Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Akhenaten]

From the article: A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum
By Christopher Price

<snip>

Who's Christopher Price and why do we care what he thinks?

 

[TimCallahan]

You would have to ask leading Josephus scholar Louis Feldman what their names are:

From the article: A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum By Christopher Price
"A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Perhaps I missed something, but, reading the article, I did not find any answer to my objection regarding the fact that even a partial form of the TF disrupts the flow of Josephus' narrative. Remove the TF, and what follows it refers back directly to the narrative just preceding the TF. Remove the TF, and the narrative flows smoothly, indicating that the TF is, even in its partial form, intrusive material.

 

[Akhenaten]

Perhaps I missed something, but, reading the article, I did not find any answer to my objection regarding the fact that even a partial form of the TF disrupts the flow of Josephus' narrative. Remove the TF, and what follows it refers back directly to the narrative just preceding the TF. Remove the TF, and the narrative flows smoothly, indicating that the TF is, even in its partial form, intrusive material.

He doesn't actually research or put any thought into these responses beyond searching some of his favourite apologist sites for one or two key phrases and then copy/pastes what he thinks is a valid response.

I predict his response to this post of yours will be along the lines of "So you disagree with the majority of scholars that believe Josephus is a factual account . . . <blah, blah, blah>"

Also be watching for a "your opinion is noted" or an "it's still evidence".

 

[catsmate]

You would have to ask leading Josephus scholar Louis Feldman what their names are:
<snip>

Would that perhaps be the Louis Feldman who said of the Testimonium Flavianum:

The question is whether Josephus really wrote it. And I've written about that, and I've come to the conclusion that he couldn't have written it, certainly in the form that we have it, because Origen, the Christian church father, at one point says that Josephus didn't recognize that Jesus was the Christos.

or are your referring to some other Louis Feldman who supports your opinions?

Good grief DOC, try and demonstrate some intellectual honesty.

Who's Christopher Price and why do we care what he thinks?

A lawyer and militant xian apologist well known for mining and fabricating quotes.

 

[TimCallahan]

DOC: Here's what I mean about the TF, even in its abbreviated form, being intrusive. In
Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, Chapter 3, item 2 tells how a mob of angry Jews massed outside Pilate's headquarters to protest his appropriation of temple funds to build an aqueduct for the city of Jerusalem. Pilate had secreted some of his soldiers, disguised as Jews and carrying hidden weapons, among the protestors. When the latter refused to disperse, Pilate gave a signal, resulting in the following:

(end of item 2) . . . and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.

(beginning of item 4) About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder . . . .

Notice that the beginning of item 4 refers back to the end of item 2. If one inserts the TF (item 3), even in an abbreviated form, between items 2 and 4, the opening of item 4 makes no sense whatsoever:

(end of item 2) . . . and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.

(abbreviated form of the TF, item 3) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

(beginning of item 4) About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder . . . .

Your response?

 

[DOC]

Would that perhaps be the Louis Feldman who said of the Testimonium Flavianum:
Originally Posted by Louis Feldman
The question is whether Josephus really wrote it. And I've written about that, and I've come to the conclusion that he couldn't have written it, certainly in the form that we have it, because Origen, the Christian church father, at one point says that Josephus didn't recognize that Jesus was the Christos.

Origen could have been wrong considering he was born 85 years after Josephus died. Do we even know how Origen came to that opinion? And Josephus could have changed his mind about Christ later in his life. The apostle Paul at one time didn't believe Jesus was the Christ either.

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

 

[ddt]

Origen could have been wrong considering he was born 85 years after Josephus died. Do we even know how Origen came to that opinion? And Josephus could have changed his mind about Christ later in his life. The apostle Paul at one time didn't believe Jesus was the Christ either.

Judge for yourself: here are five references from Origen to Josephus. He suggests twice to his readers to read the works of Josephus - I suppose he means Antiquities and Jewish War by the "two books". He also quotes from Book 18 from Antiquities, the same book which contains the TF.

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

So what? Scholarship is not done by popularity contest, - especially not 30 year old ones - but by arguments. It's a hardly better argument than claiming to have made 6,794 posts.

Do you have any rebuttal to Tim's argument of discontinuity?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Origen could have been wrong considering he was born 85 years after Josephus died. Do we even know how Origen came to that opinion? And Josephus could have changed his mind about Christ later in his life. The apostle Paul at one time didn't believe Jesus was the Christ either.

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

Bolded relevant part of the quote

About as wrong as people who lived 50-100 years later writing about christ?

 

[ddt]

Bolded relevant part of the quote

About as wrong as people who lived 50-100 years later writing about christ?

That's indeed relevant, as it is a wrong comparison. The gospel writers writing 50-100 years later about Christ (if he even existed) would have done so from oral recollection. Oral recollection is very prone to distortions.

Josephus, OTOH, wrote down his Antiquities and copies of his book were available. Origen could easily have consulted such a copy: he lived in Alexandria, and the library there undoubtedly would have had a copy. Copying books is of course not 100% free of errors, but orders of magnitudes more reliable than oral transmission. Of course, deliberate interpolations are possible, but that's the domain of the "lying for Jeebus" crowd, such as Eusebius who advocated falsifying history, not of the Alexandrian librarians.

 

[dafydd]

. Oral recollection is very prone to distortions.

You're telling me. Years ago I was on my way to college one day and I saw a mate of mine who was on his way to the seaside for a day out. I jumped in his car and off we went. By the time I got back that evening my mother had heard that I was seen heading for the coast sitting on the bonnet of car and wearing a fur coat. If that can happen in one afternoon then what could happen to the tall tales told about Jesus over one hundred years. The gospels are about as reliable as a chocolate teapot.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

That's indeed relevant, as it is a wrong comparison. The gospel writers writing 50-100 years later about Christ (if he even existed) would have done so from oral recollection. Oral recollection is very prone to distortions.

Josephus, OTOH, wrote down his Antiquities and copies of his book were available. Origen could easily have consulted such a copy: he lived in Alexandria, and the library there undoubtedly would have had a copy. Copying books is of course not 100% free of errors, but orders of magnitudes more reliable than oral transmission. Of course, deliberate interpolations are possible, but that's the domain of the "lying for Jeebus" crowd, such as Eusebius who advocated falsifying history, not of the Alexandrian librarians.

True, hadn't even thought of that.
So, DOC, if you claim someone who can consult the very book they are quoting can be wrong and misquote, would you concede that people writing up an oral tradition after a similar time could be even more mistaken?

 

[catsmate]

Origen could have been wrong considering he was born 85 years after Josephus died. Do we even know how Origen came to that opinion?

Perhaps by reading copies of Josephus before xians got around to tampering with them?

And Josephus could have changed his mind about Christ later in his life.

Yet he died and was buried an observant Jew; no false messiah for him.

The apostle Paul at one time didn't believe Jesus was the Christ either.

I'm sure you'll be providing evidence of this claim?

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

Citation required. And not an xian apologist site please.
I note that you consider (and cite) Feldman as the "leading Josephus scholar", yet he considers the Testimonium Flavianum to be a forgery. Perhaps you should better research your claims before making them?

 

[DOC]

Perhaps by reading copies of Josephus before xians got around to tampering with them?

One has to wonder why the Jews didn't more carefully keep copies of Josephus since he was talking about "their" history. Why do his works seem to be have been more carefully kept by Christians. It would seem that more Jews should have complained about these alleged interpolations while they were happening. Where are all the Jewish copyists while all this is supposedly happening.? Where are all their copies of their own history?

 

[DOC]

About as wrong as people who lived 50-100 years later writing about christ?

The New Testament Galatians was written about 19 years after Christ's crucifixion.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earliest_book_written_in_the_New_Testament

19 Years ago Bill Clinton was president, I don't have a problem remembering that. And I easily remember things that happened personally to me 30 years ago.

 

[dafydd]

The New Testament Galatians was written about 19 years after Christ's crucifixion.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earliest_book_written_in_the_New_Testament

19 Years ago Bill Clinton was president, I don't have a problem remembering that. And I easily remember things that happened personally to me 30 years ago.

Wikianswers indeed. Who posted that answer?

 

[joobz]

Origen could have been wrong considering he was born 85 years after Josephus died.

great point.
But, you do know that that argument puts a major damper in your reliance on the gospels, though.


(start at 43 second mark)

Do we even know how Origen came to that opinion?

by reading all the other things he wrote.

And Josephus could have changed his mind about Christ later in his life.

Yes. people do get senile in their old age.

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

So it's only partially completely made up.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The New Testament Galatians was written about 19 years after Christ's crucifixion.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earliest_book_written_in_the_New_Testament

19 Years ago Bill Clinton was president, I don't have a problem remembering that. And I easily remember things that happened personally to me 30 years ago.

First of all, that 19 years seems early, most serious research I've ever read goes with 30 at best.
And this wouldnt be you writing about bill clinton, this would be you writing about a cult leader that someone told you about that their cousin TRULY saw risen in Lima.
Tell me, how much do you know about the true things happening in Lima 30 years ago without resorting to the internet?

 

[ddt]

One has to wonder why the Jews didn't more carefully keep copies of Josephus since he was talking about "their" history. Why do his works seem to be have been more carefully kept by Christians. It would seem that more Jews should have complained about these alleged interpolations while they were happening. Where are all the Jewish copyists while all this is supposedly happening.? Where are all their copies of their own history?

Maybe you could just read a tiny little bit about the life of Josephus, especially his role in the Jewish Revolt, before asking such an inane question.

Josephus switched sides during the Revolt, and henceforth was considered a traitor by the Jews. Thus, his work was shunned. Moreover, he wrote in Koine Greek, not in Hebrew.

 

[ddt]

The New Testament Galatians was written about 19 years after Christ's crucifixion.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earliest_book_written_in_the_New_Testament

Let's write that more clearly, yes? What you say here is that an anonymous poster on wiki.answers.com writes that the earliest book of the NT was Paul's letter to the Galatians - mind, only one of the 27 books that would later be compiled into the NT - and that it was written in 48-49 AD. Furthermore, you claim that that would be 14 years after Jesus' crucifixion.

Do you see the multitude of problems with that?

Moreover, Galatians doesn't give us any details with respect to Jesus' life, apart from him being crucified. There's nothing in there that Paul couldn't simply have made up.

19 Years ago Bill Clinton was president, I don't have a problem remembering that. And I easily remember things that happened personally to me 30 years ago.

And Tiberius was Roman emperor. Really, the literate subjects of the Roman empire had no problem remembering that. What happened in a funny outpost of the empire though, where messianic preachers were a dime a dozen, is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Akhenaten]

Origen could have been wrong considering he was born 85 years after Josephus died.

Is that how it works?

How wrong could DOC be then, having been born nearly two millenia after Josephus died?

Maybe there are other criteria. Maybe even some relevant ones.

Do we even know how Origen came to that opinion?

By looking at the evidence. I'm not at all surprised this didn't occur to you.

And Josephus could have changed his mind about Christ later in his life.

This would be a good time for you to produce the evidence which lead you to suggest this possibility.

Otherwise people might think it's nothing more than baseless speculation induced by your own wishful thinking.

The apostle Paul at one time didn't believe Jesus was the Christ either.

Since you raised an objection to Origen's credibility based on his separation in time from the events on which he commented you might like to explain why the same objection doesn't apply to Metanoia Boy. Or to Josephus.

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

Red flag!!! Why is 'most' in scare quotes?

In any case, DOC, I thought you didn't believe that the truth could be ascertained by polling. I'm sure I recall an ongoing poll in another thread which you are wont to describe as 'spam' and the results of which you dismiss out-of-hand as being meaningless.

What's going on with that?