Toto

Sorry - is that not the SBL study?

Roger Pearse

I had this item (or via: amazon.co.uk) in mind. Sorry if I was unclear. Useful as it is, the paper presented to the SBL conference is only a general discussion of a few issues. The book itself discusses in immense detail the history of the controversy.

There is also the volume of Josephus bibliography (is this by Feldman -- pardon my vagueness but I am on the run) which also indicates the little material denying the authenticity of the short passage.

Amaleq13

This appears to be the same text one obtains if the "Amazon" link is used in the original post.

grog225

At any rate, there are problems with Josephus unresolved, the current feel good pop trend emerging around the truncated TF notwithstanding. I suspect that part of the reason behind this growing consensus is the irrelevancy of the Josephus passages. Even if authentic, they are not independent, so who really cares? Well, I think it is important to consider the case carefully and not jump on the bandwagon.

Far be it for me, a casual skeptic, to spoil the fun...a beggar at the feast so to speak ruining the party. But I'll just put out some points that may be considered if anyone wishes to consider them:

1. The issue of no reference to the TF prior to Eusebius is still a problem. After all, the apologists did not hesitate to criticize non-believers so it can't really be silence due to embarrassment (the theory being the TF was not sufficiently positive to bear reference). So no apologist of the time even mentions the TF.

2. The arabic Josephus is 10th century and does not agree with our Josephus. The theory then is that the 10th century arabic version preserves something closer to the truth of what Josephus actually wrote. This does not rule out stepwise interpolations (this goes for the shorter passage cited by Origen, although I recognize that attacking the shorter passage takes one out further on the limb). That the point of divergence is after an earlier interpolation and that our Josephus is evidence of further "improvements" on something that was deemed inadequate.

3. A straw man has emerged and gained respectibility. It goes like this: We cannot assume that a Jewish historian writing in the first century would not say positive things about a would-be Messiah who founded a tribe called Christians. I agree. We cannot make that assumption. With Josephus it isn't an assumption, it is demonstrated truth that with the one notable exception, Josephus displays no respect for would-be Messiahs. He consistently discusses them in derogatory terms and even points to Vespasian as the Messiah. So the straw man is this: No one argues that Josephus cannot say positive things about Jesus because Josephus is a Pharisee. The argument is that plus Josephus's consistent treatment of messiahs.

Okay, I have more, but I have to catch a plane for New York in 40 minutes, so this is a rush job. I probably will be busy for the next several days and this thread will be dead. Maybe I will start a new thread on this subject when I have time.

spin

I think Roger's complaint is the link to the Wheatley SBL paper which was inserted into his post. That was what was being analysed by Grog225, which Roger later commented on as not containing the issues he was interested in.


spin

Amaleq13

Yep, two different beasties. I just wanted to point out that the correct one was also included in the editing.

Roger Pearse

Certainly, and in view of the immense bibliography, my own opinion is that they never will be.

Well, you know, all this has been considered a million times before in this forum...

This argument is made by people with inadequate knowledge of antiquity and who haven't properly thought through their argument. (I don't mean you, but if we repeat others' arguments without attribution then we have to take the flak for them too! )

The argument is really that "Everyone in Antiquity was familiar with the works of Josephus including Antiquities. We have loads of works by all these people; so many on such subjects that we know that they 'must' have quoted the passage if it existed. None of them quote this passage. Therefore it did not exist."

Once stated properly the fallacies of the argument sort of jump out at us, don't they?

1. How do we know that everyone had read this work? How many people actually refer to Josephus at all? What is the transmission history of so large a work as Antiquities, and who knows the relevant bits?

2. How do we know that people 'must' refer to the TF? Which writers, in which works specifically? And isn't there something bogus anyway about us presuming that we know what people 'must' write?

3. 99% of all ancient literature is lost (so Pietro Bembo, N.G.Wilson agrees). Why must we presume that a reference must exist in the extant 1%?

4. Since when was absence of evidence evidence of absence?

In truth this argument is not a respectable one. A great many things appear for the first time much later than this. The text of Macarius Magnes doesn't turn up until the 19th century, for instance.

None of this appears to address the question, however.

Interesting, but inconclusive.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

chrisrkline

As someone "with inadequate knowledge of antiquity" I have thrown the argument around, but not because I have not thought it through. How would I have even thought about this argument unless I had read about it first. Like most of us who use it here, this is an argument we have see many times before. There are many people who use this argument who do have an adequate knowledge of antiquity, and who have thought extensively about this issue. I don't remember any of them saying that "everyone [in antiquity] had read this work." Certainly if they had, that would be silly. All of the scholars I have read simply argue that it is reasonable that "some" of the relevant writers in antiquity would have seen it, and might have commented on it. Most focus on Origen since he seems to know about Antiquities. I don't recall anyone specifically saying that they know that any particular person must have written anything, but that it seems likely. All the scholars admit that we just don't know. Most of the scholars I have read do not claim that absence of evidence evidence of absence, that is why most, like Doherty, try to bolster their whole case on other elements.


I do not know that much about antiquity, but I do know what a straw man argument is.

Roger Pearse

I think not, for the reasons that I gave above.

Ah, we're not arguing whether every last person had read it (bad phrasing on my part). We're simply presuming that most people who wrote did. If we don't say this, then we can hardly argue that not mentioning Josephus is significant.

It is certainly reasonable that somebody in antiquity read Josephus. The question is who, and how do we know. Until we know this, it would all seem rather vague. Any argument that contains both a 'would have' and 'might have' isn't a very sound basis for an argument, you know.

Indeed. Specifically he quotes Josephus 4 times (unless anyone knows of more references? -- much of his stuff is not online in English), and is one of only two writers (as far as I know) in the period in question to display knowledge of Antiquities 11-20. As such he very definitely did know Josephus and could have read that passage, if it was in the text before him and if he read the whole text; and he could have referred to it if he thought it advisable (it would be rather good evidence for Celsus' libel that Jesus was a magician, wouldn't it?).

Lots of 'if's in that one, weren't there?

It won't do, all this stuff. It really won't do. This is why arguing from the fact that no extant writer before Eusebius quotes this passage tells us nothing except that no extant writer before Eusebius quotes this passage. Eusebius' works are massive collections of quotations. He is the first witness for huge amounts of fragments of Greek philosophy, for instance.

You will appreciate that in the mass of qualifications the argument that you started with dies? For the argument to work, surely we need *certainties*, facts, data? In all things in life, what seems 'probable' to Fred seems 'improbable' to Bill, even on matters which don't have a religious loading. I wouldn't hang a dog on what some guy down the pub tells me "seems obvious, mate, dertchaknow?"

Incidentally you have used the term 'scholars' three times now, but the only person you mention is Earl Doherty who isn't one.

It is a mistake to suppose that most of the people that tend to be accessible on this subject are Josephus scholars, or indeed scholars of any sort. Most, like you and I, are merely interested amateurs. Many are polemicists.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

I think the TF would have helped Celsus to augment the case that Jesus was a magician. According to the TF, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3, "..... he appeared to them alive again the third day....". Now, if Jesus was a figure of history, this resurrection might appear to be magical to Celsus.