Layman

Each one of the four is styled, "Kirby on the Testimonium (#)."

You might also try:

Rober Van Voorst, "Jesus Outside the New Testament."

J.P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew, Vol. I."

R.T. France, "The Evidence for Jesus."

And,

"Louis Feldman's article ("The State of the Question") in "Christological Perspectives."

Vorkosigan

Layman --

Full reference? I'd like to get this.

Michael

Toto

for ref:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000305" target="_blank">Kirby on the Testimonium Flavianum (1)</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000466" target="_blank">Kriby on the Testimonium Flavanium (2) </a>

(misspelled Kirby so its hard to find)

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000468" target="_blank">Kirby on the Testimonium Flavianum (3) </a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000525" target="_blank">Kirby on the Testimonium (4) </a>

Layman

Louis H. Feldman, "The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question," Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah Edwards.

Gregg

Well, on my initial reading of the threads, I'm not finding anything very convincing on the authenticity side. The problem with the historicist position is, not only do you have to satisfactorily resolve all the questions about Josephus--which you haven't, at least for me-- you also have to explain the complete silence about a historical Jesus in the early CHRISTIAN record. Not only that, you have to explain why this person whose career was apparently so insignificant that Josephus only knows about him what he's been told by Christians (which itself raises the question of why he would take what the Christians said at face value, and how the Christians could have managed to present Jesus in such a way that Josephus wouldn't have added him to his black list of messianic agitators) could, upon his death, immediately be elevated to divine status by Jews for whom the proposition of God becoming flesh and flesh becoming God would be considered sheer blasphemy.

See, if we regard the TF as authentic, that just creates another set of questions. The ultimate strength of Doherty's case is in the whole, not in the individual pieces (not that they aren't pretty strong of themselves). I'm not saying that we should adopt the ahistoricist position simply because it resolves a whole raft of nagging questions--if Josephus is conclusively demonstrated to be authentic, then we have to deal with the questions that raises, like it or not. But again, I'm just not seeing a compelling case for authenticity.

Gregg

Peter Kirby

Gregg writes: not only do you have to satisfactorily resolve all the questions about Josephus--which you haven't, at least for me

Of course, in order for a partial Testimonium to serve as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, not only must the objections to authenticity be answered but a demonstration that it is reasonable to believe in authenticity must be forthcoming. Layman says that he will look at the arguments for authenticity of a partial Testimonium later, so we'll see what he comes up with.

However, it is still interesting to attempt to determine how strong a case can be made for the utter spuriousness of the Ant. 18.3.3 passage. Were there any particular counter-arguments made by Layman that you found to be unsatisfactory in a way that I had not noted? Or can you add to the arguments for inauthenticity? Your feedback would be helpful to me and to everyone who has been following this dialogue.

best,
Peter Kirby

MortalWombat

So you're claiming that the Romans kept records on the life of Jesus?

Radorth

Doherty's logic self-destructs IMO. He might have convinced me he was on to something if he had not taken an "end justifies the means" approach and swept so much previous scholarship under the rug with nothing more than gratuitous assertions. Doherty is simply dishonest and I don't wonder now why he can't get his degree. (Yeah I know. The poor iconoclast is so far ahead of his time, nobody will give him one).

Nevertheless, he has an original point (I think, although I am also beginning to wonder who he stole it from). I doubt the Christians can make a convincing case that there is no puzzle, or explain the lack of references to Jesus words. And I doubt skeptics can make any convincing case that Acts can be summarily thrown out of the equation. So what we have is a most interesting question, and no real answer other than our own beliefs would have us presume.

As far as Josephus goes, he did not believe in Jesus, and he had plenty of reasons to be silent about what he knew. He doubtless knew and heard something more, but if he did not believe it, why would he say it? And why would someone wanting to please Christian persecutors (Jews and Romans alike) say anything? One could argue he was a brave soul for saying what he did.

This is called an argument from reason, BTW

Radorth

Toto

What do you mean by "ends justifies the means"?

What previous "scholarship" are you talking about?

What evidence do you have of his dishonesty? I think you are the dishonest one. Doherty has stated that he got an undergraduate degree, but did not go on for a graduate degree and became a professional writer instead for personal reasons. There is no indication he has ever tried to get a PhD.

Doherty has been clear that he got his inspiration from the German mythicist Wells, although he differs with Wells on some points and goes beyond Wells. Certainly the idea that Jesus was a myth is not original with him, and he never claimed it to be.

I don't know why you think Acts is uniquely relevant. Many Christian scholars date it to the second century, although there appear to be some more primitive parts to it.

I don't see any reason in that argument. Actually, I don't see the point. Are you arguing that Josephus probably didn't mention Jesus because that would have contradicted his purposes?

The only reason people argue about Josephus is that the historical record is so barren of contemporary references to Jesus outside the Bible that the historicist case hangs by the bare threads of two references in Josephus, one of which has surely been tampered with, the other of which might have been.

joedad

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think that is Layman's position.

To quote Doherty: But perhaps Layman is stating that Josephus had access to information/records and documents that have since disappeared. Though certainly possible, that would be attempting to make a case with evidence that does not exist. IOW, assume Josephus had access to actual Roman records of Jesus....

That, however, would still leave unaddressed the large body of historical information that we do possess which makes no mention of such a person as an historical Jesus, and which when considered in connection with Paul's silence and other factors, including Josephus's scant remarks in light of such "missing" evidence, makes the mythicist's argument quite potent.

joe