Toto

This is not the article. This is an email to a listserve. The article was peer reviewed.

It seems to have escaped your attention that Olson was not arguing for mythicism or that there was no mention of Jesus anywhere in Josephus, merely that the Testimonium was forged by Eusebius. Those two mentions in Origen do not reference the Testimonium. They do contain the same language ("brother of Jesus called Christ") as the mention of James in Ant. 20. But you cannot tell if Origen was quoting Josephus or if an interpolator put his words into that Josephus passage.

You can read the Origen passages here and at many other sites on the web.

What part of the fact that this was published in a peer reviewed journal by someone with academic credentials seems to have escaped you?

That's the sort of bullshit you pull when you assume everyone else is an idiot and you along have the Truth.

ApostateAbe

Toto, I really was too hasty in my judgment, and I was wrong. Ken Olson's article was published in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, which is not the top bracket of scholarly journals, but it is respectable enough. I don't know whether or not he took care of the difficult matter of Origen in his article. If he doesn't fully resolve it in his thesis defense (only God knows how he'll do it), then he will be eaten alive. If that hasn't already happened. He has apparently been a graduate student for about twelve years.

judge

Toto is not being forthright here in fact the way it is written is deceptive. And before this is thought to be a personal attack Ill explain exactly why it is deceptive.

Toto is fully aware that scholars have generally accepted that Josephus did in fact write about Jesus, and that a slight change was later made by an interpolator.

So Toto cant just baldly write that the entire passage was inserted later. Also he cant claim that scholars have no good reason for thinking that originally the passge did in fact mention Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Mythicists have to end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and abandoning rational methods of historical enquiry.

Its not rationalism.

So Jesus exsited..so what?

hjalti

Not in the top bracket of New Testament studies? Isn't it at least in the top five or ten?

And I find your behavior remarkable. Toto points out a reasonable case regarding the TF, that is in no way specific to mythicists, and you say that it is "among the more preposterous of myther claims". Do you really think that it's just absurd to think that the TF is as a whole is an interpolation?

Toto then points to the article by Olsen in CBQ, and you find something else written by Ken and say: "That is the kind of bullshit that happens when you cite for your arguments articles that have exactly as much authority and knowledge-value as Internet urban legends. It would be far better to cite academically-accepted books or articles that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals. But, go with the best you got, I suppose."

You just seem to think that any argument that mythicists use, whether it is original with them or not, is stupid.

Toto

Read what I wrote carefully. Nothing is deceptive. Scholars admit that at least part of the passage has been interpolated, and once you admit that, there is no good reason to trust the rest of the passage, except for Christians who are desperate for some evidence that Jesus existed.

Yes it is. You have yet to make a case for your point of view.

What if he didn't exist? So what? If he wasn't the son of god and the preexisting architect of the universe, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Why are you so emotionally involved that you have to insult people who disagree with you?

aa5874

Well, talking about deception examine your own source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

There is NO such information in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1. Josephus did not write that there was a Jewish sect led by James and did not state that James was called the Just.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 And we have been through this James issue many many times and it can be shown that JAMES the JUST was NOT a human brother of Jesus based on the very written evidence from the Church that used "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

Examine "De Viris Illustribus" 2 1. The mother of James the JUST, the Lord's brother, was the supposedly the sister of Mary.

2. The father of James the JUST, the Lord's brother was Joseph.

3. The mother of Jesus was Mary.

4. The father of Jesus was the Holy Ghost.

The Church has DENIED that James the Just was an actual brother of the Lord so how in the world are you going to begin to prove that the Jesus in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is Jesus of the NT?

Well, will the deception end?

judge

As a person who lived in Jerusalem not too long after Jesus lived (and Jerusalem was not a big place by our standards) he probably knew of both Jesus and James.

Josephus knew of several men thought to be messianic figures around that time. From memory, "Thadeus", "Judas the gallilean", and "the egyptian".
Jesus, to Josephus was just another one of these.

judge

There certainly is, and there are scholars who do accept it. You wrote this...."It was inserted into Josephus' narrative, probably in the 4th century by Eusebius."
Apparently you cant bring yourself to admit it might be real, with just a slight change later on.
Yet there is good evidence for this view.

Just trying to poison the well Toto. Its easy to see through.


No big deal.


Again a very weak attempt to poison the well. You are trying to equate anyone who follows historical methodology with being religious. Its disingenous.


Take look in the mirror. Would you like me to go back and show where you insult people who disagree with you?
It will be easy to do.

Im interested in being rational, in the scholarship that is subject to proper review, and in exposing irrational nonsense
History is interesting,and valuable but we need methodology and we need to be rational. If we abandon methodology in the case of jesus then why should we keep it any where else?

Toto

judge -

Perhaps if you started by explaining your historical methodology it would help. Can you explain why you think anyone has a reason to think that Josephus mentioned Jesus even before a Christian added some Christian concepts to his work? Do you know the religious orientation of the scholar who proposed this idea?

ApostateAbe

I certainly do NOT think that that all arguments that mythicists use are stupid. Only some of them. The belief that the Testimonium Flavianum was forged entirely by Eusebius really is preposterous, and it is a belief held almost exclusively by mythicists (please take note that I said, "...almost exclusively..."). The belief that the Testimonium Flavianum was forged entirely by someone living before Eusebius is still preposterous, but not as much as the former claim. The primary reason to suspect Eusebius as the forger is that he was the first to reference the Testimonium Flavianum as positive evidence for Jesus (Origen seemingly referenced it negatively). The problem would be that it would be very much implausible for Eusebius to do such a pair of actions given that it would require Eusebius, living in the fourth century, to have the only copy of Josephus's writings known in the Christian world, and in fact he didn't. It would be much more plausible to pin the blame on someone living between Origen and Eusebius, but I suppose it is appealing to blame someone with a name.

There is actually a good reason that the predominant explanation is that there was a pre-interpolated TF and it was written by Josephus containing negative or neutral statements of Jesus. Four good reasons:

1. It fits the words of Origen, who wrote that Josephus believed that Jesus was NOT the Christ. Origen was an apologetic polemicist, and Origen's statement that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ would not be expected if Josephus had not actually written that himself.
2. The modern TF states "He was the Christ." It is expected to follow from a Christian editing of the statement, "He was not the Christ," which again fits the statement of Origen.
3. If Josephus wrote, "he was not the Christ," then it is far more probable that Christians would be motivated to change this passage. To copy it as is may be seen as blasphemy. They would have seen the editing as the lesser of two evils.
4. It is unlikely for Josephus to write small biographical blurbs about both James (the brother of Jesus) and John the Baptist (the rivaling figure of Jesus) without also writing likewise about Jesus.

Now, of course there are alternative possibilities to each of these four points. Maybe Origen really was humble enough that he would say that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ following from his honest perception that Josephus apparently thought that Vespasian was like a messianic figure. Maybe Eusebius really was a total bastard. Maybe Josephus thought that the most significant thing about Jesus was that he was the brother of James, and, like Toto said, maybe this "Jesus" character was not actually Jesus Christ but some other Jesus and another interpolator before Origen inserted a note from the margin that said, "called Christ."

I have written in contempt too much, lately, and I am sorry that I took it too far, at the expense of the primary thing that I value (the truth). You have done well to call me out on it. I am tired, and I am done writing. Thank you.