Taken. Your topic “To Cris” appears to have been hijacked but I think we can continue the debate in other threads. To that end I have created this thread in order to explore one of your quotes. In reference to your Josephus quote. The quote is commonly known as the Testimonium Flavianum, or TF for short. There is an enormous amount of information about Josephus and even greater controversy about his alleged statement about Jesus. There are very long analyses about the authenticity of the passage. Most seem to agree that as currently stated Josephus cannot have written it and it was almost certainly edited or entirely inserted by zealous Christians from around 200CE onwards. But there also seems to be various versions or re-writes as earlier versions became discredited. I’ve included a web link below to a comprehensive analysis but there are others around if you care to search. The conclusions tend towards whichever bias you want to believe. In short there is no proof that Josephus wrote the claimed quote, and since this is the earliest and most hopeful proof for the existence of a historical Jesus then the question remains open as to whether Jesus existed or not. From my perspective the quote appears to have been inserted into a longer text between two sections. If the insert had not been made then the two sections would flow together perfectly. The insert seems out of place. It is as if someone, in the middle of a speech, suddenly stopped and stated “and by the way there was this man named Jesus who performed miracles and is probably the son of God and the messiah”, and then promptly resumed the original speech. It must also be realized that Josephus was a spokesman for Rome and for him to make such a statement would have certainly meant his death. Even if he did have such information, he was not sympathetic towards the Christians and he would not have risked his own safety. It is more likely that he would not have said anything. But follow this link - http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml The article has this conclusion - 4. Conclusion: In all likelihood, Josephus never wrote any Testimonium Flavianum. In the early 1970's, the TF was widely doubted by most critical scholars, before a version was proposed cutting off the most controversial parts. Now, many liberal Christian scholars (and other ones) have accepted the existence of some expurgated "authentic" TF (but not necessarily the same one!), justifying their opinions by delicate one-sided argumentation. But then, that should not be surprising, considering that the (even expurgated) Testimonium would be: a) The only piece of external evidence about Jesus which is favourable to him b) The most detailed one c) One among two or three least disputed items of external "proof" about Jesus' existence d) A passage which stresses Jesus as a popular sage/wise man, now the focus of most scholarly "studies" about the "historical Jesus" And from other sources – I had in mind to do a lot more research on this but there is no way I want to spend the amount of time that has already been spent on this issue by numerous scholars before me. For now these references will have to suffice. Based on my other research about the mythologies surrounding Christianity I feel that Josephus never wrote the claimed quote and it was created by later Christians in an effort to support their cause. But no one has proof one way or the other. The choice must be based on how one feels about the various analyses. Cris
If I might http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/ This link leads to a page which refers the reader to several links pertaining to the historical Jesus. There's no point in quoting them here; all the references are mere fragments, with minor explanatory notes. The list of offered references is as follows: I've spent a little while tooling around with Google and this is the best I can come up with. I'm trying to raid the Andover-Harvard Library right now, but that will be a journey. So here's a few historical references ... I know this portion of the debate centers around Josephus, so there's that. Otherwise, some fragments of history to chew on. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
thanks tiassa. And I'm sure Taken has no objection to you joining in. My time for real research is severely limited. One thing I did want to do is take a closer look at the influence of Eusebius the so called "Father of Christian/Church history". He appears to have been the editor in chief and outright propaganada expert for the early Christian texts. He appears to have manufactured history rather than record it. I think it is largely due to him that we have the Christian texts in their current form. Cris
Cris http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=33940&highlight=Eusebius#post33940 This is an old thread from about 6/2000, started by Pashley. Round about page 5 (hopefully linked right to) is our touching on Eusebius of Caesarea. There's not a whole lot there of help; we mostly went rounds on the side issues. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=35687&highlight=Eusebius#post35687 This is a post from Onslaught, which makes a claim or two about Eusebius. There's the usual references: * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm (Catholic Encyclopaedia entry) * http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm (index page for Church History * http://web.cbn.org/bibleresources/theology/eusebius/churchhistory/index.asp (a different Church History--Ecclesiastical History--link) * http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.html (Life of Constantine, by Eusebius) * http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml (writings on the canon of the New Testament) That's the fun stuff I could find on Eusebius. Some of it I have to go back and read myself. But if you find Eusebius worth a laugh, I can only encourage you to check out Irenaeus of Lyon, who reasoned that since there are only four principal winds, four seasons, four elements (ad nauseam), there must necessarily be only four Gospels. You'll note, though, that Eusebius, Father of the Church (as such), didn't get his way on issues pertaining to the canon. Specifically, the Apocalypse of John was included. One must wonder, if he is allowed to be wrong, as such, how many people he led toward condemnation along his way. In that vein, I also point toward Nicaea: the fight that took place to establish the trinity was fierce, and, much like Eusebius being incorrect about the Apocalypse of John, we witness Athanasius winning his debate over the trinity and, eventually, the Nicene Creed, by employing what would later become a heresy (docetism). Rather than diving into the exploratory commentary, which can be reserved for another topic on another day, I should at this point step back and leave you to your reading (especially those readings more vital than these). In the meantime, a few spots on Eusebius of Caesarea. Just so it can be said that I have a relevant point in this topic, I'll venture that I treat Josephus like I treat any historical source: with a grain of salt that needs to be dealt with before calling it fact. I have no problem with treating Josephus as a viable source; it's just that those to whom it is most vital (e.g. faithful Christians) in this and other related debates cannot seem to resolve on this point. I'll see if I can dig up earlier Christian objections to Josephus from Sciforums/Exosci. I'm sure we have a couple of them onhand. In the meantime, I must resist any historical source selectively applied in a metaphysical debate, so I generally leave Josephus out of the debate. Honestly, if it ever came anywhere close to Josephus' credibility being the turning point, I would have converted by then because all other signs would then point toward the definitive viability of the source. I tend to think that if the Josephus debate had a definitive conclusion, society would have reached it by now. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
tiassa, Many thanks, I think. Now my interest has been piqued it now seems like a good time to try to find the time to do the reading. Looking back at those old threads I see that I did contribute on the margins. There was a whole different group back then.
