Amaleq13

Given that the passage has clearly been altered, I would think that all portions of it would be subject to greater scrutiny than that. I wouldn't say that the apparently unique use of the word conclusively establishes it to be an interpolation but I certainly cannot ignore that fact and accept it as genuine.

That is a good point though I question whether that "separate identity" had already been established when Josephus wrote.

Roger Pearse

On rereading what I wrote, I found it read as if I threw the words down in a fury! (as opposed to idly offering a few thoughts, which is what I thought I was doing). My apologies for any upset, and I appreciate it that no-one jumped down my throat.

I quite understand. This is a perfectly logical position, but I have a problem with actually applying it. As far as I can see, you see, a similar argument could logically apply to much of ancient literature. Since we are not going to discard it all, we are more or less forced into one of two positions:

1. refusing to accept various passages on special grounds while not doing the same for others. The difference between this and me being prejudiced is, to my ignorant eye, in practice imperceptible.

2. accept pretty much everything, however odd-looking, unless we have some concrete reason not to. This is the only position that I can see which doesn't involve me making more or less subjective judgements.

In some senses, I doubt this too.

Just thinking off the top of my head, isn't Josephus writing for a Roman audience in Rome in the very late 1st century? Christianity by then is a religio illicita (illegal religion). On the other hand Judaism/Jewishness is a legal religion with an image problem. Yet again, there must have been Jewish Christians still. Josephus half-and-half position -- a Jewish prophet, but a separate 'tribe' -- could reflect that era of transition well. (But actually I think that similar things could equally well be written later).

Finally, hadn't the Jews more or less kicked out the Christians at this point after regrouping in the late 1st century? (Jewish history is not my area of expertise, so do correct me if I am wrong).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Not merely established, for what is common among Christian circles would not be common in historical circles. One would have to explain how this little used phrase, even if used a couple of times before, went from Christian theology to standard historical practices. Plus, the fact is that Josephus does not use it to refer to religious groups at all except in this one passage.

Ben C Smith

Yes, your third PM finally mentioned past discussions.

You misstated (or overstated) your case. I corrected the misstatement. It was not meant as a personal slam (if I was wringing its neck, I was not wringing yours).

If a dozen times I correctly note that there were more than 12 apostles, and then on the thirteenth opportunity I claim that Barnabas cannot have been an apostle because there were only 12 of those, I welcome you to correct that last claim (whether or not you are aware of my first dozen statements).

(I gently remind you that your first and second messages to me had nothing to say about archives or previous posts. Your third finally did mention previous threads. Until that message I had no idea what was eating you.)

You have quoted again the inaccurate version of your rule. But this time I am not sure why....

I suppose I could have dissected that line more minutely and deduced that you had other discussions available for perusing. But apparently I did not read that much into it at the time.

Quite agreed.

Then I am not certain why you brought up the point about referencing the unknown by the known.

But, since you did bring it up, I might add that nothing in the second Josephan reference stands out as strange to me. He mentioned Christ first because Christ was already known to his readership (whether from some version of the Testimonium two books earlier or from the general fame associated with being the putative founder of a sect).

If your point could be brought down to a grammatical issue, it might carry some weight with me. As it stands, however, it looks to me like the kind of hyperanalysis that could render 90% of most any ancient text spurious. That is my judgment, and you of course have every right to disagree with it, a right which you will no doubt put to immediate and vigorous use.

Ben.

The Bishop

Uhm, imputations? I was referring to this, which I now notice was cast in the form of the plural.
My experience is that if questions have already been answered for the benefit of the "old lags", there are always plenty of new faces around (especially on an extremely busy forum like this one) to whom the questions and their answers are new. If all this is a violation of IIDB forum etiquette, then I apologise.

I actually had planned a new thread a while ago, though I was balking at the writing of a long post, which is why this new thread hasn't appeared after over two weeks. On the other hand, I have grown more familiar with this place, and I now hesitate to presume to make any major new contribution to the debate.

Chris Weimer

The point wasn't that you brought up the old points, but you asked a question which a simple search would have brought you up plenty of answers for. I first recommended getting your reading up to date before embarking on any more answers. Make sense?

Ben C Smith

No, the word in Antiquities 18.3.3 §64 generally translated as tribe is φυλον (phylum).

Ben.

ETA: Tribe is not always apt. In Antiquities 2.14.4 §306 it is a swarm of locusts; in 13.16.6 §430 it is the female gender; in 14.7.2 §115 it is the race of Jews. It is not an inflexible word.

Apikorus

Absent new material evidence, I expect there will never be a satisfactory resolution of the provenance of the TF. The "consensus" position, that the TF is a product of Christian tampering but still contains some authentic Josephan reference to Jesus, seems plausible. But spin's points are well-taken; arguments must be supported by evidence.

It seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence that the TF is not completely original. For starters Origen states explicitly that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ," which cannot be reconciled with "He was the Christ" in the TF, if the latter is authentic. So the question is to what extent did a later Christian tradent edit the TF. I don't know how we can answer this. Instead, I'd ask a simpler and more relevant question: does Josephus testify to the historicity of Jesus?

Given the reference in Ant. 20.9.1, I'd say that the answer is "yes" and the TF is almost irrelevant in this regard. I don't see much evidence that the James passage was also interpolated -- it would be the meekest interpolation imaginable. This makes me more willing to accept that the TF contains some authentic mention of Jesus, although I think it folly to try to tease out the putative original text.

Finally, while spin is sometimes harsh, he always is on-topic and provides well-reasoned arguments in support of his position. On at least one occasion here I've been on the receiving end (here), but I found our exchange to be quite edifying and indeed enjoyable. I can understand how Phlox might have been irked by spin's initial post, but I think he jumped the gun a bit and made it personal.

Amaleq13

AFAIC, no apologies necessary. The post didn't read that way to me at all.

Much of ancient literature has clearly been altered?


I would tend to have the same doubts about any similar unique use of a word in any other sentence from a passage that was known to have been altered.

I consider the fact that the passage, as it stands, could not possibly have been written by Josephus to constitute such a "concrete reason".

Now that (illegal religion) sounds exactly like a description that would seem appropriate for Josephus to apply and exactly like the sort of thing a Christian scribe might feel compelled to change. Perhaps he might even do so by finding a more acceptable reference elsewhere in Josephus even though it isn't how that author ever described religious groups.

IIRC, that took place in the last decade but it might have been in the 80's.

Chris Weimer

Since as you said Origen says that Josephus does not call Jesus the Christ, I think it's fair to assume that the James passage must be interpolated then, since clearly he's calling Jesus the Christ.