Vinnie

""""""""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? """"""""

I am only talking about the paucity of non-biblical (or outside) sources for Jesus. King Arthur, William Tell, Robin Hood, Frosty the Snowman, Santa Clause, et al are irrelevant. I’m not sure each can be subjected to the same standard in this regard. I suppose it would heavily depend upon the nature of the source or sources that we actually have.

Below I'll listsome reasons why I feel the paucity is no problem. If you or anyone else has objections to these I would like to read them.

1. The Synoptics and writings of Paul provide sufficient evidence of a historical Jesus. (oh yeah...this baby right here will certainly be disputed!) Paul wrote independent of the Gospels as they didn’t exist and I think his stuff was collected and published after the Gospels.

2. There is a paucity of surviving first century literature.

3. There is an even greater paucity of 1st century literature in which the author could have even "conceivably" had knowledge of Jesus or even if they did, any reason to mention Jesus.

4. He died as a criminal, the death of slaves and rebels. I've read that to both the Jews and to the Romans, being crucified was an ultimate in humiliation and Jesus died next to two nameless criminals..

5. It seems that JBap and guys like the Egyptian posed a bigger political threat than did Jesus--who apparently, didn't even object to paying taxes (render unto caesar...).

6. The Gospels seem to tell us that Jesus was an itinerant preacher. He stayed away from the big cities.

7. From Raymond Brown, Intro to the NT: "The appearance of the word euaggelion in Paul covering a content that would have a similar purpose (Rom 1:1-4; I cor 15:1-8; cf. I Cor 11:23-26) means that Mark was certainly not the first to put together Jesus material for a salvific purpose, even though his was the earliest preserved full narrative." p 104

8. The ardent commitment to the point of death that we know Jesus evoked from those who had known him.

9. The two source theory. Matthew and Luke drew off of Mark and also Q, the hypothetical source document. Would Q count as an outside source even though Matthew and Luke drew off of it and its reconstructed from them? I suspect we probably view the Gospels differently but I have read (Raymond Brown in an intro to the NT) that a good number of scholars accept much of what Mark narrates as factual:

10. We could also look at the two quotes appearing at the end of Peter Kirby's exhaustive treatment of the Testimonium Flavianum

And one more quote, this one from EP Sanders:

Your thoughts?

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I am only talking about the paucity of non-biblical (or outside) sources for Jesus. King Arthur, William Tell, Robin Hood, Frosty the Snowman, Santa Clause, et al are irrelevant. I’m not sure each can be subjected to the same standard in this regard. I suppose it would heavily depend upon the nature of the source or sources that we actually have.

But focusing on only the sources is to ignore the sociological status of Jesus within the Christian cults: what religion's Founder figures are not heavily mythologized? To start with the idea that the gospels are mostly historical and then determine what is added is to accord Jesus a privileged epistemic status accorded no other Founder figure.

1. The Synoptics and writings of Paul provide sufficient evidence of a historical Jesus. (oh yeah...this baby right here will certainly be disputed!)

All I can say is this is begging the question. I'm tired of fighting over Paul. The existence of a legend cycle does not imply that the legend cycle contains any truth about the figure it depicts. That has to be demonstrated some other way.

Quite a number of scholars accept what Mark wrote as factual. <shrug> Do they have a methodology for determining that? But let's explore this claim of historicity....

Mark et al had enormous incentive to lie an forge, an incentive amply demonstrated by the forgery mills of later centuries, and of course, by the behavior of religionists of many different beliefs over the centuries. To accept the first gospels as largely historical is to claim that somehow they are demarcated off from the forgery processes that "began" in second century, that for some never-explained reason they are exempt from the atmosphere of fraud that has consumed popular Christianity since its inception, an atmosphere so powerful that Paul records that authentic messengers from James carried an ID letter from him with the implication of fraud already going on in Paul's time. I don't think there is any reason to give the Synoptics a free pass on the forgery & fiction charge.

As for Josephus, I agree that his attitude toward Christianity is rather puzzling regardless of how you treat the TF.

Vorkosigan

CX

I would have to go on record as saying that Dr. Stein's comments were somewhat hyperbolic. There is ample reason to think the TF is corrupted, but I think arguments for it not being a wholesale interpolation are more plausible than the alternatives. As to whether it counts as extrabiblical attestation to the historicity of Jesus it's impossible to say since we don't know Josephus' source for his information (which could have been Xian) nor can we be completely certain about what the original text actually said. As with most things in this arena its a matter of plausibility and probability. It seems reasonable to conclude the Jesus was an historical figure and that Josephus mentions him.

Layman

I came out swinging? I posted the links and asked the question. I actually tried to keep the debate focused on the question. I admit that by using Lowder I was trying to force many here to choose between dismissing the argument altogether or actually valuing what one of the founders of this site had concluded--even though it migh not fit their personal agendas.

Actually, I specifically cited TWO anti-apologetic pieces. And don't blame me for Stein, I didn't put his article in there. And I've run across many people who share his attitude. That is, many skeptics don't seem to think that there is any reason to accept the Testimonium at all. I was attempting to engage those people and introduce them to the idea that many reasonable--even skeptical--people DO accept the Testimonium at least partially.

And you do realize that many, many of the articles in the SecWeb data base were NOT written by Biblical Scholars, don't you?

As for "bullying" my way around here, I was quickly met by four local skeptics. The notion that a Christian can come here and "bully" his position around at all is quite silly. The "bully" mentality is not mine, but is inherent to the skeptics on this board. Or did you think that many of us apologists quit coming around because your arguments are so persuasive? Are you really that deluded?

As for my "lawyerly fashion," I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I doubt you mean that I've put together persuasive and well-articulated posts. You seem to equate "lawyerly fashion" with some evil tactic or motive. How many lawywers have you worked closely with anyway?

Well, I know that the Tubingen School and the Dutch Radicals used to come close to being Jesus-Mythers. But are you arguing that they are still an active force for this kind of thinking in the academic community? Martin Hengel, perhaps the most famous modern scholar from the Tubingen Univ., is famously pro-Jesus-historicity. He even thinks Luke was a good historian.

No one is denying that Paul was important. Some disagree as to the level of his importance. But Yes, there is a consensus that Jesus was the source of those stories about him.

Well, sure. "connected to" is not that high a standard. Jesus was the source or inspiration for those stories.

I've read a few articles from the JHC. I've read Doherty's website. But no, I have not read the "entire contents" of Kirby's summary page. But I am well read in this area and I realize that there is an academic consensus on the historicity of Jesus.

Surely you are not suggesting that because a few PhDs (and some NON PhDs) have fringe theories that there is no "academic consensus." I can give you information about many PhDs who will argue with you that the earth is 10,000 years old. Does that mean there is no consensus that the earth is a few billion years old?

Layman

That is precisely what you have been arguing here. You've been arguing that the lack of methodology and agreement among scholars demonstrates that we can't determine what Josephus wrote.

Now you disavow the entire focus of your previous posts. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Layman

Since I have never in my life referred to McDowell as an authority on anything, I really have no interest in defending him. He's more of a whipping boy of the skeptic than a serious participant in New Testament studies.

No problem. It's hard to judge intent and motive on this board. I was not being dismissive of your article at all. It's great. I was being dismissive of Toto's argument that your article ended the debate once and for all.

I would like to share them with you. But it will take time. I just had a son so my life is kinda hectic right now. But I would appreciate it if I could get some clarification on some points. Don't know if you'd prefer to do it by email or on this board. For example, it is a great help to me that you have clarified your thoughts on Eusebius.


Maybe. But I'm still researching and thinking.


I would not presume to place Toto's comments in your mouth.

I'm curious, because I got the impression it was rather important to your rejection of the "Josephan vocabulary and style" for the reconstructed version. Have others also communicated this impression to you?

Well, didn't you also use it to counter the "pro" camp's argument that the remaining terms of the reconstructed version of the TF were tpyically Josephan? That seems an important aspect of the discussion.

Yes, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Or greater estimates.

I wouldn't presume that you would accept my belief about the death of James.

Layman

Let's see. You are assuming that Jesus was some sort of "revolutionary." That is classic question begging. And inaccurate.

John the Baptist is perphaps the most similar figure to Jesus of which Josephus wrote. What did Josephus have to say about him?

John the Baptist, though put to death, was a "good man" and had "exhorted the Jews to live rigtheous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God." He noted that John's "eloquence that had so great an affect on mankind" and that his executed was so unjust that the destruction of Herod's army was a result of John's "vindication" and God's punishment of Herod.

How about another dissenting religious leader of which Josephus writes (taking, as Kirby does, the reference to the death of James as accurate). Once again, Josephus notes that James was considered rightous and that his death was unjust.

Toto

I have worked with enough lawyers to know how they are trained - you have a client, you marshall the evidence in support of your case, you talk loudly and confidently. If the evidence doesn't support your client's case, you minimize it. You appeal to emotions, and provide just enough rationalization to allow the judge or jury to rule your way. You put the other side on the defensive where ever possible.

But if the other side hired you, you would shape the evidence the opposite way.

Contrast this to the way a scholar or scientist works. Always hesitant in conclusions, looking at the evidence from different angles, ready to drop a theory that doesn't pan out.

An apologist is a lawyer of sorts. The client is the church. You have based your religion on the idea that certain historical events happened, so you are going to defend the idea that there is historical support for those events, even if it means distorting the degree of confidence historians have in their conclusions, misusing the idea of a scholarly consensus, and defaming those with minority opinions. I cringe at the way you have turned the study of history into a bludgeon.

The Secular Web's Library has a vast amount of material, which often contains conflicting views or conclusions. It is a library. Some of it is explicitly marked "do not rely on this."

Your idea of "engaging" people is to make an agressive challenge. If you just wanted to introduce the idea to people who may not have heard of it, you could have pointed out the contrast between Stein's 1982 article and Lowder's more recent article, and politely asked that Stein's article be marked with a warning note. But that wouldn't be the lawyerly way.

Veil of Fire

"I am only talking about the paucity of non-biblical (or outside) sources for Jesus. King Arthur, William Tell, Robin Hood, Frosty the Snowman, Santa Clause, et al are irrelevant. I’m not sure each can be subjected to the same standard in this regard."

So you'd apply a HIGHER standard of evidence to the things you ALREADY BELIEVE are fiction, however, the Gospels get a pass in that regard because... um... they're old. And written in a funny language.

Why you expect coroborating evidence for every quasi-historical figure EXCEPT Jesus is a blantant example of how intellectually dishonest people like to try to play "connect the dots" after having already decided what picture they're going to "find".

There's no significant difference between the legend cycle of Jesus and the legend cycle of Robin Hood, excepting, maybe, that there's more evidence beyond the legend cycle for Robin Hood's existence.

Layman

Toto, because you are one of the most biased skeptics on the board, I truly find this assault humorous.

And I am good at making my point. But I also let the evidence inform my opinions. If I was simply a hired gun for the faith of my youth I would be arguind for a young earth, young universe, Pauline authorship of Hebrews, Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, and inerrancy. I don't. Because the evidence isn't there to support it.

The evidence is there, however, for the Testimonium. As Lowder has admitted.

Like I said, don't blame me for what's in your library. And it is a reality that many people share Stein's rhetoric that people who rely on the TF as evidence for the historicity of Jesus are being unreasonable. And I did not notice any "do not rely on this" signs on Stein's article.

I'm not sure what would be the "lawyerly" way, but I made my point the way I made my point.

Do you realize that you spend most of your time whining about the style of other posters than you ever do contributing to the substance of the disucssion? Of course you probably have set a record for posting cut and pasties from Amazon.com book reviews.