Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-30-2002, 02:56 PM | #1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
|
Who is Right? Josephus, McDowell, and the Historicity of Jesus
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? |
05-30-2002, 03:13 PM | #2 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
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> |
05-30-2002, 03:18 PM | #3 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p> |
||||
05-30-2002, 03:26 PM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Camelot
Posts: 290
|
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. |
05-30-2002, 03:34 PM | #5 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
|
||
05-30-2002, 03:35 PM | #6 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
|
Quote:
Is that a fair assesment? Quote:
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. Quote:
|
|||
05-30-2002, 03:38 PM | #7 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p> |
|
05-30-2002, 03:41 PM | #8 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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> |
|||
05-30-2002, 03:43 PM | #9 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
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 |
05-30-2002, 03:47 PM | #10 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
The reference to James the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ - used as evidence of Jesus. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|