Was TF inserted?

[achilles12604]

Goat is of the opinion that the Testimonium Flavianum, attributed to Josephus was a total invention and insertion by Christian copiests. I of course do not think so. I think that it was originally penned by Josephus but was "doctored" by later copies.

So I invite the original view to present its case. Then I shall rebut.

[achilles12604]

.

Funny, almost everyone will admit that it was at least modified. That includes very conservative and religious apologists. To me, if it was at least modified, that means that someone felt the need to make a forgery. If that is the case, then, it has to be proven that the whole thing is not a forgery, not just specific pieces of rhetoric.

I agree. If parts were “modified” the entire work is suspect. Surely there is other “evidence” of such important matters other than bible stories, isn’t there?

Which, of course, brings up the concern, WHY would someone feel the need to do a forgery to begin with? To me, it means that person was insecure about the historic declarations of their own faith.

Excellent point. Why was it necessary for anyone to manufacture “evidence” regarding Jesus if he was real, literal, and who he was claimed to have been?

The need to manufacture evidence indicates fraud in the original claim.

Since, there was obvious motivation to need to insert things in that passage, you have to demonstrate with any kind of real evidence (not excuses), that it wasn't a total insertion. All I get are excuses, no evidence.

Agreed. All that is EVER presented in defense of religious claims is a series of excuses – excuses for why there is no evidence that the most important event in history (if it was true) actually occurred as claimed.

ZZ - A simple question for you then.



Do you REALLY feel it wise to assume that all claims of a particular nature (IE - results of a war, accounts of a teacher, accounts by a particular group, etc) should be regarded as guilty until proven innocent? If we did this, how much history would we REALLY have?

I find it interesting that you seem to hold religion to a different standard than the rest of secular history. Why?

[Zzyzx]

.

ZZ - A simple question for you then.

Do you REALLY feel it wise to assume that all claims of a particular nature (IE - results of a war, accounts of a teacher, accounts by a particular group, etc) should be regarded as guilty until proven innocent?

Achilles, do you ASSUME that I regard "all claims of a particular nature . . . should be regarded as guilty until proven innocent"?

Can you quote a statement of mine to that effect -- OR are you making up a postition and crediting it to me? (That is known as a straw man error in logic).

Kindly quote any statements I have made regarding "guilt" or "innocence" -- or acknowledge that you have made up issue.

If we did this, how much history would we REALLY have?

If we question what we are told regarding history and all other topics we may not accept great volumes of what is presented. However, by questioning we strive toward accuracy. Is that a problem?

I find it interesting that you seem to hold religion to a different standard than the rest of secular history. Why?

What statements of mine reflect what I do or do not accept as historical? I make few comments regarding history other than to question claims made by others (typically Christians attempting to claim their religious stories are historical).

[achilles12604]

.

ZZ - A simple question for you then.

Do you REALLY feel it wise to assume that all claims of a particular nature (IE - results of a war, accounts of a teacher, accounts by a particular group, etc) should be regarded as guilty until proven innocent?

Achilles, do you ASSUME that I regard "all claims of a particular nature . . . should be regarded as guilty until proven innocent"?

Can you quote a statement of mine to that effect -- OR are you making up a postition and crediting it to me? (That is known as a straw man error in logic).

Kindly quote any statements I have made regarding "guilt" or "innocence" -- or acknowledge that you have made up issue.

If we did this, how much history would we REALLY have?

If we question what we are told regarding history and all other topics we may not accept great volumes of what is presented. However, by questioning we strive toward accuracy. Is that a problem?

I find it interesting that you seem to hold religion to a different standard than the rest of secular history. Why?

What statements of mine reflect what I do or do not accept as historical? I make few comments regarding history other than to question claims made by others (typically Christians attempting to claim their religious stories are historical).

Are you honestly saying that You hold all religious and secular historical events to the same standard?

If so you are one of the few. And I salute you

Also,

All that is EVER presented in defense of religious claims is a series of excuses – excuses for why there is no evidence that the most important event in history (if it was true) actually occurred as claimed.

this quote seems to indicate that you have made up your mind about this subject as it applies to religion. After all if you are concluding that excuses are all that is presented then your mind has been made up on the subject and you are in danger of arguing in a circle.

How about this. Review my FIRST discussion with Goat and then you answer the questions I posed


1) What reason would there be for the early church fathers to have quoted this particular passage?

Keep in mind that I will bring up that the writings of the church fathers all discuss heresies and interpretation of scriptures. So Goat's excuse of "Well it mentions Jesus so they should have quoted it" simply doesn't cut it. What REASON would they have had?

Or in other words, what benefit would have they gained in supporting their position by quoting this section as evidence?


If this passage offered nothing to their arguments, then how can you legitimently that I am making an excuse?



While you are at it feel free to answer post 12 as well. Goat doesn't seem interesting in defending his own claims.

[achilles12604]

I would like to refresh everyone's memory here for a second.

Goat was the person who made the claim that the TF was a total insertion. Not me.

Burden of proof = Goat.



Then He put forth his 5 points of evidence for his claim.

I began addressing them. I skipped the first one on purpose because it is closely related to my own evidence.

I then addressed number two. The answer to my question was basically "just because" which I find lacking.

I then addressed his third point. He has yet to reply.


However through this entire thing he continually asserts that I do not have any evidence to support MY position even though he made the original claim.

I have points which support my rendition of events. I will come to them just as I said in my very first couple posts. I wanted to give Goat a chance to support HIS claims first which so far he seems reluctant to do.

Now if I missed anything please let me know. Just a reminder that the burden of proof is not always on the Christian theist.

[Goat]

I would like to refresh everyone's memory here for a second.

Goat was the person who made the claim that the TF was a total insertion. Not me.

Burden of proof = Goat.



Then He put forth his 5 points of evidence for his claim.

I began addressing them. I skipped the first one on purpose because it is closely related to my own evidence.

I then addressed number two. The answer to my question was basically "just because" which I find lacking.

I then addressed his third point. He has yet to reply.


However through this entire thing he continually asserts that I do not have any evidence to support MY position even though he made the original claim.

I have points which support my rendition of events. I will come to them just as I said in my very first couple posts. I wanted to give Goat a chance to support HIS claims first which so far he seems reluctant to do.

Now if I missed anything please let me know. Just a reminder that the burden of proof is not always on the Christian theist.

On the contrary. Evidence was provided that it was at the very most manipulated. Then, it was shown that a number of apologists who used Antiquities (including from 3 passages earlier about John the Baptist), did not know about this passage. Origen apparently JUMPED on Antiquities 20, and used Antiquities 18 when discussing John the Baptist didn't know. Yes, it is the arguement from silence, but this passage would have fit PERFECTLY in with some of the points he was trying to make.

From "early christian writings'


Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)


and also

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.


And
Steve Mason indicates several ways in which the Testimonium deviates from Josephan style.

First, Mason writes:

It uses words in ways that are not characteristic of Josephus. For example, the word translated "worker" in the phrase "worker of incredible deeds" is poietes in Greek, from which we get "poet." Etymologically, it means "one who does" and so it can refer to any sort of "doer." But in Josephus' day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) - to speak of Greek poets like Homer. (p. 169)

Second, Mason observes:

Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169)

Third, Mason argues:

Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signfies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170)

Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.


and

Olson writes:

In Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS.

Olson states:

The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" (A.J. 12.87) rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23)

Olson argues:

Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).

Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."

[achilles12604]

I would like to refresh everyone's memory here for a second.

Goat was the person who made the claim that the TF was a total insertion. Not me.

Burden of proof = Goat.



Then He put forth his 5 points of evidence for his claim.

I began addressing them. I skipped the first one on purpose because it is closely related to my own evidence.

I then addressed number two. The answer to my question was basically "just because" which I find lacking.

I then addressed his third point. He has yet to reply.


However through this entire thing he continually asserts that I do not have any evidence to support MY position even though he made the original claim.

I have points which support my rendition of events. I will come to them just as I said in my very first couple posts. I wanted to give Goat a chance to support HIS claims first which so far he seems reluctant to do.

Now if I missed anything please let me know. Just a reminder that the burden of proof is not always on the Christian theist.

Ok let's pick a topic first. You have cited multiple topics all at once.

Topic one - Argument from silence. . .

On the contrary. Evidence was provided that it was at the very most manipulated. Then, it was shown that a number of apologists who used Antiquities (including from 3 passages earlier about John the Baptist), did not know about this passage. Origen apparently JUMPED on Antiquities 20, and used Antiquities 18 when discussing John the Baptist didn't know. Yes, it is the arguement from silence, but this passage would have fit PERFECTLY in with some of the points he was trying to make.

and also

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

Topic Two - Content and context of Josephus writings

From "early christian writings'


Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)

Topic three - The style of Josephus and the TF

And
Steve Mason indicates several ways in which the Testimonium deviates from Josephan style.

First, Mason writes:

It uses words in ways that are not characteristic of Josephus. For example, the word translated "worker" in the phrase "worker of incredible deeds" is poietes in Greek, from which we get "poet." Etymologically, it means "one who does" and so it can refer to any sort of "doer." But in Josephus' day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) - to speak of Greek poets like Homer. (p. 169)

Second, Mason observes:

Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169)

Third, Mason argues:

Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signfies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170)

Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.

and

Olson writes:

In Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS.

Olson states:

The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" (A.J. 12.87) rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23)

Olson argues:

Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).

Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."

The vast majority of your evidence comes from the style of writing. Then you cite argument from silence and context of the passage. These last two I have addressed already but I am happy to continue going over them if you like.

Please just give me a reason why the early fathers you quoted SHOULD have cited this passage in their writings. Where would it have benifited them to do so? What would their points have gained?

I of course gave another example of this with Origen. He cited the passage about James because it showed one reason for the Jewish downfall which of course was his primary topic.

Surely you can do the same concerning where the TF would have been good evidence for a point being made by the early fathers?


Also if you would kindly address post 12, we can examine if indeed the TF is out of place. I took the time to pull this entire section out for everyone to look at. I took the time to break down each and every paragraph and summarize what the subject matter was.

The least you can do is tell everyone which paragraph seems to be out of place and why.



Or if you like we can progress onto the style of writing. Which topic shall we approach in detail?

1) Argument from silence and why it is or is not valid (notice I did not say TRUE but rather valid)

2) Context of the passage

3) Style of writing

[Goat]

I would like to refresh everyone's memory here for a second.

Goat was the person who made the claim that the TF was a total insertion. Not me.

Burden of proof = Goat.



Then He put forth his 5 points of evidence for his claim.

I began addressing them. I skipped the first one on purpose because it is closely related to my own evidence.

I then addressed number two. The answer to my question was basically "just because" which I find lacking.

I then addressed his third point. He has yet to reply.


However through this entire thing he continually asserts that I do not have any evidence to support MY position even though he made the original claim.

I have points which support my rendition of events. I will come to them just as I said in my very first couple posts. I wanted to give Goat a chance to support HIS claims first which so far he seems reluctant to do.

Now if I missed anything please let me know. Just a reminder that the burden of proof is not always on the Christian theist.

Ok let's pick a topic first. You have cited multiple topics all at once.

Topic one - Argument from silence. . .

One point that you REFUSE to acknowledge is that arguement from silence can be a good arguement. It all depends on how much evidence there is. IN this case, we have 2 centuries of silence from people who were familiar with Josephus, and who
had motivation to use that passage if it existed. The silence is deafening.

So, what evidence do you have that it WASN'T inserted, being we know that it was at the very least tampered with? Nothing but speculation, and trying to explain that silence away.

On the contrary. Evidence was provided that it was at the very most manipulated. Then, it was shown that a number of apologists who used Antiquities (including from 3 passages earlier about John the Baptist), did not know about this passage. Origen apparently JUMPED on Antiquities 20, and used Antiquities 18 when discussing John the Baptist didn't know. Yes, it is the arguement from silence, but this passage would have fit PERFECTLY in with some of the points he was trying to make.

and also

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

Topic Two - Content and context of Josephus writings

From "early christian writings'


Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)

Topic three - The style of Josephus and the TF

And
Steve Mason indicates several ways in which the Testimonium deviates from Josephan style.

First, Mason writes:

It uses words in ways that are not characteristic of Josephus. For example, the word translated "worker" in the phrase "worker of incredible deeds" is poietes in Greek, from which we get "poet." Etymologically, it means "one who does" and so it can refer to any sort of "doer." But in Josephus' day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) - to speak of Greek poets like Homer. (p. 169)

Second, Mason observes:

Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169)

Third, Mason argues:

Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signfies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170)

Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.

and

Olson writes:

In Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS.

Olson states:

The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" (A.J. 12.87) rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23)

Olson argues:

Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).

Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."

The vast majority of your evidence comes from the style of writing. Then you cite argument from silence and context of the passage. These last two I have addressed already but I am happy to continue going over them if you like.

Please just give me a reason why the early fathers you quoted SHOULD have cited this passage in their writings. Where would it have benifited them to do so? What would their points have gained?

I of course gave another example of this with Origen. He cited the passage about James because it showed one reason for the Jewish downfall which of course was his primary topic.

Surely you can do the same concerning where the TF would have been good evidence for a point being made by the early fathers?


Also if you would kindly address post 12, we can examine if indeed the TF is out of place. I took the time to pull this entire section out for everyone to look at. I took the time to break down each and every paragraph and summarize what the subject matter was.

The least you can do is tell everyone which paragraph seems to be out of place and why.



Or if you like we can progress onto the style of writing. Which topic shall we approach in detail?

1) Argument from silence and why it is or is not valid (notice I did not say TRUE but rather valid)

2) Context of the passage

3) Style of writing

The argument of silence can be valid when depending on circumstances. While never 100 %, the more you examine the area where there should be evidence, and there is none, that is strong evidence that the lack of evidence is evidence of lack. An example of this is the loc ness monster, and also the lack of camp sites in the desert of the proper age for the exodus.

The 'style of writing' was addressed in the passages I quoted from, as well as the context of the passage.

As for the 'burden of proof',.. it actually , from a logic perspective, got shifted when it was admitted that the passage was tampered with. It NOW becomes the burden of proof of the people who claim it is genuine to provide evidence that it was genuine. We have solid evidence of forgery and insertion. The question is 'how much was insertion.. just words, or the whole passage.

It is up to the people who claim it was just some words to show that there is some reason to think it wasn't the whole passage.

[achilles12604]

One point that you REFUSE to acknowledge is that arguement from silence can be a good arguement. It all depends on how much evidence there is. IN this case, we have 2 centuries of silence from people who were familiar with Josephus, and who
had motivation to use that passage if it existed. The silence is deafening.

So, what evidence do you have that it WASN'T inserted, being we know that it was at the very least tampered with? Nothing but speculation, and trying to explain that silence away.

I don't claim that it can not be a good argument. I do however claim that it is ONLY a good argument in certain circumstances. HENCE I spent the first part of this debate showing that the circumstances around the TF are not favorable for a sound "argument from silence."

Your argument is true for the most part. But there is a huge difference between TRUE and MEANINGFUL.


Shall we go over the AFS section again?

Since we started there a continuation makes sense to me.


I shall provide you with two examples. In the first one you can clearly see that the AFS is both true and valid. In the second, it is true, but invalid as a method for proving a point. (Borrowed without permission from Wiki)

John: Do you know any Spanish?
Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.
John: That's good, because I need to know the Spanish phrase for "Happy Birthday".
Jack: Sorry, I don't have time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. Bye.

Afterwards, Jack continually refuses to give John the Spanish translation, either by ignoring John or by giving excuses. John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well. In other words, John believes that Jack's ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence. Use of argument from silence in this situation is reasonable given the alternatives, that Jack either doesn't want or is afraid to translate, would be unreasonable without more information.

Now as elaborated on by Wikipedia, the REASON that AFS works in these circumstances is because of the reasonable options, (Jack doesn't want to, Jack doesn't have time, Jack doesn't know spanish, etc), many of them are eliminated.

--Jack doesn't want to is still possible but then why doesn't he say so. This option is eliminated.

-- Jack doesn't have time is eliminated because John asks repeatedly during many occasions and it is unlikely that Jack would have been to busy on EVERY occasion John asked.

-- Jack doesn't know spanish is never disproved or impacted by our example. Therefore of the explainations for Jack's refusal, this is the most likely.



On the other hand, there are circumstances where the argument from silence may not work as well.

Here is an easily recognizable example:

Bobby: I know where Mary lives.
Billy: Where?
Bobby: I'm not telling you!
Billy: You're just saying that because you don't know!

Billy's conclusion may not be justified: perhaps Bobby doesn't want to tell him. Their difficult situation could be resolved using a zero-knowledge proof.

The options here are numerous. However as Wiki points out there are other options which have not been disproven like Bobby doesn't want to tell him. Bobby may have a reason for not wanting to tell him. This is explored even more in the next one.

Here is another example using the same argument but in a different context:

John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?
Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
John: What is it?
Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.

When John repeatedly asked for the password, Jack ignores him completely. Thus, using the argument from silence, John concludes that Jack does not actually know the password. Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.

Notice here that Jack ignores John completely. But John can not assume that Jack does not know because Jack is not commenting. There is a REASON that Jack is not responding. This reason (not wanting to reveal information) is totally valid.



Now moving to our debate, I have put forth that while it is true that the early fathers are silent on the TF, they likewise have a good REASON to be silent. I stated this reason is that they had no cause to mention the TF. It didn't aid in their writings or arguments at all and was therefore useless to them.

When Homer wrote the Illiad, he had no reason to mention the city of Palazzolo Acreide. So using your logic we can conclude that he had no knowledge of this city even though he lived and wrote in Greece during it's existence.

Do you still hold that your use of the argument from silence is valid?

[Goat]

One point that you REFUSE to acknowledge is that arguement from silence can be a good arguement. It all depends on how much evidence there is. IN this case, we have 2 centuries of silence from people who were familiar with Josephus, and who
had motivation to use that passage if it existed. The silence is deafening.

So, what evidence do you have that it WASN'T inserted, being we know that it was at the very least tampered with? Nothing but speculation, and trying to explain that silence away.

I don't claim that it can not be a good argument. I do however claim that it is ONLY a good argument in certain circumstances. HENCE I spent the first part of this debate showing that the circumstances around the TF are not favorable for a sound "argument from silence."

In my opinion, the fact that it is admitted that the passage at the very least was tampered with, and the fact those apologists were familar with antiquities, makes the arguement from silence in this case very strong indeed.



Your argument is true for the most part. But there is a huge difference between TRUE and MEANINGFUL.


Shall we go over the AFS section again?

Since we started there a continuation makes sense to me.


I shall provide you with two examples. In the first one you can clearly see that the AFS is both true and valid. In the second, it is true, but invalid as a method for proving a point. (Borrowed without permission from Wiki)

John: Do you know any Spanish?
Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.
John: That's good, because I need to know the Spanish phrase for "Happy Birthday".
Jack: Sorry, I don't have time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. Bye.

Afterwards, Jack continually refuses to give John the Spanish translation, either by ignoring John or by giving excuses. John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well. In other words, John believes that Jack's ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence. Use of argument from silence in this situation is reasonable given the alternatives, that Jack either doesn't want or is afraid to translate, would be unreasonable without more information.

Now as elaborated on by Wikipedia, the REASON that AFS works in these circumstances is because of the reasonable options, (Jack doesn't want to, Jack doesn't have time, Jack doesn't know spanish, etc), many of them are eliminated.

--Jack doesn't want to is still possible but then why doesn't he say so. This option is eliminated.

-- Jack doesn't have time is eliminated because John asks repeatedly during many occasions and it is unlikely that Jack would have been to busy on EVERY occasion John asked.

-- Jack doesn't know spanish is never disproved or impacted by our example. Therefore of the explainations for Jack's refusal, this is the most likely.



On the other hand, there are circumstances where the argument from silence may not work as well.

Here is an easily recognizable example:

Bobby: I know where Mary lives.
Billy: Where?
Bobby: I'm not telling you!
Billy: You're just saying that because you don't know!

Billy's conclusion may not be justified: perhaps Bobby doesn't want to tell him. Their difficult situation could be resolved using a zero-knowledge proof.

The options here are numerous. However as Wiki points out there are other options which have not been disproven like Bobby doesn't want to tell him. Bobby may have a reason for not wanting to tell him. This is explored even more in the next one.

Here is another example using the same argument but in a different context:

John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?
Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
John: What is it?
Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.

When John repeatedly asked for the password, Jack ignores him completely. Thus, using the argument from silence, John concludes that Jack does not actually know the password. Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.

Notice here that Jack ignores John completely. But John can not assume that Jack does not know because Jack is not commenting. There is a REASON that Jack is not responding. This reason (not wanting to reveal information) is totally valid.



Now moving to our debate, I have put forth that while it is true that the early fathers are silent on the TF, they likewise have a good REASON to be silent. I stated this reason is that they had no cause to mention the TF. It didn't aid in their writings or arguments at all and was therefore useless to them.

When Homer wrote the Illiad, he had no reason to mention the city of Palazzolo Acreide. So using your logic we can conclude that he had no knowledge of this city even though he lived and wrote in Greece during it's existence.

Do you still hold that your use of the argument from silence is valid?[/quote]

Yes, I do. You see, each and ever one of those people who were mentioned not only showed there were familiar with Antiquities, but also had motivation to show about references to Jesus were there. The 'stripped down' version of the account of Jesus was very neutral toward him. However, in ever other case where Josephus talked about a messanic figure, he was highly critical. He knew what side his bread was buttered on.

It isn't just one or two people that were silent , but all those apologists had motivation to talk about 'see, Josephus talked about Jesus and the disciples'.

You see, talking about Jesus was what the apologists were all about. They had the motivation, they had the familiarity with Antiquities, and there wasn't just one or two, but a number of them, over a 200 year period.

[achilles12604]

Yes, I do. You see, each and ever one of those people who were mentioned not only showed there were familiar with Antiquities, but also had motivation to show about references to Jesus were there.

GREAT!!

So what was their motivation? How would citing this passage assist in their arguments?

Please cite examples like "Justin Martyr's argument about ______ would have been much more solid if he had cited the TF"

If you can do this, I will be impressed because all of the writings I am familiar with (which I admit isn't all of them) address heresies, and theology. None of them would have benefited from citing this passage. Citing this passage was pointless until much later.

The 'stripped down' version of the account of Jesus was very neutral toward him. However, in ever other case where Josephus talked about a messanic figure, he was highly critical. He knew what side his bread was buttered on.

It isn't just one or two people that were silent , but all those apologists had motivation to talk about 'see, Josephus talked about Jesus and the disciples'.

You see, talking about Jesus was what the apologists were all about. They had the motivation, they had the familiarity with Antiquities, and there wasn't just one or two, but a number of them, over a 200 year period.

Before we jump to this conclusion let us see your examples of the early fathers "motivation"s. This is after all what the validity of your argument from silence hinges on.

If they did not have any motivation or reason to cite this passage, if it does not strengthen the cases they made in any significant way, then your argument from silence falls flat. If they SHOULD have cited this passage and it would have strengthened some argument they were making as evidence, then your claim is valid.