FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-30-2001, 10:14 AM   #111
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Om Now:

"You flatter yourself. My apology to you had nothing to do with your so-called supporting quotes. Instead, my apology was an attempt to turn down the volume and actually have a conversation. I was prepared to go out on a limb and give you benefit of the doubt---but not because of anything you posted in your defense."

So the retraction was insincere and had nothing to do with my "so-called supporting quotes." I'm rather surprised, especially with your implication that my supporting quotes may somehow still be in doubt.

To-Recap:

Me:

"And you are wrong about Josephus, he does attest to Jesus' miracle working. He records that Jesus was a performer of "startling deeds."

Om:

"Unfortunately, it is you who is wrong here. In the first place, the Josephus "quote" is bogus. That is a later Christian invention.

In the second place, your lack of knowledge about the obvious fakery in the Josephus quotation refutes your loud claims about being knowledgeable in NT textual criticism and history."

Me:

"Rather than demonstrating my "ignorance" of New Testament studies, [m]y belief that the Josephus passage at issue originally attested to Jesus' performance of miracles is a result of extensive study. John D. Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Raymond E. Brown, Graham Stanton, J.P. Meier, S.G.F. Brandon, Ernst Bammel, F.F. Bruce, Luke T. Johnson, and Graham Twelftree ALL accept that Josephus' reference to Jesus' miracles is originally Josephan."

You then accused me of misrepresenting my sources and provided a quote from a source you claimed was by Bruce, one of the scholars I had relied on (which you eventually retracted, or was that insincere also?). You then claimed that Bruce agreed with you, not me. I then proceeded to provide direct quotes from my sources, which you know refer to as "so-called supporting sources."

My "so-called supporting quotes":

"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and many Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble. The tribe of Christians, which has taken its name from him, is not extinct today." F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 39.

"Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, but those who had first loved him did not cease. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared." Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 93.

I also provided pinpoint references to similar reconstructions from J.P. Meier and Raymond E. Brown.

Then, I provided another "so-called" supporting quote.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, at 298.

So. Are they supporting quotes or just "so-called supporting quotes"?
 
Old 04-02-2001, 05:43 PM   #112
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Here deLayman thinks he has caught me in a contradiction.

Poor deLayman.....


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"3. Additionally, there is evidence that the core Josephus material (which excludes the later Christian interpolation) was copying from an earlier Judeo-christian gospel, which is now lost. That being the case, Josephus was copying the text of someone else and not necessarily endorsing any of the words themselves. His concern in that situation would have been to faithfully reproduce the text he was working from. This is documented in The Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, 13 (1995), pages 59-77."

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f.../000311-2.html
</font>

So?

I merely brought up that there was scholarly debate (in a peer-reviewed journal, no less) that a Christian source may indeed be where Josephus got his material. In other words, the book is not closed on that topic, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. I myself am not arguing in favor that this is what Josephus did; I merely bring it up to illustrate that there is not concensus.

And for the third time - I have referenced this statement with the proper credentials: Study of Pseudepigrapha, 13 (1995), pages 59-77.. You have not commented on it, so I will take that as acknowledgement that the article is correct.


And finally, the main point is still not refuted:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Neither Bruce's reconstruction above, nor any of several other variant reconstructions, provides conclusive independent testimony of miracles. At most, it shows us that there was such a legend in those days, and Josephus was recording it in his role as historian.
</font>
 
Old 04-02-2001, 05:49 PM   #113
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I think it is a hypothetical document that likely existed because of similarities in Matthew and Luke. It was likely a written document.

Why? Do you "imagine" that it comes from a sort of proto-Christian community with no knowledge of the death and reserrection of Jesus? If so, then I'd like to see what evidence you have that the community Q came from did not hold those beliefs.
</font>

1. I am not required to provide any evidence about the Q community. I have made no claims about it.

2. However, by your own "rules of evidence" - your claim that Josephus was not using direct material from Christians is derived the fact that Josephus made no mention of the Christian central belief: resurrection of Christ. Somehow the fact that Josephus fails to mention any resurrection material proves that he was not in direct contact with Christians. Why? Because they couldn't possibly overlook bringing that up.

But the people who wrote the Q document seemed to have forgotten to bring it up.

Evidently, a person could have direct contact with a Christian document(s), and not go over this key doctrine.

So what was to prevent the same thing from happening with Josephus? Based upon solely that criterion, Josephus could have been working directly from the Q document itself.

Perhaps Josephus was told about the resurrection directly rom Christians, but decided it was not a reliable account. Or perhaps he was told about it, but decided that it would be blasphemous to suggest that a mere man rose from the dead. Or, perhaps, he received conflicting reports about it, and decided not to report it.

The stark truth here is that we do not have nearly enough information about Josephus, his sources, or what his motivations were for writing the Test. Flavium. It is a very small passage, with precious little details known about it. Yet in spite of the extreme paucity of background information, people like you plow right ahead and make sweeping statements based upon the smallest details.

Now do I believe that any of these hypotheses I postd above, is actually what happened? Who knows. I merely bring it up to show how these little rules you and Meier have constructed are not trustworthy. There is too much left to chance at the margins, especially for the level of weight you wish to place on it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The mere fact that Q doesn't contain a passion narrative is no evidence that the community it originated in did not believe, or was somehow ignorant of, the passion.
</font>
That was not my point. As usual, you jump to conclusions and fabricate all kinds of strawmen. Isn't it tiring?

I merely wanted to point out that ruling out a Christian source for Josephus based upon a lack of the resurrection material was an unwarranted.

However, and just FYI, the lack of a Passion narrative has been seen as evidence that those who collected the Q material either did not believe in the resurrection, or did not care:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The roughly 235 parallel verses in Luke and Matthew that scholars have identified as Q material (their techniques and their reasoning will be discussed in greater detail below) do not include the Gospel narratives of Jesus' passion and resurrection, which seem to have come from other sources, written or oral. Therefore Q partisans contend that the authors of Q knew nothing about the way Jesus died or about the stories of an empty tomb -- or if they knew, they did not care. Hence there was no atonement doctrine in Q theology. And because belief in Jesus' resurrection is the core belief of Christianity (even very liberal Christians profess faith in the Easter event, if only as a metaphor for renewal), the people who wrote Q must have been adherents of Jesus' in Palestine who were not "Christians" -- unless, as Robinson and others observe, one stretches the word to include anyone who admires Jesus. Scholars used to refer to members of the Q community as "Jewish Christians," a term that can sometimes lead to confusion. The preferred designation nowadays for the group of which they were a part is the "Jesus movement." It took decades, Q partisans believe, before the movement was subsumed into a "cult of Christ," largely gentile and centered on the cross and the resurrection -- a cult that became known as Christianity.
</font>
http://www.theatlantic.com//issues/9...esus/jesus.htm

Do I believe this? Frankly, I don't care one way or another. My point to you is that (and once again) the door is not nearly as shut on the subject as you make it out to be. And the tools you are using are not nearly as airtight as you would like to project.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The Passion Narrative of Jesus was circulated in Christian communities as an independent unit.
</font>
Which does not explain why it was left out of the Q document. There were many stories circulating; why leave just this one out, of all the possible stories? If this was the most important story, logic suggests that it would be the #1 priority to get set down in writing as soon as possible, before any of the details were confused or muddled through passage of time.

And yes, I read your arguments about the Q narrative presupposing the passion story. They are simply not convincing.
 
Old 04-02-2001, 06:02 PM   #114
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"You flatter yourself. My apology to you had nothing to do with your so-called supporting quotes. Instead, my apology was an attempt to turn down the volume and actually have a conversation. I was prepared to go out on a limb and give you benefit of the doubt---but not because of anything you posted in your defense."

So the retraction was insincere and had nothing to do with my "so-called supporting quotes."
</font>

Where did I say that?

Here, let me put it in bold text for you. Nothign else has helped so far:


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Instead, my apology was an attempt to turn down the volume and actually have a conversation.

I was prepared to go out on a limb and give you benefit of the doubt---but not because of anything you posted in your defense."

</font>
None of this indicates, a priori an act of insincerity. Merely different motives than the one you might have preferred. That is your problem, however; not mine.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I'm rather surprised, especially with your implication that my supporting quotes may somehow still be in doubt.

[long list of biased quotes deleted]

So. Are they supporting quotes or just "so-called supporting quotes"?
</font>
They are more quotes from your selection of biased sources. Am I supposed to be surprised or in awe?

The bottom line here is that the claims you are making are based on extremely small amounts of material, and are not universally held or objectively testable. I notice that you did not quote from Burton Mack, for example.

Yet in spite of this, you barge right ahead with claims for strong proof here.

Even your hero, Meier, is much more guarded and cautious about how he describes the usefulness of these "criteria". Said criteria are ,however, still busted, for all the reasons that SingleDad, turtonm and myself mentioned earlier. However, at least Meier takes a more guarded approach when positioning the boundaries of these criteria. That approach, however, is likely due to a greater amount of intellectual and emotional maturity about the topic.

Which is not to say someone is correct; just not easily excitable and prone to exaggeration.

 
Old 04-02-2001, 06:06 PM   #115
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

My Previous Post:

"Om Now:

'You're a five-star idiot, deLayman. I have NEVER claimed that Josephus relied upon a christian source. This is why you get branded as a liar and twister of people's positions.'

Om Then:

"3. Additionally, there is evidence that the core Josephus material (which excludes the later Christian interpolation) was copying from an earlier Judeo-christian gospel, which is now lost. That being the case, Josephus was copying the text of someone else and not necessarily endorsing any of the words themselves. His concern in that situation would have been to faithfully reproduce the text he was working from. This is documented in The Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, 13 (1995), pages 59-77.'"

Om Presently:

"So?

I merely brought up that there was scholarly debate (in a peer-reviewed journal, no less) that a Christian source may indeed be where Josephus got his material. In other words, the book is not closed on that topic, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. I myself am not arguing in
favor that this is what Josephus did; I merely bring it up to illustrate that there is not concensus."

I guess it depends on what the definition of "NEVER" is. Or, perhaps what the definition of "CLAIMED" is.

As for commenting on the article, I have responded to the claims of Christian dependence throughout this thread. In fact, it was my repeated responses to this point that lead to your erroneous assertion that you have "NEVER" claimed that Josephus depended on Christians. Now you chastise me for NEVER responding to a claim that you now argue to have NEVER made.

But if you are now really making the claim, defend it. You have done nothing but make an appeal to a decidedly minority opinion without providing the author or defending the assertion.

I would, however, be interested in who the author of the article was. Could you please provide his or her name?
 
Old 04-02-2001, 06:24 PM   #116
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I merely brought up that there was scholarly debate (in a peer-reviewed journal, no less) that a Christian source may indeed be where Josephus got his material. In other words, the book is not closed on that topic, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. I myself am not arguing in
favor that this is what Josephus did; I merely bring it up to illustrate that there is not concensus."


I guess it depends on what the definition of "NEVER" is. Or, perhaps what the definition of "CLAIMED" is.
</font>
No, it merely depends upon how hell-bent you are on twisting someone's claims. It has been my position from Day 1 that these little rules that you and Polycarp keep referring to are flimsy and unworkable.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for commenting on the article, I have responded to the claims of Christian dependence throughout this thread.
</font>
But if you have never read this article, then you obviously have not responded to it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
In fact, it was my repeated responses to this point that lead to your erroneous assertion that you have "NEVER" claimed that Josephus depended on Christians. Now you chastise me for NEVER responding to a claim that you now argue to have NEVER made.
</font>
No, I chastised you for not paying attention to the article itself, after much belabored whining and moaning about not giving proper references. Then when you get such references, you sit on your butt and do nothing with them.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
But if you are now really making the claim, defend it.
</font>
I have made no claim. You, however, have. It's yours to defend, not mine.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I would, however, be interested in who the author of the article was. Could you please provide his or her name?
</font>
You have the journal, as well as the date and page number. That ought to be sufficient, if you were sincerely interested in looking it up.

Besides, I already gave you the link once before; it did not good. In any event, it is G. J. Goldberg.

Also, here is a link to a critique of Meier's view of the Josephus passage, in light of the new evidence presented:
http://hometown.aol.com/fljosephus/meierCrt.htm

And (contrary to your claims earlier) this also mentions why at least some scholars prefer the Arabic text.


[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 02, 2001).]
 
Old 04-02-2001, 06:27 PM   #117
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Still waiting on this, by the way.

Incidentally, if it is your position that Josephus relied upon Roman or Jewish sources, is that not an admission that the bold text below is correct?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Neither Bruce's reconstruction above, nor any of several other variant reconstructions, provides conclusive independent testimony of miracles. At most, it shows us that there was such a legend in those days, and Josephus was recording it in his role as historian.
</font>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Old 04-02-2001, 06:50 PM   #118
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"No, it merely depends upon how hell-bent you are on twisting someone's claims. It has been my position from Day 1 that these little rules that you and Polycarp keep referring to are flimsy and unworkable."

Certainly that has been one of your assertions. But you also adamantly asserted that you NEVER claimed that Josephus relied on a Christian source. When I show the board that you clearly have, you proceed to chastise me for allegedly failing to respond to an argument that you claimed to have NEVER made.

"But if you have never read this article, then you obviously have not responded to it."

Oh brother. You did not give me anything to respond to but an incomplete reference to an article that it appears you have not even read. While, I was glad to see you actually try and use an academic source, I was disappointed that you completely failed to identify the author or offer the anonymous author's rationale. In short, you have not given me anything to respond to.

Nevertheless, I took the contention seriously enough to respond to it at length. Rather than respond at length you claimed to have NEVER made such a contention. Then you claimed that I NEVER responded to the claim that you just said you NEVER made.

If you have a defense please mount it. If you know who wrote the article, I would appreciate that too. If you don't know what the supporting rationale for the article actually is, please just say so.


"No, I chastised you for not paying attention to the article itself, after much belabored whining and moaning about not giving proper references. Then when you get such references, you sit on your butt and do nothing with them."

What was there to pay attention to? An almost reference with no supporting rationale?

I paid attention to the contention that Josephus relied on a Christian source. I addressed it at length. You have chosen not to defend it. Indeed, you have insisted that you never made the claim.

"You have the journal, as well as the date and page number. That is sufficient."

Why is that sufficient? It wasn't even sufficient in high school.

Do you know who the author of the article is? Is this an article that you have read? Do you subscribe to The Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha?
 
Old 04-02-2001, 06:52 PM   #119
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
"No, it merely depends upon how hell-bent you are on twisting someone's claims. It has been my position from Day 1 that these little rules that you and Polycarp keep referring to are flimsy and unworkable."

Certainly that has been one of your assertions. But you also adamantly asserted that you NEVER claimed that Josephus relied on a Christian source. When I show the board that you clearly have, you proceed to chastise me for allegedly failing to respond to an argument that you claimed to have NEVER made.

"But if you have never read this article, then you obviously have not responded to it."

Oh brother. You did not give me anything to respond to but an incomplete reference to an article that it appears you have not even read. While, I was glad to see you actually try and use an academic source, I was disappointed that you completely failed to identify the author or offer the anonymous author's rationale. In short, you have not given me anything to respond to.

Nevertheless, I took the contention seriously enough to respond to it at length. Rather than respond at length you claimed to have NEVER made such a contention. Then you claimed that I NEVER responded to the claim that you just said you NEVER made.

If you have a defense please mount it. If you know who wrote the article, I would appreciate that too. If you don't know what the supporting rationale for the article actually is, please just say so.


"No, I chastised you for not paying attention to the article itself, after much belabored whining and moaning about not giving proper references. Then when you get such references, you sit on your butt and do nothing with them."

What was there to pay attention to? An almost reference with no supporting rationale?

I paid attention to the contention that Josephus relied on a Christian source. I addressed it at length. You have chosen not to defend it. Indeed, you have insisted that you never made the claim.

"You have the journal, as well as the date and page number. That is sufficient."

Why is that sufficient? It wasn't even sufficient in high school.

Do you know who the author of the article is? Is this an article that you have read? Do you subscribe to The Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha?
</font>
I obviously responded before you edited your article to ADD the author.

Thank you.

And I don't recall you providing a link to the author of the article on Josephus. I would appreciate it if you could provide it again.
 
Old 04-02-2001, 06:54 PM   #120
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
Still waiting on this, by the way.

Incidentally, if it is your position that Josephus relied upon Roman or Jewish sources, is that not an admission that the bold text below is correct?


</font>
Absolutely not. If Josephus was relying on accounts independent of the sources used by the gospel authors then his reference contains an independent attestation of Jesus' miracle working.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.