chrisengland

I think conspiracy's a stong word.
I've heard that some bits have virtually been accepted by all scholars to be a fake.
If that is true I,m certainly not going to argue with them.
Also if it is I expect your just missing some of the arguments if you don't agree.
I think one of the reason was that Josephus was not a Christian and so it's unlikely he would have said that.
Chris

Amaleq13

It is simply and demonstrably false to assert this is a position held only by atheists.

Not really. Even accepting that there was some original reference, we are left with evidence that Josephus considered Jesus to have been a real person. There is no reason to think he obtained this conclusion from anything except what Christians he knew told him.

Shouldn't that be more like 50?

Amaleq13

That is true though Roger has suggested in previous posts that this is starting to change. Half-Life's suggestion that this is something held only by atheists is simply false.

chrisengland

MMM Roger you have been critical of marginal theories before.
Even if it is growing it still only has marginal support.
Chris

Skeptic_v.1

No offence, but if this is all you require for something to be "absolutely" proved, I've got some BigFoot tracks that will blow you away

Roger Pearse

I don't think that this is correct, you know. As far as I know most Josephus scholars think that the TF is genuine but damaged. This was not the case a century ago, when it was near universally considered an interpolation, and had been for around 2 centuries.

As I understand it (my sources are Whealey, Josephus on Jesus and J. Carleton Paget's JTS 52 article), there is a substantial minority who still consider it as an interpolation, and also one who consider it entirely genuine. I suspect a lot of scholars are simply weary!

Interestingly these two ends-groups hold their views for what is essentially the same reason. The interpolation-camp point out that every element in the TF has been disputed by someone, which is certainly the case. The genuine-camp point out that every element has been suggested as genuine by someone -- often the same people who deny other bits -- and therefore object that in fact all the objections are subjective, and so the passage should be accepted.

I have no special views on this. Even Paget seemed to me weary of the endless literature and arguing (with which he dealt magnificently, tho).

My own amateur opinion is that the data is as follows. That Josephus did refer to Jesus is plain from the other reference in Ant. 20. That the TF 'feels' wrong in some way we can all perceive. That a different Greek text "He was believed to be the Christ" existed in the 4th century we learn from the agreement of Jerome and Michael the Syrian. That none of the scholarly objections have commanded the support of the academy seems clear also. That interpolations could occur we learn from Photius and the textual history of the Jewish War.

From this I infer the following. If we have this objective evidence of at least one bit of damage, explicable by simple copying errors, then we must consider the possibility of more damage. It must have happened at an early date when the text was not necessarily in Christian hands. Both marginal glosses and simple transmission damage could be responsible.

Thus I tend to support the "genuine but corrupt" view.

All the 'objections' of the scholars appear to me subjective, or else interesting but inconclusive. In view of the failure of the subject to reach a final conclusion, I believe that view is correct. (Some of the 'objections' that appear online seem to be made up by non-scholars and display desperately poor education).

Pardon me: I have little interest in arguing about the TF. But I didn't want to have a view that I do not hold attributed to me. The genuineness of the TF seems to be defended and attacked for the same reason; a supposition that it is the only evidence outside the bible that Jesus existed. Since only cranks deny this, and it doesn't depend on the TF either way, I don't have any strong feelings on Josephus.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

chrisengland

I expect you and most others on here no alot more about than me.
I thought that the consensus(although how much of a consensus I don't know) was that the Josephus mentioned Jesus' but the part that metions the resurrection was fake.
Chris

PhilosopherJay

Hi Half-life,

Here is a recent article presenting proof from the First century that the dying-resurrected God Attis was worshipped in the First century.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...13888820071204

This physical proof goes well beyond the statements of Pausanius and Strabo concerning his worship. The genuineness of those statements have never been questioned by anybody.

On the other hand, with Jesus, the only First Century evidence that Eusebius could find, circa 315, was a passage in Josephus, which nobody prior to him had come across. In the nearly 1700 years since Eusebius, despite tens of thousands of archeological digs, nobody has found any more evidence that Jesus was worshipped in the First century than what Eusebius was lucky enough to discover around 315.

Isn't it ironic that the worship of Attis, a deity that nobody believes existed, is so well attested that nobody doubts it; while the worship of Jesus is so poorly attested that any non-believer may doubt it?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Half-Life

How does that prove ANYTHING?

Atis is not being followed anymore. Where are the 360 prophecies that he fulfilled?

Where's his 2 billion worldwide followers?

CreamFilledGiraffe

What does the number of extant followers have to do with it? Do you believe that the growth in number of believers (in absolute or relative terms) over two thousand years is an indication of the veracity of biblical claims?