maryhelena

Hold your horses right there Ted - removing the christian additions to the TF does not, in any way whatsoever, provide a "contemporary, historical witness to Jesus' existence from a credible source"


All such an endeavor accomplishes to is take one face to face with Josephus - with all that that encounter can bring forth. It's Josephus that is at issue here - not the christian additions to the TF. If this passage has wording that has traces of Josephus - that does not mean that it was Josephus that put that passage in Antiquities. Josephus has written a prior work, War. And yes, Slavonic Josephus, which contains parallel portions to War, is problematic re it's account of the wonder-doer - but that is because of the assumption re a historical gospel JC. Without that assumption, the story of the wonder-doer in Slavonic Josephus can take it's rightful place in the development of the gospel JC story. And interestingly, provide an argument for interpolation into Antiquities - an interpolation that contains words of Josephus plus words of a christian nature. (whether these words are actually words of Josephus from an earlier work - or words he, himself, took from an already existing story is of secondary concern). Josephus saw fit not to include this story in Antiquities - someone else thought differently.

Josephus, as I have referenced a number of times, is being referred to as a prophetic historian. That means that Josephus is not just a historian. And that, Ted, is the issue that has to be faced. Not that the TF is a partial interpolation - but that the partial interpolation is not the end but the beginning of taking this matter further - which is to begin to put Josephus in the dock...

Ted, there is no credible historical witness to the gospel JC - that figure did not exist. All this back and forth over the TF, as though it is the be all and end all, a huge nail in the mythicist coffin, is nonsensical.

mountainman

From Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.
* This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)


The hypothesis that Eusebius is a master forger is the simplest. For example it immediately explains the letter by Jesus to Agbar. How much Eusebius is in Josephus and Origen and Celsus and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the "Early Pious Bishops and Fathers"l?

The hypothesis that Eusebius is a master forger is supported by evidence of identify theft of the names Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius from the lineage of 3rd century Platonists. Each name requires disambiguation for so-called historical identities in the 3rd century. For detailed data see the essay A Pageant of Christian Identity Frauds masquerade in the Academy of Plato


Also from Momigliano .....

:rolling:

I am in agreement with Philosopher Jay on this point.

We can call this the "Master Forger Hypothesis" in opposition to the "Multiple Forgeries Hypothesis."

The former hypothesis is the simpler by many degrees of magnitude. See the relevant Bayesian probability equation.

In fact the "Master Forger Hypothesis" goes a long way to explain the entire historical nature of "Early Christianity".

The only other thing to deal with is the heretics - the historical Gnostic literary reaction to the books edited by Eusebius

mountainman

It also translates as a 'nation'. See Momigliano in the above post. In the 4th century, c.312 CE the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly became the victorious nation. And where was Eusebius if he was not surfing the wave of National Christian Victory?

Common sense and Richard Carrier tells us that Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous. Examination of all the evidence tells us that the simplest retrospective explanation is that Eusebius was simply a master forger in the service of the Holy Christian Revolution of the 4th century. And that he was very good at his job.

Gorit Maqueda

1b. A clever interpolator first put in language that matches Josephus, a glosser glossed more 'Christian' clarifications for his or his fellow's benefit, a scribe inserted the gloss in the main text, and Josephus suddenly became the most famous Jew in the world (after Jesus and Charlton Heston, that's it).

TedM

I don't see anything to support that conclusion on your part, but it really doesn't matter to me as long as his evidence is good.

I don't understand what you are saying here.


Your 'clearly forged' portions seem to have no basis, and don't address Price's arguments for each of them, so I don't know where you are coming from here at all.


This is the issue I have not evaluated enough yet, but will note that Roger Pearce appears to have done so (Price references this in his article). I think he debunks the claim that Justin knew the Antiquities, and shows that the other 'silences' are not as significant as your listing would imply. But, as I said I haven't looked closely.


No, but it would argue strongly for it.

I am very interested in Slavonic and have reread it a number of times. I think the problem you refer to is one of dating, correct? I am sorry because you probably have said so over a dozen times, but I didn't see where the dating is a problem. I know he dates JTB earlier but where does he date Jesus earlier?

I agree with both of these, but at the same time would not say that it does much to change the gospel story other than to change the timing of events some. Why is that such a big deal to you? He still refers to Jesus, teachings, miracles, 30 talents, envy of leaders, crucifixion, and reported resurrection. Is it back to the date issue?

Or, he later got more details and included it.

Yeah, I don't fully appreciate this yet.

And, I'm just not sure why you make such a distinction between the gospel JC and the Slavonic Jesus, or why you think the TF is being claimed as a witness to the gospel JC any more than the Slavonic J.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hey, no argument there. There's a reason why Price is no longer here. Invoking him is a waste of time since he isn't here and he's not an authority. If you can scavenge what you think is specific evidence he identifies go right ahead and present the specifics here.

Like I said, you need to determine the extent of likely forged in the TF to evaluate whether it even rises to the level of any type of evidence for HJ. If it has more than a minimum amount, than it is not evidence. Price strawmans by saying MJ says because it has "some" forgery it is not evidence. The standard is not what Price says "MJ says" but what the TF says. Again, Price = distraction.

Let's go straight to the TF:

Josephus on Jesus
1 - Now there was about this time Jesus

Could be

2 - a wise man

Could be

3 - if it be lawful to call him a man

Is this clearly forged or not Ted? What do you think. Not what do you think Price thinks.

4 - for he was a doer of wonderful works

"wonderful works" implies miracles. Now Josephus does use the same word for Moses and Elijah. How often does Josephus describe contemporaries as miracle workers Ted? "Mark", the original Gospel, has a major theme of Jesus being the successor of Moses and Elijah as evidenced by his continuation of their wonderful works. Is it more likely for Josephus Jew to make this connection or Mr. Christian?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

There is NO need to INVENT any ad-hoc solutions about the forgeries in Josephus.

What is extremely significant is that both the Church and HJers are the ones arguing that "Antiquities of the Jews" is AUTHENTIC yet the Church claimed that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost Ghost and HJers BELIEVE Jesus was FATHERED by a man.

In "On the Flesh of Christ" by Tertullian it is claimed that Jesus Christ had the seed of God and a woman as his mother.

The authenticity, partial authenticity or non-authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" have NO effect on the claims of the Church that Jesus Christ was of the seed of God and the Creator.

maryhelena

I don't think that's necessarily so - it's a very easy 'trick' for an interpolator to do - take words from an earlier work and insert them, with the interpolator's own additions, into an author's newer work. The Slavonic Josephus nativity story is placed prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great, ie prior to 25 b.c. (counting from 40 b.c.)
Ted, it is a question of a developing JC story. Something that's not possible with a historical, human, JC. One can't have JC crucified in 21 ce (7th year of Tiberius) and again around 30/33 ce (from the 15th year of Tiberius.)

Actually, just a thought here - is the Eusebius interpolation of the TF into Antiquities an attempt to discredit the earlier crucifixion story? gLuke, has of course, already done so with his new dating - but, by the look of things, that earlier crucifixion story seems to have bothered Eusebius. His reference to Josephus - that the crucifixion was in the 12th not the 7th year of Tiberius - and his use of the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story - might well suggest that his motive was not just to provide 'historical' evidence in Antiquities for the gospel JC - but was also an attempt to counter the earlier crucifixion story. Old habits die hard - the new storyline in gLuke might have met with some resistance.

Ted, I have no problem if the TF, minus it's christian additions, was originally in Antiquities. (wishful thinking would not translate that story into historical fact). However, by all accounts, the TF was not quoted until the time of Eusebius. Consequently, one has to deal with a later insertion, interpolation into Antiquities. Who did it? Eusebius most likely. Motive? Two fold. 1) give the gospel JC a historical veneer. 2) put an end to all the talk re that early crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e. Not just talk, not just argument - move the damn story - and put it in Antiquities and claim that Josephus had the crucifixion in the 12th year of Tiberius (Josephus, in Antiquities, is ambiguous re dating Pilate anyway) - and give it a new accolade 'he was the christ'. (It's not even necessary to suppose Eusebius had an early copy of War in front of him - it's the story that would not die - already causing trouble re Acts of Pilate...) gLuke was not sufficient to quell the crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius - Eusebius had to turn to interpolation into Antiquities to quell the controversy over dating the crucifixion story in 21 c.e.

Eusebius knows about the 7th year, 21 ce, crucifixion story; he knows gJohn and it's JC being not yet 50 years old - that story finds it's home in Slavonic Josephus and a birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c. And it looks, to me, that it is that story that Eusebius is attempting, by his interpolation in Antiquities, to discredit. And the TF is his trump card!

But seems no one bothered to quote the TF for many a year....

And your probably not the only one......

Well, for one, the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer does not have a name.....
Both figures, the wonder-doer and the gospel JC, are stories not history. The stories don't relate historical events - they are rather an attempt at interpreting or finding meaning, of some sort, within a specific historical time frame. The focus should be on what we can understand of actual history - and then try and fathom out what it was within that history that provided the gospel writers with inspiration for their JC story. Working from the story is putting the cart before the horse....

aa5874

Well, the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem c 70 CE appears to be the event that inspired the Jesus story.

Toto

There's no logic there.

What is inconsistent with an interpolator who had no need to be especially clever?

How many insults can you pile on that improbable statement? I don't for one minute think that you suddenly found Layman's essay and saw the light, Hallelujah! so you could believe that Josephus referred to Jesus.

There is nothing lazy about recognizing reality, and skepticism and rationality are not opposed to each other.

The major point of Price's article is that Josephus was an early witness to Jesus, which requires that there have been an original authentic core.

As has been remarked, if you take the text and remove what Josephus obviously would not have written, what is left is Josephan in nature.
What is relevant is whether there is any basis for thinking you can recover anything. For example, the interpolator might have replaced phrases in the original text. That leaves no way of recovering the original.

The clever interpolator is your fantasy. The evidence supports an interpolator who was clever enough but did not need to create a realistic forgery by modern critical standards.