83862

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:53494 talk.religion.misc:83862 talk.origins:40981
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!iscsvax.uni.edu!sunfish!charlie.usd.edu!RFOX
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 14:19:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.
Nntp-Posting-Host: charlie
Lines: 83

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Rawlins) writes:

some deleted

>>>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>>>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>>>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>>>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>>>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>>>        are very much in harmony.  
>> 
>>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
>>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
>>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
>>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
>>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
>> 
>>Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
>>out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere 
>>in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which 
>>it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.
>
>I think this is a weak argument.  The fact is, there are *two* references to
>Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_, one of which has unquestionably at least
>been altered by Christians.  Origen wrote, in the third century, that
>Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while the long passage
>says the opposite.  There is an Arabic manuscript of _Antiquities of the
>Jews_ which contains a version of the passage which is much less gung-ho
>for Jesus and may be authentic.
>   There is no question that Origen, in the third century, saw a reference
>to Jesus in Josephus.  There are no manuscripts of _Antiquities_ which
>lack the references.
>
>It is possible that it was fabricated out of whole cloth and inserted, but
>I don't think it's very likely--nor do I think there is a consensus in
>the scholarly community that this is the case. (I know G.A. Wells takes
>this position, but that's because he takes the very small minority view
>that Jesus never existed.  And he is a professor of German, not of
>biblical history or New Testament or anything directly relevant to
>the historicity of Jesus.)
>
>Jim Lippard              [e-mail]

Evidently Jim thinks I am arguing an `existence' issue.  It should be clear 
from my response to Bill Rawlins above that in this thread I am objecting only 
to the use of Josephus to validate the messiah claim.  The argument against the
messiah claim is not weak (maybe mine is, but in the hands of pros it is not).

There are indeed two passages.  The short one *cannot be used* to validate the
messiah claim, imo.  That's why I refered to the long, which can be used.  It 
flatly states Jesus "was the Christ", and mentions the crucifixion, 
resurrection and Christian belief in said claims.

The short entry mentions Jesus in passing as James' brother - "... brother of
Jesus, who *was called* the Christ, .... [emphasis mine]", and that's it. 
If original, Josephus has merely reported what some people say.  It is nothing 
more than an observation, one which lacks the Christian fundamentals.

The long is widely regarded as an insert for three reasons: 1) its way out of
context, 2) Origen evidently knew nothing of it, and 3) its rather inconsistent
with the short.  There is consensus among scholars as defined on the long as 
insert, and I see Jim agrees.  Consensus is usually reflected subtly, as in
Elaine Pagel's _Gnostic Gospels_ (p. 85), "A comment *attributed* to Josephus
reports ....[emphasis mine]".  As for #2, I mentioned in my original post that 
the long is a 3rd century insert (more properly, post-Origen as Jim notes).

There may not be consensus on the short.  The text, which discusses James in a
legal role, stands with or without it.  That it does not upset context makes it
difficult to argue insert.  On the other hand, an in-passing insert is easily
disguised in any context.  Nonetheless, on historiographical grounds it is 
worthless for the messiah defense, and that's why I didn't mention it. 

I don't know about the Arabic ms.  If you have a translation reference, Jim,
please let me know.  As for its "much less gung-ho" tone, obviously the date 
of this ms. is critical.  If after ca. AD 700, a watered-down entry in lieu 
of removal can be easily explained.

*<(:-)

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota