About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Go on, say the same stupid shit again

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-06-2016, 08:13 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
You also never answered Girly's question.

If a census was taken to determine the opinions of scholars and 52% (+- 4%) of them agreed with your assertions of Josephus, would this be your overwhelming consensus agreement?

What level of consensus would you consider reasonable?

What credibility does this add to the argument at all given its detractors arguments, which must be considered on their own merit?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
01-06-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 05:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 05:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Using the opinion of one person to extrapolate the beliefs/views/opinions of an entire group of scholars is not only incredibly dishonest, it's laughably stupid.


Yes quoting one of the foremost expert in the field of study is laughably stupid. Because the last thing scholars know is the predominant views of other scholars in that area.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-06-2016 05:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Because the last thing scholars know is the predominant views of other scholars in that area.

Biblical scholars are VERY, VERY aware of the view of other scholars. If you read any books by Biblical scholars they will often note other scholars and how they may differ on some points and agree on others.

The majority of New Testament scholars, even many conservative scholars, agree that the Testimonium was added later. Even 200 years ago the Testimonium was widely considered a forgery and it doesn't take a New Testament scholar to come to that conclusion.

This is from theologian, Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, written in 1842, who gives the well know problems with the Testimonium and the reason almost all scholars dismiss it. .

" Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber."

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like dancefortwo's post
01-06-2016, 09:08 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Ya know, I watch theist's posts in this thread (and everywhere else), and I wonder how in the hell they have jobs. I guess they compartmentalize the crap so that they can function IRL. Facepalm I applaud you guys who deal with them. But, fuuuck, that level of stupid should be incendiary. Gasp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
01-06-2016, 10:27 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 09:25 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  To any historians out there, I'm interested in some information about the Testimonium Flavium by Josephus.

Quote:"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." -Antiquities of the Jews

Now, I'm aware that there are many scholars who believe that this is a forgery, and I'm really curious to know why.

There are some Christian apologist who will argue that since Josephus was born around 37 CE, and began studying around age 18, he would've had easy access to historical records about the birth and death of Jesus. Could he really have had access? Furthermore, some Christians will assert that the secular historians look at this in a biased view because of their "desire to sin". What do you say to that?


It is a well known forgery often attributed to Eusebius. If you remove the insertion the text flows easier. The style also does not resemble Josephus.

It was a well known forgery since Voltaire's time. Who wrote about it.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 06:00 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 08:30 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Biblical scholars are VERY, VERY aware of the view of other scholars. If you read any books by Biblical scholars they will often note other scholars and how they may differ on some points and agree on others.

The majority of New Testament scholars, even many conservative scholars, agree that the Testimonium was added later. Even 200 years ago the Testimonium was widely considered a forgery and it doesn't take a New Testament scholar to come to that conclusion.

I was being sarcastic in my last comment. Scholars tend to be very very aware of the view of other scholars in their respective areas. And yes the majority of scholars would agree the Testimonium at least parts of it were interpolation.

But we were speaking of the passage regarding James execution, where James is indicated as the brother of Jesus. This passage is nearly universally agreed by scholars as authentic.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 06:03 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 08:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You also never answered Girly's question.

If a census was taken to determine the opinions of scholars and 52% (+- 4%) of them agreed with your assertions of Josephus, would this be your overwhelming consensus agreement?

No.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 06:14 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 08:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Special pleading. The bias and overreaching in your assumption has already been pointed out.

No it's not special pleading, bias, or overreaching. To hold that scholars are familiar with the scholarship in their particular field.

Quote:A field of study can have scholars who ascribe to a variety of views on a given topic. And one expert classifying the beliefs of his peers is NOT a valid metric for determining the overall opinion of the collective, period.

It's not just one scholar, you dishonest cunt, a variety of scholars have made the same claim, as cited in the wiki. If scholars are very familiar with the scholarship in their respective areas, their assessments on that scholarship, on what the predominant views are, are a valid metric for determine the overall view of the scholarship in the area. We don't need to await for an official poll to come out to determine this. In fact if we truly wanted to doubt this assessments we can familiarize ourselves with the scholarship in that area, to see if it holds true or not.


Quote:As has also been pointed out to you by others here, it is also important that the opinions of theologians not be conflated into this overall opinion of the field of history with respect to this particular subject, a point not addressed by you or your mined quote.

Except the person I quoted is not a theologian, or christian, but a jewish scholar. Teaching at a jewish university.

Quote:You just keep doubling down and say the same thing, that has no substance besides your appeal to authority.

It's not an appeal to authority, you clearly need to familiarize yourself with the fallacy again.


Quote:Meanwhile, you've been given adequate rebuttal from multiple people to point out the folly and ignorance in your assumption.

Yes like this person: "Biblical scholars are VERY, VERY aware of the view of other scholars."

You're the ignorant one here, you know almost next to nothing of the topic, but keep sprouting your nonsense, like suggesting that scholars are not familiar with scholarship in that area, that their assessments of that scholarship are not valid. A view that no one other than you seem to be suggestive of.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 06:20 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 12:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 11:42 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Josephus in this passage was probably not referring back to the passage you posted. But instead James the brother of the Jewish High Priest Yeshua' ben Damnai. (Jesus son of Damnues)

No, he said Jesus who was called the Messiah (Christ), and James was his brother. A relationship already noted by Paul as well, as well as Mark and Matthew. SO no it's not some uncanny coincidence, that Josephus highlight this relationship as well. It's quite the stretch to claim that Josephus was referencing Yeshua' Ben Damnai. If you're drawn to that conclusion it's not because it's the more reasonable one, but because it serves your prejudices better.

However, if the messiah part was what was tampered with, that would make you the one who is drawing a conclusion based on bias.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 06:42 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 06:20 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 12:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, he said Jesus who was called the Messiah (Christ), and James was his brother. A relationship already noted by Paul as well, as well as Mark and Matthew. SO no it's not some uncanny coincidence, that Josephus highlight this relationship as well. It's quite the stretch to claim that Josephus was referencing Yeshua' Ben Damnai. If you're drawn to that conclusion it's not because it's the more reasonable one, but because it serves your prejudices better.

However, if the messiah part was what was tampered with, that would make you the one who is drawing a conclusion based on bias.

There's no real reason to imagine the messiah part as tampered with, it doesn't involve Josephus agreeing that Jesus was the messiah, but just noting that he was called the messiah by his followers. It's also found in every copy of Josephus we have, unlike other interpolation supported by their absence in other copies.

There's also no connect between a Yeshua' Ben Damnai, having a brother named James, let alone a brother that would end up stoned. Where as James's relationship with Jesus is indicated by both Paul, and the writers of Mark and Luke. Leaving the likelihood of the James in Josephus squarely in the Jesus camp.

People tend to want to imagine it was in reference to Yeshua Ben Damnnai, but that seems to be more a product of their anti-christian tendencies, more so than because this is a more reasonable conclusion, which it's not.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: