Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 08-14-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Hang in there, Angelo. Others agree with you.

I'm sure that must be a comfort to you both. Still, I'm curious as to what you and your co-dogmatist think of Kirby's Testimonium Flavianum.

Minimalist · 08-15-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

and he is wrong, in that some intellectually respectable sources have taken the position that the TF contains a core amount of text about Jesus, that was enhanced by later Christian scribes.

Yes....and if that is the case then Origen is the stupidest son-of-a-bitch to ever walk the earth. It seems that whatever was originally written in that passage did not even pique his curiosity about 'his' Jesus.

If, just for the sake of argument, the 'revised' TF were actually there, then Origen was terribly negligent for not having picked up on it. For that matter, he was not alone as no other christian writer prior to Eusebius looked at whatever was written there and thought it might have been Jesus.

Origen duly notes the "James, brother of Jesus" passage but somehow neglects the much more dramatic TF. How likely is that? Thus, it seems reasonable that what occupied the space now inhabited by the TF in Origen's time was something so innocuous that it did not trigger his interest. Even if it had been something insulting about Jesus, Origen would have mentioned it to a) refute it and b) prove that Josephus knew of Jesus. The silence is compelling.

I find that far more instructive than all this quibbling about whether or not the phrase in question "sounds like" Josephus.

aa5874 · 08-15-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

and he is wrong, in that some intellectually respectable sources have taken the position that the TF contains a core amount of text about Jesus, that was enhanced by later Christian scribes.

Yes....and if that is the case then Origen is the stupidest son-of-a-bitch to ever walk the earth. It seems that whatever was originally written in that passage did not even pique his curiosity about 'his' Jesus.

If, just for the sake of argument, the 'revised' TF were actually there, then Origen was terribly negligent for not having picked up on it. For that matter, he was not alone as no other christian writer prior to Eusebius looked at whatever was written there and thought it might have been Jesus.

Origen duly notes the "James, brother of Jesus" passage but somehow neglects the much more dramatic TF. How likely is that? Thus, it seems reasonable that what occupied the space now inhabited by the TF in Origen's time was something so innocuous that it did not trigger his interest. Even if it had been something insulting about Jesus, Origen would have mentioned it to a) refute it and b) prove that Josephus knew of Jesus. The silence is compelling.

I find that far more instructive than all this quibbling about whether or not the phrase in question "sounds like" Josephus.

And perhaps Origen did not see the TF because it was not inserted yet. And furthermore if the TF is regarded as an interpolation, what else was interpolated in other writings?

angelo · 08-15-2007, 04:50 AM

Consequent, OK, if as you maintain, Josephus passage about Jesus is correct, why have dozens of other writers of the time ignored the story. Surely 3-4 others at least would have had something to say about such a man. none do.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-15-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Consequent, OK, if as you maintain, Josephus passage about Jesus is correct, ...

And where do I maintain that the "Josephus passage about Jesus is correct"? Focus on substantiating your assertions and stop fabricating mine.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-15-2007, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No serious scholar today attributes Josephus writing about Jesus as legitimate.

Just a reminder ...

Doug Shaver · 08-15-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But the author of Timothy clearly called himself Paul

So what? The author of Moby Dick called himself Ishmael, but that wasn't really his name.

aa5874 · 08-15-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But the author of Timothy clearly called himself Paul

So what? The author of Moby Dick called himself Ishmael, but that wasn't really his name.

But Moby Dick was classified as fiction by Ishmael. The epistles cannot be confirmed to be non-fiction, the authors are unknown and at least one Paul is fictitious.

It should be of grave concern that books in the Sacred Bible are regarded as fictitious and the names of authors forged.

Toto · 08-15-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

So what? The author of Moby Dick called himself Ishmael, but that wasn't really his name.

But Moby Dick was classified as fiction by Ishmael. The epistles cannot be confirmed to be non-fiction, the authors are unknown and at least one Paul is fictitious.

It should be of grave concern that books in the Sacred Bible are regarded as fictitious and the names of authors forged.

Only if you are a true believer with no sophistication, but there aren't very many who post here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Consequent, OK, if as you maintain, Josephus passage about Jesus is correct, why have dozens of other writers of the time ignored the story. Surely 3-4 others at least would have had something to say about such a man. none do.

If you want to discuss the TF, you have to deal with John Meier's arguments. From Peter Kirby's Testimonium page linked above,

Quote:

John P. Meier argues: "One possible explanation of this silence would jibe well with my reconstruction of the Testimonium and my isolation of the Christian interpolations. If until shortly before the time of Eusebius the Testimonium lacked the three Christian interpolations I have bracketed, the Church Fathers would not have been overly eager to cite it; for it hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead. This would explain why Origen in the 3d century affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief -- not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians." (p. 79)

I think he's wrong, but he's not so clearly wrong that you can just blow him off, and it might be a useful exercise for you to examine his arguments.

angelo · 08-16-2007, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No serious scholar today attributes Josephus writing about Jesus as legitimate.

Just a reminder ...

Your playing with my mind. Sorry pal, I won't fall for it.

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

08-15-2007, 04:50 AM	#134
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Consequent, OK, if as you maintain, Josephus passage about Jesus is correct, why have dozens of other writers of the time ignored the story. Surely 3-4 others at least would have had something to say about such a man. none do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.