Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tristan Scott · 08-05-2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
Perhaps, but O'Reilly should still be honest enough to admit that the passage is controversial in many quarters.

Agreed.

Peter Kirby · 08-05-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
re: Tesimonium, there have been other copies found that did not appear to be redacted with Xian dogma.

Please quote them.

best,
Peter Kirby

Artemus · 08-05-2003, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
re: Tesimonium, there have been other copies found that did not appear to be redacted with Xian dogma.

The only one I am familiar with is the Agapius "Book of the Title" reference. Peter Kirby summarizes scholarship that shows that this reference has its own serious problems. See entry 9 of "Arguments that the Testimonium is Authentic" at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Tristan Scott · 08-05-2003, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemus
The only one I am familiar with is the Agapius "Book of the Title" reference. Peter Kirby summarizes scholarship that shows that this reference has its own serious problems. See entry 9 of "Arguments that the Testimonium is Authentic" at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Yes that's the one, but I thought the title was Book of History Guided by All the Virtues of Wisdom. Crowned with Various Philosophies and Blessed by the Truth of Knowledge. I mean how could you ever doubt a book with a title like that?

As I said before, I have no doubts that the Testimonium was interpolated. I just don't conclude that it was a complete fabrication.

Doctor X · 08-05-2003, 10:25 AM

One point for humor!

Anyways, not to sound like an apologist for old Bill, but it is possible he does not know. All of us who have no life, sit at the computer to try to forget the icy loneliness under which we rot, until the anger makes us grab the axe [Get on with it!--Ed.] . . . right . . . "Professional Talking Heads" do not have time to personally research every subject that jumps up. Nooooo . . . it does not remove responsibility. Anyways, it can happen like this:

Bill: Hey, anyone know if there is any historical evidence for Jesus.

Yesman: Yeah, Tacitus and Josephus.

Bill: Who?

Yesman: Some dead guys.

Now, IF responsible readers enlighten him, and he comments no further . . . then that is a different story:

Yesman: Hey, a bunch of people have e-mailed us that Tacitus and Josephus are probably later redactions from Christian apologists to provide historicity to an otherwise mythic story.

Bill: What?

--J.D.

boneyard bill · 08-06-2003, 05:48 PM

Artimus asks:

Quote:

What evidence is there that it is not a total fabrication? Once evidence is known to have been tampered with, the burden of proof lies with those who still want to use it to make a point.

I'm far from being expert on this. However I think the main reason is that Josephus' later reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ." would have no antecedent reference if you omit the testimonium. So the argument is that there must have been some sort of reference even though the extant one couldn't have been written by a Pharasaic Jew like Josephus.

Bernard Muller · 08-06-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

I'm far from being expert on this. However I think the main reason is that Josephus' later reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ." would have no antecedent reference if you omit the testimonium. So the argument is that there must have been some sort of reference even though the extant one couldn't have been written by a Pharasaic Jew like Josephus

Not so. On my page on the Testimonium, I have arguments to the opposite, that is, because of the mention of "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ." (which I have no reason to reject), no authentic Testimonium could have existed.
Josephus Testimonium
Best regards, Bernard

Echo · 08-07-2003, 08:16 AM

I didn't see the show, so I have to ask what O'Reilly's point was in bringing up the question of the historical Jesus. Was he bemoaning the secularization of our society and then trying to show that the existence of the historical Jesus somehow makes all this "secularization" a bad thing?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was he making the oft heard claim that Jesus existed therefore God exists therefore Christianity is true therefore all this secularization is crap?

Roland · 08-07-2003, 10:45 AM

Echo -

He brought it up when he was discussing the brouhaha over the new film by Mel Gibson on the life of Christ. It was part of his argument as to why the Jews need to be depicted as having a hand in Jesus' death. He claimed that Josephus and Tacitus both corroborated that fact.

Peter Kirby · 08-07-2003, 11:05 AM

Annals 15.44. "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Jud�a, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Nope, nothing about the Jews there.

best,
Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2003, 10:25 AM	#15
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	One point for humor! Anyways, not to sound like an apologist for old Bill, but it is possible he does not know. All of us who have no life, sit at the computer to try to forget the icy loneliness under which we rot, until the anger makes us grab the axe [Get on with it!--Ed.] . . . right . . . "Professional Talking Heads" do not have time to personally research every subject that jumps up. Nooooo . . . it does not remove responsibility. Anyways, it can happen like this: Bill: Hey, anyone know if there is any historical evidence for Jesus. Yesman: Yeah, Tacitus and Josephus. Bill: Who? Yesman: Some dead guys. Now, IF responsible readers enlighten him, and he comments no further . . . then that is a different story: Yesman: Hey, a bunch of people have e-mailed us that Tacitus and Josephus are probably later redactions from Christian apologists to provide historicity to an otherwise mythic story. Bill: What? --J.D.

08-07-2003, 08:16 AM	#18
Echo Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winter Park, Fl USA Posts: 411	I didn't see the show, so I have to ask what O'Reilly's point was in bringing up the question of the historical Jesus. Was he bemoaning the secularization of our society and then trying to show that the existence of the historical Jesus somehow makes all this "secularization" a bad thing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but was he making the oft heard claim that Jesus existed therefore God exists therefore Christianity is true therefore all this secularization is crap?

08-07-2003, 10:45 AM	#19
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Echo - He brought it up when he was discussing the brouhaha over the new film by Mel Gibson on the life of Christ. It was part of his argument as to why the Jews need to be depicted as having a hand in Jesus' death. He claimed that Josephus and Tacitus both corroborated that fact.

08-07-2003, 11:05 AM	#20
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Annals 15.44. "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Jud�a, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." Nope, nothing about the Jews there. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.