spin

So you want to make your theory even more complex. I thought you said something about Occam.

There is nothing in the TF as is to suggest anything about a problem for the Jews and one would expect a Jew writing the text to understand what he is writing about in the area.

I'm not going to dispute with Feldman on the issue. Whiston has "sad calamity". It seems simply to be "terrible (thing)", but coupled with the verb form eQorubei we have something terrible causing an uproar.

What has this to do with epistemology? Null hypothesis as you state it is ontology. Try again.

Your comments belie the truth.

You have failed to say why you necessarily want to keep a passage which shows obvious signs of material not from the writer. Josephus has made clear his religious biases and heritage. Your suggestions do not show any consideration of such.


spin

Roger Pearse

For this argument to work (borrowed, I think) I think you need to demonstrate that a reference appearing first in Eusebius is significant.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

Ha ha very funny Obviously I was kidding about Occam...though I should add that there is simple, and then there is too simple.

Well, all Josephus is really saying is that one of the previous episodes was a bad thing, and that another one created an uproar. He doesn't say the last one did! (I'm not even sure he has to be refering to the TF. It makes as much sense for me that he could just be referring to the riots. In this way, the brevity of the TF can work in its favor! Maybe.)

But see my reasons for saying it is the null hypothesis--the consensus of experts. Of course, they can be wrong, and you don't want to trust them at all. That's fine--I'm just saying it doesn't change the null hypothesis, though of course it could, if they changed their minds.

Aha, but I don't "necesarily" want to keep it! I am saying that I think the partial-interpolation hypothesis is equally as plausible as the total-interpolation hypothesis.

If all we had was the TF, we really wouldn't know much about this Jesus-figure at all. For all we know he was a well-respected fellow. Josephus tends to be anti-innovation, but for example even though he left the ascetic lifestyle, he doesn't speak ill of Banus.

spin

Narrative cohesion is a linguistic study of how texts hold together. Narratives use observable devices to give themselves a certain unity or flow. The first clause of AJ 18.65 (18.3.4) provides a few of these devices. We have indications that the writer had immediately prior talked of matters for which the Jews were central and that those matters from a Jewish perspective (ie as seen by Josephus, the Jew) were terrible (fearful, dread, dire: deinos). The narrative as narrative in the TF does not qualify.

I have said many times history is not democratic. It is a tyranny of evidence.

There is methodology that needs to be adhered to.

Your actions belie you.

When a passage is shown to contain questionable material, you have to question the whole passage. Using any of it is like using the testimony of a habitual liar. This does not mean that there is no fact in what is said, but the onus is squarely on you to demonstrate the factual content. That's the epistemology.

Josephus didn't call Banus the messiah. You need to deal with what the TF says, prophets and all.


spin

Chris Weimer

This is a blatant disregard of the historical method that spin claims to advocate. Every work has questionable material in it. Not a single poem of Catullus survives as it was penned by the great poet. However, we don't trash Catullus. Likewise, spin tries to make out our copy of Josephus as an "habitual liar", when in fact there is only one real suspected forgery, and another that others have tried in vain to see forgery therein. At most, we only have two. Habitual liar? Overzealous scribe? Marginal notes incorporated into the main text? Spin refuses to even acknowledge the latter two, the two most common in antiquity.

the_cave

Indications, yes--but those could also be indications that the prior passage was not the one immediately preceding, but one almost immediately preceding. Language is not perfectly logical; it is vague and ambiguous. Personally I see no way of telling for certain which reading is correct. Both are plausible.

And it is reasonable to assume that the experts have considered the evidence. They will continue to do so, and their consensus may change. The null hypothesis will follow them.

Oh, spin, there really is no need for this. Sure, I am interested in exploring the possibility that Josephus mentions a historical Jesus-figure. Why? Because it's interesting, that's why. The same reason, I assume, why you're interested in exploring the possibility that Josephus mentions no such figure. There is no reason for you to assume that your motives are somehow uniquely pure. In fact I really have no idea what your motives are, and I don't really care, either.

In the face of competing plausible explanations for the TF, I personally think it's best to suspend judgement, and I do. But that doesn't make it unreasonable for others to assume that at least some of it is authentic.

Question, yes. I do question it. That is different from making a decision about it.

Exactly

Only if I want to prove one way or the other which reading is correct. I'm perfectly content to suspend judgement until there is more conclusive evidence. I realize you aren't, and I can live with that.

There is evidence that there were versions of the TF in which Josephus didn't, either. [edited to add: I mean, in which Josephus doesn't call Jesus the messiah, either.] I don't need to tell you that!

spin

Please read the text and stop apologizing for it.

When the text says "at the same time" in conjunction with the rest of the clause, its cohesive nature should be evident. The TF interrupts the cohesion. Your shuffling and excusing doesn't change that.

The narrative context makes transparent that the TF is an insertion, for without it there are no difficulties with the cohesive markers, while with it there are.

Couple this with the clear flyspecks in the passage and there is no defence for it.

You should stop these continuous weak attempts of appeal to authority. They have no value. Either you want to put a case or you don't.

Why, I think you've shown your intentions which don't necessarily reflect what you say.

I'm not interested in speculation of various types. I'd rather work with what we can evince from the material, not simply exploring possibilities.

I can only work from what you produce.

Try to deal with discerning the flyspecks.

The process is simple. If it cannot be validated, it cannot have any weight. That will be true until you can validate it.

It's a shame, despite the apparent agreement, that you go on to say:

Suspending judgment means not using the material until judgment can be made.

As I said, "but the onus is squarely on you to demonstrate the factual content." To this I added, "That's the epistemology." You seem content to avoid the issue.

Cite your material; make some sort of case.


spin

the_cave

Spin, it is just not true that arguing for one reading or another is always apologetics. Sometimes it is just the process of anaysis. This is blatantly obvious.

I'll start with a Greek question, since I don't know Greek: is ti in 18.65 a relative pronoun (as in “such”, i.e. “another such deinos”)? If it is, then I will grant that your reading is the more plausible one, and 18.65 must refer to the original immediately preceding passage, whatever it was (whether the TF in some other form, or the aqueduct riots). If not, then all Josephus says is that “another deinos upset the Jews.” That is, another in the list he has been making, which may include the TF but doesn’t have to.

If ti means “such” then you’re right. If it doesn’t, then I don’t see the difficulties you do.

“Several bad things happened to me today. First my car got a ticket. Then it got towed. Then I ate some lunch. And then, I sprained my ankle.” We don’t need to assume that eating lunch was one of the bad things that happened to me. Language is imprecise.

Wrong—they establish the null hypothesis for a reasonable person. You want to start all over again—I’m not arguing with that. But it’s not unreasonable for someone to assume that the experts are right so far. I don’t make that assumption myself, but others may reasonably do so.

I am making a case for suspension of judgment. I understand you don’t agree. I have no illusions I’m going to change your mind. And that’s fine.

Then why don’t you lay it out for us, instead of making cryptic, baseless insinuations?

I understand that. I respect it. Me, I like exploring possibilities. I'm willing to wait for better evidence. We will never be alike. I'm OK; you're OK.

Spin, you know very well that this has all been done before, repeatedly. But OK, if you insist: at a minimum, the passage cannot contain anything that would represent Josephus as a Christian. So, we should at least eliminate

1) “if it be proper/necessary to call him a man”, though Josephus might be making a subtle insult here—i.e. “If you can call him a man”. But better translators of Greek will have to make the call on this one.
2) “This man was the Christ”. Obviously can’t be right. Jerome (and perhaps pseudo-Hegesippus) is the first writer to suggest that the passage originally read “He was believed to be the Christ” which is neutral and decriptive--more likely what Josephus would have written.
3) The TF begins to have real trouble beginning with “For he appeared to them…” since Josephus would have been skeptical of this. However, the Arabic version of Agapius reads “They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Christ, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” This language not only casts doubt on the resurrection appearances, but also attributes the “wonders” of the prophets to Christ, not to Jesus! This would be much more sensible language for Josephus. However, it’s unclear if Agapius is reflecting the original language, or if he’s making it palatable for an Islamic audience. Once again, ambiguity leads to suspension of judgment.

And I mostly agree: the TF has little weight. I said I suspend judgment on it.

Baloney. I can use it to make speculations. That’s how hypotheses are formed, spin. Nevertheless, I accept that you don’t take them seriously.

See above—reasonable people can accept the experts’ epistemology simply because they are experts. You have every right to reject them, but that doesn’t make it the only reasonable choice. I’m not using any epistemology to make a judgment; I’m just using the same tools you are (parsing language, understanding the character of Josephus, comparing other texts, etc.) to form hypotheses. I accept that you’re not interested in this. To each his own.

spin

I don't see any analysis.

You'd do better to concentrate on eteros, which implies something like "other of two".

I think this is a good example of your hedging.

Your appeals to authority have nothing to do with reasonable people.

Suspension of judgment on matters in historical research means not using the material until judgment can be made.

You are well aware of your subtext.

When you start becoming interested in history, you might change your approach.

This is cute apologetic. But you should think before repeating it, especially after the text has just called him a wise man.

...Had he written anything on the subject, however, Josephus quite clearly avoids using the term christos in his works. None of its 40-odd manifestations in the LXX have made it into his works. When dealing with messianic prophecy with regard to Vespasian, he is silent regarding the term and belittles the idea. Josephus makes it clear that messianism isn't part of his personal belief system.

One would need to show a relevant trajectory for the origin of Agapius's source as well. He was after all writing in the 10th century.

I'd also eliminate "still to this moment" (eis eti te nun) as not possible for someone supposedly writing at most 70 years after the reputed events -- and therefore the whole sentence (people also complain about the "tribe" of christians) as having been written well after the time of Josephus to warrant its use in the context.

One of course would also question the sentence about Pilate listening to men of the highest standing, given what Josephus writes about him elsewhere, not being inclined to listen to the local population.

I know you would conveniently wish to reserve judgment, but so much of the passage itself is fishy.

But will you agree that for historical endeavors such suspension of judgment means shelving the TF?

Oh f'chrissake, the_cave, the subject of the comment is always historical research. You can speculate till the cows come home, f'rall I care.

You are in no position to speak for the generic reasonable person(s).

If you want to remain at dilettante level and qualify your "reasonable people" with "who are ignorant in what they are dealing with".

Epistemology concerns how you know something. Let me go back to my earlier statement:

When a passage is shown to contain questionable material, you have to question the whole passage. Using any of it is like using the testimony of a habitual liar. This does not mean that there is no fact in what is said, but the onus is squarely on you to demonstrate the factual content. That's the epistemology.

Using any of the material requires you to demonstrate the factual content, ie show how you know what you are using for knowledge. That is what I was talking about.

But feel free to speculate...

What does "this" refer to?


spin

angelo

Was it not Eusebius who stated that christianity ''stood or fell on the miracles of Jesus''? And the reason he was a christian? That could influence his thinking.