Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 02-26-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

... when someone makes sweeping reference to "Josephus forgot to mention Jesus", that means that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus. Duh. Now that is still totally wrong, even if one subtracts Antiq. 18, as Carrier is doing, since Antiq. 20 is still left.

...

Only if Antiq 20 contains a reference to Jesus written by Josephus. You keep skipping that vital step.

1 - 1 = 0

I've been very careful throughout this thread to stress the extant text of Antiqs. Go check for yourself. It is strictly in that context that the most recent exchange has been posted. I've been on to that dodge from the get-go and have forestalled it. You should pay closer attention.

2 - 1 = 1.

Chaucer

spin · 02-26-2011, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Its level of significance is not relevant here; only its presence/existence in an extant text of an overall work that Carrier already tackles. Consequently, for Carrier to say "Josephus forgot to mention Jesus" in the context of Antiq. 18 is to totally ignore the extant text of Antiq. 20. To ignore it remains misleading and wrong.

Your claim of "misleading" is wilfully ridiculous. You have simply buggered up your pedantic reading of Carrier's words and will not admit your error. You in fact are the one who is wrong here. There is nothing "misleading" or "wrong" about ignoring a less famous example. It's called economy. You however have a misguided notion that because he says that a scribe must have been "annoyed that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus", this somehow excludes there being a later insertion.

Yes, I do. It has to do with this funny thing called "reading".

What you are calling "reading" is actually "reading into". What you are trying to analyze shows you to lack support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why you make this error is unclear. That you drone on with it is just plain boring. There is nothing to gain other than to show just how pedantic you are prepared to be to fault someone you have no respect for, apparently because he doesn't tout your hysterical jesus beliefs,

Let me introduce you to some Watergate history. In 1974, the newsman Roger Mudd (or was it Marvin Kalb?) made a fabled Freudian slip: he referenced the then-recent revelation that Nixon made secret tapes of everything in the Oval Office "because Nixon wanted to have a record of these transactions for hysteric -- historical reasons". Since then, the substitution of hysterical for historical has often been made for comic effect.

Garden path. You still haven't indicated why you insist on pursuing your error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

beliefs that have been shown to be baseless whenever you've tried to present them. I don't imagine you restraining yourself from continuing this vain effort at hairsplitting.

Why should I?

Hairsplitting is scorned upon in the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What benefit is there for you to insist that Carrier's statement is "misleading and wrong"? As I pointed out, you can't insist that he didn't know about the unreferenced passage and you can't claim that there was any desire to mislead his audience. He simply didn't say what you wanted to hear. So why are you whinging about this? What is your problem?

I take the English language very seriously,...

You don't act that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...and when someone makes sweeping reference to "Josephus forgot to mention Jesus", that means that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus.

You haven't shown in all of your cufuffle that Josephus in fact did mention Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Duh.

Duh indeed. You assume your conclusions and wonder why you get ridiculed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Now that is still totally wrong, even if one subtracts Antiq. 18, as Carrier is doing, since Antiq. 20 is still left.

A teachable moment: 2 - 1 = 1.

OK, now we get the error into plain sight. You have gulled yourself into believing that the James reference in AJ 20.200 was written by Josephus. Why?

(Just to help you, here is a link to my last dealing with it specifically in your thread, "The underwhelming case for a historical Jesus", a comment you failed to respond to in that thread. Perhaps you can do better here.)

Toto · 02-27-2011, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

... I've been very careful throughout this thread to stress the extant text of Antiqs. ...

That's very silly. We know that the extant text of Antiquities has been tampered with by Christian scribes, so it cannot be used as evidence of what Josephus originally wrote. So what basis is there for complaining that Carrier did not mention a phrase in Ant 20 that he thinks is another Christian interpolation?

It's not like he is hiding any compelling evidence of Jesus' existence.

Jayrok · 02-28-2011, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

3. If you really have a concern about what Richard Carrier thinks of the two references in Josephus, you can email him or wait for his book to be published.
"

Do you know if there has been any word on when Carrier's book will be published/released?

Chaucer · 02-28-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

... I've been very careful throughout this thread to stress the extant text of Antiqs. ...

That's very silly.

What is in the extant text of Antiquities speaks directly to Carrier's accuracy. Even at best, he apparently makes no distinction between what is extant in the extant text of Antiquities and what he MAY THINK is in Josephus's Antiquities. Failing to specify that distinction is seriously misleading, not to mention seriously sloppy.

Chaucer

Toto · 02-28-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's very silly.

What is in the extant text of Antiquities ...

This is completely nonresponsive to the point that I made. I'm not going to continue this charade.

Chaucer · 02-28-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

What is in the extant text of Antiquities ...

This is completely nonresponsive to the point that I made. I'm not going to continue this charade.

You're not addressing the OP. The OP concerns misdirection by a lecturer, not various theories about the object of that misdirection. Hey, maybe I'm the one who should turn my attention to other exchanges in this thread instead.

Chaucer

Toto · 02-28-2011, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is completely nonresponsive to the point that I made. I'm not going to continue this charade.

You're not addressing the OP. The OP concerns misdirection by a lecturer,

which I have shown did not involve any misdirection

Quote:

not various theories about the object of that misdirection.

???

Quote:

Hey, maybe I'm the one who should turn my attention to other exchanges in this thread instead.

Chaucer

Please do.

Chaucer · 03-01-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You haven't shown in all of your cufuffle that Josephus in fact did mention Jesus.

That is irrelevant to what is in the extant text and what Carrier manifestly overlooks. Since Carrier in his lecture does not even address Antiq. 20 as a possible piece of marginalia from another hand (as you've suggested), or even supply some sort of other remark(s) of his own on Antiq. 20 at all(!), the impression left by his careless remarks on Antiq. 18 remains clearly misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Now that is still totally wrong, even if one subtracts Antiq. 18, as Carrier is doing, since Antiq. 20 is still left.

A teachable moment: 2 - 1 = 1.

OK, now we get the error into plain sight. You have gulled yourself into believing that the James reference in AJ 20.200 was written by Josephus. Why?

(Just to help you, here is a link to my last dealing with it specifically in your thread, "The underwhelming case for a historical Jesus", a comment you failed to respond to in that thread. Perhaps you can do better here.)

Actually, I have "gulled myself" into believing that the key words in Antiq. 20 are in the EXTANT TEXT of Antiqs, however they arrived there. Consequently, for anyone to imply that no such Jesus reference is left in the EXTANT TEXT at all once one accounts for Antiq. 18 as a scribal interpolation -- as Carrier does manifestly imply -- is to be sloppy at best and badly misleading at worst.

Chaucer

Toto · 03-01-2011, 04:59 PM

Where does Carrier indicate that he is dealing with the extant text of Josephus?

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

03-01-2011, 04:59 PM	#80
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Where does Carrier indicate that he is dealing with the extant text of Josephus?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.