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]

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

]

I have bolded the sentence which is not quite true. I didn't HAVE to remove anything because it was "removed" for me in the Arabic version. All I am saying is that the Arabic version was probably much closer to the original and was preserved as the original when the church decided to add in their own propaganda because of it's primarily Islamic location.

Now, if this version didn't exist, then yes I would agree with you that I had to invent a different version without all the pro-Christian, anti-Jew writings. But the fact is I didn't have to invent it because it was already there.

he fact even the neutral phrases left over were not typical of Josephus

Now this has to do with style which I am happy to move on to if you are ready and done debating the argument from silence and the context (you still have not answered my question at the end of post 12 relating to context).

[achilles12604]

.
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.

Agreed. But remember we are 2000 years out of date. Those discerning people with the best vantage point were those living in the area at the time. Strangely enough we see a couple of unduplicated phenomina occur right then.

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).



Now these things are unique especially because these people had the unique ability to KNOW BETTER. If you compare Christianity to Islam, Christianity claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the grave in full view of the public. Compare that with Muhammad who was totally alone in a cave and then only he came out and reported what he did. No one else was around to protest any lies.

This is a critical difference and it has major implications for the falsfiability and therefore validity of the religion in question.

[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

]

I have bolded the sentence which is not quite true. I didn't HAVE to remove anything because it was "removed" for me in the Arabic version. All I am saying is that the Arabic version was probably much closer to the original and was preserved as the original when the church decided to add in their own propaganda because of it's primarily Islamic location.

Now, if this version didn't exist, then yes I would agree with you that I had to invent a different version without all the pro-Christian, anti-Jew writings. But the fact is I didn't have to invent it because it was already there.

he fact even the neutral phrases left over were not typical of Josephus

Now this has to do with style which I am happy to move on to if you are ready and done debating the argument from silence and the context (you still have not answered my question at the end of post 12 relating to context).

The problem with using the arabic version as 'evidence' that it that version existed previous to the 4th century is that it is 10th century, and was in a predominately Muslim area. Of course a muslim would remove the very 'pro-christian' flavor from a passage.

[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.

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

]

I have bolded the sentence which is not quite true. I didn't HAVE to remove anything because it was "removed" for me in the Arabic version. All I am saying is that the Arabic version was probably much closer to the original and was preserved as the original when the church decided to add in their own propaganda because of it's primarily Islamic location.

Now, if this version didn't exist, then yes I would agree with you that I had to invent a different version without all the pro-Christian, anti-Jew writings. But the fact is I didn't have to invent it because it was already there.

he fact even the neutral phrases left over were not typical of Josephus

Now this has to do with style which I am happy to move on to if you are ready and done debating the argument from silence and the context (you still have not answered my question at the end of post 12 relating to context).

The problem with using the arabic version as 'evidence' that it that version existed previous to the 4th century is that it is 10th century, and was in a predominately Muslim area. Of course a muslim would remove the very 'pro-christian' flavor from a passage.

I was hoping you would bring this up. I find this theory of a Muslim removing things even more unlikely than my theory about a christian adding things.

For example, if a Christian really did change things, from an original, we would end up with exactly what we have. A document with a lot of Josephus like content, with blatently Christian phrases too. Now if the Muslims had decided to take the forgery and remove the Christian phrases, shouldn't we see pro-muslim phrases too? Shouldn't the mention of the resurrection and Jesus miracles have also bee removed?

If your theory about Muslim removal is true (which I would think you would consider even less likely than Christian insertion of an original document but who am I to judge your opinions), then they did a really sloppy half baked job. Wouldn't you agree they should have removed more and at least inserted SOMETHING pro-muslim like, "we are still waiting for the messiah, God's greatest and last messenger" or something like that?

[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

]

I have bolded the sentence which is not quite true. I didn't HAVE to remove anything because it was "removed" for me in the Arabic version. All I am saying is that the Arabic version was probably much closer to the original and was preserved as the original when the church decided to add in their own propaganda because of it's primarily Islamic location.

Now, if this version didn't exist, then yes I would agree with you that I had to invent a different version without all the pro-Christian, anti-Jew writings. But the fact is I didn't have to invent it because it was already there.

he fact even the neutral phrases left over were not typical of Josephus

Now this has to do with style which I am happy to move on to if you are ready and done debating the argument from silence and the context (you still have not answered my question at the end of post 12 relating to context).

The problem with using the arabic version as 'evidence' that it that version existed previous to the 4th century is that it is 10th century, and was in a predominately Muslim area. Of course a muslim would remove the very 'pro-christian' flavor from a passage.

I was hoping you would bring this up. I find this theory of a Muslim removing things even more unlikely than my theory about a christian adding things.

For example, if a Christian really did change things, from an original, we would end up with exactly what we have. A document with a lot of Josephus like content, with blatently Christian phrases too. Now if the Muslims had decided to take the forgery and remove the Christian phrases, shouldn't we see pro-muslim phrases too? Shouldn't the mention of the resurrection and Jesus miracles have also bee removed?

If your theory about Muslim removal is true (which I would think you would consider even less likely than Christian insertion of an original document but who am I to judge your opinions), then they did a really sloppy half baked job. Wouldn't you agree they should have removed more and at least inserted SOMETHING pro-muslim like, "we are still waiting for the messiah, God's greatest and last messenger" or something like that?

No, I would judge it much more likely that someone would remove passages that are too pro-Christian, and i would not agree that they would add something too 'pro-Muslim'. From early christian writings, dealing with this same issue.

In short, there is not much critical argumentation here, but rather some almost sensationalistic claims, with a purely negative defense emphasizing how late and adulterated the Arabic recension really is. Meier stays within the confines of mainstream scholarship in writing:

Feldman (Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 701) believes that Agapius used both Josephus and other sources and combined them: "We may...conclude that Agapius' excerpt is hardly decisive, since it contains several elements, notably changes in order, that indicate that it is a paraphrase rather than a translation." Nodet ("Jesus et Jean-Baptist selon Josephe") thinks that Agapius represents a deformed tradition of the Eusebius text found in the Ecclesiastical History (pp. 335-36). Personally, I am doubtful that this 10th-century Arabic manuscript preserves the original form of the Testimonium, especially since it contains sentences that, as I have just argued, are probably later expansions or variants of the text. (pp. 78-79)

One might add that this phrase of Agapius' version -- "Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die" -- seems clearly directed against Muslims who held that Jesus was not killed by crucifixion. It is not even certain that Agapius is quoting straight from a manuscript; and if he is, it is certainly very late and corrupted, and thus practically worthless.

[achilles12604]

Mind linking the source so we can all read it in context. Earlychristianwritings is a big website.

[Goat]

Mind linking the source so we can all read it in context. Earlychristianwritings is a big website.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

[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.

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

]

I have bolded the sentence which is not quite true. I didn't HAVE to remove anything because it was "removed" for me in the Arabic version. All I am saying is that the Arabic version was probably much closer to the original and was preserved as the original when the church decided to add in their own propaganda because of it's primarily Islamic location.

Now, if this version didn't exist, then yes I would agree with you that I had to invent a different version without all the pro-Christian, anti-Jew writings. But the fact is I didn't have to invent it because it was already there.

he fact even the neutral phrases left over were not typical of Josephus

Now this has to do with style which I am happy to move on to if you are ready and done debating the argument from silence and the context (you still have not answered my question at the end of post 12 relating to context).

The problem with using the arabic version as 'evidence' that it that version existed previous to the 4th century is that it is 10th century, and was in a predominately Muslim area. Of course a muslim would remove the very 'pro-christian' flavor from a passage.

I was hoping you would bring this up. I find this theory of a Muslim removing things even more unlikely than my theory about a christian adding things.

For example, if a Christian really did change things, from an original, we would end up with exactly what we have. A document with a lot of Josephus like content, with blatently Christian phrases too. Now if the Muslims had decided to take the forgery and remove the Christian phrases, shouldn't we see pro-muslim phrases too? Shouldn't the mention of the resurrection and Jesus miracles have also bee removed?

If your theory about Muslim removal is true (which I would think you would consider even less likely than Christian insertion of an original document but who am I to judge your opinions), then they did a really sloppy half baked job. Wouldn't you agree they should have removed more and at least inserted SOMETHING pro-muslim like, "we are still waiting for the messiah, God's greatest and last messenger" or something like that?

No, I would judge it much more likely that someone would remove passages that are too pro-Christian, and i would not agree that they would add something too 'pro-Muslim'. From early christian writings, dealing with this same issue.

In short, there is not much critical argumentation here, but rather some almost sensationalistic claims, with a purely negative defense emphasizing how late and adulterated the Arabic recension really is. Meier stays within the confines of mainstream scholarship in writing:

Feldman (Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 701) believes that Agapius used both Josephus and other sources and combined them: "We may...conclude that Agapius' excerpt is hardly decisive, since it contains several elements, notably changes in order, that indicate that it is a paraphrase rather than a translation." Nodet ("Jesus et Jean-Baptist selon Josephe") thinks that Agapius represents a deformed tradition of the Eusebius text found in the Ecclesiastical History (pp. 335-36). Personally, I am doubtful that this 10th-century Arabic manuscript preserves the original form of the Testimonium, especially since it contains sentences that, as I have just argued, are probably later expansions or variants of the text. (pp. 78-79)

One might add that this phrase of Agapius' version -- "Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die" -- seems clearly directed against Muslims who held that Jesus was not killed by crucifixion. It is not even certain that Agapius is quoting straight from a manuscript; and if he is, it is certainly very late and corrupted, and thus practically worthless.

Ok now wait just a second.

The Arabic version.

Your first claim is that it is missing all of the pro-Christ phrases because a Muslim edited them out.

But then you state that Agapius must have added in anti-Muslim phrases?


So let me get your conspiracy theory straight here. . . .



1) Eusebius totally invents the supposed passage by Josephus complete with phrasing used by Josephus, but also with highly pro-Christian lines written in so blatently that they stand out in a rediculous manner. He also includes a good deal of anti-Jewish sentences thus breeding anti-sematic feelings.

2) Later on, some unknown Muslim edits out the extremely pro-Christian phrases, but leaves in parts which the flat out don't believe like Jesus was believed by his followers to have risen and that they think he is the Messiah. Then the unknown Muslim fails to add ANY pro-Muslim material at all. And finally the Muslim does the Jews a favor and edits out their part in the killing of Jesus. Why did he help the Jews again?

3) Then Agapius comes along, and instead of sticking with the blatently Christian version of Josephus, he decides to add back in tiny details like Jesus was crucified by Pilate, which BTW was commented on by Tactius less than 100 years after the event but apparently this didn't deserve editing, but he then fails to add in ANY pro-Christian materials?


And you think that THIS version of the story is accurate? And you sit there demanding I prove MY RENDITION??

[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

]

I have bolded the sentence which is not quite true. I didn't HAVE to remove anything because it was "removed" for me in the Arabic version. All I am saying is that the Arabic version was probably much closer to the original and was preserved as the original when the church decided to add in their own propaganda because of it's primarily Islamic location.

Now, if this version didn't exist, then yes I would agree with you that I had to invent a different version without all the pro-Christian, anti-Jew writings. But the fact is I didn't have to invent it because it was already there.

he fact even the neutral phrases left over were not typical of Josephus

Now this has to do with style which I am happy to move on to if you are ready and done debating the argument from silence and the context (you still have not answered my question at the end of post 12 relating to context).

The problem with using the arabic version as 'evidence' that it that version existed previous to the 4th century is that it is 10th century, and was in a predominately Muslim area. Of course a muslim would remove the very 'pro-christian' flavor from a passage.

I was hoping you would bring this up. I find this theory of a Muslim removing things even more unlikely than my theory about a christian adding things.

For example, if a Christian really did change things, from an original, we would end up with exactly what we have. A document with a lot of Josephus like content, with blatently Christian phrases too. Now if the Muslims had decided to take the forgery and remove the Christian phrases, shouldn't we see pro-muslim phrases too? Shouldn't the mention of the resurrection and Jesus miracles have also bee removed?

If your theory about Muslim removal is true (which I would think you would consider even less likely than Christian insertion of an original document but who am I to judge your opinions), then they did a really sloppy half baked job. Wouldn't you agree they should have removed more and at least inserted SOMETHING pro-muslim like, "we are still waiting for the messiah, God's greatest and last messenger" or something like that?

No, I would judge it much more likely that someone would remove passages that are too pro-Christian, and i would not agree that they would add something too 'pro-Muslim'. From early christian writings, dealing with this same issue.

In short, there is not much critical argumentation here, but rather some almost sensationalistic claims, with a purely negative defense emphasizing how late and adulterated the Arabic recension really is. Meier stays within the confines of mainstream scholarship in writing:

Feldman (Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 701) believes that Agapius used both Josephus and other sources and combined them: "We may...conclude that Agapius' excerpt is hardly decisive, since it contains several elements, notably changes in order, that indicate that it is a paraphrase rather than a translation." Nodet ("Jesus et Jean-Baptist selon Josephe") thinks that Agapius represents a deformed tradition of the Eusebius text found in the Ecclesiastical History (pp. 335-36). Personally, I am doubtful that this 10th-century Arabic manuscript preserves the original form of the Testimonium, especially since it contains sentences that, as I have just argued, are probably later expansions or variants of the text. (pp. 78-79)

One might add that this phrase of Agapius' version -- "Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die" -- seems clearly directed against Muslims who held that Jesus was not killed by crucifixion. It is not even certain that Agapius is quoting straight from a manuscript; and if he is, it is certainly very late and corrupted, and thus practically worthless.

Ok now wait just a second.

The Arabic version.

Your first claim is that it is missing all of the pro-Christ phrases because a Muslim edited them out.

But then you state that Agapius must have added in anti-Muslim phrases?


So let me get your conspiracy theory straight here. . . .



1) Eusebius totally invents the supposed passage by Josephus complete with phrasing used by Josephus, but also with highly pro-Christian lines written in so blatently that they stand out in a rediculous manner. He also includes a good deal of anti-Jewish sentences thus breeding anti-sematic feelings.

2) Later on, some unknown Muslim edits out the extremely pro-Christian phrases, but leaves in parts which the flat out don't believe like Jesus was believed by his followers to have risen and that they think he is the Messiah. Then the unknown Muslim fails to add ANY pro-Muslim material at all. And finally the Muslim does the Jews a favor and edits out their part in the killing of Jesus. Why did he help the Jews again?

3) Then Agapius comes along, and instead of sticking with the blatently Christian version of Josephus, he decides to add back in tiny details like Jesus was crucified by Pilate, which BTW was commented on by Tactius less than 100 years after the event but apparently this didn't deserve editing, but he then fails to add in ANY pro-Christian materials?


And you think that THIS version of the story is accurate? And you sit there demanding I prove MY RENDITION??

Well, all I am asking is for any kind of evidence it existed before the 4th century.
And, the 10th century isn't 'helping' the Jews. It is being more politically correct
to the Muslims. Isn't that so hard to understand.

You haven't brought up agapius, I have no idea what agapais wrote, why when or how..

But, what you have is a lack of evidence that it existed before the 4th century.

And, you are demanding I prove a negative.

[achilles12604]

Well, all I am asking is for any kind of evidence it existed before the 4th century.
And, the 10th century isn't 'helping' the Jews. It is being more politically correct
to the Muslims. Isn't that so hard to understand.

You haven't brought up agapius, I have no idea what agapais wrote, why when or how..

But, what you have is a lack of evidence that it existed before the 4th century.

And, you are demanding I prove a negative.

Um . . . Goat . . .

YOU are the one who brought up Agapius.