Clivedurdle

From whom did Josephus get his ideas about Jesus from, assuming they are not all interpolations? Is he a direct witness or is he relying on what others told him, ie hearsay evidence?

Charles Allen in God's Terrorists (or via: amazon.co.uk) p 90 quotes an american mercenary Colonel Alexander Gardner in India in May 1831.

Toto

Nothing in what he wrote indicates that he was a direct witness.

Chris Weimer

Nicolaus of Damascus is often cited as a source for Josephus, although if he overlaps Jesus' death is not entirely clear.

mountainman

Philo of Alexandria.
Hope that was useful.


Here's an article that may be relevant and of interest:
What Josephus Says about the Essenes in his Judean War

Part 1 of 2
Steve Mason
York University

http://orion.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Mason00-1.shtml




Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

This site http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm suggests that Josephus and Luke shared a source.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

In fairness, Andrew, the site suggests several things advocated by doctor Goldberg: 1) the controversial Josephus passage shows some convincing similarities to the Luke's story of Emmaus. 2) the two texts then have a common source, and because of the Semitism deployed, the source is likely of Jewish origin, 3) Josephus and Luke used the source.

While I have no problem with the first two findings, I certainly have a problem with the logic that leads doctor Goldberg to the conclusion that
it was Josephus who availed himself of the proto-Christian source, and not an interpolator. AFAICS, this conclusion is in no way supported by any quantitative analysis.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

Goldberg's arguments provide at most a plausible scenario for Josephan authorship of the TF.

However, if they achieve that, then it would seem to at least shift the burden of proof to those arguing against authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Ah, here we fall into a common trap awaiting the unwary. It is *always* possible to propose that a passage in an ancient author is interpolated. It is so easy, indeed, that one ends up denying the authenticity of passages purely for convenience. This was endemic in the 19th century. Interpolations certainly occur! But too free a use of them leads straight to subjectivity.

In my ignorant way, I suggest that we should never posit an interpolation unless compelled to do so. If one author quotes a passage from another, it is unnecessary and untidy to suppose the existence of yet another source without good reason -- interpolation, or the existence of some other text which also contained the passage -- which involves more people being involved.

Not that I have any special agenda with regard to Mr. Goldberg's thesis.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

This is rhetoric aimed at stanching the damage done by arguments in favour of interpolations.

This is including your conclusion in your argument. Certainly if one author quotes another then fine, but one first has to establish that this was indeed the case.

If one looks at the Ugaritic passage most of whose words are to be found in Isa 27:1, one notes a relationship, but how does one establish just what that relationship is? The two passages are much more explicitly related than those passages outlined by Goldberg, yet Goldberg believes he is able to claim a specific relationship. Not convincing at all.

Going on the rest of your post, Roger, I wouldn't know if I could trust this statement.


spin

spin

The basic topic has been dealt with before in discussions about the TF.

Firstly in both instances AJ mentions the christ, a reference which would have had specific religious implications for a practising Jew like Josephus, but as these reports refer to a person who has died, it is inconceivable that Josephus would have used the term, the "messiah" to refer to Jesus, for dying is evidence of the falseness of the messiahship.

The term, christ, which was available to Josephus from the LXX is used in none of those places it is found in the LXX, yet it does appear in the christianizing references, so we must conclude that Josephus did not use the word and that the passages dealing with the christ have been tampered with by later scribes. The question then arises, how much of the texts were provided by later scribes and as one of the references is so brief it has to go in its entirety. From the longer reference people try to salvage parts.

However is there any reason for thinking that the material is not just interpolation? That Goldberg can posit a relationship between the longer christian witness and GLuke is interesting in its stretching of belief, but totally unconvincing. And I'm impressed that people can consider it seriously.


spin