Did a holy man named Jesus exist?
Achilles Sophia Onomatos achillesz@usa.net
Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:36:02 -0400 (00904966562, 22360268205810@cfagroup.com)
<snip>
>> People who think the reference is specious : everybody else, Christian and
>> non-Christian alike.
>
>M.BELL
>Your research and knowledge of the facts is sloppy.
>
>1. You refer to 'the reference*, when there is actually
>two references. There is little or no dispute on the
>Antiquities 20.9.1. passage.
<snip>
>'People who think the reference in Josephus is authentic
>and a reference to the Jesus of the NT : inerrantists
>
>People who think the reference is specious : everybody else, Christian and
>non-Christian alike.'
>
>His opening lines on this page put egg all over your
>face,
>
>'I consider the evidence from Flavius Josephus to be fairly
>decisive with respect to the historicity of the man Yeshu
>bar Yosef (Jesus).'
>
>
><snip for brevity>
>
>Thanks
>M.Bell
Have now read through your reference.
First off I feel certain from the context that when elf referred to "the
reference" what was referred to was 18.3.3. 20.9.1 IS as far as I know
generally accepted as authentic, it is also not sufficient to prove that the
Jesus of the xtian religion was an actual person. It does strongly suggest
that to me, and is the basis of my own belief that the Jesus of the xtian
religion was an actual person. It seems that your source holds the same
opinion for the same reason. But 18.3.3 says very little, the names involved
are common, and as a singular reference it certainly falls short of proof by
any standard, however suggestive it is.
Re: 18.3.3 however, your reference does not assert what you say it does.
"Unlike the text of Antiquities 20.9.1, opinion on the authenticity of this
passage is varied. According to Feldman's discernible statistics (Feldman,
Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984):
4 scholars regard the Testimonium Flavianum as completely genuine, 6 more as
mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations [my view], 9 with
several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation."
Your source accepts it *with some interpolations.* He does not think that it
is authentic in full, he believes that the reference *in some form* is
original, but also that it has been clearly tampered with and it's current
reading is definately not authentic.
His argument is against the many scholars who write that passage off as
totally spurious, and he provides good reasons to find it more reasonable to
believe that a reference was there in the original, but it's original
wording is lost because of a substantial interpolation at a later date. The
reference is thus still "specious" for the purposes of your argument, as elf
said.
Achilles
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
mittam.