andrewcriddle

As well as the reference to Elisha in Antiquities Book 9 chapter 8 section 6 there is a maybe more banal parallel in book 12 chapter 2 section 8 where 'of new and amazing works' is used in a passage about Ptolemy Philadelphus designing new temple furnishings for the temple in Jerusalem in the 3rd century BCE.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

But those two references were to Old Testament prophets held high in esteem. In other words, they would not have been uttered by a Jew who wasn't a Christian who didn't hold Jesus in high regard. This alone pushes me over the edge. I used to think it was merely a marginal gloss that became incorporated into the text, but now I'm pretty sure it was a deliberate interpolation/corruption.

And sorry for my spelling two posts back, that should read principal and their not princial and there.

andrewcriddle

I may be wrong but IMHO Amaleq13's reference to 'miracles of Elijah' should have been 'miracles of Elisha'

ie IIUC the phrase is used only twice by Josephus, once in a solemn reference to the miracles of Elisha once in a more banal reference to the design skills of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

(If there really is a use of this phrase with respect to Elijah could we please have a reference ?)

Andrew Criddle

fta

...The same word (paradoxos) also occurs in Luke 5:26 to describe the miracles of Jesus, if that's relevant.

bornagainskeptic

I don't think the Josephus and Tacitus passages were totally forgeries. Besides, who could go past Tacitus's great description of Christians as 'notoriously depraved'! (This is an apt description of those Christians who want to keep that poor Terry Schiavo alive despite the fact half her brain has liquified.)
I think the point you are trying to make is that Jesus didn't exist. I don't agree - I think he probably existed but was just an ordinary mortal man like the rest of us, with the difference he was delusional and fooled himself and others into thinking he was the 'Messiah'.

Amaleq13

Yes, thanks. I tend to get those two confused. Hell, I started out referring to "Elias".

Chris Weimer

There have been much debate of late about Luke using Josephus. I'm convinced he did, not exactly by this arguement, but by Richard Carrier's review of Luke and Josephus here.

Chris Weimer

Well, I never said totally forgeries, which is why I said interpolations/corruptions. I think the present state of Josephus is too far damaged to be able to be reconstructed. Tacitus maybe...

bornagainskeptic

Chris Weimer, I was referring to the original post from Shinobi when I said I didn't think the Tacitus/Josephus texts were total forgeries.
I agree with you that Josephus has probably been corrupted (perhaps by Eusebius?)