Started By
Message
2
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:40 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
even appealing to those who are flat out telling you that you are.
So, you are the source of truth?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:49 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
So, you are the source of truth?
I've given my sources several times. I'll give them in more detail.
Geza Vermes has performed a detailed analysis of the Testimonium and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.
Géza Vermes or Vermès (Hungarian: ['ge?z? 'v?rm??], 22 June 1924 – 8 May 2013) was a British scholar of Jewish Hungarian origin—one who also served as a Catholic priest in his youth—and writer on religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian. He was a noted authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient works in Aramaic such as the Targums, and on the life and religion of Jesus. He was one of the most important voices in contemporary Jesus research.
James Dunn states that the works of Josephus include two separate references to Jesus and although there are some interpolations in the Testimonium, there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.
James D. G. "Jimmy" Dunn (born 1939) is a leading British New Testament scholar who was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham, now Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He has worked broadly within the Protestant tradition.
Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.
Craig L. Blomberg is a New Testament scholar. He is a Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado where he has been since 1986.
The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery
Kennneth A. Olson, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999
I really don't know what else I can give at this point.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:53 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
So you think that the SECrant and wikipedia is what I will rely on to mold and make changes to my historical beliefs on God from a 5 page thread? If my opinion could be changed that easily I don't deserve to have one at all. I may be wrong, but it most likely will not be because of anything someone does or says on the Off Topic board.
And for the record, Roger Klarven was wrong in his exaggeration. He said "His passage referencing Jesus essentially admits that Jesus was the son if God" That just isn't so. Acknowledging Jesus existed in no way "admits that Jesus was the son of God." A ton of people believe Jesus existed who also think he was NOT the Son of God. The historian Josephus is no different.
For every book cited to your wikipedia copy and past, or your website, there is a book and website directly contrasting your point of view. It is what it is. By existing, I don't believe any of those authors and books mean you're wrong, nor do I believe someone's opinion being cited by wikipedia means I'm wrong. If you think it should convince me otherwise, I'm sorry.
And if u ain't mad, you sho do sound mad with the name calling stuff. Chill out, bro
this isn't that big of a deal.
And for the record, Roger Klarven was wrong in his exaggeration. He said "His passage referencing Jesus essentially admits that Jesus was the son if God" That just isn't so. Acknowledging Jesus existed in no way "admits that Jesus was the son of God." A ton of people believe Jesus existed who also think he was NOT the Son of God. The historian Josephus is no different.
For every book cited to your wikipedia copy and past, or your website, there is a book and website directly contrasting your point of view. It is what it is. By existing, I don't believe any of those authors and books mean you're wrong, nor do I believe someone's opinion being cited by wikipedia means I'm wrong. If you think it should convince me otherwise, I'm sorry.
And if u ain't mad, you sho do sound mad with the name calling stuff. Chill out, bro
this isn't that big of a deal.Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:54 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Geza Vermes has performed a detailed analysis of the Testimonium and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.
quote:
James Dunn states that the works of Josephus include two separate references to Jesus and although there are some interpolations in the Testimonium, there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.
quote:
Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.
quote:
I really don't know what else I can give at this point.
I don't know what you're trying to give in the first place. Sounds like each of the quotes you've given agree that while interpolations may have occurred, the authenticity to the reference of Jesus remains authentic.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:55 pm to Stacked
quote:
Geza Vermes has performed a detailed analysis of the Testimonium and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.
"The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery."
"Alright Straws, got me there."
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:01 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
EDIT: The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the Testimonium is the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the Antiquities. -- And this is why most people are uncertain of which are interpolations. Early Christians are the only sources for which actually copied what he wrote, and they all had, shall we say, a divine conflict of interest.
James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.
James D. G. "Jimmy" Dunn (born 1939) is a leading British New Testament scholar who was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham, now Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He has worked broadly within the Protestant tradition.
Dunn has an MA and BD from the University of Glasgow and a PhD and DD from the University of Cambridge. For 2002, Dunn was the President of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the leading international body for New Testament study. Only three other British scholars had been made President in the preceding 25 years. In 2006 he became a Fellow of the British Academy.
In 2005 a festschrift was published dedicated to Dunn, comprising articles by 27 New Testament scholars, examining early Christian communities and their beliefs about the Holy Spirit. (From Above)
Even Christian scholars admit that it was augmented or had some things omitted, brosky.
James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.
James D. G. "Jimmy" Dunn (born 1939) is a leading British New Testament scholar who was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham, now Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He has worked broadly within the Protestant tradition.
Dunn has an MA and BD from the University of Glasgow and a PhD and DD from the University of Cambridge. For 2002, Dunn was the President of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the leading international body for New Testament study. Only three other British scholars had been made President in the preceding 25 years. In 2006 he became a Fellow of the British Academy.
In 2005 a festschrift was published dedicated to Dunn, comprising articles by 27 New Testament scholars, examining early Christian communities and their beliefs about the Holy Spirit. (From Above)
Even Christian scholars admit that it was augmented or had some things omitted, brosky.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:15 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Here's your problem.
You're stating the part where Dunn references what the passage may look like without his perceived interpolations but you don't actually give his interpretation of the passage without the interpolations.
Let me help you with that. Here is James Dunn's interpretation of the passage without the interpolations.
He STILL believes that, with interpolations omitted, Josephus spoke directly of a man named Jesus that was put to death by Pilate. He's not saying that with interpolations omitted Josephus spoke nothing of Jesus. So what is even your point?
You're stating the part where Dunn references what the passage may look like without his perceived interpolations but you don't actually give his interpretation of the passage without the interpolations.
Let me help you with that. Here is James Dunn's interpretation of the passage without the interpolations.
quote:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
He STILL believes that, with interpolations omitted, Josephus spoke directly of a man named Jesus that was put to death by Pilate. He's not saying that with interpolations omitted Josephus spoke nothing of Jesus. So what is even your point?
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:21 pm to Stacked
quote:
Not one man or theologian speaks for Christianity. Do you realize how many denominations there are. You act like by citing someone who's speaking for all of Christendom that his opinion is bigger than only that of one person.
In academic scholarship there is a consensus that the article has been interpolated.
quote:
And, you're stating the part where Dunn references what the passage may look like without his perceived interpolations but you don't actually give his interpretation of the passage without the interpolations.
Because the scope and scale of the interpolations vary immensely.
quote:
He STILL believes that, with interpolations omitted, Josephus spoke directly of a man named Jesus that was put to death by Pilate. He's not saying that with interpolations omitted Josephus spoke nothing of Jesus. So what is even your point?
The point is: Trying to reconstruct a statement that has no articles before the 11th century and having only Christian origins aren't an adequate source for Jesus.
The trouble, once again, comes from trying to determine what is true and what is not. They can guess
or even make educated guesses but Josephus is not regarded as a strong point for the existence of Jesus simply because wading through his testimony and its differences between texts is very, very difficult.
Most say that there is a reference, but that doesn't really say anything since it came after 60 years and even in spite of that: It's got known forgeries and suspected forgeries.
Dunn is Christian, and states that there are some forgeries (but the mention of Jesus is somehow not), but most agree that the nucleus is okay, just suspect.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:26 pm to Stacked
quote:
I don't know what you're trying to give in the first place. Sounds like each of the quotes you've given agree that while interpolations may have occurred, the authenticity to the reference of Jesus remains authentic.
But why are they authentic? How did they determine this, and how did they determine the interpolations? Do you really believe that early founders of Christianity didn't try to change shite around?
Everything around Jesus has been muddled. The references are almost exact copies of each other, like how most religions get started. Repetition.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:35 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I think it's funny that you treat taking a historian's word who wrote books 60 years after Jesus' death is ridiculous while wondering why I'm being so stubborn by not accepting the opinion of a message board poster 1,980-ish years after Jesus' death.
You've shown wikipedia links of those who suspect forgeries, and then you classify them as "known forgeries." It's those sorts of things that make you look immature in conversations.
I don't suppose you can tell me what the "known forgeries" are word for word, without linking to someone who's talking about what they suspect some interpolations may be, could you? I'd like to hear YOUR assessment of Josephus' references to Jesus. Break it down for us who aren't familiar with these "known forgeries."
quote:
It's got known forgeries.
You've shown wikipedia links of those who suspect forgeries, and then you classify them as "known forgeries." It's those sorts of things that make you look immature in conversations.
I don't suppose you can tell me what the "known forgeries" are word for word, without linking to someone who's talking about what they suspect some interpolations may be, could you? I'd like to hear YOUR assessment of Josephus' references to Jesus. Break it down for us who aren't familiar with these "known forgeries."
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:42 pm to Stacked
quote:
I think it's funny that you treat taking a historian's word who wrote books 60 years after Jesus' death is ridiculous while wondering why I'm being so stubborn by not accepting the opinion of a message board poster 1,980-ish years after Jesus' death.
quote:
I'd like to hear YOUR assessment of Josephus' references to Jesus.
MY position is that of a classical agnostic. I don't think we can say for certain what was authentic, omitted or supplanted and the criterion for doing so by modern scholarship is benign.
JOSEPHUS DOT frickING ORG
Found in all surviving manuscripts Christian content unlikely from a Jewish writer (esp., "He was the Messiah.").
Quoted in full by Eusebius, c. 324 CE Writers earlier than Eusebius do not cite the passage; Origen states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.
A more accepted reference to Jesus in Book 20 indicates that he must have been described earlier in the Antiquities, logically at the discussion of Pilate.
The passage breaks the continuity of the narrative concerning Pilate.
Vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus
There are stylistic peculiarities that are not found in Josephus, such as the use of the first person in "the principal men among us".
No other passage in the Antiquities has been seriously questioned, so the burden of proof is on the skeptics.
Interpolations have been found in isolated manuscripts of Josephus, such as accounts of Jesus in the Slavonic version.
There are tons of arguments for authenticity just as there are tons against it -- I'm more skeptical about this than I am anything else.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:45 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
You left out the part where you show each of the "known forgeries".
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:49 pm to wilkesboothjohn
Roll Tide, randy
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:51 pm to Stacked
quote:
You left out the part where you show each of the "known forgeries".
If you'd read the links that I give you, it'd make your (and my) life much, much easier.
Not only that, but my premise.
You: Josephus mentions Jesus.
Me: In a topic with tons of forgeries.
You: Says Wikipedia.
Me: Says the entire scholarly community.
I'm saying it's indeterminable on what's fact and what's fiction from his writings because it's been tampered with.
And it's known to be tampered with.
Even if what the nucleus says is completely correct, he could easily just be referencing what people have told him. Most of the gospels came out about the same time he wrote this and before then.
That's why they say: IF the passage was true, then it'd be solid evidence for the existence of Jesus.
I have severe doubts with the passage, and don't recognize why certain things are considered invalid and others are not.
I gave you Josephus.Org, which is possibly one of the best references I could because I don't want to explain the entire thing to you like a child.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:01 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
You left it out again. You keep forgetting to actually tell me what the "known forgeries" are. Seems like your real argument is to link to other people who have actually studied what they're talking about and getting frustrated when nobody goes to your links where you hope someone will explain your point of view for you. Maybe nobody is going to your links because they're supposed to be having a conversation with you. If they wanted to follow links they'd go to google.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:07 pm to Stacked
quote:
You left it out again.
I personally think that the whole thing could be considered invalid since it's been tampered with.
I said it three times now, and I'm not saying it again.
Maybe people should read the opposing person's viewpoints and take a class on composition and rhetoric.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:23 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I'm trying to find out the opposing person's viewpoint. Unfortunately, the opposing person wants other people to explain his view for him because he clearly can't do it himself.
I'm not going to try to figure out what you're talking about for you. If you can't explain yourself without other people than you're not worth having a conversation with. Next time, don't use Wikipedia when you're trying to piggyback on someone else's opinion, it starts you off on rocky ground and you aren't going to be able to explain how they came to the conclusion they've come to. Thus being easy to spot that you don't know what you're trying to talk about.
I believe what I believe because I myself have studied it and have come to the conclusion I've come to. I may be wrong but at least my opinion's not a rip off of someone else's work and was formed by myself taking the time to figure out what I believe.
You should have just left it at page 2 with the.
I'm not going to try to figure out what you're talking about for you. If you can't explain yourself without other people than you're not worth having a conversation with. Next time, don't use Wikipedia when you're trying to piggyback on someone else's opinion, it starts you off on rocky ground and you aren't going to be able to explain how they came to the conclusion they've come to. Thus being easy to spot that you don't know what you're trying to talk about.
I believe what I believe because I myself have studied it and have come to the conclusion I've come to. I may be wrong but at least my opinion's not a rip off of someone else's work and was formed by myself taking the time to figure out what I believe.
You should have just left it at page 2 with the
.This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:26 pm to Stacked
quote:
I'm trying to find out the opposing person's viewpoint. Unfortunately, the opposing person wants other people to explain his view for him because he clearly can't do it himself.
You've asked for sources, I've given you sources.
quote:
I'm not going to try to figure out what you're talking about for you.
It's not that hard, Stacked. You just need to have a bit of effort.
The only transcripts we have of the "original" statement are from Christian sources who have a conflict of interest while reporting on them.
They specifically interpolated phrases like "The Messiah" (AS STATED BEFORE SEVERAL TIMES).
I'm saying the sources that copied the text can't be trusted, so the text can't be trusted.
This is really, really simple.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:29 pm to Stacked
Ok now that American Graffiti is over I am gonna put in my meaningless .02.
I believe what I believe and you can't change my mind nor I yours.
You two are bickering to no end because neither of you will change the other's mind but by all means carry on it is entertaining.
I believe what I believe and you can't change my mind nor I yours.
You two are bickering to no end because neither of you will change the other's mind but by all means carry on it is entertaining.
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News