Peter Kirby

How specifically has the evidence been tampered?

Is it intellectually dishonest to hold (a desired conclusion) that Josephus said nothing about a historical Jesus? Why not?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

And what if I were to summarize arguing that the shorter refence is an interpolation as follows:

It is tampering with evidence to make it fit a desired conclusion (that Josephus did not write about a historical Jesus) in the absense of any credible arguments that support this thesis.

What would your thoughts on this be?

Vinnie

Artemus

Tampered was a poor choice of words. It is selectively discarding evidence that is not consistent with the conclusion without any other justification that is intellectually dishonest.

It would not be dishonest to reach the conclusion that Josephus did not write about Jesus, provided that legitmate arguments are provided in support. But defending it by stating, for example, that the Antiquities 20 reference must be an interpolation simply because it mentions Jesus (with no other justification) certainly would be.

It seems to be nearly universally agreed that the Testimonium as it exists today has been tampered with. Tainted evidence is inadmissible virtually everywhere else. I am simply astounded that attempts to "fix" the evidence are considered legimate scholarship in this particular area, particularly considering that there is no other supporting evidence for the reconstructions. Perhaps I am just suffering from further culture shock. Are there other areas where this would be considered reasonable? (This is an honest question. I really am trying to learn here.)

Vinnie

I'm sure you've heard of textual criticism?

Vinnie

Artemus

If there were no other credible arguments I would absolutely agree. Tainted evidence alone is absolutely useless for either side of the argument. But there are of course other credible arguments that the entire Testimonium is interpolated, as Peter has clearly detailed in the Josephus link on his EarlyChristianWritings web page. I have seen no similar credible supporting arguments for the reconstructions. If they do exist please inform me.

Artemus

Actually, no.

Vinnie

The TF is the larger reference. I said the shorter reference and I did so purposefully

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

If you have the time and interest, you may wish to review these threads from the UBB days:

Kirby on the Testimonium Flavianum (1)

Kirby on the Testimonium Flavianum (2)

Kirby on the Testimonium Flavianum (3)

Kirby on the Testimonium (4)

Refuting Olson: Eusebius' "Apologetic Purposes"

I would be very interested if you or anyone else could add to the considerations in this series of posts concerning the arguments used to support the 100% interpolation theory. This would be extremely helpful to me at the time that I make the next revision of my Testimonium essay, which is read by many people every day. Without comments from other people, I may have a lower estimate of the worth of the arguments advanced to support the idea that Josephus did not write anything about Jesus in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities.

best,
Peter Kirby

Artemus

My bad. I read "shorter reference" as "shortened reference" and assumed you meant the reconstructions.

Coincidently, I mentioned the shorter reference in one of my replies to Peter before I saw your question, which in effect answered your question. But again, I do think that there are other legimate arguments that it is an interpolation although obviously weaker than for the TF. Earl Doherty's web page has been my primary guide on that. I'll re-read it to be reminded of exactly what I found compelling about his arguments. One thing that does stand out in my mind is that while Origen (I can't remember the correct spelling of his name) quotes the "called Christ" reference, he also says that Josephus said the destruction of Jeruselem was due to the execution of James, something that is not in any existing copies. This would seem to suggest that the tradition of tampering with writings of Josephus goes back to the earliest times. I have difficulty accepting anything in it as compelling evidence one way or the other taken alone.

Gregg

I think it's a legitimate exercise, even if the motivations are suspect. If it wasn't allowed for Josephus, then it couldn't be allowed for the Bible either--and much of Bible scholarship consists of trying to figure out how the texts evolved and were edited over time. If scholars can't look for "layers" in a passage from Josephus, how can we justify their looking for layers in the Gospels?

Gregg