Jim Larmore

Bernard,
The testimonium is not the only place where Flavius talks about the "Christ" are you saying christians added this in too? Heck lets throw all of Josephus' writings out they all must be compromised.

Jim Larmore

Bernard
Check out http://www.friktech.com/rel/canon/LXX.htm

This web-site shows the "original" alexandrian translators who legendarily were 70 in number ( thus the name septuigent ), translated the original torah and then they give a list of the books included in this as the pentatuech, the major prophets, and the minor prophets. Among these minor prophets are included the "Royal" prophets they name as Ezekiel and Daniel.

CX

The question is not whether "Q" existed, but in what form. "Q" is a theoretical construct used by scholars to describe the verbatim agreements in GLk and GMt which are not found in GMk. Those agreements cannot be denied. As far as I know "Q" is NOT attributed to ALk or AMt but is considered a common source used by both. Whether or not "Q" is a subset of some other source of tradition which influenced all three synoptic evangelists is entirely irrelevant to to my criticism of your original comment.

Jim Larmore

Steven,
I may be a lot of things but a " liar" I'm not. I read this statement from a book by Grant Jeffrey's "Jesus the Great Debate" chapter 5 page 89. He has a long list of references at the back of the chapter one of which I'm sure if I or you dug long enough would find where he got the information.

Gregg

Jim, yes, it's highly probable that Christian copyists edited the passage in Antiquities 20.9.1 as well. The structure of the passage is awkward--it doesn't make much sense for Josephus to talk about Jesus first, then James, when James is the subject of the passage. It also doesn't make much sense for Josephus to identify Jesus as the Christ, when his readers would likely be unfamiliar with the title. Since Antiquities 18 is almost universally considered a later Christian interpolation, Josephus could not have been referring back to that passage.

As to "throwing out" all of Josephus' writings, this is just a silly comment. We have no reason to believe that Christian copyists altered ALL of Josephus. In fact, this would have defeated their intent. A couple of isolated passages are more likely to be taken as part of the original text than a wholesale rewriting that makes Josephus look like a Christian.

Gregg

Well, I'm going by Barnes and Noble today so I'll see if they carry the book. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few people who questioned Pilate's existence--you can always find a scholar or two who goes against the consensus view.

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
Bernard,
The testimonium is not the only place where Flavius talks about the "Christ" are you saying christians added this in too? Heck lets throw all of Josephus' writings out they all must be compromised.

Yes, I know, in Ant. 20, Josephus wrote "Jesus called Christ", and that's about it for him, except he is a brother of James.
I do not deny that.

This web-site shows the "original" alexandrian translators who legendarily were 70 in number ( thus the name septuigent ), translated the original torah and then they give a list of the books included in this as the pentatuech, the major prophets, and the minor prophets. Among these minor prophets are included the "Royal" prophets they name as Ezekiel and Daniel.

In your comment, you used the word "legendarily" and that pretty well describes it. The legend says that 70 translators would come up separately with exactly the same words, one by one, from Hebrew to Greek, is indeed unbelievable. Furthermore the initial writing "reporting" on that was allegedly done by a non-Jew, but the problem is, this non-Jew thought & believed like a Jew in the same writing!
And, then, the accuracy of translation of that kind was very much doubted by contemporaries:
"For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language [Greek in that case]. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed."
RSV, Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, Prologue (written 200-180BC)

And the author knew what he was talking about: he translated a book from Hebrew to Greek from his grandfather.

I repeat, this Jesus Son of Sirach (or his grandfather) did not know about Daniel, but knew about all the other major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah & Ezekiel (each one of them named).

BTW, the KJV took out the prologue (I wonder why!!!).

Yes, your posted site gave a list, but never pretended all books on that list were in the original LXX:
"While the Greek translations were being prepared, the order of books in the Prophets was not yet fixed, and the Writings was still an open collection."

That looks very fluid to me.

From your referred site:

"The earliest (non-fragmentary) LXX texts are from the collection called the Chester Beatty Papyri, all of which date from the first through 4th century (CE). The conditions of these texts range from poor to fair, with none of them retaining more than a few OT books. The total number of these MSS is seven, one of which contains the book of Sirach."

"The exact order of books in the LXX did not standardize until late, but eventually, the order settled down to the following order, familiar to Christians:

Pentateuch
Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy
Histories
Joshua; Judges; Ruth; 1-4 Kingdoms; 1-2 Chronicles "things left over"; 1-2Esdras; Esther (expanded); Judith; Tobit
Wisdom
(Psalms expanded); Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Job; Wisdom of Solomon;Sirach
Prophecies
The Twelve; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Baruch; Lamentations; Letter of Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Daniel (expanded); 1-2 Maccabees; 3 Maccabees (sometimes); 4 Maccabees (sometimes)"

Notice the books in bold, either expanded, or uncanonical, or 'came late', or combination of the aforementioneds, many of them written in Greek originally. You see,'Daniel' is in good company!

About the expanded 'Daniel':

From my page on 'Daniel',

>> chapters 13 & 14 added to the end of 'Daniel'. These chapters, written in Greek, are tales featuring Daniel as a boy (Susanna and the elders) and an elder (Bel and the Dragon). And Daniel is thrown again in the lions' pit! These additions, plus two insertions (the Psalm of Azariah & the Canticle of the three youths) [were interpolated] ... <<

These passages are still in the Catholic Bible, but not the reformed ones.

Best regards, Bernard

Gregg

Bernard, I sure wouldn't leave it at that. This reference is most likely another Christian interpolation. Earl Doherty makes a persuasive case for both references being fake on his Web site at www.jesuspuzzle.org.

gregg

{edited by Toto to fix url}

Jim Larmore

Umm, seems to me a lot of speculation here about Pilates character.

I could say the same about George Washington. Proving he existed doesn't prove he chopped down a cherry tree or never told a lie. The accounts of these happenings are a part of legend we can either believe them or not. Some skeptics don't some do. I believe the available texts are much more than " allegorical fiction".

Bernard Muller

Gregg wrote:
This reference is most likely another Christian interpolation.

I disagree with that, totally.

From one of your earlier post:

"it doesn't make much sense for Josephus to talk about Jesus first, then James, when James is the subject of the passage."

BUT:
Wars, VI, VIII, 3 "... one of the priests, the son of Thebuthus, whose name was Jesus ..."
AND
Wars, II, XXI, 1 "a man of Gischala [Galilee], the son of Levi, whose name was John [a Zealot leader]."
AND
Ant., XX, V, 1 "the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; ... The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified"

"It also doesn't make much sense for Josephus to identify Jesus as the Christ, when his readers would likely be unfamiliar with the title."

BUT
I think "Jesus called Christ" is a more accurate translation. Josephus' audience, mostly educated Romans in Rome, must have known about "Christians" & "Christ", more so after Nero's persecution.

"Since Antiquities 18 is almost universally considered a later Christian interpolation, Josephus could not have been referring back to that passage."

BUT
Who said he did?
Wars, VI, VIII, 3 "... one of the priests, the son of Thebuthus, whose name was Jesus ..."
This is the only mention of "Thebuthus" in 'Wars'.
AND
Wars, II, XII, 8 "After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea ..."
This is the only mention of "Pallas" in 'Wars' (the 'Pallas' in Wars I, XXVIII, 8 is another person, the mother of one of Herod the Great's son), but is known to us through other historical records: he was a favourite in the court of Claudius, then the one of Nero.
Because procurators/prefects/governors are rarely identified with father or brother in Josephus' works, the mention of Pallas can be explained because the historian felt like it!

I also made an argument on my page on the TF, that if the TF existed in Ant.18, then Josephus would have feel obligated to remind his readers about it, when mentioning "Jesus called Christ" in Ant.20. He did that everytime when writing again about Judas of Galilee (or Gamala), several books after the first mention of that rebel.
Essentially, I made a point that only "Jesus called Christ" meant that the TF in Ant.18 did not exist.

Best regards, Bernard