Two New Articles on Testimonium Flavianum

[spin]

Spin:

It appears I am wasting my time in attempting a respectful discourse with you. As it seems you are parroting Carrier's argument regarding the creeping marginalia, there is in fact nothing to say that has not already been put more eloquently by more learned scholars than myself. I do not like slapping labels on people, but I am unaware of anyone rejecting the Antiquities XX reference who does not subscribe to a mythical Jesus. I have nothing against mythicism per se, but I do have a problem with zealots who, in subjects as hazy as this, are arrogant enough to not acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposition.

Appears? Seems? Wasting time... respectful discourse? Parroting Carrier? Clearly a poor tack from someone who is a johnny-come-lately to the tradition of this forum. You shouldn't make assumptions when you don't know the lay of the land. While for many years I have been critical of the simpleton divide between historicist and mythicist approaches to the analysis of Jesus, I have also argued both that the TF is an intentional interpolation and AJ 20.200 was a scribal misunderstanding. Had you been in the BC&H forum you'd have noted my stance, but the old II & FRDB forums are gone. Here though is a more recent post on AJ 20.200 (@ RatSkep) and this might help elucidate some of my thought on the historical Jesus notion. At the same had you been around you would know that I am neither mythicist nor historicist about Jesus and I think both positions are religious and not logical. So, please STFU when you don't know what's going on: you'll only shoot yourself in the foot.

[steve43]

A very good reason could be that the Christians were still around when he wrote his history, whereas all the other radical offshoots of Judaism had long since been obliterated for one reason or another.

[MattMorales]

Appears? Seems? Wasting time... respectful discourse? Parroting Carrier? Clearly a poor tack from someone who is a johnny-come-lately to the tradition of this forum. You shouldn't make assumptions when you don't know the lay of the land. While for many years I have been critical of the simpleton divide between historicist and mythicist approaches to the analysis of Jesus, I have also argued both that the TF is an intentional interpolation and AJ 20.200 was a scribal misunderstanding. Had you been in the BC&H forum you'd have noted my stance, but the old II & FRDB forums are gone. Here though is a more recent post on AJ 20.200 (@ RatSkep) and this might help elucidate some of my thought on the historical Jesus notion. At the same had you been around you would know that I am neither mythicist nor historicist about Jesus and I think both positions are religious and not logical. So, please STFU when you don't know what's going on: you'll only shoot yourself in the foot.

You're right, I don't seem to be familiar with the "traditions" of this forum. At the other forums I frequent, phrases like "STFU" and ridiculous appeals to seniority get you banned. I honestly don't care what your overall opinion on Christian origins is. What I find suspect is your claim to run on pure logic (as if you are a Vulcan and immune to any bias - even towards an idea you claim as your own) while advocating a view that is largely rejected by actual Josephan scholars, and then claiming it "successful." When I pointed out that an argument that fails to convince anyone can hardly be called a success, you launched into a flurry of hyperbole. At least have the common sense to show some humility when all you can point to is a forum post where you tell people to comb through Josephus themselves. But fear not, for in the future, I will be sure to cite "spin" and not Carrier, Wells, or R.M. Price on the idea of a marginal note leading to the Jesus reference in Antiquities XX.

I apologize to the rest of this board for having to read this nonsense. As far as the subject (or digression) goes, I do not buy that a marginal note would creep accidentally into the text, because I find it unlikely that Josephus, in this context, would have just left the text as "the brother of Jesus, James by name." It is an awkward reading if he was referring to ben Damneus and if, as Carrier asserts, the text did originally read "the brother of Jesus ben Damneus, James by name," then no error could have been made and we can throw out the confusion with Hegesippus. That would be straight-up forgery, as I mentioned before. And that may be the case, but as I discussed with Peter, I am currently unconvinced by the arguments. As this has all been disputed time and again, I do not know if there is much more to add to the current debate.

Edit: As for Eusebius citing the Contra Celsum passage from Origen separately (and as Josephus), this makes sense if he took Origen's word for that particular reference but could not find it himself. However, that reference to Contra Celsum (where it reads: "James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, called Christ.") is worded differently than when Origen speaks of James in his Commentary on Matthew (which is closer to AJ XX). A simple explanation for this is that Origen knew there to be a reference to James in Josephus and had the basic wording of how Josephus talked of James (the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ). Not having the text in front of him, however, he confused the Hegesippus account with Josephus' (either due to his own bad memory or by going on what others told him). This is why we find elements of both Josephus and Hegesippus in Origen's mentions of James.

[spin]

Appears? Seems? Wasting time... respectful discourse? Parroting Carrier? Clearly a poor tack from someone who is a johnny-come-lately to the tradition of this forum. You shouldn't make assumptions when you don't know the lay of the land. While for many years I have been critical of the simpleton divide between historicist and mythicist approaches to the analysis of Jesus, I have also argued both that the TF is an intentional interpolation and AJ 20.200 was a scribal misunderstanding. Had you been in the BC&H forum you'd have noted my stance, but the old II & FRDB forums are gone. Here though is a more recent post on AJ 20.200 (@ RatSkep) and this might help elucidate some of my thought on the historical Jesus notion. At the same had you been around you would know that I am neither mythicist nor historicist about Jesus and I think both positions are religious and not logical. So, please STFU when you don't know what's going on: you'll only shoot yourself in the foot.

You're right, I don't seem to be familiar with the "traditions" of this forum. At the other forums I frequent, phrases like "STFU" and ridiculous appeals to seniority get you banned. I honestly don't care what your overall opinion on Christian origins is. What I find suspect is your claim to run on pure logic (as if you are a Vulcan and immune to any bias - even towards an idea you claim as your own) while advocating a view that is largely rejected by actual Josephan scholars, and then claiming it "successful." When I pointed out that an argument that fails to convince anyone can hardly be called a success, you launched into a flurry of hyperbole. At least have the common sense to show some humility when all you can point to is a forum post where you tell people to comb through Josephus themselves. But fear not, for in the future, I will be sure to cite "spin" and not Carrier, Wells, or R.M. Price on the idea of a marginal note leading to the Jesus reference in Antiquities XX.

I apologize to the rest of this board for having to read this nonsense. As far as the subject (or digression) goes, I do not buy that a marginal note would creep accidentally into the text, because I find it unlikely that Josephus, in this context, would have just left the text as "the brother of Jesus, James by name." It is an awkward reading if he was referring to ben Damneus and if, as Carrier asserts, the text did originally read "the brother of Jesus ben Damneus, James by name," then no error could have been made and we can throw out the confusion with Hegesippus. That would be straight-up forgery, as I mentioned before. And that may be the case, but as I discussed with Peter, I am currently unconvinced by the arguments. As this has all been disputed time and again, I do not know if there is much more to add to the current debate.

Edit: As for Eusebius citing the Contra Celsum passage from Origen separately (and as Josephus), this makes sense if he took Origen's word for that particular reference but could not find it himself. However, that reference to Contra Celsum (where it reads: "James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, called Christ.") is worded differently than when Origen speaks of James in his Commentary on Matthew (which is closer to AJ XX). A simple explanation for this is that Origen knew there to be a reference to James in Josephus and had the basic wording of how Josephus talked of James (the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ). Not having the text in front of him, however, he confused the Hegesippus account with Josephus' (either due to his own bad memory or by going on what others told him). This is why we find elements of both Josephus and Hegesippus in Origen's mentions of James.

I don't necessarily mind responding to drivel. It's the attitude that I react to. You made wrong assumptions in a prior post which demonstrated that your judgments were based on the fact that you hadn't been around long enough to know what you were talking about. You can re-badge the fact however you like.

I never claimed that Josephus wrote orginally of "the brother of Jesus, James by name". It may have been "one James by name and certain others". One has to explain the difference between "James [the Just] the brother of Jesus called christ" and "the brother of Jesus called christ, James by name". The easiest way to get there is by the insertion into "one James by name and certain others" of "the brother of Jesus called christ". Hence Josephus goes from using a more classical Greek syntax to using koine. And the "son of Damneus" stuff is a linguistic crock. You don't define the person at the second mention, but people persist.

I did not say Eusebius's citation didn't make sense. I did say it pointed to the fact that he saw no connection between the Origen derived passage citing Josephus as source and the passage form AJ 20.200 he cites, unlike modern pundits who want to claim that Origen's passage was derived from AJ 20.200. In my first post here I specifically acknowledged Origen was writing from memory and that he confused Hegesippus with Josephus. What you and every boy and his dog are hoping for is that, although he got the substance from Hegesippus, he got the one literal phrase "James the Just who was the brother of Jesus called christ James by name" from Josephus.

And I'm puzzled by your claim that Origen's first attempt (in Comm.Matt.) is somehow "closer to AJ XX". Is this because the phrase you cling to doesn't have the epithet for James or is there some content to your claim I don't see??

[MattMorales]

Spin:

Perhaps it was not Carrier, but I find hard to take seriously a person who, rather than acknowledging actual scholars who have made the same argument (or producing any properly cited essay), points back to a brief forum post from 2011. You also put your own outlook on a pedestal, failing to see that your own hard line skepticism is as much a "religion" as historicism and mythicism. I have better things to do with my time than engage an insufferable forum warrior. Carry on.

[spin]

Spin:

Perhaps it was not Carrier, but I find hard to take seriously a person who, rather than acknowledging actual scholars who have made the same argument (or producing any properly cited essay), points back to a brief forum post from 2011. You also put your own outlook on a pedestal, failing to see that your own hard line skepticism is as much a "religion" as historicism and mythicism. I have better things to do with my time than engage an insufferable forum warrior. Carry on.

You have an interesting idea of respectful discourse. You asserted that I have been "parroting Carrier's argument regarding the creeping marginalia". When faced with evidence that I had already dealt with the analysis of creeping marginalia years before Carrier published—that "brief forum post from 2011"—, you change the topic and make more spurious accusations. In fact, long time members of BC&H will know that I have put forward the same basic idea for many years when people arrive rehearsing mainstream views, so why do I need to acknowledge "actual scholars who have made the same argument" when I do my own research and am not dependent on secondary sources? The idea should be to admit the error in your accusation—not compound it—and move on.

[Stephan Huller]

spin is as good as any scholar. Doesn't mean I always agree with him but the fact that he cites himself in a forum doesn't mean the argument should be disregarded. He's a rebel. He's not big on authority.

[MattMorales]

spin:

Yes, I threw respectful discourse out the window upon that statement, as it implies. I will rescind the comment on Carrier. This does not change the fact that the idea of a marginal gloss goes back at least to Wells (1986), and that I did not wish to get into the same old arguments. If you arrived at the conclusion completely independently, then good for you. I do think you should work to present your grammar argument in a comprehensive fashion, with the proper citations where necessary. I would not have dismissed you as quickly had you not reacted with such bombastic hostility when I pointed out that many of these same arguments have not gone far (and that it is mostly only mythicists who cling to them). I was not aiming to label you a mythicist (nor do I see the idea itself as offensive, but only certain tactics employed by its adherents), but merely pointing out that we all have biases, conscious or subconscious, and these need to be accounted for. As I am sure I stated at the outset, I do not "trust" the AJ XX reference, but only find it probably authentic (as of now), based on my own analysis and yes, building on the knowledge of others. This should not be a controversial statement.

I did not register in order to fling insults at fellow researchers, but to exchange ideas and engage in gentlemanly debate where appropriate. If you regard these as common objectives and not merely "crapping on," then I will be happy to call a truce on the matter.

[spin]

This is when respectful discourse was thrown out the window:

Spin:

It appears I am wasting my time in attempting a respectful discourse with you. As it seems you are parroting Carrier's argument regarding the creeping marginalia, there is in fact nothing to say that has not already been put more eloquently by more learned scholars than myself. I do not like slapping labels on people, but I am unaware of anyone rejecting the Antiquities XX reference who does not subscribe to a mythical Jesus. I have nothing against mythicism per se, but I do have a problem with zealots who, in subjects as hazy as this, are arrogant enough to not acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposition.

That's how you pulled out of the conversation. It was uncalled for and deserving of what was poured on it.

If you like the idea of exchanging ideas, you need to hold up your end of the exchange. (Going on about mythicism doesn't help.) And talking of "gentlemanly debate" excludes more than half the population. This is not a Gentlemen's Club. Besides, I prefer insight and analysis, not rehearsals of the mainstream and appeals to "actual scholars".

It would seem that you have exhausted your repertoire regarding AJ 20.200, asserting that you "find it probably authentic". That's not controversial, but neither is it insightful nor analytical. And I see no tangible reason for you to split hairs, by saying 'I do not "trust" the AJ XX reference, but only find it probably authentic (as of now)'. There is nothing in what you say above that demonstrates any meaningfulness in the distinction you try to make. Hence I called the spade a spade. You did not engage in any of the issues in the post that preceded your cited comment. That would have been engaging in discourse. I'm happy if you deal with things with insight and analysis. Forgive me for noting that you haven't been doing that.

[MattMorales]

This is when respectful discourse was thrown out the window:
...
That's how you pulled out of the conversation. It was uncalled for and deserving of what was poured on it.

I'd reckon the respectfulness was lost in your preceding post, but I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, spin. I cannot blame you for not wanting to be associated with Carrier's current line of argument regarding the passage (specifically that it might have originally read "son of Damneus")

If you like the idea of exchanging ideas, you need to hold up your end of the exchange. (Going on about mythicism doesn't help.) And talking of "gentlemanly debate" excludes more than half the population. This is not a Gentlemen's Club. Besides, I prefer insight and analysis, not rehearsals of the mainstream and appeals to "actual scholars".

Much as yourself, I have come to my conclusions independently. Having others, who are well-versed in the topic, agree with said conclusions never hurts. And the phrase "gentlemanly" was not meant literally, but thanks for pointing out the unintended connotations.

It would seem that you have exhausted your repertoire regarding AJ 20.200, asserting that you "find it probably authentic". That's not controversial, but neither is it insightful nor analytical. And I see no tangible reason for you to split hairs, by saying 'I do not "trust" the AJ XX reference, but only find it probably authentic (as of now)'. There is nothing in what you say above that demonstrates any meaningfulness in the distinction you try to make. Hence I called the spade a spade. You did not engage in any of the issues in the post that preceded your cited comment. That would have been engaging in discourse. I'm happy if you deal with things with insight and analysis. Forgive me for noting that you haven't been doing that.

I was only exhausted of arguing against hyperbole, which much of that preceding post of yours was. Merely invoking the words mythicism/mythicists in two relevant contexts (how much skepticism is healthy vs excessive/how is the success of an argument gauged) seems to have stirred up quite the fury in you. The point remains that if you expect the marginal gloss argument (and the specific version you argue) to gain any headway, you'll need to do a better job of presenting it, and it wouldn't hurt to adopt a less hostile tone. We can take up the debate again if you wish. So let's go back...

I'm saying that Eusebius (EH 2.23.20) unlike today's pundits saw no direct relationship between what Origen "cited" from Josephus and AJ 20.200, which Eusebius cited immediately after the Origen passage. And Eusebius cited Origen as Josephus! For him they were separate texts.

This is a weak argument. We can see from where the confusion stems and why Eusebius saw it as a different text. Tellingly, Eusebius also quotes Hegesippus directly above Origen, so we might conclude that he did not see the passage as coming from that source either. Origen's own confusion and use of paraphrase has simply thrown off Eusebius. This has no bearing on whether or not Origen was aware of the James reference in AJ.

What you and every boy and his dog [ha!] are hoping for is that, although he got the substance from Hegesippus, he got the one literal phrase "James the Just who was the brother of Jesus called christ James by name" from Josephus.

And I'm puzzled by your claim that Origen's first attempt (in Comm.Matt.) is somehow "closer to AJ XX". Is this because the phrase you cling to doesn't have the epithet for James or is there some content to your claim I don't see??

I could ask why you chose to highlight the later Contra Celsum wording rather than the earlier Comm.Matt equivalent. I would guess that's because it fits your argument better. Once again, Origen is obviously paraphrasing and he's also embellishing as time goes by. It's apparent that he is at least trying to get the wording close because, if you read through the entire section in Comm.Matt, you see how he goes on quoting all mentions of the "Bretheren of Jesus" that are known to him. He quotes Matthew, he quotes Galatians, he quotes Jude, and he basically quotes Josephus, which he's possibly harmonized with Hegesippus. The idea that Origen concocted the epithet for James himself, using Matthew, holds no weight in this context. Everywhere else in the the text, Origen merely refers to "James" or "Jesus/Jesus Christ."