Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 03-17-2005, 03:44 PM

Many here will be aware that I wrote an article about six years ago on the "Jesus passages" in Josephus, which was revised slightly a few years later. I am giving links to both of these now, although the older one may disappear from the net again (or be moved).

http://www.christianorigins.com/josephus1999.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

I should start out by saying that I disown both of the positions argued above. As much as possible, I would like to tackle the problem afresh.

So, although I am not here going to defend either the arguments or the conclusions presented in above papers, I do want to gather up as much criticism of these papers as can be had. I may agree with the criticisms, I may agree with what was written in the above papers, or I may strike out on a different tact altogether.

I am currently reading Paget, Twelftree, and several other articles in an attempt to supplement my previous reading, which was based mostly on recent books. I have already found several points of argument that I missed.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated in my efforts to issue another essay, which can then be discussed as representing my own views.

Oh, and don't worry here about whether Jesus existed or not, just whether a mention or mentions about him might have existed in Josephus, what they might be and who wrote them.

Thanks in advance for your comments! :thumbs:

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 03-18-2005, 08:39 AM

Nobody has comments? C'mon, rip this stuff apart! Act like this guy: :angry:

Here's an additional item: Chris Price's efforts.

best,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson · 03-18-2005, 08:50 AM

Paget's survey article in JTS is very nice, though I disagree with him on a couple of points (mainly where I'm in the minority!). I'm not familiar with the Twelftree piece; do you have a full cite?

I've been exploring whether Tacitus knows the uninterpolated form of the Testimonium. For a taste see my blog post: "A Pre-Eusebian Witness to the Testimonium." One of my many on-going projects is getting that idea shaped up for publication.

Stephen

Peter Kirby · 03-18-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Paget's survey article in JTS is very nice, though I disagree with him on a couple of points (mainly where I'm in the minority!). I'm not familiar with the Twelftree piece; do you have a full cite?

Yes, here it is:

"Jesus in Jewish Traditions," in Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed., David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 289-341.

Twelftree deals with Josephus as well as the rabbinic writers. He takes the relatively uncommon position that there is a core to the Testimonium but that the 20.200 reference is inauthentic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I've been exploring whether Tacitus knows the uninterpolated form of the Testimonium. For a taste see my blog post: "A Pre-Eusebian Witness to the Testimonium." One of my many on-going projects is getting that idea shaped up for publication.

Have you considered whether there may be a reference to Jesus in the lost portion of Tacitus dealing with the year 30 CE?

best,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson · 03-18-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Have you considered whether there may be a reference to Jesus in the lost portion of Tacitus dealing with the year 30 CE?

I think it is doubtful because the digression about Christ in Tacitus reads like it was the first time he was ever mentioned.

Layman · 03-18-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Nobody has comments? C'mon, rip this stuff apart! Act like this guy: :angry:

Here's an additional item: Chris Price's efforts.

best,
Peter Kirby

I am not aware of much new material out there, though I have not checked out Twelftree's article (I only recently obtained the Gospel Perspectives series).

Also, Steve Mason recently revised his Josephus and the New Testament. There are some interesting changes and additions (which I had to go back and double-check in the Acts piece I'm working on), though I cannot remember how much new stuff there was on the TF.

You might try emailing Louis H. Feldman and ask about the state of the question or if he knows of the latest. He was very helpful and responsive back when you and I first debated the TF on these boards. I'll email you his email.

Julian · 03-18-2005, 11:45 AM

There is some interesting statistical work drawing parallels with Luke here:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

I have a number of reasons as to why I believe this research is flawed but YMMV. Scroll down to the section entitled New Information.

Julian

Peter Kirby · 03-18-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

There is some interesting statistical work drawing parallels with Luke here:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

I have a number of reasons as to why I believe this research is flawed but YMMV. Scroll down to the section entitled New Information.

Julian

Not that I disagree, but would you share your reasons for regarding it as flawed?

best,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle · 03-18-2005, 12:30 PM

Alice Whealey published in 2003 'Josephus on Jesus' a historiography of the controversy, arguing for the authenticity of the core TF.

Andrew Criddle

Julian · 03-18-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Not that I disagree, but would you share your reasons for regarding it as flawed?

best,
Peter Kirby

I posted this on the JesusMysteries list a year ago:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

1) I would contend that TF represents a sample size which is way too small for the kind of assertations he is making. When dealing with small numbers, such as the number of content elements in TF, any result will be highly suspect. I deal with statistics on a daily basis and see the large variation that occurs when dealing with small quantities.

2) If TF really resembles the rest of Josephus then surely a comparison, not just of TF to Luke, but of the entire body of work is warranted. I suspect that it will be relegated from its outlier status and sink into the noise.

3) If TF does not resemble the rest of Josephus but Luke then yet another case can be made for it being an insertion. This could also be damning to Luke since TF was not known by Origen and this would move Luke much later than is generally accepted.

4) I would also hold that it would be trivial for Eusebius, an accomplished writer, to write a small paragraph like TF in whatever style he chose. It is only 7 or so sentences after all.

5) I also believe that the Criteria for text selection appearing here ( http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/statist.htm) are woefully inadequate. Since he has already established that there is some statistical relationship between Luke and TF he uses very rigid criteria that do allow for a comprehensive comparison. He seems content to allow words to be absent in his analysis so why then must the sections begin with a mention of Jesus? Why only the first two centuries if the contention is that the forgery was committed in the fourth?

6) Although I agree that Student's t distribution is valid I would contend that the selection criteria severely bias the samples and artificially lower the noise. Pre-existing knowledge of the result is biasing the selection criteria.

I haven't really looked at it since that post a year ago. Hopefully you will find it helpful. I have always been fond of your TF page.

Julian

03-17-2005, 03:44 PM	#1
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Gathering info for a new look at Josephus Many here will be aware that I wrote an article about six years ago on the "Jesus passages" in Josephus, which was revised slightly a few years later. I am giving links to both of these now, although the older one may disappear from the net again (or be moved). http://www.christianorigins.com/josephus1999.html http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html I should start out by saying that I disown both of the positions argued above. As much as possible, I would like to tackle the problem afresh. So, although I am not here going to defend either the arguments or the conclusions presented in above papers, I do want to gather up as much criticism of these papers as can be had. I may agree with the criticisms, I may agree with what was written in the above papers, or I may strike out on a different tact altogether. I am currently reading Paget, Twelftree, and several other articles in an attempt to supplement my previous reading, which was based mostly on recent books. I have already found several points of argument that I missed. Your feedback is greatly appreciated in my efforts to issue another essay, which can then be discussed as representing my own views. Oh, and don't worry here about whether Jesus existed or not, just whether a mention or mentions about him might have existed in Josephus, what they might be and who wrote them. Thanks in advance for your comments! :thumbs: best, Peter Kirby

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

03-18-2005, 08:39 AM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Nobody has comments? C'mon, rip this stuff apart! Act like this guy: :angry: Here's an additional item: Chris Price's efforts. best, Peter Kirby

03-18-2005, 08:50 AM	#3
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	Paget's survey article in JTS is very nice, though I disagree with him on a couple of points (mainly where I'm in the minority!). I'm not familiar with the Twelftree piece; do you have a full cite? I've been exploring whether Tacitus knows the uninterpolated form of the Testimonium. For a taste see my blog post: "A Pre-Eusebian Witness to the Testimonium." One of my many on-going projects is getting that idea shaped up for publication. Stephen

03-18-2005, 11:45 AM	#7
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	There is some interesting statistical work drawing parallels with Luke here: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm I have a number of reasons as to why I believe this research is flawed but YMMV. Scroll down to the section entitled New Information. Julian

03-18-2005, 12:30 PM	#9
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Alice Whealey published in 2003 'Josephus on Jesus' a historiography of the controversy, arguing for the authenticity of the core TF. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.