Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-14-2013, 05:02 PM

Ken Olson has a guest blog post on The Jesus Blog:

The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus (Guest Post) - Olson

Reza Aslan was criticized for rejecting the TF as a forgery, in the face of a presumed scholarly consensus that the passage was not totally inauthentic.

Olson goes through the indications that the passage was forged by Eusebius. He takes a list of the arguments for partial authenticity from Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament, and show how each of them is wrong. And he ends with

Quote:

In summary, the six arguments against Christian authorship of some elements of the Testimonium that Van Voorst has culled from the scholarly literature do not hold with respect to Eusebius. At the very least, this should remind us to be wary of arguments from authority. The fact that one or more scholars has endorsed a particular argument does not mean it is sound. Even if one were to reject the overall conclusion that Eusebius wrote the text, it would not change the fact that these six arguments are based on false premises about what a Christian writer would or would not have written. Arguments about what a generic Christian writer is likely to have done always need to be checked against the actual practices of real Christian authors.

Richard Carrier comments on this blog post and on Aslan here.

Quote:

In defense of Aslan’s conclusion (not necessarily his wording), Olson has blogged about how the most common arguments against Christian authorship of the TF are ironically among the best arguments for its forgery by Eusebius (a Christian):.... In that analysis (well worth reading) he cites his past and present work, and that of his critics, and mentions why they are wrong. Combined with his chapter in Eusebius of Caesarea, I think the case is now pretty strong that Eusebius did indeed fabricate the TF.

Or…that Pamphilus of Caesarea did.

This is a possibility Olson does not consider, but that I think deserves equal attention. My impression from the work of Eusebius is that he is kind of a doof and didn’t actually know where passages like this came from. I suspect he is not the forger. But Olson’s evidence entails that if Eusebius is not the forger, then his teacher and predecessor almost certainly is, and that’s Pamphilus of Caesarea. We have almost none of what was written by that man, thus we can’t check directly, but all the evidence Olson finds of Eusebian authorship of the TF could be remnants of vocabulary, idioms, and ideas Eusebius inherited from his teacher. And the timeline fits (I argue the accidental interpolation in the other passage occurred under Pamphilus’s watch as well, since it’s clear Eusebius didn’t know that had occurred, as I show in my article, yet it must have occurred after Origen, as I also show in my article, and Pamphilus was Origen’s successor; I also demonstrate there that all present copies of Josephus derive from the copy Eusebius held in his library, which was Pamphilus’s library, inherited from Origen).

stephan huller · 08-14-2013, 05:18 PM

It's funny to see how - when all of the dust settles - all of scholarship comes down to (a) exposure to information and (b) what your 'gut' tells you

MrMacSon · 08-14-2013, 07:13 PM

exposure of information about relationships & events around the time documents were 'developed' and evaluation of likely scenarios

stephan huller · 08-14-2013, 08:15 PM

But is there really any 'science' to any of it beyond the first step - i.e. showing you've read as much primary source material and critical scholarship as possible? That's a 'scientific methodology' I guess. But the rest - i.e. how you interpret the information to reach a conclusion - is pure 'inner self' projection. Just read Thomas Oden.

It's not like we're counting the number of mice that die from smoke inhalation.

These 'great scholars' are just like wise old men from the Bible. Wise old men self-created from reading narratives about 'wise old men.' It's sort of weird.

In this case, what's the most objective conclusion? That the Josephan was tampered with or just reading the words on the page like they came from Josephus? I know what I think is true. But I spent too much time hanging around Steve Mason to ignore the fact that there are people who take Josephus like it was the Bible. The question is what's the objective answer here? Can Josephus be trusted?

I came up with a novel idea when I was hanging out with Simcha in Israel on the Sabbath in a religious part of Tel Aviv. But again, I don't believe Josephus. (He does by the way).

Grog · 08-14-2013, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It's funny to see how - when all of the dust settles - all of scholarship comes down to (a) exposure to information and (b) what your 'gut' tells you

I have long had a gut feeling that early critiques of the TF were too hastily, and incomlletely, set aside in the rush to salvage the most promising elements of the TF.

rlogan · 08-14-2013, 09:33 PM

The person most likely to have forged it is the one who first put it to use. The more important person here is the Emperor, with Eusebius acting on his behalf.

At the time, Constantine was concerned with consolidating Christianity into a single State religion. The importance of making Jesus official Roman State history cannot be understated.

There would not have been any disagreement about the nature of Jesus from the very beginning if there had been a history book written by the commanding General of Jewish forces against the Romans saying that he existed as a man.

Forging this passage is what makes Jesus historical, establishes direct lineage from Jesus to Peter to the Roman Church, and sets the stage for consolidation of Christianity into one faith that ultimately becomes an important tool for the Roman state to control the populace.

Minimalist · 08-14-2013, 09:41 PM

Quote:

which was Pamphilus’s library, inherited from Origen)

But Origen didn't know anything about it! Which brings us back to square #1.

As the poster above suggests, "Cui bono?" "Who benefits?" The only beneficiaries are the newly empowered xtian allies of Constantine who were suddenly embarrassed by the lack of their boy being in the historical record.

outhouse · 08-14-2013, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Forging this passage is what makes Jesus historical

Don't think it makes one bit of difference either way.

aa5874 · 08-14-2013, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

The person most likely to have forged it is the one who first put it to use. The more important person here is the Emperor, with Eusebius acting on his behalf.

At the time, Constantine was concerned with consolidating Christianity into a single State religion. The importance of making Jesus official Roman State history cannot be understated.

There would not have been any disagreement about the nature of Jesus from the very beginning if there had been a history book written by the commanding General of Jewish forces against the Romans saying that he existed as a man.

Forging this passage is what makes Jesus historical, establishes direct lineage from Jesus to Peter to the Roman Church, and sets the stage for consolidation of Christianity into one faith that ultimately becomes an important tool for the Roman state to control the populace.

The TF does not establish an historical Jesus.

The TF establishes a Jesus of FAITH

In the TF, it is uncertain if Jesus could be called a man and that he Resurrected after three days.

If the TF claimed Jesus was a mere man then the Jesus cult writers would have argued that Josephus was a LIAR just as Origen attacked the credibility of Celsus for aguing for an HJ.

The Jesus cult writers did NOT argue that Jesus was a man with a human father.

It was Celsus, a non-Christian, who argued that Jesus was a man whose father was a Roman soldier, in "Against Celsus".

Origen, a supposed Christian, argued that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost.

1. Ignatius argued for a Jesus of Faith.

2. Aristides argued for a Jesus of Faith.

3. Justin argued for a Jesus of Faith.

4. Irenaeus argued for a Jesus of Faith.

5. Clement of Rome argued for a Jesus of Faith.

6. Clement of Alexandria argued for a Jesus of Faith.

7. Hippolytus argued for a Jesus of Faith.

8. Origen argued for a Jesus of Faith.

9. Arnobius argued for a Jesus of Faith.

10. EUSEBIUS ARGUED for a Jesus of Faith.

By the way, the TF does not establish the lineage of the Popes.

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

08-14-2013, 05:18 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It's funny to see how - when all of the dust settles - all of scholarship comes down to (a) exposure to information and (b) what your 'gut' tells you

08-14-2013, 07:13 PM	#3
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	exposure of information about relationships & events around the time documents were 'developed' and evaluation of likely scenarios

08-14-2013, 08:15 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But is there really any 'science' to any of it beyond the first step - i.e. showing you've read as much primary source material and critical scholarship as possible? That's a 'scientific methodology' I guess. But the rest - i.e. how you interpret the information to reach a conclusion - is pure 'inner self' projection. Just read Thomas Oden. It's not like we're counting the number of mice that die from smoke inhalation. These 'great scholars' are just like wise old men from the Bible. Wise old men self-created from reading narratives about 'wise old men.' It's sort of weird. In this case, what's the most objective conclusion? That the Josephan was tampered with or just reading the words on the page like they came from Josephus? I know what I think is true. But I spent too much time hanging around Steve Mason to ignore the fact that there are people who take Josephus like it was the Bible. The question is what's the objective answer here? Can Josephus be trusted? I came up with a novel idea when I was hanging out with Simcha in Israel on the Sabbath in a religious part of Tel Aviv. But again, I don't believe Josephus. (He does by the way).

08-14-2013, 09:33 PM	#6
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	The person most likely to have forged it is the one who first put it to use. The more important person here is the Emperor, with Eusebius acting on his behalf. At the time, Constantine was concerned with consolidating Christianity into a single State religion. The importance of making Jesus official Roman State history cannot be understated. There would not have been any disagreement about the nature of Jesus from the very beginning if there had been a history book written by the commanding General of Jewish forces against the Romans saying that he existed as a man. Forging this passage is what makes Jesus historical, establishes direct lineage from Jesus to Peter to the Roman Church, and sets the stage for consolidation of Christianity into one faith that ultimately becomes an important tool for the Roman state to control the populace.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.