Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Statler Waldorf]

Would I be right in speculating that you shift from "if Erhman says otherwise, you're wrong" to "Ah what does Ehrman know?" once the topic changes from The Historical Jesus ™ to Ehrmans research on how the Gospels were altered over time, how pseudo-epigraphy was a serious problem for early scriptures and how many Christianities there were until Nicaea?

Am I right to suppose that you accept Ehrman’s work concerning the transmission of the New Testament but not concerning the historical Jesus? Two can play this game. I am using a very effective debate tactic by referencing a source that is usually rather sympathetic to my opponent’s views and pointing out that even this source strongly disagrees with my opponent’s position in this instance. You on the other hand have yet to provide even a single historian who agrees with your viewpoint, let alone one that is usually sympathetic to my views; you’re not fairing too well.

Actually, last I checked, historians and even theologians were deeply divided over the TF and there is plenty of room in scholarship for those who believe it to be a complete forgery.

Last time you checked what? Atheist blogs?

We’re not merely talking about the Testimonium Flavianum ; the reference in Book 20 is widely accepted as a valid reference to Jesus. Wikipedia is hardly a Christian-friendly source but even it refutes your claim…

“Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James",[133] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity”- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Concerning the Testimonium Flavianum…

“The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.[138][139] Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[124][139] 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 with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[127][139][140][141][142] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[143] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[142]”

So this notion that many scholars and theologians believe the Testimonium Flavianum is a “complete forgery” is totally incorrect.

Ehrman on the Josephus references…

“He [Josephus] mentions Jesus in two passages in the the Book the Antiquities, one of these passages is called the Testimonium Flavianum, the testimony of Flavius Josephus- in which he devotes about a paragraph to Jesus. In which he says some interesting things about Jesus. [quotes the passage] This passage has long been cited by Christians as evidence that Jesus must have existed because the 1st Century Jewish historian who is the best historian we have from the period actually talks about him. Historians have discussed this passage endlessly because of its significance. One thing that seems relatively certain to just about everyone is that there is no way that Josephus- the Jewish historian- actually thought Jesus was the Messiah who got raised from the dead. We actually have an autobiography of Josephus and he never became a Christian- so these Christian comments are widely thought to be an interpolation…what is thought is that the Christian who copied this passage wamped it up a bit by adding a few lines to make it clear that he is talking about Jesus the Messiah who got raised from the dead- so historians who have treated this passage have treated it gingerly. The consensus view by historians is that this passage was originally written by Josephus but a few bits were thrown in by this Christian scribe. The mythicists want to argue that the whole thing is in fact interpolation. Of course historians have looked at that possibility and considered it. What is usually thought is if you take out these Christian parts- a few words here and there- the rest of it reads very much like Josephus- it sounds like something Josephus would have said, the style is like Josephus and so this is probably something Josephus actually said. The mythicists want to say, “No it was all completely inserted to Josephus.” My view is that if Christians wanted to insert a passage about Jesus into Josephus it would be much longer and much more flowery than this passage. They would really wamp it up- devote an entire chapter to Jesus [laughs]. But that is not what you get. The other thing is you get another reference to Jesus in Book 20 of the Antiquities that mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Messiah. So this is just a completely off the cuff reference to Jesus that presupposes the audience knows who he’s talking about- so again it is not the way the Christian scribes typically insert their beliefs into a passage.”- Unbelievable Radio Show 05/2013


You obviously only reject Josephus as a reference because you do not want to accept the reality of Jesus as a historical figure.