TedM

It does look that way. I'm afraid that makes it pretty difficult to figure out what was there originally.

Ok, I found the story in the book you cited. I have to say it looks like the entire nativity story is an interpolation because we have this:

1. "..so wealth came in to him day by day and he distributed it for his good works"
2. The nativity story, which begins with 'Having so spoken'.
3. "in the fifteenth year of his reign he [re]build the temple.."

#2 doesn't follow #1 since there was nothing in #1 which Herod had spoken.
#3 follows #1 naturally, as a use of wealth mentioned
The Greek text content has #3 following #1 with nothing of #2 between.


Of course you know that the references to the 'wonder-doer' take place during Pilate's reign. I noticed too that the Slavonic version of the wonder-doer places it between the problem with the Caesar images (the semaria) Pilate had put in Jerusalem, and the aqueduct issue which begins with 'and then <the Jews> raised a second disturbance. This too this makes the wonder-doer story appear to be an interpolation squeezed in.


At this point I have lost some enthusiasm for the Slavonic version, although I find the different accounts along with the apparent ambivalence in some of the writings to be very fascinating, as they would not seem to be the hand of a Christian writer.

aa5874

Again, it is a LOGICAL FALLACY to claim that "Antiquities of the Jews" is authentic or partially authentic therefore Jesus called Christ was human.

This LOGICAL FALLACY is confirmed when we see that Church writers ALSO claimed "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic and that Jesus was a Child of a Holy Ghost.

Without any eyewitness account of Jesus FROM credible contemporary non-apologetic WRITERS from antiquity then authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" does NOT affect at all the nature of Jesus as the myth child of a Ghost.

Even, "Paul", a supposed contemporary of Jesus, only managed to be a WITNESS to Jesus in a NON-historical state.

The Pauline writers appear to be DELIGHTED that they were able to WITNESS Jesus when he could NOT have been seen alive.

TedM

While I can see why a greater expectation exists for my level of research, I didn't know that I would be expected to have done thorough research on the subject prior to starting a thread on a specific topic. I am not aware of prior discussion here on Price's points, nor do I find anything with the 'search feature' that discusses this article. What I do find is what seems to be a personal issue that you have with the man.

I read Kirby's article a few years back. I had never heard of Price nor looked into the arguments for partial authenticity, though I knew they existed. I found the article a few months back and mentioned it on another thread and Doug Shaver reviewed it. I decided to respond to his review and start a thread to see what problems people have with Price's points, which I found to have some validity.

It appears that few here want to interact with Price's points, and would rather give me their pet theories or generalities. It would be nice to know what people find wrong with Price's points.

You keep saying that but not demonstrating what problems you see. I don't think you have quoted him even once yet.


I don't think Mason's conclusion is an argument for or against the partial interpolation theory, so fail to see why Price's failure to report his conclusion is even relevant.


It's a matter of degree. Price claims that only 2 short phrases are necessarily Christian. That does not equate to text which 'embodies a point of view'.


I have not read Olson's short essay, but intend to do so soon. I told you why I think he is unable to determine the proper context of Eusebius's writings: his treatment of the phrase 'tribe of Christians', if as one sided as is implied by what I have read from you, Price, and the source I gave, is terrible.


The rest of my statement makes sense to me given the source material you have yet to respond to. It appears to me that you decided not to look at it. It claims Olson's case is very weak, and provides evidence in support. It directly says that Olson doesn't seem to recognize that Eusebius uses the term that means 'tribe' very negatively, and that the use of 'tribe of Christians' in 3.33.2, 3.33.3 was not his own use (ie it was a quote).


This logic only works if you are trying to prove that Josephus wrote the entire passage. Again, the original text cannot be recovered with any degree in any ancient writing because we haven't a clue as to who might have slipped in at night and changed a word, phrase, paragraph, or entire book. The issue, to me, isn't 'recoverability'. The best that we can hope for is 'consistency'. If it is consistent, then there is no reason to reject it on a linguistic basis. You must then resort to other forms of argument to reject it.


You seem hung up on the 'modern skeptic' straw-man argument. Why not just address what it is he was trying to do then?:Again, what was he trying to do? Who was he trying to convince, and of what?



I"m saying it is a useless argument because you can apply that to any ancient work.


What you can't trust are the words that cannot have been the authors'. What remains should not be rejected on a linguistic basis--you must go to secondary arguments to reject the authorship. At least that makes sense to me.

Ted

maryhelena

Ted, at the end of the day it does not matter if the wonder-doer story, or the wise man story, were interpolated into Slavonic Josephus or into Antiquities - or were their originally. What matters is the story. ie a story about a man that was crucified under Pilate. The story is not going to lead one to that man - because it is a story not history. The man in the story is not a historical man. Does the story reflect an historical figure? ie. is the story a fictional drama of a historical happening. And being a story, the drama is able to add as much colour and special effects as the story is developed. And the central figure of the drama is able, much more than any historical figure, to become a symbol. A cross, in the story, that was the instrument of death becomes the cross as an instrument of life. Yes, obviously, the very stuff of ridicule, misrepresentation and fun. But, that, as we know, is what became the christian story.

What inspired that story? 'Paul's imagination? Or an historical event. My thinking runs with Antigonus, last King and High Priest of the Jews, and his being bound to a cross, flogged and beheaded by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

The drama, the wonder-doer story who was crucified under Pilate - 7th year of Tiberius 21 c.e. or following the 15th year Tiberius, either 29/30/33/36 c.e. are all simply a re-telling of the story that developed following the execution of Antigonus. Of course, once history moved on and the memory of Antigonus fades into the background - the wonder-worker/wise man of the historical drama story begins to take on a life, a 'historical' life of his own.

Pilate? The wonder-doer/wise man story involves Pilate. Taking Pilate as being historical (the Pilate stone) then Pilate is nothing more than the Roman governor at the time in which the story is set. And as the story is retold - 7th or the 15th year of Tiberius - then it became necessary for the dating of Pilate to become ambiguous (and Josephus obliges) The historical crucifixion that has inspired, motivated, the wonder-doer/wise man story, is far removed from the time of Pilate. And it was not the Jews who sent Antigonus to his death (as in the wonder-doer/wise man story) but Herod the Great who sent Antigonus to Marc Antony. (Herodians and Romans in power - so the Jews are the fall guys in the gospel story...)

Ted, it's the story - not who, where and when, someone interpolated it, whole-cloth or partially into Antiquities. It's the story that has survived as the foundation for christianity - and it's the story, in and off itself, that we have to deal with if we are seeking early christian origins.

(no, I don't think Antigonus is the gospel JC - I think the history of Antigonus has been used as a model for the crucifixion element of the gospel JC story. JC being a composite figure.)

TedM

Ok, spin. Your turn..

No serious, unbiased scholars, see validity in the partial TF theory? Do we have commentary from these unbiased scholars, or do they refuse to entertain a subject of this nature?

3.4 very well could be linking back to 3.2. Despite my comments above to Mary on the same subject on the Slavonic Josephus, there is no reason to assume that a second disturbance cannot have followed the TF. In fact, if that were such 'strong' evidence why did the interpolator not simply move the TF to AFTER the 3.4 so that your first and second disturbances remained next to each other? See my thread http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304161 which shows why the TF is nearly perfectly in context--especially if it had contained something it does not contain now--the temple incident which led to Jesus' arrest. Even without it, the location is quite appropriate.



I'm not sure what you are saying here. You can't just ignore the different way in which Paul uses the phrase 'the Lord's brother(s)' simply because he uses the same word for 'brother', meaning fellow believer, elsewhere. People use the word 'brother' now in more than one way.


Linguistically, exactly. That's why the best you can do is conclude that something is consistent or not consistent. The next step then is to look at the other kinds of arguments, which is what Price has done.


I'll read Olson's short essay.


And my advice is: don't be so lazy. Deal with what you got. You don't junk your car just because the radiator is leaking. All cars can break down.

aa5874

We can eliminate "Paul". The Pauline writers are LAST on the LIST of 500 other persons who was aware of resurrection of Jesus.

"Paul" claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH that he Now preached.

The PERSECUTED MUST have had a story and it was because of their Story why they were PERSECUTED by "Paul".

So forget about "Paul". He claimed he was LAST and LEAST.



The FALL of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem was that event.

Toto

There's nothing personal - it's all a question of debaters positions.

The prior discussion of this article happened around 2004. You can find some discussion by going to the archives - e.g. this thread.

Click on the link above. Read spin's blog.

Price is playing a game. He cannot demonstrate that the TF is authentic, or partially authentic, so he tries to demonstrate that some parts of this TF could have been written by Josephus. But there is no reason to conclude from this that Josephus did write those phrases.

There is a hidden assumption here that the passage should be treated as authentic if it cannot be shown to be forged. Christian apologists will sometimes make this explicit. But it is not true - it reverses the burden of proof.

It is an argument against the idea that the original text can be recovered. If you can't recover the text, there is no point in talking about a partial interpolation. Price and others claim to be able to recover the original text by stripping out a few interpolated phrases.

Price is not an expert. The experts who identify the interpolations base their claims on the Christian nature of those phrases, i.e., their point of view.

Why not read it first? Even if you disagree, what does this have to do with the context of Eusebius' writings?

I did read that essay by Alice Whealey, and I have read other essays by her. She disagrees with Olson on the use of the term "phulon" or tribe. She does not dispute that Eusebius did use that term.

Is there a hidden assumption here that if the language is consistent, it must be accepted unless proven to be a forgery? This assumption is false.

The interpolator might not have been trying to convince anyone. He might have just wanted to make the text more Christian.

It can be applied to any ancient work with evidence of tampering, not all ancient works. All ancient works need to be examined critically; this is how historians work.

I think you have again reversed the burden of proof, perhaps without even realizing what you are doing.

TedM

IMO there should be no default position that requires no burden of proof. I think anyone who claims a position on this has the burden of providing a reasonable argument. That includes those who claim there was no interpolation, partial interpolation, and full interpolation.

I will check out the old Price thread.

I have read the Olson essay once, and found the most damning evidence in favor of complete interpolation by Eusebius to be the fact that the two differences in two of his quotations of the TF were the two phrases that are found in Josephus and not in Eusebius. This implies Eusebian 'clever' interpolation of Josephan phrases, which could then form a basis for claiming total Eusebian interpolation. I have to read it again, and research further. From all I've read about the TF, this --at first glance--is the most damning evidence against partial interpolation.

HAS there been a thread discussing this issue where someone has put up reasons why that should not be considered a Eusebius addition? If so, I'd like to see it.

Will report back at another time..

Ted

TedM

I'm confused. I must be misreading something. Olsen gives us two quotes from Eusebius of the TF, and says that the latter one has replaced 2 phrases with more Josephan phrases. Wouldn't this be grounds for arguing that Eusebius not only interpolated the first passage, but deliberately put Josephan language into the second one--ie that if there as a 'clever' interpolator, it was Eusebius himself? Otherwise, how would one explain the presence of similar, non-Josephan language in the earlier citation? One could say that Eusebius changed existing Josephan language in the first and then it was put back in the latter version, but what would be the reason for doing that?

The very Josephan phrases that argue for Josephan authenticity suddenly 'appeared' and Olsen almost seems to downplay that fact. Rather than concluding with "These two phrases are not a sufficient basis on which to infer an authentic Josephan version of the _Testimonium_" I would have expected him to say "the sudden appearance of two Josephan phrases in a TF in place of two non-Josephan phrases is strong evidence of an attempt by Eusebius to create an air of authenticity to the passage". What am I not getting here?

Here's what he wrote:

Stringbean

Fact of the matter is that no matter how much scholars or anyone else tries to dissect this it comes out the same. Some passages in the Ant 18:3 were forged by a later hand....the very language of the passage is not something that a Jew would have claimed at the time especially not Josephus writing under the Roman empire. Just my take.

Consider, also, the anomalies:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html