Was TF inserted?

[achilles12604]

Goat is of the opinion that the Testimonium Flavianum, attributed to Josephus was a total invention and insertion by Christian copiests. I of course do not think so. I think that it was originally penned by Josephus but was "doctored" by later copies.

So I invite the original view to present its case. Then I shall rebut.

[achilles12604]

*sigh* Changing the subject when you have made an error is sly, but in this case transparent Goat. I shall address your last post here, and then let's move on.

Yes, let's since you won't answer, I will assume you can't, and wish to avoid the subject.

And post 97 was what if not an answer? Post 19? Post 69?

Please review that one real quick. In fact why doesn't everyone re-read post 97 and see if I really didn't answer.

And then re-read post 92.

Still wait for a couple of responses. Your question: What evidence exists before 300CE? My answer: None. But then again there really shouldn't be any now should there?

See. I answered your question Goat.

Here let me answer it for the 12th (or so) time.

Q: What evidence exists before 300CE?

A: None. But then we don't have any reason to assume that there SHOULD be evidence between 94 CE and 300 CE.




Now that I have answered your question 12 or 13ish times, care to address post 92 at all?

So, you don't have any evidence. I DO disagree with your remark about 'their should be'. We know that Origin used book 18, and for him NOT to remark on that passage would be totally remarkable.

And still no response to 92. . . . .

[achilles12604]

*sigh* Changing the subject when you have made an error is sly, but in this case transparent Goat. I shall address your last post here, and then let's move on.

Yes, let's since you won't answer, I will assume you can't, and wish to avoid the subject.

And post 97 was what if not an answer? Post 19? Post 69?

Please review that one real quick. In fact why doesn't everyone re-read post 97 and see if I really didn't answer.

And then re-read post 92.

Still wait for a couple of responses. Your question: What evidence exists before 300CE? My answer: None. But then again there really shouldn't be any now should there?

See. I answered your question Goat.

Here let me answer it for the 12th (or so) time.

Q: What evidence exists before 300CE?

A: None. But then we don't have any reason to assume that there SHOULD be evidence between 94 CE and 300 CE.




Now that I have answered your question 12 or 13ish times, care to address post 92 at all?

So, you don't have any evidence. I DO disagree with your remark about 'their should be'. We know that Origin used book 18, and for him NOT to remark on that passage would be totally remarkable.

And still no response to 92. . . . .

Ok. Well I wasn't really expecting a reply anyway. An admission would have been nice, but moving on . . . .



I have put forth one reason why I feel that the TF could be authentic. It fits well within the section we find it. It matches up with what Josephus was writing at that time.

Next, I would like to examine the content of the TF itself, and specifically the "watered down" version. I shall present both versions here for reference.

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

'At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

First both of these contain the phrase "At this time there was . . . . "

This phrase is used by Josephus over and over. In fact he wrote it at least 4 times in this chapter alone. He uses it to the point of being able to trade mark these words.

These word are certainly indicitive of Josephus.

Second, the phrase "wise man". This phrase was used by Josephus on other occasions to describe other "wise men" like Solomon or Daniel or Abram. Some argue that Josephus wouldn't have used this phrase because it is somehow praising Jesus. But I am forced to disagree.

Being therefore troubled at what he had seen, for it seemed to him to be all of a melancholy nature, the next day he called together the wisest men among the Egyptians,

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant2.html

Here he called calls men of Egypt "wise". Surely he doesn't have love for the country which enslaved his people and is even today causing them problems?


Along similar lines we read . . .

Now there was one Jenadab, a kinsman and friend of his, who discovered this his passion, for he was an extraordinary wise man, and of great sagacity of mind.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant7.html


Notice that Josephus takes the time to write that he was an "extraordinary" wise man and that he had "great sagacity of mind." Compare this to Solomon, the wisest of Jewish kings . . .

"It is fit to bless God that he hath committed thy father's government to thee, who art a wise man, and endowed with all virtues.

And the REALLY funny part . . . Josephus is QUOTING someone else!!

Josephus didn't even call Solomon wise in the section ABOUT him!!

Even a lowly Captain was called "wise" . . .

And when this captain also threatened the prophet, that unless he came down of his own accord, he would take him and carry him away, upon his prayer against him, the fire [from heaven] slew this captain as well the other. And when, upon inquiry, the king was informed of what happened to him, he sent out a third captain. But when this captain, who was a wise man, and of a mild disposition, came to the place where Elijah happened to be

I find this amusing. Your atheist sources put forth the argument that the phrase ""wise man" couldn't be the words of Josephus because Josephus reserved these words for great kings like Solomon. And yet, when we actually READ the evidence ourselves, we find Josephus using this phrase for enemies (egyptians), women, Captains, and strangely enough . . . NOT for Solomon.

Do the people you cite even bother to read Josephus work before asserting their opinion about it?


Anyway, what say YOU goat? It appears to me that these phrases are very indicitive of Josephus and would indicate authorship.

[daedalus 2.0]

If Josephus consider Jesus more than a man ("if he can be called a man"), did he convert to Xinanity?

BTW, the argument that a Xian wouldn't write that makes no sense. Many writers try to build suspense - even that early - by alluding to this "what if" scenario. People love it even today.

It's a small point, but I suppose worth mentioning.

BTW, while people are asking for admissions, have the other points that goat has made been accepted or is it the common chasing game? If someone responds to a point, you ignore it and say, "well, what about this one!" Its a clear sign of pseudoscientists. Not that I'm claiming people are, just that that technique is one used.

Also, are all of Josephus other writings accurate? I have been reading through and he certainly adds a lot of his own commentary on people he never met.

Either way, its certainly not something that will be determined here. There are people who have studied it for their lifetime and not come to a conclusion. - although, it seems most scholars accept it as an interpolation.

I think if the other problems of the Jesus story aren't reconciled, this story has little value anyhow. That is, it is still a contentious point that presuppositionalists and others use as evidence.

Building a case on potential realities is a tough sell in my book, and needs a lot of support. Not impossible, just in need of extraordinary evidence.

[achilles12604]

If Josephus consider Jesus more than a man ("if he can be called a man"), did he convert to Xinanity?

As I don't hold to that version of the TF, I shall simply pass over this question.

BTW, the argument that a Xian wouldn't write that makes no sense. Many writers try to build suspense - even that early - by alluding to this "what if" scenario. People love it even today.

It's a small point, but I suppose worth mentioning.

You lost me.

BTW, while people are asking for admissions, have the other points that goat has made been accepted or is it the common chasing game? If someone responds to a point, you ignore it and say, "well, what about this one!" Its a clear sign of pseudoscientists. Not that I'm claiming people are, just that that technique is one used.

Please bring forth any points made that I have ignored.

Also, are all of Josephus other writings accurate? I have been reading through and he certainly adds a lot of his own commentary on people he never met.

Absolutely not. His writings are not 100% at all. But then again he is usually off on the details and he does digress.

Besides, this has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is deciding if the TF was inserted or just altered. It's accuracy is a different topic altogether.

[daedalus 2.0]

Hmm, sorry, then. I will remove myself. I could care less if it was altered or inserted. (Inserted or original may have some implications, but barely). It means nothing in the broad sweep of history. Or, rather, it means nothing to me, and one would have to show absolutely, why if it was determined one way or another, it would have any bearing on anything.

Plus, this conversation is well out of my skill set.

[achilles12604]

Still waiting on you over here too Goat. Don't let this wonderful conversation end just because another one has begun.

[achilles12604]

So no one wants to argue that the passages I pulled out from the TF reflect the writing style of Josephus?

[Biker]

So no one wants to argue that the passages I pulled out from the TF reflect the writing style of Josephus?

I guess not Achilles.
So, I am assuming that the historical reference made to Jesus by Josephus is quite valid, and we do not have sufficient evidence to the contrary. And that we should all accept it as independent 3rd party secular historical documentation that verifies the historical Gospel accounts. Along with numerous others.

Biker

[Zzyzx]

.
Achilles, although I am NOT a bible scholar or historian and I have little interest in whether the TF was inserted rather than modified, I note a glaring defect in at least one of your arguments.

First both of these contain the phrase "At this time there was . . . . "

This phrase is used by Josephus over and over. In fact he wrote it at least 4 times in this chapter alone. He uses it to the point of being able to trade mark these words.

These word are certainly indicitive of Josephus.

Why do you conclude that the inclusion of that phrase is “indicative of Josephus” (or suggests authenticity)?

Would it be surprising that ANY reasonably intelligent inserter or forger would use phrases characteristic of the writing that was being changed or forged? Are you assuming that a forger / inserter must be stupid enough to not be able to comprehend that using characteristic phrases would make the forgery / insertion appear more authentic?

So no one wants to argue that the passages I pulled out from the TF reflect the writing style of Josephus?

I guess not Achilles.
So, I am assuming that the historical reference made to Jesus by Josephus is quite valid, and we do not have sufficient evidence to the contrary. And that we should all accept it as independent 3rd party secular historical documentation that verifies the historical Gospel accounts. Along with numerous others.

It is SO surprising that Biker would conclude that Josephus is valid. It is gratifying to see that Achilles’ arguments have garnered support from someone.

The issue has been debated since the 17th Century and scholars who actually study the matter have disagreed concerning the validity of the TF. I am willing to accept that the scholarly disagreement is indication that the passage is at least questionable as valid reference to Jesus.

As an indication that the TF issue is in dispute:

In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Biker, another apologist needs support at
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#169915

For a good example of a fulfilled prophecy see Daniel 8, where a strutting ram with two long horns, standing beside a canal, is attacked by a flying goat with a single long horn, an attack that shatters the ram's two horns. This is a prophecy of 9/11, one of many in the Bible.

Bold added

This seems like the kind of thing that you know about.

[achilles12604]

.
Achilles, although I am NOT a bible scholar or historian and I have little interest in whether the TF was inserted rather than modified, I note a glaring defect in at least one of your arguments.

First both of these contain the phrase "At this time there was . . . . "

This phrase is used by Josephus over and over. In fact he wrote it at least 4 times in this chapter alone. He uses it to the point of being able to trade mark these words.

These word are certainly indicitive of Josephus.

Why do you conclude that the inclusion of that phrase is “indicative of Josephus” (or suggests authenticity)?

Would it be surprising that ANY reasonably intelligent inserter or forger would use phrases characteristic of the writing that was being changed or forged? Are you assuming that a forger / inserter must be stupid enough to not be able to comprehend that using characteristic phrases would make the forgery / insertion appear more authentic?

This is a blatant example of begging the question. I guess that the last 7 Chronicals of Narnia were also forged by someonewho very cleverly used similar phrases and words to CS Lewis.

Come now, unless you can prove the conspiracy, you can hardly claim that SIMILAR wording is evidence AGAINST Josephus authorship.