Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 6:53 am
More sceptical scholars regularly accuse the more conservative researchers like Kirby of being victims of a so-called “bandwagon” effect. Cf. Doherty, 2008: 49 and Doherty, 2009: 534
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resou ... sample.pdf
Is he alluding to the authenticity of the Baptist Passage ?
He provides an appendix on the terminology (which makes it even more confusing IMO):
1.2 Some Notes Concerning the Employment
of Terminology
Although this book has been designed primarily for the informed lay person
and more seasoned Josephus scholar alike, it is imperative that before
embarking on this journey of discovery that we are all on the same page, soto-speak.
Thus, for the sake of greater clarity, certain terms that I will be employing
need to be elucidated as regards their import and interpretation within a
stated context. In most cases these are employed in a more regular way and
do not necessarily deviate substantially from more common use. However,
in certain situations a specific term may well include more nuanced
significance.
Conservative scholars
It is certainly not my intention to lump together all Christian-based scholars
into one clique identified by a singular and monolithic point of view. Rather,
because, one of the central issues under critical review, is the influence of a
scholar’s worldview on the outcome of supposed objective reasoning it is
sometimes necessary to use a collective adjective when referring to those
6 Chapter One
scholars who tend to walk a tightrope between faithful adherence to their
personal religious convictions and intimate experiences and their academic
training as supposedly dispassionate investigators.
Thus, the objective of the term “conservative scholar” is to highlight that
the individual’s constructed worldview not only overtly colours his/her
perceptions but in fact has a deciding vote when determining the very
outcome of a particular argument. Wells (1988b: 20–21) has perhaps a more
negative understanding of this term:
Conservative apologists still do the same . . . There is more parade of
erudition and open-mindedness. But the conclusions always turn out to be
in accordance with desire, in harmony with what is regarded as essential
doctrine.
Thus for the purposes of this book, scholars, who as Wells intimates, tend
to wear their religious convictions on their sleeve, are grouped together as
“conservative”. In this context, most conservative researchers would also
subscribe to a confession of faith whereas a liberal, secular scholar would
most definitely not. Although aspects of fundamentalism are certainly
factors here, many, if not all, of the leading Christian-based scholars who
will feature in this book still claim to be open–minded and purportedly
champion rational thought.
Liberal scholars
Scholars, who are included for convenience under this epitaph, even if
adhering to a particular worldview, are normally prepared to alter or modify
their religious views or historical understanding when presented with hard
evidence. Here, they are not subservient to confessions of faith. Many
“liberal” scholars have what could be termed a “provisional” state of
understanding. In other words, they are prepared to react immediately to the
logic of an argument and are poised to change their opinion if the argument
appears sound. Simultaneously, such individuals are more likely to fully
comprehend and appreciate what they have just learned but with the proviso
that it may well be subject to future emendation. Ideally, they have little or
no personal baggage to slow them down.
Sceptical scholars
I will employ this term for those scholars who are overtly anti-fundamentalist,
anti-organised religion (sometimes even atheistic in outlook). Their
Introduction 7
constructed world-view, equally favours their approach although, by
default, due to the fact that they have no personal attachment to the topic of
their discussion they are more likely to be supremely critical and
immediately accepting of any outcome that is backed by hard evidence.
Many of these researchers seem to accept the import of embracing a
provisional state of understanding and vehemently eschew any form of
unsubstantiated dogma
He refers to my Testimonium article:
This is supported by Kirby (2014a) whose own review of the literature (in
a scholarly online article which discusses the TF in depth), reveals that the
trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards
partial authenticity. Indeed, Kirby supports the fact that of thirteen books
written since 1980, ten of them argue that the TF to be partly genuine. Only
the remaining three (secular authors) deny the authenticity of the TF.
There is a slight misrepresentation. The remaining three aren't just "secular." They were the ones who were skeptical of historicity ("mythicist").
Also, my online article has been revised to remove that paragraph for a long time now, since I felt it was being cited out of context and also that it didn't reflect the changing developments in research in the last twenty years.
For something published in 2020, he could have accessed the current article directly.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
If he did so, he would see that I don't even hold the position
on the Testimonium itself that he seems to attribute to me. Let alone whatever other implications lurk behind the "conservative" description.
Proverbs 18:17 may well have been commenting on arguments concerning the Testimonium: "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." The present author was once firmly convinced that both references in the Antiquities were authentic. After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I am inclined to regard both references as spurious.
Even if one is convinced that the passages are interpolated, there may be a satisfactory explanation for the silence of Josephus on Jesus and Christianity. W. D. Davies explains:
But it is still more likely that the silence of Josephus is due to the character of his work: his career suggests what his aim was in his writings. He desired to remain in the good graces of the Roman Emperor: to do so he avoided in his history all that might offend Roman susceptibilities. To mention Christianity, a Messianic movement that proclaimed another King than Caesar (Acts 17:7), would be to expose Judaism, which in Rome might not be distinguished from Christianity, to "guilt by association." Perhaps Josephus would not cavil at discussing a dead Messianic movement, which no longer offered any threat to Rome, but Christianity was alive and militant. The part of prudence was to ignore it. (p. 66)
Maurice Goguel offers a similar explanation for what would be silence of Josephus:
Since Josephus has been silent not only concerning Jesus, but also concerning Christianity, how is his silence to be explained? Uniquely by the character and the object of his work. The writer desired to flatter the Romans and gain their good graces. To do this he expunged from the picture he drew everything likely to offend or to excite their apprehension. Thus it is that he has scarcely at all spoken of the Messianic cult which nevertheless constituted the center of Jewish thought in the first century. That he did so was because this cult was a menace to Rome, for the Kingdom of the Messiah could only be built upon the ruins of the Empire. (p. 36)
Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
Finally, I would contend that it is much too generous to call me a scholar.
I don't remember whether the article I wrote was adjusted before or after his access date of 12 May 2014.
Perhaps he left in the old quotation because it was already embedded in his dissertation from long ago.