spin

Once one admits that the text has been tampered with, the person is left with an epistemological problem, how does one know what is and what isn't tampered with. Without being able to resolve the epistemology -- and I can't see how one can --, the passage has no usability.


spin

Ben C Smith

The parable of the flyspeck.

Ben.

spin

Perhaps you despise neither wisdom nor instruction, my son -- or should I say, bro?


s.pin

Amaleq13

I tend to agree with both of you but I was only correcting what was falsely described as "common knowledge among biblical scholars".

spin

Yes, I know. I was just taking the opportunity!

(It could be called headin' 'em off at the pass.)


spin

Steve Weiss

Here's my source ("The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy), p. 166-168.

'At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one might call him a man. For he was one who accomplished surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the holy prophets had foretold this and myriads of other marvels concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has to this day still not disappeared.'

"Josephus also tells us that when the 'miracle worker' was brought before Pilate, he concluded that Jesus was 'a benefactor, not a criminal, or agitator, or a would-be king.' Josephus relates that as Jesus had miraculously cured Pilate's wife of a sickness, Pilate let him go. However, the Jewish priests later bribed Pilate to allow them to crucify Jesus 'in defiance of all Jewish tradition.' As for the resurrection, he tells us that Jesus' dead body could not have been stolen by his disciples, which was a common argument advanced against Christian claims that Jesus miraculously resurrected, since 'guards were posted around his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000 Jews'!

For hundreds of years these passages in Josephus were seized on by Christian
historians as conclusive proof that Jesus existed. That is, until scholars began to examine the text a little more critically. No serious scholar now believes that these passages were actually written by Josephus. They have been clearly identified as much later additions. They were not the same writing style as Josephus and if they are removed from the text, Josephus' original argument runs on in proper sequence. Writing at the beginning of the third century, Origen, whom modern authorities regard as one of the most conscientious scholars of the ancient Church, tells us that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ since he did not believe in any Jewish Messiah figure."

In any case, neither Josephus nor anyone else actually was a first-hand witness to these events because they never happened. The bible is a work of fiction and was assembled in order to serve political purposes. Additionally, history in general has largely been written from a biased point of view rather than for its "accuracy" and is closer to propaganda than truth. The very word propaganda has its origins in a religious context.

Amaleq13

If you run a search for discussion involving their names, you will discover that their scholarship is often questionable if not demonstrably false.

"No serious scholar now believes that these passages were actually written by Josephus."

This is an example of latter. While one can certainly argue that the efforts to "reconstruct" the original form of the TF are entirely speculative and that the general acceptance of the short reference is misguided, the assertion above is simply not true. The vast majority of scholars assume an original reference existed prior to the Christian tampering that resulted in the extant TF just as the vast majority accepts the short reference as genuine.

Steve Weiss

Any first-hand witnesses to the events related in the New Testament? Did these witnesses, if any, "faithfully" and objectively record these events, and were they verified by credible and numerous non-Christian observers? Plenty of people claim to have seen UFO's and to have met aliens, and they appear sincere, but they are not credible in the least. Now go back 2000 years and apply some objective truth standards, and the bible and much of the recorded history are without any substance. The Old Testament is so full of bizarre tales and perversion that one can only marvel that otherwise rational people swallow such fantasy whole.

Rick Sumner

None of which has anything at all to do with the suggestion that most biblical scholars consider it to be wholly interpolated, which Amaleq13 rightly noted is inaccurate.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steve Weiss

There are two levels of issues. Within the historical context it is relevant to point out which documents are forgeries and which are authentic documents. In the larger sense, though, we are talking about nonhistorical accounts in the first place and hearsay. Hearsay is not evidence, no matter who records it. A work of fiction remains fiction no matter how certain one is about its provenance. I am more concerned with the truth than I am about who told the story.