Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Re Andre Pelletier, the following from Josephus, the Bible and History ed by Feldman and Hata may give you leads to follow up something in France to learn more.

Andre Pelletier, who died in 1985, received his doctorate in 1962 from the Sorbonne with a dissertation on Flavius Josephe adaptateur de la Lettre d'Aristee and served as professor of biblical Greek at the Centre Sevres. He is the author of Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (1962), Philon d'Alexandrie, In Flaccum (1967), Legatio ad Gaium (1972), Flavius Josephe, Guerre des Juifs (4 vols., 1975-1987) and Autobiographie (1983).

Unfortunately the autobio there is that of Josephus, not Pelletier.

Geza Vermes - Catholic priest

Vermes was a priest in his youth, but from my understanding he was practically an agnostic / liberal Jew for the majority of his adult life. He claimed to have "grown out of" Christianity by his mid-30s (c.1950s - 30 years before Feldman's study). I think it's a bit misleading to simply write him off as having had a suspect bias because at one time in his youth he was a priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_Vermes#Biography

Paula Fredriksen is similar - She also hasn't been a Christian for the majority of her adult life (although I'm not sure what her beliefs were in the early 80s, nor what her position on the TF is today - I assume it's the same)

That said, I'm not suggesting that Vermes and Fredriksen are right about the TF only being partially interpolated. Partial or complete forgery is a coin-toss call from where I sit.

spin wrote:

DCHindley wrote:Then there was [wiki]Paul Winter (author)[/wiki], an albino (sans the lack of melanin) who was a Czech lawyer of Jewish extraction who fought the Nazis with the Brits, and then atoned for his lawyerly sins by working as a janitor while writing 100s of scholarly articles and a 1961 book about Jesus' trial and execution from the perspective of Jewish and Roman law.

Really?

"Humor" me, spin.

DCH

Hi All,

Thanks for all the replies. I'll respond to some of them when I get a chance.

I do want to point out that I don't think the fact that somebody is a theologian or cleric makes their ideas any less important. What does count is the cogency of the arguments themselves and not the backgrounds of the people who make them, at least in an ideal world.

However, on an historical question like this, lumping together a bunch of significantly different views, mostly held by theologians and labeling them the consensus of scholars, I think is misleading. It is kind of like what American politicians do when they get one or two people from the opposing party to support a bill and then label it "bi-partisan". It is just a rhetorical trick and should not influence anybody interested in understanding real history.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

Re: Feldman's Thirty Year Old List -- the list does not include a chronological censure by scholarship of the "TF" prior to 1937

1762: Bishop Warburton of Gloucester -""a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",
1767: Dr. Nathaniel Lardner quotes Bishop Warburtonof Gloucester.
1788: Edward Gibbon - "may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery". D&F V2,Ch16,Pt2,FN [36]

18??: Ittigius (CMU, 47),
18??: Blondel (CMU, 47)
18??: Le Clerc (CMU, 47)
18??: Vandale (CMU, 47)
18??: Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)

1830: Dr. Alexander Campbell
1833: Dr. Thomas Chalmers
1842: Mitchell Logan, Christian Mythology Unveiled (CMU)
1873: Theodor Keim - cited by Acharya S
1874: Cannon Farrar - 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious'
1877: The Rev. Dr. Giles (Church of England) - "Hebrew and Christian records; an historical enquiry" - p. 30
1888: Rev. S. Baring-Gould - "Lost and Hostile Gospels," says: "first quoted by Eusebius - Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii);
1889: Rev. Dr. Hooykaas - "certainly spurious, inserted by a later Christian hand." (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27)
1890: Emil Schürer - A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - REF
1894: Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" - REF
1897: Jakob Burckhardt "Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity"

1900: Harnack - http://www.ccel.org/h/harnack
1909: John Remsburg; "The Christ" ("We must get rid of that Christ" - Emerson) - REF
1910: NY Times Article on Arthur Drews: "Jesus never lived" - REF
1912: Arthur Drews - The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus - REF
1922: Marshall J. Gauvin - "Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage." - REF
1928: Solomn Zeitlin, [1928]



AFAIK Feldman himself has moved over to the forgery position. Is this correct?

Best wishes



Pete

Leucius Charinus wrote:Hi Jay,



AFAIK Feldman himself has moved over to the forgery position. Is this correct?

Best wishes



Pete

See this post and others near it on the same thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=618&p=12682&hilit=feldman#p12637