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]

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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

[justifyothers]

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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

"Now there was about this time, Jesus.....

The digression and introductory phrase are typical of Josephus. As noted by Steve Mason, "[t]he opening phrase 'about this time' is characteristic of his language in this part of Antiquities, where he is weaving together distinct episodes into a coherent narrative (cf. Ant. 17.19; 18.39, 65, 80; 19.278)." (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 171). Additionally, the use of the simple name "Jesus" favours Josephan authorship. A Christian would be more likely to use the term "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus. In all of Ignatius' seven authentic letters he refers to "Jesus Christ" 112 times, "Christ Jesus" 12 times, "Christ" 4 times, and "Jesus" only 3 times (Robert Grant, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 4, page 7). Another example is Polycarp. In his letter he ten times refers to "Jesus Christ" and never once to "Jesus." Though certainly not determinative, this is suggestive and more consistent with authorship by Josephus than a Christian interpolator.

b. A wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,

Although the phrase "wise man" sounds positive, it almost certainly is not a Christian addition. That it is followed by the obvious interpolation "if it be lawful to call him a man" indicates that the interpolator found the description of Jesus as a "wise man" to be woefully inadequate. So, he remedies this insufficient estimate of Jesus by clarifying that there is good reason to doubt he was just a man. "A Christian scribe would not deny that Jesus was a wise man, but would feel that label insufficient for one who has believed to be God as well as man." (Meier, op. cit., page 60). Mason adds: "As it stands, the reticence to call Jesus a man seems like a rejoinder to the previous, already flattering statement that he was a wise man. It seems more like a qualification of an existing statement than part of a free creation." (Mason, op. cit., page 171; See also France, op. cit., page 30: "Thus the clause 'if indeed one should call him a man' makes good sense as a Christian response to Josephus' description of Jesus as (merely) a 'wise man', but is hardly the sort of language a Christian would have used if writing from scratch.").

Furthermore, the phrase "wise man" is characteristically Josephan. And its context and how Josephus uses it elsewhere are especially matched to its use in the TF:

He uses the designation “wise man” sparingly, but as a term of considerable praise. King Solomon was such a wise man (Ant. 8.53), and so was Daniel (10.237). Interestingly, both men had what we might call occult powers—abilities to perform cures and interpret dreams—of the sort that Jesus is credited with in the testimonium.

(Mason, op. cit., page 171).

Leading Jewish scholar Geza Vermes agrees that there is a connection between the use of the term for Daniel and Solomon and the TF's description of Jesus:

Of these, Solomon and Daniel are the most obvious parallels to Jesus qua wise men. Both were celebrated as masters of wisdom. Hence it is not surprising to find the epithet 'teacher' follows closely the phrases under consideration in the Testimonium.

(Geza Vermes, The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-Examined, Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring 1987, page 3).

Finally, an often overlooked argument about the use of "wise man" is that it would have a "pejorative connotation" to Christians. In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, the wisdom of man is put in a very negative light. In Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, "the wise" are compared unfavourably to "babes." Indeed, such a term is not used by Christians in their early literature to describe Jesus. Vermes, op. cit., page 5. This adds yet more weight to the argument for partial authenticity. As Vermes concludes, "no stylistic or historical argument" can be "marshalled against the authenticity" of this phrase. (Ibid).

c. for he was a doer of wonderful works,

The term for "doer" here has been claimed not to be Josephan. But Professor Meier is aware of this argument and offers an explanation:

t is used elsewhere in Josephus only in the sense of "poet"; but Josephus . . . has a fondness for resolving a simple verb into two words: a noun expressing the agent and the auxiliary verb (e.g., krites einai for the simple krinein). Moreover, Josephus uses such cognates as poieteos, 'that which is to be done," poiesis, "doing, causing" (as well as "poetry, poem"), and poietikos, 'that which causes something" (as well as "poetic").

(Meier, op. cit., page 81).

Furthermore, it is not all that unusual for ancient Greek authors to use occasionally a word in an unusual way. The undisputed epistles of Paul have their share not only of hapex legomena but also of Pauline words and phrases that Paul uses in a given passage with an unusual meaning or construction. Especially since Josephus is dealing in the Testimonium with peculiar material, drawn perhaps from a special source, we need not be surprised if his usage differs slightly at a few points.

(Meier, op. cit., page 83 (emphasis added)).

On balance therefore, there is nothing about this term that counts against authenticity.

One the other hand, Mason confirms that the term "startling/incredible deeds" (paradoxa) is Josephan: "Josephus often speaks of “marvels” and “incredible” things in the same breath, as the testimonium does. He even uses the phrase rendered “incredible deeds” in two other places, once of the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182; cf. 12.63)." (Mason, op. cit., page 171). Yet this term is nowhere used in the New Testament to describe Jesus' miracles. Nor is it used in early Christian literature prior to its citation by Eusebius.

The reason Christians generally avoided this term is that it could just as easily be interpreted in a neutral or even negative way, such as "controversial deeds." Professor Van Voorst notes that the phrase "is ambiguous; it can also be translated 'startling/controversial deeds.'" (Jesus Outside the New Testament, page 78). Professor Vermes notes that "paradoxa" is not an unambiguous reference to a Godly miracle. In fact, "students of Josephus seem to agree that the word best expressing his notion of 'miracle' is" a different Greek term that Vermes translates "sign." This is especially true when the issue concerns an extraordinary deed achieved by a man of God (Vermes, op. cit., page 7). Josephus does not use the unambiguous term, but uses "paradoxa." According to Vermes, "paradoxa" is simply too neutral standing alone to be a positive attestation. Though Josephus uses this term for Moses and Elisha, he goes out of his way to explain that the deeds described there were from God."

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

[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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

These two go together. They also seem to be your primary argument as you bring them up all the time.

First let me put forth a question. Why would the early church father WANT to cite or quote this work?

You base your entire argument from silence on the presumption that the early church fathers would have had a reason to quote this passage. So let us examine the possible reasons that they WOULD have quoted this passage shall we. I will come back to the other 5 points after we hash this one out.

The writings of the early church fathers were entirely theological in nature as opposed to apologetical. They were concerned with correct interpretations of scriptures and the proper application of the same. They were battling against heresies like, Sabellianism, Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Socianism, and others.

Now let us look at each of these.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Notice that they all presume the existence of Jesus. Now, if Josephus really did write the following,

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 his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

what heresy does this address? The answer is none.

This passage would do little to bolster or defend the early church fathers viewpoints as it is nothing more that a very brief rendition of events that they all agreed upon already.

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

You of course realize that if they had no purpose for citing this particular work, that your primary argument is a red herring as well as an argument from silence right? It serves no purpose other than to introduce a distracting side topic with no real validity at all.






As a comparing factor, look at Origen's passage where he mentions Josephus use of James.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "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,--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."

Notice that he only mentions Josephus when he has a reason to, in this case explaining the fall of the Jews.

So what is your answer Goat?

[Biker]

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.

Was TF inserted?

No.
I have not seen adequate evidence of it even being "doctored"?
I see speculation.
I see assumption.
I see presumption.
I see conjecture.
I see wishful thinking.
I see argument from silence.
But I do not see actual proof, or any real evidence.
I do not see a problem with the way the text is written, it is consistent with the way Josephus describes other historical accounts.

I wonder if Goat thinks Antiquities XX 9:1 is "inserted" also?

Biker

[Goat]

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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to

be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

These two go together. They also seem to be your primary argument as you bring them up all the time.

First let me put forth a question. Why would the early church father WANT to cite or quote this work?

You base your entire argument from silence on the presumption that the early church fathers would have had a reason to quote this passage. So let us examine the possible reasons that they WOULD have quoted this passage shall we. I will come back to the other 5 points after we hash this one out.

The writings of the early church fathers were entirely theological in nature as opposed to apologetical. They were concerned with correct interpretations of scriptures and the proper application of the same. They were battling against heresies like, Sabellianism, Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Socianism, and others.

Now let us look at each of these.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Notice that they all presume the existence of Jesus. Now, if Josephus really did write the following,

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 his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

what heresy does this address? The answer is none.

This passage would do little to bolster or defend the early church fathers viewpoints as it is nothing more that a very brief rendition of events that they all agreed upon already.

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

You of course realize that if they had no purpose for citing this particular work, that your primary argument is a red herring as well as an argument from silence right? It serves no purpose other than to introduce a distracting side topic with no real validity at all.






As a comparing factor, look at Origen's passage where he mentions Josephus use of James.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "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,--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."

Notice that he only mentions Josephus when he has a reason to, in this case explaining the fall of the Jews.

So what is your answer Goat?

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

[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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to

be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

These two go together. They also seem to be your primary argument as you bring them up all the time.

First let me put forth a question. Why would the early church father WANT to cite or quote this work?

You base your entire argument from silence on the presumption that the early church fathers would have had a reason to quote this passage. So let us examine the possible reasons that they WOULD have quoted this passage shall we. I will come back to the other 5 points after we hash this one out.

The writings of the early church fathers were entirely theological in nature as opposed to apologetical. They were concerned with correct interpretations of scriptures and the proper application of the same. They were battling against heresies like, Sabellianism, Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Socianism, and others.

Now let us look at each of these.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Notice that they all presume the existence of Jesus. Now, if Josephus really did write the following,

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 his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

what heresy does this address? The answer is none.

This passage would do little to bolster or defend the early church fathers viewpoints as it is nothing more that a very brief rendition of events that they all agreed upon already.

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

You of course realize that if they had no purpose for citing this particular work, that your primary argument is a red herring as well as an argument from silence right? It serves no purpose other than to introduce a distracting side topic with no real validity at all.






As a comparing factor, look at Origen's passage where he mentions Josephus use of James.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "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,--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."

Notice that he only mentions Josephus when he has a reason to, in this case explaining the fall of the Jews.

So what is your answer Goat?

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

You obviously did not read my post at all.

The entire point of my post here was to ask you a question. You did not answer that question.

Please re-read my post and at least answer the primary question which of course was the reason I cited Origen in the first place.

[Goat]

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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to

be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

These two go together. They also seem to be your primary argument as you bring them up all the time.

First let me put forth a question. Why would the early church father WANT to cite or quote this work?

You base your entire argument from silence on the presumption that the early church fathers would have had a reason to quote this passage. So let us examine the possible reasons that they WOULD have quoted this passage shall we. I will come back to the other 5 points after we hash this one out.

The writings of the early church fathers were entirely theological in nature as opposed to apologetical. They were concerned with correct interpretations of scriptures and the proper application of the same. They were battling against heresies like, Sabellianism, Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Socianism, and others.

Now let us look at each of these.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Notice that they all presume the existence of Jesus. Now, if Josephus really did write the following,

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 his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

what heresy does this address? The answer is none.

This passage would do little to bolster or defend the early church fathers viewpoints as it is nothing more that a very brief rendition of events that they all agreed upon already.

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

You of course realize that if they had no purpose for citing this particular work, that your primary argument is a red herring as well as an argument from silence right? It serves no purpose other than to introduce a distracting side topic with no real validity at all.






As a comparing factor, look at Origen's passage where he mentions Josephus use of James.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "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,--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."

Notice that he only mentions Josephus when he has a reason to, in this case explaining the fall of the Jews.

So what is your answer Goat?

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

You obviously did not read my post at all.

The entire point of my post here was to ask you a question. You did not answer that question.

Please re-read my post and at least answer the primary question which of course was the reason I cited Origen in the first place.

Well, yes, Origen DID have a reason to talk about Josephus. When you look at Josephus in CONTEXT, he was talking about Josephus talking about John the Baptist. By the way, the passage for John the Baptist is in Antiquities 18, just about a less than a half dozen passages away from the TF. Origen mentions Josephus' talking about John the Baptist, but does not mention TF. The fact that he mentions JB , and it is just a few passages over from the TF is strengthening the
arguement from silence when it comes to Origen.

[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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to

be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

These two go together. They also seem to be your primary argument as you bring them up all the time.

First let me put forth a question. Why would the early church father WANT to cite or quote this work?

You base your entire argument from silence on the presumption that the early church fathers would have had a reason to quote this passage. So let us examine the possible reasons that they WOULD have quoted this passage shall we. I will come back to the other 5 points after we hash this one out.

The writings of the early church fathers were entirely theological in nature as opposed to apologetical. They were concerned with correct interpretations of scriptures and the proper application of the same. They were battling against heresies like, Sabellianism, Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Socianism, and others.

Now let us look at each of these.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Notice that they all presume the existence of Jesus. Now, if Josephus really did write the following,

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 his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

what heresy does this address? The answer is none.

This passage would do little to bolster or defend the early church fathers viewpoints as it is nothing more that a very brief rendition of events that they all agreed upon already.

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

You of course realize that if they had no purpose for citing this particular work, that your primary argument is a red herring as well as an argument from silence right? It serves no purpose other than to introduce a distracting side topic with no real validity at all.






As a comparing factor, look at Origen's passage where he mentions Josephus use of James.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "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,--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."

Notice that he only mentions Josephus when he has a reason to, in this case explaining the fall of the Jews.

So what is your answer Goat?

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

You obviously did not read my post at all.

The entire point of my post here was to ask you a question. You did not answer that question.

Please re-read my post and at least answer the primary question which of course was the reason I cited Origen in the first place.

Well, yes, Origen DID have a reason to talk about Josephus. When you look at Josephus in CONTEXT, he was talking about Josephus talking about John the Baptist. By the way, the passage for John the Baptist is in Antiquities 18, just about a less than a half dozen passages away from the TF. Origen mentions Josephus' talking about John the Baptist, but does not mention TF. The fact that he mentions JB , and it is just a few passages over from the TF is strengthening the
arguement from silence when it comes to Origen.

Ok, one more time from the top . . .

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

Key words to notice. . .

1) Early Church fathers

2) This work

Not Origen, Not Josephus in general


Care to answer the question I asked in light of the reasons I asked it as outlined in my first reply?

[Goat]

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.

1) There is no evidence that it existed before the 4th century. (note: a 10 century version from a predominately Islamic nation does not count as evidence for a pre-4th century version)

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

4) Since it was admitted to be at least modified, it has to

be shown, by reference in external works, to have existed at all. Mention by other apologists before the 4th century will suffice

5) the grammar and syntax of the entire passage is very close to the style Eurubis used.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage.

And from early christian writings ..

No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.

These two go together. They also seem to be your primary argument as you bring them up all the time.

First let me put forth a question. Why would the early church father WANT to cite or quote this work?

You base your entire argument from silence on the presumption that the early church fathers would have had a reason to quote this passage. So let us examine the possible reasons that they WOULD have quoted this passage shall we. I will come back to the other 5 points after we hash this one out.

The writings of the early church fathers were entirely theological in nature as opposed to apologetical. They were concerned with correct interpretations of scriptures and the proper application of the same. They were battling against heresies like, Sabellianism, Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Socianism, and others.

Now let us look at each of these.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Notice that they all presume the existence of Jesus. Now, if Josephus really did write the following,

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 his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

what heresy does this address? The answer is none.

This passage would do little to bolster or defend the early church fathers viewpoints as it is nothing more that a very brief rendition of events that they all agreed upon already.

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

You of course realize that if they had no purpose for citing this particular work, that your primary argument is a red herring as well as an argument from silence right? It serves no purpose other than to introduce a distracting side topic with no real validity at all.






As a comparing factor, look at Origen's passage where he mentions Josephus use of James.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "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,--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."

Notice that he only mentions Josephus when he has a reason to, in this case explaining the fall of the Jews.

So what is your answer Goat?

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

You obviously did not read my post at all.

The entire point of my post here was to ask you a question. You did not answer that question.

Please re-read my post and at least answer the primary question which of course was the reason I cited Origen in the first place.

Well, yes, Origen DID have a reason to talk about Josephus. When you look at Josephus in CONTEXT, he was talking about Josephus talking about John the Baptist. By the way, the passage for John the Baptist is in Antiquities 18, just about a less than a half dozen passages away from the TF. Origen mentions Josephus' talking about John the Baptist, but does not mention TF. The fact that he mentions JB , and it is just a few passages over from the TF is strengthening the
arguement from silence when it comes to Origen.

Ok, one more time from the top . . .

So allow me to repeat my question Goat.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

Key words to notice. . .

1) Early Church fathers

2) This work

Not Origen, Not Josephus in general


Care to answer the question I asked in light of the reasons I asked it as outlined in my first reply?

Key words to note:

"Early church fathers" Except for Paul, and the actual gospels itself, none of the "early church fathers" than mentioned the gospels were earlier than the early 2nd century. The earliest reference to ANY of the Gospels was Papias , and that is not from him directly, but from Erebus's quoting from him 200 years later.

Mind you, that quote was talking about how Matthew wrote a gospel in the hebrew language, and the Gospel of Matthew to which people are assuming he was referring was NOT written in Hebrew or Aramaic , but in Greek!

So, the claim of 'early church fathers' falls apart.

As for Josephus, well, you have admitted it was at least tampered with. It has been shown that the terminology of the 'uncorrupted' reconstruction is not typical of Josephus, but more like Erebus's.

So, given the fact that you DID admit it was tampered with, can you show ANY evidence that it existed before the quote from Erebus? Yes or No? Or it is based on pure speculation? That is the challenge. Give SOLID evidence it existed, and not excuses why none of the "early church fathers" used it.

I mean, having a quote that discusses their Lord and Savior , even from a non-believer, particularly since the reconstructed quote is so neutral. all other
references to any Jewish figure that might have challenged Rome was done in
a highly negative manner, because of the audience he was dealing with. Although he didn't use the term 'christ' at all to describe them, or Vespasian, Josephus had declared Emperor Vespasian the awaited for king of the Jews.

You have to explain away the neutral vocabulary, the fact it was NOT referenced by anybody else, and the lack of evidence it existed.