Veil of Fire

Boy, Toto's first post REALLY pegged Layman. He WAS just looking to pick a fight.

Layman

Any Christian that posts on this board has to be prepared for a fight. But I was motivated by more than "looking to pick a fight."

Many skeptics here are very dismissive of Christian arguments. Even when those arguments are accepted by most secular scholars--such as the existence of Jesus. I was curious if the fact that one of the founders of this site so clearly affirmed a typical Christian argument for the historicity of Jesus would have any effect on these "hyper-skeptics."

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Toto

McDowell's revision was undoubtedly in reaction to Lowder's essay, where he pointed out that McDowell had written a more respectable argument in Walks Among us.

I'm not sure why you think there is some victory for you in finding a certifiable atheist who believes that Jesus actually existed. There is a broad range of opinions among skeptics on the issue, and most skeptics are open to changing their opinion with new evidence or arguments.

But there is no reason to make the leap from saying there was a historical Jesus to saying that historical Jesus violated the laws of physics and rose from the dead because he was part of the triune God.

Vorkosigan

That is entirely unfair. I can agree with Stein's position without supporting his polemics.

Since all of these scholars completely reject the notion that the entirety of the Testimonium was forged, you have no basis for your comment. Nor is it the case that if you accept all of their positions, that none of the Testimonium is left.

Layman, no scholar, at the present moment, can show what the original reference was. That information is now lost. Whatever they write is speculation -- informed speculation, but speculation all the same. The reason scholars accept the Testamonium is the same reason that scholars reject the mythicism that was so common fifty years ago: it is no longer the fashion to regard Jesus as we regard all other legendary figures.

As Doherty notes in his discussion (<a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm" target="_blank">here</a>):

• Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (ET 1956, p.17, originally published 1933), calls it “a pure Christian forgery.” Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along with others, declared it entirely spurious.

Note that nothing, evidence-wise, has changed since their time. The change is one of attitude, not method.

There are no references in Xtian literature to the passage prior to Eusebius. Really, that is powerful evidence that the entire passage is an interpolation from the 4th century.

Well, I'll lean more on their judgment for that--and my own--than yours.

That's fine Layman. Just give us the methodology that sorts out fiction from fact in legend cycles and in history, then. If NT scholars had one, would there be any argument about Jesus? But they can't even agree on who he was. Ergo, NT scholars (and other scholars) do not possess a methodology for sorting out truth from fiction in legend cycles like the Jesus cycle, especially when they only have internal evidence to work with.

This is considered uncontroversial in other fields. For example, when a prominent scholar of the Robin Hood legend cycle says that we'll never really know who he was, everyone considers that an uncontroversial statement. But say the same thing about the Jesus cycle, and whoa! you're a radical.

There is no support, anywhere, for any aspect of the Jesus Myth outside of the forty or so gospels and other legends that constitute the Christian legend cycle. There is no method currently known to extract truth out of the morass of propaganda, theology, and fiction. If you have it, bring it out.

Vorkosigan

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Layman

I don't know. To be honest, there wasn't much "New" to the NEW Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I rather doubt it was written in response to Lowder, but I will say that Josh would have done well to read Lowder's piece and take it into account.

I don't recall claiming it was a "victory." I just wanted to know if the hyper-skeptics here considered arguments in favor of the Testimonium to be as baseless as Stein thought. Especially considering that one of the founders of this website agrees that it is independent testimony towards the historicity of Jesus.

Well, whether there is any reason to do so or not is beyond the scope of my post. Certainly not based only on the Testimonium, I would agree. But I wasn't talking about Jesus as God, but Jesus as historical.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

I don't see how the question was unfair. You coul just say no, you don't believe Lowder and I are fools or dishonest for believing that the Testimonium is independent evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

There are many reasons for accepting or rejection the passages in Josephus. I'm sure you are familiar with them. Lowder states why he accepts it in the link above.

The thing is that there is no argument among NT scholars and historians about the historicity of Jesus. The consent is nearly universal, with a few dissenters of little or no repute. The issue is that historians face about Jesus is to determine how much we have reported about him is true. This is a problem faced for any notable historical personage. It certainly is not an argument that the person did not exist. Or that the Testimonium is a fake.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Toto

This is disingenuous. Historians seem to range in their estimates of "how much" is true from close to 0% to close to 100%, so I'm not sure what kind of consensus that is. I can't think of any other historical personage for whom the range is so drastic.

And if you think that close to 0% of what is reported about Jesus is true, in what sense do you really believe that there was a historical Jesus?

Lowder's position is that the claim that a historical Jesus existed is not extraordinary, so one need not look for extraordinary evidence. I think this is a good debating point, but it is very unsatisfactory if you want to understand what was going on in the 1st century.

Vorkosigan

The thing is that there is no argument among NT scholars and historians about the historicity of Jesus. The consent is nearly universal, with a few dissenters of little or no repute. The issue is that historians face about Jesus is to determine how much we have reported about him is true. This is a problem faced for any notable historical personage. It certainly is not an argument that the person did not exist. Or that the Testimonium is a fake.

The consensus is irrelevant because it is not supported by either external evidence or methodology. There is no way to know what is history and what is not here.

As I pointed out, it used to be the consensus that the Testamonium was entirely fictional. Nothing has changed, evidence-wise or methodology wise. Only attitudes have changed.

Nobody is saying Jesus did not exist. Only that the stories we have about him are composites that draw on several different strands of mythological thinking, like those of Robin Hood, the Prince of Huai Nan, King Arthur, Confucious....

Once again, methodologies please. I edited my prior post to say:

This is considered uncontroversial in other fields. For example, when a prominent scholar of the Robin Hood legend cycle says that we'll never really know who he was, everyone considers that an uncontroversial statement. But say the same thing about the Jesus cycle, and whoa! you're a radical.

There is no support, anywhere, for any aspect of the Jesus Myth outside of the forty or so gospels and other legends that constitute the Christian legend cycle. There is no method currently known to extract truth out of the morass of propaganda, theology, and fiction. If you have it, bring it out.

So bring on the methods.

Vorkosigan

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

I guess my answer here is, McDowell and Stein are both wrong. By which I mean, with all due respect, that both McDowell and Stein do not handle the evidence in a thorough and scholarly way. There are shortcomings in both approaches.

For those who do not have the book by McDowell (which I only have because my father gave me a copy, the way in which I am sure many atheists have come across McDowell) -- here is everything that McDowell says about the Testimonium in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. This is from the 1979 edition (pp. 82-83).


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (born A.D. 37)

A Jewish historian, became a Pharisee at age 19; in A.D. 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee. After being captured, he was attached to the Roman headquarters. He says in a hotly-contested quotation:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities. xviii.33. (Early second century)

The Arabic text of the passage is as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

The above passage is found in the Arabic manuscript entitled: "Kitab al-Unwan Al-Mukallal Bi-Fadail Al-Hikma Al-Mutawwaj Bi-Anwa Al-Falsafa Al-Manduh Bi-Haqiq Al-Marifa." The approximate translation would be: "Book of History Guided by All the Virtus of Wisdom. Crowned with Various Philosophies and Blessed by the Truth of Knowledge."

The above manuscript composed by Bishop Apapius in the 10th century has a section commencing with: "We have found in many books of the philosophers that they refer to the day of the crucifixion of Christ." Then he gives a list and quotes portions of the ancient works. Some of the works are familiar to modern scholars and others are not. 8/n.p.

We also find from Josephus a reference to James the brother of Jesus. In Antiquities XX 9:1 he describes the actions of the high priest Ananus:

"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Saudducees, who are sever in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned." 2/107


There is a typo of Apapius for Agapius, and a statement in contradiction to the typical dating of the Antiquities at 93 C.E., but these are the least of the problems in McDowell's treatment.

The problem with McDowell is that he discusses absolutely zero of the arguments made either for or against the authenticity of the Testimonium or of the 20.9.1 reference. Although McDowell does concede that the quotation is "hotly-contested," McDowell uses language that suggests acceptance of the whole as Josephan ("He says" and no mention of the three parts typically indicated to be insertions), which one might think was McDowell's own opinion if it weren't for a book co-authored with Wilson called He Walked Among Us.

Thus, I don't exactly agree with Lowder that McDowell in ETDAV is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus (unless, of course, Lowder is only saying that McDowell is right by accident to appeal to Josephus). McDowell could only earn that right by a discussion of the critical arguments for partial authenticity. Lowder himself has the right to appeal to Josephus because of his critical discussion of the issue, but McDowell's treatment is in the wrong. (This is independent of the question of whether Josephus actually wrote any of the Testimonium -- Lowder provides opinion with explanation, while McDowell in ETDAV offers only opinion, perhaps not even that given that McDowell leaves his own position somewhat ambiguous. McDowell may not have formulated a clear concept of 'independent confirmation' and applied this to a supposed authentic Testimonium; in ETDAV, McDowell does little more than quote the passages found in current manuscripts.)

Layman writes: "He raises common objections to the Testimonium and explains why he thinks they do not carry the day." This is exactly what McDowell does not do in ETDAV, and this is why McDowell is in the wrong in his presentation of the Testimonium.

But here is the treatment by Stein:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html</a>

Stein writes:

"What 'hotly contested' means (although I would say it differently) is that the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

Toto writes: "You should also realize that Stein wrote that in 1982, AFAIK before the scholars you mention made their efforts to rehabilitate the Testimonium. When he wrote it, it was more or less the secular consensus on Josephus."

One of the most thorough presentations of the partial authenticity viewpoint was made only in 1990 by John P. Meier in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly (52, pp. 76-103). But it is not the case that efforts to rehabilitate the Testimonium have been constricted to the past twenty years. Even a source as old as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes the viewpoint that part of the Testimonium is authentic. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship (which was published after Stein's article, but all of the sources were available). Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation. So we see that the opinion of partial authenticity has had a following for most of the twentieth century.

The problem with McDowell is also a problem with Stein: There is absolutely no mention of the viewpoint of partial authenticity. This makes the treatment woefully inadequate. Stein could be defended by the point that the work that he is criticizing, ETDAV, does not mention the viewpoint of partial authenticity. But that should not have stopped Stein from recognizing this as a viewpoint on the Testimonium (assuming that Stein is aware of this viewpoint -- the only source mentioned is Lardner in 1838). Stein also could have mentioned the critical arguments surrounding the reference in Antiquities 20.200.

So, I do not agree with the presentation made by either Josh McDowell or Gordon Stein. (This is independent of whether Josephus actually wrote something about Jesus.)

So why don't we make our discussion more objective and forget about the particulars of the arguments made by Stein and McDowell. These particular authors don't matter as much as the actual evidence matters.

Toto mentioned my own treatment of the Testimonium question, and I will provide the link for those who do not know it:

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html</a>

Inspired by the present discussion, I went through this essay and corrected a few typos. I did not, however, change the essay in any material way due to this discussion. There has been hardly any discussion of the actual arguments involved.

Layman writes: "There are many exhaustive essays and discussions of the Testimoninium. I'm confident that Kirby's won't be the last one."

I am not sure what to make of this comment. I suppose I could take it in a couple ways.

1. My essay contains flaws. This is entirely possible. If so, I invite Layman and anyone else to point out these flaws. The essay as it stands is not the first revision, and I don't believe that it will be the last.

2. There is another treatment that is equal or greater in being exhaustive. I do not believe this to be true. The closest thing to an exhaustive treatment in the recent scholarly literature of which I know is that by John P. Meier, but I have the benefit of being more exhaustive by virtue of standing on the shoulders of giants. That is, I have read the material put forward in these other essays and have incorporated all the points into my own essay. If Layman had a particular essay or treatment in mind, I would not mind hearing about it.

In conclusion, this discussion could move forward if we forget about the particulars of the presentations made by Stein and McDowell and instead focus on the actual arguments.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

How can you sincerely claim to want to improve the tone of the board yet reach into my mind and accuse me of making arguments that I do not believe in?

Please provide your evidence that any significant number of scholars who affirm the historicity of Jesus claim to believe close to 0% of what is written about him.

And 0% of what? I probably don't believe a significant amount of what is reported about Jesus. I dismiss dozens of later gospels and accounts of Jesus life that I find no historical data in. Does that put me down on the under 50% scale?

The consensus is that there existed a person Jesus who was the source of the Christian movement and the canonical gospels.

I'm not sure why this is relevant to our discussion.