Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lung salad (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 19 March 2012 (→Incorrect deletion of text and reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sedevacantism

Thank you for adding citations to this article. I see that you indicated the page number in the latest source that you cited. Would you please add an indication of the page number in the other works too? Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers have been given to all the other citations. They are there. Lung salad (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

James the Just

That was an interesting and useful set of ref/source additions. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion of text and reference

No, your change in this edit now presents an incorrect representation of Dunn's statement on page 141 of his book. It makes it appear that Dunn supports the lack of a "broad consensus" while in fact Dunn states:

• "There is broad consensus that Josephs wrote something like the following"

and then states what the text that is subject to the broad consensus says. Your edit ignores and masks the fact Dunn thinks there is broad consensus. Your edit is certainly an incorrect deletion of Dunn's views. History2007 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote - Dunn's statement is in relation to this "The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation" --- Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Robert McLachlan Wilson in their book acknowledge this and add that the precise nature of the redaction is disputed. Two different statements Lung salad (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Dunn's statement is not just in the context of the "existence of an authentic nucleous", for he clearly reproduces the text subject to a "broad consensus". What Dunn says is:

• There is broad consensus that Josephs wrote something like the following:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading..."

Hence to delete the statement that Dunn thinks there is a "broad consensus" on what Josephus wrote is an incorrect deletion. And what Schneemelcher "acknowledges" is the existence of the authentic kernel, not Dunn's statement about the "broad consensus". History2007 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dunn on page 141 provides a synthesis of different versions of the redaction provided by Vermes, Charlesworth and Van Voorst of the Testimonium - that's why he wrote Josephus wrote something like the following Lung salad (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction: It's not a synthesis, but a direct quote of John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, p. 61. Other scholars offer different reconstructions. Lung salad (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You got that one right. That text is from Meier and Dunn refers to those others regarding the components. What Dunn says is that text he shows is subject to "broad consensus". You can not just delete what Dunn says. That was an incorrect deletion of Dunn's statement. Period. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dunn merely wrote that there is broad consensus that Josephus wrote something like the following with Dunn selecting Meier's reconstruction from several other reconstructions - Dunn failed to mention that there is no consensus over EXACT NATURE of the redaction. Different scholars give differing redactions and this is what Schneemelcher was referring to. There are currently EIGHT different redactions of the Testimonium (including John P. Meier, Schlomo Pines, Geza Vermes, Paul Winter, James Charlesworth, F. F. Bruce & Claudia Setzer). Lung salad (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, of course, there are different reconstructions, and there is no "exact" reconstruction of this or any other ancient text. There can never be an exact reconstruction of ancient texts, needless to say. But Dunn's statement (and his selection of Meier) which is also selected as the "middle of the road" reconstruction by others such as Powell, Evans, Ehrman, Green, etc. etc. etc. is a reflection of the fact that most of the reconstructions are not that far apart. Hence the presentation of the situation as "total chaos and no one agrees with anyone else" is a flatly incorrect representation. There is "broad consensus" about what the original "looked like", although no one can be exact about ancient texts, of course, of course. History2007 (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it okay now? Lung salad (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)