Roger Pearse

More general than that; I think *everyone* should be precise, and say no more than the data requires to be said. That's just my personal view, but I don't see any other way to avoid rampant subjectivity. I don't know about you, but I don't much like reading 'scholarship' that turns out to be merely a contemporary prejudice decorated with references. I don't want to learn whether Dr. X reads the Guardian or the Times; I bought his book to learn whether Julius Caesar did invade Corsica or not (or whatever). And of course the same problem affects *me* -- how do *I* avoid doing just the same? Everyone has prejudices -- except me, of course! My answer is to stick very close to the data.

I think there are questions of legitimate judgement in this. So I will not address it, since after all my opinion isn't specially worth more than anyone elses'.

It's certainly a possible position to take. I don't share it, tho. Ancient scholars didn't have the tools of scholarship that we do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

No relation to Jimmy Olsen, riding superman's cape ? How does Jimmy show up on google... next thing we know Roger will be making dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs face the wrong way on maps to defend copyrights, and putting deliberate little typos in his voluminous web helps (some or all of which he actually encourages to be mirrored).

This of course totally confuses and confounds the issue. Of course, it is possible for somebody to have a theory that Eusebius forged the TF, strained as it seems. And you wouldn't expect most of the real scholars in the realm to even bother with the theory, whether they found it interesting, entertaining, laughable or ludicrous, if and when they heard of it.

The problem is you can't assume such a theory as a point of accusation to discredit (in this case not just the verse, but a huge corpos of respected writings). It simply makes an ass of the accusers, to put it a tad bluntly.

Folks not to be trusted on integrity matters.

There is little that is more scurrilous than straining to fabricate an integrity accusation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Roger Pearse

I wish Paget's article were online. If I remember correctly it reviews all the possible positions rather than advancing any thesis of his own, with references and some sort of history, which means it would raise the general standard of debate online quite a bit. I haven't reread it for a year or two, so pardon me if I am misremembering.

I think all of us feel instinctively that something is wrong with the TF. There consensus seems to end.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

You really think Eusebius could read the TF and find it entirely reasonable that Josephus, who he knows was not a Christian, wrote it?

I don't think you need any "tools of scholarship" to question the legitimacy of the passage given knowledge that Josephus was not a Christian.

At the very least, I would think this calls into question Eusebius' critical skills which, in turn, should call into question any claim he makes absent external supporting evidence. IOW, he doesn't have to be a liar to be untrustworthy. I don't consider Papias a liar but the fact that he feels free to relate a completely absurd story of the death of Judas suggests he cannot be relied upon to critically evaluate the claims he repeats.

Roger Pearse

Well I do. There is no shortage of people who think this now, you know! But I think we're getting into areas of judgement and opinion, and there can certainly be more than one view on this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Pay attention. Ken Olson is a well regarded graduate student studying with a very respected scholar. His article outlining the case that Eusebius forged the TF was published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

You speculation about "real scholars" not even bothering with the theory has no basis in fact. Whether Olson proves his case or not, his theory has enough credibility to be published and discussed.

rlogan

heh. hi Roger.

I think Amaleq13 addresed this, and again - Eusebius has the library of Caesaria. It's more than "fudging" to pretend he's at some kind of scholarship disadvantage. The Bishop's disadvantage is the relentless effort to promote his own power base.

He's in the middle of the effort to fabricate final Church History (canon) before competing contenders are stamped out. This is a radically different position from someone who is looking back through more than a millenia of official police state propaganda.

Anyway - I see you did not answer his question.

Regardless, you're keeping us sharp in a way that I do not find offensive in the least, and also bring some literature to our attention that deserves scrutiny.

Roger Pearse

I thought I had, but I'm trying to avoid being drawn into things that, ultimately, come down to expressions of opinion. After all, my opinions are no better than anyone else's, and I find that there is too much opinion and too little data around online anyway. No-one really needs more from me.

My only reason for writing initially was that people who debunk Eusebius don't seem to realise what they're missing. The more of his stuff I work on, the more impressed I get, and the less known it all seems to be. But of course you're welcome to think different!

Thank you for taking the time to say some kind words. It's much appreciated.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Ok.. one grad student published a paper in a Journal, which the skeptics really like.

And then the folks here <vague accusations of dishonesty deleted>, assume his conclusions as a starting point, to conolute a corollorary thesis of a whole corpus of works being lies.

Integrity first.

Little is more scurrilous than a convoluted fabricated broad-based integrity attack, built on sand upon presumption upon conjecture.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Brother Daniel

Does the fact that the skeptics like it make it wrong? Does the fact that it fits well with any individual skeptic's favourite hypotheses automatically discredit any claim to have examined the arguments and to have found merit in them? Careful, now.
Demonstrate with direct quotations. And pay attention to context. You might be surprised at exactly who is using exactly what to support exactly which thesis.
Indeed. Now look in the mirror and say it again.