Layman

Actually, many of these scholars have been writing for a long time. And none of their evidences or argument are that new.

But hey, it's possible Stein would realize how silly his statement is. If it helps you sleep at night Toto, imagine what you will.

Of course, does that mean you agree with Lowder and me?

Or do you agree with Stein? Sounds like you are distancing yourself from him.

Layman

That's not quite true. Have you really gone through and compared their respective views? A number of these scholars have reached something of a consensus, which is noted in J.P. Meier's, A Marginal Jew. But of course there are some scholars that would trim a little more and some that would trim a little less.

That's quite an unjustified leap. There does not have to be completely unanamity as to every jot and tittle before their are reasonable grounds for agreeing that the Testimonium was originally present but embellished.

Since all of these scholars completely reject the notion that the entirety of the Testimonium was forged, you have no basis for your comment. Nor is it the case that if you accept all of their positions, that none of the Testimonium is left.

Well, I'll lean more on their judgment for that--and my own--than yours.

Well, how late something comes is usually less important than the independence of the source. But regardless, you have almost answered my question. You seem to agree with Stein. But how much.

Are Lowder and I dishonest, ignorant, or fools?

Toto

I don't think Stein's statement is silly. I think it is overly polemical, and we are trying to get away from that sort of debate style on this board. I agree with Stein that McDowell's work is intellectually dishonest, but I would probably not accuse everyone who tries to find some slender thread of evidence in Josephus for the existence of Jesus of dishonesty, whatever I thought privately.

I would hope that you would agree with Lowder, but I seriously doubt that you do.

Layman

I'm glad you clarified that one. I thought we were going to get into another one of your "Matthew's census account" travesties.

Layman

I certainly agree with Lowder that the Testimonium is independent evidence for the historicity of Jesus. But I don't agree that McDowell was being dishonest. McDowell mostly writes for teenagers and young Christians. He is not a NT scholar, nor does he write for a scholarly (or skeptical) audience. I find him genuine, but simplistic, overeager, and underinformed.

Most of Lowder's criticisms regarding the Testimonium are that McDowell should have argued x or y but not z. I actually thought they were symptomatic of someone who was agreeing with an object of derision but couldn't bring himself to admit it. Lowder's criticism's of McDowell's reliance on other sources was more steady.

Layman

So does that mean you do not agree with Lowder and me that the Testimonium is independent evidence of the historicity of Jesus?

Toto

So he preys on the naive and uninformed to give them a false sense of certainty in their beliefs. How is this "genuine"?

And I do not agree with you on the Testimonium. I agree with Lowder's statement that anyone who tries to argue for the value as evidence of a passage that has been obviously tampered with, has a heavy burden of proof, and I do not see how anyone can meet that burden of proof.

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

Layman

No, he does not "prey" on anyone. He writes to their level. He believes the Testimonium is valid. Most scholars believe the Testimonium is valid. He raises common objections to the Testimonium and explains why he thinks they do not carry the day. The fact that most NT scholars agree with him simply reinforces his genuine conclusion that the Testimonium is valid.

But Lowder has apparently concluded that the Testimonium does provide independent evidence of the history of Jesus. Perhaps you missed his statements:

"In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus."

Do you agree that McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus?

"The Testimonium Flavianum probably contained an authentic, independent witness to Jesus."

Do you agree that the TF probably contained an authentic, independent witness to Jesus?

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

Toto

From what I have read, my own theory is that the Testimonium contained a very unflattering reference to some rebel named Jesus aka Joshua. This reference was rewritten by a Christian monk so that it was a flattering reference to the legendary Jesus believed to have founded Christianity - but I do not think that this Jesus bore any resemblance to the Jesus of Christianity.

But that's just my speculation. I'm not prepared to prove it to you at the present time.

I thought that the criticism of McDowell was that he did not even raise the common objections scholars have to the Testimonium, at least in his ETDAV. He is telling his naive audience that there is 100% proof from non-Christian sources that Jesus lived. As I read Lowder, I would guess that he does think Jesus lived, but that the probability is more like 51%.

Layman

Thanks for answering.

I can't comment on ETDAV, but if I remember correctly, in the NEW EDTAV McDowell refers his readers to the fuller discussion of the Testimonium in his He Walked Among Us, where he does deal with many of the arguments.

I can't quantify Lowder's statments beyond what they say, that he does think McDowell is "right" to refer to the Testimonium and that it "probably" (sounds like more than 51% to me, but, alas, Babylon) valid.