Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-26-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...The issue isn't whether the arguments are seen by you or me as ad hoc--it is the status of Josephan scholars. How can one judge whether the NT scholars who 'want to believe' are being biased or not? One can 'want to believe' and still be objective. Believers have no need for the TF to be authentic.

In theory believers would not need the TF, but believers seem to want to show that their faith is not completely baseless.

If you can't tell an ad hoc argument by reading it, I can't help you. Just because a scholar has high status means little.

Quote:

Carrier describes his arguments in s blog post here.

Yes--well sort of. When I read it I noticed that he kept saying in response to points people brought up that you have to read the article...which I found annoying. Muller had some excellent points which Carrier, I thought, dismissed rather trivially. I wasn't impressed.

If you really care about the issue, you could try to find the article in a library.

Unfortunately, the archives are not back yet. I think there has been some discussion of this issue.

TedM · 07-26-2013, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you can't tell an ad hoc argument by reading it, I can't help you. Just because a scholar has high status means little.

The original issue was in response to Grog, who it appears has a mis-understanding with regard to what the scholars think. Your link to Kirby's site only re-enforces the correction I made for him.

Quote:

If you really care about the issue, you could try to find the article in a library.

I really wish I could take the time on both references in Josephus. The silence is a strong objection, as is Olson's claim...I've seen decent explanations of both, but not enough to convince me that they should be discarded. Yet the content is strongly Josephean. Maybe someday I'll dig in further. Goldberg has made a very important observation regarding usage of a source common to the passage in Luke on the road to Emmaus--some very interesting points here:http://www.josephus.org/compTable.htm
and here: http://www.josephus.org/question.htm

MrMacSon · 07-26-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The references to James being the brother of Jesus found in Josephus makes no sense. In context, we can see that the "brother of Jesus" in this passage is the brother of Jesus ben Damneus. Carrier's argument against this being authentic to Josephus is persuasive. He argues that this interpolation was an accidental inclusion of a scribal notation. Note for one thing that this reference depends on the authenticity of Josephus referring earlier to Jesus as "the Christ" or "Messiah," which is almost universally rejected, even by those who wish to salvage a partial authentic reference to Jesus in Book 18.

You are grossly mis-informed. The scholars almost universally believe Josephus wrote a passage about Jesus, including some very striking and positive information, although with some words or a few sentences added/modified. THIS is the view of scholars, and not amateur skeptics. The James phrase is even more-so believed by scholars to be authentic.

"The Scholars" is such a generalisation as to be meaningless: apart from referring to a collective pro-Christian confirmation bias that has exited for most of the last 50 yrs and, indeed, most of the last 1400 yrs in Christian societies (apart from some recorded dissent during the period 1800-1940).

Appeal to "the scholars" is fallacious appeal to authority.

TedM · 07-26-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The references to James being the brother of Jesus found in Josephus makes no sense. In context, we can see that the "brother of Jesus" in this passage is the brother of Jesus ben Damneus. Carrier's argument against this being authentic to Josephus is persuasive. He argues that this interpolation was an accidental inclusion of a scribal notation. Note for one thing that this reference depends on the authenticity of Josephus referring earlier to Jesus as "the Christ" or "Messiah," which is almost universally rejected, even by those who wish to salvage a partial authentic reference to Jesus in Book 18.

You are grossly mis-informed. The scholars almost universally believe Josephus wrote a passage about Jesus, including some very striking and positive information, although with some words or a few sentences added/modified. THIS is the view of scholars, and not amateur skeptics. The James phrase is even more-so believed by scholars to be authentic.

"The Scholars" is such a generalisation as to be meaningless: apart from referring to a collective pro-Christian confirmation bias that has exited for most of the last 50 yrs, and, most of the last 1400 yrs in Christian societies; apart form some recorded dissent during the period 1800-1940.

Appeal to "the scholars" is fallacious appeal to authority.

That's quite a disservice to scholars. Feldman isn't Christian and he is considered the world's foremost authority on Josephus. He thinks Josephus wrote the core. Is that too 'meaningless'?

MrMacSon · 07-26-2013, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... It's a lie. If you want to get a realistic perspective as to what the scholarly viewpoint is, take a look at what wiki says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Wikipedia is not a good source. ... the area is unsettled and informed opinions vary.

I have followed a lot of these arguments for several years and frequently looked at wikipedia pages such as this -

They have been actively edited to give a 'statu-quo' pro-Christian bias: text & listed references that give a counter (skeptical) view have been removed. Fact.

Toto · 07-26-2013, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The references to James being the brother of Jesus found in Josephus makes no sense. In context, we can see that the "brother of Jesus" in this passage is the brother of Jesus ben Damneus. Carrier's argument against this being authentic to Josephus is persuasive. He argues that this interpolation was an accidental inclusion of a scribal notation. Note for one thing that this reference depends on the authenticity of Josephus referring earlier to Jesus as "the Christ" or "Messiah," which is almost universally rejected, even by those who wish to salvage a partial authentic reference to Jesus in Book 18.

You are grossly mis-informed. The scholars almost universally believe Josephus wrote a passage about Jesus, including some very striking and positive information, although with some words or a few sentences added/modified. ....

I see your confusion now. Grog said that scholars almost universally reject the idea that Josephus referred to Jesus as "the Christ" even if they think there is an authentic core to the TF - since this is un-Joesphan language and thought.

You misread this as claiming that scholars rejected the entire passage.

MrMacSon · 07-26-2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

"The Scholars" is such a generalisation as to be meaningless: apart from referring to a collective pro-Christian confirmation bias that has exited for most of the last 50 yrs, and, most of the last 1400 yrs in Christian societies; apart form some recorded dissent during the period 1800-1940.

Appeal to "the scholars" is fallacious appeal to authority.

That's quite a disservice to scholars. Feldman isn't Christian and he is considered the world's foremost authority on Josephus. He thinks Josephus wrote the core. Is that too 'meaningless'?

"the core" is not this issue though, is it?

"disservice to scholars" is, again, 'appeal to authority', and 'appeal to tradition' & ad antiquitam - appeal to the old

There are so many other fallacies in what you have written there, it is hard to know where to start :

ad personam - appeal to personal interest
ad misericordiam - appeal to pity
strawman red-herring
etc

MrMacSon · 07-26-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You are grossly mis-informed. The scholars almost universally believe Josephus wrote a passage about Jesus, including some very striking and positive information, although with some words or a few sentences added/modified. ....

Josephus wrote about many Jesuses - some have said 19 different Jesuses eg.

Joshua/Jesus, deputy to & co-leader of Jerusalem 66-8AD/CE, with the priest Ananus the Younger who killed James, the brother of Jesus
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel, the successor of Jesus ben Damneus (see '4')
Jesus son of Ananias - this one could be the basis for a lot of the gospels
etc

MrMacSon · 07-26-2013, 02:54 PM

An interesting analysis of what Josephus wrote about the destruction of the temple is here -

Quote:

http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm

Why the Almighty Caused Jerusalem and His Temple to be Destroyed

The burning of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 CE/AD created a profound dilemma for faithful Jews of the time. Hadn't religious observance throughout the land reached new heights in the years preceding the war? Wasn't the revolt against Rome directly the result of zealous people vowing to have "no master except the Lord?" (Ant. 18.1.6 23). Then why did the Lord allow the Romans to crush the revolt and destroy his Temple?

Josephus offered a variety of solutions to this problem. His overall goal was to defend the Jews against the accusation that their Lord had deserted them. A further goal, which he only hinted at, was to pave the way for approval by the Roman authorities, at some future time, for the rebuilding of the Temple. [con'd]

J-D · 07-26-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was Gentiles that used the Septuagint to fabricate their stories of Jesus.

What could have been their motivation for doing so?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.