Jesus Christ is the most influential figure on the planet, with more than 2 billion worshippers worldwide and many more who fondly study his teachings. But what if he never existed? Many skeptics have posed this very question, and while true believers scoff at such suggestions, the debate is far from resolved. Jesus may have changed the world, but did he really walk the Earth?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Out of Context: : An Inadequate Argument Against Josephus
- From JP Holding
By J.P. Holding - Founder, Apologetics Ministries
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Josephus and (dis)continuity
Mr Holding is correct to point out the construction method of Josephus. However, he has not gone far enough in his presentation. Josephus certainly obtained materials from different sources, but he also tried to sew them together by time or content. For instance 18.65 starts: "About the same time another outrage threw the Jews into an uproar...". This indicates a prior uproar among the Jews just mentioned by Josephus.
However, the present text doesn't supply such an uproar in the directly preceding material, but in reaction to Pilate's use of temple money in 18.60-62. The material between 18.62 and 18.65 interrupts the discourse connective provided at the beginning of 18.65. Josephus clearly desired to connect the account starting in 18.65 with that ending in 18.62 as two accounts that threw Jews into an uproar. This suggests that the material in 18.63-64 was added by another hand, not interested in Josephus's construction.
- spin December 22, 2008 8:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mr. spin once again fails as he misses a point
Mr. spin once again fails as he misses a point: No one doubts that Josephus “tried” to sew together material; nevertheless, the estimation of Josephan scholars is that he often FAILED to do so in a cohesive way.
To that extent, it is perfectly within bounds to say that the “uproar” Josephus alludes to is indeed the one regarding the use of the temple money. In other words, Josephus’ “patchwork” nature led him to create a remote antecedent for reference to the “uproar.” Mr. spin has not answered the argument but merely confirmed it.
- JP Holding
December 31, 2008 10:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Still not dealing with the issue of discourse
Mr Holding acknowledges that Josephus uses mixed sources. Good. He doesn't acknowledge how Josephus uses those sources, ie the way he sews them together. Bad. We see the care Josephus takes in stitching the passage starting at 18.65 to the previous uproar. We don't see that care with the connection of 18.63f or the break of the existing connection. Mr Holding has no argument, he just has a conclusion.
- spin December 31, 2008 1:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Discourse failure
How Josephus “uses those sources” has been made quite clear – he sews them together “badly.” That is the argument, and the conclusion comes from it. Mr. spin will have to do much more than simply repeat his refuted argument, and certainly will have to explain why he is to be believed over those who have studied Josephus’ work in depth.
- JP Holding
January 2, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Holding up
Claiming refutation without supplying one is as empty as Mr Holding's argument regarding the Testimonium Flavianum.
Mr Holding seems to be tacitly supporting the notion that Josephus redacted the text after he had finished the section we are investigating. After all, there is clear linkage to show that 18.65 at one time directly followed 18.62. There are also comments in the intervening material which Mr Holding freely admits are not by Josephus, but by a christian interpolator.
In order to use the Testimonium Flavianum as evidence of anything, all Mr Holding needs to do is show that Josephus is responsible for the remaining material in 18.63-4 he claims is not interpolation, ie not by the christian interpolator, who he freely admits was responsible for at least part of the passage.
It would be nice if there were something holding up Mr Holding's comments other than appeals to authority.
- spin January 2, 2009 2:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Solving the spin in the TF
Pretending to have not been refuted is an even emptier practice, but one mr. spin no doubt considers his best option at this point since repeating his refuted arguments doesn’t seem to be working. It has been shown that the nature of Josephus’ writing is such that there is nothing peculiar about reference back to 18.62 in 18.65. Mr. spin is clearly unequipped to refute the consensus of Josephan scholarship, and so is reduced to yelling “Prove it!” to support a heavily counter-consensus position he has contrived out of thin air in order to gain the conclusion he wants.
I have already indicated what portions of the TF are regarded to be original to Josephus. Now mr spin needs to do the real work of explaining, phrase by phrase, why I (and the experts who have studied Josephus all their lives, like Feldman, Mason, and Thackery, et al) are wrong.
I note again that mr. spin fears “appeals to authority” – no doubt because he cannot answer actual experts. But it seems strange that he wishes to appeal to his own authority in order to accept that the experts are wrong. Apparently “appeal to authority” is all right as long as the authority is mr. spin himself.
- JP Holding
January 3, 2009 12:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Holding nothing
This is very sad. Mr Holding has been babbling names as a mantra to ward of the necessity of dealing with his problems. If he could say something substantive about the issues presented to him, I'd be very happy to deal with it, but all one can get out of him is the implied Sergeant Schultz response: "I know nothing!"
Q: Mr Holding, what's your name?
A: Feldman, Mason, Thackery,
Q: Mr Holding, what does the text say?
A: Kraus, Woodman.
Q: Mr Holding, what's the time?
A: Thackery, Mason, Kraus
An expert is able to deal with the primary sources. Mr Holding has shown a total aversion to his raw material, yet wallows in triumphalism. He is at least an entertaining diversion.
When he feels like explaining why AJ 18.65 which refers to the events recorded in 18.60-2 is unaccountably separated from it by the TF, a passage he freely admits at least partially is not by Josephus, I'll be able to speak to it. As he continues to provide nothing tangible, (except lists of names like Cleese, Chapman, Jones), it seems he isn't holding back, just holding nothing.
- spin January 3, 2009 4:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.