Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 01-23-2007, 07:10 AM

I'm aware of all the issues. I'm saying that its not that good of an insertion, its "poor quality", the only reason that we are even still debating the issue is because some people can't let go of it.

It doesn't look like something that Eusebius tried to maniaclly insert into the text, it looks like someone's side note that got incorporated.

If someone did it on purpose, they did a bad job.

mountainman · 07-17-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

It doesn't look like something that Eusebius tried to maniaclly insert into the text, it looks like someone's side note that got incorporated. If someone did it on purpose, they did a bad job.

Other contemporary authors are specifically arguing that
the TF was written by Eusebius in order to be quoted at
the summary pinacle of his "Ecclesiastical History".

IMO Eusebius wanted an early citation not just for Jesus,
but for historical existence of the entire "christian religion".

TedM · 07-17-2007, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

According to this page, here is a list of scholars who appear
to cite, along with Kerry Shirts, the TF as a full interpolation:

Lardner,
Harnack,
Schurer,
Gordon Stein.
Author of CMU,
Arthur Drews,
David Taylor,
Wells, JM
Bishop Warburton,
Remsburg,
Rev. Dr. Giles,
Rev. S. Baring-Gould,
Cannon Farrar,
Theodor Keim,
Rev. Dr. Hooykaas ,
Dr. Alexander Campbell,
Dr. Chalmers,
Lee Strobel,
Charles Templeton,
Freke and Gandy,
Doherty,
Marshall Gauvin,
Edwin Johnson,
Jakob Burckhardt????

Since commencing this thread, Philosopher Jay has posted
an interesting analysis of the TF focusing on Simon Magus.

How many of those listed are really considered to be "scholars". Freke and Gandy are notorious for misrepresentation. Doherty is a "scholar"? Lee Strobel is the author of Case for Christ, and he clearly believes it is at least partially authentic, so he shouldn't be listed. I don't know about others there, but those stand out as not deserving of being in a list of scholars who argue for complete inauthenticity. I wonder if any of them belong on such a list...

ted

mountainman · 07-17-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

According to this page, here is a list of scholars who appear
to cite, along with Kerry Shirts, the TF as a full interpolation:

Lardner,
Harnack,
Schurer,
Gordon Stein.
Author of CMU,
Arthur Drews,
David Taylor,
Wells, JM
Bishop Warburton,
Remsburg,
Rev. Dr. Giles,
Rev. S. Baring-Gould,
Cannon Farrar,
Theodor Keim,
Rev. Dr. Hooykaas ,
Dr. Alexander Campbell,
Dr. Chalmers,
Lee Strobel,
Charles Templeton,
Freke and Gandy,
Doherty,
Marshall Gauvin,
Edwin Johnson,
Jakob Burckhardt????

Since commencing this thread, Philosopher Jay has posted
an interesting analysis of the TF focusing on Simon Magus.

How many of those listed are really considered to be "scholars". Freke and Gandy are notorious for misrepresentation. Doherty is a "scholar"?

For the purposes of discussion of this article in this BC&H forum,
I dont have a problem regarding Earl Doherty as a scholar.

Quote:

Lee Strobel is the author of Case for Christ, and he clearly believes it is at least partially authentic, so he shouldn't be listed.

Here's what the original page listed about Lee Strobel:

In the modern apologist work The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel relates a passage from a novel published in 1979 by Charles Templeton, in which the author states, regarding Jesus, "There isn't a single word about him in secular history. Not a word. No mention of him by the Romans. Not so much as a reference by Josephus." (Strobel, 101) Strobel then reports the response by Christian professor Edwin Yamauchi, who claimed that Templeton was mistaken and that there was a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Yamauchi's fatuous response ignores, purposefully or otherwise, the previous ironclad arguments about which Templeton was apparently educated, such that he made such a statement. In other words, Templeton was evidently aware of the purported reference in Josephus but had understood by the arguments of the more erudite, earlier Christian authorities that it was a forgery; hence, there is "not so much as a reference by Josephus." In this facile manner of merely ignoring or dismissing the earlier scholarship, modern believers cling to the long-dismissed TF in order to convince themselves of the unbelievable.

Quote:

I don't know about others there, but those stand out as not deserving of being in a list of scholars who argue for complete inauthenticity. I wonder if any of them belong on such a list...

ted

Yes, they all do, which is why I put them on said list.
And I'd say the list is far from complete, since I only
spent less than an hour gathering the above.

Do you have an objection about the existence of this list?
If so, why?

Toto · 07-18-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Do you have an objection about the existence of this list?
If so, why?

What is the point of this list? Is it to show that there are some scholars who reject the entire TF? There clearly are. But there is no modern scholarly consensus that you can rely on. The names on this list are a mishmash of older and more modern writers of a wide variety of scholarship.

The original article is by Acharya S, not considered a scholarly source herself. But her main source seems to be Doherty, so what she writes is probably reliable. But you appear to have misinterpreted at least some of what she wrote, based on your quote from Strobel.

Lee Strobel clearly does not belong on the list. He is not a scholar, he is a Christian apologist, and he apparently believes in the authenticity of the TF. You might not realize this, but his book is structured around interviewed selected evangelical scholars and reporting their rationalization of the arguments for Christianity that he wants to make. So Strobel interviewed Yamauchi, a fellow apologist, about a novel written by Templeton, and reports Yamauchi's opinions, which Acharya S labels as "fatuous."

I haven't gone through the other names, but I recognize some noted mythicists, some scholars, and some atheist anti-apologists.

But if you want to seriously discuss the issue of interpolation, you need to read the most recent scholarship, which would be Ken Olson. (I don't have time to look up the reference for you right now.)

mountainman · 07-18-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But if you want to seriously discuss the issue of interpolation, you need to read the most recent scholarship, which would be Ken Olson.

Jay's Brief Summary is adequate for my needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Raskin

The Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus, is another
case where few writers have shown an understanding
of the artificial nature of Eusebean History. The recent
article by Ken Olson [91] which proved that Eusebius
was the author of the Testimonium Flavianum is a recent
turning point in New Testament Studies. Even after this,
few writers have understood that the obvious forgeries
found in Eusebius are not accidents of erroneous
transmission or due to his bad judgment in source
selection. Creating and presenting fictitious documents
and quotes is his modus operandi.

Olson demonstrated that the phrases and words in
the TF reflected language Eusebius often used but
Josephus never or hardly ever does.
For example, the phrases

"maker of many miracles,"
"tribe of Christians,"
and
"until this day"

are found throughout Eusebean texts and rarely in others.

What Olson actually proved was not only did Eusebius
write the Testimonium, but that he was a rather inept
forger. Unlike good forgers with the ability to copy
the language or voice of the works they interpolate
into, Eusebius's text always sounds like Eusebius.

It does not matter if he is quoting a first century
Jewish Historian, a second century Christian Philosopher,
or a third century group of Christian prisoners in Gaul,
the voice is identical and identifiable as Eusebius's.

In spite of our knowing this, Eusebius' narrative
remains credible for academicians throughout the world.
As Everett Ferguson declares,

"However one evaluates Eusebius's achievement,
his work remains foundational for our knowledge
of the church in its first three centuries.
And this foundation stands firm
despite noticeable crack." [92]

Knowing this should drastically affect every aspect of
New Testament Studies. For example, the work
Dialogue with Trypho of Justin Martyr is often used
for dating other documents and to assert an early
date for the Gospel of Luke. Yet scholars base the
dating of this work to Justin's references to the Bar
Kochbar War of 132-135 C.E.

We must consider that Eusebius himself is the first
person to mention this text and the first person to
mention this date within the text. We must consider
the possibility that he wrote this text and/or inserted
this date reference into the text specifically to support
his own chronology and history. If this is the case,
when we date other works, based on the date of
of Justin Martyr's Dialogue, we are following the
chronology of Eusebius, whether scholars know it
or not, or wish to acknowledge it or not.

When we trace back almost all the certainties
regarding the chronology of early Christian
documents, we find that the certainties really
are certainties because they match Eusebius's
chronology and do not come from sources
really independent of Eusebius. Eusebius
provides the anchor for historical certainty for
most scholars in the field.

[91] K.A. Olson, "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,"
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 61 (1999): 305-322.

[92] Ferguson, Everett, Christian History,
"The Problem of Eusebius," Nov, 2001, Vol.20
Issue 4, p8, 6c

TedM · 07-18-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

For the purposes of discussion of this article in this BC&H forum,
I dont have a problem regarding Earl Doherty as a scholar.

Your point would be better made if you had real scholars--ie those with extensive credentials and peer-reviewed publications.

Quote:

Here's what the original page listed about Lee Strobel:

In the modern apologist work The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel relates a passage from a novel published in 1979 by Charles Templeton, in which the author states, regarding Jesus, "There isn't a single word about him in secular history. Not a word. No mention of him by the Romans. Not so much as a reference by Josephus." (Strobel, 101) Strobel then reports the response by Christian professor Edwin Yamauchi, who claimed that Templeton was mistaken and that there was a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Yamauchi's fatuous response ignores, purposefully or otherwise, the previous ironclad arguments about which Templeton was apparently educated, such that he made such a statement. In other words, Templeton was evidently aware of the purported reference in Josephus but had understood by the arguments of the more erudite, earlier Christian authorities that it was a forgery; hence, there is "not so much as a reference by Josephus." In this facile manner of merely ignoring or dismissing the earlier scholarship, modern believers cling to the long-dismissed TF in order to convince themselves of the unbelievable.

This is all irrelevant to my point. Strobel doesn't belong on the list. Templeton is the one doubting the authenticity, not Strobel.

Quote:

Yes, they all do, which is why I put them on said list.
And I'd say the list is far from complete, since I only
spent less than an hour gathering the above.

Do you have an objection about the existence of this list?
If so, why?

A list of scholars should be a list of scholars, and should be accurate. Otherwise, whatever point you are trying to make will fail to be made because it will lack credibility.

ted

mountainman · 07-18-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

For the purposes of discussion of this article in this BC&H forum,
I dont have a problem regarding Earl Doherty as a scholar.

Your point would be better made if you had real scholars--ie those with extensive credentials and peer-reviewed publications.

Well are you able to add to the list?

Quote:

This is all irrelevant to my point. Strobel doesn't belong on the list. Templeton is the one doubting the authenticity, not Strobel.

I can understand why Strobel may not belong on this list,
but his presentation of the implication inherent in the novel
published in 1979 by Charles Templeton, which went over
the head of Edwin Yamauchi, is interesting in its own right.

Quote:

Yes, they all do, which is why I put them on said list.
And I'd say the list is far from complete, since I only
spent less than an hour gathering the above.

Do you have an objection about the existence of this list?
If so, why?

A list of scholars should be a list of scholars, and should be accurate. Otherwise, whatever point you are trying to make will fail to be made because it will lack credibility.

Let's assume we make a suitable notation against
Strobel and Doherty and proceed to gather further
contemporary authors who are making the same
claim; "that the TF is a total fabrication".

Are you able to add as well as you are able to argue
for the provision of deletion notations?

Best wishes,

Pete

Minimalist · 07-18-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

1) TF: is completely authentic
2) TF: is partially authentic
3) TF: is completely inauthentic

I'll play.

Proposition #1 is utterly ridiculous.

Proposition #2 is far more interesting but more to show the mindset of xtian apologists.

As I understand it the general theory of #2 is that Josephus wrote something which was later expanded upon by christian forgers.

The problem with #2 is that earlier writers do not refer to an earlier version, either. So, unless you are willing to say that Origen (for example) was a complete idiot who could not recognize his own Messiah in the text then you are stuck with the notion that whatever might have been originally written had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth and did not even suggest such a connection to Origen. For example, say Josephus said something along the lines of "Yeshua ben Yosif led a rebellion against Roman authorities for which he was crucified by the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate and many of his followers were slaughtered." (Such a comment would be consistent with the general gist of the other paragraphs in the chapter.) However, Origen reading such a passage apparently saw nothing in it which even piqued his curiosity about 'his' Jesus. I regard that as simply impossible. If there was a reference to Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph or Jesus the Nazarene revolutionary, I think Origen and the others may well have jumped on it, if for no other reason, than to explain it away.

Which leaves Proposition #3 which seems the most reasonable to me.

TedM · 07-19-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Let's assume we make a suitable notation against
Strobel and Doherty and proceed to gather further
contemporary authors who are making the same
claim; "that the TF is a total fabrication".

Are you able to add as well as you are able to argue
for the provision of deletion notations?

Best wishes,

Pete

Sorry, I am not able to add to the list, which seems questionable in the first place. I'm not trying to be difficult, just stating things the way I see them. Good luck.

ted

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

01-23-2007, 07:10 AM	#11
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I'm aware of all the issues. I'm saying that its not that good of an insertion, its "poor quality", the only reason that we are even still debating the issue is because some people can't let go of it. It doesn't look like something that Eusebius tried to maniaclly insert into the text, it looks like someone's side note that got incorporated. If someone did it on purpose, they did a bad job.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.