Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 10-01-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
I have tracked down part of what gave me the idea, but I think there is more. But this is not a burning issue with me. I am not particularly interested in talking a poll of how many scholars go one way or another, as if that proves anything on this issue.

Well, it seemed to be more of a "burning issue" to you when you were claiming that most scholars thought the entire TF was suprious. But since you've learned that most scholars in the critical era of Bible scholarship have accepted the TF as at least partially authentic, I guess I can understand your newfound desire to deemphasize the issue.

Toto · 10-01-2002, 05:36 PM

Layman, you misremember. I never claimed that most scholars thought the TF was entirely spurious. (I know that most are Christian, and I do not place much stock in their opinions on the existence of a historical Jesus in any case. I am not surprized that so many would grasp at any straw that might show Jesus existed.)

The whole issue arose over a sentence in Gordon Stein's essay in which he said that appealling to the forged TF as proof of Jesus's existence would only fool the ignorant. I speculated that Stein wrote his essay before Meier's advocacy of a partial interpolation, and that the secular scholars Stein probably relied on thought it was a complete forgery. I never tried to defend the statement as written.

I know that there are well regarded scholars who think the passage is a partial interpolation, but so what? It is not possible to reconstruct the original passage with any degree of confidence, even if you think that there is an authentic layer there.

I will be interested to see if Olson replies.

Peter Kirby · 10-01-2002, 06:20 PM

K. Olson may be responding to J. Carleton Paget's extensive article, which includes some discussion of Olson's CBQ article (Paget, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," _JTS_, 52.2 (2001) 539-624). I do not know whether Olson's reply might appear in the Journal of Theological Studies, the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, or elsewhere.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 10-01-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Layman, you misremember. I never claimed that most scholars thought the TF was entirely spurious. (I know that most are Christian, and I do not place much stock in their opinions on the existence of a historical Jesus in any case. I am not surprized that so many would grasp at any straw that might show Jesus existed.)

Perhaps it is you who "misrember[s]".

Toto:His forgery has not in fact fooled most scholars. Most of them spotted it as a complete forgery until Meier put together a case for a partial interpolation, and then the fashion swung towards accepting that possibility. But Meier's case may be coming unraveled.

Layman · 10-14-2002, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
<strong>K. Olson may be responding to J. Carleton Paget's extensive article, which includes some discussion of Olson's CBQ article (Paget, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," _JTS_, 52.2 (2001) 539-624). I do not know whether Olson's reply might appear in the Journal of Theological Studies, the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, or elsewhere.

best,
Peter Kirby</strong>

Peter,

When/If you hear about this, please let me know where the article is published.

Thanks

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

10-01-2002, 05:36 PM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman, you misremember. I never claimed that most scholars thought the TF was entirely spurious. (I know that most are Christian, and I do not place much stock in their opinions on the existence of a historical Jesus in any case. I am not surprized that so many would grasp at any straw that might show Jesus existed.) The whole issue arose over a sentence in Gordon Stein's essay in which he said that appealling to the forged TF as proof of Jesus's existence would only fool the ignorant. I speculated that Stein wrote his essay before Meier's advocacy of a partial interpolation, and that the secular scholars Stein probably relied on thought it was a complete forgery. I never tried to defend the statement as written. I know that there are well regarded scholars who think the passage is a partial interpolation, but so what? It is not possible to reconstruct the original passage with any degree of confidence, even if you think that there is an authentic layer there. I will be interested to see if Olson replies.

10-01-2002, 06:20 PM	#23
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	K. Olson may be responding to J. Carleton Paget's extensive article, which includes some discussion of Olson's CBQ article (Paget, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," _JTS_, 52.2 (2001) 539-624). I do not know whether Olson's reply might appear in the Journal of Theological Studies, the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, or elsewhere. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.