Re: birch bark b*ll*x
- At 09.22 03/05/99 -0700, joseph baxter wrote:
>Tone down the polemics, Ian,Polemics, Joe? Naaa, I don't have an agenda -- other than "coherent
balanced analysis along scientific lines", if you want to call that an agenda.
>I think you have forgotten the context of ourDefinitely not. My first comment was to Jack for asking "Birch Bark
Scripture? Wuzzat?" It was you who introduced this "Birch Bark Scripture"
stuff and I merely commented on the evidence -- or better the lack of it.
>which had to do with hypotheses, such as the hypothesis re theAs to such a hypothesis, I have already stated my position: the texts are
>name of the man,
in Greek and probably none was written anywhere near Judea; no-one has
established a historical person at the core of the Jesus literature, so one
can't make presuppositions as to a non-historical person's place of
residence; all we therefore have is a Greek name of a literary personality.
>and hypotheses to explain certain reported Asian factsIt's hard for you to overcome the necessity to believe. It overshadows your
>such as the Seat of Solomon temple inscriptions, and other *reported*
>facts, including the one you are currently frothing at the mouth about.
ability to test your surrogate hypotheses. All fall down with the
incredible notion of a Jesus surviving his crucifixion, the first hurdle
you have failed to deal with. (The second is lack of credible dating for
your "Asian facts".)
>(IfNaturally, as indications of a Jesus in India started cropping up with
>you have a hypothesis which explains the large body of reported Asian
>facts, or any of these reported facts, that is fair game for discussion.)
Mirza and the "discovery" of the tomb of Jesus, I can see no reason for
looking further afield.
>I will respond to your message as time permits.It might be better, if you can't add anything substantive (as you haven't
so far), that you get the substance first.