Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 03-10-2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The most common method of interpolation is that a marginal note is mistaken for a piece of text accidentally omitted by a previous copyist (both appear in the margin) and inserted. This certainly happened with copies of Josephus' works. Photius quotes a manuscript containing an otherwise unknown interpolation about Christ. One family of manuscripts of the Jewish War contains the TF in the text.

As to the TF, I'd love to see a margin that would be able to hold the ~80 words.

Have a look at a few medieval mss online. They have WIDE margins. This wouldn't be a problem, believe me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If we presume that the TF is an interpolation (which I don't tend to), there is no real need to suppose anything else but accident. Those who want to show forgery have to prove forgery. Knowing who the forger was would seem to be a pre-requisite.

I usually don't talk about forgery in this sort of context. Forgery is really a modern approach to the issue and makes me suspect the proponent rather than the scribe. If a redactor felt that a text should have dealt with a particular topic and is inadequate as it is, would you call that which made the text adequate a "forgery"?

Not me. I'd call it an addition. Arabic Christian histories all seem to be modified in this way in transmission, for instance. Technical texts routinely suffer this. Forgery involves so many claims that, like yourself, I don't think it should be our first option.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 03-10-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

..... there seems to be no evidence that it is not an accident.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Is there evidence that the TF was an accident?

Amaleq13 · 03-10-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The most common method of interpolation is that a marginal note is mistaken for a piece of text accidentally omitted by a previous copyist (both appear in the margin) and inserted.

Are there similarly sized examples of interpolated margin notes?

Roger Pearse · 03-10-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The most common method of interpolation is that a marginal note is mistaken for a piece of text accidentally omitted by a previous copyist (both appear in the margin) and inserted.

Are there similarly sized examples of interpolated margin notes?

No idea; sorry.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin · 03-10-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As to the TF, I'd love to see a margin that would be able to hold the ~80 words.

Have a look at a few medieval mss online. They have WIDE margins. This wouldn't be a problem, believe me.

I've looked at a good many. The bigger the margins usually the finer the text and the more likely illuminated. Josephus is not a likely candidate.

spin

Roger Pearse · 03-10-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Have a look at a few medieval mss online. They have WIDE margins. This wouldn't be a problem, believe me.

I've looked at a good many. The bigger the margins usually the finer the text and the more likely illuminated. Josephus is not a likely candidate.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. All the statements above are mistaken, however.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 03-10-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The most common method of interpolation is that a marginal note is mistaken for a piece of text accidentally omitted by a previous copyist (both appear in the margin) and inserted.

Are there similarly sized examples of interpolated margin notes?

The problem is showing that an interpolation used to be a marginal note.

FWIW there are NT interpolations (eg Mark 16:9-20 Luke 22:43-44 John 7:53-8:11) some of which may have begun as marginal notes.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 03-10-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Are there similarly sized examples of interpolated margin notes?

The problem is showing that an interpolation used to be a marginal note.

FWIW there are NT interpolations (eg Mark 16:9-20 Luke 22:43-44 John 7:53-8:11) some of which may have begun as marginal notes.

Andrew Criddle

You mean that you do not really know how or under what circumstances the passages were added.

There is no evidence that they may have began as marginal notes.

arnoldo · 03-10-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The Testimonium Flavium:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

Quote:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

As Scarface used to say, "That don't look too good" (for Eusebius). I think even the average Skeptic will be sore amazed at just how good the argument from silence is here. Note especially that it's not just the silence to Eusebius. It's the gradual recognition of the TF after Eusebius. Eusebius was not SaveOneFair, so if he was the cause it started locally and gradually spread. . .

Before Eusebius, Origen cites Josephus in the following text:

Quote:

Antiquities 20.9.1. "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...html#reference

Who forged this reference to Christ?

lpetrich · 03-10-2009, 05:41 PM

I voted "forged", even though I think that it could have been something like some scribe's note that got misinterpreted as part of the text by another scribe. An accidental interpolation, but equally unhistorical.

So that poll's options ought to have been
The TF is 100% later insertion
The TF is partially original, partially later insertion
The TF is completely original
etc.

Looking at broader issues, the TF is clearly out of character for Josephus, who discussed several self-styled prophets, whom he called "tricksters". If Josephus had known about Jesus Christ, he would likely have discussed him in much the same vein.

View Poll Results: What is your position on the originality of the TF?
The TF is a complete forgery	32	55.17%
The TF is partially forged	9	15.52%
The TF is substantially original	5	8.62%
I agree with whatever Spin thinks	4	6.90%
I have no TFing idea	5	8.62%
Who cares about the TF, I think JW is one funny mo-tfo	4	6.90%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2009, 05:41 PM	#40
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I voted "forged", even though I think that it could have been something like some scribe's note that got misinterpreted as part of the text by another scribe. An accidental interpolation, but equally unhistorical. So that poll's options ought to have been The TF is 100% later insertion The TF is partially original, partially later insertion The TF is completely original etc. Looking at broader issues, the TF is clearly out of character for Josephus, who discussed several self-styled prophets, whom he called "tricksters". If Josephus had known about Jesus Christ, he would likely have discussed him in much the same vein.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.