Veil of Fire

ilgwamh: But what is it that makes you think Jesus falls into the bass fishing category while Robin Hood falls into the Jupiter category? I can't find the divider.

Bill

Well, Layman, if this is really what you set out to discover, then you <ol type="a">[*]begin by misrepresenting what Dr. Stein actually said; and[*]you still seem to be (as Toto observed near the beginning of this thread) out to pick a fight with somebody over an essay written 20 years ago by a now-dead scholar.[/list=a]Let me quote what I believe you are objecting to from Dr. Stein's essay: A careful reading of what Dr. Stein wrote shows that Dr. Stein is accusing McDowell of being "dishonest." He in no way stated (or even implied) "that all those who find the Testimonium to be evidence for the historicity of Jesus were ... 'dishonest.'"

Since you have entirely misreprestented what Dr. Stein's opinion actually was, you cannot obtain any accurate answer to the question you ask. Its about that simple.

==========

Putting all that aside, I don't believe that either the Testimonium or the other alleged reference to Jesus in Antiquities has any real value in support of the idea of Jesus as an historical person. Antiquities was written too late, and the only surviving copies were clearly preserved only by Christian copyists. We have no way to know what Josephus actually wrote in the tenth decade of the first century about events that took place several decades earlier. We can be certain that the Testimonium is inaccurate and probably forged. Take, for instance, this sentence from the Testimonium which Peter Kirby quotes from ETDAV: The reference to "Gentiles" so far as Jesus himself goes is clearly false. There were no "Gentiles" among the inner circle of Jesus, and if the New Testament itself is to be believed, Jesus avoided staying in the company of Gentiles. It was St. Paul who attempted to expand the sect of Christianity beyond the Jewish community within which it was founded, and that desire by St. Paul led to his great disagreement with "James, the brother of Jesus." (See, e.g., Chapter 2 of the book of Galatians.)

So, the Testimonium clearly relates a second-hand perspective of Christianity, even if you take it at its word. Josephus is writing after the death of St. Paul, and is relating a perspective on Christianity that is peculiarly Paulene. So, even if the passage is entirely authentic (i.e., even if Josephus actually wrote that passage when he wrote Antiquities), the passage still merely repeats Paulene Christian theology and doesn't provide any actual evidence for the historiocity of Jesus (who was, after all, dead at the time when St. Paul converted to Christianity).

==========

My own view on the actual historiocity of Jesus is more along the lines of that expressed by <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=348" target="_blank">Robert Eisenman</a> in his book <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=624" target="_blank">James the Brother of Jesus</a>. It all boils down to just how seriously you are willing to take the "brother" relationship between Jesus and James. Eisenman does not doubt the historiocity of James. If you believe that the evidence of an actual "brother" relationship is persuasive, then you are forced to also believe that Jesus was an historical person.

==========

There is virtually no persuasive evidence on either side of that question (the actuality of the "brother" relationship between James and Jesus). The only evidence that Eisenman can cite in favor of that relationship is derived (and somewhat questionably derived) from Christian sources (i.e., the New Testament itself).

Personally, I'm rather more strongly persuaded by the evidence to the effect that the authentic Paulene letters tend to speak of Jesus as someone who is long-dead. Since the earliest of these authentic Paulene letters dates from no more than a few years after the alleged death of Jesus, this tends to me to provide strong negative evidence against the idea that James and Jesus were actual "brothers" who lived contemporaneously.

Rather, I'm coming to believe the thesis of <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=429" target="_blank">Professor Alvar Ellegard</a> in his book <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=693" target="_blank">Jesus : One Hundred Years Before Christ</a> to the effect that most Chrisian writings are more properly dated far later than Christians usually date them, and that this yields up the idea of Jesus as an apparently legendary precursor to James rather than a brotherly contemporary.

This should not be read as implying that there was no actual historical person who lies at the base of the Jesus legend. Professor Ellegard himself favors the idea propounded by Dead Sea Scrolls scholar <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=430" target="_blank">Michael Owen Wise</a> in his book <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=694" target="_blank">The First Messiah : Investigating the Savior Before Jesus</a>. Professor Ellegard would tend to believe that the character of Judah, discussed by Dr. Wise, is a perfect exempler of what eventually comes through as Jesus at a later date, and that the status of Judah as an actual historical figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the very sect of Jews with whom James was apparently associated, could easly lead one to the conclusion that the preaching of James about Judah could have been misinterpreted by St. Paul and his followers and resulted in what we see today as preaching about Jesus.

Frankly, at least that thesis has enough factual basis (far more factual basis than most other theories about the origins of Jesus) for me to personally take it seriously.

== Bill

jlowder

A friend just made me aware of this discussion. While I can't promise I will be able to participate in an extended back-and-forth conversation, I wanted to mention some information I think you might find interesting.

I personally am responsible for the posting of Gordon Stein's article in the Secular Web's modern library. I emphasize the word library because people sometimes forget that publication in the SW library does not constitute endorsement. I (obviously) disagreed with some of the comments in Gordon's essay, but at the time I felt it was still worthy of publication. If I were asked today if it should be published in the SW's library, however, I would say no. While I have no problem with the concept of someone making an argument for the conclusion that the entire Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation, Gordon's discussion contains at least two major flaws:

(a) He does not even acknowledge, much less refute, the hypothesis advocated by many scholars (the reconstructed core). He has therefore fallen far short of proving his preposterous claim that it is "both dishonest and futile" to use the TF as independent confirmation for the historicity of Jesus.

(b) He says "the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works." However, Stein doesn't backup this sweeping claim with the relevant evidence (a bibliographic survey of scholars who have published on the authenticity of the TF). Moreoever, Stein seems to presuppose there are only two options: either the entire passage is authentic or the entire passage is a Christian forgery. As I have argued, there is at least one additional option: the TF contains an authentic core that was later tampered with.

jlowder

jlowder

With all due respect to the late Gordon Stein, his Ph.D. was completely irrelevant to Biblical scholarship, history, etc. I'm not suggesting his arguments should be dismissed for that reason. On the contrary, I think his arguments are worthy of consideration. But Gordon Stein was most definitely NOT an authority on matters of biblical scholarship.

jlowder

jlowder

This is an interesting point. Personally, having spoken with Gordon several times before he died about a very early draft of Jury chapter 5, I don't think he would have ever changed his mind about Josephus. But that's just my speculative opinion.

jlowder

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

jlowder

At the end of my discussion of the TF, I write:

And elsewhere I write:

So, Layman, please explain precisely how I "failed to admit" that McDowell was right about the TF? Is it possible that perhaps your comments are "symptomatic of someone who was agreeing with an object of derision [me] but couldn't bring [yourself] to admit it"?

jlowder

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

jlowder

I believe Robert Price is an agnostic about the historicity of Jesus. He has the proper academic credentials to count as an authority on the subject. It is therefore false that the only dissenters are of "little or no repute" and that there is "no" argument among scholars.

jlowder

Layman

Actually, I have not misrepresented Stein. I quoted him directly. You offer a paraphrase of what you think he meant, but that is not what he said.

Remember, he said "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."

Stein is clearly condmening the use of the TF to support the historicity of Jesus. Not just McDowell's reading of it. The "procedure" that is condemned is the use of the TF despite the evidence of interpolations. That is a procedure that very-well respected scholars, from J. Dominic Crossan, to Paula Fredrikson, to N.T. Wright, use.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

C'mon, I was quite clear that you agreed with most scholars that the TF was a valid support for the historicity of Jesus. I was responding to Toto's claim that you really did NOT agree that the TF was an independent reference to Jesus.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Are you disputing that the consensus of the historicity of Jesus is "nearly universal." I think Price does great damage to his reputation by having advocated that Jesus did not exist. Although I understand that he may have altered his opinion.

I'l repeat the example I gave to Toto. Is there no scientific consensus that evolution has occurred. I can point to a few Ph.Ds (maybe more)--teaching at accredited schools--who question the theory.

In fact, I would speculate that there are more scientists dissenting from evolution than there are historians dissenting from the historicity of Jesus. But I wouldn't use that fact to argue that the theory of evolution was not the nearly universal consensus of the scientific community.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>