Did you get that from Martin Smith? If we know so little about Jesus how do we know that?

Toto

I deny the utility of the criterion of embarrassment in general. It seems to be unique to Biblical studies, and seems to be jerry-rigged to come out with the results that Christians want, when they have no real evidence. I believe that John P. Meier is a Catholic, or at least a Christian, and thereby starts out with a bias.

Do you have any examples of any other scholarly (or other) discipline that uses this criterion for any purpose? Do historians think that George Washington must have chopped down the cherry tree because it was embarrassing to say he violated his father's orders?

Besides this, the things that are supposed to be embarrassing aren't always really embarrassing. What is embarrassing about Jesus being a carpenter, especially when you believe in the sort of anti-materialist values that Jesus is supposed to have advocated? Isn't this like the people who say "my parents were dirt poor when they came to this country. . ."? They might be embarrassed that their parents were poor, or they might just be saying this because their parents told them they were poor for other reasons.

The closest I can think of is the admission against interest exception to the hearsay rule in the rules of evidence in a trial. But I don't think alleged embarrassment by early Christians has the evidentiary value of a statment against your financial interest. This is especially true when there is a competing explanation.

Who is "Martin Smith?" The Jesus depicted in the NT did what magicians did.

rodahi

I addressed some of the points. You failed to respond.

You have this interesting notion that everytime you ask a question it is worth responding to. At the same time, you admittedly refuse to answer any question posed to you by a theist. This makes your task much simpler, much less time consuming, and much less forthright.

Omnedon,

You seem to be implying something that you previously put forth, the idea that Josephus is not independent because it was derived from a Christian source. This is very unlikely.

The wording of almost every element of the reconstructed passage indicates that Josephus was not drawing from a first century Christian source. Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 102.

Josephus uses the term "Christ" in a decidedly unChristian Jewish way. It is only used as a title, never as a personal name. Christians traditions most often refer to "Christ" as a name, rather than a title. Even Taticus and Pliny, writing a few years later, use Christ as a name, rather than a title. Their usage indicates probable Christian influence. Accordingly, use of the term Christ as a title, rather than a name, especially in the late first century, indicates a Jewish, not Christian, source for Josephus' attestation.

Josephus refers to Jesus as a "wise man." Although first century Christianty displayed a wide range of christological references and interperations of Jesus, they nowhere refer to him as a "wise man." Again, no hint of a Christian tradition.

Josephus refers to Jesus miracles as "amazing deeds," a phrase with no comparable first century Christian equivalence. Moreover, it is a somewhat value neutral deeds that leaves open the possibility of sorcery, something that no Christian tradition would infer.

Other unChristian word usages or statements are that Jesus "won over many Greeks," that the "leading men" indicted him, and his reference to Christians as a "tribe." None show familiarity with Christian word usage regarding these events.

Another reason to believe that Josephus had a nonChristian source for his references to Jesus is because of his obviously nonChristian information regarding John the Baptist. To Christians, the two were tied inextricably together. Josephus seems unaware of this link. Moreover, Josephus characterizes John's baptism very differently than do the Christian sources. His source of information for John was obviously obtained from a nonChristian source.

Which brings us to the last point. Josephus lived in Palestine and Gallilee, and has demonstrated a familiarity with many Jewish sources.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 23, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 23, 2001).]

Omnedon,

The Bablyonian Talmud.

I begin by agreeing that the Talmud is a problematic source of historical information. However, even your own quote does not deny that it is an indendent witness, merely "less of an independent" witness than a product of Jewish reflection and teaching.

The most important point is that it is a thorougly Jewish collection. There is no change of Christian interpolation. Moreover, it seems clear that, whatever their accuracy, these are Jewish traditions not derived from Christian sources (although there do appear to be polemical arguments in reaction to some Christian doctrines).

However, given the generally historical unreliability of the Talmud, I admit this is the weakest of the independent attestations as to Jesus' miracle working.

They were SingleDad's points - you did not address his objections, you re-targeted the questions to me instead. And you failed to rework your arguments to remove the problems.



No, all I do is challenge previously stated claims that you theists make. That doesn't require that I have a different, or contrary, position to showcase for you.

If you're uncomfortable with the idea of intellectual accountability for the things you say in a public forum, perhaps you shouldn't make such sweeping statements. Or if you don't have the personal time necessary to defend the things you claim, then perhaps you should scale back on the claims you make. Either way, this is a situation of your own making - it has nothing to do with me.



Generally speaking, the theists haven't finished answering my questions about their previous statements.

You deliberately twist what the article said. When it says,

It is saying that, because of the fore-going factors:
a. stoning and hanging are both metioned;
b. the date of the text, from the time of Christian ascendancy
c. the persecution of Jews during that same time of ascendancy

these elements together suggest that that the excerpt in the Bab. Talmud is less likely to be an independent witness than it is to be a product of Jewish reflection on church teaching. In other words, the conclusion that it is an independent witness is not valid; it is less likely than the conclusion that the excerpt is the product of the reflection on church teaching.


Which amounts ot the same thing. Tell me, what is the difference:

a. Jews altering their own collection of writings to satiate or satisfy christians;
vs.
b. Christians re-writing those texts themselves

As far as I can see, the end result is the same: a text that was modified to have a pro-christian reading. The question of who did the modification is irrelevant. This also shows how your claim that this is a thoroughly Jewish source is besides the point: if the Jews changed the text as a reaction to church teaching, then it could be both (a) thoroughly Jewish as well as (b) deliberately changed to have a pro-christian reading.

So in other words, we have (yet another) tainted source that cannot honestly be called an independent witness.


There is no mention of miracle working; only of sorcery. And that is a legal allegation, not an independent attestation.

If this is the "foundation" upon which you build your argument, it is laughable to even call it an independent attestation.

"Which amounts ot the same thing. Tell me, what is the difference:

a. Jews altering their own collection of writings to satiate or satisfy christians;
vs.
b. Christians re-writing those texts themselves"

The notion that this is a product of Jewish fears of Christian persecution is an unlikely scenario. It is true that in other sections of the Talmud, references to Jesus were "coded" so as to avoid persecution. However, that fact actually contradicts your point. The Jews had every reason to deny their involvement in the death of Jesus. However, in this particular section of the Talmud, the Jews claim COMPLETE responsibility.

As Dr. Van Voorst states, "This passage is extraordinary: a Jewish writing in which Jews, not Romans, execute Jesus on solely Jewish charges after a solely Jewish trial. We can safely deduce that the rabbis responsible for the baraita must not have felt pressure from Christians about responsibility for the death of Jesus, else they would never had told it." Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 119.

If they were trying to avoid persecution, the last thing the Jews would have done was openly portray Jesus as a sorcery, given a fair trial, deserving of death, and all at the hands of the Jews.

"There is no mention of miracle working; only of sorcery. And that is a legal allegation, not an independent attestation."

It is a legal allegation that he performed unnatural feats. Jesus was accused of sorcery, he was given a fair trial, he was found guilty and executed. According to the Talmud, the Jews were accusing Jesus of performing unnatural feats, magic, and then found him guilty. So how is this (proven) allegation not an attestation?

"If this is the "foundation" upon which you build your argument, it is laughable to even call it an independent attestation."

I admit it's the weakest of the independent attestations. So it certainly is not the foundation of my argument.

Speaking of which, I posted a much longer and more forceful argument on Josephus which you have failed to address. Of course, given your track record on Josephus, I don't really blame you.

Evidently not, at least to the knowledgeable scholars who put together the Oxford Companion to the Biblical World. Whom I trust as being substantially more balanced in their treatment of the material than someone like yourself, or any sources which you might depend upon.


Your logic is flawed. For the Jews, esp. in medieval Europe, their responsibility in Christ's death was serious; there was a significant amount of anti-Semitism traceable to this factor alone. And since the Church had already made its mind up on the topic, denials from the Jews served only to enrage the Church. Admitting their complicity in the act was the only acceptable thing to the Church.


Wrong. It was for sorcery. Do not change the terms. Miracle working and sorcery are not the same. Especially when miracle working is seen as from God, and sorcery is seen as satan's mockery, or pale attempt at imitating God. By that I mean: what Moses did in the court of Pharaoh (turning Aaron's rod into a serpent) was miracle; what Pharaoh's magicians did (the same act) was sorcery.

It is not even an independent attestation. It is a piece of extra-biblical text that was almost certainly altered to have a pro-christian viewpoint. But there is no reliable evidence of "attestation" here at all - that went out the window due to the items mentioned by the Oxford Companion to the Biblical World.