Toto

I was thinking of Jay Raskin's thesis that there is a "Eusebian Tell" - that you can tell when Eusebius has invented something by the tag line - and as proof, you can still see (profferred evidence) that exists to this day.

It sounds a bit extreme to say that Eusebius edited Matthew, but then I doubt that Eusebius invented this tag line.

So I would not expect to find a definite period of time that "to this day" represents. It is just that the writer has asserted some fact of history, and to prove it, points to something that still exists "to this day."

I don't think that most of Chris' cites have this particular formula. Gen. 21:26 has the phrase "until today" spoken by someone, but that is not "to this day" spoken by a narrator of a evidence that validates a claim about history.

Ben C Smith

I recall the following from Josephus, Antiquities 1.2.3 §70-71:

And so that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon the prediction of Adam that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars [στηλας δυο], one of brick, the other of stone. They inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood the pillar of stone might remain and exhibit those discoveries to mankind, and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day [αχρι δευρο].

Whitson notes that Josephus is probably referring to the pillar of Sesostris (mistaking Sesostris for Seth). Strabo refers to such a pillar in Geography 16.4.4:

And here, it is said, there is a pillar of Sesostris the Egyptian, which tells in hieroglyphics of his passage across the gulf.

Ben.

Attonitus

Please Ben, quote a Jewish source that support this.

Amaleq13

I think it has already been stated in this thread that there isn't one but it has also been stated that one isn't actually necessary to reach the conclusion.

Why would the author break his narrative to directly address his readers with this comment if he didn't think his readers already knew about the charge?

Attonitus

Sorry, but in history only a source is not enough to reach a conclusion.

Really Mattew think that his readers already knew the charge?

Johnny Skeptic

Your comment assumes that the story was written by the author of the book of Matthew, but maybe it wasn't. Consider the following.

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge209.html

Elaine Pagels

This text sees Judas dying as a martyr—because here the other disciples hate him so much that they kill him! But the Gospel of Judas challenges the idea that God wants people to die as martyrs—just as it challenges the idea that God wanted Jesus to die. Whoever wrote this gospel—and the author is anonymous—is challenging church leaders who teach that. It's as if an imam were to challenge the radical imams who encourage "martyrdom operations" and accuse them of complicity in murder—the Gospel of Judas shows "the twelve disciples"—stand-ins for church leaders—offering human sacrifice on the altar—and doing this in the name of Jesus! Conservative Christians hate gospels like this—usually call them fakes and the people who publish them (like us) anti Christian. There was a great deal of censorship in the early Christian movement—especially after the emperor became a Christian, and made it the religion of the empire—and voices like those of this author were silenced and denounced as "heretics" and "liars." The story of Jesus was simplified and cleaned up—made "orthodox."

Amaleq13

Really? From what historian or text on studying history might I learn this? It is my understanding that a single source is quite frequently all that is available.

It would appear to be an entirely reasonable possibility. Can you answer my question or not?

Why would the author break his narrative to directly address his readers with this comment if he didn't think his readers already knew about the charge?

Amaleq13

I don't see how your Pagels quote makes it more likely that this passage is an interpolation. Is it reasonable to leap from the general possibility of interpolation to a specific conclusion without specific evidence?

That aside, my comment really doesn't require the assumption you attribute to it. Regardless of who wrote the passage, it is entirely reasonable to suspect the author believed those who read it were familiar with the charge.

andrewcriddle

The things that Celsus has his Jewish spokesmen saying have real similarities to things claimed in (later) Jewish sources. (Jesus as a magician born of adultery)

The similarities are IMO too close to be coincidental.
It is unlikely that the later Jewish sources borrowed from Celsus.
It seems unlikely that the Jewish sources and Celsus are both borrowing from an earlier non-Jewish source.
Hence Celsus is probably using an earlier Jewish source.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

Actually, Andrew, we have an interesting earlier source in which the Jewish folk claims just that - the gospel of John.

Jiri