TedM

The three have something in common: They all bear markings of non-Christian authorship:

1. The TF--handled in the OP.
2. The JTB passage is very different from the gospel accounts.
3. The James passage (from Jerome) gives no credit to Jesus for anything, as far as we know.
4. The current James passage mentions Christ in passing only.

None of these show evidence of a Christian having interpolated 'whole cloth' positions that bolster a pro-orthodox position regarding Jesus. This fact alone is the strongest argument for either a 'clever' initial interpolator or Josephus himself, and in the first 2 above an interpolator probably added a line or two.

What is striking about the 'clever' initial interpolator is the lack of any pro-Jesus statements in the JTB(where he is not even mentioned) and James. This fact alone argues for a non-Christian hand, and for authenticity for those passages. And if all of Josephus except for the TF is arguably authentic to Josephus, or a non-Christian hand, then this should be taken into consideration when examining the TF. And, if the TF has evidence of a Josephan core, which it does, we have no examples within all of Josephus, from which to conclude that the core was not authentic.



While possible, this is a highly unconvincing argument because it requires sometimes clever, but mostly stupid, sloppy and inconsistent multiple interpolations. It could be right, but it is much more parsimonious to conclude what I have above: The core of all the Christian-related material is Josephan, and a Christian hand--perhaps Eusebius--added a line or two to the TF, maybe one line to JTB, and maybe the 'called Christ' reference in the James passage.

TedM

Ah, that I have not found. I'll check it out.


So many here find this to be a compelling argument. I need to research this further. I'd like to see a reply from someone here to Price's comments (which quote research by Roger Pearce).


Ok, I'll check out the date issue.

The internet version I read had a name later on--Jesus.

TedM

Who is "MJ"?


If you'd like to argue against Price's arguments in his absence, feel free:

TedM

You apparently either a) didn't read what I wrote, or b) couldn't comprehend it since you didn't interact with it.



Why should I answer the same question that ignores what I've already written?


Keep calling me a liar. It doesn't change the truth.


You are sounding more dogmatic every day toto. I get the sense that you have responded to me simply from using your memory of the various arguments, and logic about what 'could have been'. If appears that you are ignoring the various arguments I've presented because you have already made up your mind about the TF. You are just finding things like George Washington prayer books to demonstrate that Price might be wrong. What kind of approach is that toto?


Price is working with what we have, and finding value in it. You appear to be disregarding the value because what we have might not be what was originally there! Why don't we just scrap ALL of Josephus' works since an interpolator might have replaced the whole thing with phrases that sound Josephan in some places and reflect his own bias in others? What kind of sense are you trying to make here? It just sounds evasive.



Yes you said that already and it makes as little sense the second time as the first. And, it continues to ignore the evidence Price has given for a pre-existing core. If you think the interpolator was clever enough to be unrealistic why don't you clarify just what the hell that is supposed to even mean?

Toto

There is another possibility - I thought it was so totally inept that it would be better not to mention it.

This is not an exercise in strict logic. People look at the text and get a feel for whether it sounds authentic, then look for formal reasons. You claim that it is unlikely that a Christian would have used the term, although we have examples of two such Christians. We have no good reason to think that Josephus would have called Christians a tribe, although he could have. Where does that leave us?

OK - I find what you have written to be totally unpersuasive. I'm just registering that.

What truth? If you are looking for truth, why did you start with an article by an amateur Christian apologist?

Do you think this is the first time I've seen this? I'm just tired of the same old recycled arguments again and again.

But you have not justified your claim that rationality and skepticism are different, or that recognizing the unrecoverability of the original text is due to "laziness." Steve Mason reached the conclusion that the original text was unrecoverable after pages of analysis - hardly the sign of laziness.

The GW Prayer Book is an example of a Christian forger, to counter your idea that the interpolator must have been "clever".

Let me repeat, Price is not a neutral scholar. He does not read the original text. He is a Christian apologist, cherry picking arguments from others. He finds what he wants to find.

That means that you didn't understand it. How can I help you?

Price has no evidence. He has listed some words and phrases that sound Josephan, and he has some arguments against claims that other phrases are not Josephan. That's just not impressive.

Let me expand on a previous comment: if you take the text and remove the phrases that Josephus could not have written, you are left with words that sound like Josephus could have written them. But this is not evidence, much less proof, that Josephus did write those words. Does this make sense?

I do not recall using the phrase "clever enough to be unrealistic" so I have no idea what it could mean.

TedM

And that's how your responses are coming across. While I know these arguments are 'old' for you, they are not all old for me, and for others here. I had decided years ago that the TF was clearly corrupted and since Origen didn't mention it, that was that--no point in looking for something authentic. Then when I read Price a few months ago I realized that one should not simply dismiss a 'corrupted' passage 'whole cloth' IF good arguments could be made for partial authenticity.

I started this thread because I thought Price had made some good arguments and am interested to know the counter-arguments. Your responses showed from the beginning that you are tired of it and prefer to not discuss it because you seem to mostly be ignoring my points, or criticizing them without explanation. Maybe it would be better to let others respond when you feel this way.

I thought it was self-evident. Skepticism has a 'I will believe it only when I see it' connotation, whereas rationalism allows for belief given sufficient reasonable evidence.

I have already said that I think it is irrelevant if the original text can be exactly recovered. What I think is lazy is not considering the arguments for partial authenticity because of a belief that it is a waste of time. If you have looked into such arguments then you were not lazy, but it does appear that you have the belief that it is a waste of time, so I do wonder how open-minded you were when you did prior research as well as now.

The difference is that the prayers were seen to be inauthentic by experts, whereas the TF has phrases that experts would never say are inauthentic. So, it appears to me that your example doesn't apply.


Your sentence reflects an unnatural skepticm toto. First, why do we need 'good' reason to think that Josephus would have called Christians a tribe? You could just as well have written: We have no good reason to think that Josephus would not have called Christians a tribe. In fact, opponents of Christianity, perhaps even the Jew Trypho, were calling Christians a tribe according to Justin (per the source I gave).

So, you ask where does that lead us? What I pointed you to leads us to re-evaluating the validity of Olsen's arguments in general since he appears to be unable to determine the proper context of Eusebius's writings. It also leads us to accepting the idea that non-Christians were probably more likely to refer to Christians as a 'tribe' than were Christians, and that then leads us to re-balance the scales, with a little more weight given to a pre-existing text that has been preserved in the existing text which was either authentic to Josephus, interpolated in by a non-Christian, or interpolated in by a 'clever' Christian interpolator --which possibly implies a second interpolator who wasn't so clever.




Yet your argument seems to be going back to a belief that since the original text can't be recovered, what is the point. My response was that one could say that about any writing. Your response to that goes straight to Price, which strikes me as irrelevant. You seem to have let your feelings/beliefs about Price dictate how you are interacting with the subject, from the get go to even now.



Perhaps you can start by explaining how clever is 'clever enough' and what kind of forgery he did need to create. If the answer is 'one that Christians would accept', then why include a bunch of Josephan phrases at all? If the answer is 'one that scholars or religious leaders of the day would accept' do you really think they would accept Josephus saying that Jesus was the Christ? I am having a hard time seeing what you are thinking here, so please do help me.


Not to me. I don't see how you can ever say a passage is evidence --much less proof, that a particular person wrote it. Either it is consistent or it isn't.

Now, let me expand: If you take any text written by a particular person and remove the phrases they could not have written, you are left with words that sound like that author could have written them. But this is not evidence, much less proof, that the author did write those words.

You again seem to be demanding proof here--that's why I made the skepticism vs rationalism comment. It appears you are holding the TF to a high standard without justification for doing so. Would you say the same thing for any other passage in Josephus?

spin

As to the claim from modern scholarship opinion, besides the fact that it is merely opinion, there have been no historians who have commented on the issue recently, only people who do religious studies. The bias is plain, given that the issue was decided at the beginning of the 20th century in favor of forgery, after which apologetics has arbitrarily resuscitated a partial TF.

As to the claim of the TF being appropriate in its context the analysis is simply wrong. To understand the fact, you have to read outside the TF. See my blog entry on the way the TF fits the discourse. This is strong evidence for the total rejection of the TF.

The James reference as christian apologists use it is a crock of shit. People ignore every other example of Paul's usage of αδελφος to claim that it must mean "biological brother" rather than Paul's preferred idiosyncratic meaning of "(fellow) believer". "James the fellow believer of the Lord" is rather unhelpful for the apologist.

The linguistic evidence has been tampered with, by removing passages that are overtly considered to have been interpolated. This means that one cannot say much that is useful, given the arbitrary nature of the resultant text.

Price's persuasive evidence that earlier Antiquities manuscripts lacked the phrases "he was the Christ" and "if indeed it is right to call him a man" is fallacious, based on the Agapius data, which Ken Olson easily clarifies. Even if you don't have time to read Olsen, the evidence actually comes from a rather late Arab source and the claim of "earlier" is baseless conjecture by hopeful apologetics.

Price is a lawyer, so he is well prepared to talk out of the side of his mouth and have it seem reasonable to people who don't know any better. But the old joke about lawyers should be considered: "How do you know when a lawyer is lying?" "He moves his lips." He adds absolutely nothing more than the schlock he offered here a decade ago.

The fact that scholars don't like some bits and are prepared to remove them doesn't say anything useful about what they aren't prepared to omit. The act of removal just taints the linguistic analysis on purely arbitrary grounds. My advice is: grow up. This is transparent disgraceful apologetics. You should know better than to present this greasy kid's stuff.

Toto

This discussion of your motivation does not make any sense to me. You've been around here a long time, and this passage has been discussed here before. Price is not putting forth any new arguments. If you care enough about this issue to start a thread, why have you not done just a little bit more research? Why confine yourself to Price's article, without reading Peter Kirby, or Steve Mason, or finding a copy of Olson's article?

And Price's arguments do not appear to be very good to me, so I don't know what you see in them.

This is a distinction without a difference. You need to be skeptical of all evidence, but sufficient reasonable evidence allows you to accept the evidence. The question is whether there is reasonable evidence in this case.

I read Steve Mason's Josephus and the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) which has an excruciatingly thorough discussion of the issues. Price has quote mined some of that work, but does not report Mason's conclusion that the original text is unrecoverable. This is one reason that I do not take Price's work all that seriously.



I think that if someone went through the George Washington Prayer Book, a few phrases could be extracted that were Washingtonian. But the experts reject it for the same reason that the experts think the TF was interpolated - the text embodies a point of view that belongs to someone else.

Have you read Olson's essay? Why do you think he is "unable to determine the proper context of Eusebius's writings?" The rest of your statement makes no sense.

This is what Olson says on that issue:

"From that time to now the nation of Christians has not failed." In Adversus Hieroclem, Eusebius asks that those who consider Apollonius "a divine being and superior to a philosopher, in a word as one superhuman in his nature" to point out any of his effects that have lasted "to this day" (EISETI NUN; A.H. 7). Jesus according to Eusebius, has left such effects (EISETI KAI NUN; A.H. 4 x2). The word "Christians" is not found anywhere in Josephus, but "nation (FULON) of Christians" is found in Eusebius (H.E. 3.33.2, 3.33.3). In the first book of the Demonstratio, Eusebius argues that the Christians are the "nation" promised to Abraham (D.E.: Ferrar 10, Migne 25c). He uses the terms FULON, EQNOS, and LAOS, pretty much interchangeably, to describe Christianity.

This is a muddle. I think that the original text cannot be recovered with any degree of certainty, therefore this passage is of no help in deciding if there were a historical Jesus. There is always some uncertainty with ancient texts, but not to this degree.

Whoever interpolated this passage put no effort into trying to fool a modern skeptic into thinking that Josephus actually wrote it. But there are lots of Christian forgeries that are similarly obvious.

It was probably a mistake to talk about a clever forger. If Eusebius was the interpolator, we can't say that he was stupid, but he was not trying to be a cleaver forger.

So you agree that there is no evidence that this passage was written by Josephus? You seem to be agreeing with my point ??

Passages written by a given author will not have words that they could not have written. If they do, we know the passage has been tampered with, and we cannot trust it.

I would apply this to any other passage in Josephus with obvious interpolations. But I don't know of any other passage like this.

mountainman

Good point.

A copy of Olson's essay

maryhelena

Your right - the internet version has the name 'Jesus' in the passage re Vespasian - could suggest a later addition.

I checked up on the book: Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synotpic Comparison - and in that passage it has 'Jesus' like this <Jesus>.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gu5...page&q&f=false


Interestingly, although the online version of the wonder-doer story does not name the wonder-doer as 'Jesus' - the translation in the above book does...........but again with <> around the passage.

Both the above book and the online translation have 'Jesus' in the passage regarding the inscription over the cross. The birth story, of the Anointed One, the star, the magi and the killing of the boy children, has no reference to the name 'Jesus'.

So, looks like it's been a bit of back and forth re adding and deleting the name of 'Jesus' to the wonder-doer story that is preserved in Slavonic Josephus.


Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synotpic Comparison H. Leeming, K. Leeming (or via: amazon.co.uk)