Australian Catholic University – Greg Craven’s theist hissy fit, poor diddums

Poor Greg Craven, the Vice Chancellor of the Catholic University, he posted an article in The Age as he thinks atheists are attacking catholics because they question his beliefs.

Michael Brull followed it up with ‘The New Crybaby Theists’ a great article pointing out just how stupidly hypocritical the article was.

Finding issue with major flaws in theistic arguments is taken by these ‘precious’ apologists as personal attacks and they respond with name calling and cries of offense, classic ad hominem attacks instead of approaching the ideas and debating the opinion. I know heaps of religious people and we have seen a number on the site here that are willing to discuss reasonably major differences without taking personal slight, yet here we have the Vice Chancellor of a Catholic University acting like a petulant child.

Let’s have a look at his Catholic University ‘Mission’ shall we? Some of the points there I think Mr Craven should read again in a not-so-biased way are :

• a continuing dialogue between faith and reason – represented, for example, by the dialogue between philosophy and science;
• respect for truth in all its forms and collaboration in seeking it through all the disciplines;
• promotion of the common good, and the dignity of the human person;
• collaboration of all our staff and students, whatever their beliefs, in the interests of a more decent and humane society;
• the promotion of teaching and research in ways that most serve the mission of the University;
• respect for academic freedom.

Well I only left out one line out of the whole mission points, and that was the first; ‘following the way of Christ and commitment to Christian values’. Even that I am sure other more reasoned christians would gladly debate with him.

.. but be careful. Diddums might call you names and claim you are attacking him if you try to debate any of his beliefs. It’s alright one way, but don’t oppress the poor thing by stating what you think!!

It’s heartening to see that this type of bigotry is bringing more and more non-believers out, to openly call themselves atheist and tackle the privilege that religion asks of anyone not of their faith

I find the responses to both this article and to Greg Craven’s immensely heartening because they signal to me there’s a huge number of committed, thoughtful and motivated non-believers out there.

Traditionally I’ve always kept my thoughts to myself, partly to avoid awkward confrontations but mostly because they are exactly that – my thoughts. Now I feel emboldened to share and debate and refine my views.

So thanks Greg Craven for bringing so many atheists together, discussing and openly debating, which is as it should be.

Michael – November 05, 2009, 3:24PM

There’s many other great quotes on both the articles, I suggest you have a good read of some of them, and keep open minded

NO ONE would be bothered by the Catholic Church if it insisted that only Catholics followed its precepts. But in the past year alone, it pushed to influence Parliament to support discrimination against non-Catholics, argued in favour of prolonging the untreatable suffering of non-Catholics who are dying and opposed reproductive health for non-Catholic women. The more sinister aspects of its health policy have been discussed in The Age this week. The Catholic Church is a wealthy, non-tax-paying organisation that receives huge government funding for the provision of social services to all Victorians. For these reasons, what it stands for – unsavoury history, policy directions from a non-human and continued efforts to re-establish medieval Christendom with secular funding – should be scrutinised.

Janine Truter, The Basin

Christians parroting the party line is just YAWN – Josephus FAIL

You know what’s annoying? Tiring? We get so many emails and responses telling us there is all this historical evidence for this jesus literary construct. Do any of you actually search for the information you present as fact or research it? Do you just dogmatically accept it as it’s labelled ‘Jesus’(tm)?

Is your faith that blind?

Do any of you actually read the ‘About Jesus’ page? For sure I summed up a lot of information on it, however I HAVE researched the topic, and it gets a bit tiring getting multitudes of emails from christians telling me I should do more reading, that if only I studied the bible I would understand. I am sick to death of trying to write original pieces on this all the time for people too ignorant over how to actually critically think for themselves.

I have studied the bible for over 30 years, indeed I know it better than most of the christians that quote material to me as ‘answers’, as they can’t use their own brain for some reason to come to a decision themselves. They do not use their own ‘GOD GIVEN BRAIN’ (had to say that, it’s ironic really) but parrot that of other people.

You wonder why I get frustrated It’s this lack of critical thinking and just thrusting all their brain into a concept without really thinking about it. For sure there are those that do, but hey, I rarely if ever come across them.

Come on people, if you have some evidence, please look around and see what validity it has, don’t just accept the words of others because they label it with ‘Jesus’. If your just pulling information to try and win a point, without actually knowing it, your just lying for your jesus.

Here’s an example from ‘Graham’ from NSW :

@Gee Suss have you examined the evidence for Jesus existence? It’s widely held amongst historians that there is more evidence for his existence than Julius Caesar. Also there is an ancient document written in the time of Jesus by a Jewish historian named Josephus, who was not a Christian and did not profess any affiliation with Jesus, but he records him in his writing.

The amount of times I have heard this about Josephus is ridiculous.

Have you actually read Josephus work, let alone the section that ‘mentions Jesus’?

Here’s the quote for those interested (I’m sure you all are, and will love it! It’s so christian!) you can also read it in place here :

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Book XVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3)

Now rather than just read that section. 3, read chapter 3 section 2, 3 and 4.

John E Remsberg put it so succinctly I don’t think I can better it. (yes indeed, so many others have to deal with this ignorace and rhetoric from christians that just grasp at anything branded with the name ‘jesus’ ™

Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith — the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A.D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian could frame: “If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.”

Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines.

It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful being.

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, Terullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during the second and third centuries.

As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to him. In his Evangelical Demonstration, written early in the fourth century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the citations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book III, p. 124).

Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.

So now we come to your modern christian scholars, and what they think about it :

Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

“Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother.

“It interrupts the narrative.

“The language is quite Christian.

“It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.

“It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

“Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) especially states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

“Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.

“But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works, vol. I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:

“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine” (Christian Records, p. 30).

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says:

“This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).”

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says: “The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance” (Kneeland’s Review, p. 169).

Referring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his Gibbon’s Rome (Vol. II, p. 285, note) says: “It is interpolated with many additional clauses.”

Cannon Farrar, who has written in ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: “The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious” (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.”

“There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious — one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain” (ibid).

Theodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus says: “The passage cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given cause for it” (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).

Concerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it “must have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour.”

The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: “Flavius Josephus, the well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A.D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’ that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says: “Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.

“Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

So, then let’s look at the actual writings of Josephus, a bloke that was extremely thorough with recording information accurately. you can read the whole thing here if you like

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Now have a look at it, and tell me this is your ‘jesus’. The bit that says “who was called Christ,” is also regarded as an addition by a christian scribe. However, even if you stuck our fingers in your ears over that, usually christians leave out the bit about how he was the son of Damneus, and brother to James, and that he was made high priest.

But then again, most christians using the ‘Josephus Party line’, probably haven’t read it, just grabbed onto it as you do with your whole faith, and BELIEVE.

Who said faith isn’t blind?

‘Black’ put it well in a small scribing a mate of his passing me that he posted on a forum? (from memory .. actually after a while it gets to be pretty repetative pointing all this stuff out .. I leave that to those who wish to bash their brain on christian mindlessnesses brick wall to forumunate) :

Josephus has been disputed, even by christian scholars, as far back as Origen.

The Codex Sinaiticus contains a significant number of additions, omissions and variants. Your favourite work of fiction has had a few happy endings and “lived happily ever after”s added over time.

Actually, apart from Bart Ehrman’s work “Jesus, Interrupted“, which deals with the forgeries, I’d also recommend his “The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew” where christian writings and beliefs which didn’t make the evolutionary cut, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians:
It’s fascinating stuff, and one gains a picture of the various mutations of the original meme, branching, dying, flourishing and changing through time.