Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-28-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes and the evidence is that it was just a minor alteration (in terms of quantity).
But you cant even admit this is a possibilty. Anyway I'll prepare something as indicated.

Reading the wiki entry, there is no evidence other than the text. For every theory there is a counter theory.

Which text?

We need to consider 1.Josephus 2. Origen 3. The syriac version and 4. Agapius, and find the most parsimonious solution to explain them all.

That too.

judge · 06-28-2011, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I don't know if you mean specifically Albert Schweitzer but he said of the passage in 1913 that it is "either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that it can no longer be used as credible evidence".

Jiri

He cant be (unless one person is a consensus) ,Toto just made a vague claim about consensus, provided no evidence, and insisted he is correct.

jgoodguy · 06-28-2011, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The evidence is that the passage was interpolated by a Christian. There was a general secular consensus that the entire passage was interpolated until a Catholic scholar proposed that part of it might have been genuine. This was a very attractive position for people who wanted to show that Jesus existed, and who like to be middle of the road moderates. It was so attractive that many of these scholars had no incentive to challenge it. But, as one historicist scholar pointed out, once you admit that the passage has been tampered with, you can't reconstruct it with any certainty.

So there is no reliable evidence of what Josephus wrote.

I don't know if you mean specifically Albert Schweitzer but he said of the passage in 1913 that it is "either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that it can no longer be used as credible evidence".

This verdict cannot be overturned no matter how the separation of the inauthentic elements of TF is argued, or how sophisticated it pretends to be (I find the G.J. Goldberg presentation of the Lukan "connection" in 1990's particularly obnoxious). The point is that once it is admitted the passage had been forged, it does not matter if it had been forged partially or completely. The evidence is known to have been tampered with, and a discussion how it was tampered with is without merit, as it lacks proof. Furthermore, it raises the inevitable question why would one want to defend a passage that was manipulated fraudulently.

Jiri

There is no credible evidence for the HJ outside of textual analysis, period.

Steven Carr · 06-28-2011, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Furthermore, it raises the inevitable question why would one want to defend a passage that was manipulated fraudulently.

Jiri

To quote words from Bart Ehrman's 'Forged' Book, forgery enters a world of 'lying and deception'.

I'm sure Ehrman's book against mythicism will no more claim that we can detect a non-interpolated sub-stratum in Josephus than we can do in the case of the Pastorals.

Claims that you can do so are like claiming that bits of a painting are not forgery even though some of the paint on the canvas is not dry. 'Look - some of the paint is dry. Those bits must be genuine!'

judge · 06-28-2011, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

It'd be nice, but you misread me.

Apologies.

Quote:

Is there any primary historical, credible secondary historical or tangible evidence of a HJ?

Yes, Josephus lived in Jerusalem not long after jesus and mentions him

Quote:

The answer is no.

See above.

Quote:

Assuming a actual historian/scholar trained in these matters-textual analysis and methodologies produces a work asserting the possibility of a HJ then he has really done very little

True, but that is what historians do. Analyse history.
As the mythicist ideas are so ludicrous, it might be important to just soberly look at the evidence and see it for what it is, rather than let christians tell us what it means.

Steven Carr · 06-28-2011, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

In short to show the interpolation and the extend of interpolation some prior example is needed. We have no early copies and the assumptions about what early writers read, should have read, wrote or should have written becomes speculation. Without either prior example or some reference in early writings, the evidence is questionable.

Somebody pointing out that it must be genuine because we have no evidence about what it said prior to the 4th century.

Yep, that convinces me....

jgoodguy · 06-29-2011, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

It'd be nice, but you misread me.

Apologies.

Yes, Josephus lived in Jerusalem not long after jesus and mentions him

See above.

Quote:

Assuming a actual historian/scholar trained in these matters-textual analysis and methodologies produces a work asserting the possibility of a HJ then he has really done very little

True, but that is what historians do. Analyse history.
As the mythicist ideas are so ludicrous, it might be important to just soberly look at the evidence and see it for what it is, rather than let christians tell us what it means.

Yea Josephus mentioned him, but Josephus did not know Jesus which takes us past primary historical evidence. Because Josephus did not indicate where the information came from that takes us past secondary historical evidence. There is no tangible evidence so even with Josephus we have no primary, secondary or tangible evidence. Josephus then becomes a tertiary historical evidence at best. He is compiling at best, a description of primary and secondary information he may have, but we do not have access to that info to judge Josephus. That before the mythical interpolator strikes with revisions.

What happens is that the HJ analyst has to analyze crappy evidence. Of course the JMers have the same crappy evidence to analyze. They have to impeach the plain text with interpolations and argumentation.

hjalti · 06-29-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

The problem would be that it would be very much implausible for Eusebius to do such a pair of actions given that it would require Eusebius, living in the fourth century, to have the only copy of Josephus's writings known in the Christian world, and in fact he didn't.

What? You can only add interpolations if you have the only copy in the Chritian world? So who then was the person who changed the TF, did he have thte only copy in the Christian world?

Quote:

It would be much more plausible to pin the blame on someone living between Origen and Eusebius, but I suppose it is appealing to blame someone with a name.

Well, these are two somewhat separate issues: Is the TF as a whole an interpolation? Who did it?

Quote:

Maybe Eusebius really was a total bastard.

Yeah, that's a good rephrasing of the argument for Eusebian authorship. Bravo!

Have you actually read Ken's article?

Steven Carr · 06-29-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So if I take a cheque for the bank for 1,000,000 dollars with your signature on it, you would have to produce the untampered cheque that you had written before you could dispute that you had written that cheque?

Twice you have been asked to produce the evidence and evaded. So for the third time, evidence please. Good old primary, secondary historical evidence or tangible evidence of the interpolations you claim?

I can see Ehrman being lashed in his new book for failing to tell us the manuscripts where Josephus original version is to be found.

He is one of those fringe scholars who think they can detect interpolations by out of character writing, stylistic changes etc etc.

These scholars exist, but are clearly fringe scholars....

Are you claiming no interpolation took place in Josephus?

jgoodguy · 06-29-2011, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So if I take a cheque for the bank for 1,000,000 dollars with your signature on it, you would have to produce the untampered cheque that you had written before you could dispute that you had written that cheque?

Twice you have been asked to produce the evidence and evaded. So for the third time, evidence please. Good old primary, secondary historical evidence or tangible evidence of the interpolations you claim?

I can see Ehrman being lashed in his new book for failing to tell us the manuscripts where Josephus original version is to be found.

He is one of those fringe scholars who think they can detect interpolations by out of character writing, stylistic changes etc etc.

These scholars exist, but are clearly fringe scholars....

Are you claiming no interpolation took place in Josephus?

IMHO Ehrman will give himself wiggle room such that critics will have a rough time attacking. His book will not add any additional information. The book was written way to fast for any really new arguments to be presented.

IMHO there are scribal errors, scribal inserts, orthodox editing and interpolations in Josephus' works as we have them. However the evidence is difficult to impossible to find. An example is Masada where the archaeological evidence contradicts some of Josephus' accounts.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.