Peter Kirby

And I hope you enjoy the revision to my article!!

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

I've read this one.

Is that the latest version?

Vinnie

There are many well informed scholars who have investiagted the TF and come to the conclusion that it was totally interpolated. When equally read and studied scholars who are serious and respectabl;e reach opposite conclusions your argument from authority is greatly dimishes as to be non-existent. With that being said the argument from authority carries more weight in relation to the reference in Ant. 20. but as I stated, consensus cannot take precedence over evidence. If there is solid reasons for accepting authenticity they should be available to a diligent researcher. Further, responsed to various objections should be readily available. Can you present them? I know of no one who simply accepts the scholarly consensus on every issue?

Most mainline Jesus scholars do not think jesus thought of himself as God incarnate who purpose in life was to die for the sins of mankind. They further do not believe Jesus claimed to be God himself. Are you willing to accept this consensus which rejects the sayings material in GJohn? It is after all what is fashionable today in critical circles.

We are interested in Tabor's evidence and argumentation, not his opinion. Thus far we have the latter, not the former.

Check your local library or purchase Volume one of A Marginal Jew. This is pretty much a standard text for critical Christians who study the historical Jesus. I doubt you'll be disapointed or find much to disagree with in the work. Meier prescinds from faith but the Imprimatur means you won't find much to disagree with outside of your views unless your a conservative or strict evangelical.

Which Jesus?

Problems with what? Was that it for Tabor's analysis? It never got started! He is summarizing his conclusions, not presenting arguments for them. Meier addressed vocabulary and style in depth in his work (Marginal). Tabor is stating conclusions.

As stated, we are interested in the argumentation rather than the conclusions of the authors.

Feel free to dispell Peter Kirby's objections (which he deemed valid) on his website if the issue is so black and white. The Ant. 20 reference is pretty cut and dry to me but the TF (Ant. 18) is anything but that. Presumption is thrown out the window on that one. Partial authenticity and complete forgery are on equal footing there.

And you still have the impression that the partial authenticity of the TF is cut and dry?

Vinnie

Vinnie

Let us know when updated (if not already).

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Yes, that is the latest published version, but I am now working out my revision in this very thread, and in other forums, in conversation on the subject and the arguments. In the version currently on the web, the conclusion that I offer is that Ant. 18.3.3 is interpolated, while Ant. 20.9.1 is completely authentic. I am now persuaded that it is a little obtuse to claim that Josephus would have referred to Jesus who is called Christ as identifying the brother of James without any description of this Jesus in the Antiquities, who may not have been known to the readers. So I can now take three positions:

(1) The Ant. 18.3.3 passage is partially authentic, and the Ant. 20.9.1 passage is completely authentic.

(2) The Ant. 18.3.3 passage is partially authentic, and the Ant. 20.9.1 passage is not completely authentic.

(3) The Ant. 18.3.3 passage is not even partially authentic, and the Ant. 20.9.1 passage is not completely authentic.

That these are the only three non-agnostic positions follows from the premise, "If the Ant. 20.9.1 passage is completely authentic, the Ant. 18.3.3 is partially authentic," which would rule out the position of "no" to 18.3.3 but "yes" to 20.9.1.

The first theory is the most popular one in academia today, being defended by major scholars such as John P. Meier and Louis Feldman.

The most fun position to take would be (2) -- so far as I am aware, only Twelftree has suggested it. This suggestion would allow us to hypothesize that Josephus wrote about Jesus without using the word "Christ," thus obviating a major interpolationist argument.

The mythicists seem to be committed to (3). But, for the reasons indicated by W. D. Davies and Maurice Goguel, the absence of Jesus in Josephus would not establish the non-historicity of Jesus.

What position that I personally take will not have a drastic effect on the body of my essay, which is an evaluation of all the arguments pro and con.

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

*snip*

Ah, but I did not argue that it must be valid "Because Tabor believes it to be valid." (Which would indeed have been an argument from authority.) I merely offered Tabor as another example of a scholar who accepts partial validity, and I said that I saw no reason to believe that he is incorrect.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr Kirby's paper covers all the bases, AFAIK.

Well hey, neither do I. But so what?

I agree with them wholeheartedly and unreservedly. Indeed, I have never believed anything else.

Absolutely. Unswervingly.

It does nothing of the kind. GJohn must be read through Jewish lenses, not Hellenic ones. When this is done, we find that Jesus (a) was not claiming to be God, and (b) was not believed to be so by the 1st Century Christians. (We can discuss this later, if you're interested.)

That is precisely why the steady evolution of post-apostolic Christology became such a contentious issue in the centuries which followed.

*snip*

Indeed. And although I agree with it, I do not do so merely on the grounds that it is "fashionable today in critical circles."

Thanks, I'll see if I can hunt it down.

Oh, you never know...

I do not believe that you are in a position to tell me what my views are. You obviously have no knowledge of my personal theology. Indeed, you have already made an incorrect assumption about my Christology.

Perhaps this would be a good time to start asking me what I believe, instead of telling me yourself...?

The historical Jesus; Jesus the man, not "Jesus the God" of popular theology.

*snip*

LOL, fair enough.

I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with people presenting objections, and I believe that those which are presented in Mr Kirby's paper are not entirely unreasonable. However, the point I am making is that these objections are simply not strong enough to overturn the "partial authenticity" argument.

All you have done is to reiterate what we already knew: that there are objections. But so what? The fact that objections are raised, does not mean that all of the objections are legitimate. Yes, in all fairness, the objections should be met. That is a sine qua non. But simply shouting "There are objections! What about the objections?!" does not really add anything to the debate.

Yep.

One thing I've learned about IIDB is that hardcore atheists will clutch at any possible objection in order to defend their presuppositions. Objective analysis of these objections is most frequently presented by more reasonable people, such as Mr Kirby. This becomes necessary because hardcore atheists simply do not possess sufficient objectivity for the task.

Witness the widespread acceptance of Wheless & McKinsey, for example.

Evangelion

Thankyou Mr Kirby.

I look forward to the latest version of your thesis.

Vinnie

Correct but it came at a very strange time and contributed nothing to the thread.

Further, I have not seen any of Tabor's argumentation which you do not disagree with? Have you actually seen any or was the opragraph you quoted where he was stating his conclusions the extent of appeal to tabor?

Actually scholarship does reject the sayings material. It represents the views of that particular community but serious scholars do not usually entertain the notion that the sayings material goes back to Jesus of Nazareth.

LOL Touche! You totally threw me there :notworthy

I thought i had you poegged! Guess not
I'll figure you out soon enough

That was unexpected though. Do you subscribe to a kenotic view? Do you separate functional and ontological Christologies? or something completely different? Short answer so we don't tick off the moderator by side tracking his thread

That was necessiated because of a certain poster who decied to post the "conclusions" of various scholars in here when we are engaged and interested in their argumentation. We already know their conclusions. It is you who added nothing to the discussion and are keeping me up an extra hour tonight

I'm starting to think everyone is an idiot but me Don't tell anyone though. Its a secret

I oughta go back to strictly science material anyways though. Who really cares if Ant 20 is authentic or not? Wasted time.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Who?

Vinnie

Evangelion

No need to figure me out. I'll tell you myself.

No. That would require literal pre-existence (at the very least), which I deny.

Yes. My Christology is probably best described as functional rather than ontological. Jesus is the representative of God but not God incarnate.

Sure, fair enough.

I'm a Biblical Unitarian. (Will send you a PM to explain further.)



Mea culpa.

Oh, so you're an atheist, then?

Yeah, who cares!