judge

I know that the lines between primary and secondary can not always be distinct. Anyway I asked a friend who has a relevant degree, and he seemed of the opinion Antiquities is a primary source and Josephus mention of , say , jesus would be primary as well.
That he didnt reveal his source is not really relevant. They rarely did.
Or are you suggesting that every time and ancient writer failed to reveal their source it stops being primary evidence?

Toto

Antiquities is only a primary source of facts that Josephus could have learned from personal observation.

Solo

I don't think you understand the argument. Do you believe the TF was at least partially interpolated by a Christian scribe with the intent to mislead the reader as to what Josephus wrote ?

Do you believe that: yes or no ?

Best,
Jiri

judge

Yes..? And Josephus lived in Jerusalem during the relevant period.

judge

Yes; that seems obvious and reasonable to me.
What is your point?

Toto claimed a "consensus that the entire passage was interpolated". Which was yet another assertion with no evidence.

Juststeve

I think if you were looking for a consensus, or something close to a consensus, on the TF it would be that Josephus wrote about Jesus but later Christian scribes added to what Josephus actually said. I also wonder if anyone can offer evidence for the proposition that the consensus is that the entire TF is an interpolation.

Steve

judge

Toto was claiming a secular consensus at a particular time, but still, no evidence was provided.

aa5874

Authenticity is completely unrelated to the history of Jesus Christ and even in the NT the Jews did not KNOW the NT Christ.

1. In the NT, Herod killed the children because he did NOT when and where Christ should be born.

2. In the NT, when baby Christ was born in Bethlehem the JEWS did NOT know.

3. In the NT, the JEWS did NOT know baby Christ fled to Egypt.

4. In the NT, the JEWS did NOT know baby Christ was living in Nazareth.

4. John the Baptist did NOT recognise Jesus or called him Christ.

5. Jesus commanded his disciples to tell NO JEW, No Man, he was Christ.


It is clear that NT CHRIST was NOT known to the JEWS during his supposed lifetime.

Authenticity is unrelated to the UNKNOW NT Christ that came in SECRECY and Vanished the very same way.

Toto

That is the current favored view. It is based on the influential work by John P. Meier in A marginal Jew. Rethinking the historical Jesus. Volume 1: the roots of the problem and the person (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1991 New York).

At page 59, (Catholic priest) Meier notes that the view that the entire passage is a Christian forgery has some "respectable defenders, but does not seem to be the majority view."

If there are respectable defenders of a minority view, I believe that it is probably incorrect to use the term consensus for the majority view.

Steven Carr

For all we know, Josephus could have written about Jesus, something along the lines of 'No such person existed at that time.'

Who can say?