Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by John T »

@ MrMacSon,

Are you implying you are right and I'm wrong because Dr. Carrier is not a mythicist? :o

Paging Dr. Carrier.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:33 amTry to keep it on intellectual level so I reciprocate in kind.

John T
:facepalm:
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:29 pm I'm in the camp of Dr. Ehrman.
Good company. We have seen the evidence that Bart Ehrman did not bother to actually read some of the books whose arguments he thought he was both encapsulating and critiquing in Did Jesus Exist?.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Christians on Board

Post by billd89 »

We do need more Xians here.

That said, we REALLY don't need the Qanon Conspiracy-Theory type. I don't care what their religion is or isn't.

That's just my two cents.
Jair
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:38 pm

Re: Christians on Board

Post by Jair »

billd89 wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 2:20 pm We do need more Xians here.

That said, we REALLY don't need the Qanon Conspiracy-Theory type. I don't care what their religion is or isn't.

That's just my two cents.
Christian here. In complete agreement regarding the conspiracies. That stuff is scary.

I’m a bit confused. Is the OP arguing for partial or total authenticity of the TF?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by GakuseiDon »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 6:31 pmBut let's start with the video of Chris Forbes being interviewed by John Dickson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9J599VBEZI

0:57 - Forbes: No historian suggests that one [the James passage] is forged.

Several have (though I would say interpolated or glossed, not forged). Around 1900 it was commonly thought to be interpolated. Emil Schürer in his classic History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ thought so, and Albert Schweitzer in his Quest of the Historical Jesus also considered it unreliable. More recently, Josephan scholar Tessa Rajak considers it inauthentic in Josephus (2e 2002). And of course me, in my CBQ article, but I suspect you won't hold it against Forbes that he wasn't counting me. Chris Hansen on this forum has documented other scholars who reject the passage. This does not prove the passage is forged, but that Forbes' claim is mistaken.

1:37 - Forbes: some monk copying his manuscript in the medieval period somewhere

This could not have been added in the medieval period. The entire Testimonium is in three works of Eusebius in the early 4th century (we have Syriac MSS of two of them from the 5th). One could possibly suggest that Forbes has a peculiar understanding of when the medieval period is, except that he then specifies the 8th-9th centuries at 4:30.

2:10 - Forbes: "He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks' No early Christian is going to say that because Jesus of course didn't, but Josephus may have thought that.

I have documented that Eusebius did think that Jesus won over many Greeks (or Hellennes or Polytheists - the word has all those senses for Eusebius and other Christian writers) in the paper John T has refused to read. I have copied and pasted the pertinent excerpt below in the hopes that he will be willing to read it rather than refuse to look at the evidence. Forbes contention that Josephus may have thought Jesus won over Greeks is, of course, possible, but only speculation.

2:50 Dickson: Would Christians say that the people responsible for Jesus' death were men of highest standing? Forbes: Clearly, they wouldn't want to think that at all.

Why not? Men of the highest standing (more literally first men or principal men) refers to their social standing, not their moral character. In Acts 25.2-3 the chief priests and principal (same word as in the TF) men of the Jews inform against Paul and plan to kill him. Forbes' speculation is baseless.

4:30 The consensus is simply that there is a historical nucleus, but that it's been edited by a christian scribe somewhere in the 8th-9th century or possibly a little bit earlier.

(Time tracks may be off by a few seconds; they varied while I was writing this).

Yes, the majority think there's a Josephan nucleus (whether they have good reasons to think this is another matter). But no one familiar with the issue thinks it was interpolated in the 8th-9th century. The Testimonium existed in its current form in the time of Eusebius. (It is possible that the Testimonium was interpolated into Josephus Antiquities as late as the 6th century, when the Latin translation of Josephus was made, but that is certainly not what Forbes is arguing).

So in at least several cases, Forbes is wrong on the facts. In most cases, he's just repeating common opinions (but the medieval things is just weird).
Ken, I agree with all your points above. The video that John T recommends in the OP has a lot of flaws, as you have pointed out. And yes, proposing medieval interpolations into Josephus that are then somehow quoted by Eusebius makes no sense at all! :confusedsmiley: (I'm assuming he meant pre-Eusebius interpolator and mispoke about them being 'medieval' ones)

Perhaps John T might want to respond to those points about the video he recommended?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Christians on Board

Post by ABuddhist »

Jair wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 2:39 pm I’m a bit confused. Is the OP arguing for partial or total authenticity of the TF?
John T seems to be arguing for partial authenticity.
ABuddhist wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:53 pm
John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:29 pm Never said that. If you bothered to watch the short video on my first post you would know that and that I'm in the camp of Dr. Ehrman. I not arguing that no interpolation took place, never had.
You are conflating two separate positions.

1. The claim that portions of the text of Josephus's references to Jesus were interpolated.

2. The claim that all of the text of Josephus's references to Jesus were interpolated.

Position #1 seems to be fairly accepted.
Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 11:13 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:47 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:27 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:15 pm Early on, Valliant decided not to allow that any part of the Testimonium was interpolated.
Does anyone aside from him hold that view?
Some people are very close to that position, but most of those, like Alice Whealey and Serge Barrdet, allow a word or two here and there may be interpolated or omitted.

Valliant floats the idea that Josephus was a Christian, and there I cannot think of a single Josephan scholar of the last century or more who agree with him. His authority is William Whiston's 18th century translation of Josephus with appendixes.

The interesting thing about that approach to the TF is that it (1) pretty much admits that the TF is a christian text and (2) gives up the only first century non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus, because he turns out to be a Christian after all.

Best,

Ken
I can only find a tiny handful who think the TF is totally authentic.

Garnet, P. 1989. If the Testimonium Flavianum Contains Alterations, Who Originated Them? In: Livingstone, E. A. (ed.) Studia Patristica Vol. XIX: Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987. Leuven: Peeters, 57–61.

Garnet, from what I understood, argued that Josephus wrote two versions of the TF 18.3.3 and circulated them. The first was a reduced variant, and then he later produced, himself, a pro-Christian variant.

Ulrich Victor, if I'm understanding the German correctly (I'm a bit rusty), argues that what we perceive as interpolations are actually just a result of us not understanding the climate that Josephus wrote in (?). So I think he is saying the whole TF is authentic? See:

Victor, U. 2010. Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus. Novum Testamentum 52, 72–82.

These are the only two I'm currently aware of, but I know there are others.

Curiously enough, in his Letter to a Deist, Edward Stillingfleet in the 1600s seemed to be sympathetic to total authenticity as well asking why Josephus couldn't have just been incoherent with his own beliefs and principles.
Position #2, although more controversial, is not limited in its acceptance to mythicists, as we have proven to you in this and other threads.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:32 pm
John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:33 amTry to keep it on intellectual level so I reciprocate in kind.

John T
:facepalm:
Which one of the posters even tried to make a valid argument based on the topic given? Instead, they either immediately defaulted to some kinda of hate fest or, self-promoting tangent, (with commendable exception of Gakuseidon and Jair). Then when I give a tit for tat they cry foul?! :wtf:

Who would've thunk it?

Time and time again I asked if anyone wants to argue to the merits but no! So, they take pleasure devolving this thread into a circus freak show, and boy oh boy are the freak clowns pouring out of the clown car now. But where is their hero Dr. Carrier?

I suspect you have connections with Dr. Carrier and perhaps you can get him to defend all the things he said about Josephus or his buddy Ken Olson in this video titled: "

Josephus Never Mentioned Jesus - Dr. Richard Carrier"

https://youtu.be/pOyZamte8Zs

But I won't hold my breath.

The argument from silence is rejected as a fallacy.

So, with that I conclude: Josephus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James. :silenced:
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:35 pm I suspect you have connections with Dr. Carrier and perhaps you can get him to defend all the things he said about Josephus or his buddy Ken Olson in this video titled: "

Josephus Never Mentioned Jesus - Dr. Richard Carrier"

https://youtu.be/pOyZamte8Zs

But I won't hold my breath.

The argument from silence is rejected as a fallacy.

So, with that I conclude: Josephus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James. :silenced:
What things in the video, in your mind, need defending? I have little doubt that you would say almost everything, but it would be interesting to know in your words which portions you object to.

I also note that refuting the claim that Josephus never mentioned Jesus is not only a matter of refuting Dr. Carrier and his circle - because as we have revealed to you in various threads, Dr. Carrier and his circle are not the only advocates for this claim.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:35 pm they either immediately defaulted to some kinda of hate fest or, self-promoting tangent . . . . Then when I give a tit for tat they cry foul?!
Encouraging to see that you can at least recognize your own hate fest and self promotion tangent.
John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:35 pm
I suspect you have connections with Dr. Carrier
Why?
John T wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:35 pm
The argument from silence is rejected as a fallacy.
Says who? What sort of fallacy are you talking about -- formal or informal? Do you know what historians and philosophers of history have actually explained to peers and the public about the "argument from silence"? Clearly not. You are clearly trapped in simplistic black-and-white dis-understanding of how intellectuals outside your closed-minded dogmatic world work.
Post Reply