andrewcriddle

Does Steve Mason regard the TF as probably entirely interpolated ?

On my reading of his 'Josephus and the New Testament' he seems to come to the conclusion that Josephus probably said something about Jesus here but it has been so rewritten that we can't retrieve the original.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

I recall reading Steve Mason very carefully to try to figure out if he came to a conclusion, and I don't think that he did anything more than discuss all the possibilities (unless he changed his views in the second edition.) But at least Steve Mason would be counted in the scholars who do not think that an original text pertaining to Jesus can be recovered.

S.C.Carlson

In his second edition, Mason wrote (p. 235):

After discussing the range of possible editings from Eisler (1931) to Meier (1991)/Winter (1991), Mason concluded with (p. 236):

Mason does not explicitly say here what his position is. Reading between the lines, I'd say he is in the partial interpolation camp but uneasy about the Meier/Winter solution.

Storm

I'm a lurker here but just need a clarification on something. In the Mason quote above, he says:

Do most actually agree with this? To me, it would seem this would work against a historical figure. If someone was there, wouldn't you expect, at least early on, everyone to pretty much agree?

Chris Weimer

Yes, most do agree with this. In antiquity, we find many, many different bits of pieces from different sources about the same character, even when most were writing on him. Tacitus presents different information than Suetonius, and so forth.

Now as for details, because what was originally taught was probably obscured by later theology (read: Paul), divergences come about on theological lines, and that figures into historical lines.

The gospels weren't written as "histories" as one would expect - such a thing was not the norm for Judaean society. Instead, they're a mixture of history and theology, both containing equal weight.

Solo

I think most of historians agree with the proposition that Jesus was a historical figure. I am not sure most of them would agree that the NT writings were "independent traditions". The synoptics look very much like one connected tradition whichever way the synoptic problem is handled. John, which was originally thought to have been independent has looked since Bultmann, as having been connected also, though it is not clear how. Morton Smith's discovery of the Secret Mark fragment with the synoptic version of the Lazarus story, creates all sorts of possible scenarios, depending which underlying tradition one considers authentic.
As for the external sources there is really nothing that I have seen which could stand to objective scrutiny. The sources come many decades after the life of Jesus of Nazareth and have been directly or indirectly referencing the beliefs or conduct of the community rather than historical facts surrounding its presumed founder. It is something of a peculiarity of the Christian history that the evidence of Josephus would be considered at all, after the tampering was originally demonstrated. To an outsider like myself the object of the argument seems as impaired intellectually as it is a non- starter ethically. Just as Mary could not be mostly virgin, then Josephus reference(s) is (are) independent evidence or it has been tampered with. To offer opinions, and make oaths on the extent to which the evidence should be deemed fraudulent is scholastics alien to dignified purpose, IMHO.

Jiri

aa5874

IMHO, your opinion is not superior to others. The historicity of Jesus cannot be verified, therefore anyone can give an opinion based on the evidence that they have . It is futile to use one's opinion to control how evidence can be viewed.

Rick Sumner

From Secret Mark? None (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Solo

I have no quarrel with the statement that my opinion is 'not superior to others' as such because I don't know what it means. I suspect though you are trying to tell me that you have a different opinion which you need not defend by logical reasoning to declare it equal in value to mine.

I humbly submitted that for a scholar to continue to treat evidence that he/she knows has been tampered with as potentially salvagable necessarily invites the view that the exercise is simply one of trying to control the damage to an opinion he/she favours.


Jiri

S.C.Carlson

I agree that Mason is not being very clear on this point. Perhaps he meant something along the lines that Chris Weimer explained.

Stephen