aa5874

I won't allow you to continue to make ERRONEOUS claims.

Again, "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is NOT authentic based on Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" X.17.

Words from Josephus are MISSING from "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

"Commentary on Matthew" X.17 It is just a complete waste of time arguing for the authenticity of AJ 20.9.1 when we have the Commentary on Matthew X.17 and "Against Celsus" 1.47 atrributed to the very SAME ORIGEN.

"Against Celsus" 1.47 Based on writings attributed to Origen "AJ 20.9.1 is NOT authentic.

spin

All this would have been unnecessary, if you had taken notice of the fact that Carrier simply talks of the most famous example, which in no way excludes other examples, which you repeatedly overlook.

Appeals to the extant text are disingenuous at best. It is clear that Carrier doesn't consider AJ 20:200 as reflecting the original text.

:deadhorse:

Not sufficient to deal with your griping. Carrier has indicated that he doesn't think any references to Jesus in AJ are original. You simply refuse to accept that.

Here is what Carrier said again:

There are earlier references, but they aren't any good. They either just repeat what Christians were telling them -- Christians who were just riffing on the New Testament -- or they're actually fabricated by Christians themselves and the most famous example is a whole paragraph in the early Jewish historian, Josephus, which nearly everyone agrees was snuck into that book by a later Christian scribe, who was evidently annoyed that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus, so when he copied the book out he made sure to -- you know -- just add a paragraph. You generally don't have to add paragraphs to other people's history books for a guy who actually existed. Pretty much if you're inserting a guy into history who wasn't there before, usually that means he really wasn't there before. Now that leaves us just with the New Testament...

Can you see any comment about the veracity of the extant text (or EXTANT TEXT, as you'd have it)? Of course, you don't. This is merely you perverting what Carrier said. You have indeed gulled yourself.

Carrier implies no such thing. This is a figment of your imagination.

Carrier plainly says that the "earlier references" to Jesus are either repeats of "what Christians were telling" the authors or "they're actually fabricated by Christians themselves". Carrier does not imply here that only some earlier references were one of these two possibilities and his comment about the scribe rules out the first. There are no concessions to the extant text. The "earlier references", all of them, have been dealt with. This allows no wiggle room regarding AJ 20:200. Your clinging to your notion of the extant text has been excluded by Carrier, so you are just talking bullshit, prolonged bullshit, unsupported, irrelevant, unmitigated bullshit.

Zaphod

Chaucer,

You DO realize this was not a formal academic lecture, but a presentation, obviously for laughs, at Scepticon II, an annual meeting of skeptics and atheists who get together to discuss and disparage creationists, medical woo-meisters, and religionists??:huh:

WTF are you going on and on about, besides stubbornly taking the ill-advised opportunity to asperse Carrier? :constern01:

Chaucer

It's an informational presentation that happens to have a sometimes humorous edge but that is still compromised when it becomes the thing it criticizes: to wit, woo. It becomes woo when extant passages in extant texts aren't systematically addressed, one way or another, thus facilitating a takeaway that is at odds with the facts. Fact: Carrier's presentation leaves a false impression of how many Jesus cits. there are in Antiqs.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy

Richard Carrier is now a pseudoscientist. Brilliant! James Randi will be breathing down his neck soon...

Chaucer

He certainly appears to be a pseudo-scholar -- if the lack of rigor in this lecture video is anything to go by.

Chaucer

Toto

Unlike you, Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University.

Unlike you, everyone else seems to know the difference between popular lectures and scholarly papers. And everyone else can tell the difference between "most famous" and "only."

This thread seems to be about your own personal misinterpretation of plain language, which you have not convinced anyone to share.

Chaucer

Oh? Not convinced anyone? It would appear from this thread that Judge and No Robots might take exception to that statement.

Chaucer

spin

Hell, this is like Memento. First the current discussion is about your obsession with trying to say Carrier has misled everyone because he doesn't include reference to AJ 20:200. Toto reminded you of the topic in the post you responded to: 'And everyone else can tell the difference between "most famous" and "only."' You seem to have forgotten the context again and given a kneejerk reaction here, based on not remembering what you are talking about at the time.

Referring to both judge and No Robots is ingenuous here, as judge was not dealing with AJ 20:200 and No Robots was making a drive-by comment, which takes off on your empty accusation, but doesn't deal with what you were trying to talk about. But of course you will insist that Toto had left the topic of AJ 20:200 and was making a more general comment, insisting while ignoring context.

So on you go showing the world how deeply you can rub the egg into your face.

mountainman

In this instance they dont count since everyone knows that they were already convinced. But you've convinced me that you are persistently, and perhaps even purposefully, mistaken in this instance. I think Carrier is doing a good job.