Zaphod

Got into a little brouhaha about the historical Jesus in a thread at Why Evolution is True, the science blog of Jerry Coyne.

The topic of the silence of historians contemporary to Jesus Christ came up, and I mentioned that there were a lot of rabblerousers named Jesus who were mentioned by Josephus. (There was a great listing of these noticed Jesuses here in this forum recently, but unfortunately I could not find it)

Anyway, a participant in the WEIT thread, who claims to be a 40-year student of the topic of the historicity of JC, dismissed these accounts of Jesus ben Damneus, etc as completely untrustworthy simply because:

I replied:

To which he said:

Of these Jewish rabblerousers, he also said:

Josephus, I guess, is not contemporary evidence of any kind for him.

This idea that there are anti-apologetic interpolations smuggled into Josephus ( and I assume he implies other Church-controlled materials as well) is one that I have never encountered before. Is there any merit to these accusations? Exactly how paranoid do you deem this fellow's arguments?

Roger Pearse

I think these are the wrong questions to ask. Asserting "interpolation" of what we find inconvenient for some argument we wish to make is a fallacy by itself. It is a very easy assertion to make; and not much more difficult to invent a "culprit", and then some "reason" and so on and so on. Anyone can do this, with a minimum of education, which is why it should *never* be allowed.

What we should ask instead is just what hard evidence demands that we believe that specific portions -- not just general waffle -- of the text have been interpolated?

As a rule, the timewasters will make up "arguments" and try to get them treated as if they were evidence. But as I said, anyone can do that.

The key to this particular type of debating fraud is that the bar is too low -- that it is too easy to (selectively) label something an interpolation. As a rule, people making a claim that XYZ is interpolated do not do the due diligence, of demonstrating that their method for detecting interpolations would not prove that much other stuff, in other hands, was not likewise an interpolation. The other alternative adopted is obscurantism -- "oh we can't know anything for sure, so I don't have to prove anything for my claim. Now, then, you prove something to me instead -- because 'we can't know anything for sure' only applies when *I* am trying to dodge".

Just some thoughts.

The argument that everyone called Joshua throughout history was always Jesus seems mildly flawed to me as well, by the way.

Toto

This is massively confused. The one longer passage relating to Jesus Christ is considered to be interpolated because it contains Christian language that Josephus as a Jew would be unlikely to write. The other Jesus' mentioned in Josephus are not considered to be a product of Christian interpolation, since they reflect Josephus' Jewish and pro-Roman viewpoint.

He is just wrong about Biblical scholars.

Can you link to this discussion? This is rather bizarre, even by internet standards.

Zaphod

I am yesmyliege over there. I'm afraid I come off a tad belligerent, as I have now learned that Michael, the man making the reply comments, has Aspergers.:frown:

The thread is here. Start at comment 66 and read down - it is a funky nesting protocol. This thread is already on the second page of the blog - replies there at this time will likely not be read.

andrewcriddle

We do have a Latin translation of Josephus Antiquities made shortly after 500 CE by Cassiodorus and an earlier Latin translation of the War. The broad agreement of the Latin and Greek of Josephus would seem to exclude interpolations after say 400-500 CE.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Your statement is contradictory.

Josephus is not likely to have written that Jesus was Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 based on his PRO-Roman viewpoint.

Josephus ACTUALLY told VESPASIAN that he was the Prophesied Messiah as found in Hebrew Scriptures and it is documented in Tacitus "Histories" 5, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and the very "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4.

Both Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

Josephus himself FOUGHT against the Romans expecting a Messianic ruler c 70 CE and in gMark and gMatthew the Jews did NOT know of a Messiah called Jesus.

Toto

aa5874: by "other Jesus" I am not referring to the Ant 20 mention of Jesus, but to the other individuals named Jesus.

mountainman

It is an hypothesis about the evidence, to be taken for checking, not an assertion.

Hypotheses are free, and need not be prohibited.



Socrates critical thinking was always a real menace to the "Christian State", ever since the monotheistic Christian state was incorporated.

It seems that hypotheses which question the ultimate integrity of "Christian Origins" are no longer permitted to be raised for discussion.

We dont want to offend the faithful.

aa5874

You have very well included the Jesus of "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 by ONLY mentioning the ONE LONGER passage relating to Jesus Christ as being interpolated.

Come on, Toto. Is English your primary language? What is going on, here? You seem to be denying what you have written.

I really don't understand why you cannot admit what you wrote.

Toto

No one thinks that the mention of Jesus in Ant 20 is an interpolation. The suspected interpolation is "called Christ."

Go read up on it if you have to.