thief of fire

How would you know? What did you rely on to reach this conclusion?

thief of fire

No you said "rationalists" plural. Who were you referring to?

Are you saying all rationalists agree with that? I think your wording is misleading.

Here let me explain more.
You should have said. "I know of one person who claims to be a rationalist who might disagree".

Toto, you are an amatuer with no qualifications. You don't speak on behalf of rationalists.

Toto

You seem to have some trouble following the argument, perhaps because you are taking phrases out of context.

What exactly is your question here? Do you understand the basic issues with the TF?

The TF is obviously a Christian interpolation, because it calls Jesus "the Christ." But a few scholars have tried to claim that only a few terms were added by a Christian editor, and that it is possible to reconstruct an underlying passage that is Josephan. Lots of historicists like this argument, but it is not water tight. It has been pointed out that if you remove the non-Josephan language from the TF, what is left will be compatible with Josephus by definition. Further, Ken Olson has shown that the passage tracks language and issues that are Eusebian - Eusebius refers to the "tribe of Christians" and emphasizes Jews and Gentiles following Jesus, while contemporaries of Josephus would be more likely to see Jews opposed to Christians.

There is also the issue that the TF does not fit the context. You can read more about this in old threads.

Toto

Here, let me help you.

I know of one highly qualified PhD in the subject matter who has written a peer reviewed article that shows in detail why it is reasonable to think that Eusebius forged the TF. I know of other rationalist scholars who have independently concluded that the TF is a complete forgery. This argument is not contrived, and is supported by people with different opinions on whether there was a historical Jesus. I do not think that Olson is a mythicist, and I do not think that everyone who supports this theory has any consistent opinion on whether Jesus was historical or not. It is based on a detailed examination of the language of Josephus.

This does not mean that every person who considered himself or herself a rationalist agrees. That is the nature of scholarship. If I wanted to say that every rationalist agrees with that conclusion, I would have said that it had overwhelming scholarly support, or something like that. But I made this comment in response to pinkvoy's assertion that no rationalist could possibly think that the TF was a complete forgery.

Please don't butt into discussions without reading the entire context.

aa5874

We would expect Josephus to write about a Prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler just as he did but it was NOT Jesus--it was Vespasian.

In the NT, if Jesus the Christ did exist, he was called the KING of the JEWS on the day he was crucified.

Sinaiticus gMark Is NOT gMark History if Jesus did exist???

Well if gMark is history as HJers propose Jesus was called the King of the Jews.

So why did Josephus write about a Prophesied Messianic ruler called Vespasian and NOT Jesus the Prophesied King of the Jews in Wars of the Jews ???

Why did Josephus write about the beating of the Mad man called JESUS son of Ananus and NOT about the beating of Jesus the prophesied King of the Jews in Wars of the Jews???

Josephus wrote about Jesus the Mad man and Vespasian the Prophesied Messianic ruler but FAILED to mention Jesus the prophesied King of the Jews.

Why is that???

The answer is rather simple.

All mention of Jesus the Christ are forgeries in the writings of Josephus. There was NO Jesus that was called the King of the Jews.

No, No, No, you are DEAD wrong. I won't allow you to get away with your absudity.

It is HJers who PRESUME there was an Historical Jesus CONTRARY to the ACTUAL written evidence.

Jesus was Documented as the Son of a Ghost that was God the Creator who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and Ascended.

That description of the Son of the Ghost PREDATED MJers and they had NOTHING whatsoever to do with such a Ghost story.

It is HJers who claim without any evidence, without rational, and without corroboration that Jesus did exist as human.

MJers MERELY agree that the description and ACTIONS of Jesus MATCH that of a Jesus that had NO REAL existence.

Vorkosigan

The language and location of the TF, among other issues, show it as an obvious forgery. That won't change irrespective of when it is dated. However, what would change is that mythicists would then be stuck in the same position of historicists, trying to explain why nobody mentions it until Eusebius.

The problem is that the manuscript tradition is unknown -- we don't know what the manuscripts of Josephus were doing in the 2-5th centuries. So it might be possible that the interpolation occurs early, but in an obscure manuscript line, until Eusebius finds it and then makes it public, whereupon it quickly makes its way into all surviving copies.

However, the idea that such a manuscript might be found is, I think, absurd. The widespread silence on the TF says that it did not exist.

Vorkosigan

mountainman

You produce the evidence and then we can discuss various explanations for it's existence.


At the moment the TF is seen as a 4th century "Embellishment of the Historical Truth".

aa5874

Mountainman, please tell us of the ACTUAL earliest copy of Church History.

Mandelbrot

Considering it is in the middle of a chapter describing misfortunes that happened to the Jews, the probability you asked about would be between 0 and 10^-100.

mountainman

aa5874 I doubt there is anything earlier than the 11th century, but I could be wrong.


It is true that any literate christian zealot could have forged the TF into Josephus and transplanted the results into Eusebius after Eusebius kicked the bucket, but there are other researchers out there (such as Ken Olsen) who take the time to argue that it was Big E. who piously forged the TF. I think that this explanation fits the commissioning and existence of a 4th century forgery mill quite adequately.