Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

With regard to the "Slavonic Josephus", I would recommend that people obtain the English version of this printed recently and read through it. It is not, in fact, a version of Josephus at all. It is a medieval Russian book, entitled "The three captures of Jerusalem". For the third section, a translation of the Jewish War was used, probably from the family interpolated with the TF, supplemented with material from the bible, John Malalas, and other sources. The old thesis that it was derived from an Aramaic first edition is not possible, and was only advanced in ignorance of the true nature of the text. Mescherskii's publication of the text in the 50's made this clear, but since he wrote in Russian few scholars noticed.

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Some interesting statements in this thread, which I have only just discovered. There are a number of claims about what scholars believe. Myself I prefer to discuss evidence and primary sources, but I'm not sure that all the views stated as being the consensus (etc) are correct. Without doing an extensive literature search, I have gone to Carleton Paget's 2001 review of the arguments on all sides, and had a look to see what he says, and to Feldman's earlier review. Here is my own understanding, which may of course be flawed. (I do have something of a dislike for any medieval-style balancing of authorities, I admit.)

Now I notice references to Ken Olson's article. But it is important for us to be aware that Olson is advancing positions which almost no-one else holds. He accuses Eusebius of forging the TF, repeating the view advanced by Zeitlin back in the 1950's; but I am not aware that any other scholars agree. He asserts that the short passage in Ant. 20 is a fake; but again, it is not a view generally held. Since this is almost the only scholar being named in the thread, we should be aware that this is likely to tip the discussion in one direction.

Prior to 1900, the majority of scholars considered that the long passage in Ant. 18 was a later interpolation -- not the same as a forgery, necessarily, note -- into "Antiquities". This view arose at the beginning of modern times, in 1559.

At the same time, the short passage in Ant. 20.200 has not shared this fate. Scholars have not generally doubted that it is authentic.[1] Emil Schurer was pretty much alone back in 1900 in so thinking. Feldman lists no authors who query its authenticity.[2]

During the 20th century, views shifted. Part of this was the reaction to the extreme debunking prevalent in the 19th century. But it also arose from a return to the sources, and the discovery of further versions of the text in other languages. Feldman instances the influence of Eisler's treatment.[3]

There are a number of different views, all with defenders, ranging from complete authenticity through differing degrees of interpolation down to complete forgery.[4] It is not always recognised that some scholars do defend the whole TF as genuine.[5]

But currently, I understand, most scholars consider that it is genuine, but with some degree of interpolation or corruption.[6] However the problem probably cannot be resolved. [7]

With regard to the "Slavonic Josephus", I would recommend that people obtain the English version of this printed recently and read through it. It is not, in fact, a version of Josephus at all. It is a medieval Russian book, entitled "The three captures of Jerusalem". For the third section, a translation of the Jewish War was used, probably from the family interpolated with the TF, supplemented with material from the bible, John Malalas, and other sources. The old thesis that it was derived from an Aramaic first edition is not possible, and was only advanced in ignorance of the true nature of the text. Mescherskii's publication of the text in the 50's made this clear, but since he wrote in Russian few scholars noticed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[1] J. Carleton Paget, Some observations on Josephus and Christianity, JTS 52, 2001, p539-624. P. 546. "In general, scholars have not doubted the authenticity of this passage."

[2] Louis Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-80), pp.673-679. There is no statement explicitly on the subject, however, but he summarises Thackeray as "The best proof that the passage is genuine is that Origen, who explicitly states that Josephus did not beheve in Jesus as the Christ and hence did not have the "Testimonium Flavianum', at least as it stands in all our manuscripts, does cite this passage about John. Moreover, if the passage were interpolated by a Christian, it is hard to believe that he would not have associated John with Jesus and that he would not have connected the death of John with John's rebuke to Herod Antipas about his wife Herodias as in the Gospels."

[3] Feldman, p.684: "Though his work appeared before the period under review, we should mention the stir created by EISLER'S (2725) extraordinarily detailed and extremely learned, though erratic, attempt to show that our text represents the result of tampering by Christian censors who inserted their own interpolations. Despite his erudition, EISLER had an abihty of tearing passages out of their context and of twisting the meanings of words to suit his theory. EISLER'S work, however, won the support of only one really important student of Josephus, THACKERAY , who had originally believed the whole to be a Christian interpolation but who, under EISLER'S influence, came to regard it as partly interpolated. We may comment that, while EISLER'S attempted restoration of the original text of the Testimonium' appears arbitrary, his notion that the text as we have it has a substratum of authentic material seems increasingly confirmed by stylistic studies of it."

[4] Paget, p. 583: "In the face of these difficulties, scholars have approached the TF in three different ways. Some have wanted to keep the passage as it stands in our received text. Others have wanted to accept its authenticity, but in a minimally, or more extensively revised form which turns the original into either the first known Jewish denunciation of Christianity, or a passage which, while being less positive than the received text, demonstrates a perhaps neutral or ambivalent attitude to Jesus. Another body of scholars has simply rejected the passage in toto."

[5] Paget, p.583, starting his review of the thesis as genuine: "Some may be surprised to note how many scholars have sought to defend the authenticity of the received text."

[6] Paget, p.599, while discussing the suggestion of forgery: "From the point of view of content, the major strength of the forgery thesis lies in the fact that most scholars concede some degree of interpolation."

[7] Paget, p.545: "No one solution to the problem seems straightforwardly: better than a number of other solutions offered and many of the discussions of the component parts which make up the 'problem' will seem unduly tentative, in particular as these relate to the TF ..."

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...

Impeaching plain text needs something more than wishful thinking. Eusebian fabrication is not a slam dunk and cannot be assumed.

When I say Impeaching plain text, I am not asserting that the original text is factually correct, only that if a proponent of change indicates the original was changed, that proponent has the burden of proof and indeed a high level of burden of proof. Yea I know about the oldest copy and all that. The fact of the matter is that is the text we have and there is no implied assumption that it is prima faci[e] incorrect due to age or lateness of oldest copy.

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

Not only does what you say not make sense, I don't think even you would apply it generally. You don't in fact assume that everything you read in Josephus or other ancient writers is an interpolation. You only presume that when the ancient writers refer to Jesus. It is part of the myther analysis, there is no evidence of an historic Jesus and whatever appears to be evidence is presum3ed to be an interpolation.

Applying your reasoning how would anyone ever satisfy a myther that an ancient statement about Jesus was not an interpolation? In other words, how could one prove the negative? As you said, "We know that the transmission of texts was uncertain, and interpolations were common in all ancient manuscripts". Are you really interested in the historical question, or are you just staking out an unassailable place from which to argue.

Steve

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Goodguy:

I agree about presumptions and burdens of proof but what do we make of some of the statements in the TF? Is there not enough tension between Josephus being a religious Jew and statements about Jesus appearing to his followers after 3 days to doubt that Josephus penned all of the TF?

Steve

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Well Toto, if you don't like myther, and I know you don't like denier, what would you like to be called? What would warm the cockles?

Steve

Originally Posted by Toto

People sometimes repeat this idea, that interpolations bear a heavy burden of proof, as if it were an accepted idea. It is not a rule followed by secular historians. It seems to have been invented for Christian apologetics.

We know that the transmission of texts was uncertain, and interpolations were common in all ancient manuscripts. It would make sense to put the burden of proof on anyone claiming that the text has not been interpolated.