Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 06-30-2011, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I find the idea of eliminating literature on the basis of forgery, rather odd. Tossing interpolation in as a forgery, there are forgeries in all Christian Literature, and if forgery is all bad and we must eliminate anything with a hint of forgery then all Christian Literature can be eliminated. Why limit the damage to a passage when any passage could be forged.

What exactly are you struggling to say ?

Jiri

Toto · 06-30-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Perhaps a parallel situation is one I confront often in preparing medical negligence cases. We often have reason to think that a record may have been altered in light of a bad outcome, but I have never supposed that because something had been added or deleted the remainder of the record is unreliable. I would think it entirely unreasonable to conclude that because I think the record of first administration of oxytocin was altered the rest of the record of labor was false as well.

Just an example.

Steve

So if you have a doctor on the stand, and you can show that he altered part of a record, you would not use that in an attempt to impeach his honesty or the reliability of his record keeping in general? That sounds like inadequate representation.

Juststeve · 06-30-2011, 02:40 PM

Toto:

In the particular case I had in mind, when I offered the example, it was the alteration in the context of the rest of the record of labor and delivery that established negligence and causation. Were I to take the position that the alteration rendered the entire record unreliable I could not have provided a credible explanation for why the child was born with a seizure disorder and later cerebral palsy. In other words, I had no interest in showing that the record keeping as a whole was unreliable.

As to the adequacy of the representation, anyone, no matter how clueless, is entitled to an opinion.

Steve

Toto · 06-30-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

In the particular case I had in mind, when I offered the example, it was the alteration in the context of the rest of the record of labor and delivery that established negligence and causation. Were I to take the position that the alteration rendered the entire record unreliable I could not have provided a credible explanation for why the child was born with a seizure disorder and later cerebral palsy. In other words, I had no interest in showing that the record keeping as a whole was unreliable.

...

Steve

But there are cases where you would want to impeach the rest of the record, or where you would use one untruth to impeach a witness, it if was in your interest to do so.

But getting back to Josephus, the TF is not a simple alteration or insertion of a phrase. It was an extensive rewrite or a wholesale insertion of the section.

Juststeve · 06-30-2011, 02:58 PM

Toto:

I agree that the TF to my eye was extensively rewritten by a Christian. I draw that conclusion because some parts of the TF are not likely to have been written by a Jew, and those parts are calculated to warm the cockles of a Christian heart. If you remove those parts, as many scholars, Bible and Josephus scholars have, and you have something that could well have been written by Josephus.

As in the example I gave, alterations of a part does not mean the rest is inauthentic.

Steve

Toto · 06-30-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

I agree that the TF to my eye was extensively rewritten by a Christian. I draw that conclusion because some parts of the TF are not likely to have been written by a Jew, and those parts are calculated to warm the cockles of a Christian heart. If you remove those parts, as many scholars, Bible and Josephus scholars have, and you have something that could well have been written by Josephus.

As in the example I gave, alterations of a part does not mean the rest is inauthentic.

Steve

The example you gave is not at all analogous.

Of course, if you remove the phrases in the TF that Josephus would not have written, you are left with something that he could have written. (Think about it.) But it sticks out of that section like a sore thumb.

My only point here is that the argument for full interpolation is not exclusively made by mythicists, and has good logical support.

aa5874 · 06-30-2011, 03:33 PM

It is just illogical to assume Josephus must have written about HJ when we don't even know if HJ existed.

And if parts of Antiquities of the Jews were removed then it is virtually impossible to know what was discarded.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is simply an unreliable historical source for Jesus and James because there is prima facie evidence that it was manipulated.

judge · 06-30-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes; that seems obvious and reasonable to me.
What is your point?

Toto claimed a "consensus that the entire passage was interpolated". Which was yet another assertion with no evidence.

My point is that once you admit a fraudulent manipulation in the passsage, you have no choice - if you are a serious investigator without a bias to an opinion - but to set aside the whole passage.

While this may or may not be true, it has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

judge · 06-30-2011, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But getting back to Josephus, the TF is not a simple alteration or insertion of a phrase. It was an extensive rewrite or a wholesale insertion of the section.

Um..no it wasn't.

There I just refuted your silly assertion with an equally sill one.
Toto..do you have any interest in providing evidence or just making assertions?

Can I ask you are you a rationalist...do you believe in rationalism?

mountainman · 06-30-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achwienichtig

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The gospel writers appear to have been familiar with Josephus' work rather than having any independent knowledge of the history of the region. Fiction writers often include actual historical figures.

If the Gospel writers got all their history from Josephus, where did Josephus get the story of Jesus?

From the Gospel writers?

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

06-30-2011, 02:40 PM	#63
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Toto: In the particular case I had in mind, when I offered the example, it was the alteration in the context of the rest of the record of labor and delivery that established negligence and causation. Were I to take the position that the alteration rendered the entire record unreliable I could not have provided a credible explanation for why the child was born with a seizure disorder and later cerebral palsy. In other words, I had no interest in showing that the record keeping as a whole was unreliable. As to the adequacy of the representation, anyone, no matter how clueless, is entitled to an opinion. Steve

06-30-2011, 02:58 PM	#65
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Toto: I agree that the TF to my eye was extensively rewritten by a Christian. I draw that conclusion because some parts of the TF are not likely to have been written by a Jew, and those parts are calculated to warm the cockles of a Christian heart. If you remove those parts, as many scholars, Bible and Josephus scholars have, and you have something that could well have been written by Josephus. As in the example I gave, alterations of a part does not mean the rest is inauthentic. Steve

06-30-2011, 03:33 PM	#67
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is just illogical to assume Josephus must have written about HJ when we don't even know if HJ existed. And if parts of Antiquities of the Jews were removed then it is virtually impossible to know what was discarded. "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is simply an unreliable historical source for Jesus and James because there is prima facie evidence that it was manipulated.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.