Layman

Who is right?

According to Gordon Stein, Ph.D--in an article responding to Josh McDowell posted with permission on the Secular Web--anyone who relies on Josephus' Testimonium is "dishonest," "fooled," and "ignorant."

Dr. Stein writes, "In spite of all the negative evidence against this passage, evidence of which McDowell seems aware, he still uses the passage to try to support his case for the historicity of Jesus. Such a procedure is both dishonest and futile. The only people who are fooled by this are the ignorant." <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>

I have to admit that I am one of those people who uses the passage to try and support the case for the historicity of Jesus. I had rather thought I was in good company. With Dominic Crossan, A.N. Wilson, Geza Vermes, Paul Winters, Graham Stanton, N.T. Wright, John P. Meier, and the majority of New Testament scholars and historians. Even if I disagreed with these people, I would not classify any of them as "dishonest," "fooled," and "ignorant."

But I was glad to discover yet another commentator who would use the passage to try and support the case for the historicity of Jesus. Jeffrey Lowder, also in a response to Josh McDowell, quite clearly agrees with Josh McDowell that the Testimonium provides support for the historicity of Jesus. As he writes, "In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus." <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus</a>

So I guess my question is this. Who is right?

Is Stein right that people like Lowder and me are "dishonest," "fooled" and "ignorant" because of our use of the Testimonium?

Or are Lowder and I right that the Testimonium provides independent historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

Toto

Hi Layman, I think we had a go round on this very issue not that long ago.

The objection to McDowell is that he uses the passage uncritically, without acknowledging that most of those scholars who rely on the passage think it has been heavily edited and "enhanced" by a Christian scribe. Jeffrey Jay Lowder faults him for that in the passage you quote from (just a little out of context).

Gordon Stein is dead and no longer here to defend himself.

I think you are trying to shift the discussion from whether the passage in the Testimonium is a forgery to whether someone who relies on it is dishonest. I'm not really interested in that question, and I think you're just trying to pick a fight.

Peter Kirby's essay on the Testimonium is exhaustive, and I don't think it leaves much for anyone else to add.

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

Layman

Yes, I'm aware that Lowder throws in some obligotory slights towards McDowell, but he is quite explicit in his agreement with McDowell that the Testimonium is valid, independent evidence of Jesus.

Well, I do think his statement was silly. But I'm not asking him to defend himself. Or anyone to defend themselves. I'm just curious how people come down on the issue.

It's quite impossible that I'm trying to shift the discussion, because I'm the one who has started the discussion. If you aren't really interested in the question I have proposed then I suggest you find another thread in which to involve yourself.

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

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

King Arthur

Not "ignorant" and perhaps not "dishonest", but why not "fooled"?

Stein has a PhD and there are other scholars that he quotes in his article who apparently say that the stuff in Josephus isn't real.

Besides, I saw the thread Toto is talking about and it sounded like Eusebius may have forged the passages.

Toto

Lowder is not "throwing in obligatory slights", he is writing a thorough refutation of McDowell. He appears to be giving McDowell every benefit of the doubt, to show how bad his reasoning actually is, even from a neutral position.

Lowder appears to think Jewish War is valid, independent evidence of an historical Jesus, but is a little equivocal on the Testimonium. (Lowder is on record as believing in the existence of Jesus, but his Jesus is not the same as yours.)

From Lowder's essay:

Layman

Well, because I think Lowder, McDowell, and I (and the majority of New Testament scholars and historians) are right about this. But I was more interested in knowing what others think. And I appreciate you responding to the question. It appears that you rule out ignorant, doubt dishonest, but believe we are "fooled."

Is that a fair assesment?

Well, I will readily admit Stein's expertise in the area in which he got his Ph.D., which was in physiology (from Ohio State University). But McDowell has several degrees too, which might be a bit more applicible. And if I remember correctly, Lowder himself has obtained a Master in historical studies. I admit to only have a J.D., but I did minor in religious history.

Of course, Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, Paul Winters, Graham Stanton, N.T. Wright, John P. Meier, and the majority of New Testament scholars and historians actually do have Ph.D.s in this field of study.

That is one of the theories, but most scholars reject it.

Toto

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. If Stein were alive today, he would undoubtedly update his essay.

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

Layman

Well, I disagree that he is giving McDowell every benefit of the doubt. Lowder quite clearly affirms that the Testimonium is independent evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but doesn't like the way that McDowell presented the evidence.

That is fascinating Toto. Which reference in Jewish War to Jesus does Loweder think is valid?

While I do not know what Lowder's current state of mind is, there was nothing unequivocal about his endorsement of the idea that the Testimonium was valid, independent evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

I'll repeat Lowder: "In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus."

And I'll add this header from Loweder's essay:

The Testimonium Flavianum probably contained an authentic, independent witness to Jesus.

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

Vorkosigan

Dominic Crossan, A.N. Wilson, Geza Vermes, Paul Winters, Graham Stanton, N.T. Wright, John P. Meier, and the majority of New Testament scholars and historians.

Yesz, the problem is, though, they all see different parts of it as forged. Their views are useless for determining its authenticity. In other words, taking the totality of views, it is possible to make a good case that all of it is forged, simply by noting that every portion of it is thought to be forged.

It comes back to the problem that NT scholars have. They have not developed good methods for distilling historical truth out of historical claims.

I personally, think it is forged in its entirety. However, even if it were not forged, it would not constitute good evidence for the veracity of the the Jesus legend, since it comes too late in the scheme of things. It is, as Kirby says, prima facie evidence.

Vorkosigan

Toto

Sorry - the Antiquities.

The reference to James the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ - used as evidence of Jesus.