the_cave

We really don’t need to fight about this—we mostly agree. Let me try to carefully focus on the more important points:

The point I was trying to make wasn’t really about historical research; it was about the assumptions that the average person can make about history. But as for “historical research” I agree with you that the “partial interpolation” theory needs a method for explaining how and why that would have happened. I was just pointing out that the theory isn’t automatically invalid, that’s all.

Spin, I don’t know what you mean, and I can’t read your mind. I assume your intentions are honest and sincere, and I expect to be treated in kind.

How is it an apologetic?

I would be happy to know if "sophos" were ever used anywhere, by Josephus or by anyone else, simply to refer to a profession or a social role. If the meaning is truly restricted only to a kind of compliment, then sure, I'll happily grant that its use here is problematic.

Jerome is writing in Latin for a Christian audience. Is there any reason to assume he would have translated the term differently? This is not a rhetorical question: I'd genuinely like to know. FWIW the versions of Michael the Syrian and Agapius both use a semitic form. I'm quite certain I’m telling you things you already know!

But if it just read "They thought he was the Messiah" how does that suggest it was part of Josephus' belief system? But even if you’re right, it could just be marginalia that crept into the text. That's not implausible at all.

An excellent point: you're right, I would. I'll see what I can do when I get a chance.

Well, sure--I thought I implied that everything after "For he appeared..." is dubious. Though I should add that I wonder if "tribe" is not inaccurate--how do we know that any people in Syria called "Christian" at the time were not in fact some sort of tribe?

Now that's actually very interesting; I'll have to give that some thought.

"For historical endeavors..." I don’t know what that means. For rigorous historical arguments here, or scholarly journals, yes. For casual discussion of ideas, no, of course you don’t have to “shelve” it!

But “historical research” only in the loose sense—this is not a journal, it’s a forum for public discussion.

There is good evidence that the TF is interpolated, but outside Josephus, for example, the only evidence that the TF was ever missing entirely is Origen, and even he has tantalizing hints that he was familiar with the passage in some form.

I am definitely a dilettante! I don't think any amount of amateur sleuthing will make me otherwise. I sincerely appreciate your concern and your efforts, but you will never be able to give me even a bachelor's degree in a relevant subject. It's just not going to happen. I accept that, and I'm honest about it. And I've never pretended that the average reasonable person isn't ignorant on the subject.

I understand. I agree. Again, all I was saying is that it’s this process—not whether or not someone is arguing for partial interpolation—that determines the truth of their argument. We seem to agree on this, so I’m happy.

Speculative hypotheses.

spin

We are trying to get at what can be said about history, not what the average person can say. That is a cop out.

If you can't deal with your own subtext when communicating, I guess I'll have to leave you that way.

When you attempt introduce a reading which clearly doesn't fit the context in order to change the effect of the passage in turn in order to salvage something for the partial text that you want to be there. It's complicated, but what you were doing with "though Josephus might be making a subtle insult here".

More of the same apologetic. Read this.

Maybe, but you'll note that my comment was not about Jerome at all, but Josephus and his use of the term christos.

See my comment on Josephus regarding christos in my previous post.

So what's left according to you that you believe credibly written by Josephus in this insertion which interrupts the cohesion of the text which flows from 18.3.2 to 18.3.4?

And?

Making positive statements about the past. As I said, feel free to speculate as much as you like.

If you want to say anything meaningful about the past you need to raise the bar.

"[T]antalizing hints" means active imagination.

I thought there was no tangible evidence for the TF until Eusebius's time.

It's sad that you don't want to change.

History is not built from speculation. Speculation is a means at arriving at new information or new perceptions, which in turn need to be evaluated in the context. Speculation is not in itself anything to do with history.


spin

the_cave

"We" are also discussing ideas freely and casually here. But that is not the relevant point, so I suggest we drop it.

I don’t see how it doesn’t fit the context—the problem with the TF is that it’s sympathetic towards Christianity, and it’s unlikely Josephus would have been. My reading suggests an unsympathetic attitude towards Christianity—how doesn’t that fit the real context?

Ok…this is not my expertise, but we’ll look into it further: at Ant. 8.53 Solomon is described as andri sophoi in a clearly complimentary way, but in 10.237 Josephus uses sophos aner in what seems like a more descriptive manner—it’s unclear to me whether “Naboandelus”’s grandmother is giving Daniel a compliment or merely describing his occupation. Socrates refers to himself as a “sophos aner” in the Apology, but in an ironic sense—he is speaking sarcastically, in the person of the (unsympathetic) Greek authorities. See Apology 18b. So I am not sure the term is complementary—it may simply be descriptive. This is based on the evidence as best as I can interpret it. You are free to try and offer a more plausible interpretation.

I sincerely appreciate the concession. I misspoke in my earlier post: I am suggesting that perhaps the original passage read something like “They called him [Messiah]” where “[Messiah]” just represents whatever term Josephus would have used, either “Christ” or a transliteration. He didn’t need to explain what it meant—he was just saying what they called him. It could also be marginalia. I freely admit this is a complicated theory, and the partial-interpolationists have their work cut out for them. As it stands they have the more complicated theory. If you want to use Occam’s Razor at this point, fine, I’m not stopping you.

Not much, though about half:

“And there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed it is necessary/appropriate to call him a man], for he was a doer of paradoxical works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure, and many Jews on the one hand and also many of the Greeks on the other he drew to himself. [They called him ‘Christ/Messiah’.] And when, on the accusation of some of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. [Then some business about how they claimed he rose again, maybe that the Christianon are still around, etc.]

Yes—I agree. From a rigorously historical point of view, you cannot use the TF at this time to make positive statements about the past.

I’m kind of persuaded that there is a TF-Luke connection:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/LUKECH.htm

Ben Smith has also done work on this:

http://www.textexcavation.com/anatestimonium.html

Though perhaps we can’t say for certain which one influenced the other, and when it happened.

I really appreciate your confidence, spin—I’m flattered—but I could spend the rest of my life on this, and I would never be a professional, without a degree. That’s the way it works. What’s more, I agree that that’s the way it should work. We can have a separate conversation about the necessity of peer review if you want.

Yes, of course—but speculation, i.e. hypothesis-forming (“abduction” if you want to use a technical term) is obviously a necessary part of the process.

I actually agree that in some ways, it would be simpler if the whole thing were an interpolation. But like you, I want to be certain.

spin

Your insinuation of irony doesn't work in the passage because t here are no possible cues for such irony. Your sad attempt to find a parallel below shows that you are unaware of the bind you place yourself in.

Anyone can use a term ironically, but for you to read it as ironic, you need to have a reason.

Haven't you noted the ironic situation of the text of Josephus only using christos for Jesus?? I had hopped I was clear in Josephus's avoidance of the term.

You were the one who for some reason introduced Occam into the discussion originally. I simply appreciated the irony. My position is one which regards epistemology, as I said: how do you know when you are swallowing flyspecks?

You still seem keen on keeping overtly christianizing material, such as "of such men as receive the truth with pleasure", "and many Jews on the one hand and also many of the Greeks on the other" and "those who had first loved him did not cease to do so". In writing his history Josephus was an apologist for Jews and traditional Judaism. "[R]eceive the truth with pleasure" you find plausible from Josephus's pen? "[M]any of the Greeks"?? According to the gospels there is no evidence that Jesus said anything to the Greeks and what would that mean to our good conservative Jewish writer anyway?? Oh and "those who had first loved him did not cease to do so". I'm glad you feel content with that one. Pure church tradition.

So you believe that Bacon wrote Shakespeare as well?

Rubbish. The way it works is that you gain knowledge of a subject and methodology to deal with its issues or you don't. How you gain them is irrelevant.

Yes-butting doesn't change the proposition that "Speculation is not in itself anything to do with history".

I'm interested in history. How we can be certain with the TF, I don't know. All indications are that it was an insertion, both on contextual and internal grounds. We have an important precedent with the TF as is that christian content has entered classical texts.


spin

the_cave

But wouldn’t the reader know that Josephus is not handing Jesus a compliment? However I placed the clause in brackets deliberately: because it’s also a candidate for Christian insertion.

For that matter I’m not saying Josephus used ”wise man” ironically; I’m suggesting it was just a descriptive term.

And I hoped I was clear that he didn’t necessarily use it. Furthermore, I put that clause in brackets, too. And even if he did use it [“They called him ‘Christ’”], so what? It was just another sectarian term. He wouldn’t care.

I was only making a joke.

When they are clearly non-Josephean. But according to our fellow IIDBer Bede, much of the TF is Josephean:

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Of course I’m going to try and check his work, but at least he has a method.

See Bede’s explication—it’s not overt. Merely descriptive. I’m also confused by your attempt to use the gospels as a source (“According to the gospels there is no evidence” etc. Do you think it makes a difference?)

You didn’t respond to a single one of either Goldberg’s or Smith’s points, so I assume they stand.

Irrelevant to what? I’m just saying while sure, of course I agree you should use the tools of scholarship, even if I used them flawlessly I wouldn’t be accepted as a professional by, well, the professionals. That’s all.

Yeah, and? I said I agree with you. But our thread is getting way off-topic by now so perhaps we should wind this down. (Though I can't help but make a couple more: what if the TF is an interpolation, but was modified further? And it's sometimes held that there were two editions of the Antiquities; what if the TF was missing in the first, but Josephus himself added a version in the second edition? Does anyone know about any discussion of this?)

Amaleq13

The weird thing, IMV, about the "Josephean" (not "Josephusean"?) language is in what context the examples are found. Would Josephus have considered Jesus to be wise like Solomon and capable of performing miracles like Elijah?


ETA: The member formerly known as Bede currently posts under his real name:

James Hannam

spin

So at best you are guessing that Josephus might have written something about Jesus here. You have nothing else. You needed an argument.

Oh, I see. I thought it was a cutting criticism.

I see the opinions appeal to you.

You don't seem to understand my comment. It was relevant.

Irrelevant to your argumentation. It is always your case. Not who you are or who people think you should be. If you cannot put forward a supported case then it doesn't matter who agrees with you.

Evidence is tyrannical.

Only sort of. In your usual manner you wanted to insinuate speculation thus:

Yes, of course—but speculation, i.e. hypothesis-forming (“abduction” if you want to use a technical term) is obviously a necessary part of the process.

The usual manner is the lack of clarity of terms, in this case "process". What "process" are you actually referring to? The process of historical analysis? Obviously not. You have some other process in mind.

The first is not an issue here. It is sufficient to see that the TF has the earmarks of being an interpolation and that that impression is so for many reasons. This is why I tried to show the need for some positive efforts to bolster the claim that some of the TF is original, hence the request for some epistemological foundation. As no-one seems to have anything to say on the issue, we must assume that there is no case for any of the TF.

I don't actually see any sense in the second. It need not even be proposed as all the current criticism of the TF would apply to the hypothesized second edition.


spin

Chris Weimer

"evidence is tyrannical". Spin loves this little piece, but it's nonsensical. While evidence itself may be tyrannical, he doesn't have a monopoly on understanding the tyrant. What is evidence to spin may be fluff to another, what may be evidence to yet another may be fluff to spin. A consensus therefore shows that many people agree on what the evidence says.

the_cave

Re: positive arguments for Josephean language in the TF. Did you read James’ page? He makes arguments that much of the TF uses Josephean language. Some of his arguments seem strained, but for example, what do you think of the use of the phrase “receive…with pleasure”? Is it common outside of Josephus? These are not opinions that “appeal” to me: they simply seem like evidence-based reasons why Josephus and the TF are somehow related. They “appeal” to me in the same way that your reasons “appeal” to me: there is some force behind them. But neither your arguments nor his are totally compelling.

As for Occam’s Razor, you don’t think it’s a useful principle sometimes? (Though not all the time.)

Ok: no, I don’t think Bacon wrote Shakespeare. If the purportedly Josephean phrases are not in fact Josephean, by all means show me.

You misunderstand me—you were chastising me for saying I was a dilettante. I can make a sound argument. But I would never say that I’m not a dilettante, just because I make sound arguments. Just a personal thing, I guess.

You don’t think hypothesis-formation is a part of any sound analysis? How on earth are you going to come up with hypotheses to test, then?

Did you read James’ page? His arguments are not actually unique to him: I was reading a passage in I think it was Thackeray earlier today, and he essentially suggests the same thing—there is Josephean language in the TF, regardless of the non-Josephean passages. How do we explain it?

Except…the passage would have originally lacked the TF. So you would be correct—the narrative flow signals that it wasn’t there. But then Josephus adds the TF (without the apologetic bits), using characteristically Josephean language, but without spending a lot of time revising the surrounding text—explaining why it seems to stick out…anyway, it’s just an idea.

spin

There's the irony. You willingly admit that you are aware that at least some of the passage is not from Josephus. That admission puts you in the position of needing to show that some of it is. I don't need to do anything because you've put yourself into the epistemological quandary. That's the flyspeck model. You've already acknowledged flyspecks. What non-arbitrary means will you use to deal with it? That's where you basically came in and still you have nothing to say.


spin