Minimalist

We were doing fine right up to this point. The "evidence" is that no other writer before Eusebius refers to the TF or any variant thereof.

If we can agree on that fact, then we can both start to draw conclusions from it.

You are asserting that it is possible that earlier writers did not have the access to Josephus' history which would enable them to comment on it.

I gave you a "possible" on that because we do not know for certain what they read, although Clement of Alexandria had access to the library, did make some other reference to Josephus but also seems to have missed the TF.

I am asserting that is more likely that the entire TF is a later forgery because Origen for certain, and the others most likely, knew of Josephus' work and failed to mention it.

It ultimately becomes a matter of faith, which you have and which I don't.

However, what I think is absolutely absurd is the idea that there was some watered-down "original" version of the TF that Origen ignored. I'm sorry but I've read much of Origen's Against Celsus and while I think he was wrong, I do not think he was stupid. Whatever Josephus wrote originally in that paragraph....probably an account of another uprising which resulted in more deaths, and perhaps even led by yet another Yeshua (there were many in his work)....which would be in keeping with the theme of various disasters happening to the Jews, was such that Origen in reading it did not see anything which made him think of "his" Jesus.

Roger Pearse

You will excuse me from responding to a post which snips all my points. For your own, I point you to what I wrote previously.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

angelo

Everybody have a great weekend. I'm flying to Melbourne for a football match. Cheers.

aa5874

There is another point that shows the insignificance of the 'TF' with respect to an historical Jesus. 'Antiquities of Jews' is believed to be written late 1st century, probably circa 90CE, this is after the assumed writings of gMark.

The 'TF' therefore does not confirm any independent source, the information contained in the 'TF' could have been lifted from gMark.

The 'TF' does not help, in anyway, to contradict a mythical and legendary figure of Jesus, bearing in mind,.... "he appeared unto them alive again on the third day..." (Ant.18.3.3).

Truly, this is the action of a legendary figure.

Minimalist

Doesn't answer the question of why no christian writers prior to Eusebius make any reference to it, aa.

Why would Josephus care what some heretical Jewish sect wrote, anyway? He made his opinion of them well known in his writings.

aa5874

I view the 'TF' is an interpolation.

Minimalist

As do I.

aa5874

But for those who don't, I show them the mythical implications of the 'TF', the resurrected Jesus Christ......'for he appeared unto them alive on the third day.....' Ant.18.3.3

angelo

Make that three. :Cheeky:

spin

Usually, the more learned christian can do without this section and will happily say that it is an interpolation into an otherwise Josephan passage, though how they can arbitrarily know this is never explained. The overtly christianizing "for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him." I'd think this sort of statement would enroll the good conservative Jew as a christian apologist. There are a lot of flyspecks in this passage.

It is so sad to see otherwise intelligent christians supporting this passage.


spin