mountainman

Logically the TF has only three possible "states":

1) TF: is completely authentic
2) TF: is partially authentic
3) TF: is completely inauthentic

This thread is reserved (if possible) for a discussion of the
third "state", that is opinions in which arguments are
provided indicate that the TF is completely inauthentic.

Kerry Shirts presents such a case (3) that the TF is a total interpolation.
He treats the phrase "tribe of christians" as uniquely Eusebian, and
provides arguments, summarised, to the effect:

"Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice."

--- Kerry Shirts, "Did Josephus Mention Jesus?"

If anyone is aware of any other "scholarly articles" which
present a series of arguments that the TF is completely
inauthentic, could you please post a reference here.

Malachi151

I completely disagree with his case, and think that the "Eusebian fraud" line of argument is harmful and disreputable.

It's far more likely that its an innocent insertion of a marginal note.

If Eusebius inserted it, then he would have done a better job. Why make it so small? Why not add it to the Table of Contents?

The whole pattern fits the integration of a note, not a pious fraud.

mountainman

Fraudulent misrepresentation is the charge by default under
the third state of the TF (ie: totally inauthentic). That this
line of argument is either harmful or disreputable is incidental
to the study of history.

This thread is reserved for the outline of a number of related
opinions, all of which, in state 3 of the TF, perceive the TF
to be a total interpolation.


And you are entitled to defend your opinion, namely that
the TF (state 2) is partially authentic. But there appear to
be a series of authors who would select that the TF is
completely inauthentic, such as many of the scholars of
the past 2 centuries. I am interested in reading why they
think the way they do.

It is neither harmful or disreputable to think.
What is harmful or disreputable is to entertain
unexamined postulates IMO.

mountainman

To whom precisely is this line of historical criticism
either harmful or disreputable, and why? Or is this
a veiled appeal to non-existent authority?

aa5874

Whoever made the interpolation did a good job, it is vitually 1900 years later and we're still trying to figure out how it was done.

Making the interpolation small worked.

That is just speculation, until you get some evidence to back you up.

Roger Pearse

Note that the table of contents may not be authorial. There does not seem to be adequate scholarship in existence on these artefacts, and it's even worse for chapter titles etc.

Some tables of contents *are* authorial, as Richard Carrier pointed out to me -- that in Pliny the Elder, for instance, must be. Work exists showing that tables of contents in some technical works are likely authorial. The Greek histories in multiples of 10 books have these items, but I'm not certain that we really know whether they were the product of the author or later booksellers. Livy has several sets of epitomes, for instance. My own preference is to not introduce additional authors to texts without necessity, tho.

So just a note of caution on that particular point.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

According to this page, here is a list of scholars who appear
to cite, along with Kerry Shirts, the TF as a full interpolation:

Lardner,
Harnack,
Schurer,
Gordon Stein.
Author of CMU,
Arthur Drews,
David Taylor,
Wells, JM
Bishop Warburton,
Remsburg,
Rev. Dr. Giles,
Rev. S. Baring-Gould,
Cannon Farrar,
Theodor Keim,
Rev. Dr. Hooykaas ,
Dr. Alexander Campbell,
Dr. Chalmers,
Lee Strobel,
Charles Templeton,
Freke and Gandy,
Doherty,
Marshall Gauvin,
Edwin Johnson,
Jakob Burckhardt????

Since commencing this thread, Philosopher Jay has posted
an interesting analysis of the TF focusing on Simon Magus.

Malachi151

We are only still debating it because some people desperately want it to be true, and to be fair, some people want it to be false.

I think the debate has more to do with factors other than the text itself.

Malachi151

As noted by Wells:

The idea, I take it, is that the ToC was put together by Christians themselves, making it even more unlikely that it would have been left out had it been there at the time. Then again, so is the passage about John the Baptist left out of the ToC as well...?

aa5874

I think we are debating the authencity of the TF rather than wanting the text to help one side or the other.

The authenticity is suspect due to several factors, the main being that the TF was never used to defend the historicity of the Christ until the fourth century, although Josephus writings have been used before. And secondly, if the Christ was the Messiah, then Josephus would have written more about this figure, since a Messianic leader is a 'prophectic' ultimate for a Jew.

In determining the authenticity of the TF, a person must take into account factors other than the text itself.