About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2016, 05:29 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 04:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 04:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  "Proof" and "almost universally" do not belong in the same sentence.


Only true for those who believe the term "proof" shouldn't be used outside of mathematics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you use "proof" outside of mathematics? 95% confidence interval? Or you just throw it out there willy nilly without giving a fuck. What is a "proof" to you? I'm serious about this Tomasia. What constitutes a "proof" for you. I am serious.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
01-06-2016, 05:38 PM
About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 05:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 05:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No familiarity with actual scholarship is a valid means of knowing what the predominant views of scholarship in that particular area is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Repetition doesn't make it true

Nor does repeating the claim that an official survey is needed to know where the predominant scholarship in an area is, make it true.

It's not needed, familiarity with the particular scholarship in an area will do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
01-06-2016, 05:40 PM
About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 05:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 04:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Only true for those who believe the term "proof" shouldn't be used outside of mathematics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you use "proof" outside of mathematics? 95% confidence interval? Or you just throw it out there willy nilly without giving a fuck. What is a "proof" to you? I'm serious about this Tomasia. What constitutes a "proof" for you. I am serious.


I'm not to sure why you decided to direct that question to me, since I'm not the person that initially brought in the term "proof" outside of mathematics.

I'm just appealing to the colloquial use as they are.

Proof:
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
01-06-2016, 05:44 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 05:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 05:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Repetition doesn't make it true

Nor does repeating the claim that an official survey is needed to know where the predominant scholarship in an area is, make it true.

It's not needed, familiarity with the particular scholarship in an area will do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You set a standard for "proof" that equates it with opinion. You literally couldn't set a lower standard for "proof."

Edit to add: actually it's worse than that, you set a standard for proof that establishes a singular person's opinion as representative of an entire field of scholars.

But this explains why you believe in a literal Jesus and in Christianity. Laugh out load

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
01-06-2016, 05:48 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Richard Carrier's take on the TF:

Quote:Of course, even at a glance anyone can see this would be an absurd paragraph from the hand of a devout Jew and sophisticated author who otherwise
writes far more elegant prose, and usually responsibly explains to his
readers anythi ng strange. Th is passage is self-evidently a fawning and gullible
Christian fabrication, i n fact demonstrably derived from the Emmaus
narrative i n the Gospel of Luke, inserted into the text at a point where it
does not even make any narrative sense

As for the minor reference in Book XX:

Quote:However, I have elsewhere demonstrated that the phrase 'who was called
Christ' is an accidental interpolation and was never written by Josephus.90
It entered the manuscripts of Josephus sometime in the late third century. We know this because Origen never quotes this passage, even where
scholars claim he does. I n fact Origen shows no knowledge of this passage
as we have it, or the story it relates, or where it was located in the works
of Josephus; whereas Eusebius is the first to actually quote the passage we
have in the present text of Josephus. He is thus the first to have known of
it. Where Origen is now claimed to be citing this passage, he can be shown
to have confused a story written by the Christian hagiographer Hegesippus
(whom we just examined in §8) as being in Josephus.

So you can lose the "universal" bullshit. Maybe theologians are agreed but their bias is obvious.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
01-06-2016, 06:29 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?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674822

Christian apologetic fan’s most popular non-Christian writer that mentions Jesus is Flavius Josephus. Although he was born in 37 CE and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable secondhand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100 and his two major tomes were ‘The antiquities of the Jews’ and ‘the wars of the Jews’. Antiquities was written sometime after the year 90 CE. In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:

“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 to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are at least seven solid reasons for this:

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen’s second century version of Josephus, in ‘Origen Contra Celsum’, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity that was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible “medicine” for historians to create fictions – prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

The fact that Josephus – Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history – at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity – makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus “the Christ” or “the truth.” Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows.… Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase “to this day” shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the “divine prophets” foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus would’ve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: “… As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him…” This sounds more like sectarian propaganda – in other words, more like the new testament – than objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. If we remove the forged paragraph, as we should, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-06-2016, 07:52 PM
About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 05:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 05:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Nor does repeating the claim that an official survey is needed to know where the predominant scholarship in an area is, make it true.

It's not needed, familiarity with the particular scholarship in an area will do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You set a standard for "proof" that equates it with opinion. You literally couldn't set a lower standard for "proof."

Edit to add: actually it's worse than that, you set a standard for proof that establishes a singular person's opinion as representative of an entire field of scholars.

But this explains why you believe in a literal Jesus and in Christianity. Laugh out load


A familiarity with the scholarship on a given subject is enough infer what the predominant view of a particular topic is, an official survey is not needed.

One of the foremost experts on Josephus is familiar with scholarship in that area, and stated that authentic is the near universal view amongst scholars.

Other scholars are also cited in the wiki, who reiterate the same point.

As long we don't assume they're lying, or are not familiar with the scholarship, this is proof for any reasonable person to conclude that the consensus amongst scholarship is authenticity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
01-06-2016, 08:00 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 07:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 05:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You set a standard for "proof" that equates it with opinion. You literally couldn't set a lower standard for "proof."

Edit to add: actually it's worse than that, you set a standard for proof that establishes a singular person's opinion as representative of an entire field of scholars.

But this explains why you believe in a literal Jesus and in Christianity. Laugh out load


A familiarity with the scholarship on a given subject is enough infer what the predominant view of a particular topic is, an official survey is not needed.

One of the foremost experts on Josephus is familiar with scholarship in that area, and stated that authentic is the near universal view amongst scholars.

Other scholars are also cited in the wiki, who reiterate the same point.

As long we don't assume they're lying, or are not familiar with the scholarship, this is proof for any reasonable person to conclude that the consensus amongst scholarship is authenticity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Special pleading. The bias and overreaching in your assumption has already been pointed out.

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 works this way for any and all fields of study. There may be dominant and widespread views and opinions within these fields on certain subjects, but this does NOT mean that one expert can extrapolate from this the overall opinion on the field as a whole.

But you've taken a quote from one person who indicates their opinion on the view being held by most of the scholars, a point you extrapolated even further based on your own biases. Doubly erroneous.

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.

You just keep doubling down and say the same thing, that has no substance besides your appeal to authority. Meanwhile, you've been given adequate rebuttal from multiple people to point out the folly and ignorance in your assumption.

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
01-06-2016, 08:04 PM
About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 08:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 07:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  A familiarity with the scholarship on a given subject is enough infer what the predominant view of a particular topic is, an official survey is not needed.

One of the foremost experts on Josephus is familiar with scholarship in that area, and stated that authentic is the near universal view amongst scholars.

Other scholars are also cited in the wiki, who reiterate the same point.

As long we don't assume they're lying, or are not familiar with the scholarship, this is proof for any reasonable person to conclude that the consensus amongst scholarship is authenticity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Special pleading. The bias and overreaching in your assumption has already been pointed out.

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 works this way for any and all fields of study. There may be dominant and widespread views and opinions within these fields on certain subjects, but this does NOT mean that one expert can extrapolate from this the overall opinion on the field as a whole.

But you've taken a quote from one person who indicates their opinion on the view being held by most of the scholars, a point you extrapolated even further based on your own biases. Doubly erroneous.

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.

You just keep doubling down and say the same thing, that has no substance besides your appeal to authority. Meanwhile, you've been given adequate rebuttal from multiple people to point out the folly and ignorance in your assumption.


No I've quoted someone who is an expert in that area of scholarship who is familiar with scholarship in that area, who stayed what the predominant view amongst the scholarship is.

In fact the wiki quote contained several other scholars that made similar assessments.

Any reasonable person is able to deduce from this that this is the predominant view of the scholarship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
01-06-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 08:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 08:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Special pleading. The bias and overreaching in your assumption has already been pointed out.

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 works this way for any and all fields of study. There may be dominant and widespread views and opinions within these fields on certain subjects, but this does NOT mean that one expert can extrapolate from this the overall opinion on the field as a whole.

But you've taken a quote from one person who indicates their opinion on the view being held by most of the scholars, a point you extrapolated even further based on your own biases. Doubly erroneous.

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.

You just keep doubling down and say the same thing, that has no substance besides your appeal to authority. Meanwhile, you've been given adequate rebuttal from multiple people to point out the folly and ignorance in your assumption.


No I've quoted someone who is an expert in that area of scholarship who is familiar with scholarship in that area, who stayed what the predominant view amongst the scholarship is.

In fact the wiki quote contained several other scholars that made similar assessments.

Any reasonable person is able to deduce from this that this is the predominant view of the scholarship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Repetition

Continue to appeal to authority.

Quote mining

Repetition

Extrapolating from one person's opinion a belief in the opinion of all experts in a field of study (I don't even know if there is a fallacy for something this stupid)

Repetition

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: