. Let me know what you find about Mucianus.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:05 am

This Pliny is Pliny the Elder, not Pliny the Younger, isn't it?

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply