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.

[Goat]

Yes, I do. You see, each and ever one of those people who were mentioned not only showed there were familiar with Antiquities, but also had motivation to show about references to Jesus were there.

GREAT!!

So what was their motivation? How would citing this passage assist in their arguments?

Please cite examples like "Justin Martyr's argument about ______ would have been much more solid if he had cited the TF"

If you can do this, I will be impressed because all of the writings I am familiar with (which I admit isn't all of them) address heresies, and theology. None of them would have benefited from citing this passage. Citing this passage was pointless until much later.

The 'stripped down' version of the account of Jesus was very neutral toward him. However, in ever other case where Josephus talked about a messanic figure, he was highly critical. He knew what side his bread was buttered on.

It isn't just one or two people that were silent , but all those apologists had motivation to talk about 'see, Josephus talked about Jesus and the disciples'.

You see, talking about Jesus was what the apologists were all about. They had the motivation, they had the familiarity with Antiquities, and there wasn't just one or two, but a number of them, over a 200 year period.

Before we jump to this conclusion let us see your examples of the early fathers "motivation"s. This is after all what the validity of your argument from silence hinges on.

If they did not have any motivation or reason to cite this passage, if it does not strengthen the cases they made in any significant way, then your argument from silence falls flat. If they SHOULD have cited this passage and it would have strengthened some argument they were making as evidence, then your claim is valid.

For example, Justin Martyrs arguements can be would be promoted for showing how good a teacher Jesus was, since he had disciples.

TF would have served Orgien's arguement's to a much better purpose considering his comments about James. It would have been a much stronger arguement that the very weak comment in 20.9

[achilles12604]

For example, Justin Martyrs arguements can be would be promoted for showing how good a teacher Jesus was, since he had disciples.

Ok. Was there a question about Jesus ability as a teacher? And was there a doubt that he had disciples?

Justin lived a mere 100 years or so after Jesus. Were these facts in question at this time? Did they need to be proven or were they assumed already?

If it was assumed during the time of Justin that Jesus had disciples, wouldn't including this point of evidence caused Justin's audience to think "well duh. Why is he reinventing the wheel? We already KNEW he had disciples."

TF would have served Orgien's arguement's to a much better purpose considering his comments about James. It would have been a much stronger arguement that the very weak comment in 20.9

How exactly would the existence of Jesus have supported Origen's claim?

[Goat]

For example, Justin Martyrs arguements can be would be promoted for showing how good a teacher Jesus was, since he had disciples.

Ok. Was there a question about Jesus ability as a teacher? And was there a doubt that he had disciples?

Justin lived a mere 100 years or so after Jesus. Were these facts in question at this time? Did they need to be proven or were they assumed already?

If it was assumed during the time of Justin that Jesus had disciples, wouldn't including this point of evidence caused Justin's audience to think "well duh. Why is he reinventing the wheel? We already KNEW he had disciples."

TF would have served Orgien's arguement's to a much better purpose considering his comments about James. It would have been a much stronger arguement that the very weak comment in 20.9

How exactly would the existence of Jesus have supported Origen's claim?

What did Orgien say about James?? He said "See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about James, brother of Christ.

It would have been SO much more dramatic to say 'See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about Jesus.

But, even though he used examples from John the Baptist several paragraphs earlier, he said nothing about the TF>

[achilles12604]

For example, Justin Martyrs arguements can be would be promoted for showing how good a teacher Jesus was, since he had disciples.

Ok. Was there a question about Jesus ability as a teacher? And was there a doubt that he had disciples?

Justin lived a mere 100 years or so after Jesus. Were these facts in question at this time? Did they need to be proven or were they assumed already?

If it was assumed during the time of Justin that Jesus had disciples, wouldn't including this point of evidence caused Justin's audience to think "well duh. Why is he reinventing the wheel? We already KNEW he had disciples."

TF would have served Orgien's arguement's to a much better purpose considering his comments about James. It would have been a much stronger arguement that the very weak comment in 20.9

How exactly would the existence of Jesus have supported Origen's claim?

What did Orgien say about James?? He said "See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about James, brother of Christ.

It would have been SO much more dramatic to say 'See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about Jesus.

Context please. Where did he write the above quotes? Let us examine them in context and in detail.


You also ignored my questions about Justin.

[Goat]

For example, Justin Martyrs arguements can be would be promoted for showing how good a teacher Jesus was, since he had disciples.

Ok. Was there a question about Jesus ability as a teacher? And was there a doubt that he had disciples?

Justin lived a mere 100 years or so after Jesus. Were these facts in question at this time? Did they need to be proven or were they assumed already?

If it was assumed during the time of Justin that Jesus had disciples, wouldn't including this point of evidence caused Justin's audience to think "well duh. Why is he reinventing the wheel? We already KNEW he had disciples."

TF would have served Orgien's arguement's to a much better purpose considering his comments about James. It would have been a much stronger arguement that the very weak comment in 20.9

How exactly would the existence of Jesus have supported Origen's claim?

What did Orgien say about James?? He said "See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about James, brother of Christ.

It would have been SO much more dramatic to say 'See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about Jesus.

Context please. Where did he write the above quotes? Let us examine them in context and in detail.


You also ignored my questions about Justin.

Justin's arguements would have been quite the same. However, he didn't use it at all.

You see, because of the corruption that is known to have occurred in the 4th century, and the lack of evidence of it existing before hand, makes it suspect enough to discount it being used as evidence for a historical Jesus at all.

If by some chance we find some evidence of it existing before the 4th century, I might change my mind (depending what that evidence is)> Until such time, I feel confident in rejecting it in it's entirety. Because of the corruption, it certainly would not be able to put accepted as evidence in court of law, that is for sure.

Now, do you have any evidence to show it existed before the 4th century, or will you just continue to say 'well, you have to show it didn't'?

The mere fact it is known to have be at least a partial forgery makes it suspect enough for you to need to demonstrate it's existence before hand.

[Goat]

Although he used Antiquities a few times, the part the I think would be most relavent would be Origen against celscuis 1:47

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ [adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou],--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

In this context, it would have been PERFECT to discuss that passage. He referenced John the Baptist in the 18th book, which was just a few paragraphs ahead of the TF, and he mentioned James, supposedly from antiquities 20.

[achilles12604]

For example, Justin Martyrs arguements can be would be promoted for showing how good a teacher Jesus was, since he had disciples.

Ok. Was there a question about Jesus ability as a teacher? And was there a doubt that he had disciples?

Justin lived a mere 100 years or so after Jesus. Were these facts in question at this time? Did they need to be proven or were they assumed already?

If it was assumed during the time of Justin that Jesus had disciples, wouldn't including this point of evidence caused Justin's audience to think "well duh. Why is he reinventing the wheel? We already KNEW he had disciples."

TF would have served Orgien's arguement's to a much better purpose considering his comments about James. It would have been a much stronger arguement that the very weak comment in 20.9

How exactly would the existence of Jesus have supported Origen's claim?

What did Orgien say about James?? He said "See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about James, brother of Christ.

It would have been SO much more dramatic to say 'See, even though Josephus was not a believer, he wrote about Jesus.

Context please. Where did he write the above quotes? Let us examine them in context and in detail.


You also ignored my questions about Justin.

Justin's arguements would have been quite the same. However, he didn't use it at all.

You see, because of the corruption that is known to have occurred in the 4th century, and the lack of evidence of it existing before hand, makes it suspect enough to discount it being used as evidence for a historical Jesus at all.

If by some chance we find some evidence of it existing before the 4th century, I might change my mind (depending what that evidence is)> Until such time, I feel confident in rejecting it in it's entirety. Because of the corruption, it certainly would not be able to put accepted as evidence in court of law, that is for sure.

Now, do you have any evidence to show it existed before the 4th century, or will you just continue to say 'well, you have to show it didn't'?

The mere fact it is known to have be at least a partial forgery makes it suspect enough for you to need to demonstrate it's existence before hand.

Ok so Justin is unchanged.

I will provide my argument after we have gone through your claims and supporting evidence. After all we don't want to have to many subjects going at once. We started with your claim so let's finish with your evidence first.

Continuing to demand the same thing of me over and over so that I will not critically examine YOUR supporting evidence isn't very nice. I am not going anywhere so we will have a chance to run my points for all they are worth later.

[achilles12604]

Although he used Antiquities a few times, the part the I think would be most relavent would be Origen against celscuis 1:47

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ [adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou],--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

In this context, it would have been PERFECT to discuss that passage. He referenced John the Baptist in the 18th book, which was just a few paragraphs ahead of the TF, and he mentioned James, supposedly from antiquities 20.

Now this is good evidence.

Origen is discussing the downfall of the Jews and who Josephus cites as part of the problem. Now, if the TF was indeed written as it is currently, you would have a teriffic point of evidence.

However, if you take the writings that I put forth in our last thread . . .

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"

this problem is lessened in my view. This version of the TF does not include the Jews as the killers of Jesus. It is much less Anti-Semetic. The blame for the death of Jesus is placed on the Roman's in this version.

Now if the TF was indeed what I think, then the question of Origen becomes much less telling because there is no longer any reference to the Jews killing Jesus and therefore he would not have cited Josephus as saying that they were responsible.

I think that this passage or Origen serves very well to show that sections were added, in this case anti-semetic sections, but I don't think it disproves the TF's existence as once the anti-semetic sentence is removed, the primary cause for Origen citing this passage no longer exists.

[Goat]

Although he used Antiquities a few times, the part the I think would be most relavent would be Origen against celscuis 1:47

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ [adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou],--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

In this context, it would have been PERFECT to discuss that passage. He referenced John the Baptist in the 18th book, which was just a few paragraphs ahead of the TF, and he mentioned James, supposedly from antiquities 20.

Now this is good evidence.

Origen is discussing the downfall of the Jews and who Josephus cites as part of the problem. Now, if the TF was indeed written as it is currently, you would have a teriffic point of evidence.

However, if you take the writings that I put forth in our last thread . . .

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"

this problem is lessened in my view. This version of the TF does not include the Jews as the killers of Jesus. It is much less Anti-Semetic. The blame for the death of Jesus is placed on the Roman's in this version.

Now if the TF was indeed what I think, then the question of Origen becomes much less telling because there is no longer any reference to the Jews killing Jesus and therefore he would not have cited Josephus as saying that they were responsible.

I think that this passage or Origen serves very well to show that sections were added, in this case anti-semetic sections, but I don't think it disproves the TF's existence as once the anti-semetic sentence is removed, the primary cause for Origen citing this passage no longer exists.

The thing is, you can't demonstrate that it WAS real either. Therefore, the fact remains, being that you had to remove the extremely pro-Christian, the fact even the neutral phrases left over were not typical of Josephus, and it was first mentioned with at the very least partial forgery, you have to come up with evidence that it wasn't inserted. The first mention of it is corrupted at best.

I say the evidence points to it being a total insertion based on that. Until such time
as a reference is found earlier than the 4th century, I guess the issue won't be resolved. HOWEVER, because it is so controversial, it certainly hypocritical to use it it as 'evidence' of a historical Jesus

]

[Zzyzx]

.
The greatest event in history supposedly occurs, a thirty year visit from the “creator of the universe”, and believers can cite only church preachings and ONE outside source that is known to be at least partially false.

Something doesn’t ring true. Any discerning person should question the validity of and support for the story.