https://earlywritings.com/forum/
The lack of TF in the table of contents is, of course, an argument in favor of interpolation, but as you know, it is a short text and could have been omitted for various reasons. It is difficult to consider this argument as decisive evidence. As for writing activities, there are possible sources of income: patronage, performances, writing classes, royalties from publications. Some are more important, some are less important and it changes. Even in today's times, we have witnessed such changes. In the 1990s, concerts promoted released albums. Today, albums promote concert tours. Split of inome is different. One thing doesn't change - you have to create and you have to publish to gain fame and money from ALL these sources. Sometimes publishing a book is expensive and brings less than patronage, but it is necessary because you have to reach the audience with your art, you have to be widely known.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 1:43 am The TF was omitted from the table of contents, which makes sense if it were an interpolation or at least interpolated, but less so if it were something written to drum up interest in the Antiquities.
https://peterkirby.com/table-of-contents-josephus.html
It might also be mentioned that you could make a living as a story teller but not really as an author per se. Someone like Lucian of Samosata was in demand in elite circles for the performance of his works. Having a popular book could spread your name, but it would not provide its author an income on its own. The money (if you will) was in live entertainment.
In case anyone doesn't realize, the Antiquities was incredibly long, often boring, and not the kind of book that got someone a lot of invitations to perform. And that's fine because there was a whole other very old category of literature produced under a patron's support. In this case, a person named Epaphroditus was notable:
"I separated it into a set treatise by it self, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion. But in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary, and went on slowly. It being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us, unaccustomed language. However, some persons there were, who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it: and, above all the rest Epaphroditus, a man who is a lover of all kind of learning; but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history; and this on account of his having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune; and having shewn a wonderful vigor of an excellent nature, and an immoveable virtuous resolution in them all. I yielded to this man’s persuasions; who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavours with his."
Of course there were people interested in history, and parts of the text could possibly have been brought out for reading at times.
But with this passage on Jesus there is not enough there to get that kind of value out of it. The passage is too short to do that kind of work. If it were longer, it could perhaps satisfy curiosity and entertain listeners for an evening. But the passage doesn't fill that space. If this was why it was written, the author immediately forgot his purpose just a few words in.
It doesn't fill that kind of function. It does work as a little quotable creed-like statement from Josephus, which is the first known use of it, in Eusebius.
The probability that Josephus invented Jesus is 50%. If he didn't make it up, he heard it from someone. The probability that this person invented Jesus is 50%. So 50+50%*50%=75%. If it turns out that Josephus' source learned about Jesus from yet another source, it will be 50%+50%*50%+50%*50%*50%=87.5%StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 11:02 am JarekS wrote, above, in part:
"...Therefore, the probability of Jesus existing is 25% or less."
I don't follow your "math."
Yes, this idea has an ecstatic beauty to it.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 8:43 am The idea that an entire Legend started from a historical document without a real historical connection between the founders of the Legend and the historical events related in a such historical document (which in short is the view expressed here by Jarek in the case of Jesus) is really followed by many radical critics (Van Manen in primis) about the origins of the Paulinism (and related fabricated epistles).
- 1) A historical document reported that Paul was a Jewish messianist who propagated messianism in Rome itself, where probably he died,
- 2) Later Gentilizers, without no real connection at all with Paul beyond that historical document, used a such historical document to fabricate the Acts of Paul and the "Epistles" of Paul.
?Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 6:07 am "A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (1762)
Yes.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 1:10 pm JarekS:
"The probability that Josephus invented Jesus is 50%. If he didn't make it up, he heard it from someone. The probability that this person invented Jesus is 50%. So 50+50%*50%=75%. If it turns out that Josephus' source learned about Jesus from yet another source, it will be 50%+50%*50%+50%*50%*50%=87.5%"
No.
Since you have provided no historical source available to Josephus for the TF in Antiquities - and you acknowledge the possibility that Josephus could have invented everything himself - I really don't find any basis on which you can take your theory forward. Based as it is on assumptions without any historical grounding - it's a non-starter in the search for early christian origins.JarekS wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 10:21 amIf it is as I postulate that the only source of information about Jesus was Josephus, then we can at most calculate the simple probability of Jesus' existence. Josephus was born in 37 CE, so he used some earlier source, if he didn't invent everything himself. Therefore, the probability of Jesus existing is 25% or less.maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 12:02 am
Hang on - you know the context in which I asked the question. You wrote that Luke was not writing history - hence my question. If Luke is not writing history - who was writing history in the context of the Jesus/TF story. ?
I noticed, in reply to Giuseppe, that you wrote: ''Josephus is a fiction writer who bases his works on history, stories, gossip and his own creation.''
So let me ask this question: If Josephus is a fiction writer who bases his works on history - what historical source did he use for his TF story ?
Or would you have it that the TF story is fiction, gossip or his own creation. If the TF is fiction, gossip or his own creation - then it can be ruled out as historical evidence for it's Jesus figure.
Which of the above scenarios is your theory of the early history of Christianity based upon ?