S.C.Carlson

As critical historians, Josephan scholars do not assume that "the gospel tale [is] totally true."

Stephen

Roger Pearse

Isn't Contra Celsum is a paragraph by paragraph refutation of Celsus' work? If so, what gets discussed would be determined by that.

Celsus accused Jesus of working his miracles by sorcery (which was a capital crime in the Roman empire, if memory serves me right). E.g. Contra Celsum I, 38.

Would quoting the Testimonium Flavianum have been helpful, in that context? What would a quotation from it have been intended to prove that Celsus denied? That Jesus existed? -- Celsus didn't deny that. That Jesus did marvellous things? -- Celsus accused him of it! That he founded the Christians? -- None denied it. And so on.

Do not most arguments from silence involve an implicit appeal to the period prejudices of the reader as to what is 'likely'? This approach can never be right, since what is 'likely' in modern Britain is most unlikely in 1950's Britain, and likewise in 1900's Britain, and perhaps possible in 1750 Britain, and so on.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Mythra

I know that, Stephen. I've spent too much time debating fundies.

But even if Josephus was remotely aware that there existed a group of folks who were claiming that Jesus was the Christ - we should expect a much more detailed account than we have in the TF.

Ben C Smith

Do you?

The Testimonium Flavianum as it stands has 89 Greek words. As reconstructed by Meier it would have 60 words. My own tentative (!) reconstruction (based on work done by S. C. Carlson and G. J. Goldberg) would probably have about 90 words.

Josephus describes the Egyptian in Antiquities 20.8.6 §167-172 with 175 words, the Samaritan in Antiquities 18.4.1 §85-87 with 123 words, Theudas in Antiquities 20.5.1 §97-99 with 94 words, and an anonymous troublemaker in Antiquities 20.8.10 §188 with only 40 words. And in all of those cases Josephus is satisfying his fetish for armed conflict, something which would not come up in a discussion of Jesus.

So the Testimonium stands perhaps at the lower end of this range, but does not seem at all out of place so far as level of detail is concerned. And I doubt many would agree that Josephus deals with the figures listed above in exhaustive detail, as you claim.

Ben.

Amaleq13

No, the prima facie case is that they are all referring to the same individual. Evidence is required to argue for exceptions against this conclusion.

Do you have a particular reference in mind or are you blindly firing a shotgun hoping to hit something?

post tenebras lux

Sorry Stephen but I don't think you're acting particularly serious either. In fact, I feel like you're trying to blindside me and hope I'll crumble.

'A majority of Josephan scholars' for example: how would you prove that bold claim please? How do you define a 'Josephan scholar' and how many of them exist as opposed to my concern that they're actually theologians, biblical scholars and christian apologists? And how do they spot the real Josephus amidst all the christian flyshit?Aah, I see, you don't (currently, at least) spot the real Josephus amidst all the christian flyshit, you just claim that "[t]he partially interpolated hypothesis commands a majority of Josephan scholars" and hope that I'll buy this argument from authority that will - once investigated - probably dissolve into an argument from 'accepted consensus' a.k.a. '(mostly) long dead christian theologians/apologists taught this, therefore so do we'.

From your link to your site I note you make this claim about Josephus: Witness? You think the 'non-interpolated' Josephus was a witness? That's a very bold claim, especially when you aren't prepared to state what the 'non-interpolated' Josephus actually was.

Given that the relevant part of Tacitus was only 'found' circa 1100AD, do you know of any other pre-Eusebius support for your contention that there is genuine non-interpolated Josephus beneath the christian flyshit?

Mythra

These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt (20) about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.


Now, I didn't count the words. And I'm not a critical historian. But I'm not a bag boy at the local grocery store either. And if Josephus had this much detail about some Egyptian rabble-rouser, you would expect at least as much for Jesus who was called the Christ.

S.C.Carlson

I usually worry about being blindsided when I have a blind spot.

The claim is not bold. Why would you think so?

I'm not asking you to "buy" an argument from authority. I'm just asking you to evidence some awareness of what the authorities are saying.

"Witness" as a technical term does not mean "eyewitness" but "someone who conveys evidence, direct or indirect, to critical historians." Obviously, the interpolations do not constitute the witness of the first-century Josephus.

Unless you're positing a double interpolation hypothesis (both Tacitus and Josephus), the date of the oldest manuscript witness to Tacitus is hardly relevant. Tacitus himself is pre-Eusebian.

Stephen Carlson

Roger Pearse

I think you are very lucky to have got any response to your posts, you know. Every troll (I don't say you) who knows nothing about something but doesn't like it tends to respond with demands for 'proof.'

Am I right in thinking that you know anything about any of this?

To the best of my knowledge, Stephen is quite right about the current state of Josephus scholarship; genuine but corrupt covers it. There was a book on the history of this question by Alice Whealey in 2003, which you could read, if you want. Alternatively you could start with Feldman's bibliography.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

This much detail? I don't see how there is more in the account of the Egyptian than even the reduced TF. An unidentified Egyptian, self-proclaimed prophet, gathered an armed following by making messianic assertions. His group was defeated in battle and he disappeared.