Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 06-28-2011, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

judge -

Perhaps if you started by explaining your historical methodology it would help. Can you explain why you think anyone has a reason to think that Josephus mentioned Jesus even before a Christian added some Christian concepts to his work?

Ok Ill prepare something.

Quote:

Do you know the religious orientation of the scholar who proposed this idea?

Who cares.... .what does the evidence say!

Toto · 06-28-2011, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
I certainly do NOT think that that all arguments that mythicists use are stupid. Only some of them. The belief that the Testimonium Flavianum was forged entirely by Eusebius really is preposterous, and it is a belief held almost exclusively by mythicists (please take note that I said, "...almost exclusively..."). The belief that the Testimonium Flavianum was forged entirely by someone living before Eusebius is still preposterous, but not as much as the former claim. The primary reason to suspect Eusebius as the forger is that he was the first to reference the Testimonium Flavianum as positive evidence for Jesus (Origen seemingly referenced it negatively). The problem would be that it would be very much implausible for Eusebius to do such a pair of actions given that it would require Eusebius, living in the fourth century, to have the only copy of Josephus's writings known in the Christian world, and in fact he didn't. It would be much more plausible to pin the blame on someone living between Origen and Eusebius, but I suppose it is appealing to blame someone with a name.

This is all an argument based on your personal incredulity, not on the surviving texts or Eusebius' position as the head of a major scriptorium.

Quote:

There is actually a good reason that the predominant explanation is that there was a pre-interpolated TF and it was written by Josephus containing negative or neutral statements of Jesus. Four good reasons:

It fits the words of Origen, who wrote that Josephus believed that Jesus was NOT the Christ. Origen was an apologetic polemicist, and Origen's statement that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ would not be expected if Josephus had not actually written that himself.

It is the sort of thing that Origen could have written if Josephus had never mentioned Jesus, based on Origen's knowledge that Josephus was Jewish.

Quote:

The modern TF states "He was the Christ." It is expected to follow from a Christian editing of the statement, "He was not the Christ," which again fits the statement of Origen.
If Josephus wrote, "he was not the Christ," then it is far more probable that Christians would be motivated to change this passage. To copy it as is may be seen as blasphemy. They would have seen the editing as the lesser of two evils.

This is a novel argument, but there are many other reasons why an interpolator might have added "he was the Christ."

Quote:

It is unlikely for Josephus to write small biographical blurbs about both James (the brother of Jesus) and John the Baptist (the rivaling figure of Jesus) without also writing likewise about Jesus.

Unless, of course, James was not the brother of Jesus and John the Baptist never knew Jesus. Your argument here assumes what you want to prove.

Quote:

Now, of course there are alternative possibilities to each of these four points. Maybe Origen really was humble enough that he would say that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ following from his honest perception that Josephus apparently thought that Vespasian was like a messianic figure. Maybe Eusebius really was a total bastard. Maybe Josephus thought that the most significant thing about Jesus was that he was the brother of James, and, like Toto said, maybe this "Jesus" character was not actually Jesus Christ but some other Jesus and another interpolator before Origen inserted a note from the margin that said, "called Christ."

All of these are quite probable, if not well established.

Toto · 06-28-2011, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

....

Quote:

Do you know the religious orientation of the scholar who proposed this idea?

Who cares.... .what does the evidence say!

The evidence is that the passage was interpolated by a Christian. There was a general secular consensus that the entire passage was interpolated until a Catholic scholar proposed that part of it might have been genuine. This was a very attractive position for people who wanted to show that Jesus existed, and who like to be middle of the road moderates. It was so attractive that many of these scholars had no incentive to challenge it. But, as one historicist scholar pointed out, once you admit that the passage has been tampered with, you can't reconstruct it with any certainty.

So there is no reliable evidence of what Josephus wrote.

aa5874 · 06-28-2011, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achwienichtig

If the Gospel writers got all their history from Josephus, where did Josephus get the story of Jesus?

As a person who lived in Jerusalem not too long after Jesus lived (and Jerusalem was not a big place by our standards) he probably knew of both Jesus and James....

Are you claiming that it was known that Jesus was a man with a human father by Josephus and the Jews when supposed Christians were claiming that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God, the Creator of heaven and earth, that Jesus was the End of the Law and that Jesus Christ remitted the Sins of Mankind because he was raised from the dead?

The writings of Josephus clearly show that there was NO Jewish Messiah called Jesus during the time Josephus wrote his books on the Antiquities of the Jews.

Josephus himself declared that Vespasian was the Messianic ruler as did Suetonius and Tacitus write in their books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

....Josephus knew of several men thought to be messianic figures around that time. From memory, "Thadeus", "Judas the gallilean", and "the egyptian".
Jesus, to Josephus was just another one of these.

But, this precisely how it can be deduced that any mention of Jesus called Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" are forgeries.

Always remember this. In the NT, Jesus DEMANDED that the disciples TELL NO MAN he was CHRIST.

Please do NOT forget.

When Jesus was alive in the NT:

1. The Jews did NOT call Jesus the Christ.

2. The Jews did NOT know Jesus was the Christ.

3. Jesus demanded that the disciples Tell NO man he was Christ.

4. The Jews did NOT know Christ was born.

5. The Jews did NOT know Christ lived in Nazareth.

6. The Jews did NOT Christ was baptized by John.

7. Jews did NOT know Christ lived among them.

8. The very day Jesus told the Sanhedrin he was Christ he was dead in less than 14 hrs.

9. Jesus died before he told the Jews he was Christ.

10. Once Jesus was dead before he was called the Christ then he would NOT have been ever called the Christ.

11.The Title Messiah must be given to the living not the dead.

12 There is NO such thing as a POSTHUMOUS Messiah.

All passages with Jesus called Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" are forgeries since even in the NT the JEWS did NOT know anything about Jesus called Christ throughout his assumed entire life.

judge · 06-28-2011, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The evidence is that the passage was interpolated by a Christian. .

Yes and the evidence is that it was just a minor alteration (in terms of quantity).
But you cant even admit this is a possibilty. Anyway I'll prepare something as indicated.

judge · 06-28-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is all an argument based on your personal incredulity,

.

Ironically virtually everything you say in your reply is based on your personal incredulity.

All one can do is laugh I guess. :huh:

jgoodguy · 06-28-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The evidence is that the passage was interpolated by a Christian. .

Yes and the evidence is that it was just a minor alteration (in terms of quantity).
But you cant even admit this is a possibilty. Anyway I'll prepare something as indicated.

Reading the wiki entry, there is no evidence other than the text. For every theory there is a counter theory.

Example:

Quote:

It has been suggested by older scholarship that since Justin Martyr makes no mention of the Testimonium in his efforts to persuade the rabbi Trypho in the Dialog With Trypho the Jew,[42] the text must not have existed, since it would have been an "extremely effective answer" [22] to Trypho. However, there is no evidence that Justin Martyr knew Josephus' works: Josephus is never mentioned in his genuine works.[43]

In short to show the interpolation and the extend of interpolation some prior example is needed. We have no early copies and the assumptions about what early writers read, should have read, wrote or should have written becomes speculation. Without either prior example or some reference in early writings, the evidence is questionable.

judge · 06-28-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes and the evidence is that it was just a minor alteration (in terms of quantity).
But you cant even admit this is a possibilty. Anyway I'll prepare something as indicated.

Reading the wiki entry, there is no evidence other than the text. For every theory there is a counter theory.

Which text?

We need to consider 1.Josephus 2. Origen 3. The syriac version and 4. Agapius, and find the most parsimonious solution to explain them all.

aa5874 · 06-28-2011, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes and the evidence is that it was just a minor alteration (in terms of quantity).
But you cant even admit this is a possibilty. Anyway I'll prepare something as indicated.

Reading the wiki entry, there is no evidence other than the text. For every theory there is a counter theory....

Well, there may be an extremely weak counter theory.

One cannot assume the extent of a forgery without a known original. We can deduce that a passage was interpolated but cannot assume we know all the passages that were interpolated.

The writings of Origen "The Commentary on Matthew" X and "Against Celsus 2.13 destroys the credibility of "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 and makes the passage an extremely weak evidence for authenticity.

And in any event, authenticity and historicity are not really related.

Plutarch may have written "Romulus" but "Romulus and Remus" were myth.

And the Church have already claimed James the apostle was NOT the human brother of Jesus called Christ and that Jesus was the Child of the Holy Ghost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

....In short to show the interpolation and the extend of interpolation some prior example is needed. We have no early copies and the assumptions about what early writers read, should have read, wrote or should have written becomes speculation. Without either prior example or some reference in early writings, the evidence is questionable.

What you assert is not really reasonable.

Now Justin Martyr was aware of Josephus and would have used Josephus to argue against Trypho the Jew to prove that Jesus called Christ was known to have been in Judea when Trypho claimed Jesus the Christ had not yet come to Judea or was not known. See "Dialogue with Trypho" CX.

Justin Martyr's "Hortatory Address to the Greeks"

Quote:

..... Josephus, certainly, desiring to signify even by the title of his work the antiquity and age of the history, wrote thus at the commencement of the history: "The jewish antiquities of Flavius Josephus,"--signifying the oldness of the history by the word "antiquities." .......

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a forgery based on "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4, Suetonius Life of Vespasian, Tacitus "Histories" 5 and the very Synoptics.

The Jews did NOT know of any character called Jesus the Christ during the reign of Tiberius when Pilate was governor.

Solo · 06-28-2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The evidence is that the passage was interpolated by a Christian. There was a general secular consensus that the entire passage was interpolated until a Catholic scholar proposed that part of it might have been genuine. This was a very attractive position for people who wanted to show that Jesus existed, and who like to be middle of the road moderates. It was so attractive that many of these scholars had no incentive to challenge it. But, as one historicist scholar pointed out, once you admit that the passage has been tampered with, you can't reconstruct it with any certainty.

So there is no reliable evidence of what Josephus wrote.

I don't know if you mean specifically Albert Schweitzer but he said of the passage in 1913 that it is "either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that it can no longer be used as credible evidence".

This verdict cannot be overturned no matter how the separation of the inauthentic elements of TF is argued, or how sophisticated it pretends to be (I find the G.J. Goldberg presentation of the Lukan "connection" in 1990's particularly obnoxious). The point is that once it is admitted the passage had been forged, it does not matter if it had been forged partially or completely. The evidence is known to have been tampered with, and a discussion how it was tampered with is without merit, as it lacks proof. Furthermore, it raises the inevitable question why would one want to defend a passage that was manipulated fraudulently.

Jiri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.