Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-18-2011, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Scholars who have concluded that Josephus originally made reference to Jesus and those references were later embellished by Christians include but are by no means limited to Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, Paul Winter E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Christians Jews and secular people. Fredrikson has written that that is a near consensus position among scholars. She is no doubt excluding self published folk on the internet. You can trot those out if you wish.

Come back to us when you feel that you can analyze the material yourself. There is no need here for you to list those who adhere to the status quo.

Sheshbazzar · 05-18-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

You will find a good argument for partial authenticity of the TF here:

www.bede.org.uk/josephus.htm

I read it all, and my observation is, that after one picks all of the straw out of the horse-shit one is still left with only horse-shit.

aa5874 · 05-18-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

You will find a good argument for partial authenticity of the TF here...

So, which part is authentic? The part that is MISSING?

A partially authentic document is also known as a FORGERY.

Many many FORGERIES are all partially authentic and the authentic parts are MISSING.

Toto · 05-18-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

You will find a good argument for partial authenticity of the TF here:

www.bede.org.uk/josephus.htm The author also counts your Steve Mason among those who thinks Josephus mentioned Jesus in the authentic original. Do you disagree?

The author of that piece, Chris Price, used to post here under the handle Layman. He is a young lawyer, former missionary, and Christian apologist.

Steve Mason, in Josephus and the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), goes through a number of arguments in favor of partial interpolation, and arguments against. He ends up writing at p. 236 that the reconstruction of the passage is so problematic that it is of "limited usefulness." He does think that the second mention of Jesus in Ant 20 is valid, but he thinks that Jesus certainly existed.

Christopher Price has, of course, emphasized Mason's favorable statements, but you can read the entire section for yourself.

Quote:

You are right that it isn't a vote but fringers in general discount the role of expertise in resolving issues within the scope of the experts expertise

.

Well I must not be a fringer then. I respect expertise, and I cited the one scholar who has devoted the most amount of time and study to this issue, who thinks that the entire Testimonium was forged by Eusebius.

Quote:

I don't. Does it matter at all to you that the vast majority of recognized experts think Josephus mentioned Jesus although reasonable people can disagree about exactly what he said.

Of the names you cited, only Feldman has specialised in Josephus. Most on your list are not only not experts on Josephus, but have a distinct bias in favor of finding some evidence of Jesus. I think it is misleading to describe this as a vast majority of recognized experts.

Quote:

Steve

P.S.

Please don't demand that I list all of the scholars in the world. Only an idiot would do that.

S.

Who asked you to do this? What I asked was that you do your own analysis. This isn't rocket science. You can read the arguments and see where some of your experts are shaping the evidence towards the conclusion that they favor, and others are actually making relevant points.

ApostateAbe · 05-18-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Thanks. A little bit ago, you accused me of making false appeals to authority. You would like to rephrase that?

How about you falsely portray yourself as representing the best standard of historical analysis?

I am not claiming that you are lying, because I think you have convinced yourself in your mind that this is true.

Earlier in this thread you wrote "that would be a very shallow method of analysis, which of course Jesus-skeptics tend to prefer, because of a fundamentally wrong idea about the way historical analyses are done" - implying that you have the correct idea on the way historical analysis is done.

You have not demonstrated that you have a clue about historical analysis.

OK, Toto, I should clarify what I mean. When you claimed that I make "false appeals to authority," you most certainly were not referring to any false appeals to my own authority. You were writing about me making false appeals to the authority of historians. To review, here is exactly what you said:

Quote:

And Abe's arguments are not convincing. He makes false appeals to the authority of historians, when he doesn't know the first thing about historical method.

So, why did you claim that I make false appeals to the authority of historians? I have been careful to leave the authority of historians out of this thread.

Second issue: damned hypocrisy. Here is what you said very shortly afterward (emphasis mine):

Quote:

He has made the same arguments in the open forum. The blog is just a convenient summary.

At least read the threads on Tacitus. The question is not so easily settled as you seem to think. Scholarship seems to be divided, with most experts thinking that the passage is highly suspect at least.

So, your insults are not only hyperbolic but heavily laden with irony. It was as if you were looking in a mirror, seeing an ugly face, and calling me ugly. I know for darn sure that most experts do NOT think that the passage is highly suspect. I know that your claim is complete hogwash. Note: don't misunderstand me--I am not appealing to the authority of scholarship, but you did, it was false authority, at that, and you need to be called on it.

Robert E. Van Voorst wrote about Tacitus's Annals 15.44 in Jesus Outside the New Testament: an Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp. 42-43 (emphasis mine):

The textual integrity of this section has on occasion been doubted. The text has some significant problems, as attested by the standard critical editions. These and other difficulties in interpreting the text have also led to a few claims that all of it, or key portions of it, has been interpolated by later hands. But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus's own compressed style.

Van Voorst goes on to explain those reasons in detail. He also provides summaries of the scholars who have proposed interpolations in his footnotes. He is a biased author (like anyone), so...

Bart Ehrman wrote about the same thing in pages 58-59 of his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk). Ehrman presumes in his writing that everything in Annals 15.44 is what Tacitus actually wrote, as though there is no serious reason to doubt that point.

In any event, Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign.

You know what, those authors are biased against a Jesus-skepticism, so we can't trust them. So, here is what G. A. Wells wrote on page 20 in his book, Who Was Jesus?: A Critique of the New Testament Record (or via: amazon.co.uk):

Non-Christian evidence is too late to give any independent support to the gospels. When Tacitus wrote (about AD 120) that "Christ" was executed under Pontius Pilate, he was merely repeating what Christians were by then saying.

Once again, the textual reliability of this passage is presumed. Even when it would be strongly in the author's interest to capitalize on a belief of textual unreliability accepted by the majority of experts.

I would like to know where you get your seemingly bizarre idea about "most experts thinking that the passage is highly suspect at least." I suspect that it comes from your tendency to strongly inflate the significance of arguments for textual unreliability. You don't actually know what "most experts" think, but, if there are arguments out there that convince you, then you think it must convince most experts as well, as long as you can find at least a few scattered scholars who share that suspicion. One way or the other, it is apparently delusional, and I am not going to let such claims fly. Justify your claim.

Or at least promise me one of these two things: (1) you won't again accuse me of appealing to false expert authority after I have never appealed to any sort authority, or (2) you yourself won't appeal to authority without good reason.

ApostateAbe · 05-18-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Atheos, specifically which arguments do you think have high quality, in your opinion?

Fair question. First of all I guess I should break my arm patting myself on the back because I argued that your "criterion of embarrassment" assumes far too much about each writer's agenda (whatever that might be). If what they wrote happened to be in disagreement with the viewpoints of later adherents to variations of the underlying myth, big whoop. The criterion of embarrassment does nothing to assuage the very real evidence that different people believed different things about this mythological figure.

Secondly, the "multiple independent attestation" you keep claiming exists has been thoroughly debunked by the arguments presented by several knowledgeable participants in this thread and yet you keep presenting it as if it has merit. Tacitus is simply not evidence of anything other than the fact that there were people who were claiming the alleged events took place and we already know that. You know better than to bring up Josephus and there really is nothing else. Nothing. Everything else is either an obvious forgery perpetrated by people with an agenda or it's clearly attached to the myth itself.

The staggering dearth of evidence precisely where one would expect to see it just cannot be ignored by people without an agenda. The earliest christian writings (Those of "Paul", for example) never say anything about a historical Jesus, whether it be WRT the virgin birth, Joseph, Mary, his brothers, his disciples, Judas, etc. Those details begin surfacing later as the myth develops. That speaks way louder than these perceived "embarrassing" things you keep pointing out.

Here's the deal: I'm the person you're gunning for in this fight. I'm an uncommitted mythicist who honestly doesn't give a rip whether or not there was a historical person who couldn't actually walk on water or float off into the sky, but actually did preach to a doomsday cult and get his ass crucified for his efforts.

I'm going to say that again: I honestly don't care whether a core "Jesus" existed or not. I'm honestly willing to go wherever the actual evidence leads.

The evidence weighs heavily on the side of the mythicist position. The character has many of the traits found in purely mythological figures (such as Hercules, Perseus, Promethus, Dionysus, Mithras, etc). The evidence strongly suggests that the myth was nebulous at first and developed details including time frame (on which GMatt and GLuke disagree incidentally), parents, family members, named associates and interaction with actual historical figures over time. You know as well as anyone here that fictional characters can be placed in historical time frames and interact with actual historical figures and events (e.g., Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind).

Further, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that adherents have done everything in their power to produce physical evidence of the character's actual existence, even to the point of fabricating it. The likelihood is that if there were actual disciples and followers of this person they would have preserved some physical evidence, if nothing else but the precise location of the character's interment or the note pinned on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews". Nary a sausage.

Your criterion of embarrassment just doesn't do a thing for me. There were lots of different viewpoints on this myth back then just as there are now. People can happily rationalize "He that hateth not his father and mother is not worthy of me". Why would they be embarrassed by these trivial details you keep bringing up?

Great, Atheos. I'll try to take a break from bickering with Toto and spin, and I'll focus on your points next. It will wait, though. I have a busy day ahead of me, and there is plenty to talk about in what you wrote.

mountainman · 05-18-2011, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

You will find a good argument for partial authenticity of the TF here:

www.bede.org.uk/josephus.htm

Three articles against authenticity here. The first lists a chronological index of censure against it since the 16th century

"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too"

--- Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, 1762.

The Testimonium Flavianum: A chronological summary of Censure

Eusebius Forged the TF: An article by Ken Olsen

Making Fruit Salad of the Testimonium Flavianum: "Is the TF the genuine apple?" Or it is a sour Lemon? Or is it an Orange with bits of lemon it in? What is partial forgery? What is a partial interpolation? How much does a defence attorney cost? What needs to be argued again in the face of the evidence to the contrary? What was the Feldman Review of the TF? What is wrong with Feldman's stats and the scope of his review? Plenty. Feldman ignores every opinion prior to 1937. And the dominant opinion prior to that time, was that the TF was an example of pious forgery.

EUSEBIUS: Hey Boss! Look what I found in the archives today! You're going to be very pleased with my historical research.

Toto · 05-18-2011, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

To review, here is exactly what you said:

Quote:

And Abe's arguments are not convincing. He makes false appeals to the authority of historians, when he doesn't know the first thing about historical method.

. . .

I see that I was not clear. I meant that you made false appeals to the validity of your historical method. You treat everyone else as engaging in pseudoscholarship and claim the mantle of mainstream historian for yourself. But you are not a professional historian, and your opponents are not flakes.

I could go through your posts and point out where you do this, but I don't see the point of spending my time that way.

Quote:

Robert E. Van Voorst wrote about Tacitus's Annals 15.44 in Jesus Outside the New Testament: an Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp. 42-43 (emphasis mine):

The textual integrity of this section has on occasion been doubted. The text has some significant problems, as attested by the standard critical editions. These and other difficulties in interpreting the text have also led to a few claims that all of it, or key portions of it, has been interpolated by later hands. But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus's own compressed style.

Van Voorst goes on to explain those reasons in detail. He also provides summaries of the scholars who have proposed interpolations in his footnotes.

Yes, this was quoted on another thread, and if you follow those footnotes, you see that scholars find that this text has many problems, even when they come down on the side of "probably authentic" or, act as if it might as well be authentic because it doesn't prove that Jesus existed in any case.

Quote:

...
I would like to know where you get your seemingly bizarre idea about "most experts thinking that the passage is highly suspect at least."

From the above sources. Would it have been easier for you to understand if I had said that "most experts think that the passage is suspect, even when they come down on the side of authenticity" ??

You are reading a lot into an offhand comment.

The fact that the passage doesn't prove that Jesus existed means that at least some scholars are not going to bother challenging it. But everyone knows that there is always a possibility of error or forgery in ancient documents that have been copied from copies.

You would prefer to survey a few experts, find that they accept a document, and then proclaim it a valid, unchallengeable documentary source. That's not how things work.

jgoodguy · 05-18-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

You will find a good argument for partial authenticity of the TF here:

www.bede.org.uk/josephus.htm

Three articles against authenticity here. The first lists a chronological index of censure against it since the 16th century

"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too"

--- Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, 1762.

The Testimonium Flavianum: A chronological summary of Censure

Eusebius Forged the TF: An article by Ken Olsen

Making Fruit Salad of the Testimonium Flavianum: "Is the TF the genuine apple?" Or it is a sour Lemon? Or is it an Orange with bits of lemon it in? What is partial forgery? What is a partial interpolation? How much does a defence attorney cost? What needs to be argued again in the face of the evidence to the contrary? What was the Feldman Review of the TF? What is wrong with Feldman's stats and the scope of his review? Plenty. Feldman ignores every opinion prior to 1937. And the dominant opinion prior to that time, was that the TF was an example of pious forgery.

EUSEBIUS: Hey Boss! Look what I found in the archives today! You're going to be very pleased with my historical research.

"Whealey rejects Olson's thesis of Eusebian fabrication based on a comparison of the Testimonium's style with that of Eusebius' undisputed works, and the fact that there is no known case of complete fabrication ex nihilo by Eusebius of any other text that he quotes in his works.[73]" From the wiki

Then there is the possibility that some unknown copier put margin comments that a subsequent copier copied into the main text or a copier just improved Josephus.

If the experts cannot agree, what are we poor lay persons supposed to do.

Sheshbazzar · 05-18-2011, 11:40 PM

Even if Josephus wrote the whole damn thing, that is no evidence that there was ever any real living Jebus of Nazareth.
Did Josephus ever anywhere claim that he ever -saw- this Jebus? or that he ever -met- this Jebus?
NO! At most, all he ever reported was what someone else, unidentified and unknown, claimed, an old 'urban legend' that Josephus mistook for factual history.
All Josephus could evidence in this, is that the story was being circulated, not that the story was factual.
His second, third, fourth, or fifth hand 'testimony' could not stand up in a Court of Law.

Once one picks the straw of the admitted blatant Christian interpolations out of the Testimonium Flavianum all that is left is the pure horse-shit of an old urban legend.

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

05-18-2011, 11:40 PM	#310
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Even if Josephus wrote the whole damn thing, that is no evidence that there was ever any real living Jebus of Nazareth. Did Josephus ever anywhere claim that he ever -saw- this Jebus? or that he ever -met- this Jebus? NO! At most, all he ever reported was what someone else, unidentified and unknown, claimed, an old 'urban legend' that Josephus mistook for factual history. All Josephus could evidence in this, is that the story was being circulated, not that the story was factual. His second, third, fourth, or fifth hand 'testimony' could not stand up in a Court of Law. Once one picks the straw of the admitted blatant Christian interpolations out of the Testimonium Flavianum all that is left is the pure horse-shit of an old urban legend.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.