FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-14-2006, 12:53 PM   #511
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
Stephen has already commented on this. My Latin is too poor to say more than that IMHO Christianos is perfectly possible as a Latin derivative of Christus

Andrew Criddle
One parallel for deriving Christianos from Christus would be the derivation of Augustianos (followers of or attendants on Augustus) from Augustus

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 07:36 AM   #512
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva
Posts: 5,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
I suppose I ought to answer this before it gets too stale.

Since most Josephan scholars hold to the partial interpolation hypothesis, one can only be blindsided on this point if the widely held views of Josephan scholars are in one's blindspot.
Firstly, before dropping it, you are still failing to understand the difference between blindspot and blind side, and hence the americanism 'blindsided'. Here's the O.E.D. (see, I name my 'scholars') on it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oed
blind spot, (a) the spot on the retina which is insensible to light; (b) Cricket, that spot of ground in front of a batsman where a ball pitched by the bowler leaves the batsman in doubt whether to play forward or back;

blind(-)side, verb (north american) trans. In sport, to attack or strike (an opponent) on the blind side. Chiefly fig., to take advantage of a weakness in (another), to take unawares.
Secondly, here you go again with your 'Josephan scholars'. You're the one who raised them and yet you're the one who's refusing to define them. Please define them (is Dr Goldberg, whom gnosis linked to, one of them?) so that I can comment on those you consider Josephan scholars.
Quote:
A bold claim is a claim that is both specific and unlikely to be true. Now your complaint is that my statement is vague. So what it is: bold or wishy-washy? I'm willing to change my opinion in response to evidence but you have yet to cite a single Josephan scholar that contradicts my statement about the status quaestionis.
Again, you raised the claim, so you define what you mean by it. If you don't like 'bold', would you prefer if I had said 'your unsubstantiated claim'?
Quote:
If you want to know what the authorities say, read the authorities. You have not (yet?) stated that you don't know who the Josephan scholars are, though the previously attempted characterization of Josephan scholars as "Christian apologists" seems to not be aware how many of the Josephan scholars are Jewish.
How many times do I have to ask you? Who are these people you consider to be josephan scholars? You're the one who raised the claim that they supported you. Once I know who you consider to be josephan scholars then I will investigate them. Until then I stand by my initial comment that: "you just claim that "[t]he partially interpolated hypothesis commands a majority of Josephan scholars" and hope that I'll buy this argument from authority that will - once investigated - probably dissolve into an argument from 'accepted consensus' a.k.a. '(mostly) long dead christian theologians/apologists taught this, therefore so do we'."
Quote:
At any rate, your question would be relevant if there is a partial-interpolation position supposing that the portion of the Testimonium I quoted for you is one of the partial interpolations.

I had said a little while ago that my views are "under construction." In the space of a couple days to a week, they still are. But I'm not asking you to be be aware of my views, just aware of what the contemporary scholarship on Josephus is saying.
Correction: what you claim they are saying. How much time have you spent considering the 'total interpolation' position, and what led you to reject it?
Quote:
I see the problem: two different people are making different claims about what Josephan scholars are saying, and you don't know who's right. But since you haven't said that you don't who the Josephan scholars are, I invite you to check our assertions by rereading them.
You're the one who raised the issue of 'josephan scholars' and you're the one who is refusing to clarify. I do not know who you are claiming to be josephan scholars, and I am not going to waste my time trying to double-guess you.
Quote:
You ask as if whether Josephus would ever use or coin the word Christian is somehow a live dispute among Josephus scholars...
Well? You're the one who keeps talking about your 'josephan scholars' whilst refusing to list them. So why don't you tell me.
Quote:
:huh: There's no Nero fiddling in the Tacitus quote, and I don't recall making any assertion on its historicity one way or another.

Stephen Carlson
Why only comment on my 'fiddling' comment: where is the evidence of this Great Fire under Nero or that he persecuted christians for it?
post tenebras lux is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 07:40 AM   #513
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva
Posts: 5,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
Given the state of preservation of ancient writings it is perilous to assume that the first attested use of a particular word is also its first-ever use.
No one is claiming that Josephus read Mark, Acts, or Peter or that he invented the term. These sources, together with Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny etc., means that the term "Christian" was already in common usage for a certain religious sect by the turn of the first century.

Actually, the evidence constitutes the portions of the longer passage that most Josephan scholars have concluded is genuine.

Except for the genuine parts of Josephus, Ant. Jud. 18.63-64 according to most Josephan scholars.

All this speculation is unnecessary in light of the genuine parts of Josephus, Ant. Jud. 18.63-64, according to most Josephan scholars.

However, Josephus already explained who Jesus is in the genuine parts of AJ 18.63-64, according to most Josephan scholars.

Stephen Carlson
Again. Here you go with your 'most josephan scholars ...' talk. And yet you still decline to clarify who you are talking about. Would it be too much to ask for you to either say who you consider 'josephan scholars' or to justify their opinions yourself. Why have they concluded all that you claim they have?
post tenebras lux is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 01:55 PM   #514
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

FWIW Meier in book 1 of 'A Marginal Jew' gives the following list of reasonably recent reasonably prominent scholars who have regarded the TF as authentic but interpolated.

(Jewish) Paul Winter, Louis Feldman
(Christian sort-of) SGF Brandon, Morton Smith
(Protestant) James Charlesworth
(Catholic) Carlo Martini, Wofgang Trilling A-M Dubarle.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 09:43 PM   #515
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
Firstly, before dropping it, you are still failing to understand the difference between blindspot and blind side, and hence the americanism 'blindsided'.
They're both automotive terms too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
Secondly, here you go again with your 'Josephan scholars'. You're the one who raised them and yet you're the one who's refusing to define them. Please define them (is Dr Goldberg, whom gnosis linked to, one of them?) so that I can comment on those you consider Josephan scholars.
You were the one who first confidently claimed that Josephus did not write any of the longer passage. I pointed out that most Josephan scholars disagreed. If your competence matches your confidence, you should have no problem knowing who they are and what they are saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
Again, you raised the claim, so you define what you mean by it. If you don't like 'bold', would you prefer if I had said 'your unsubstantiated claim'?
I didn't merely say that the longer passage is only partially interpolated; I said that it was so according to most Josephan schoalrs. Right there's your substantiation, which should be adequate to anyone competent to expound so confidentally, as you did, on what Josephus did and did not write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
How many times do I have to ask you? Who are these people you consider to be josephan scholars? You're the one who raised the claim that they supported you. Once I know who you consider to be josephan scholars then I will investigate them. Until then I stand by my initial comment that: "you just claim that "[t]he partially interpolated hypothesis commands a majority of Josephan scholars" and hope that I'll buy this argument from authority that will - once investigated - probably dissolve into an argument from 'accepted consensus' a.k.a. '(mostly) long dead christian theologians/apologists taught this, therefore so do we'."
As I said before, your apparent lack of awareness of how many of the leading Josephus scholars are Jewish does not bode particularly well for the conclusion that you know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
Correction: what you claim they are saying. How much time have you spent considering the 'total interpolation' position, and what led you to reject it?
You're the one who raised the issue of 'josephan scholars' and you're the one who is refusing to clarify. I do not know who you are claiming to be josephan scholars, and I am not going to waste my time trying to double-guess you.Well? You're the one who keeps talking about your 'josephan scholars' whilst refusing to list them. So why don't you tell me.
Simple--because you have not (yet?) admitted that you don't really know who the recognized Josephan scholars are and that therefore you really did not have any reasonable basis to be making the claims about what Josephus did or did not write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
Why only comment on my 'fiddling' comment: where is the evidence of this Great Fire under Nero or that he persecuted christians for it?
The "fiddling" comment shows a lack of seriousness.

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:23 AM   #516
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

To "post tenebras lux" (oy, those silly and grandiose monikers that people here hide behind!)

Let me echo Stephen's call to you to tell us how it is that you are so certain about what Josephus did and did not write. Presumably some of your claim rests upon your reading scholarly studies of the langage and form and content of the "longer passage" and how it squares (or doesn't) with what scholars have argued is "typically" Josephan.

Will you then kindly inform us of what the particular wrtings, especially the scholarly ones, are that informs your claim? Or will you once and for all tell us that this presumption has no basis in fact?

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 08:39 AM   #517
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
One parallel for deriving Christianos from Christus would be the derivation of Augustianos (followers of or attendants on Augustus) from Augustus

Andrew Criddle
Christus is the Latin translation of χριστος. As Andrew pointed out, Augustian is an excellent example of this derivation. Others include Iulianus ultimately from Iulus, the ancestor of the gens Iulia.

And there isn't merely only one way to derive an adjective from a proper name. Besides Augustianus, you have Augustanus, Augustalis, and Augustinus. Christianus is perfect Latin.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 08:45 AM   #518
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Howdy Jeffrey,

Both Steve Mason and Ken Olson's arguments against authenticity entirely are top-notch. Actually, I prefer Steve Mason's, since I don't think I would posit the theory of Eusebius as interpolator as Ken Olson does.

best,

Chris
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 09:22 AM   #519
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer
Howdy Jeffrey,

Both Steve Mason and Ken Olson's arguments against authenticity entirely are top-notch. Actually, I prefer Steve Mason's, since I don't think I would posit the theory of Eusebius as interpolator as Ken Olson does.
Thanks Chris.

But please note that I didn't ask you -- or anyone -- whether there were scholars who argued this, let alone whether what they wrote was any good..

I asked PTL (hello Jim and Tammy Faye Baker!) who the particular scholars were, if any, whose works informed his claim.

I'd be grateful if he(?) would answer this.

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 09:47 AM   #520
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

I can't answer for her (I believe PTL is a she), but was just letting you know who informs my opinion. However, contrary to mythicists, I don't think that an absence of information in Josephus means that Jesus never existed, or started out as a mythical concept, like Doherty's thesis.

best,

Chris Weimer
Chris Weimer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:49 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.