"Josephus," Paul's pen name?

Raha · Sep 29, 2003

I must admit that I do not know. Here we have several sources claiming that Eusebius justified "pious fraud". Now this Roger Pearse says they are all wrong. If he is right, the consequences are really crucial. For instance – the main objection against Testimonium Flavianum is that it is not known before Eusebius and regarding his reputation it is highly possible that he inserted or edited this paragraph himself. If this argument is wrong, we must consider Testimonium authentic. Of course, that does not mean Jesus existed, because Josephus’ knowledge was also secondary at best, but we would have to put more weight on it. So – do YOU think?

ConsequentAtheist · Sep 30, 2003

Originally posted by Raha
Here we have several sources claiming that Eusebius justified "pious fraud". Now this Roger Pearse says they are all wrong.

Is it not a question of fact? According to Mr. Pearse, people attribute to Eusebius documented statements that cannot be found in any extant documents, and I've yet to see anyone successfully refute Pearse's assertion.

Originally posted by Raha
For instance – the main objection against Testimonium Flavianum is that it is not known before Eusebius and regarding his reputation it is highly possible that he inserted or edited this paragraph himself. If this argument is wrong, we must consider Testimonium authentic.

Not at all. There are many arguments that suggest interpolation. Pearse simply forces us to be less certain as to the interpolator.

Originally posted by Raha
Of course, that does not mean Jesus existed, because Josephus’ knowledge was also secondary at best, but we would have to put more weight on it.

Again, discovering that the charge against Eusebius is baseless is not equivalent to determining that the Testimonium is authentic.

Originally posted by Raha
So – do YOU think?

I think I have no basis for charging Eusebius with pious fraud. I think the Testimonium Flavianum is almost certainly a partial interpolation at least. I think that a historical Jesus is marginally more likely than a mythical one.

Raha · Sep 30, 2003

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I think I have no basis for charging Eusebius with pious fraud. I think the Testimonium Flavianum is almost certainly a partial interpolation at least. [/B]

There is some... Was Eusebius really a discoverer of Testimonium Flavianum? Did he quote it? Did he have an opportunity to compare the manuscript, he was working with, with other manuscripts of Tacistus's work? If so, it was rather easy for him to check out the authenticity of the paragraph. If he did, was aware that it is an interpolation, but used it anyway, then it is pious fraud. If he did not, then he was not a decent historian.

ConsequentAtheist · Oct 2, 2003

Raha, that was simply idiotic - you sound like a tired old gossip, Instead of innuendo and babbling, present those facts you find probative and draw your conclusions clearly and rationally.

Raha · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Raha, that was simply idiotic - you sound like a tired old gossip...

And here we are again where we were! The moment I thought you learned something and started to discuss properly, you come with this. No comment kid! My last post was just a thought - nothing else. A thought intended to put our discussion towards new direction. But with your attitude - no way. (BTW - I guess you do not have much friends, do you?)