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]

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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

[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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

Speculation? No I don't think it would have been important. Christians and Muslims were not exactly caring what the other thought about this time.

Besides, you stated that a Muslim edited out the pro-Christian materials. Not him. Changing the conspiracy?

[Goat]

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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

Speculation? No I don't think it would have been important. Christians and Muslims were not exactly caring what the other thought about this time.

Besides, you stated that a Muslim edited out the pro-Christian materials. Not him. Changing the conspiracy?

It is certainly has more evidence for it than the TF does before the 4th century.

And you have not countered the point that a docuement from the 10th century is not evidence from something existing in the 4th century. We are talking a 600 year gap here.

[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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

Speculation? No I don't think it would have been important. Christians and Muslims were not exactly caring what the other thought about this time.

Besides, you stated that a Muslim edited out the pro-Christian materials. Not him. Changing the conspiracy?

It is certainly has more evidence for it than the TF does before the 4th century.

And you have not countered the point that a docuement from the 10th century is not evidence from something existing in the 4th century. We are talking a 600 year gap here.

Sorry I have been away.

I am seriously trying to figure out what your theory on this matter is Goat. You pointed towards a Christian removing the "pro-Christian" materials, and then went with a Muslim removing the pro-Christian materials, and then tried to create evidence for each. Now I am frankly lost as to what argument to try and disprove.


Do me a favor. State your argument in one clear series of sentences so I at least know WHO wrote WHAT and WHEN you think that WHOMEVER changed WHATEVER for WHAT reasons.

And I disagree that a 10th century document can not be evidence to influence our understanding of a 4th century document. After all historians do this frequently when understanding history. Taking Alexander the Great again as an example, if we didn't have the writings about him which are 400 years out of date, those cuniform tablets you keep pointing to would not mean a whole lot.

History doesn't occur in a vaccum Goat. You know this to be true. Since History is all interconnected, the appearance of a linked document, even if a little later in history, does bear significance no matter how much you wish to plead this special circumstance and ignore the fact that many other times in history later discovered documents shed a great deal of light on previous writings and beliefs (can anyone say dead sea scrolls?)

[Goat]

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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

Speculation? No I don't think it would have been important. Christians and Muslims were not exactly caring what the other thought about this time.

Besides, you stated that a Muslim edited out the pro-Christian materials. Not him. Changing the conspiracy?

It is certainly has more evidence for it than the TF does before the 4th century.

And you have not countered the point that a docuement from the 10th century is not evidence from something existing in the 4th century. We are talking a 600 year gap here.

Sorry I have been away.

I am seriously trying to figure out what your theory on this matter is Goat. You pointed towards a Christian removing the "pro-Christian" materials, and then went with a Muslim removing the pro-Christian materials, and then tried to create evidence for each. Now I am frankly lost as to what argument to try and disprove.


Do me a favor. State your argument in one clear series of sentences so I at least know WHO wrote WHAT and WHEN you think that WHOMEVER changed WHATEVER for WHAT reasons.

And I disagree that a 10th century document can not be evidence to influence our understanding of a 4th century document. After all historians do this frequently when understanding history. Taking Alexander the Great again as an example, if we didn't have the writings about him which are 400 years out of date, those cuniform tablets you keep pointing to would not mean a whole lot.

History doesn't occur in a vaccum Goat. You know this to be true. Since History is all interconnected, the appearance of a linked document, even if a little later in history, does bear significance no matter how much you wish to plead this special circumstance and ignore the fact that many other times in history later discovered documents shed a great deal of light on previous writings and beliefs (can anyone say dead sea scrolls?)

Actually, no. I pointed to a Christian adding pro-Christian material, and a copy written in a Muslim area removing the excessively Pro-Christian rhetoric.

History does not occur in a vacuums. However, when there is signs of tampering with evidence, then all the evidence is suspect. Being that the evidence is suspect,
we have to look for external evidence that it existed before the time we know it was at the very least tampered with.

It MIGHT have existed. However, at the moment, we have zero evidence it did exist before it was quoted in the 4th century. There are indications it did not. Once such indication is that it was too neutral. In ever other case when Josephus mentioned a potential messiah, he was very very critical (such a bar Kockba
and Judas the Galilean). and proclaimed Vespian n (the roman emperor of that time) to be the Jewish King (he knew which side is bread was buttered on).

[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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

Speculation? No I don't think it would have been important. Christians and Muslims were not exactly caring what the other thought about this time.

Besides, you stated that a Muslim edited out the pro-Christian materials. Not him. Changing the conspiracy?

It is certainly has more evidence for it than the TF does before the 4th century.

And you have not countered the point that a docuement from the 10th century is not evidence from something existing in the 4th century. We are talking a 600 year gap here.

Sorry I have been away.

I am seriously trying to figure out what your theory on this matter is Goat. You pointed towards a Christian removing the "pro-Christian" materials, and then went with a Muslim removing the pro-Christian materials, and then tried to create evidence for each. Now I am frankly lost as to what argument to try and disprove.


Do me a favor. State your argument in one clear series of sentences so I at least know WHO wrote WHAT and WHEN you think that WHOMEVER changed WHATEVER for WHAT reasons.

And I disagree that a 10th century document can not be evidence to influence our understanding of a 4th century document. After all historians do this frequently when understanding history. Taking Alexander the Great again as an example, if we didn't have the writings about him which are 400 years out of date, those cuniform tablets you keep pointing to would not mean a whole lot.

History doesn't occur in a vaccum Goat. You know this to be true. Since History is all interconnected, the appearance of a linked document, even if a little later in history, does bear significance no matter how much you wish to plead this special circumstance and ignore the fact that many other times in history later discovered documents shed a great deal of light on previous writings and beliefs (can anyone say dead sea scrolls?)

Actually, no. I pointed to a Christian adding pro-Christian material, and a copy written in a Muslim area removing the excessively Pro-Christian rhetoric.

History does not occur in a vacuums. However, when there is signs of tampering with evidence, then all the evidence is suspect. Being that the evidence is suspect,
we have to look for external evidence that it existed before the time we know it was at the very least tampered with.

It MIGHT have existed. However, at the moment, we have zero evidence it did exist before it was quoted in the 4th century. There are indications it did not. Once such indication is that it was too neutral. In ever other case when Josephus mentioned a potential messiah, he was very very critical (such a bar Kockba
and Judas the Galilean). and proclaimed Vespian n (the roman emperor of that time) to be the Jewish King (he knew which side is bread was buttered on).

You seem to be VERY stuck on the argument from silence.

Instead of offering new conspiracy theories, let's change things up here and I shall offer my reasons for thinking that the passage is authentic. You argue against them if you can.

[achilles12604]

I shall present each reason in turn so we can discuss each fully before moving on.



Reason number one: The passage fits into the flow of Josephus writings.


Ironically, you tried to stated just the opposite as being true earlier in this debate. This of course lead me to post 12. But I bring this up again as evidence for MY side this time.



I say that the TF passage, fits into the flow of Josephus writings rather well here. As I showed in post 12, the first 3 paragraphs (including the TF) all relate to actions of Pilate as they related to Jewish uprisings and Zealots. The TF obviously fits this pattern. Interestingly enough, the 4th paragraph doesn't fit at all with this same pattern, but then again this is a point that I brought up earlier and it has since been ignored.


So what say you? Do you agree with me that the TF fits within the subject matter of the previous paragraphs or do you feel that I am in error in this judgement? If you feel I am in error, please elaborate as to WHY I am in error concerning the subject matter and flow of his writings.

[Goat]

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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

Speculation? No I don't think it would have been important. Christians and Muslims were not exactly caring what the other thought about this time.

Besides, you stated that a Muslim edited out the pro-Christian materials. Not him. Changing the conspiracy?

It is certainly has more evidence for it than the TF does before the 4th century.

And you have not countered the point that a docuement from the 10th century is not evidence from something existing in the 4th century. We are talking a 600 year gap here.

Sorry I have been away.

I am seriously trying to figure out what your theory on this matter is Goat. You pointed towards a Christian removing the "pro-Christian" materials, and then went with a Muslim removing the pro-Christian materials, and then tried to create evidence for each. Now I am frankly lost as to what argument to try and disprove.


Do me a favor. State your argument in one clear series of sentences so I at least know WHO wrote WHAT and WHEN you think that WHOMEVER changed WHATEVER for WHAT reasons.

And I disagree that a 10th century document can not be evidence to influence our understanding of a 4th century document. After all historians do this frequently when understanding history. Taking Alexander the Great again as an example, if we didn't have the writings about him which are 400 years out of date, those cuniform tablets you keep pointing to would not mean a whole lot.

History doesn't occur in a vaccum Goat. You know this to be true. Since History is all interconnected, the appearance of a linked document, even if a little later in history, does bear significance no matter how much you wish to plead this special circumstance and ignore the fact that many other times in history later discovered documents shed a great deal of light on previous writings and beliefs (can anyone say dead sea scrolls?)

Actually, no. I pointed to a Christian adding pro-Christian material, and a copy written in a Muslim area removing the excessively Pro-Christian rhetoric.

History does not occur in a vacuums. However, when there is signs of tampering with evidence, then all the evidence is suspect. Being that the evidence is suspect,
we have to look for external evidence that it existed before the time we know it was at the very least tampered with.

It MIGHT have existed. However, at the moment, we have zero evidence it did exist before it was quoted in the 4th century. There are indications it did not. Once such indication is that it was too neutral. In ever other case when Josephus mentioned a potential messiah, he was very very critical (such a bar Kockba
and Judas the Galilean). and proclaimed Vespian n (the roman emperor of that time) to be the Jewish King (he knew which side is bread was buttered on).

You seem to be VERY stuck on the argument from silence.

Instead of offering new conspiracy theories, let's change things up here and I shall offer my reasons for thinking that the passage is authentic. You argue against them if you can.

And you seem very stuck on accepting evidence you know have been tampered with. I would be MORE than willing to accept the 'stripped down' version if the evidence you presented was from before the 4th century. That gives you, oh, 200 years of silence to look through. You are also ignoring the POSITIVE evidence of how the style of writings is NOT Josephus at all (and I am talking the stripped down version), how it was too neutral in comparison to any other reference to a messanic pretender, and how the sentence structure and wording is similar to Erebus rather than Josephus. But hey, that is your prerogative. You might complain about the 'arguement from silence', but the arguement from silence is
not necessarily incorrect.. It does have to do with probabilities though.

Now, if you can come up with some positive evidence for it existing before the 4th century, rather than reasons why it does not, then I will give some validity to your arguments. I will even give you things that would weaken my arguement.

1) If we find a reference to it by any of the apologists from before the 4th century
2) If we find a copy OLDER than the 4th century that has it.

I am sure this will be an unresolved debate unless we can find a copy of it from the
2nd century.

[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.

Ok. Apapius is the bishop who translated the 10th century Arabic copy.

Don't you think it would be very important for him not to insult the rulers of the country. A very pro-christian version of that passage would be insulting to the Muslims.

Speculation? No I don't think it would have been important. Christians and Muslims were not exactly caring what the other thought about this time.

Besides, you stated that a Muslim edited out the pro-Christian materials. Not him. Changing the conspiracy?

It is certainly has more evidence for it than the TF does before the 4th century.

And you have not countered the point that a docuement from the 10th century is not evidence from something existing in the 4th century. We are talking a 600 year gap here.

Sorry I have been away.

I am seriously trying to figure out what your theory on this matter is Goat. You pointed towards a Christian removing the "pro-Christian" materials, and then went with a Muslim removing the pro-Christian materials, and then tried to create evidence for each. Now I am frankly lost as to what argument to try and disprove.


Do me a favor. State your argument in one clear series of sentences so I at least know WHO wrote WHAT and WHEN you think that WHOMEVER changed WHATEVER for WHAT reasons.

And I disagree that a 10th century document can not be evidence to influence our understanding of a 4th century document. After all historians do this frequently when understanding history. Taking Alexander the Great again as an example, if we didn't have the writings about him which are 400 years out of date, those cuniform tablets you keep pointing to would not mean a whole lot.

History doesn't occur in a vaccum Goat. You know this to be true. Since History is all interconnected, the appearance of a linked document, even if a little later in history, does bear significance no matter how much you wish to plead this special circumstance and ignore the fact that many other times in history later discovered documents shed a great deal of light on previous writings and beliefs (can anyone say dead sea scrolls?)

Actually, no. I pointed to a Christian adding pro-Christian material, and a copy written in a Muslim area removing the excessively Pro-Christian rhetoric.

History does not occur in a vacuums. However, when there is signs of tampering with evidence, then all the evidence is suspect. Being that the evidence is suspect,
we have to look for external evidence that it existed before the time we know it was at the very least tampered with.

It MIGHT have existed. However, at the moment, we have zero evidence it did exist before it was quoted in the 4th century. There are indications it did not. Once such indication is that it was too neutral. In ever other case when Josephus mentioned a potential messiah, he was very very critical (such a bar Kockba
and Judas the Galilean). and proclaimed Vespian n (the roman emperor of that time) to be the Jewish King (he knew which side is bread was buttered on).

You seem to be VERY stuck on the argument from silence.

Instead of offering new conspiracy theories, let's change things up here and I shall offer my reasons for thinking that the passage is authentic. You argue against them if you can.

And you seem very stuck on accepting evidence you know have been tampered with. I would be MORE than willing to accept the 'stripped down' version if the evidence you presented was from before the 4th century. That gives you, oh, 200 years of silence to look through. You are also ignoring the POSITIVE evidence of how the style of writings is NOT Josephus at all (and I am talking the stripped down version), how it was too neutral in comparison to any other reference to a messanic pretender, and how the sentence structure and wording is similar to Erebus rather than Josephus. But hey, that is your prerogative. You might complain about the 'arguement from silence', but the arguement from silence is
not necessarily incorrect.. It does have to do with probabilities though.

Now, if you can come up with some positive evidence for it existing before the 4th century, rather than reasons why it does not, then I will give some validity to your arguments. I will even give you things that would weaken my arguement.

1) If we find a reference to it by any of the apologists from before the 4th century
2) If we find a copy OLDER than the 4th century that has it.

I am sure this will be an unresolved debate unless we can find a copy of it from the
2nd century.

So you are refusing to allow me to present a case unless I can supply evidence which is obviously unexpected and therefore illogical?

You won't even go over my points with me?

[Goat]

So you are refusing to allow me to present a case unless I can supply evidence which is obviously unexpected and therefore illogical?

You won't even go over my points with me?

I looked at your points. So far, your points consist of excuses why it shouldn't be found. That is more of an arguement from silence than I am making.

You did not counter the arguement about the neutrality, the language and the syntax.
Getting the physical evidence is not illogical, and while unexpected (any new evidence is unexpected), well, it is at least feasible, and not asking for an impossibility. Old copies of manuscripts are found all the time.

Do you have anything that is not just a mere excuse about why the older people didn't reference it, or from something 600 years later?