Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Metacrock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU
Metacrock wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Roger,

I remember laughing a lot at all the logical gymnastics that she was employing. I thought it definitely reflected the thinking of a Nun without very much critical thinking ability.
The fact that the Testimonium was not challenged until modern times does not reflect modern historical revisionism, as I recall her suggesting. It simply reflects the fact that there were low educational levels and opportunity in medieval times from about 500 to 1400. This, combined with the fact that the Catholic Church had great political power and could subject anybody who disagreed with it to torture and painful death, and did so to millions of people, did not allow for any real critical examination of Josephus before modern times.



In other words if she spouts modern atheist ideology she's brilliant. if she questions it she's stupid.
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by nili »

Could you offer two or three examples of Whealey's mental gymnastics, PJ?
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by beowulf »

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Metacrock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

Lol

It is not an intellectual controversy, then!! :thumbup:
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2896
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by maryhelena »

wrong thread
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Nili,
nili wrote:Could you offer two or three examples of Whealey's mental gymnastics, PJ?
Sure.
Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text’s authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.
from Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, Peter Lang Publishing (2003). How the TF has been seen down the centuries.

She mentions the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars" and "Jews outside the church" who "uniformly denounced the text's authenticity." Apparently she believes the Protestant Pope was orchestrating some kind of challenge to the Catholic Pope and he tricked the "Jews outside the church" into going along. In fact, it was just about every scholar outside the Catholic Church who found the text wanting. I read the subtext here as saying that there was some kind of conspiracy of Protestants and Jews against the Catholic Church. One could just as easily say that in early modern times the Catholic Church held to its dogmatic position that the Good Catholic Eusebius was not an historical forger, while everybody else who was somewhat disinterested and impartial saw the clear evidence that TF was a forgery.
In the Twentieth Century, the change was that even Catholics admitted the document contained some important changes that Josephus could not have written. Instead of saying that the Catholic scholars, 300 years late, finally joined other scholars in questioning the document, (just as they were 300 years late in admitting that the Earth went around the Sun) she changes things around and blames secularism for the defection of catholic scholars to the "Academic world."

She then imagines that post-modernism is a rejection of modernism (instead of its triumph) and imagines that some kind of new consensus somehow supports her belief that "a first century Jew" wrote "a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum." These a few of her logical gymnastics.

Her new consensus is quite imaginary as nobody agrees with what was originally in the original text of Josephus. We actually now have five positions about the original text: 1) something favorable, 2) something neutral, 3) something derogatory, 4) something having nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, and 5) nothing.

Over the last 15 years, I have gone from believing the Testimonium through all the positions and am now at position #5. It is entirely a cheap forgery by Bishop Eusebius and his brethren.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by neilgodfrey »

PhilosopherJay wrote: her belief that "a first century Jew" wrote "a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum."
This view -- not confined to Whealey -- is all "coincidental" with contemporary ecumenicalism and the drive to establish positive Christian-Jewish dialogue.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Neil,

Image

It is good to know that the Catholic Church is now liberal enough to accept that there may be good Jews in the world, at least as long as they, like Eusebius disguised as Josephus, proclaim Jesus as possibly the Messiah and more than a man.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
neilgodfrey wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote: her belief that "a first century Jew" wrote "a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum."
This view -- not confined to Whealey -- is all "coincidental" with contemporary ecumenicalism and the drive to establish positive Christian-Jewish dialogue.
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by nili »

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Neil,

Image

It is good to know that the Catholic Church is now liberal enough to accept that there may be good Jews in the world, at least as long as they, like Eusebius disguised as Josephus, proclaim Jesus as possibly the Messiah and more than a man.
And its good to know that you are capable of distorting the views of both people pictured for the sake of cheap ad hominem. Shalom.
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Nili,

I was going to say that I was not distorting anything, but only making a joke. However, all jokes are distortions in some sense, so I cannot argue there.

I don't know. If a man wants to present a menorah to his bride at their wedding, that's his right. Who am I to judge?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
nili wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Neil,

Image

It is good to know that the Catholic Church is now liberal enough to accept that there may be good Jews in the world, at least as long as they, like Eusebius disguised as Josephus, proclaim Jesus as possibly the Messiah and more than a man.
And its good to know that you are capable of distorting the views of both people pictured for the sake of cheap ad hominem. Shalom.
Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

Post by Metacrock »

beowulf wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Metacrock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

Lol

It is not an intellectual controversy, then!! :thumbup:
It doesn't make one an idiot to take the other view.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/
Post Reply