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]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

Not until you can answer this one point.

The evidence at the very least, it was tampered with.
There is no evidence it existed before the point at which it was tampered with.

Until then, you have nothing.

My first section addresses most of your "evidence" about this subject.

You said that there was no mention before 300 CE. However, I have asked you why there SHOULD be mention of this passage.

Your reply is basically that they SHOULD have mentioned TF, or they would have wanted to mention TF because it talks about Jesus.

This is a really poor "reason" Goat.

If you had said that they should have cited it as evidence for something, then you would have been wrong, but at least THAT is a good reason.

If you had said that they should have cited is because it commented on the heresy they were writing against, then you would have again been wrong, but at least THAT ALSO would have been a reason.

But your final answer (after 3 other tries) was that they should have written about this passage ONLY because it talks about Jesus. This, is begging the question and really a very poor excuse for a reason. It is because it is. Terrible reasoning.

Now since there really is no reason for the early fathers to mention the TF, your demanding that they write something is about 2000 years out of date. Go take it up with them.

I am going to get to the rest of your objections as they come. But I have debated you before and I know you are notorious for demanding evidence which by ancient standards SHOULDN'T exist. And then you question why. This type of thinking is great for the "illogical demands" thread.


In short Goat, there is no evidence of this passage being quoted before 300 CE because there is no reason for it to be cited before 300 CE.


Fear not, I have reasons for thinking that the TF was an original document by Josephus. I gave you the first shot. Now let me reply. Post 12 please.

Repeating rationalizations is meaningless. You either have the evidence, or you don't.

You don't .. You have rationalizations. Period. No evidence. Just wishful thinking.

Now, let me expand this.

What evidence from ANY source what so ever that this particular passage existed from before the 4th century. It can be secular, it can be early church fathers, it can be a jewish source. ANY source. Period.

Why won't you respond to post 12?

[Goat]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

Not until you can answer this one point.

The evidence at the very least, it was tampered with.
There is no evidence it existed before the point at which it was tampered with.

Until then, you have nothing.

My first section addresses most of your "evidence" about this subject.

You said that there was no mention before 300 CE. However, I have asked you why there SHOULD be mention of this passage.

Your reply is basically that they SHOULD have mentioned TF, or they would have wanted to mention TF because it talks about Jesus.

This is a really poor "reason" Goat.

If you had said that they should have cited it as evidence for something, then you would have been wrong, but at least THAT is a good reason.

If you had said that they should have cited is because it commented on the heresy they were writing against, then you would have again been wrong, but at least THAT ALSO would have been a reason.

But your final answer (after 3 other tries) was that they should have written about this passage ONLY because it talks about Jesus. This, is begging the question and really a very poor excuse for a reason. It is because it is. Terrible reasoning.

Now since there really is no reason for the early fathers to mention the TF, your demanding that they write something is about 2000 years out of date. Go take it up with them.

I am going to get to the rest of your objections as they come. But I have debated you before and I know you are notorious for demanding evidence which by ancient standards SHOULDN'T exist. And then you question why. This type of thinking is great for the "illogical demands" thread.


In short Goat, there is no evidence of this passage being quoted before 300 CE because there is no reason for it to be cited before 300 CE.


Fear not, I have reasons for thinking that the TF was an original document by Josephus. I gave you the first shot. Now let me reply. Post 12 please.

Repeating rationalizations is meaningless. You either have the evidence, or you don't.

You don't .. You have rationalizations. Period. No evidence. Just wishful thinking.

Now, let me expand this.

What evidence from ANY source what so ever that this particular passage existed from before the 4th century. It can be secular, it can be early church fathers, it can be a jewish source. ANY source. Period.

Why won't you respond to post 12?

I DID respond to it.

[achilles12604]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

Not until you can answer this one point.

The evidence at the very least, it was tampered with.
There is no evidence it existed before the point at which it was tampered with.

Until then, you have nothing.

My first section addresses most of your "evidence" about this subject.

You said that there was no mention before 300 CE. However, I have asked you why there SHOULD be mention of this passage.

Your reply is basically that they SHOULD have mentioned TF, or they would have wanted to mention TF because it talks about Jesus.

This is a really poor "reason" Goat.

If you had said that they should have cited it as evidence for something, then you would have been wrong, but at least THAT is a good reason.

If you had said that they should have cited is because it commented on the heresy they were writing against, then you would have again been wrong, but at least THAT ALSO would have been a reason.

But your final answer (after 3 other tries) was that they should have written about this passage ONLY because it talks about Jesus. This, is begging the question and really a very poor excuse for a reason. It is because it is. Terrible reasoning.

Now since there really is no reason for the early fathers to mention the TF, your demanding that they write something is about 2000 years out of date. Go take it up with them.

I am going to get to the rest of your objections as they come. But I have debated you before and I know you are notorious for demanding evidence which by ancient standards SHOULDN'T exist. And then you question why. This type of thinking is great for the "illogical demands" thread.


In short Goat, there is no evidence of this passage being quoted before 300 CE because there is no reason for it to be cited before 300 CE.


Fear not, I have reasons for thinking that the TF was an original document by Josephus. I gave you the first shot. Now let me reply. Post 12 please.

Repeating rationalizations is meaningless. You either have the evidence, or you don't.

You don't .. You have rationalizations. Period. No evidence. Just wishful thinking.

Now, let me expand this.

What evidence from ANY source what so ever that this particular passage existed from before the 4th century. It can be secular, it can be early church fathers, it can be a jewish source. ANY source. Period.

Why won't you respond to post 12?

I DID respond to it.

I'm sorry. I must have missed it. What post was your response?

[achilles12604]

Hello? Goat?

[ST_JB]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

Not until you can answer this one point.

The evidence at the very least, it was tampered with.
There is no evidence it existed before the point at which it was tampered with.

Until then, you have nothing.

My first section addresses most of your "evidence" about this subject.

You said that there was no mention before 300 CE. However, I have asked you why there SHOULD be mention of this passage.

Your reply is basically that they SHOULD have mentioned TF, or they would have wanted to mention TF because it talks about Jesus.

This is a really poor "reason" Goat.

If you had said that they should have cited it as evidence for something, then you would have been wrong, but at least THAT is a good reason.

If you had said that they should have cited is because it commented on the heresy they were writing against, then you would have again been wrong, but at least THAT ALSO would have been a reason.

But your final answer (after 3 other tries) was that they should have written about this passage ONLY because it talks about Jesus. This, is begging the question and really a very poor excuse for a reason. It is because it is. Terrible reasoning.

Now since there really is no reason for the early fathers to mention the TF, your demanding that they write something is about 2000 years out of date. Go take it up with them.

I am going to get to the rest of your objections as they come. But I have debated you before and I know you are notorious for demanding evidence which by ancient standards SHOULDN'T exist. And then you question why. This type of thinking is great for the "illogical demands" thread.


In short Goat, there is no evidence of this passage being quoted before 300 CE because there is no reason for it to be cited before 300 CE.


Fear not, I have reasons for thinking that the TF was an original document by Josephus. I gave you the first shot. Now let me reply. Post 12 please.

Repeating rationalizations is meaningless. You either have the evidence, or you don't.

You don't .. You have rationalizations. Period. No evidence. Just wishful thinking.

Now, let me expand this.

What evidence from ANY source what so ever that this particular passage existed from before the 4th century. It can be secular, it can be early church fathers, it can be a jewish source. ANY source. Period.

Ok. Let me remind you then what had transpired from our last encounter regarding the subject.

Here it is....

PAGE 26, Post 254: Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:15 pm

The problem with antiquities 18... even the most ardent believers admit it was at least modified. Being that is the case, can you show any evidence this passage
existed before the quotation from Euriiebus in the 4th century?

As for Antiquities 20, it is unproblematic for Josephus using the term 'Christ' without any kind of further explanation. His intended audience was the Roman
gentile population. In Latin, the Christ would have meant 'anointed' or wetted.
For them, that would not have made any sense to his intended audience. Combine that fact, with the fact that Josephus very carefully kept away from the messiah
concept from Judaism, that the phrase' 'Brother of jesus , the one called Christ is exactly how it is phrase in a couple of the Gospels shows that it is very likely this
phrase is a copiers gloss. If you took the 'one called Christ' out of the picture, the
'brother of Jesus' would be a different Jesus that was one of the high priests in the temple (in context).

Since you mentioned Ant. 18 first, lets see you have come up with evidence this passage existed before the 4th century. You have to explain why Origien , who used antiquities 18 as a reference with John the Baptist didn't mention this phrase.
He did make a big deal about antiquities 20.. why not 18?

Josephus was also writing 60 years after the crucifixion. He hardly could be called contemporary to the events in any case. Between the suspect nature of the passages, and the time frame after the supposed event, Josephus is hardly good
evidence of a historical Jesus.

I will deal all your statement as one and the same since we are talking the same material here.

Our information of history does not depend simply on forgotten time, but on the reliability and availability of records. The earliest Christian literature, the letter of Paul gives us ideas of the “form” in which the teachings about Jesus are handed down to every Christian convert those time. The “form” I was talking about is evidently coming in “oral” tradition as “creed”.

Since we cannot reproduce or test for experimentation what transpired in history, all we can do is to reconstruct the evidence we have such as documents and archaeological sites & artifacts. Historical documents depend to the writer’s choice of what to include in his writings. Sad to say many of these documents were destroyed or lost in time.

Subjectively, information passed unto history is filtered by philosophical, religious belief and cultural values of the historians/writers and readers of their subjective interpretations, as well.

It is true that Antiquities 18 is disputed by scholars and most likely comes from an altered source. Some says it was emended by scribes intentionally. Others claim by Christian scribes and others by Eusebius himself. But none of these were 100% certain.

NOTE:

While we have this evidence from Josephus, I am yet to see your counter evidence on Jesus' existence from ancient sources... i.e. Historical writings, secular sources or achaeological artifacts.

Nevertheless, as you requested... I shall substantiate Josephus writings with other secular sources... this time i will present the Roman historian who was regarded as one of the best in his field during his time as a Roman Senator and his postion prior to ascension to the high office.



Now, let us look in another secular source.

In Antiquities 18, there are some important points to remember before we proceed to our next evidence, these are:

1. He was so called Christ
2. Condemend to the cross by Pilate
3. A group of believers named after Christ called Christians
4. This group continue to cause trouble (as alledged)


Now, given these points from the writing of Josephus, let turn our reading to the next ancient documents from one of the acknowledged personality during his time in the Roman Empire. A great historian and orator named TACITUS, A.D. 55 - A.D. 117. He wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars

In his Annals 15.44

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Here, all those points i have mentioned in from the writings of Josephus were also evidently present here in our second evidence.

everyone can search and read from reliable sources in the internet who TACITUS was in his time. His connections to Roman authorities, his greatness in his own field, his status, his intelligence as a person and his credibility as a Roman historian.

We are areading here an evidence directly coming from the critic of the early christian faith. If Christ did not live in flesh, why would he refer to him as the founder who was executed by the roman authorities? The personalities, the places and other historical accounts in the bible shares the same information with this evidences we are reading in here.

Now, I would like to see more than cynical answers to these evidences presented. A written, probably a documents from ancient historians supporting the statement that such Jesus was only a myth. Did not exist and only a made up stories by its forerunners. I have yet to see such documents.

By the way, G.A. Wells, the forerunner of the Christ-myth theory already abandoned his position in favor of Jesus' existence in flesh after indulging a deeper study on the evidences.






______________________
The degree of one's emotion varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts - the less you know the hotter you get." --Bertrand Russell

For further reading.... Click Link>>>> HERE

[Goat]

[
For further reading.... Click Link>>>> HERE

And you know what all that is, when boiled down, ....


No evidence that it existed before the 4th century, but excuses why it might have been overlooked. The excuses are lame.

The vocabulary and style of the 'simplified' one does not match Jospehus. there Is
zero refrences to this passage before the 4th century.

Talking about Tacitus has no bearing on the TF at all. That is a not part of this thread.. and can be addressed separately.

Oh, and repeating what TF says does not address weather it was modified or if it was inserted. Are you using the technique of 'if I repeat a lie often enough it becomes true'??

[ST_JB]

[
For further reading.... Click Link>>>> HERE

And you know what all that is, when boiled down, ....


No evidence that it existed before the 4th century, but excuses why it might have been overlooked. The excuses are lame.

The vocabulary and style of the 'simplified' one does not match Jospehus. there Is
zero refrences to this passage before the 4th century.

Talking about Tacitus has no bearing on the TF at all. That is a not part of this thread.. and can be addressed separately.

Oh, and repeating what TF says does not address weather it was modified or if it was inserted. Are you using the technique of 'if I repeat a lie often enough it becomes true'??

I'm wondering how could you be so blind and not to see the implications of what these two different writers have in common in their works.

They are world's apart in terms of cultural, religious, philosophical and historical background. But had written one and the same information about Jesus and his followers called Christians.

TF is not an invention out from nowhere, I admit the possibility of some interpolation or an edited entry but not necessarily a lie or an invention of historical entry.

This should confirm the truthfulness of the information contained in the TF as it conformed to what is written in history outside religious affiliations of both writers. No personal vested interest or whatsoever to manipulate any information in their works.

I hope you could come up with your own verifiable evidence to support your claims. Enough of this cynical statement. There is no means to examine your claims unless you present your sources.

One need not to quote the works of Josephus in his writings just to prove its truthfulness. The mere fact that such information contained in Josephus works can also be found in other secular writing is a compelleing evidence that such entry is not a lie at all.




Unless you give us resources and other justifiable and acceptable forms of evidence to merit your claims against the TF,

[Zzyzx]

.

TF is not an invention out from nowhere, I admit the possibility of some interpolation or an edited entry but not necessarily a lie or an invention of historical entry.

Do you acknowledge that the section of TF that relates to Jesus was inserted or modified?

How much “interpolation or editing” is permissible before a work is substantially or significantly changed from the original?

Using the “reasoning” that editing and interpolation” is acceptable or does not change the original, would you have any objection to me editing and interpolating your writings before they are posted? If not, you understand why such activities are not acceptable in documents in general.

This should confirm the truthfulness of the information contained in the TF as it conformed to what is written in history outside religious affiliations of both writers.

An “edited and interpolated” account can be made to say anything. The whole writing need not be changed, only key sections, in order to change the meaning and intent of what was written.

Here is my “edited and interpolated” version of your post as an example that such practices are NOT acceptable. Bolded words are changes and there are omissions.

I'm wondering how could you be so blind and not to see the implications of what these two different writers disagree about.

They are world's apart.

TF is an invention out from nowhere, I admit the possibility of some interpolation or an edited entry and the presence of a lie or an invention of historical entry

This should confirm the unreliability of the information contained in the TF as it reflects only the religious affiliations of both writers.

There was obvious vested interest to manipulate information in their works.

Has editing and interpolation changed the meaning and the message?


In broader perspective; the greatest event in history, a visit from “our creator” complete with accompanying “miracles” supposedly occurs (according to proponents of one religion) and the only "evidence" offered consists of tales by “believers” and “followers” plus a doctored reference elsewhere.

Something doesn’t ring true about that story. It sounds more like a legend and a religious promotion than an actual event.

[Goat]

[
For further reading.... Click Link>>>> HERE

And you know what all that is, when boiled down, ....


No evidence that it existed before the 4th century, but excuses why it might have been overlooked. The excuses are lame.

The vocabulary and style of the 'simplified' one does not match Jospehus. there Is
zero refrences to this passage before the 4th century.

Talking about Tacitus has no bearing on the TF at all. That is a not part of this thread.. and can be addressed separately.

Oh, and repeating what TF says does not address weather it was modified or if it was inserted. Are you using the technique of 'if I repeat a lie often enough it becomes true'??

I'm wondering how could you be so blind and not to see the implications of what these two different writers have in common in their works.

They are world's apart in terms of cultural, religious, philosophical and historical background. But had written one and the same information about Jesus and his followers called Christians.

TF is not an invention out from nowhere, I admit the possibility of some interpolation or an edited entry but not necessarily a lie or an invention of historical entry.

This should confirm the truthfulness of the information contained in the TF as it conformed to what is written in history outside religious affiliations of both writers. No personal vested interest or whatsoever to manipulate any information in their works.

I hope you could come up with your own verifiable evidence to support your claims. Enough of this cynical statement. There is no means to examine your claims unless you present your sources.

One need not to quote the works of Josephus in his writings just to prove its truthfulness. The mere fact that such information contained in Josephus works can also be found in other secular writing is a compelleing evidence that such entry is not a lie at all.




Unless you give us resources and other justifiable and acceptable forms of evidence to merit your claims against the TF,

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.

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.

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.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.