Toto

Here's your problem. You don't drill "down" to "less primary" sources.

Any more than you pile up "suggestions" and come up with any sort of historical likelihood.

hjalti

Well, it's not clear that the Agapios version is earlier.

And besides, the TF doesn't fit in the context. If it quacks like an interpolations, walks like an interpolation...

Chaucer

Says you <shrug>. Who's to say which sources are primary and which are not? I can always add an IMO, of course. IMO, sources concocted by adherents should be treated as secondary to sources generated by pagan chroniclers. The fact that that is an opinion should be self-evident here. Likewise, it is also self-evident that viewing sources concocted by adherents as somehow primary(!) is also merely an opinion.

In addition, I'm not coming up with suggestions of my own here. Instead, certain indicative patterns emerge that a considerable number of secular scholars have already perceived, including a striking original philosophy that has never been ascribed to anyone else (never mind its degree of morality which is another question). And when I go to the earliest least embellished version of what strikes me as primary chronicler material, words like "wise" imply someone already reputed as something of a thinker. Coincidence?

Chaucer

Toto

You just told us that the pagan sources were primary and suffient by themselves to establish a historical Jesus. No need for the gospels. But now you want to drill down to find -- the gospels!

That "earliest" source still dates to about the 10 century, and coincidentally corresponds to the Islamic picture of Jesus - a wise prophet, but not divine. But this version of Jesus is derived from Christian sources.

Chaucer

But Vivisector challenged that as an historicist himself, and I already indicated at the first, before Vivisector's arrival, that I'd accept the notion that the gospels would have to be viewed as one part of the record so long as another historicist were found who duly viewed them that way. Such an historicist was found, so I have to now concur that Biblia is one part of the record. I still don't concur with the notion that the Biblical sources are primary, even though I concede, thanks to Vivisector, that they are part of the record.

You totally ignore what I just wrote in my previous: "Essentially, I reverse Vivisector's equation: he wrote of the pagan sources being confirmatory. But I make them primary, not confirmatory. The Biblical sources are merely confirmatory, but even so, they are only confirmatory where/when they corroborate or flesh out details behind attributes already in the pagan record. Now, no one else in the whole written corpus of human literature is given ownership of "Love your enemies" before the Jesus documents. And since it appears to be one of the very few things that are original to the Jesus documents, and since it fits with the picture given in the earlier shorter non-supernatural version of the pagan TF, it makes more sense than not to view "Love your enemies" as more likely than not the remark of someone duly described in the earliest source for a pagan text as "wise"/"virtuous". Note that I merely view it as more likely than not an authentic remark from Jesus the human preacher of the Agapios TF; and I know that likelihood is not the same as certainty."

Let's see. Josephus is a Jew and also an enculturated Roman. Then, the earliest transcription of the TF from Agapios is in Arabic, and Agapios is a Bishop. So we have a Jew and a Roman writing the original. Then we have an Arabic transcription giving us the earliest extant version, and that's written by a Bishop. The only Christian I see in this whole mix is Agapios -- who actually gives us a less "Christianized" version of this passage than in later manuscripts!

If Christians play any suspicious role here at all, it would be in the later complete mss. of the Antiqs, where the TF in Antiq. 18 has things like "surprising feats" and "if one ought to call him a man". But when a Bishop transcribes this at an earlier time, there's none of this, when one would think there'd be more of it because Agapios is a Bishop. Why would he remove things like "surprising feats" and "if one ought to call him a man" if those things were already there? It makes a lot more sense for there to be nothing like this in the first place in the version that he knew.

Since Agapios is the clearest Christian player in all this when it comes to this earliest version, and since he actually comes up with something less "Christian" than in later mss., you've utterly failed to show where demonstrable Christian interference plays any role in this earliest version of the TF.

Chaucer

hjalti

Chaucer, you keep on just asserting that what Agapios wrote is the earliest version. You realise that we're dealing with a quotation (which often aren't exactly exact) in an arabic translations (which often aren't exactly exact).

And have you tried to explain why this passage doesn't fit in the context?

And why on earth would the pro-roman Josephus write that a Jew who was crucified (sounds like a trouble-maker) was "good" and "wise man"?

We have two scenarios:

1. Josephus, wrote a very strange-sounding passage, that doesn't fit the context. Later Christian scribes made it sound better, and the only trace of the original is in a quotation in Arabic.

2. Josephus didn't write a strange-sounding passage that doesn't fit the context, but a later, Christian scribe did. And we have a somewhat scrambled quotation in another language of that passage.

I think scenario 2. is much more probable.

show_no_mercy

Jews had an idiosyncratic definition of "christ", which Josephus for some reason did not explain to his pagan audience. The Greek educated Romans would have been confused that Josephus called some guy "the ointment".

Which is why Josephus doesn't describe any of the other "christs" in the LXX with the title "christ", but uses the actual word for "anointed".

Of course, this makes perfect sense if these two mentions of "christ" in Josephus were not written by Josephus, but were written by a Christian who isn't concerned about confusing his audience.

spin

Though I'm not disagreeing with you, why are we trawling through Agapius again? He's a 10th c. Arabic writer who has come across the TF in translation and who has shown a propensity to de-"marvelize" his sources (see K. Olsen, read 3rd last paragraph if short on time). Scholars believe that Agapius used a source that was available to the chronicler Michael, but there is nothing in Michael's presentation of the same material to suggest that the de-marvelized version of Agapius reflects an early tradition (see my post).

The only reason I can see for regurgitating Agapius is because christian apologists have found it helpful for their religious needs. I don't see why non-believers need to toe this line.

hjalti

spin, I agree, Agapius is dependent on the interpolated text.

Because some of them want to shut up the non-believers that don't just accept the existence of Jesus?

I don't know what else could be the reason, I don't think that it's irrational to think it more probable than not that there was a historical Jesus. But I think it's very irrational to think that the TF is relevant (because it's clearly a later inteprolation).

Chaucer

At the end of the day, it still remains very odd that Agapios should remove -- or repeatedly "de-marvelize" -- "marvels" stuff. All very well and good to imply that that's a general tendency of Agapios. Fine. But that's no answer as to why. I still don't see why Agapios's being earlier than Michael might not be a key factor here. Hence the apparent differences in his materials. This factor may not explain all the instances where we see differences between Agapios and Michael. But it might explain a few.

Now I understand Olson's claim that Michael and Agapios may both be using the same or a similar source in many instances. But when the sources they use seem especially far apart, as in the case of the TF, sheer chronology might really be a factor, and Agapios is, after all, two hundred years earlier than Michael.

It's not irrelevant in this context that Olson is candid enough to say "it
seems that Agapius does indeed omit or tone down references to Jesus'
miracle-working during his lifetime. I do not know why this is". Well...............yes! I've read the suggestion that Agapios is in the business of toning all this down for his Muslim patron(s) ..................... a Bishop?

One could make an argument that Agapios indulged in this "de-marvelizing" as a prevailing editorial habit. But it seems a forced argument. It just seems likelier that Agapios is giving us, instead, a rare snapshot of the TF at a time before it was "warmed over" by over-zealous Christians. I find Carlson's argument more convincing.

Ad hom.

Chaucer