Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-10-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I've looked at a good many. The bigger the margins usually the finer the text and the more likely illuminated. Josephus is not a likely candidate.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. All the statements above are mistaken, however.

I'll stick with what I've seen. At least I know that's correct.

spin

spin · 03-10-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Are there similarly sized examples of interpolated margin notes?

The problem is showing that an interpolation used to be a marginal note.

FWIW there are NT interpolations (eg Mark 16:9-20 Luke 22:43-44 John 7:53-8:11) some of which may have begun as marginal notes.

Here's a candidate: 1 Cor 2:8b

6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8a None of the rulers of this age understood this. 9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, not human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those that love him"-

8a, strongly connected to 6, is necessary for 9. 8b tells us

for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory

In place it interrupts the discourse cohesion between 8a and 9; its content isn't directly related to the subject of the passage; and it uses kurios not to mean god but Jesus, yet (I have argued) a writer doesn't normally use a word such that at any time it has two referants -- either the absolutive (ie not just titular) kurios refers to god or Jesus but not both.

However, 1 Cor 2:8b makes eminent sense as a marginal comment, for though it is a tangent, you can see how someone related it to 8a.

6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, not human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those that love him"-

spin

Solo · 03-10-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The problem is showing that an interpolation used to be a marginal note.

FWIW there are NT interpolations (eg Mark 16:9-20 Luke 22:43-44 John 7:53-8:11) some of which may have begun as marginal notes.

Here's a candidate: 1 Cor 2:8b

6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8a None of the rulers of this age understood this. 9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, not human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those that love him"-

8a, strongly connected to 6, is necessary for 9. 8b tells us

for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory

In place it interrupts the discourse cohesion between 8a and 9; its content isn't directly related to the subject of the passage; and it uses kurios not to mean god but Jesus, yet (I have argued) a writer doesn't normally use a word such that at any time it has two referants -- either the absolutive (ie not just titular) kurios refers to god or Jesus but not both.

However, 1 Cor 2:8b makes eminent sense as a marginal comment, for though it is a tangent, you can see how someone related it to 8a.

6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, not human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those that love him"-

spin

nonsense ! Paul references the glory of the "peak" (Maslow) which associates with the lord. Paul's reader would have understood the reference is to this inner mind-state. He/she would have also understood instantly that such experience was not available to the "archontes" who acted out their low nature and crucified "the lord" because the guy (the humble servant in whom the lord was) looked like a criminal to them. The passage would make no sense without the archontes doing something to manifest their lack of God's wisdom that Paul claims for himself and his fellow convulsive saints.

Try another one !

Jiri

mountainman · 03-10-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The Testimonium Flavium:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

As Scarface used to say, "That don't look too good" (for Eusebius). I think even the average Skeptic will be sore amazed at just how good the argument from silence is here. Note especially that it's not just the silence to Eusebius. It's the gradual recognition of the TF after Eusebius. Eusebius was not SaveOneFair, so if he was the cause it started locally and gradually spread. . .

Before Eusebius, Origen cites Josephus in the following text:

Quote:

Antiquities 20.9.1. "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...html#reference

Who forged this reference to Christ?

Dear Arnaldo,

Eusebius of course. The literature of both "Origen" and Josephus Flavius was being preserved on the desk of Eusebius in the fourth century, on account of Constantine managing to convince himself that he'd had some sort of "religious experience".

Eusebius was a diligent researcher into the ancient records and archives of past generations. Both the major and the minor interpolations comprising the testimonium flavianum have Eusebius' fingerprints all over them. Eusebius was commissioned to substantiate what was to be a state religious belief in the divinity of an historical jesus. As he did not have any evidence, Eusebius simply fabricated it. Both interpolations - the major at Antiquities 18.3.3, and the minor at Antiquities 20.9.1 - are fraudulent misrepresentations of Josephus by the christianizing imperial scribe Eusebius.

The tradition of the subsequent reliance on "Origen" as preserved by Eusebius becomes questionable when one considers that there are real problems identify a "christian Origen" as well as a "non-christian" Origen, and the same applies to the "teacher" of both of these "Origens". Ammonias Saccas appears as multiple personality for some reason in ancient history. One was a christian teacher of the christian Oirgen, the other was the founder of the neopythaorean tradition, a most clearly non-christian teacher. Of course we also get different combinations and permutations of Origens and Ammonias Saccas. The orthodox position of course, follows Eusebius and the conjecture that the ancient world was full of "early christians Origen and his earlier christian teacher Ammonias ".

Furthermore, we have what is known as the Origenist controversy of the 4th and 5th century over the books and "philosophy" of Origen. This controversy is not satisfactorily explained by the orthodox. Curiously, Arius of Alexandria also claimed the name of his (spiritual?) father to be Ammonius.

Best wishes,

Pete

spin · 03-11-2009, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

nonsense ! Paul references the glory of the "peak" (Maslow) which associates with the lord. Paul's reader would have understood the reference is to this inner mind-state. He/she would have also understood instantly that such experience was not available to the "archontes" who acted out their low nature and crucified "the lord" because the guy (the humble servant in whom the lord was) looked like a criminal to them. The passage would make no sense without the archontes doing something to manifest their lack of God's wisdom that Paul claims for himself and his fellow convulsive saints.

Try another one !

You just made less sense than my cat. So here...

Jiri often does this. Jiri shuts down three months a year. I don't know why he calls himself Solo. The cheese is made out of yak's milk. Jiri's likes to think of the psychology behind religious thought. Hillary and Norge must have had the Jiri experience.

Just in case you made it through that, Jiri is a cheese manufacturing town in Nepal close to Mt Everest. Oh and a name attached to the user Solo. Using a term with two referents can be confusing though, can't it? Solo wanted nonsense, so he should try living with a term he wants to have two referents.

kurios, the term used to refer directly to god in ancient Greek, but not just any use of the word, not when it is used as a qualifier, as in "the lord Jesus", or "my lord", but "the lord", as in "the lord told pharaoh to let his people go". The famous "lord said to my lord" works because the first is absolute, while the second is a title and are easily distinguished.

I doubt that Paul ever used the absolute kurios for Jesus. This kurios is a diachronic marker: when it refers to god indicates a different literary effort from when it refers to Jesus. When "the lord" refers to Jesus, it has been added later than the references to god as "the lord". We've moved away from the more Jewish background to the new religion.

Solo is not engaged with literary analysis, nor in linguistic analysis, but in "inner-mind state[s]".

spin

Roger Pearse · 03-11-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Are there similarly sized examples of interpolated margin notes?

The problem is showing that an interpolation used to be a marginal note.

Most of them tend to be quite short, as well.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 03-11-2009, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. All the statements above are mistaken, however.

I'll stick with what I've seen. At least I know that's correct.

Always a good principle.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Apostate1970 · 03-11-2009, 01:51 AM

Why did you choose the words "substantially original"? Are those supposed to mean "mostly not a forgery"? If so then why didn't you ask that instead? Talk of "substantially original" is a very odd way of doing that especially since "original" can mean "made up" in which case "substantially original" would likely mean something like "mostly made up after the time of Josephus' original composition", that is to say "a forgery". And is your choice of words merely accidental or is it perhaps deliberate? Perhaps we're not even really being given an option for "not a forgery"?

JoeWallack · 03-11-2009, 07:22 AM

JW:
The Testimonium Flavium:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

Quote:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Skeptical super sleuth, Neal Godfree, lays out the case for forgery by Eusebius here:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/...nst-hierocles/

Neal's main points:

1) Evidence that the TF was created during Eusebius career. Note that Eusebius never refers to the TF in Adversus Hieroclem even though he would be expected to.

2) Specific and key words of the TF are noticeably similar to Adversus Hieroclem:

Quote:

Note the similarities of theme and close relationship even sequence:

* a divine man,
* a worker of miracles (though Eusebius complains that those of Apollonius are wizardry, not genuine),
* prophesied from old by Hebrew prophets,
* persuaded many who loved the truth, were sincere, and remained loyal even after his death
* and who have continued even to the present day
* from all mankind, Jews and Gentiles,
* condemned by rulers, yet he has overcome through his powers and the devotion and continuation of his followers

This comparison, I propose, suggests that Eusebius was either totally absent minded or possibly had not yet constructed the TF at the time he wrote against Hierocles. It also strongly suggests that the thought pattern in Eusebius’ mind at the time he was rebutting Hierocles was sustained and survived to become the framework for his subsequent decision to craft the TF.

3) The key offending phrases of the TF:

1. a wise man (sophos aner)

2. if it be lawful to call him a man

3. a doer of wonderful works (paradoxon ergon poietes)

are consistent with Eusebius' vocabulary and not Josephus'.

Note than that regarding the language issue of the TF we have two separate observations:

1 - The language is not Josephan.

2 - The language is Eusebian.

In the big picture, IF the TF is forged (or interpolated), than not only is it not support for HJ, it is support for MJ as God knows what else OCD forged. Point Doherty! Score, Doherty 40, HJ Love (one another).

Joseph

Polemics - Doing unto others as you think they would do unto you.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

show_no_mercy · 03-11-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Before Eusebius, Origen cites Josephus in the following text:

Quote:

Antiquities 20.9.1. "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...html#reference

Who forged this reference to Christ?

That's not the Testimonium Flavium.

View Poll Results: What is your position on the originality of the TF?
The TF is a complete forgery	32	55.17%
The TF is partially forged	9	15.52%
The TF is substantially original	5	8.62%
I agree with whatever Spin thinks	4	6.90%
I have no TFing idea	5	8.62%
Who cares about the TF, I think JW is one funny mo-tfo	4	6.90%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

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

03-11-2009, 01:51 AM	#48
Apostate1970 Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,347	Why did you choose the words "substantially original"? Are those supposed to mean "mostly not a forgery"? If so then why didn't you ask that instead? Talk of "substantially original" is a very odd way of doing that especially since "original" can mean "made up" in which case "substantially original" would likely mean something like "mostly made up after the time of Josephus' original composition", that is to say "a forgery". And is your choice of words merely accidental or is it perhaps deliberate? Perhaps we're not even really being given an option for "not a forgery"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.