Johann_Kaspar

It will not change the fact that he received a catholic education, going to catholic institutes and receiving priesthood.

Toto

Geza Vermes "may once have been a Catholic priest but later, while teaching Jewish studies at Oxford University in the 1970s, he started attending a liberal synagogue. . . Vermes has a deep and very public fascination with Jesus. It has remained with him through all the twists and turns of his own extraordinary spiritual journey from Hungarian Jewish parents, who converted with him to Catholicism, through disillusionment as a cleric with Christianity, and onto an eventual return to his roots."

Bede

There is a level of disrespect for such a great scholar as Vermes, with whom I disagree on many levels, not to mention his being a victim of Nazi oppression, that I find deeply distasteful. Perhaps I'm not the only one.

B

Toto

I don't know how Vermes got into this discussion. Does he have an opinion on the TF? Layman has pointed out that Louis Feldman appears to accept some authentic reference to Jesus (or does he just report that most scholars accept that there is an authentic reference?) and Feldman is not Christian, so this idea is not confined to Christians.

I don't see the disrespect in just pointing out that Vermes comes from a very Christian background as a possible influence on his thinking. Obviously there is much more to him than that.

Edited to add: evidently Vermes did write on the TF: G. Vermes, "The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-examined," JJS 38 (1987)

rlogan

Johan made an interesting post on the other thread regarding Eisler's work but I thought a discussion belonged here.

and...

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/eisler.htm

311 - Edict of Toleration
312 - Constantine's Battle with Maxentius (sees the cross, makes soldiers put it on their helmets frome then on)
312 - Proof of the Gospel
313 - Edict of Milan

I can't say if Eisler is overstating the case somewhat, but this is clearly a solid point. The TF does not appear until the state is sanctioning Christianity.

This adds even more credence to the thesis that Eusebius is the author of the TF.

spin

Incidentally, Constantine was a worshipper of Sol Invictus at the period and was so for several years more as evinced by his coins. The cross was the rays of the sun.


spin

rlogan

I appreciate that you are such a careful scholar, spin.

I wanted to be more cautious here than Eisler. I think a strong enough case is made by recognizing the shift taking place towards Christiainity without overstating things.

Johann_Kaspar

From what I wrote, the disrespect can only be in your eyes. "Great" is your own opinion.

By the way I have no respect for seekers of lie and worshippers of dog. We know exactly what the result can be in the "name of dog".

And finally I find "distasteful" that a person could embrace the very religion of the leader who made kill his parents.

Johann_Kaspar

xians not only destroyed books, but also pagan temples on a very large scale.
For those who can read German:
Karl-Heinz Deschner, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums. (Criminal History of xianity.) About one book (600 pages)/century.

Also around the turning of the century, there was a translitteration of all texts (all texts written anew using new characters). Guess what happened with the older texts...

Johann_Kaspar

Here is a list of the "arguments for authenticity" of the TF by Feldman:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testhist.htm

IMHO, these "arguments" are all easily reduced to nothing worth.

Like the fourth one: the first is true because the second is true and the second is true because the first is true... (Don't we have here a link to the "James" ossuary, too?)

Like the fifth one: sorry but a critical analysis of Josephus texts has been done and several passages are missing or incomplete. But who is responsible for the emphasy on the TF? And why to stay only with the AJ? The JW contains the proof of xian editing. When it comes about their idole, it is "lies and co". It is a fact.