Tercel

Well I caught the implication that you are a supporter of the Jesus myth theory and you would like people to accept that Josephus provides no evidence against your theory.
To do that you would have to show that the authentic Josephus did not mention Jesus, hence I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) you believed that. However it appears you hold the opinion (which seems a rather strange one to me) that the interpolation somehow renders the Josephus text as completely inadmissable...?

I'm confusing you with Doherty probably. I'm about a quarter of the way through researching/writing systematically about each of his main points. And those seem to be the only two pieces of evidence which positively support his theory.

As I mentioned above, theorising likely reconstructions is standard practice for scholars. You seem to be forgetting also the supporting evidence for the reconstructions: the Aramaic and Syriac quotations + Jerome's quotation.

Artemus

In the Gospels the layers identified are usually complete sections and chapters, and to be taken seriously external evidence is offered to justify a particular reconstruction. The long ending of Mark for example is said to be by a different author based on stylistic changes, and the entire chapter is therefore rejected. But this is futher supported by the fact that there are other extant manuscripts with different endings. In the case of Q, much of the non-Q sections can be removed from Matthew and Luke because the source of that material is available (Mark). (On the other hand, I am rather skeptical of the reconstructed "Signs" gospel taken from John.)

The reconstructed TF is a different case altogether. Here it is not complete sections/chapters being rejected, but rather individual clauses within sentences. This despite the fact that there are no quotes or references in other documents to suggest that a shorter version of the TF once existed in the first place. Sorry to be so repetitive, but the only justification I have seen is that it makes it less obviously interpolated. Perhaps the new links that Peter gave in his last post will enlighten me (I've only had time to skim them so far), but the discussions and presentations I've seen on the various web pages have not demonstrated that the proposed reconstructions are anything more than idle speculation.

Artemus

Ah yes, the culture shock I mentioned above. It happens when one strays so far from their area of expertise.

Indeed I am. Can you provide me with some links?

Artemus

Is this correctly placing the burden of proof? When the long TF is presented, the skeptic is the one who must demonstrate that it is suspect. But once the evidence has been shown to be tainted, doesn't the burden fall upon those who would claim that useful information can still be extracted?If not, why not?

Thank you for providing the links. I will look over them as time permits. I'm certainly not going to be able add any arguments that you are not well aware of. It was your summary of the available arguments that in large part convinced me that the TF is not to be accepted in the first place.

Peter Kirby

I would say that neither the reconstructed Testimonium hypothesis nor the utter spuriousness hypothesis can be used to form a further argument without evidence. Thus, if someone wishes to use Ant. 18.3.3 as evidence for a historical Jesus, it would fall upon that person to explain why the authenticity of a reconstructed Testimonium is probable. On the other hand, if someone wishes to use the alleged silence of Josephus as evidence for a Jesus Myth hypothesis, it would likewise fall upon that person to explain why the wholecloth insertion idea is probable.

There may be counter-arguments and variations on arguments of which I am unaware, so I still welcome comments from all those reading this on the discussion of the arguments for the complete interpolation theory. Until I see such comments reinforcing the complete interpolation theory on the Testimonium, I will no longer have as much confidence in that conclusion.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Peter,

While I think Josephus did say something about Jesus and the Ant 22 reference is genuine, I have some sympathy for Artemus's view in that the particular reconstructions are worthless as historical evidence. We cannot learn anything much from them except what the reconstructor (honestly) thinks Josephus said.

The hang up on the TF is largely a result of the fallicious belief that there is something special about 'secular' references to Jesus that prove he existed. Both mythicists and apologists are guilty of this. We don't need Josephus (or Tacitus for that matter) to come to the conclusion Jesus existed - the Christian documents alone can give us a historically water tight case (in as much as anything in ancient history is water tight).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Haran

I'm not sure I understand this, Bede. Doesn't that mean that you would also have to consider the Bible worthless as historical evidence? The Greek text that underlies most modern translations is an eclectic one (i.e. pick and choose according to various scholarly methodologies).

This doesn't seem much different to me than, say, J.P. Meier's reconstruction of the TF based on statistics of Greek word usage elsewhere in Josephus (if I'm remembering right).

Maybe I've missed something...

Tercel

Gregg is referring to the process of Textual Criticism whereby scholars -based on the throusands of slightly-differing copies, translations and references to the NT books that have suvived down to us- attempt to reconstruct the most likely original texts. These most likely originals are then published for use by translators.

As Gregg noted, part of this process involves attempting to trace the changes to attempt to best determine the original.

Which is the same as what is done for the Bible like Gregg was saying.

Apart from the interpolated Greek copies of Josephus there exists two shorter versions of the TF: A Syriac and an Arabic quotation of the passage both of which lack the parts which are clearly Christian interpolations.

Links? I hadn't got any bookmarked. But I did a google and browsed the links at Peter's site for you to see what I could find. I must say, most of what's out there is really pretty attrocious. Ironically, the best site I found on the subject wasMetacrock's page - scroll down to the sections on Jerome's reading, the Arabic text, and the Syriac text.


Peter or someone: What's the deal with the Syriac text? I can't seem to find anything on the internet about it... well compared to the Arabic text anyway, which seems to be widely available and is discussed in most articles on the subject.
About the Syriac text: Metacrock quotes Whealey's paper which references "Michael the Syrian. Chronique. Vol. 1. Trans. J.B. Chabot. Paris, 1899; reprint Brussels, 1963."
Which appears to be better known as the "World Chronicle by Patriarch Michael the Great" and equally appears to be annoyingly absent from the internet.

Peter Kirby

The only thing that I know about the Syriac version or quotation is what I saw in Whealey: that it supports Jerome in attesting to a version of the Testimonium that qualifies the phrase, "He was the Christ."

best,
Peter Kirby

Artemus

I guess I would be more convinced of the similarity of the exercises if there were thousands of slightly differing copies the TF.

I've had a chance to look at the link you gave and also saw Peter's entry on his page again. They all post-date the version of the TF that we know of and don't match the proposed reconstructions anyway. Also, at least according the quotes that Peter gives, the Arabic shows other signs of tampering so has the same problems as the long TF.

Looking back through Peter's page listing the arguments for the reconstruction, I am once again struck by the fact that the only argument really offered is that it is less obviously interpolated. It will take far more real evidence than that to convince me personally that there is any value in them. (Meier's attempt to explain the early silence regarding his reconstruction particularly strikes me as an example of idle speculation, if not outright hand-waving. Not that others on both sides of the Jesus-myth issue are not guilty of the same thing.)


Peter-

I had misunderstood your early comment regarding not reaching a conclusion. I look forward to your revised essay. Thanks again for all your efforts.