Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-01-2008, 08:05 PM

Steve Mason is the one who made the point that once you have admitted some interpolation, you cannot be sure of what the original said. So I gather that he does not know of any methods used with Classical texts that would resolve this particular question.

Solitary Man · 06-01-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Steve Mason is the one who made the point that once you have admitted some interpolation, you cannot be sure of what the original said. So I gather that he does not know of any methods used with Classical texts that would resolve this particular question.

Sure? As in 100% certain? Of course not. But that's a strawman argument. Textual emendation is common for every classical author. I don't see why Josephus should be any different.

Toto · 06-01-2008, 09:17 PM

In context, sure as in reasonable certain, not relying on speculation or wishful thinking IIRC.

Solitary Man · 06-01-2008, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In context, sure as in reasonable certain, not relying on speculation or wishful thinking IIRC.

Then either you mistook Steve Mason's argument, or he's using hyperbole. Textual emendation is centuries old and still going strong. There's no way he can't know what it is. Do you have a source for his comment?

Toto · 06-01-2008, 09:50 PM

My copy of Josephus and the New Testament is in storage. I recall looking for his position on the TF, and he went through an exhaustive analysis, and finally said that once you have admitted that there has been some interpolation, you cannot recover the original text, and then went on to identify the brief mention of Jesus called Christ in the section on the stoning of James as sufficient to establish the historicity of Jesus.

But I am not sure of the relevance of textual emendation. This isn't a text that has become accidentally corrupted, and there is no doubt how it read after it was clearly altered by a Christian interpolator.

Solitary Man · 06-01-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

My copy of Josephus and the New Testament is in storage. I recall looking for his position on the TF, and he went through an exhaustive analysis, and finally said that once you have admitted that there has been some interpolation, you cannot recover the original text, and then went on to identify the brief mention of Jesus called Christ in the section on the stoning of James as sufficient to establish the historicity of Jesus.

But I am not sure of the relevance of textual emendation. This isn't a text that has become accidentally corrupted, and there is no doubt how it read after it was clearly altered by a Christian interpolator.

Textual emendation doesn't always deal with accidental corruptions. I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I still don't think you're accurately presenting his thoughts on the matter, so track down that reference like you ask others to do.

ETA: Moreover, that it was purposefully interpolated is conjecture on your part.

Toto · 06-01-2008, 11:19 PM

It's all conjecture. But I can't see the TF being an accident.

Mason wrote a long passage on the TF. Peter Kirby quotes the parts that argue in favor of the TF being forged. Christian apologists of various sorts manage to quote the parts that support the idea that there must have been some mention of Jesus there. I distinctly recall reading the passage, looking for the answer, but it was a masterful academic exercise in teasing out every possible nuance of the argument, and then not reaching a conclusion. But it might take me some time to find the reference. And this was years ago - I have the first edition, but there is a second edition (or via: amazon.co.uk).

andrewcriddle · 06-02-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

My copy of Josephus and the New Testament is in storage. I recall looking for his position on the TF, and he went through an exhaustive analysis, and finally said that once you have admitted that there has been some interpolation, you cannot recover the original text, and then went on to identify the brief mention of Jesus called Christ in the section on the stoning of James as sufficient to establish the historicity of Jesus.

I read Mason's analysis somewhat differently.

What I thought Mason was saying, was that once you accept substantial interpoltion in the TF then all you can say with any confidence is that Josephus made some sort of reference to Jesus in the original form of this passage.

Since, however, the James passage is (according to Mason) sufficient on its own to tell us that Josephus made some sort of reference to Jesus: the TF (once interpolation is admitted) tells us very little new.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 06-02-2008, 12:27 PM

I am unclear why "He was the Christ" must be read as a personal confession of belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Surely it is equally possible that this is a statement of identification to people in Rome who know of this chap Christ?

Toto · 06-02-2008, 01:26 PM

I happen to have an .rtf version of most of Mason's book on my hard drive, which I downloaded at some point. (It is the first version. The second version is not available online, even in preview.)

I have just reread it, and Mason reports on all of the arguments for and against the authenticity, partial or otherwise, of the TF. I think that anyone could support practically any position with quotes from Mason, without even realizing that they were only selectively quoting him. But I think this is the summary:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mason

Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. ....

Note the qualifications: many scholars take this position. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mason

We cannot resolve the problem of Josephus’ “testimony” about Jesus here. Among the hundreds of books and articles on the subject, every conceivable position has been taken between two opposite poles. On the one side, as we have seen, some scholars are convinced that Josephus said nothing whatsoever about Jesus, and that is why no one before Eusebius mentions the testimonium. On the other extreme, a few influential scholars have held the passage to be entirely authentic. Some reconcile it with the rest of Josephus’ writings by suggesting that Josephus saw Jesus’ death as the end of messianic hope: Jesus did indeed fulfill Israel’s hope, but his horrible execution shows the futility of persisting in such belief. Others propose that Josephus included the passage so as to curry favor with the Christians, because he was in trouble with his own Jewish compatriots. Still others interpret the passage as intended sarcasm, though the argument for that view is too convoluted to summarize here. Note: even those who accept the authenticity of the testimonium do not share Whiston’s belief that Josephus was a Christian. That theory seems highly improbable.

The vast majority of commentators hold a middle position between authenticity and inauthenticity, claiming that Josephus wrote something about Jesus that was subsequently edited by Christian copyists. Such a view has the best of both worlds, for it recognizes all of the problems with the passage as well as the factors that support its authenticity. ....

So Mason says he can't solve the problem, and gives a motive for holding to the middle position, without actually endorsing it himself. Is he damning that middle position with faint praise - it's just a compromise that allows the scholar to straddle a number of possible positions? You can read that into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mason

The problem with any such restoration, of course, is that we simply have no copies of Josephus dating from the time before Eusebius. Once it is granted that the standard text is corrupt, a wide variety of hypothetical reconstructions must remain equally plausible.

This is what stuck in my mind as Mason saying that the original text could not be recovered. But perhaps I read my own ideas into that - some of the hypothetical reconstructions could have been about some other Jesus, perhaps a military leader, and a later Christian took the opportunity to substitute a section of equal length on Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mason

What, then, is the value of the testimonium flavianum for the reader of the NT? Limited. Paradoxically, the intense effort to reconstruct the “original” reading, in order to make it historically useful, itself diminishes the value of the passage, for each new reading has to share plausibility, so to speak, with all other proposals on the table. . . . It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus’ statements about Jesus’ healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed.

It is possible to be more noncommital that this? (This is worse than economists with their "on the one hand, and on the other. . . " leading one late US President to long for a one-armed economist.) Mason does not say that this position is correct, just that "one" is "probably" "entitled" to cite the TF as evidence that Jesus actually lived, although the value of the TF is "limited" and one should not rely too heavily on it. But luckily no one needs to use that evidence which he has spent the last few pages discrediting, because there is a piece of evidence that he consideres much less open to challenge. . . . a single phrase that reads like a marginal note copied into the main text.

I don't know if Mason has revised any of this in his second edition.

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

06-01-2008, 08:05 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Steve Mason is the one who made the point that once you have admitted some interpolation, you cannot be sure of what the original said. So I gather that he does not know of any methods used with Classical texts that would resolve this particular question.

06-01-2008, 09:17 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	In context, sure as in reasonable certain, not relying on speculation or wishful thinking IIRC.

06-01-2008, 09:50 PM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	My copy of Josephus and the New Testament is in storage. I recall looking for his position on the TF, and he went through an exhaustive analysis, and finally said that once you have admitted that there has been some interpolation, you cannot recover the original text, and then went on to identify the brief mention of Jesus called Christ in the section on the stoning of James as sufficient to establish the historicity of Jesus. But I am not sure of the relevance of textual emendation. This isn't a text that has become accidentally corrupted, and there is no doubt how it read after it was clearly altered by a Christian interpolator.

06-01-2008, 11:19 PM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It's all conjecture. But I can't see the TF being an accident. Mason wrote a long passage on the TF. Peter Kirby quotes the parts that argue in favor of the TF being forged. Christian apologists of various sorts manage to quote the parts that support the idea that there must have been some mention of Jesus there. I distinctly recall reading the passage, looking for the answer, but it was a masterful academic exercise in teasing out every possible nuance of the argument, and then not reaching a conclusion. But it might take me some time to find the reference. And this was years ago - I have the first edition, but there is a second edition (or via: amazon.co.uk).

06-02-2008, 12:27 PM	#19
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I am unclear why "He was the Christ" must be read as a personal confession of belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Surely it is equally possible that this is a statement of identification to people in Rome who know of this chap Christ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.