Vinnie

Total interpolation advocates may face a double problem here as well. If argued a "Gentile Christian" altered Jo to have to have Jesus winning over "Jews and Greek" contra the 4 Gospels and Paul) we have the problem of the Jews who crucified Jesus being labeled so kindly being only intensified given Christian polemic against Jews.


Vinnie

rlogan

Magus - in response to your question about what I "need" -

I realize you have the canned answers ready but I'll give 'em anyway: 1) Bones. That's right - Bones. He doesn't need bones in heaven.

2) Grave. 3) any kind of archaeological evidence - not necessarily a pyramid but something . The James ossuary would have been nice, eh?

In terms of the written "evidence" I would like to see contemporary references. I would like to see consistency in the references - especially among the biblical accounts. At a minimum the epistles should discuss a flesh and blood historic Jesus with occasional life history elements matching the gospels. I would not want Church fathers like Irenaeus saying he lived to old age. I would not want interpolations, forged Jesus letters, stories of the Phoenix, and obvious adaptations from pagan religions. I would not want a church history of forgery and misrepresentation in the OT, nor one that comes after. I would like to see more of his "missing years". We hear at his birth he's the new King - wise men, Herod, and shepherds all know about him. But he's AWOL from age 11 to 30 or so. Not one scintilla.

Understand that this exploration has been a disappointment for me. If a signed copy of Mark popped out of a dig alongside coins minted in 32 A.D. I'd be thrilled. If a copy of Josephus from 90 A.D. was found with even the more minimal reference I'd be pleased - or say a second author referring to and confirming the passage instesad of contradicting it.

Magus55

Who said He doesn't need bones in Heaven? Ever been there? We do have glorified human bodies in Heaven. And Jesus didn't go straight to Heaven, he walked on Earth again after the ressurection with flesh and bones.

What about it? First of all, the odds of finding for sure, that particular tomb considering it was nothing fancy are slim, and archaeologists have an idea of where it might be; under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Its been believed to be Jesus' tomb since the 1st century, and Constantine built the church over it in the 4th century.

Amaleq13

Neither of these seem to me to represent credible objections to interpolation. Having Josephus claim that Jesus won over Jews and Greeks doesn't appear to contradict anything Paul says since he never mentions any ministry by a living Jesus. There also doesn't appear to be any direct contradiction of anything contained within the Gospel stories. They portray Jesus having contact with Gentiles and performing miracles for them. Suggesting that this might have obtained conversion is hardly a contradiction.

With the exception of the questionable reference in 1Thess, Paul's letters offer no contradiction to the portayal of the Sanhedrin and it seems entirely consistent with the Gospel story. You misrepresent what is actually contained in the Testimonium. Pilate is directly accused of crucifying Jesus at the suggestion of principal men among the Jews. The words placed in the "mouth" of Josephus are not only in agreement with the Gospel story, they are consistent with how a Jew might describe that story.

Pointing out that the interpolated passage contains at least one statement that is not as blatantly Christian as the rest hardly constitutes compelling evidence of authenticity. It simply suggests that the interpolator wasn't a total fool and made some attempt to take into consideration the actual beliefs of Josephus. We also cannot completely ignore the possibility of multiple interpolations.

Attempts to rescue an "original, authentic core" from the clearly inauthentic extant Testimonium strikes me as rather 'ad hoc'. I agree that the authenticity of long and short references to Jesus should be understood as closely related. The blatantly Christian tone of the longer clearly helps cast doubt on the shorter reference.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
Attempts to rescue an "original, authentic core" from the clearly inauthentic extant Testimonium strikes me as rather 'ad hoc'. I agree that the authenticity of long and short references to Jesus should be understood as closely related. The blatantly Christian tone of the longer clearly helps cast doubt on the shorter reference.

The so-called authentic core (the expurgated version) is still blatantly Christian.
My position is the TF at Ant.18 is all forgery, but the one (non-Christian) one at Ant.20 is not. Actually, if there was a TF at Ant.18, the very short redaction of the one at Ant.20 could not be explained, that is Josephus would have reminded his readers he wrote about a so-called Christ before.
As far as "called Christ" appearing suddenly in Ant.20, I think Josephus knew that in 90-93, his readers knew about Christians & the alleged founder of the sect, "Christ", at least that "title".

There was no motivation for a Christian to add up, "Jesus, called Christ", because there was no mythicist issue in antiquity.

A lot more details in this page, all about the TF:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

I agree.

I don't understand how this objection is removed if the TF is a forgery. Aren't we left with an otherwise unexplained reference to a "so-called Christ"?

I doubt the authenticity of the short reference because Josephus never uses the word "Christ" anywhere else even when he is apparently talking about messianic claimants. I also think the "lost" references (Origen & Eusebius) cast doubt on this passage. They contain a very similar phrase in a context that is clearly an interpolation and the entire thing has been removed from our copies. It seems to me that the best explanation of this evidence is a later Christian copyist recognized that this "lost" reference was contrary to Josephus' stated views on the reason for the destruction of the Temple but felt compelled to retain the reference to Jesus. He found a reference to "a" James and stuck it in assuming or wishing to create the impression that Josephus was talking about Jesus' brother.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't his audience for this work the Romans? They wouldn't have a clue what "Christ" meant except that it was a term used to refer to wrestlers (i.e. oiled). Also, there does not appear to be any good reason to assume that Jesus, Christians or Christianity were anywhere near well known enough at this time and place to warrant such a brief reference. I don't consider this to be very credible at all.

I'm not so sure it is true that there was no mythicist issue but that is hardly the only possible motivation. Christians were clearly interested in discovering extra-biblical references to Jesus even to the point of forging them. Josephus was one of the most popular targets.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't his audience for this work the Romans? They wouldn't have a clue what "Christ" meant except that it was a term used to refer to wrestlers (i.e. oiled).

The Romans knew about the persecution of Christians under Nero as scapegoats. So I do not find difficult they would know about Christians and the alleged founder of the sect "Christ".
One decade later, Tacitus also featured a Christus, but did not feel he needed to give much detail about him.
I do not think that someone called "Jesus, called Christ", a brother to a Jew in Jerusalem called James would invoke a wrestler for Josephus' audience.

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

Magus, you asked me. I gave the answer.

All you have is a fantastic claim. Zero hard evidence. You can't point to the contradictory and fabricated written evidence to prove such a fantastic claim. So you have to rely on this sort of nonsense.

The real God is a shrew in heaven with six heads. Prove me wrong. Ever been there?

Doctor X

Right . . . a lot to respond to. . . .

Magus:

My only "curiousity" was whether or not you had the courage to support your convictions. Apparently you do not. By fleeing from the Challenge you demonstrate that you are not interested in honest debate, that you have no ability to defend your beliefs rationally, and that you are the worse offense that a poster can commit--a waste of time.

As stated in the post, I did not--nor do I--expect you to read the book and have a epithany on the road to Compton and suddenly repent of your beliefs. I merely wished you to attain the ability to address the evidence. Perhaps this was too much to hope for--I always see the glass as "half-clean."

offa:

As noted, since the actual texts of Mt and Lk do not support this "twelve-year rule"--and you certainly have not shown how they do--this is irrelevant.

Best to leave the jokes to those who are actually funny.

Vinnie:

Most ironic.

Without evidence, this becomes yet another ipse dixit. Next. . . .

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam. "Mythicism" was never offered as an authority by me. Since he concedes that "historicity of Jesus is equated with the historicity of a God-man" this becomes an extraordinary claim ipso facto.

Rather another infantile attempt at argumentum ad hominem et Poisoning the Well.

The advice given to offa seems to apply here as well. . . .

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. Are we to assume that he has no evidence? Ah . . . yes . . . it is "everywhere" but he cannot actually show it.

Since I have yet to mention Achilleus in this discussion or in my request for the evidence he seems to have gobs of, this is a non sequitur.

Apparently this is a reference to the apology that tries to reconcile a hung Judas with an exploding Judas? Since this does not actually support his claim--non sequitur.

Poisoning the Well. As others have demonstrated, the openning post refered to "Jesus Christ" which is quite a different figure than "some guy" who may have been the basis of later myth. The individual may attempt to characterize the supernatural as quite terrestrial, but I am afraid it remains unpersuassive without evidence.

Unfortunately, I did not make that argument. On the contrary, minimal attention to my previous posts would recognize my discussion of Paul's Galatians. Nevertheless, this statement missed the point I made--the individual offered a fallacy ridden screed. Anyone could turn it around with the same fallacies. Both would prove intellectually worthless.

Still waiting. . . .

Still waiting. . . .

Still waiting. . . .

More argumentum ad hominem directed at those nasty old "mythicists" which, unfortunately, does not support the individual's claim. The promised evidence would, of course, do that, but I gather it is unfair to expect him to deliver on what he promises.

"When you point a finger, you point three at yourself." We must thank the individual for embodying this sage advice.

Yet we have more. . . .

Because it is not. If the individual has evidence that supports the authenticity of the shorter passage--despite his the findings of scholarship he appeals to--then he would do well to make it. Then others can attack or support such evidence. This is the way of debate.

However, most ironically, if an unkind man, I would recognize this as special pleading:

Of course . . . Josephus is so overwhelmed by Jesus he felt no need to write anything else about him. Yes. . . .

Follows with a paragraph that does not actually argue for the authenticity of the passage.

Which is why he did not bother to write anything substantial about him either. . . .

Since Mk was written far after the events, he proves as iron clad as wet toilet paper. As above, Josephus is hardly strong evidence for anything but interpolation. If the interpolations are "genuine" then why did Josephus--feeling so overwhelmed by these figures--not bother to write more?

Paul, as I noted, is a different thing entirely.

Assuming said brother existed, this, in and of itself, does not prove he had a brother. Granted, I find that a bit too "conspiratorial" to swallow, but I understand the objection.

Hint. . . . it is called evaluating the evidence we have. A new concept, perhaps, but one that should not frighten the individual--given he has buckets full of it that he has not shown us.

The existence of James . . . and a historical Junior . . . does not, in and of itself, rehabilitate Mk. However, if the individual wishes to have Mk, he loses Mt and Lk.

I and others raised this question long before Ms. Fredriksen.

As secure as said wet toilet paper. Indeed, the fact that said followers were not squished suggests, perhaps, that Junior was not executed by the Romans.

--J.D.

[Leaves "epithany" intact since it is funnier that way.--Ed.]

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
I doubt the authenticity of the short reference because Josephus never uses the word "Christ" anywhere else even when he is apparently talking about messianic claimants.

The Christians monopolised "Christ" then, so that would explain it. Too much has been written about the like of the "Egyptian" or Theudas being "Messiah" in their days. But Josephus is far from considering them like that, more like false prophet or "innovator".

Amaleq13 wrote:
I also think the "lost" references (Origen & Eusebius) cast doubt on this passage. They contain a very similar phrase in a context that is clearly an interpolation and the entire thing has been removed from our copies. It seems to me that the best explanation of this evidence is a later Christian copyist recognized that this "lost" reference was contrary to Josephus' stated views on the reason for the destruction of the Temple but felt compelled to retain the reference to Jesus. He found a reference to "a" James and stuck it in assuming or wishing to create the impression that Josephus was talking about Jesus' brother.

Well, then the alleged interpolation ("Jesus, called Christ") would have been done after Eusebius, and therefore well after the passage in Hegesippus' works dealing with James' martyrdom. Why, that late, would an interpolator have James identified as Jesus' brother, and, at the same time, in consequence, making the passage of Ant.20 dealing with the same thing as the overly Christian rendition of James' death by Hegesippus (90% different)?
That would make Hegesippus beautiful story a lie, or at least bring many doubts about it, as compared with the one from Josephus.
Furthermore, at that times, the TF was declared as part of Josephus' book (Ant.18) and a dry "Jesus, called Christ" would be ad hoc with the outrageous Christian insertion in Ant.18.
Also, the James' passage in Ant.20 is not too favorable for that James but the one by Hegesippus is (in it, James finally declares he is a proto-Christian, moments before his death!).

Best regards, Bernard