neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:28 pm
(Why is this still being debated. Surely the "authentic core" argument simply comes down to an "argument from incredulity", really. It cannot be believed that Josephs said nothing about Jesus. From there we interpret every Josephan phrase as from the pen of Josephus himself -- it could not possibly come from a copyist who has been working for weeks on copying Josephus? The valid tests have to come from external references, and there we first meet Origen getting confused with Hegesippus until we meet Eusebius. And as Mason points out in his 1992 book, the value of any form of TF is negligible for historians anyway. A hypothetical source to replace the one we have and that serves no purpose other than to "affirm" that Josephus did after all say something about Jesus!)
I am simply stunned to read this comment......
The Josephan writer lived during the formative years of early Christianity. As such his writing is the bedrock of any historical research into these important years. The issue is not that some people find it difficult to believe that Josephus said nothing about Jesus - the issue is not someone's belief - the issue is the writings of Josephus themselves. Even if, for the sake of argument, Eusebius, and or his scribe, composed every word that is now known as the TF - the placing of that TF in a context of 19 c.e. Roman history - indicates that Eusebius, and or his scribe, were replacing a core TF - replacing because they could not move the TF out of it's context of Roman history without bringing down charges of forgery on their heads. Rewording, rewriting, replacing - under that sort of radar forgery has a better chance of outwitting any troublesome Josephan caretakers.
'the value of any form of TF is negligible for historians anyway.' Any form of the TF is negligible for Jesus historicists - for historical investigation into the writing of Josephus - that is another matter entirely. The probability that the TF has an 'authentic core' does not establish historicity for Jesus - that is simply a naïve Jesus historicist argument and approach to the writing of Josephus.
What a 'core TF' does do is open up the question of what relationship did Josephus have towards early christianity. Yes, the usual argument is that Josephus was not a Jewish christian; but the fact that the gospel of Luke could not be written without Josephus dating Pilate to 26 c.e. (and Acts of Pilate having a pre 26 c.e. crucifixion story that Eusebius sought unsuccessfully to negate with his placing his TF in the 19 c.e. Roman history context) suggests that arguments over Josephus not being a Jewish Christian fail to overcome his connection to the Lukan writer.
That is the big question, the historical question, a question that cannot be addressed while all the blame for the TF is placed upon Eusebius and culpability is removed from Josephus.
Pursuing these avenues of research will contribute to our certainty as
to when Pilate became governor of Judea. Some will care about this,
others might not. What is clear, however, is that even those who don’t want
“merely” to “mine” Josephus for “facts” should realize that it was only
the external pressure, of Tacitus, that forced scholars to read Josephus with
eyes that allowed them to see all there is to see. Those who read Josephus
all by himself will never know, for example, that Germanicus died in 19 CE
(a point that is quite clear in Tacitus’ annalistic narrative [see n. 75] but
not at all indicated by Josephus), hence never have the occasion to wonder
why Josephus juxtaposed that death with the beginning of Pilate’s tenure,
something that apparently contradicts Josephus’ dating of that tenure – a
point which we may pursue as we like, whether to learn more about Pilate
or, rather, more about Josephus. Page 144.
Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century
We need, if we are searching for understanding of the roots of early christianity - to do as Daniel Schwartz suggests - to learn more about Josephus. We don't let him off the hook over the TF - we don't accept his words on face value - but we do put the Josephan writer in the dock. If we don't - then we are letting go of the only avenue, the only tool, available to us with the potential to move forward in our research.
The first century CE is like an ancient monument. It is a place of interest with riches that the visitor wants to stand among, their ambience to imbibe. Unfortunately, access to the site is limited to one point of entry. Most of the sources only provide a mere glimpse of the site. The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus. The problem is that, once inside, we are offered an ‘official’ guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations that he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirements of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we left the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure we are able to explore its contents in detail we must stand apart from him. As such, our visit to the site may take more time than the official tour program allows. But who wants to stay on a tour that does not let you stop and take your own pictures? James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE.