Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 01-13-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Question: If we assume that Josephus originally included a clarifying phrase like "They report...", wouldn't it belong at the beginning of the account rather than at the beginning of the last sentence?

In my current (and developing) view Josephus twice mitigates the Christian information of the passage. He says (A) that Jesus was believed to be the Christ and (B) that it was reported that he rose on the third day. Those are what the Christians would be saying. Everything else would need no qualifier because it would be what Josephus thought actually happened.

Quote:

Concerns (IIUC the following is what you are arguing to be original):

And there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, <edit> for he was a doer of paradoxical works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure, and many Jews on the one hand and also many of the Greeks on the other he drew to himself. <edit> And when, on the accusation of some of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, the divine prophets having related both these things and countless other marvels about him. And even till now the tribe of Christians, so named from this man, has not gone extinct.

The three phrases in red are referred to by Crossan as "characteristically Josephan" and he bases this on the fact that they can be found elsewhere in his writings. However, those other uses are precisely what cause me concern. Josephus calls Solomon and David "wise", refers to Elisha's miracles in the same way, and never uses "tribe" in reference to a religious movement.

Those are very, very good points, Amaleq, and I have no ready answer. I have not yet gotten to the point of trying to determine the wording of the original passage, just the rough outline its elements.

Thanks.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-13-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

No conclusion at all can be drawn from [the testimonium having characteristically Josephan words]. A forger will not forget to use "characteristically Josephan" words... Xian are PhD forgers. And it is not the only Josephus text they forged or edited.

I agree (and I think Amaleq does too). The presence of Josephan phrases does not rule out a forgery.

Ben.

rlogan · 01-14-2006, 12:49 AM

Hello SqueezetheShaman

Josephus has a specific chapter on "Sects of the Jews" in which he spends the largest portion of time on the Essenes - and absolutely zero on the Christians.

One could try to criticize this as an "argument from silence", but it doesn't wash given that there is a chapter dedicated to "sects".

Amaleq13 · 01-14-2006, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I agree (and I think Amaleq does too). The presence of Josephan phrases does not rule out a forgery.

Yes and, IMO, if "coincidence of vocabulary" can be eliminated as a legitimate explanation, I would say the portions I highlighted argue for it. At least for those portions.

Nothing is ever easy in this field, is it?

Ecrasez L'infame · 01-14-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemus

The Testimonium is tainted evidence. The burden of proof is on those who claim that useful information can be extracted from the tainted evidence.

I think there is the world of difference between forgery and interpolation. One of the arguments for at least some of the TF being authentic is that interpolations arise naturally from the copying process. Marginal notes - a copyist's private thoughts - are taken to be part of the original text and inserted accordingly by the next copyist in the chain. But if none of the TF is based on original Josephus, then it all must have been deliberately inserted, with the intention to deceive. That's an accusation of a completely different order, and it seems to me that the burden of proof is then on those who think that happened. (This is a point of order - I'm not taking sides, merely stating where the burden lies.)

Regards

Robert Loughrey

Johann_Kaspar · 01-14-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Hello SqueezetheShaman

Josephus has a specific chapter on "Sects of the Jews" in which he spends the largest portion of time on the Essenes - and absolutely zero on the Christians.

One could try to criticize this as an "argument from silence", but it doesn't wash given that there is a chapter dedicated to "sects".

First, "sects" is a bad translation. Second, the "largest portion of time on the Essenes" was edited and several phrases deleted. The good question would be "why?". The descriptions of the Essenes implied four parties ("sects"). One of them could the messianists ("christians" - greek translation). Xians did not appear before 888. Xians had to delete what could give a clue as to their true origin.

Johann_Kaspar · 01-14-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecrasez L'infame

That's an accusation of a completely different order, and it seems to me that the burden of proof is then on those who think that happened. (This is a point of order - I'm not taking sides, merely stating where the burden lies.)

The burden lies on the xians. They controlled the texts for some 1500 years. They are proved forgers and editors. Josphesus notice on the Essenes was edited and several phrases deleted, so that it is ununderstandable. The War was edited, or forging a text about Yeshuah or deleting it. Xians made sure with the AJ that no original text survived. Everybody can come with his own version of the "original" TF, it is only guess work and it is completely ludicrous. Thanks to the xians there is no proof of what was there - if anything - before they edited it.

Amaleq13 · 01-14-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecrasez L'infame

But if none of the TF is based on original Josephus, then it all must have been deliberately inserted, with the intention to deceive. That's an accusation of a completely different order, and it seems to me that the burden of proof is then on those who think that happened.

I would think it would be an accusation that would follow from the amount of Josephus that is called into question. Accidental interpolation becomes less and less likely with as the amount of questionable portions of text increases, doesn't it?

Amaleq13 · 01-14-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Those are very, very good points, Amaleq, and I have no ready answer. I have not yet gotten to the point of trying to determine the wording of the original passage, just the rough outline its elements.

Thanks for the kudos.

Now, what about the problem of the broader context in which the passage appears?

From Peter Kirby's website:

Quote:

However, the real difficulty is not that the content of the Testimonium is only tangentially related to the surrounding content; the real difficulty is the way that Josephus begins the subsequent paragraph with a reference to "another outrage," a reference that skips over the Testimonium entirely and points to the previous section.

Ben C Smith · 01-15-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Thanks for the kudos.

Now, what about the problem of the broader context in which the passage appears?

As I admitted on some other thread, I am not sure about that yet, either. Nothing is settled.

If it were too easy I would lose interest.

Ben.

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

01-14-2006, 12:49 AM	#13
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Hello SqueezetheShaman Josephus has a specific chapter on "Sects of the Jews" in which he spends the largest portion of time on the Essenes - and absolutely zero on the Christians. One could try to criticize this as an "argument from silence", but it doesn't wash given that there is a chapter dedicated to "sects".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.