Layman

I was not affirming the way in which McDowell explores all the evidence, only his contention that the Testmiomium provides independent evidence for the historicity of Jesus. A point which Lowder concedes and I clearly made the focus of this thread.

Like I said, I don't have ETDAV. I reviewed the NEW ETDAV where he refers his readers to his discussin in He Walked Among Us.

Well, you could take it more than a couple of ways, as I did not mean it in either of the ways you put it.

Well, I do have my disagreements with your essay, but that is not what I meant by the above reference.

Let's remember what I said.

1. There are many exhaustive treatments of Josephus.

Meier's is one. Van Voorst provides a good discussion as well. Lowder has discussed the Testimonium. So have J.P. Holding and Glenn Miller. And so has the Josephus Homepage, which discusses Lukan/Josephan dependence and negating any claim to Christian interpolation.

I don't think that the "only" exhaustive treatment of a subject is the last one to post their peice on the internet. Nor do I think that being the last one to write means that yours is the best discussion of the issues.

2. Kirby's won't be the last one.

This seems relatively clear. Toto seemed to indicate that you had said all there is to say about the subject. I'm sure you will agree that such is not the case. There will be many more discussions about the Testimonium. And, I'm sure, many more "exhaustive" treatments.

Since that is out the way, let me say that I enjoyed your essay and found it very informative. Just not ultimately persuasive.

I would agree if the purpose of this post was simply to rehash the entire authenticity debate. As I've made clear, that was not my purpose. Rather, my purpose was to see where people stood on the board re: Stein's opinion that all those who find the Testimonium to be evidence for the historicity of Jesus were "ignorant," "dishonest," and "fooled."

I take it, though you do not believe in the authenticity of the Testimonium, that Lowder is any of the above?

But since I have you hear, I am curious to get a final word on something. Much of your discussion that causes you to conclude that the Testimonium is not authentic are based on arguments about the passages similarity to Eusebius.

Am I correct to conclude that you reject the Testimonium's authenticity because you believe it was forged by Eusebius? And do you think it was forged in its entirety, or do you believe that Eusebius simply embellished someone else's forgery?

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

Layman

By "here" you must mean Josephus. If so, I disagree completely. One can compare the vocabulary and style of all of Josephus writings to that of the Testimonium. One can compare the voclubularly and style of early Christians writings and compare it to that of the Testimonium.

That is one "method" for evaluating the validity of the Testimonium.

But overall, you seem to be arguing that we can't ever know what his history and what is not EVER.

Is that really your argument? If not, why is the Testimonium so different a problem than general historical studies?

Actually, methodology does change in historical circles. What makes you claim that methodology has not changed?

Sure they do. You know that they do.

Your going to have to prove to me that the paucity of resources we have about Robin Hood are equal to those about Jesus. The amount and type of information we have about various historical figures varies. I frankly don't know what we have on Robin Hood. I do know what we have on Jesus. Our ability to "know" who Jesus was is dependent on the amount and type of our information about him.

Peter Kirby disagrees with you by affirming Josephus's reference to Jesus' martyrdom. And there are different methods that are used to distinguish between truth and fiction in historical studies.

lpetrich

I wonder why some people get all broken up whenever anyone suggests that Jesus Christ had been a myth.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: "I was not affirming the way in which McDowell explores all the evidence, only his contention that the Testmiomium provides independent evidence for the historicity of Jesus. A point which Lowder concedes and I clearly made the focus of this thread."

I can agree that you have not affirmed the way in which McDowell treats the evidence concerning the Testimonium. Still, since we have taken Stein and McDowell as a starting point for the discussion, I thought it would be appropriate to indicate the shortcomings that I found in their approaches. The problem with Evidence that Demands a Verdict is that McDowell does not explore all the evidence. Apart from a quotation of Agapius, which McDowell discusses no further, McDowell does not explore any of the evidence. Indeed, McDowell nowhere makes a clear statement that he believes Josephus to provide independent evidence for the historicity of Jesus. That can only be inferred from the fact that McDowell quotes Josephus in a chapter on Jesus as "A Man of History." McDowell in ETDAV does not even make it clear that some believe the Testimonium to be only partially authentic. McDowell does not use a rigorous concept of independent confirmation in the way that Lowder does.

Layman writes: "Like I said, I don't have ETDAV. I reviewed the NEW ETDAV where he refers his readers to his discussin in He Walked Among Us."

I hope that you have found it useful that I have provided the passage in McDowell's original work to which Stein responded.

It might be interesting for me to divulge that my first exposure to Josephus was the treatment in He Walked Among Us that I found in the library when I was about thirteen. So much depends on first impressions, and this may have biased me in favor of authenticity for the Testimonium for some time. Other writers may have had other first impressions of the Testimonium, such as the many articles on the internet that summarily dismiss it as a total interpolation.

Layman writes: "Well, you could take it more than a couple of ways, as I did not mean it in either of the ways you put it."

My bad, I was just guessing. As I said, I was not sure what to make of the comment.

Layman writes: "Well, I do have my disagreements with your essay, but that is not what I meant by the above reference."

Excellent! I would love to hear about them, although whether you want to discuss your disagreements is up to you. I now know that this is not what you meant by the reference above.

Layman writes:

Let's remember what I said.

1. There are many exhaustive treatments of Josephus.

Meier's is one. Van Voorst provides a good discussion as well. Lowder has discussed the Testimonium. So have J.P. Holding and Glenn Miller. And so has the Josephus Homepage, which discusses Lukan/Josephan dependence and negating any claim to Christian interpolation.

I don't think that the "only" exhaustive treatment of a subject is the last one to post their peice on the internet. Nor do I think that being the last one to write means that yours is the best discussion of the issues.

2. Kirby's won't be the last one.

This seems relatively clear. Toto seemed to indicate that you had said all there is to say about the subject. I'm sure you will agree that such is not the case. There will be many more discussions about the Testimonium. And, I'm sure, many more "exhaustive" treatments.

I am sure that there may be things that I have overlooked and that can be considered in future discussions of the Testimonium Flavianum. If we ever discover a second century manuscript of Josephus, that would obviously render my essay obsolete (or, at least, in need of revision).

I am unsure if we have the same understanding of the term "exhaustive." To me, this is not a value-laden term, but I wonder what connotations it may carry for other people in this discussion.

The Merriam Webster suggests that "exhaustive" means, "testing all possibilities or considering all elements." So perhaps my essay is not exhaustive. I never, for example, test the possibility that the Jewish Antiquities is a complete forgery (for an obvious example).

I would suggest my own personal definition of "exhaustive" in this context as 'attempting to catalogue all of the arguments that have been presented so far'. That is precisely what my web page sets out to do. If it is not "exhaustive," that means that there is an argument out there relating to the authenticity of Josephus on Jesus that I do not mention at all. If this is so, I would be very happy to learn of that particular argument. Can you (the reader) think of any?

'Exhaustive' is not necessarily a good thing. An exhaustive approach can mean that some of the many issues raised are given a superficial treatment. And I would certainly suggest that a non-exhaustive approach is quite appropriate. For example, Ken Olson provides a non-exhaustive approach to the Testimonium in his argument on Eusebian fabrication. Also, Schlomo Pines provides a non-exhaustive approach to the Testimonium in his paper on the Agapius reference.

Layman writes: I don't think that the "only" exhaustive treatment of a subject is the last one to post their peice on the internet. Nor do I think that being the last one to write means that yours is the best discussion of the issues.

Well, of course. For one thing, I do not believe that I am the last one to post my piece on the internet. I am sure that there have been new pieces posted to the internet since my last major revision over a year ago. And I have never said that I have presented the best discussion of the issues.

Again, "exhaustive" carries no value judgment with me. To me, it just means that an attempt is made to catalogue all the arguments made so far. I can point out correctly that, even if my own treatment is non-exhaustive, all the other treatments that you mention are also non-exhaustive. There is no other treatment that both discusses the point that Eusebius suggests that the Testimonium comes after the Baptist reference and also discusses the point that an ancient summary of Josephus omits the Testimonium. So these other treatments are not "exhaustive" in the purely descriptive sense that I have indicated. QED.

Actually, I just remembered that my discussion is also not exhaustive. I have neglected to include the issue raised by Lowder that the burden of proof may rest on the proponent of partial authenticity. Also, I remember reading some things about a Syrian textual witness, but I don't know any of the details. If anyone knows about a Syrian witness to the Testimonium, I would be very interested in any information.

Layman writes: "Since that is out the way, let me say that I enjoyed your essay and found it very informative. Just not ultimately persuasive."

That does not bother me at all. The purpose of my essay in its current revision is not to persuade. It is simply to mention all of the critical arguments known to me. It would not bother me if someone came away from my treatment with the impression that a partial Testimonium is authentic, or with the impression that both references are inauthentic. I leave that determination up to the reader, although I do mention briefly my own ruminations at the end.

Layman writes:

I would agree if the purpose of this post was simply to rehash the entire authenticity debate. As I've made clear, that was not my purpose. Rather, my purpose was to see where people stood on the board re: Stein's opinion that all those who find the Testimonium to be evidence for the historicity of Jesus were "ignorant," "dishonest," and "fooled."

I take it, though you do not believe in the authenticity of the Testimonium, that Lowder is any of the above?

I think that the authenticity of a partial Testimonium is something about which rational and well-informed people may disagree.

Layman writes:

But since I have you hear, I am curious to get a final word on something. Much of your discussion that causes you to conclude that the Testimonium is not authentic are based on arguments about the passages similarity to Eusebius.

Am I correct to conclude that you reject the Testimonium's authenticity because you believe it was forged by Eusebius? And do you think it was forged in its entirety, or do you believe that Eusebius simply embellished someone else's forgery?

I would like to correct the perception that much of the argument for inauthenticity is based on the Eusebian fabrication theory. 'Some' or 'part' is the correct word. Exactly 1 out of 12 arguments for the inauthenticity of the Testimonium are based on the Eusebian fabrication theory (as presented by Ken Olson). So, no, I would not say that I reject the Testimonium's authenticity because I believe it was forged by Eusebius. I do not believe that the Testimonium was forged by Eusebius. I am not even 100% sure that the Testimonium was a forgery. I recognize the potential for an argument about Eusebian vocabulary and aims as just one way to discredit the idea of an authentic Testimonium. That is all.

I recognize the possibility that an original interpolation was altered, most particularly in the matter of the statement "He was the Christ," which Jerome renders as "He was believed to be the Christ." It is possible that Jerome's version is more ancient than that of Eusebius. If this is so, then I would take this to be evidence against Eusebian fabrication. If it is a Eusebian forgery, it is most likely a Eusebian composition as a whole, not a mere alteration to the "He was believed to be the Christ," because the parts of the Testimonium that are characteristically Eusebian are parts that are not considered to be the interpolations: specifically, that Jesus worked astounding deeds and that the Christian tribe lived on, in addition to the Eusebian vocabulary argument.

Layman writes: "Peter Kirby disagrees with you by affirming Josephus's reference to Jesus' martyrdom."

I am sure that you meant to say James, i.e. IAKOBOS, not Jesus.

To clarify my position, I would assign a higher probability to the idea that Josephus wrote no part of the Testimonium than I would assign to the idea that Josephus wrote the 20.9.1 reference to Jesus. By this token, I am not 100% sure about affirming that Josephus referred to Jesus as the brother of James. If I were pressed for a number, I might suggest that there is an 75% chance that Josephus wrote the 20.9.1 reference, while at the same time I would allow that other reasonable and well-informed people may have lower estimates.

Also, I am not at all sure what the reason was for the death of James/Jacob, whether a Christian "martyrdom" or something else.

lpetrich writes: "I wonder why some people get all broken up whenever anyone suggests that Jesus Christ had been a myth."

In a word, dogma.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I couldn't agree with you more.

I got the "right by accident" impression. Mcdowell happens to have a correct conclusion regarding the TF but gets there through incorrect argumentum. That is what I got from Lowder. Mcdowell refers to another work, 'He walked Among Us' in 'NETDAV' when discussing the TF doesn't he? I think Lowder critiques the arguments found in there since there are none in NETDAV, if I remember correctly.

I was presented with the Stein article a few months ago in a debate and quickly realized its inadequacy. Partial authenticity does not receive any mention and overall, the article is very weak concerning the TF.

Your treatment was probably the best overall treatment I've seen yet. I find it hard to drag myself into a discussion on this again. I've realized that whether it was paritally or totally forged, it doesn't really change much. People will often talk about the paucity of non-biblical sources for Jesus as if the lack renders his historicity problematic or unlikely. I find talk of that nature to be problematic. I'd rather focus on the Gospels and fine tune that methodology Vorkosigan keeps asking for

Vinnie

Toto

Well, I hope you have your answer.

As for your purpose, you came out swinging, with a chip on your shoulder, obviously intending to bully your way around. You pulled a reference from one anti-apologetic essay in the Library, written 20 years ago by an activist who was not a Biblical scholar, and dared us to agree with it and be branded intolerant, or repudiate it and agree with you. You're trying to browbeat us in your lawyerly fashion, maybe your're trying to provoke someone to attack you with equal venom. I've tried to avoid that trap here.

You are the one making this assertion - have you surveyed the literature, including the Tübingen School and the Dutch Radicals? Are you sure there is a consensus that Jesus was the source of the Christian movement, and not Paul? Are you sure that this Jesus can be connected to the canonical Gospels, which even a number of Christians who think Jesus existed consider to be historical fiction or allegory?

Have you read <a href="http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/" target="_blank">The Journal of Higher Criticism</a> and the entire contents of Peter Kirby's <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html" target="_blank">summary page of theories of the Historical Jesus</a>?? Or have you confined your "consensus" to the scholars who agree with you?

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

Vorkosigan

Layman,

As you are well aware, I have never disputed the ability of historical critics to take apart a text critically and determine which parts are genuine and which are interpolations. But that is not the issue. Even if all were originally from the hand of Josephus, it would not magically whisk Jesus into reality, nor if the whole thing were an interpolation would it condemn the Jesus cycle to the black hole of fiction. The kinds of things NT scholars are good at cannot tell you which parts of the gospel legends are true. If they could, they would.

The historical reality of an individual is assessed on the totality of the evidence from many different disciplines and fields. In this case, there is no evidence outside of the Xtian legend cycle.

I consider the TF to be a complete interpolation. This is based on

• (1) the lack of citation prior to the 4th century
• (2) the fact that Jesus is well-spoken of but Josephus had little good to say about other Jewish revolutionaries
• (3) few text critics consider it to be genuine in its entirety, raising the issue of whether we should consider it genuine at all
• (4) an atmosphere of widespread forgery, redaction and rewriting as well as suppression of early Christian texts
• (5) the argument for the authenticity of the passage is based on the preconception that the gospel Jesus is a historical personage
• (6)The passage lays the blame for his crucifixion to Pilate, but at least two other traditions associated with the Jesus legend exist: one, hinted at in Luke, was that Herod had him executed and two, Eusebius notes in passing a tradition that Jesus was executed in 21CE, not under Pilate. Which of these traditions are correct? None, I personally think, because I believe Jesus was executed long before Pilate ever set foot in Judea. Jesus' execution was awarded to Pilate for the same reason that Robin Hood's enemy was Prince John, because he was the prizest SOB from the period. Thus, since this passage contains legendary embellishment, either it is interpolated or Josephus is relating Christian legend.
• (7) the opening words of the next paragraph ignore Jesus. The narrative works better without the passage, although digression is always possible.
• (8) reconstructions of the passage are fraught with scholarly positioning. For example, the popular one by Meier, given second below...
  
  “Now about this time there lived Jesus a wise man, if one ought 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 won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place had come to love him did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the holy prophets had predicted these and many other wonderful things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, continues to the present day.”
  
  “Now about this time there lived Jesus a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works and a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place had come to love him did not forsake him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, continues to the present day.”
  
  ....contains some odd contradictions. Meier has eliminated the reference to the Resurrection, but preserved the reference to wonderful works. It seems odd that Josephus would know of Jesus and mention his miracles, but not mention the absurd claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, surely the most salient fact about the man. In my view Meier has arranged the paragraph thus not because it makes sense that way, but in the hope of producing something acceptable to scholars from different viewpoints by eliminating the most contentious claim from the passage. But any reference to Jesus makes no sense without that claim attached, especially if Josephus knew enough about him to claim that he was a wise man and a teacher of truth.

Well, that should be enough to get the discussion ball rolling.

Vorkosigan

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

Vorkosigan

People will often talk about the paucity of non-biblical sources for Jesus as if the lack renders his historicity problematic or unlikely. I find talk of that nature to be problematic. I'd rather focus on the Gospels and fine tune that methodology Vorkosigan keeps asking for

I sure hope it shows up soon.....

Do you think that paucity of non-legendary sources for Robin Hood should have no effect on our judgements about his probable existence?

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

""""" sure hope it shows up soon.....""""

Don't hold your breath

""""""Do you think that paucity of non-legendary sources for Robin Hood should have no effect on our judgements about his probable existence? """""""

How is that question relevant to what I said?

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Well, you originally said:

"People will often talk about the paucity of non-biblical sources for Jesus as if the lack renders his historicity problematic or unlikely."

It seems to me you are rejecting the idea that if historical resources outside of a legend cycle are non-existent, it doesn't have any bearing on the truth of the legends. Do you believe that is true of William Tell? Or King Arthur? I mean, William Tell is disavowed by history, and King Arthur has little to support him. Was Camelot a real place?

Vorkosigan