Danish critic and scholar, who had great influence on the Scandinavian literature from 1870s through the turn of the century. Brandes formulated at the age of thirty the principles of a new realism and naturalism, condemning hyper-aesthetic writing and fantasy in literature.
Is this the Georg Brandes that you are so excited about? I don't see that his area of expertise extends to ancient history.
<<<<"Whatever we think of the question of the historicity of Jesus, it is one of the most difficult things in the world to extract any reliable information about him from the only biographical documents we have; and even if we take the teaching ascribed to Jesus in the gospels as authentic, although, as I have shown, this would be a drastic violation of all ordinary rules of history, that teaching is not unique in any single particular or in its entirety. As I have said... I know of only one occasion on which any historical committee sat down to examine the gospel on ordinary historical principles, and all its members were Christians. Yet they candidly admitted that no single saying of Jesus in the Gospels can be proved to have existed in the first century.">>>
(Joseph McCabe 1867-1955)
Are you OK Scott? Aside from the obvious error in historical methodology, this statement is clearly predicated on the actual existence of the man named Jesus who lived, was executed and whose followers claimed had been resurrected. Thanks
From the British paper the "Observer" (May 30, 1926)(Dr. Burch, theologian not Ancient Historian)"...the ablest book on the whole subject, " (Klausner's "Jesus of Nazareth) "twenty-four lines" from Jewish and pagan writers, and four of those are spurious. Of the twenty genuine lines twelve (universally regarded as spurious) are in the Jewish historian Josephus. In the immense Latin literature of the century after the death of Jesus there are only eight lines; and each of these is disputed."
Being so out of date your source would not have known of the discovery of an earlier copy of Josephus that Scholars, have used to correct the interpolation. All your sources are very dated do you have any thing from the last decade? (never mind century)
I know that you don't realize this, but just for your information; Theologians are not ancient historians. Some have only taken basic history classes. They utilize other experts in the field of ancient history as sources but rarely have the qualifications to examine source materials on their own. That is what I meant by "Scholars who are in a position to know"
Your analogy of flight is also flawed because Historians look back at what was, not forward to what will or might be. Was that the best you could come up with after all those hours of searching? You failed Scott:(
BTW What the heck does this sentence mean?
"The majority of scholars examining the =same= set of evidence even in the early 20th century have made a questioned the historicity of Jesus:" |
