andrewcriddle

One parallel for deriving Christianos from Christus would be the derivation of Augustianos (followers of or attendants on Augustus) from Augustus

Andrew Criddle

post tenebras lux

Firstly, before dropping it, you are still failing to understand the difference between blindspot and blind side, and hence the americanism 'blindsided'. Here's the O.E.D. (see, I name my 'scholars') on it: Secondly, here you go again with your 'Josephan scholars'. You're the one who raised them and yet you're the one who's refusing to define them. Please define them (is Dr Goldberg, whom gnosis linked to, one of them?) so that I can comment on those you consider Josephan scholars.
Again, you raised the claim, so you define what you mean by it. If you don't like 'bold', would you prefer if I had said 'your unsubstantiated claim'?
How many times do I have to ask you? Who are these people you consider to be josephan scholars? You're the one who raised the claim that they supported you. Once I know who you consider to be josephan scholars then I will investigate them. Until then I stand by my initial comment that: "you just claim that "[t]he partially interpolated hypothesis commands a majority of Josephan scholars" and hope that I'll buy this argument from authority that will - once investigated - probably dissolve into an argument from 'accepted consensus' a.k.a. '(mostly) long dead christian theologians/apologists taught this, therefore so do we'."Correction: what you claim they are saying. How much time have you spent considering the 'total interpolation' position, and what led you to reject it?
You're the one who raised the issue of 'josephan scholars' and you're the one who is refusing to clarify. I do not know who you are claiming to be josephan scholars, and I am not going to waste my time trying to double-guess you.Well? You're the one who keeps talking about your 'josephan scholars' whilst refusing to list them. So why don't you tell me.Why only comment on my 'fiddling' comment: where is the evidence of this Great Fire under Nero or that he persecuted christians for it?

post tenebras lux

Again. Here you go with your 'most josephan scholars ...' talk. And yet you still decline to clarify who you are talking about. Would it be too much to ask for you to either say who you consider 'josephan scholars' or to justify their opinions yourself. Why have they concluded all that you claim they have?

andrewcriddle

FWIW Meier in book 1 of 'A Marginal Jew' gives the following list of reasonably recent reasonably prominent scholars who have regarded the TF as authentic but interpolated.

(Jewish) Paul Winter, Louis Feldman
(Christian sort-of) SGF Brandon, Morton Smith
(Protestant) James Charlesworth
(Catholic) Carlo Martini, Wofgang Trilling A-M Dubarle.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

They're both automotive terms too.

You were the one who first confidently claimed that Josephus did not write any of the longer passage. I pointed out that most Josephan scholars disagreed. If your competence matches your confidence, you should have no problem knowing who they are and what they are saying.

I didn't merely say that the longer passage is only partially interpolated; I said that it was so according to most Josephan schoalrs. Right there's your substantiation, which should be adequate to anyone competent to expound so confidentally, as you did, on what Josephus did and did not write.

As I said before, your apparent lack of awareness of how many of the leading Josephus scholars are Jewish does not bode particularly well for the conclusion that you know what you are talking about.

Simple--because you have not (yet?) admitted that you don't really know who the recognized Josephan scholars are and that therefore you really did not have any reasonable basis to be making the claims about what Josephus did or did not write.

The "fiddling" comment shows a lack of seriousness.

Stephen

jgibson000

To "post tenebras lux" (oy, those silly and grandiose monikers that people here hide behind!)

Let me echo Stephen's call to you to tell us how it is that you are so certain about what Josephus did and did not write. Presumably some of your claim rests upon your reading scholarly studies of the langage and form and content of the "longer passage" and how it squares (or doesn't) with what scholars have argued is "typically" Josephan.

Will you then kindly inform us of what the particular wrtings, especially the scholarly ones, are that informs your claim? Or will you once and for all tell us that this presumption has no basis in fact?

Jeffrey Gibson

Chris Weimer

Christus is the Latin translation of χριστος. As Andrew pointed out, Augustian is an excellent example of this derivation. Others include Iulianus ultimately from Iulus, the ancestor of the gens Iulia.

And there isn't merely only one way to derive an adjective from a proper name. Besides Augustianus, you have Augustanus, Augustalis, and Augustinus. Christianus is perfect Latin.

Chris Weimer

Howdy Jeffrey,

Both Steve Mason and Ken Olson's arguments against authenticity entirely are top-notch. Actually, I prefer Steve Mason's, since I don't think I would posit the theory of Eusebius as interpolator as Ken Olson does.

best,

Chris

jgibson000

Thanks Chris.

But please note that I didn't ask you -- or anyone -- whether there were scholars who argued this, let alone whether what they wrote was any good..

I asked PTL (hello Jim and Tammy Faye Baker!) who the particular scholars were, if any, whose works informed his claim.

I'd be grateful if he(?) would answer this.

Jeffrey Gibson

Chris Weimer

I can't answer for her (I believe PTL is a she), but was just letting you know who informs my opinion. However, contrary to mythicists, I don't think that an absence of information in Josephus means that Jesus never existed, or started out as a mythical concept, like Doherty's thesis.

best,

Chris Weimer