Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 08-01-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger

I'm not sure why your opinion as to what Origen 'must' have written should be definitive enough to make an argument from silence work. How well do you know the works of Origen, for instance?

How well do you?

Not well enough to pronounce on what he 'must' have said.

Quote:

There is so much in this “neutral” account that Christians could have ‘put a spin on’ in defense of themselves and Jesus, so much that could have provided succor, support and even ammunition for what the Christian apologists were attempting to do in their writing. ...An appeal here to the declaration by Josephus, a respected Jewish historian, that Jesus had been a “wise man” who performed “wonderful works,” would have served to place Jesus and his miracles in the favorable light in which Origen is trying to cast them.

Well, I think that this is all speculation. We can all do this. But to speculate what someone else 'must' have said in order to draw conclusions from what he in fact does not mention in his extant (and decimated) oeuvre seems rather risky to me.

For instance we know that renaissance printers sold their new editions of the classics by including previously unpublished texts. We know that the editor of the 1545 edition of Tertullian had access to the codex Agobardinus of Tertullian. Yet he chose not to print the Ad Nationes that was in it, leaving it until 1609 before this appeared in print. Why? Well, who can tell. But the point is that people do what they do for their own reasons, and not to obliged people living centuries later in a different culture. Most people, I think, would do the same.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver · 08-02-2007, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Some of what the TF says does not sound like a Christian composition, to me at least.

How about a Christian pretending to be a Jewish historian? Is anything in the TF inconsistent with that, to you?

Roger Pearse · 08-02-2007, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Some of what the TF says does not sound like a Christian composition, to me at least.

How about a Christian pretending to be a Jewish historian? Is anything in the TF inconsistent with that, to you?

Or a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to ...?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gurugeorge · 08-02-2007, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How about a Christian pretending to be a Jewish historian? Is anything in the TF inconsistent with that, to you?

Or a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to ...?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

That's just sillly - unlike Doug's point.

angelo · 08-02-2007, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

All these historians mentioned were writing decades after the so-called events were supposed to have taken place. How on earth can anyone take them at face value? There is not one eye witness to the Jesus fable that was able to say face to face to Josephus, Tacitus, etc, about the facts. They are only hearsays and not historical events. No one in their right mind could possibly believe Jesus must have existed because some historians writing decades later said so.

That isn't exact. Josephus, writing in the 90s of the 1st century, could possibly have known one or more survivors of the 30s.

What is still more important, almost all of Antiquities of the Jews must be dismissed on your grounds.

No, his Antiquities are history as he perceived it. The part where he mentions Jesus was added much later by the Christians themselves. The quote '' If indeed he was a man'' was 100% forged by the Christians to make their story believable. Most scholars agree with that fact. The chances of any eye witness surviving to the nineties are very remote. Therefore Josephus was , like other historians, writing from hearsay.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-02-2007, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

The quote '' If indeed he was a man'' was 100% forged by the Christians to make their story believable. Most scholars agree with that fact.

I'm reminded of ...

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889).

That aside, I continue to feel that the paucity of anti-Christian polemic attacking historicity should be taken as evidence of an historical Jesus, however weak and circumstantial.

Roger Pearse · 08-02-2007, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No, his Antiquities are history as he perceived it. The part where he mentions Jesus was added much later by the Christians themselves. The quote '' If indeed he was a man'' was 100% forged by the Christians to make their story believable. Most scholars agree with that fact.

I don't think that you know what most scholars think, you know. What I think you mean is that you have read somewhere online something to this effect; which I hope you will agree is a rather less certain thing?

Quote:

The chances of any eye witness surviving to the nineties are very remote.

An eye-witness aged 20 to events in 1930 cannot be alive in 1999 at age 89? This seems a bit improbable.

You might be interested to know that a man who fought at Passchendale in 1917 aged 19 has just gone over to revisit the battlefield, aged 109.

Quote:

Therefore Josephus was , like other historians, writing from hearsay.

And so can be dismissed. Does the same apply to every bit of Antiquities apart from those at which he was present? All those details of the life of Herod...?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery · 08-02-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougShaver

How about a Christian pretending to be a Jewish historian? Is anything in the TF inconsistent with that, to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

unlike Doug's point.

Hi George, I couldn't figure out Doug's point either. Ok, with your comment I will try again.

We know that Josephus was a "Jewish historian". So I guess Doug is saying that if the TF is from Josephus then he is no longer a "Jewish historian" because he is a "Christian". Of course all that is only a category error imposing modern delineations upon the much more fluid 1st-century situation. (See e.g. our recent discussion where skeptic Paul Tobin considers the Christians as a movement within Judaism.)

Also, even allowing for modern categories, could Josephus have had sympathies and questions and wonderment toward Jesus, similar to say Pinchas Lapide in modern times, and be a Jewish historian ? Sure.

Hope that double-pronged response helps explains Roger's humor

.

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse · 08-02-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Or a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to be a Christian pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a pagan pretending to ...?

That's just sillly - unlike Doug's point.

Actually it is identical to Doug's point? Once we start inventing people pretending, without evidence, why should we stop?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 08-02-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

From The Jesus Puzzle:

Quote:

There is so much in this “neutral” account that Christians could have ‘put a spin on’ in defense of themselves and Jesus, so much that could have provided succor, support and even ammunition for what the Christian apologists were attempting to do in their writing. Origen alone spent a quarter of a million words contending against Celsus, a pagan who had written a book against Christian beliefs some half a century earlier. Origen draws on all manner of proofs and witnesses to the arguments he makes, including referring to Josephus. In Book I, chapters 46, 67 and 68 of Contra Celsum, Origen reports that Celsus had disparaged the miracles of Jesus, accusing Jesus of having learned his wonder-working tricks from the Egyptians. Origen counters this by claiming that Jesus’ deeds were superior to anything contained in the Greek myths, and that Jesus performed his miracles in order to win people over to his commendable ethical teachings, something no Egyptian trickster could emulate. An appeal here to the declaration by Josephus, a respected Jewish historian, that Jesus had been a “wise man” who performed “wonderful works,” would have served to place Jesus and his miracles in the favorable light in which Origen is trying to cast them.

Earl Doherty

It obviously depends on precisely what form of the TF we assume (at least for the sake of argument) Origen was using.

If for example he was using the version suggested by Meier to be the original (with three 'Christian interpolations' omitted) then I'm not at all sure that it would be real support for the claim that Jesus worked miracles by God's power, rather than Jesus being a sorcerer/magician.

"strange/wonderful works" is a somewhat ambiguous phrase.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.