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]

POST 67 remains unanswered.

I shall continue despite your obvious refusal to actually debate. I am trying to present a step by step case for the authenticity of at least an original passage and you are simply standing on the decision you have already made by a simple (and misused) argument from silence.

You mean your belief that it fits the flow?? That is highly doubtful IMO. Of course, that
is the arguement of several apologists, but still other people say it interrupts the flow.

I have presented detailed reasons to support my viewpoint.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... l#spurious

Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)

So, you have at least one person who is claiming the exact opposite, and is basing his claims on the subject matter being discussed.

This is all well and good Goat but it doesn't help our debate at all. Simply pointing to a so called "expert" and saying "ditto" is not very helpful.

He also includes what Josephus "Should have" said which I of course found really funny.

Mason writes "He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers."

True enough. But then again I am not arguing for the authenticity of this exact passage with this wording. So citing this "evidence" is a strawman Goat. It argues against I point I have not brought up. But then this is a risk when you simply cut and paste someone else's work rather than thinking it through yourself.

Then Mason writes, "Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. "

So tell me Mr. Mason, why should we expect this? Really it doesn't make sense. Why would Josephus criticize the Roman ruler? Wouldn't this be similar to the perverbial biting the hand that feeds?

But wait . . . I forgot I wasn't debating Mr Mason. I was debating Goat. So I won't wait for a reply.

Now, it could have been a digression , since it might have been clarifying a point about Pilate, however, if that was the case, you would have expected there to be
more information about Jesus following the passage, and there was none.

Why?

Why SHOULD there have been more Goat? After all this passage was almost exactly the same length as the first 2 paragraphs. True or False?

So why should we expect more about a man whom Josephus didn't agree with? Or better yet how much should there ( in your opinion) have been? Should Josephus have written and researched the entire life of Jesus, a man whom he disagreed with?

How much would have been enough?

So, I would say that Steve Mason, and a few others disagree with your assessment.

Now, how about if you respond to the comment from Crossan, mentioned in the same web address?

Crossan emphasizes that the description of Jesus by Josephus is "carefully and deliberately neutral," indicating "prudent impartiality" on his part (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 162-163). However, there was no reason for Josephus to be neutral concerning Jesus. Doherty argues:

His readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213)

Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple.

Well I would respond to Crossan except for a couple things:

1) I am not debating Crossan
2) Crossan quotes Dougherty so now I am supposed to debate Dougherty
3) It has nothing to do with the content and placement of the TF and therefore has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing.

So in short this is a red herring. Do try and stay on one topic at a time. It makes debate MUCH easier.


Now, I have a suggestion. Instead of playing the "But HE says. . . . " game, let's analyize the facts for ourselves and think for ourselves here. I think this will result in a far greater analysis than quoting other people's work out of context.

So what is YOUR analysis? Does the TF fit? If not, why? And if not, what about the reasons I gave that it does fit?

The evidence is that there was a subject change.. and the passage that goes right after the TF goes back to the previous subject. While it might be a 'digression', I would say because of the 'neutrality' of the stripped down version, and how Josephus handled any rebel against the Roman empire, it is just too neutral for Josephus's style. The 'digression' in this case does not add to the previous/post passages, and is too much of a subject change to give it credibility.

[achilles12604]

POST 67 remains unanswered.

I shall continue despite your obvious refusal to actually debate. I am trying to present a step by step case for the authenticity of at least an original passage and you are simply standing on the decision you have already made by a simple (and misused) argument from silence.

You mean your belief that it fits the flow?? That is highly doubtful IMO. Of course, that
is the arguement of several apologists, but still other people say it interrupts the flow.

I have presented detailed reasons to support my viewpoint.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... l#spurious

Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)

So, you have at least one person who is claiming the exact opposite, and is basing his claims on the subject matter being discussed.

This is all well and good Goat but it doesn't help our debate at all. Simply pointing to a so called "expert" and saying "ditto" is not very helpful.

He also includes what Josephus "Should have" said which I of course found really funny.

Mason writes "He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers."

True enough. But then again I am not arguing for the authenticity of this exact passage with this wording. So citing this "evidence" is a strawman Goat. It argues against I point I have not brought up. But then this is a risk when you simply cut and paste someone else's work rather than thinking it through yourself.

Then Mason writes, "Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. "

So tell me Mr. Mason, why should we expect this? Really it doesn't make sense. Why would Josephus criticize the Roman ruler? Wouldn't this be similar to the perverbial biting the hand that feeds?

But wait . . . I forgot I wasn't debating Mr Mason. I was debating Goat. So I won't wait for a reply.

Now, it could have been a digression , since it might have been clarifying a point about Pilate, however, if that was the case, you would have expected there to be
more information about Jesus following the passage, and there was none.

Why?

Why SHOULD there have been more Goat? After all this passage was almost exactly the same length as the first 2 paragraphs. True or False?

So why should we expect more about a man whom Josephus didn't agree with? Or better yet how much should there ( in your opinion) have been? Should Josephus have written and researched the entire life of Jesus, a man whom he disagreed with?

How much would have been enough?

So, I would say that Steve Mason, and a few others disagree with your assessment.

Now, how about if you respond to the comment from Crossan, mentioned in the same web address?

Crossan emphasizes that the description of Jesus by Josephus is "carefully and deliberately neutral," indicating "prudent impartiality" on his part (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 162-163). However, there was no reason for Josephus to be neutral concerning Jesus. Doherty argues:

His readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213)

Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple.

Well I would respond to Crossan except for a couple things:

1) I am not debating Crossan
2) Crossan quotes Dougherty so now I am supposed to debate Dougherty
3) It has nothing to do with the content and placement of the TF and therefore has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing.

So in short this is a red herring. Do try and stay on one topic at a time. It makes debate MUCH easier.


Now, I have a suggestion. Instead of playing the "But HE says. . . . " game, let's analyize the facts for ourselves and think for ourselves here. I think this will result in a far greater analysis than quoting other people's work out of context.

So what is YOUR analysis? Does the TF fit? If not, why? And if not, what about the reasons I gave that it does fit?

The evidence is that there was a subject change.. and the passage that goes right after the TF goes back to the previous subject. While it might be a 'digression', I would say because of the 'neutrality' of the stripped down version, and how Josephus handled any rebel against the Roman empire, it is just too neutral for Josephus's style. The 'digression' in this case does not add to the previous/post passages, and is too much of a subject change to give it credibility.

A subject change.

Now I find this interesting. Please correct me when I go wrong.

The subject of Paragraph 1 is Pilate and his actions concerning the Jewish uprisings. True of False?

The subject of Paragraph 2 is still Pilate and his actions concerning the Jewish uprisings. True or False?

The thrid paragraph is the TF which of course deals with Pilate and how he dealt with a Jewish Zealot.

The fourth Paragraph deals with some sordid love triangle in Rome. True or false.



And you are telling me that the you feel the third Paragraph is out of place? Which of the above has a totally different subject than the rest? Which of the above is almost 4 times longer than the other 3?

The TF is out of place? Forgive me if I disagree.

[Goat]

POST 67 remains unanswered.

I shall continue despite your obvious refusal to actually debate. I am trying to present a step by step case for the authenticity of at least an original passage and you are simply standing on the decision you have already made by a simple (and misused) argument from silence.

You mean your belief that it fits the flow?? That is highly doubtful IMO. Of course, that
is the arguement of several apologists, but still other people say it interrupts the flow.

I have presented detailed reasons to support my viewpoint.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... l#spurious

Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)

So, you have at least one person who is claiming the exact opposite, and is basing his claims on the subject matter being discussed.

This is all well and good Goat but it doesn't help our debate at all. Simply pointing to a so called "expert" and saying "ditto" is not very helpful.

He also includes what Josephus "Should have" said which I of course found really funny.

Mason writes "He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers."

True enough. But then again I am not arguing for the authenticity of this exact passage with this wording. So citing this "evidence" is a strawman Goat. It argues against I point I have not brought up. But then this is a risk when you simply cut and paste someone else's work rather than thinking it through yourself.

Then Mason writes, "Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. "

So tell me Mr. Mason, why should we expect this? Really it doesn't make sense. Why would Josephus criticize the Roman ruler? Wouldn't this be similar to the perverbial biting the hand that feeds?

But wait . . . I forgot I wasn't debating Mr Mason. I was debating Goat. So I won't wait for a reply.

Now, it could have been a digression , since it might have been clarifying a point about Pilate, however, if that was the case, you would have expected there to be
more information about Jesus following the passage, and there was none.

Why?

Why SHOULD there have been more Goat? After all this passage was almost exactly the same length as the first 2 paragraphs. True or False?

So why should we expect more about a man whom Josephus didn't agree with? Or better yet how much should there ( in your opinion) have been? Should Josephus have written and researched the entire life of Jesus, a man whom he disagreed with?

How much would have been enough?

So, I would say that Steve Mason, and a few others disagree with your assessment.

Now, how about if you respond to the comment from Crossan, mentioned in the same web address?

Crossan emphasizes that the description of Jesus by Josephus is "carefully and deliberately neutral," indicating "prudent impartiality" on his part (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 162-163). However, there was no reason for Josephus to be neutral concerning Jesus. Doherty argues:

His readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213)

Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple.

Well I would respond to Crossan except for a couple things:

1) I am not debating Crossan
2) Crossan quotes Dougherty so now I am supposed to debate Dougherty
3) It has nothing to do with the content and placement of the TF and therefore has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing.

So in short this is a red herring. Do try and stay on one topic at a time. It makes debate MUCH easier.


Now, I have a suggestion. Instead of playing the "But HE says. . . . " game, let's analyize the facts for ourselves and think for ourselves here. I think this will result in a far greater analysis than quoting other people's work out of context.

So what is YOUR analysis? Does the TF fit? If not, why? And if not, what about the reasons I gave that it does fit?

The evidence is that there was a subject change.. and the passage that goes right after the TF goes back to the previous subject. While it might be a 'digression', I would say because of the 'neutrality' of the stripped down version, and how Josephus handled any rebel against the Roman empire, it is just too neutral for Josephus's style. The 'digression' in this case does not add to the previous/post passages, and is too much of a subject change to give it credibility.

A subject change.

Now I find this interesting. Please correct me when I go wrong.

The subject of Paragraph 1 is Pilate and his actions concerning the Jewish uprisings. True of False?

The subject of Paragraph 2 is still Pilate and his actions concerning the Jewish uprisings. True or False?

The thrid paragraph is the TF which of course deals with Pilate and how he dealt with a Jewish Zealot.

The fourth Paragraph deals with some sordid love triangle in Rome. True or false.



And you are telling me that the you feel the third Paragraph is out of place? Which of the above has a totally different subject than the rest? Which of the above is almost 4 times longer than the other 3?

The TF is out of place? Forgive me if I disagree.

Yes, I do.. because the part before and after were talking about disruptions
and there is no disruption in the TF>

You can disagree... and I will have to say , go ahead and disagree.
If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

# Steve Mason indicates several ways in which the Testimonium deviates from Josephan style.

First, Mason writes:

It uses words in ways that are not characteristic of Josephus. For example, the word translated "worker" in the phrase "worker of incredible deeds" is poietes in Greek, from which we get "poet." Etymologically, it means "one who does" and so it can refer to any sort of "doer." But in Josephus' day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) - to speak of Greek poets like Homer. (p. 169)

Second, Mason observes:

Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169)

Third, Mason argues:

Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signfies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170)

Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.

# Ken Olson indicates several ways in which the Testimonium aligns with the style and argument of Eusebius of Caesarea.

Olson writes:

In Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS.

Olson states:

The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" (A.J. 12.87) rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23)

Olson argues:

Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).

Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."

Combined with fact the subject changed from disruptions to Jesus to disruptions might be just a digression.. but the language issue is also at hand. When you combine the two issues, the probabilities of it being a total insertion increases quite substantially.


Now, in my mind, this brings substantial doubt on any part of it being authentic at all. Between that, and no evidence that it existed before hand, we have something that can not be used as evidence for a historical Jesus.

[achilles12604]

POST 67 remains unanswered.

I shall continue despite your obvious refusal to actually debate. I am trying to present a step by step case for the authenticity of at least an original passage and you are simply standing on the decision you have already made by a simple (and misused) argument from silence.

You mean your belief that it fits the flow?? That is highly doubtful IMO. Of course, that
is the arguement of several apologists, but still other people say it interrupts the flow.

I have presented detailed reasons to support my viewpoint.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... l#spurious

Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)

So, you have at least one person who is claiming the exact opposite, and is basing his claims on the subject matter being discussed.

This is all well and good Goat but it doesn't help our debate at all. Simply pointing to a so called "expert" and saying "ditto" is not very helpful.

He also includes what Josephus "Should have" said which I of course found really funny.

Mason writes "He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers."

True enough. But then again I am not arguing for the authenticity of this exact passage with this wording. So citing this "evidence" is a strawman Goat. It argues against I point I have not brought up. But then this is a risk when you simply cut and paste someone else's work rather than thinking it through yourself.

Then Mason writes, "Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. "

So tell me Mr. Mason, why should we expect this? Really it doesn't make sense. Why would Josephus criticize the Roman ruler? Wouldn't this be similar to the perverbial biting the hand that feeds?

But wait . . . I forgot I wasn't debating Mr Mason. I was debating Goat. So I won't wait for a reply.

Now, it could have been a digression , since it might have been clarifying a point about Pilate, however, if that was the case, you would have expected there to be
more information about Jesus following the passage, and there was none.

Why?

Why SHOULD there have been more Goat? After all this passage was almost exactly the same length as the first 2 paragraphs. True or False?

So why should we expect more about a man whom Josephus didn't agree with? Or better yet how much should there ( in your opinion) have been? Should Josephus have written and researched the entire life of Jesus, a man whom he disagreed with?

How much would have been enough?

So, I would say that Steve Mason, and a few others disagree with your assessment.

Now, how about if you respond to the comment from Crossan, mentioned in the same web address?

Crossan emphasizes that the description of Jesus by Josephus is "carefully and deliberately neutral," indicating "prudent impartiality" on his part (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 162-163). However, there was no reason for Josephus to be neutral concerning Jesus. Doherty argues:

His readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213)

Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple.

Well I would respond to Crossan except for a couple things:

1) I am not debating Crossan
2) Crossan quotes Dougherty so now I am supposed to debate Dougherty
3) It has nothing to do with the content and placement of the TF and therefore has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing.

So in short this is a red herring. Do try and stay on one topic at a time. It makes debate MUCH easier.


Now, I have a suggestion. Instead of playing the "But HE says. . . . " game, let's analyize the facts for ourselves and think for ourselves here. I think this will result in a far greater analysis than quoting other people's work out of context.

So what is YOUR analysis? Does the TF fit? If not, why? And if not, what about the reasons I gave that it does fit?

The evidence is that there was a subject change.. and the passage that goes right after the TF goes back to the previous subject. While it might be a 'digression', I would say because of the 'neutrality' of the stripped down version, and how Josephus handled any rebel against the Roman empire, it is just too neutral for Josephus's style. The 'digression' in this case does not add to the previous/post passages, and is too much of a subject change to give it credibility.

A subject change.

Now I find this interesting. Please correct me when I go wrong.

The subject of Paragraph 1 is Pilate and his actions concerning the Jewish uprisings. True of False?

The subject of Paragraph 2 is still Pilate and his actions concerning the Jewish uprisings. True or False?

The thrid paragraph is the TF which of course deals with Pilate and how he dealt with a Jewish Zealot.

The fourth Paragraph deals with some sordid love triangle in Rome. True or false.



And you are telling me that the you feel the third Paragraph is out of place? Which of the above has a totally different subject than the rest? Which of the above is almost 4 times longer than the other 3?

The TF is out of place? Forgive me if I disagree.

Yes, I do.. because the part before and after were talking about disruptions
and there is no disruption in the TF>

You can disagree... and I will have to say , go ahead and disagree.

Disruptions?

So you are saying that because there are no "disruptions" in the TF, the fact that Jesus was viewed as a Zealot and Killed by the romans as a trouble maker has no bearing on "disruptions"? You only accept it if Josephus uses a specific word then?

And what exactly was the major "disruption" in Paragraph 4? Care to elaborate and explain why this disruption should be included with the "disruptions" of Jewish rebels in the first two paragraphs?

I say that the TF is more like the first 2 paragraphs because it

1) Deals with Pilate
2) Deals with Jewish uprisings
3) Deals with Pilates actions concerning these uprisings

Paragraph 4 doesn't deal with ANY of these points?

So why do you think paragraph 4 fits better? How is it similar to the first two Paragraphs?

If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

One subject at a time. I think that the wording and style ARE Josephus so this subject will be addressed. Are you done discussing the placement?

[Goat]

Disruptions?

So you are saying that because there are no "disruptions" in the TF, the fact that Jesus was viewed as a Zealot and Killed by the romans as a trouble maker has no bearing on "disruptions"? You only accept it if Josephus uses a specific word then?

And what exactly was the major "disruption" in Paragraph 4? Care to elaborate and explain why this disruption should be included with the "disruptions" of Jewish rebels in the first two paragraphs?

I say that the TF is more like the first 2 paragraphs because it

1) Deals with Pilate
2) Deals with Jewish uprisings
3) Deals with Pilates actions concerning these uprisings

Paragraph 4 doesn't deal with ANY of these points?

So why do you think paragraph 4 fits better? How is it similar to the first two Paragraphs?

If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

Yes, they were dealing with upheavals, rebellions, etc etc.

The TF was not.

And, of course, if it was inserted, they would put it where it would fit the most.. it just doesn't flow quite right.

[achilles12604]

Disruptions?

So you are saying that because there are no "disruptions" in the TF, the fact that Jesus was viewed as a Zealot and Killed by the romans as a trouble maker has no bearing on "disruptions"? You only accept it if Josephus uses a specific word then?

And what exactly was the major "disruption" in Paragraph 4? Care to elaborate and explain why this disruption should be included with the "disruptions" of Jewish rebels in the first two paragraphs?

I say that the TF is more like the first 2 paragraphs because it

1) Deals with Pilate
2) Deals with Jewish uprisings
3) Deals with Pilates actions concerning these uprisings

Paragraph 4 doesn't deal with ANY of these points?

So why do you think paragraph 4 fits better? How is it similar to the first two Paragraphs?

If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

Yes, they were dealing with upheavals, rebellions, etc etc.

The TF was not.

And, of course, if it was inserted, they would put it where it would fit the most.. it just doesn't flow quite right.

Ah. They inserted it right where they should. Conclusive deduction.

So what was the rebellion or upheaval in the 4th paragraph?

[Goat]

Disruptions?

So you are saying that because there are no "disruptions" in the TF, the fact that Jesus was viewed as a Zealot and Killed by the romans as a trouble maker has no bearing on "disruptions"? You only accept it if Josephus uses a specific word then?

And what exactly was the major "disruption" in Paragraph 4? Care to elaborate and explain why this disruption should be included with the "disruptions" of Jewish rebels in the first two paragraphs?

I say that the TF is more like the first 2 paragraphs because it

1) Deals with Pilate
2) Deals with Jewish uprisings
3) Deals with Pilates actions concerning these uprisings

Paragraph 4 doesn't deal with ANY of these points?

So why do you think paragraph 4 fits better? How is it similar to the first two Paragraphs?

If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

Yes, they were dealing with upheavals, rebellions, etc etc.

The TF was not.

And, of course, if it was inserted, they would put it where it would fit the most.. it just doesn't flow quite right.

Ah. They inserted it right where they should. Conclusive deduction.

So what was the rebellion or upheaval in the 4th paragraph?

No, they inserted it where they thought it would be the least intrusive.

If you were going to insert something, wouldn't you want to have it seem to be part of the passages?? Do you think they are any less wise than we?

However, the subject matter went from upheavals, to Jesus to upheavals.

And, the vocabulary is pure Euseibus, not Josephus.

[achilles12604]

Disruptions?

So you are saying that because there are no "disruptions" in the TF, the fact that Jesus was viewed as a Zealot and Killed by the romans as a trouble maker has no bearing on "disruptions"? You only accept it if Josephus uses a specific word then?

And what exactly was the major "disruption" in Paragraph 4? Care to elaborate and explain why this disruption should be included with the "disruptions" of Jewish rebels in the first two paragraphs?

I say that the TF is more like the first 2 paragraphs because it

1) Deals with Pilate
2) Deals with Jewish uprisings
3) Deals with Pilates actions concerning these uprisings

Paragraph 4 doesn't deal with ANY of these points?

So why do you think paragraph 4 fits better? How is it similar to the first two Paragraphs?

If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

Yes, they were dealing with upheavals, rebellions, etc etc.

The TF was not.

And, of course, if it was inserted, they would put it where it would fit the most.. it just doesn't flow quite right.

Ah. They inserted it right where they should. Conclusive deduction.

So what was the rebellion or upheaval in the 4th paragraph?

No, they inserted it where they thought it would be the least intrusive.

If you were going to insert something, wouldn't you want to have it seem to be part of the passages?? Do you think they are any less wise than we?

However, the subject matter went from upheavals, to Jesus to upheavals.

And, the vocabulary is pure Euseibus, not Josephus.

And the "uprising" or "rebellion" cite in paragraph 4?

[Goat]

Disruptions?

So you are saying that because there are no "disruptions" in the TF, the fact that Jesus was viewed as a Zealot and Killed by the romans as a trouble maker has no bearing on "disruptions"? You only accept it if Josephus uses a specific word then?

And what exactly was the major "disruption" in Paragraph 4? Care to elaborate and explain why this disruption should be included with the "disruptions" of Jewish rebels in the first two paragraphs?

I say that the TF is more like the first 2 paragraphs because it

1) Deals with Pilate
2) Deals with Jewish uprisings
3) Deals with Pilates actions concerning these uprisings

Paragraph 4 doesn't deal with ANY of these points?

So why do you think paragraph 4 fits better? How is it similar to the first two Paragraphs?

If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

Yes, they were dealing with upheavals, rebellions, etc etc.

The TF was not.

And, of course, if it was inserted, they would put it where it would fit the most.. it just doesn't flow quite right.

Ah. They inserted it right where they should. Conclusive deduction.

So what was the rebellion or upheaval in the 4th paragraph?

No, they inserted it where they thought it would be the least intrusive.

If you were going to insert something, wouldn't you want to have it seem to be part of the passages?? Do you think they are any less wise than we?

However, the subject matter went from upheavals, to Jesus to upheavals.

And, the vocabulary is pure Euseibus, not Josephus.

And the "uprising" or "rebellion" cite in paragraph 4?

I said 'upheaval' not uprising. Do use the proper word.

Let's look at the first sentence of the forth paragrah

It start 4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.


Yep.. a calamity.. an upheaval.. something bad happening. Nothing like the TF at all.

The end of the 5th paragraph sums it up


There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. (11) Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.


In other words, Josephus was talking about tad things that caused the Jews to be banished from the city. The subject of Jesus does not fit in there.

But, oh well, you won't admit that.

Now.. since you admit that the passage was at least tampered with, can you show any substantial evidence that it was not a complete insertion?

If you try to distract from that simple question, I will just accept you can't.

[achilles12604]

Disruptions?

So you are saying that because there are no "disruptions" in the TF, the fact that Jesus was viewed as a Zealot and Killed by the romans as a trouble maker has no bearing on "disruptions"? You only accept it if Josephus uses a specific word then?

And what exactly was the major "disruption" in Paragraph 4? Care to elaborate and explain why this disruption should be included with the "disruptions" of Jewish rebels in the first two paragraphs?

I say that the TF is more like the first 2 paragraphs because it

1) Deals with Pilate
2) Deals with Jewish uprisings
3) Deals with Pilates actions concerning these uprisings

Paragraph 4 doesn't deal with ANY of these points?

So why do you think paragraph 4 fits better? How is it similar to the first two Paragraphs?

If that was the ONLY thing, the point might be weaker but there are other
discrepancies too.

For example..

Yes, they were dealing with upheavals, rebellions, etc etc.

The TF was not.

And, of course, if it was inserted, they would put it where it would fit the most.. it just doesn't flow quite right.

Ah. They inserted it right where they should. Conclusive deduction.

So what was the rebellion or upheaval in the 4th paragraph?

No, they inserted it where they thought it would be the least intrusive.

If you were going to insert something, wouldn't you want to have it seem to be part of the passages?? Do you think they are any less wise than we?

However, the subject matter went from upheavals, to Jesus to upheavals.

And, the vocabulary is pure Euseibus, not Josephus.

And the "uprising" or "rebellion" cite in paragraph 4?

I said 'upheaval' not uprising. Do use the proper word.

Let's look at the first sentence of the forth paragrah

It start 4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.


Yep.. a calamity.. an upheaval.. something bad happening. Nothing like the TF at all.

The end of the 5th paragraph sums it up


There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. (11) Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.


In other words, Josephus was talking about tad things that caused the Jews to be banished from the city. The subject of Jesus does not fit in there.

But, oh well, you won't admit that.

Now.. since you admit that the passage was at least tampered with, can you show any substantial evidence that it was not a complete insertion?

If you try to distract from that simple question, I will just accept you can't.

So let me get this straight.

The first two Paragraphs talk about Pilate, In Judah, and how he interacted with upheavals.

Then the TF talks about Jesus (who was part of an upheaval) and how Pilate interacted with this situation.

Then the 4th paragraph is a long detailed account about a love affair capped off with the 5th paragraph about how the Jews were having troubles in Rome.

And you think that 4 and 5, fit better with 1 and 2 that the TF despite the obvious facts 1) That they don't have any of the same people involved, 2) They don't take place in the same area, 3) The upheavals were totally different in nature

This is how you justify this?

At least tell me I have gone blind and that the totally obvious differences listed above (1,2,3) between the first two and the last two Paragraphs don't really exist.