Quote:Ehrman accepts both references by Josephus as valid; so fail.
Oh, poor Waldork....reality is about to shit on his lunch again.
First, asshole. Ehrman does not accept the TF as Eusebius wrote it in all its technicolor glory. No, he "accepts" (so he says) the watered down version of it which jesus-freak scholars have cobbled together after realizing that Eusebius' version was such an obvious fraud that no one in their right mind....which lets you out....could buy it.
There is only one significant problem with the variant of TF which Ehrman asserts.
IT DOES NOT EXIST.
What exists is what Eusebius wrote.
Quote:And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus 76 as |143 well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words:
"And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate © condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed."
Oh, but wait a moment..... you see, Eusebius also wrote this version!
Quote:7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.
The first quotation, from the Demonstratio Evangelica most probably pre-dates the Ecclesiastica Historia by at least 10 years and probably closer to 15. That probably explains the differences between the two as Eusebius had forgotten exactly what he had forged by that time. But, WTF. By then he had the ear of Constantine and anyone who gave him any shit about it would have found himself dead, in fine xtian fashion!
Anyway, this is what exists. The watered-down TF was concocted by ignorant protestant fuckwits for the same reason that Eusebius forged the original. It was embarrassing to have nothing in the historical record about their fucking godboy. What is particularly galling about Ehrman is that, as D-P schooled you on above, he is a man who has written extensively about forgery in xtian holy horseshit but when it suits his purpose he is quite content to overlook it and pretend that the watered-down TF exists when he knows it does not. Ehrman damages his credibility by doing so. You have no credibility so you have nothing to lose....and you never will.
As has been pointed out numerous times, Origen...a predecessor of Eusebius' at Caesarea wrote 75 years earlier and addressed the very book in question (Bk XVII of Antiquities of the Jews) and came away saying:
Quote: For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ
Origen Contra Celsus I. 47
Origen lacking the TF is forced to assert that Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews killed James the Just....which Josephus never says so had Eusebius' forgery existed at the time it would have been of great use to Origen in the argument he was trying to make. As it stands, Celsus comes out on top here. Xtians get very quiet when Origen is trotted out. Xtians should STFU more often. It would help them not make assholes of themselves.
