Roger Pearse

Do you know what the evidence for this statement is? I seem to recall that Pompeius Trogus discusses this issue with respect to Livy, but I don't know what other source we have to suppose this.

Or this? I rather thought that there *were* official records made of Senate debates, myself, vaguely recalling stuff from Cicero's letters (but possibly wrongly).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

Thanks, spin--I absolutely will.

Amaleq13: that's a great question. Was it common at the time to try and ape the language of the original text when making a paragraph-length interpolation?

Amedeo

For all I know, Jesus of Nazareth, generated by both Joseph and God, never existed, but I am speaking of the Gospel stories and what they indirectly reveal or presuppose. (A clue is something you have to discover, not something that is provided on a silver-platter). All the talk that deviates from the statements, implications, and presuppositions, in the Gospels are totally useless.

The beauty of the Gospels is that many stories -- such as the one about the devil's temptation of Jesus, who was transported from pinnacles to mountain-tops, must have been preached by Jesus himself, unless they were invented by sympathizers, but we have no way of knowing the source. (I presume he preached his autobiography, for many reasons I stated elsewhere, but what the stories reveal and omit revealing SAYS something about the story-teller. What Pilate does not bring up at the trial SAYS something about the accused, especially since Pilate eventually found him innocent. It does not matter whether the trial is fact or fiction.)

angelo

The gospels state that Pilot found Jesus innocent for the simple fact that the Evangelists were trying to place the blame for his crucifiction on the Jews.
Any reference to the Romans being blamed were wiped out by the time Constantine became involved.

Doug Shaver

Is there some reason you refuse to spell Pilate's name the way everybody else does?

angelo

Ooops. Sorry.!:blush:

grog225

I just want to point out that you are as guilty as Toto in turning Josephus into what you want. The statement "he discusses their founder in two passages, one of which seems probably damaged somehow" does not capture the nature of the dispute about the Josephus references.

Both references are disputed. Neither reference can be said to be independent of the Gospels, at least the earlier Gospels. Wars does not mention Jesus at all even though Josephus discusses Pilate's disputes with the Jews in some detail. The later Antiquities contains 2 disputed passages, one of which is in part or in whole an interpolation--this is the consensus view.

There is no consensus over what part is authentic (if any) although there is a coalescence around parts that just refer to Jesus as "wise man" and take out references that claim messiahship.

Since the entire section is a listing of calamities, the Jesus reference is a bit out of place actually (arguments to the contrary notwithstanding).

I definitely lean toward interpolation on both. The TF may have suffered from interpolation and later tinkering for improvement. I do not find any case for authenticity convincing.

Altogether, the criticisms of the Josephus references make them problematic as actual evidence that Josephus says anything at all about Jesus or Christianity (and useless as evidence of an historical Jesus). At least, their use requires ample discussion of their weakness which only undermines the case, approaching zero for usefulness. I'd say the stronger case is that it demonstrates how texts were altered, documents were forged, etc. (I'm not an advocate of the mountain man hypothesis, btw).

Roger Pearse

You will excuse me if I demur. I was not writing an exposition of the Josephus question, merely summarising deails of fact in half a sentence in a paragraph on a different topic.

I refer you to Alice Whealey's study of the history of the scholarship on this, published by the SBL and available on Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk). Even in 1900 -- the high water mark of the scepticism about Josephus -- only Emil Schurer ventured to dispute the authenticity of the short passage. Today no-one does, as far as I know. Either way we are dealing with a passage on which the consensus has been solidly for authenticity.

The problems of the long passage are well-known. The only statement that can be made without dispute is that the passage seems damaged somehow. Whether it *is* damaged or not, if so how, and why -- there is and never has been consensus on this, although sometimes it has come close. In 1900 there was consensus that the whole passage was an interpolation, for instance; reflecting a view building from the 18th century on. Today there is not, and a greater willingness to see the whole thing as potentially genuine.

I have no great interest in arguing about the TF; I merely point out that your information on the subject is a little inadequate.

Again I suggest we consider the difference between data and deduction. The data is that the text says various things. Do we really think that, if someone can think of an objection, then we can (a) ignore the text and (b) say that it doesn't say what it does? Do we apply this argument to (e.g.) <inflammatory comparison removed>? In my humble opinion this approach must be unsound, whatever it is applied to.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

grog225

I am aware of Whealey, which I'll point out only refers to the TF, not the short passage. Also, I think those who quote Whealey in this regard, as you have, overplay their hand. Whealey talks about a consensus forming around the authenticity sort of as a reaction to skepticism. She's talking about trends in scholarship, not the TF itself. The Whealey paper does not even propose to address all the problems concerning the authenticity of the TF. Whealey does not negate skepticism with regard to the TF (or the lost reference which she doesn't address).

So I am saying you are using the flip side of the argument, with barely a nod at the "damage." There is no consenses on the extent of the damage.

No. not the whole thing. Whealey does not even say that.

Really? How is it inadequate? Because I'm not following the pop fad on this subject right now? Because the "Jesus to Christ" paradigm is in vogue right now and I think there is good reason to question it? Because I refrain from making appeals to authority or popularity?


No, there have to be reasons for rejecting a text and in this case there are.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that my post has been edited in such a way as to change its meaning. I did not refer to or link to the paper at the SBL site, but to her volume available at Amazon.

All the best,

Roger Pearse