Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Quote included in Jesus Christ article (moved from Talk:Jesus Christ)

16:52, 27 January 2003 (UTC)

I have included a bit from Josephus, from an online record of his works at http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=18&chapter=3

I quote from the bottom of the page:

Copyright Statement

These files are public domain.

Most of the quote from Josephus is bogus, however. Josephus could only have written that if he himself were a Christian, which he wasn't. There have been attempts to reconstruct what Josephus actually said, but the only source other than the ones with Christian interpolations is an Arabic text which is also pretty dubious. See, for example http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html and various other web-pages. --Zundark

Whether you feel the quote is bogus or not, I don't think it is appropriate to delete it. I did put some effort into finding a copy of it on the net, and in a copy-able format. I certainly have no problem with including the quote from the web address you quote as well. That will provide an alternate view, that would provide some balance.

If I found (and spoke) a copy of Josephus' works in Latin, I would favour including it as well.

The goal of an encyclopedia, in my opinion, is to offer information to those who may not be able to find it. If the quote I found is NOT that which has appeared in printed copies of Josephus's Antiquities, I'd like to hear it, because then it would NOT be appropriate to include in this page.

If the quote I included is the one that most people will find in a collection of Josephus's works, then I think it should be available in the encyclopedia article. A neutral point of view does not mean denying what is the historical record. Such denial is blatant manipulation of facts for the point of view that doesn't like what has historically been known.

The quote in question, which Zundark excised is:

Josephus in his work Antiquities of the Jews in Book 18, chapter 3, Item 3 says:

snip quote (in article)

The page Zundark mentions says this : (I don't know about its copyright status)

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:

snip quote (in article)

I am not trying to build up a controversy, but was trying to follow up on the request in the main page for more details about the extra-biblical mention of Jesus by Josephus... -BenBaker

I excised the quote you put in only because it is very misleading if given without any additional comment, as I don't think anyone seriously believes Josephus wrote it like that. I did consider moving it to the Talk page before excising it, but since it's easy to retrieve from the "View other revisions" page I decided there was no need. I think that if we want to cover this, then it needs to be on a separate page, because any serious treatment of it would overwhelm the Jesus Christ page. You could call the page Josephus on Jesus or something similar, and link it from the Jesus Christ page. (The Tacitus quote could also have a separate page.) --Zundark

I have seen changes disappear from the View other revisions page too quickly in my short time involved in wikipedia. I don't know why, as it is reasonably easy to set the number of days that versions are are retained to a big number like 999999 to keep from losing any.

The idea of putting the quote on a separate page is good. I'll put the link on the main page. Should it be a subpage since it only makes sense in a limited context? or should it be a top level page?

It should be a top-level page, as Larry doesn't like subpages. We would also want to link it from the Flavius Josephus page (when there is one), so it makes sense at top level. --Zundark

Later comment

The whole point of this article is the quote from Josephus, it needs to exist. CheeseDreams 23:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course the quote needs to exist in this article. The above discussion (which took place in August or September 2001) was about including it in the Jesus Christ article. (I've now given the discussion a new section title to make this clearer.) --Zundark, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

John P. Meier

I think mentioning Catholic Scholar John P. Meier (who is mentioned by Crossan in The Historical Jesus) in this article would be good since Crossan essentially agrees with Meier's views on the corruption of the text. Meier basically offers this text, which I will add if people agree with it, as more probably and historically accurate (I don't have his book on me so I'm not quoting it verbatum but when I do do the article I will obviously quote his altered text verbatum): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. He drew over to him boty many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And Pilate had him condemed to the cross. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extint at this day."

There is even a slight backhandedness at the Christians by Josephus by saying they are no extint at this day even though their leader died. Anyways, this would probably be good to add, especially when comparing it to the full "corrupted" text. Stephensj74 02:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Josephus

He is an important historian. Therefore, what he says must be allowed (as well as why his views cause some concern)--By George 04:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for additions

Rather than see this suppressed I offer it here first, for informed, honest criticism:

Before this goes on the main page, I'd like to hear some honest informed criticism:

"The passage (XVIII, ch. 3.3) is printed in its original context in [1]. Secular historians note that passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and that the passages share common themes of entirely secular life among Jews. The passage 3.3 fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, ed. K. H. Rengstorf, 2002. Consequently secular historians dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation, applying to biblical studies the professional standards applied to textual criticism in neutral areas. In order to accept the Testimonium as authentic, one would have to credit Josephus with being a professing Christian ('He was [the] Christ.'). Though few modern Christian apologists would go so far, many have been at pains to rescue some part as authentic. None of the external links below, for example, reflect a mainstream secular historian's point-of-view. User:Wetman

And may we delete this: "However, its late date means that it cannot be considered too reliable, even though the source which Agapius quotes may well be much older." Since the Arabic mss are actually older than the common Josephus mss, the dishonesty of this is awkwardly obvious. Does everyone agree? Wetman

The current text of the article is almost entirely mine. I'm not an expert on this, and much of the wording is not ideal because I was trying to avoid an edit war with BenBaker. I'm happy for you to make any changes you see fit. (BenBaker hasn't been seen here since June 2002.) If you think that some of the external links are not useful, perhaps you could remove them, or replace them with better ones. --Zundark 17:51, 14 November 2003 (UTC)

While the Testimonium Flavianum is not of much use, Josephus does discuss James the brother of Jesus, and the consensus of scholars is that this is, in fact, what Josephus wrote (see Feldman's massive bibliography on this point). Hence, the claim that we have no historical information outside of the New Testament is false, and I've edited the article to tone that claim down.

Interpolation

Here is an interesting example of an interpolation very much like the alleged interpolations in the Josephus text. Notice how it interupts the flow:

The passage 3.3 also is supposed to fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus,

I have removed the interpolation "is supposed to" which has been slipped in. Either the text fails the standard test or it does not. "Supposed to" inserts an inauthentic note of doubt. The fact is, this interpolated text uses vocabulary like "the Christ" and "cross" that does not appear elsewhere in Josephus. It takes a Christological stand ("if it be lawful to call him a man") that is utterly alien to Josephus. And in "he appeared to them alive again the third day" it takes a stand that is not merely Christian, but Pauline!

Let's keep this entry honest if we can. Wetman 04:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New statements about interpolations:"Lastly it should be noted that the entire passage is also found in one manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War. Lower Criticism has shown this to be an interpolation as other manuscripts are extant that do not contain it including the modern standard text of The Jewish War" "Lower Criticism" might find a better expression. It seems extraordinary to make this statement without specifying what manuscript of Jewish War this same passage has been interpolated in. Quite a bombshell, if it's true! --Wetman 05:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, Wetman, at last something we agree on ;) its in "Codex Vossianus Graec.72 Olim Petavianus" housed at the Univeristy Libary in Leyden (Zindler). It gets better, the current article says that the text appears 3 times, I need to check this up but if I am not mistaken it is only claimed to be authenticate in one place, the other two are also revealed to be interpolations by the fact that they are not in all manuscripts. There is a lot more than needs to be said in the article, like other known interpolations and highly suspected interpolations like the John the Baptist paragraph which similarly breaks continuity and moreover contradicts other statements in Josephus. Then the whole James brother of Jesus passage needs to be discussed (uses expression "the one called Christ" similar to Matthew, passage unknown to early church fathers etc.) Kuratowski's Ghost 12:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

(the first comment moved from elsewhere on talk page) Last section of article is POV. A 10th century manuscript means that the article wasn't edited in the 3rd century? What? What possible reasoning lies behind that??The Rev of Bru

Why does the last section of the article fail to point out that there is no explanation of why a 10th century manuscript shows that a 3rd century manuscript, or 9th century copy of it, was not doctored?CheeseDreams 23:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=247751 Click Tape422_The_End_Biblical_Studies.mp3

It is an interview with Dr Hector Avalos. He has a Phd in Biblical Studies. In particular at 19minutes 30seconds, he states that the only thing they have is a document dated from the medieval period, "about a thousand years later". Its not a reliable source. Josephus the person might be a complete fabrication, considering that the Catholic church has done book burning and execution of dissidents, the issue of authenticity cannot be idly brushed off. The fact is the sole evidence of Josephus and his writings and any Historiciy of Jesus based on this is thoroughly suspect. To not state facts to the effect of this proves this article is POV. KommissarCPU—Preceding unsigned comment added by KommissarCPU (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase:"However, over the last century, the consensus of scholars has moved, not least under the influence of manuscript discoveries." Apart from the discovery of Pines (which it is stated that most scholars do not accept), why should the consensus change? What manuscripts were discovered? It seems highly non-sequitur. If an explanation is not given, the passage, and associate "in 2004 most scholars believe..." will have to be removed for POV. CheeseDreams 23:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reasoning I recall being given is that the 10th century manuscript is believed to be based on a much earlier manuscript. The oldest manuscript we have of the Masoretic Text, for instance, isn't any older than that, but it's generally accepted as being based on much older manuscripts as well. Wesley 05:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Style

The last paragraph, on opinions, should be bulleted.

The article should be split into sections, e.g. the text, the accusations of forgery, Pines' theory

Some paragraphs are two large and wordy.CheeseDreams 23:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wordy as in repetitious and prolix? Or wordy as in using words not in the presidential vocabulary? --Wetman 01:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does prolix mean? By wordy I mean verbose (I used wordy because I wasn't sure everyone would understand verbose). CheeseDreams 09:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A good style is terse and dense. Remove unnecessary words, by all means. Attempts at streamlining or simplifying content, on the other hand, are often unwarranted. Make no changes that do not add clarity, detail and depth. --Wetman 20:38, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

Disputed?

Why is this article (Josephus on Jesus) disputed? 217.208.148.218 23:29, 9 January 2005 (UTC)

Josephus on James?

The first paragraph of the article has the sentence:

However it is the other passage, concerning James the brother of Jesus which provides the most interesting evidence from Josephus; this is because it is generally accepted by scholars as authentic.

However, the rest of the article never mentions this. Anyone know anything on this?

There is now a reference to the quote, but could you insert the quote. It is probably a short text.

I have all the sources at my fingertips to add lots of stuff to the article about the James passage as well as on other interpolations in Josephus but I need to get motivated to do it, will try this weekend. Kuratowski's Ghost 30 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)

Has this idea ever materialized? idiotoff 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about Kuratowski's Ghost but I found Kenneth Humphreys presenting a good argument that part of the James passage is an interpolation. Even if Humphreys is wrong he does show that by reading the James passage in context that the Jesus (Jesus, the son of Damneus) mentioned is not the Jesus (Jesus, son of Josheph) of the Bible. So at best the James Passage only shows that there was another Jesus regarded as Christ who also had a brother named James who instead of being crucified was made High Priest.--216.234.222.130 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletions disguised as minor edits

Please note that User:Roger pearse has been deleting references and links that present arguments against authenticty and marking them as minor edits. I have resisted reverting the whole article and have tried to restore the items hopefully I've caught all. The comment that the James passage is disputed was also deleted as were the references and links that show this to indeed be the case. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:29, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Crank material

One problem with any controversial topic is the presence online of vast amounts of material by cranks -- people who are not scholars, and have no special claim to attention, and hold outlandish or peculiar opinions. Unfortunately some of these (e.g. Zindler, Doherty) have seen fit to pontificate on the Testimonium Flavianum. I believe enthusiasts for the 'Jesus Myth' story -- all amateurs, to the best of my knowledge -- have also opinions, and these also have disfigured this article.

The TF is a topic on which every weenie has an (uneducated) opinion. Do we need these, presented as fact?

I would suggest that we should move towards a situation where no statement should be made in this article unless it is either uncontroversial (e.g., the earliest manuscript is 9th century) or else attributed to its source (e.g. Shlomo Pines suggested that the text in Agapius is more authentic than the Vulgate text).

I have removed a number of statements which are not found in the ancient writers, and not backed up by the most recent scholarly study of the historiography of the passage, that by Alice Whealey "Josephus on Jesus", or supported by J. Carleton Paget's massive review of every conceivable position. Why? Well, I get tired of running across people who suppose Wikipedia is a scholarly source, repeating them.

Incidentally, the addition and (correct) removal of 'interpolation=forgery' suggests that an article is needed on how interpolations occur in ancient and medieval texts. I rather think the poster wasn't sure what 'interpolation' meant and sought to clarify the meaning for others, which he understood to mean 'forgery'.

Its not for you to judge what is crank or not, Doherty and Zindler while obviously not liked by believers are nevertheless highly regarded by skeptics. Personally I think Kirby sounds like a crank but I didn't delete his link. Your edits are highly POV and clearly are trying to censor mention of works which have the strongest cogent arguments against authenticity. Kuratowski's Ghost 8 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Lower criticism unfortunately cannot examine manuscripts burnt in the England as recorded by Gerald of Wales which lacked the passage. All manuscripts we have to examine are consistent for the simple reason that manuscripts lacking the passage were burnt in public! Kuratowski's Ghost 8 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

N.b. Lower criticism is still able to examine the ashes. ~~~~ 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

Roger pearse please stop censoring material. The fact that Zindlers and Doherty's works exist is proof in itself that the James passage is disputed - they both dispute it. They aren't the only ones, I first studied this way back in the 80s at school and it was considered disputed. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:50, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Response

Many thanks for your notes. I think I understand your position a little more clearly.

You seem to believe that a writer such as Zindler or Doherty is of the same standing as a professional scholar? With respect, this is not so. You need not take my word for it: seek a professional scholar and ask them. Ask what teaching posts either hold, what articles they have published which are documented in l'Annee Philologique? If such people are not amateur propagandists, then every scribbler is a scholar. You have refused to allow me to qualify their opinions as 'amateur' -- but it won't do to present them as if they were scholars. Such would be fraud on the readers.

Also, you seem to profess the 'Jesus myth' idea, and the links and references you want all refer to this or its proponents, if I understand them correctly. (Do say if I am mistaken). But such links have nothing to do with this topic, specifically, being general works devoted to a thesis. They are not dealt with by Paget, for instance (unlike the Eusebius writing the TF idea which is). They could equally be added to every page that deals with early Christianity. How would this be helpful? Earl Doherty deals with every early Christian writer and every pagan testimonium -- but adding him to each page discussing these would be a mistake.

One of your comments suggested to me that there are no such things as cranks, or, alternatively, that you didn't want anyone you agreed with so labelled. But you must know that almost no-one shares the Jesus-myth idea, outside of a handful of enthusiasts, and few if any historians? Do you agree? If so, the term 'crank' seems eminently appropriate. Is it right for holders of a tiny minority view to edit this article to reflect their religious views?

Surely the Neutral Point of View is what we are attempting here. Asserting that the second passage is disputed, without further qualification, seems to me to be unhelpful. Surely? I have no opinion in detail: I merely recall that Whealey (in the standard history of the scholarship) states that even in 1900 it was generally considered genuine.

The other accusations -- vandalism, censorship, bigotry etc -- really apply (I beg your pardon) to your own comments, not mine.

I have no religious or historical axe to grind here. The TF is a passage that has often been considered bogus, but currently is enjoying a new vogue among scholars. But everyone can see that something feels wrong about it, although none of the explanations why have been conclusive. What is wrong with sticking, conservatively, to what we really can know? I realise it is important to debunk Josephus to people of the Jesus-myth persuasion; it is not important to me to establish it.

Incidentally, I know of no such episode as the burning of manuscripts of Josephus -- and I think as a manuscripts buff that I would know --, nor the reference to Gerald of Wales. Perhaps you would clarify?

I hope that helps.

People have very different opinions on the standing of popular writers vs tenured academics. For me personally I am more concerned with cogent argument and care for detail than whether the writer is eeking out a meagre existence lecturing at a university or raking in the big bucks in the real world, I'm tempted to say that a professional is just an amateur with tenure ;) The word amateur is generally regarded as a perjorative, Doherty and Zindler are best described as "popular writers". The term "crank" generally implies someone whose views are in fact demonstrably irrational or whose arguments are not cogent, not someone who is a popular writer with a controversial view. The way to deal with it is to mention and contrast views of academics in the field and popular writers and let the reader decide by themselves, not to simply delete the views of the popular writers or hide their very existence. Personally I don't agree with a lot of Zindler's opinions and I find his style of writing annoying but I would still mention his views and arguments because he is a prominant writer and has cogent arguments. The article I feel should be focusing more on neutral description of the primary sources - the passage says ...x, it was known from date yyyy but so and so from date zzzz was unaware of it while translation P rendered it as ... blah. Let people judge for themselves from the primary evidence with full story being told without half truths.

Gerald of Wales mentions a persecution of the Jews in England during which copies of Josephus they had were collected and examined (seemingly translations of Josephus into hebrew from his description) and found not to have the passage. This was interpreted as the Jews having deliberately deleted the passage to deny the truth, but there are obviously more rational possibilities. Kuratowski's Ghost 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you about the professionals; on topics of controversy, they tend to write only as men, and men of their age. I think 'popular writer' is a good term, tho. Von Daniken is well covered by such a term, crank tho his opinions were. The problem I have with doing this for Zindler is that I don't think he *is* prominent (if we were dealing with Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code, that would be something else, although he too is an amateur). If he were, perhaps the correct response would be to add a section indicating his view, and (if possible) that he was not a professional? How prominent is Earl Doherty, to the average person? (I actually have his book, but have some doubts that most people have ever heard of him). Is Josephus important to Doherty? He deals with the TF on pp.205-222: not a lot, really.

Perhaps the answer is a section on these people and their take on it?

Gerald: I was annoyed to be unable to find Gerald's book online. (As a habitual scanner of primary texts for my period of interest -- ancient times --, it makes you wonder just what the medievalists are doing with their time, if such sources are not online!) But I do know that a medieval Hebrew text called the Yosippon exists, which must be what you refer to. This was created by extracts from the Latin translation of Josephus in the Middle Ages, so has no relation to the original Greek text of Josephus. It does not mention Christ. But this is unsurprising: even the passages in the Talmud that do were often omitted from the manuscripts of the Talmud. The reason is obvious; in those times, their books might be seized and examined by the church. If they contained statements about Christ, they would be considered insulting to the church, unless those statements were very, very laudatory. If those statements were so laudatory, then of course they would be offensive to Jews. So the easy and safe path was omission. But such a text -- a medieval rewriting of a Latin translation of the original -- has no bearing on the Greek text. Indeed knowledge of Greek in the Middle Ages in the West was near non-existant. Wish we could include something on the Yosippon, tho, and cite Gerald. I just don't know enough about it to write something.

These are described as Josephus in Hebrew and are clearly not the Yosippon which was based on the Jewish War not the Antiquities.

The Doherty link that you keep removing is to an article that specifically deals with Josephus and is thus relevant to this article.

Zindler is a well known voice for Humanism and debates creationists. He is highly regarded in Humanist circles and regarded in fact as an anti-Crank because he argues for the side of science and rationality vs belief and pseudo-science. His book has two chapters dealing with Josephus and he presents a strong argument against the genuiness of the James passage as well as the TF Kuratowski's Ghost 03:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No Hebrew text of Antiquities is known. In the absence of the citation from Gerald, I'm afraid we can take this no further.

Doherty could be linked to for every single subject of early Christianity. I would only be happy with a link if he was clearly labelled as a popular writer.

While I know who these people are, I really don't think them very prominent. But again, if you badly want these cranks, so long as they are labelled as popular writers rather than scholars, I have no objection. People like Whealey, Paget and Eisenmann -- indeed Goldberg also -- are scholars. People like Peter Kirby are web-scribblers, but his summary is useful (although I don't agree). It's all a question of what will be useful to someone who knows nothing about the subject and wants a neutral sort of source of information. Surely?

I think the article needs a section dealing with the arguments of the popular writers and counter arguments by professional academics (well actually Zindler is a professional academic but writes about a lot of things outside his field). If the only counter argument professional academics have against Doherty and Zindlers are "oh you aren't a professional" then this should be pointed out, if there are real counter arguments, lets hear them. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On the topic of disputing the statement of James the Just [Antiquities Book 20, Sections 197-200] in Josephus, most scholars agree that it is not to be disputed. Scholars such as, Feldman, Zri Baras, Yamauchi, and Van Voorst all claim it to be authentic. Feldman states it to be almost universally acknowledged that it is authentic. Tejavatea1234 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation help has been requested at WP:RFM. Ed or MGM can assign a mediator shortly. Has there been any general consensus for mediation? (cpd WP:RFM) -SV|t 09:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Roger Pearse

Gerald of Wales on the Hebew Josephus's

Googling diligently for Geraldis Cambrensis produces part of the account as quoted in Paul Johnson A History of the Jews:

‘even the testimony of their historian, whose books they have in Hebrew and consider authentic, they will not accept about Christ. But Master Robert, the Prior of St Frideswide at Oxford, whom we have seen and was old and trustworthy ... was skilled in the scriptures and knew Hebrew. He sent to diverse towns and cities of England in which Jews have dwellings, from whom he collected many Josephuses written in Hebrew ... and in two of them he found this testimony about Christ written fully and at length, but as if recently scratched out; but in all the rest removed earlier, as if never there. And when this was shown to the Jews of Oxford summoned for that purpose, they were convicted, and confused at this fraudulent malice and bad faith towards Christ.’

Works of Geraldis Cambrensis, Edited by J. S. Brewer, 1861-1891, Volume 8, p. 65

My own comment on the above account, since "scratching out" text in reference to parchment manuscripts means scraping off the ink completely my understanding is that Master Robert in fact found no manuscripts with the text only two that showed signs of having had a correction at the point where the text would have occurred. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting: thank you. I think this could usefully appear in the main article. However I still don't think this is considered evidence of a Hebrew Josephus, so I wonder why not. Roger Pearse.

Reality check

Not only do scholars feel uncomfortable about the passage, I am feeling uncomfortable about the whole article. Lets see:

I've added some comments.

Arguments against authenticity:

Is identical to text acknowledged to be an interpolation that was placed in the Jewish War
Not an argument about authenticity in Antiquities. It merely demonstrates that it was copied a lot in the middle ages and transmitted separately -- which it was -- and so found its way into other works of J.
Changed radically as seen by comparing with the Syriac version which if not deception at least shows it was considered a "footnote" that one could freely alter.
A 10th c. (?) Syriac text which parallels it is not evidence that the Greek text of the TF was changed, tho.
Is a confession of Christian faith yet Josephus makes no other mention of Christianity. One would expect something also if one of the variant forms is original.
Subjective. Not read as a confession of faith by most people. Hard to imagine a Christian expecting Christianity to die out.
As stated, contradicts Josephus' views stated elsewhere regarding the Messiah.
Subjective. Josephus does not state that Jesus was the messiah -- he merely identifies him as the Christ. This to his Roman audience is a proper name.
The surrounding text is essentially based on a parallel account in the Jewish War which does not have a corresponding passage about Jesus.
Surely not an argument, unless it can be shown that similar arguments might not be used about most of Antiquities?
Breaks the continuity of the text.
Subjective, considering that the next passage about a scandal in Rome concerning the priests of Anubis does exactly the same.
Uses atypical wording for Josephus.
Surely not an argument, unless it can be shown that similar arguments might not be used about most of Antiquities?
Was missing from Hebrew translations of Josephus plausibly derived from manuscripts that had not been edited by Christians
Which Hebrew translations?
Early Christian writers familiar with Josephus and discussing evidence for Jesus fail to mention it.
Fallacy. Most of ancient literature would fail this test. Nearly all of Antiquities 11-20 is scarcely mentioned for 4 centuries.
But this isn't some arbitrary anecdote it is a very important passage regarding Jesus, one would expect it to be mentioned by the writers who fail to mention it. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Josephus contains several other known as well as strongly suspected, Christian additions.
Such as? Again, not evidence as regards a specific point.
Robert Eisler identified several, I don't have the reference off hand. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The wording of Eusebius' quotations of it appear to have changed within his lifetime.
Citations in ancient authors are often loose. Eusebius cites Clement of Alexandria twice differently in the same book. The reason? Quoting from memory has that effect.

So we see that all these arguments don't stand up to critical examination. That is the problem! They're all interesting, and suggestive, but don't amount to solid evidence.

Even if manuscripts were found that didn't have the text supporters would say, "oh its an ommission". We are heading into unreasoable doubt here. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In favour of authenticity:

Its in all extant Greek manuscripts and mentioned by some writers earlier than these

There is no convincing argument against it, which doesn't dissolve on examination into subjectivity.

Another (fuller) passage about Christ is implied by the brief mention in Ant.20.

But... evidence of corruption is that Origen states explicitly that Josephus did not believe in J. as the Messiah. Whealey's demonstration that that sentence read 'He was believed to be the Christ' supports this.

Kuratowski's Ghost 23:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I did go looking for Paget's article, but could not find it. Roger Pearse.

"attacks"

Stating that the section in Josephus is "attacked" is a violation of NPOV. And referring to the edits of those who disagree with you as "vandalism" is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Please abide by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for writing a note here; perhaps we can discuss the issues? (I was surprised that my edits were discarded without discussion -- is that normal in Wikipedia)?

The form of the page you're reverting to is disfigured with statements which are factually untrue or misleading, presumably for religious reasons, and you've labelled such 'NPOV', which seemed very odd to me. Is there a specific reason why you prefer this? Naturally I have reverted such edits to a more neutral position. What is it that you are keen to retain? E.g. Is there a reason why you don't want the word 'interpolation' explained? (In other words, the revert seems a bit baffling to me).

I didn't follow why saying that a passage is attacked is a violation of NPOV. The authenticity of both passages has been attacked down the years; in one case since the 16th century. That is not an opinion, surely!? I'm not sure why you -- or anyone -- would have a problem with this.

You state that referring to the edits of those who disagree as 'vandalism' is a personal attack. If you look at the history, my own edits were so treated; I do as I saw done. I would add that your own comment reads like a personal attack, you know. I am presuming that you did not intend it as such?

Now I have read your personal page. You seem to hold rather anti-Christian religious views. But surely someone with such a view will only rarely be a suitable person to write comments on early Christian origins? This is not specific to anti-Christians: in the same way a Nazi would be an unsuitable person to write on Jewish history or (to be politically balanced) an anti-racist on Nazism. Such a writer will tend to write sneeringly, and I really do not think that is a good thing. Who wants to hear about someone else's hatreds? Do you want to hear mine? Surely not! :)

What I have not seen is any sign that you have any special knowledge on this subject (no offence intended: if you do, why not contribute it?)

Would you like to tell me why you feel so strongly on this subject? It sounds bonkers to me. My motive for bothering with this is simple; I have found people who think Wikipedia is an authority. Having read a few pages on religious topics, I must admit I am very discouraged by the nonsense I find. How does anyone benefit from the circulation of nonsense? Whatever our opinions, don't we all want the facts?

If you don't agree with my edits, why not discuss them here? (It's all derived from the most recent scholarly studies, those of Whealey and Paget; I would have cited them verbatim but I don't own Whealey and haven't yet laid hands on my copy of Paget). I'm not offering my views, as far as I know -- if you want them, they are that the TF is genuine but corrupt, and the short passage is genuine. Rather I'm offering the views of those who know. But I really don't see why people are so determined to say otherwise.

All the best, Roger Pearse 10:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Have you actually looked at "the form of the page [I'm] reverting to?" In what way is it "disfigured with statements which are factually untrue or misleading"?

2. "presumably for religious reasons" - please don't presume anything.

3. "Now I have read your personal page. You seem to hold rather anti-Christian religious views." What "personal page" are you referring to, and what "anti-Christian religious views" do you see there?

--Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Have you actually looked at "the form of the page [I'm] reverting to?"

Since I edited it into its current form, I'm surprised that you ask this. But of course the answer is 'yes'.

In what way is it "disfigured with statements which are factually untrue or misleading"?

I am disappointed that instead of saying why you are reverting my edits, you demand I justify them. Why didn't you respond to my point? This is of course a very easy option for you -- make me work. Please don't do this.

However I will give you the first, in the header portion: in the version you didn't write, but are reverting to, the impression is given that the passage is generally disputed, and Schurer given as an example. According to Whealey scholars today pretty much universally hold it genuine, and a century ago it was only disputed by a few, of whom one was Emil Schurer. Those who attack it today are crank writers (or 'popular writers' as I agreed to allow them to be called). I think that the first version will therefore mislead the casual reader, so I revised it to the second, accepting the change to reference Schurer.

2. "presumably for religious reasons" - please don't presume anything.

This remark seems rather likely to provoke a quarrel to me! Why on earth shouldn't I say what is evident here?

3. "Now I have read your personal page. You seem to hold rather anti-Christian religious views." What "personal page" are you referring to, and what "anti-Christian religious views" do you see there?

I am afraid I cannot locate the material I read again, and don't propose to spend much time on it! But I rather feel this sounds like a cross-examination, redolent of the school debating society. Why are you trying to score points here? State your views and be hanged; or not, if you're ashamed of them. But don't engage in this sort of sniping, unless you merely want a quarrel! Surely? ::Roger Pearse

Roger, I've explained before that use of the term "attacked" is biased and non-encylopedic. As well, presumptions about my motives are, besides being personal attacks, more likely to "provoke a quarrel" than my asking you to stop doing so. As well, it is apparent that there is nothing on my "personal page" that indicated I "hold rather anti-Christian religious views"; this is simply something you have made up. Next, in the future please focus on the article content, not you other editors. And finally, please do not cut up my comments in the future; this has already confused one editor (see below). Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but is this attempt at cross-examination helpful? Or relevant? Or intended to provoke an angry response? If so, why?

I note that you don't deal with any of the points I made. Your comments don't justify your interference in my edits. They don't explain what you don't like about mine. You offer nothing -- not even a statement of your own views! -- but make demands which, if I bothered with them, would simply make me run around. Please don't do this. If you have a point to make, why not make it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

You've made a series of claims that seem to have little relation to article content, or reality for that matter. I'm trying to get you to explain them. Most of your points have nothing to do with the issue at hand, so there was no point in responding to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, although it seems mainly to consist of vituperation. I'm afraid I certainly cannot make you talk to me if you don't want to! I haven't seen any comment by you that has any 'relation to article content', tho. Roger Pearse 11:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Mediation issues

A WP:RFM was filed for this article. How can I be of assistance? I should request that Jayjg, you use more standard condensed and less-confusing formatting, (see my changes). Roger, I think some of your comments are bullying, rather than informative. I find this topic interesting, though I cant claim to have special knowledge of its details. I'd appreciated it if someone briefly listed the main points of contention. Sinreg, -SV|t 17:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

SV, your changes have now mixed Roger's comments indistinguishably in with my own; perhaps, because of the way he inserted them, you thought I had made them. As for the disputed, current it is about the term "attacked", which is biased and unencyclopedic. I'm also concerned with Roger's penchant for attacks, which you've noted. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - pls fx IYHDSA... "attacked" and attacks. Noted, will take a look. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for the note. -SV|t 17:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

For me an issue is the inclusion of references and links relevant to the topic, such as Earl Doherty's online article on Josephus as well as Frank R. Zindler's book on references to Jesus in Jewish sources which contains two chapters on Josephus. Roger keeps removing their links and references on the grounds that they are not "professional scholars" and are "cranks". Both are in fact well known Humanist writers who hold minimalist view of the New Testament. Blurb on Doherty:

Earl Doherty is a member of the Humanist Association of Canada, with a degree in History and Classical Languages. As a longtime researcher into the subject of Christian origins, he supports the position that no historical Jesus existed. His own contributions to that theory have been embodied in a Web-site that has gained worldwide attention and in a recent book called The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? published by Canadian Humanist Publications.

Zindler is a well known proponent of Scientific skepticism particularly known for debating fundamentalist Christians. Blurb on Zindler:

FRANK ZINDLER is Editor of American Atheist Magazine and Director of American Atheists Press. A former university biology instructor, he is also a professional linguist with a speciality involving ancient languages.
Mr. Zindler is the author of numerous articles and several books on Atheism and related history, including a special annotated edition of Part Three of THE AGE OF REASON by Thomas Paine. He is a member of several learned societies including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, New York Academy of Science, Society of Biblical Literature and the American Schools of Oriental Research. Mr. Zindler is also nationally recognized figure in the ongoing debate over creationist pseudoscience and evolution.

Whether one likes these people or not, they are hardly cranks and their views are definitely an important part of the debate on the passage and should not be censored from the article. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that. The main problem is how do you identify on the other side of the debate who is a fundamentalist crank and not suitable to be quoted, and who is just a fundamentalist? ~~~~ 21:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Quick point

KG: "They are not cranks" no, but to a certain degree, impressing extra-contextual information is an expression of POV. The real issue, as always, is wether material is within context enough to be included, and to what degree, or is so far out of context that it should not be included at all, and linked from a more general overview. Organization is key to POV. Its easy to say that x topics have n possible points of view, and they all should be represented, but in the context of, say "In the fictional Star Wars universe, Yoda is a Jedi master..." theres no need to go into "science-based skepticism regarding the existence of, physical attributes of, claimed powers of, and language consistency of Yoda," etc. Any introduction of "science" to sci-fi is best placed in a separate "science of..." article. One can make a couple comment-links to interesting issues elsewhere, but that says nothing about representing a "debate" everywhere there is an article.

Thus, overpresenting the views of "skeptics" who in general assert contrarian views is not really NPOV, just as "in the context of religion," science is not equivalent to NPOV. In the context of the historicity of Jesus (to which this topic belongs --"Jesus" having distinct religious, pan-religions/spiritual, historical, and cultural aspects), the introduction of "skeptical" science has more bearing than in the religion context, but it does not have exclusive reign. -SV|t 17:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for blocking further edits until we can resolve this. I'm sorry if anything I wrote was construed as 'bullying' -- I have tried fairly hard not to do this, and to be as mellow as possible (isn't that what we're supposed to do?). I agree with J., tho, that the new format of that thread makes it hard to see who wrote what.

I was hoping to discover what the points of contention are myself, since my edits are simply being discarded. Here are some of what I perceived as problems with the original version, as indicated earlier:

1. Authors who are not professional Josephus scholars and hold views which are minority even among normal people are presented as authorities. The two who were named were Earl Doherty and Frank Zindler. Both are anti-Christian polemicists, not professional scholars, and if you read their PR puff carefully, this appears clearly. Neither has any better qualification to write on the topic than anyone else. Won't it be misleading to the ordinary punter to represent these people as authorities? I have no objection to their views being described, of course, since people may come across them online (and labelled as 'popular writers'); but should the reader be misled to suppose that they in any way reflect the views of scholarship? Or anyone other than themselves and a handful of disciples? Neither has anything special to say on this subject, surely?

My other concern with these two is that one or both could be cited on every page to do with early Christian origins -- Doherty because his book requires him to debunk every piece of evidence about it, and I think Zindler talks about much of it also. Is there a lot of point on a page such as this, biblio not specially about this topic? A link to a better page for them would be preferable, I think.

2. The header portion presents the second passage (Ant. 20) as if it was widely disputed by scholars. But a professional work exists which describes what scholars have thought when about this subject, written by Dr. Alice Whealey. From this I learned that the authenticity of this second passage has not been seriously disputed down the centuries, apart from a little ca. 1900, especially by a scholar whose name I had forgotten but was reminded was Emil Schurer. I regret that I do not have Whealey to hand, or I would have quoted the relevant portion. Surely this statement is something that can be verified, since people (reasonably) may suppose that I have misremembered.

3. Referring to 'attacks' upon the authenticity of either passage is apparently biased. I don't know why. Another term for "assert to be inauthentic" would be acceptable to me.

4. I did not want to see the idea that Eusebius wrote the TF circulated still further. It's an idea held only by one scholar, and rejected by all the rest.

I'm not sure whether my other changes -- explaining interpolation, moving the explanation of Whealey's online paper out of the URL -- were objected to or just reverted in bulk.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse 12:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What is this dispute about

I really can't tell why there is a revert war between the following two alternatives

Its authenticity is attacked today mainly by popular writers, although the Victorian scholar Emil Schürer also disputed its authenticity.
its authenticity passage has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers

The differences are

One version mentions that Emil Schurer is Victorian, the other does not
One version mentions that Emil Schurer is a scholar, the other does not
One version mentions that it is mainly popular writers disputing it, the other implies that it is just popular writers.

So

What is wrong with admitting that Emil Schurer is victorian. It gives an important indication of the length of time this has been disputed.
Cutting out that Emil Schurer is a scholar looks like an attempt to POV the text, and discredit him/her as another popular writers
If there is even a single writer who is an academic disputing it today then it should not imply that it is just popular writers. It is statistically likely that there are a non-zero number of academics disputing it.

~~~~ 21:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

- I'm sure a compromise can be reached; my issue is with the word "attacked", which is not neutral, and the emphasis on popular writers. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

- Thanks for these notes. I am quite happy to substitute some other word for 'attacked' -- by all means say 'disputed' if you like. It's not an important point to me. More so is to indicate that the authenticity of this passage is disputed only by one long dead scholar, plus a handful of current "popular writers". My source for this is Whealey (2003): if we can find no scholarly source for the contrary proposition, that there are modern scholars disputing it, I don't see how we can say it. Are there *any* Josephus scholars who hold that view? My understanding is that it is a dead issue, only ever raised at the height of the Victorian hyperscepticism. If anyone knows better, let's hear it. Roger Pearse 20:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Why has the page been unprotected

I'm surprised to find that the page has been unprotected, without further comment. I am new to Wikipedia, but I understood the point of this page was to resolve disputes? But where has this happened? Instead the page has been unprotected, and the author of the misleading text allowed to edit it (10 minutes later) yet again into a form to which I have already objected.

Is this how things are done in Wikipedia? If so, what is the point of this discussion page? I admit to being confused by this.

On reflection, perhaps I am just being dense here. The comments in the history rather suggest that the real 'discussion' actually took place between SteveVertigo and Jayjg some place else, and they made a decision together? Please clarify whether this is the case, because if so I will stop wasting my time and yours.

The comments also invite someone to contact SteveVertigo -- I know of no way to do this other than here.

Sincerely,

Roger Pearse Roger Pearse 10:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Your comments don't seem to reflect the actual content of the edits; the new edit was not the same as the previous one you apparently objected to. Perhaps more caution before commenting would be appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Perhaps more caution before commenting would be appropriate." -- This seems like an attempt to provoke an angry response. "Your commments don't seem to reflect the actual content of the edits" -- yes, they do. Roger Pearse 10:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm just making a factual observation here, and not a new one, as this has happened before. Many of the issues you discuss don't seem to be reflected in the actual content of the article you refer to. You've also commented before that you think other editors are merely trying to anger you; please assume good faith. In the future, if you want to Talk: about issues with the article, it would probably be best if you quoted exactly the sentences with which you had concerns; that would help focus the discussion on actual article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

20.9.1 reference (Jesus brother of James)

I've improved the section on the 20.9.1 reference to Jesus as brother of James. I've changed the passage stating that since the Christian Jesus wasn't the son of Damneus, this passage is inauthentic. To whoever wrote that -- if you can point to one reputable writer on the subject who makes that argument, I'll put it back in. However, it's obvious that "Jesus, son of Damneus" was an entirely different person.. Grover cleveland 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting the last edit by User:TrumpetPower! because the edit summary "Remove editorializing incorrectly trivializing Josephus'" makes no sense, and the edit left the final paragraph devoid of context (why talk about Jesus being a common name?) Note that this material is only there at all because a previous editor had made the argument that the 20.9.1 reference is clearly inauthentic because it mentions Jesus son of Damneus (as opposed to the Jesus of Christianity!). We could arguably remove the final paragraph altogether, but I don't think leaving it in its current state is an option. Grover cleveland 22:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the incompleteness of the edit summary...the apostrophe and the return key are right next to each other. My fat fingers hit both at the same time, which submitted the changes before I had a chance to preview / edit / etc. The edit summary should have read, "Remove editorializing incorrectly trivializing Josephus's identification of the 'Jesus' in question."

How on Earth do you get that it's "obvious" that the paragraph is discussing two different Jesuses? The entire paragraph is discussing how Ananus unrighteously had James executed. Jesus is only mentioned to identify which James it was whom Ananus had offed. To punish Ananus's abuse of power, King Agrippa made James's brother, Jesus, the new high priest. Any other interpretation relies upon purely unsubstantiated a-doctrinal Christian faith. After all, this incident happened a third of a century after most assume Jesus was crucified, and Josephus wrote about it another third of a century later. And it's the one-and-only mention of somebody who, at the very least, is said to have turned the Judean religious, political, and judicial world on its ear? Come on. TrumpetPower! 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Given that "Jesus" was an extremely common name at the time, why would Josephus wilfully confuse his readers by referring to the same Jesus twice in two different ways? Surely he would have referred to Jesus as "son of Damneus" both times? Is there any other instance in which Josephus referred to individuals this way in his works? Also, do you have any reference for a reputable writer who makes this argument? If as you say "most non-Christians" make this argument, it should be easy to come up with a reference. Btw, I don't think you would have to be a "Christian apologist" to take this position: I certainly don't consider myself as one. Grover cleveland 20:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Er...have you actually /read/ anything that Josephus wrote, other than the passage you copied / pasted? It's all one giant soap opera. It's nearly impossible to keep all the names straight, even after a couple sentences. He's constantly bouncing back and forth between characters, filling in earlier details, and the like. Think of the archetypal middle-aged housewife dishing out the gossip in a beauty salon, and you're on track.

If you know so little about Josephus's writings that you can't even recognize his signature style, why are you bothering to edit the page? TrumpetPower! 03:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: If you know so little about Josephus's writings that you can't even recognize his signature style, why are you bothering to edit the page?. Please take a less aggressive tone in your comments, and keep your arguments focused on the issues.

When Josephus introduces a character for the first time, he typically identities them either

1 as "X the son of Y", or

2 by their position, or

3 by their relation to another character who has already been mentioned.

It is rare for Josephus to identify a character as "X, the brother of Y", unless Y has previously been mentioned. Peter Kirby cites one other such instance in Josephus's extant writings, at Jewish Wars 2.247. Now I admit, I have not read every single word that Josephus wrote, but I think you will agree that Josephus is much more likely to identify a character for the first time as "X the son of Y" than "X the brother of Y".

Now, according to the theory you are proposing, both James and Jesus were sons of Damneus. So Josephus could have identified James as "son of Damneus", but inexplicably chooses instead to identify him as brother of Jesus -- a Jesus who on this theory has never been referred to before in Josephus's writings.

Josephus then speaks of "Jesus son of Damneus" being made high priest, without making the key point that he is the brother of the James who was executed. Why would Josephus not make this connection, which would make his narrative much more powerful?

Let's now consider for a second the rival theory that Jesus brother of James, and Jesus son of Damneus are two separate people. You must admit that this is a possibility, since we all agree that Jesus was an extremely common name in the period. There is only one thing to be explained: why Josephus does not identify James by his father.

There are two possible explanations for this: possibly the words "called Christ" are original to Josephus, and Josephus had previously referred to this Jesus in some uncorrupted form of the Testimonium Flavianum, and therefore Josephus was identifying James by referring to an already-established character. Or alternatively Josephus simply did not know the name of James's father. Either of these two possiblities seems a more natural explanation for this passage than that James is the son of Damneus.

Regardless of the merits of this dispute, you have yet to provide a reference to a reputable commentator who makes the argument that you have proposed. Of the several authors who claim that a historical Jesus never existed, and that the alleged reference to Jesus Christ in 20.9.1 is bogus, I've yet to read one who puts forth the theory that James was the son of Damneus. Given this, I've replaced the claim that "most non-Christians" think that the two Jesuses were the same person, to a claim that some commentators think this. Grover cleveland 08:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as I am sure you are aware, the comma in "Jesus, son of Damneus" is an artifact of the translation into English and was not present in Greek. I admit that this punctuation might give the impression to a reader of the English translation that this phrase referred to some previously mentioned Jesus. But of course Josephus's original had no punctuation. Grover cleveland 08:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You kicked his ass. 24.7.87.135 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the source for the argument that Josephus originally wrote, "the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus"? The article almost implies that this argument comes from Zindler, but there is actually no source listed. And what is the source for the argument that Josephus could have called someone, who was not Jesus Christ, the Messiah? Are these arguments original research? Krosero 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Consensus on the Testimonium

I'm a little afraid to reopen this can of worms, but the article now says that significant number of scholars consider it [the Testimonium] genuine. Really? As in, Josephus actually wrote "if it be lawful to call him a man", "He was [the] Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him"? Despite Origen's assertion that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and his failure to quote any of these miraculous passages (even though he does quote the other reference to Jesus as brother of James several times, despite its being far less interesting to a Christian apologist)? I find this difficult to believe. If "a significant number of scholars" really does believe this, it should definitely be backed up by specific references at this point in the article. If "geniune" just means that Josephus wrote something about Jesus here, I suggest this section be reworded, as it is very misleading. Grover cleveland 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It's a big, nasty can of worms, which is why I haven't changed that bit.

I think the best thing to help put "most scholars" in perspective is to realize that most scholars who study these things are Christians in Christian institutions. None of them would reject the entire passage outright for fear of losing either their faith or their job...yet, all, combined, rip each and every minute little piece of it to shreds. Take a step back, and it's clear that the overall consensus is that the passage is 100% bullshit...yet, at the same time, all the (Christian) individuals insist that their favorite tiny piece of it is real (and that, by extension, that proves that there must have been something real there to begin with).

But, back to the point, it /is/ fair to say that significant numbers of scholars think it's genuine. It's also fair to say that significant numbers of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was intimately involved with the September 11, 2001 attacks. In neither case does the majority opinion have any bearing on the reality under discussion, but that doesn't make the observation of the popular opinion any less valid. TrumpetPower! 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:Verifiability, this claim should be backed up by references, particularly as it seems to contradict other parts of the article that make the arguments against authenticity. I think it is significantly damaging to the article as a whole and should be removed, unless someone can come up with supporting evidence. Grover cleveland 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to tackle it, go knock yourself out. But, if you follow the references and links in the Wikipedia article, you'll find that, yes, a significant number do indeed hold to the authenticity of at least part of the passage. Incidentally, you'll also find that all of those who do claim it's (at least partially) authentic are Christian. Do a census of all modern scholarship on the matter, and I'm pretty confident you'll find a majority who claim some kind of authenticity...but, then again, the overwhelming majority of scholars who study this sort of thing are Christian. If you include not just modern scholars but historical ones, the consensus is truly overwhelming. But, then again, it wasn't even possible to claim otherwise and remain alive for much of history....

Of course, to do it right, you'll also have to define, "scholar." Only those with teaching positions at accredited universities? What about widely-published authors, fellows at museums, the Vatican...? And, even then, what have you proven? Of what significance is majority opinion on the matter?

Good luck. You'll need it. TrumpetPower! 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The crucial distinction is between partial and complete authenticity. I'm going to change the wording to reflect this. Let's see what happens... Grover cleveland 03:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just deleted the sentence that claims that a significant number of scolars consider it (completely?) authentic. I don't see any references that support comlete authenticity. Without that last sentence it gives a pretty fair impression of the scholarship that is linked from this article. If anyone wants to reinsert the claim that scholars consider the Testimonium completely authentic, please only do so if you also provide a link to back this up. Grover cleveland 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One is reminded of the curate's soft-boiled egg: "Parts of it are excellent, Your Grace!" --Wetman 06:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Grover cleveland, as long as you're on this Josephus / Jesus kick, you might want to track down the date that Ananus had James executed and compare it with when (and how?) James the Just is supposed to have died. As I recall, there're some serious discrepancies, at the least with dates. I've never felt compelled to track it down, though. And if they line up, that's good to know, as well. TrumpetPower! 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be covered pretty well in the article on James the Just. I don't know if it needs to be mentioned here. On the one hand, I suppose it could be considered another argument against authenticity of the James reference. On the other, the rival account of Hegesippus, considered alone, seems inherently implausible and legendary. I guess it could be included here, but I don't have the energy right now. Grover cleveland 15:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a risk stepping into what is obviously disputed territory here...from my reading it seems reasonable to say general opinion now is Joesephus wrote something about Jesus Christ - but it is improbable that what he wrote has been preserved word for word in the present text.

The main difference of opinion seems to be whether what he wrote was just slightly less effusive, (as implied by a number of modern Chrisitan Scholars and the Arab translation), or actively critical, and now completely lost,(as implied by Origen).

It seems to me the underlying interest in this passage with the general reader is because of hope, from both sides, that it can help show whether or not Jesus was who the New Testament accounts say he was.

Josephus opinions on Christ, whether positive or negative, are not necessarily relevant here. Conclusions can be drawn without noting more than the facts the authenticity of the passage is disputed, and that most believe Josephus made some reference to Jesus.

The simple answer for the lay reader may be that 1. The passage is disputed, and no definite concluisons can be drawn, but 2. it is now generally agreed Josephus did refer to Jesus Christ at a very early date, (so providing some evidence of Jesus achieving at least local fame in the years immediately after the crucifiction), however it cannot be certain what Josephus' personal opinions about Jesus were.Winstonwolfe 06:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulk of xx.9 in dispute?

Kuratowski's Ghost's latest edit indicates that the bulk of the reference to James in xx.9 is in dispute. This is news to me, but I'm not challenging the assertion. Seeing that replacing the two Greek words meaning "who was the Messiah" with the two words meaning "the son of Damneus" resolves every problem I'm aware of with the text, I'd be curious to know what other problems exist.

Any pointers?

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, the larger passage says Ananus ruled only 3 months yet in the Jewish War Josephus has him as high priest for years. See Zindler's book. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I will. TrumpetPower! 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Much more significantly, it is inconceivable that Josephus, a first century Jew, could have called another man the Messiah.

Didn't Josephus imply that his patron Vespasian was the Messiah? Grover cleveland 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall Josephus ever using Christou to describe Vespasian, though he did interpret various prophecies to predict--rightly as it turned out--that Vespasian would rule the world. TrumpetPower! 05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Josephus didn't use the words Messiah or Christ anywhere in the "Antiquities", except in the disputed Jesus references. The verb anoint appears only once outside sumaries of the Hebrew scriptures. This is at Ant. xix.4.1 where Herod Agrippa anoints himself (at least I think he anoints himself -- the context is a little unclear). Agrippa may perhaps be regarded as a Messiah-like figure since he united the Jewish lands under non-Roman rule. However when Josephus describe figures who clearly claimed to be Messiahs, such as Theudas (xx. 5), he doesn't use the word "Messiah" and doesn't explain how their actions could be interpreted as fulfilling Messianic prophecies. Grover cleveland 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I toned down this paragraph, and the tone is slipping back in so I have come to the talk page. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an argumentative essay. I personally thought the former version read like someone was making a case for a position, as opposed to objectively presenting the view of some (most?) scholars. I still have some problems with this paragraph, but I want to see what others think before doing any more editing. --Andrew c 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't keep us all in suspense--what're the problems? TrumpetPower! 23:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the first paragraphs in that section says the passage is "accepted as authentic by scholars". Then it goes into detail about the debate, and then seems to present an argument (OR?) on why all the scholars are all wrong. And it doesn't even give Well's hypothesis to explain the passage (that the text was origionally a marginal note by a Christian scribe that eventually ended up in the main text). My suggestions would be to at least give citations, and state exactly who is making what claims. --Andrew c 17:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points. "[A]ccepted as authentic by scholars" probably needs to read, "accepted as authentic by most scholars." (Personally, I'm troubled by this whole "scholars" nonsense. First, there's the problem of establishing what a "scholar" really is--frankly, it seems like it's usually used as code for "Christian apologist in a seminary." Further, it's got that whole argument-from-authority thing going on. Let's rely upon the facts themselves, not on some nameless person's interpretation of said facts, hmmm?) I don't have information on Well's hypothesis handy, but don't let that stop you--dive right in! TrumpetPower! 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Strategy

In almost all of the articles which address an issue which pits Jewish apologists against Christian ones, the article takes the Jewish side. Not neutral. I have made numerous edits trying to correct this problem but someone often pushes back to make it worse than before. It's not always an issue of editing out facts or putting in lies; it's often simply writing something so as to disort the truth. Perhaps we need to go on the attack to make them spend time on the defensive. 71.198.169.9 08:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

James, Brother of Jesus passage

The article is currently full of completely unsourced allegations that the "Jesus" who is James's brother might be Jesus son of Damneus. I have no idea if this is a plausible claim or not. But it needs to be sourced and attributed to an actual scholar, not just asserted by wikipedia's editorial voice. If this is not done, I'm going to remove it. john k 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well is now has two sources: a book AND a website. Also it was clear even without the references that the passage when quoted entirely referred to Jesus son of Damneus.--216.234.222.130 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This section currently begins with the claim that the majority of scholars consider the James passage authentic. But then it says, "There is however, debate as to whether the words who was called Christ were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation." That sentence begins with weasel words and it could suggest that the majority of scholars consider the passage partially authentic and are debating the smaller phrase, "who was called Christ". The sentence introducing the debate is attributed to G.A. Wells but it is not said what Wells wrote. Did he write that the majority were debating the point? Or did he argue that "who was called Christ" is not authentic? It would be far better to start the sentence with Wells' name and then to repeat or quote what he wrote.Krosero (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

other opinions

See [2] 203.217.57.89 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller (Mullerb) 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The thesis of authenticity

Hello. I think that the article does not give way to the thesis of authenticity that is nevertheless very seriously defended by French scholars as Etienne Nodet or Serge Bardet. (Cf. the book : Le Testimonium flavianum, Examen historique, considérations historiographiques, Serge Bardet , Cerf, 2002.

The arguments of this thesis are following (excuse me if my English is not fine) :

Origen declares twice (in the Commentary on Matthew and Against Celsus) that « Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ ». That proves that he knew a text of Josephus on Jesus.
Josephus could not ignore Jesus while it describes events as historian and because the christianity was of importance in Rome and already caused persecutions. He mentions him in an other passage, concerning James, whose almost nobody tells that it is an interpolation.

Josephus wrote about Jesus because he must have written about Jesus?? E4mmacro (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It proceeds often with digressions, what explains the place of the passage. It is normal that Josephus has spoken of Jesus after Pontius Pilate.
Concerning the impossibility that he told about Jesus that he was the Christ, one could tell that a Christian never wrote about Jesus that he was only a « wise man ». Similarly, a Christian would not have employed the past neither used words « a doer of wonderful works ». Actually, this word of « Christ » is only a name, the alone known by roman people. It has probably a polemical value : the term Christ, "anointed", but also "coated", applied - outside of the judeo-christianity - to a wall, similarly Suetonius, "Chresto", " good", is « probably a servile nickname ».

I believe that Eusebius, a Christian, many times in his writings, described Jesus as a "wise man", and a "doer of wodnerfule works" so it is difficult to see how to make the case that a Christian would never call Jesus a "wise man" or a "doer of wodnerful works". Even harder to make the case that the phrases prove that Eusebius himself couldn't be the forger. E4mmacro (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The mention « he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him » is what Christians told, explanatory to the fact that « the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day ».
There is an extreme difficulty to believe in an intentional interpolation in all manuscripts. The style of the text is of Josephus. A forgery is not possible because it would suppose a talent out of the common and it is an idea that could not come to a writer in Antiquity : the theory of the imitation as mystification does not appear before the "De arte poetica" de Marco Girolamo Vida in 1527.
The Testimonium displays an archaic christology (no allusion to the virginal birth, to the salvation, to eschatology, to Trinity, etc.) which is from the first century.
It is normally situated in a book that is a testimony on the judaism of the first century destinated for Romans (who belevied that the Christ was only an agitator) and Jews (who thought that he was in the messianic current). It condemns the messianism and briefly and ironically describes the Christ as participant in a period of unrest that will end with the war and the definitive destruction of the Temple. FF

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with M. Bardet or his book. However a Google search suggests he is Professor of History at a Paris university, which would normally be enough to qualify his work for discussion. Grover cleveland 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The book has been very well received by French academics. It is very detailed and analyzes the arguments of external critic as well as each word of the text. Here is what tells Pierre Geoltrain, known as partisan of the complete interpolation and the most famous spécialist in this domain in France (he writed the article Jesus in the Encyclopaedia Universalis, the French version of Encyclopaedia Britannica) : « Serge Bardet changes our look on the problem, reappraise usual points of view and bases by reason the plausibility of the Jewish testimony on the Christ and Christians ». « This work will remain a model and for a long time will remain the reference about this curious quarrel around the Testimonium ». Postscript of the book : Le Testimonium flavianum, Examen historique, considérations historiographiques. And the opinion of Maurice Sartre, professor of ancient History at Tours university, who is no more suspect of indulgence towards the authenticity of the Testimonium, : « A decisive new reading. Serge Bardet shows, with a convincing manner, how each translator has tendency to bend the senses of the text according to his position about the historicity of the text ; thus one has proposed the simple "It was the Christ", others writed "He was the Christ". « Serge Bardet made the overwhelming task to analyze the detail of arguments of some and others, to analyse their translations, to dismantle some mechanisms to better put in obviousness their a priori, perhaps their intellectual freezings. Work of a meticulous erudition that ends to challenge arguments of the total interpolation as well as these of partisans of Shlomo Pines, nevertheless in fashion. Without to as much, recognizes it Serge Bardet, to make advance the thesis of the authenticity. This is only after this rigorous work that Bardet takes the plunge to deliver the bottom of his thought. Conscious that the solution can not come from a new textual analysis by advance doomed to failure, it judges more relevant to pose the question upside down : whatever is the author, what objective can it do aim ? If there is interpolation, to what and to who that does it serve ? Hostile commentators to the authenticity recognize all the ancient character of the interpolation, and Bardet shows that it can not be a lot posterior to the text of Josephus himself ; it ascends therefore at the end of the first or in the beginning of the second century. Furthermore, the interpolator had to be mold to the style of Josephus in order that its insertion resists today to all attempts to unmask it. If it is Christian, why to slip this passage at Josephus that Christians hardly had reasons to be going to read ? And if it is Jewish, why would not be this Josephus himself ? Bardet delivers its intimate conviction in favor of the authenticity, but he bases more on an analysis of the context than the text itself. In this short development, he esteems that Josephus is not preoccupied with Christians, but of a Jewish sect, as it speaks elsewhere, in passages that nobody contest, John the Baptist and James. In a global description of the judaism of its time, the last third of the Ist century, it had do make place to this current - there also, while judeo - Christian sects were numerous, as recent works have show it. Divested of its finality "Christian", the Testimonium finds naturally its place in this history of the judaism, and its authenticity has no more motive to surprise the historian. Maurice Sartre. Le Monde Thursday 19 September 2002
About the syriac versions, you must note that Sarge Bardet, after a philological analysis, strongly criticizes the thesis of Shlomo Pines : According to him and Pierre Geoltrain, the Arabic version has its origin in the Greek version and represents a degraded state of it . Étienne Nodet notices that « He was believed to be the Christ » implies that Josephus did not use the word Christ as a name but evoked the question of the messianity of Jesus (what returns, in a way, to the initial objection against the text of Eusebius) and also implies that his roman readers were aware of what it concerns.
I do not know enough English to add a text to the article. I hope that an other person that will have read the book of Serge Bardet will be able to do it. FF

Possible typo / mistake?

From 'Arguments against authenticity, Origen':

"The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate the earliest quotations of the Testimonium."

"In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews...The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum"

These statements are contradictory; Origen's work is descirbed as coming nearly 150 years after the Testimonium, so by definition could not predate it. If the sentance is meant to suggest that the events covered by Origen happened earlier than the events covered by Josephus or that Origen's source material predates Josephus' even tho it was written 150 years later or that Origen's work is the earliest to refer to the Testimonium then it should be changed to state this explicitly.

Also, I think there should be some reference to the fact that even if Josephus' account is not a forgery, it is still not a first hand independant eyewitness account of Jesus' life - I believe that the main source of conention of the hitoricity of Jesus is the lack of such accounts outside of the bible. A publication 60 years after an event that relies on only 2nd or 3rd hand information is obviously far more useful than one written 300 years after an event relying on word-of-mouth fokelore, but it is still not sufficiently conclusive for this debate. I think a short, passing mention of this should be made at some point in the article in order to frame the importance of the document & debate, since if people believe this is somehow a definitive document on 'proving' the existnce of a historical Jesus then partisan defense or attack of its authenticity is more likely to occur.

Mb667584 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Josephus wrote The Antiquities in 93. Origen wrote around 240. The earliest quotations of the Testimonium are found in the works of Eusebius who wrote later. Grover cleveland 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Damneus section

The material arguing that the Jesus who was brother of James may have been the same as Jesus the son of Damneus has been in this article for over a year and still has not a single reference. I'm deleting it as original research. Please reinsert if any proper references from reliable sources can be found. Thanks. Grover cleveland 14:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Very biased

This article is very biased.... there are plenty of references here that show that Josephus is a forgery: http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.27.177 (talk • contribs)

This article shows what is bad about a wikipedia in that it is more an opinion peace than informational It shows only one scoll of thought and sources for only that school. Biased beyond belief. 71.158.215.61 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased beyond belief more or less covers these two comments. I'm afraid ignorant amateur nonsense like Acharya S (the author of truthbeknown.com) is not what we need in Wikipedia. Roger Pearse 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

LOL, Nice one Roger Pearse - Attack the single female author rather than even attempt to address the well done arguments she makes. No, you're not a biased, bigoted Christian who's goal is to shore-up the faith at all costs at all, Roger (SARCASM). The fact remains that even if we consider all of Josephus's references to "Jesus" and "Christ" authentic it still fails as valid evidence for the biblical character Jesus in the bible. Corroborating evidence is inconsistent and therefore fails as valid historical value. It is inconclusive at best.

The question should be, why are Christians so reliant upon such a weak argument to prove an historical Jesus in the first place? Why not provide contemporary evidence for the over 20 scriptures in the bible that claim Jesus was famed far and wide? It's essentially an inadvertent admission that no contemporary evidence ever existed. So, thanks for that. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.230.18 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There are also many references that show that Jospehus is not a forgery: The famous passage in the first-century A.D. Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities VIII: 63-64) is authentic, but there are Christian interpolations in the extant Greek text. http://www.irr.org/yamauchi.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Yamauchi --Peterpressure (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the didatic style "the famous passage is authentic", as though there were no room for doubt. How about, for a start, Charles Guignebert (1956) and Ken Olsen (ca 2005), both scholars in NT and Universities (not religious training schools), both believe Jesus existed, but both believe the famous passage is an interpolation from start to finish. Sounds like room for doubt to me. E4mmacro (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What amazes me the most is that Wikipedia allows idiots like Doherty and Zindler here. Tahnk you Wikipedia. Maybe we should make a section in the evolution article were we list all arguments by Kent Hovind and try to explore their vericity in great detail. We could also list all arguments pro a flat earth or against the holocaust. What else is a popular topic by idiotic bloggers on the internet? "Obama is the Antichrist"? Let's list all coincidences with 666. Let's make a 100 page article that his birth certificate is a forgery. Let's list all Elvis-appearances, especially those who have a connection to the loch ness monster (I was told her true name is Frank!) or Bigfoot (allegedly Jimmy Hoffa after an experiment done by the government). Then we should put an article on the mainpage: "Evidence for people who breed with aliens! Must see! Satanic empire exposed! The bible code predicts the banana I had for breakfast!" Can't people just grow up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.102.236 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

First editions required

Hi folks, to accurately determine what Josephus did or did not write about Jesus (and James) in his writings, first editions of the relevant works are required (nothing less), not alleged "quotations" dating from literally centuries after the death of Josephus (in Origen, Eusebius, etc). Educated guesswork within the context of what could be religious propaganda could be completely redundant.Wfgh66 (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no truly ancient copy of Josephus has survived. As the article points out, the earliest surviving manuscripts of Josephus date from almost 1000 years after his death. We have to make the best out of what evidence is available -- but this is pretty normal in the field of ancient history. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Christianity was devoid of uniformity of belief during the first three centuries of its era, making the historicity of Jesus different, say, to the historicity of Plato. Interpolations are going to be found within the works dealing with the life of Jesus not necessarily found in the works dealing with the life of Plato.Wfgh66 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat irrelevant, for a few reasons: One, Josephus was Jewish, and never converted forcibly or otherwise. Propaganda implies a stake in the matter, and Josephus didn't have one. Also, define "uniformity" - Christianity isn't uniform now, much less centuries ago. Neither is Judaism, Islam, or any other religion, for that matter. Matters of belief differ between sects, but the beliefs are uniform within the sect, so you're not going to prove anything theologically revolutionary by casting doubts on historicity at this point. Nicaea was 225 years after Josephus, so you're not going to be able to dispute anything there that isn't already acknowledged. I'd also point out that the article relies on Whiston as its only stated translation as source, and Whiston is considered somewhat faulty by later editions such as the Penguin Jewish War. I do not have it handy at the moment, but the Loeb edition may be of some utility. If you're going to get down to minutiae, you might as well dispute anything Biblical; things change over time. however, if you're going to be skeptical of everything, you erode your foundations of argument. MSJapan (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my initial observation, only first editions of the works by Josephus will provide the answers to our questions. As for skepticism, that is an essential tool of the historical method.Wfgh66 (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

" . . . first editions of the works by Josephus . . ." None survive (even assuming that the very concept of "first editions" is applicable to pre-printing MS); are we therefore obliged to drop the questions? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the discussion must continue. Provenance must be addressed at the same time. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken statement about mss of Ant. 20.

The article contains the following curious statement:

According to William Benjamin Smith's Ecce Deus(William Benjamin Smith, Ecce Deus: Studies Of Primitive Christianity, Watts & Co., London, 1912, p. 235.), there are manuscripts which contain this passage, and there are also manuscripts which do not contain it, indicating that it might be an interpolation that took place before the time of Origen but did not succeed in supplanting the original text universally.

If the reference given truly says this -- the book doesn't seem to be a Josephus scholar's book -- then this seems to be a mistake, perhaps thinking of the TF and the manuscripts of the Jewish war. All the (few) manuscripts of that portion of Antiquities contain it, as a look at Niese shows. Roger Pearse 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. The book turns out to be a bit of amateurish atheist propaganda, published by the Rationalist press and available for download at http://www.archive.org/details/eccedeusstudieso00smitrich (so see for yourselves). P.235 is correct, but no reference is given for the statement; only a reference to Hilgenfeld, Einleitung p.526. The actual syntax of Smith's comments is confusing, and probably responsible for this -- is he perhaps referring to the presence of words *quoted by Origen* present or absent in the mss? The 'Einleitung' is online at http://books.google.com/books?id=V7ECAAAAQAAJ&dq=hilgenfeld+einleitung&jtp=526, and does refer to Ant. 20, and the suspicion of forgery in Christian mss. My German is not that great, but it does not seem to refer to the existence of manuscripts that do not contain the passage; only suggesting that, the manuscripts being Christian, it may be forged. So all this seems to be merely a mistake. Indeed if such manuscripts DID exist, it would be a serious argument against the authenticity of Ant. 20, which, as we see in the article, is in fact pretty generally considered genuine. Roger Pearse 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional External Link

I would like to propose adding the following discussion as an additional external link:

[3]

Please read and advise.

Mortalresurrection (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being added. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I'm afraid. It's a blog, so it fails WP:EL, and it's a blog intended as I read it to prove a particular hypothesis, that Jesus physically arose from the dead, in other words to push a particular POV. dougweller (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues

This article has numerous problems, least of all being that it is a very poorly written redaction. It contains a number of issues regarding original research or [[wp:verifiability}uncited claims]] and gives undue weight to the minority position. Undue weight being a good 80%+ of the article, while the position dominating discussion on the topic is given a few lines.--Ari (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vermes and Meier

I have restored text, cited to these authors, which had been removed on the basis that it "seems out of place". This is insufficient reason to delete references to the work of the most highly regarded scholar in the field (Vermes); as too that of a scholar who has a considerable reputation (Meier). Is it suggested that they should go elsewhere in the article (if so where?) or perhaps in a different article? TomHennell (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Josepus on Jesus

Having read Josephus some many years ago - I am quite concerned on Wikipedias version of what josephus is said to have said. There are two versions of Josephus's antiquities One is the real Josephus and One is a Christianised version. I wanted to download the internet version of Josephus and have found that you only support the Cristianised version - You are correct in saying what Josephus writes BUT the last half of Wikipedias Version means you have quoted from the Christianised Version of Josephus. I say this because I was looking through the Internet Version - looking for various passages to do with James which I read from a actual Josephus Antiquities book BUT could not find what I was looking for which I knew existed in the book I read - Then I realised the Internet version I was reading had become Christianised and was a Christianised Version. You need to find a NON CHRISTIANISED VERSION of JOSEPUS'S ANTIQUITIES so that Wikipedia is on tract to the Truth of Josephus - Josephus does say whether it be right to call him a man - BUT the rest is just not correct. I am not a Christian or ANTI Christian or ANTI Religious - please please please for the sake of true history please find yourself an original Josephus's Antiquities version then I for one can further my own research. All the best for Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utnapishtimandnoah (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has the original version of The Antiquities. It is long since lost, and all we have are fairly late (and probably "Christianised") copies. Nobody knows for sure what Josephus wrote, and that is pretty much the whole point of the article. --Zundark (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

A POV tag has been added to this article. It would be very helpful if the originators of the tag would explain their reasons for doing so here, so that the issue may be resolved by mutual discussion. The point is to ensure that the full range of mainstream published scholarly opinion is reflected. Since such opinions nowadays tend towards partial autheticity, such a balance ought to be reflected in the article itself; but not without giving due attention to minority views TomHennell (talk)

See the comment by Zundark above (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

Zundark has not tagged the article, and I see nothing in the comment you refer to that suggests that he would. But he can make his own arguments one way or the other. What is your view, and what arguments do you put forwards to support it? TomHennell (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The only POV issue I see here is that too much space is given on the arguments (read: advocacy) against authenticity, especially noting that it is the minority position. To slap on a POV tag with "article biased towards authenticity of passages found in Josephus" in the edit summary doesn't cut it. Do you have scholarly sources stating that the mainstream opinion is contrary to that presented? --Ari (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see that the mainstream scholarly position is biased in such a way towards authenticity that it resembles dogmatic belief no way fashioned by the evidence. --Lung Salad (talk)

Wikipedia is here to summarise current published scholarship - not to counterbalance supposed bias or imblance. TomHennell (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Published scholarship has also deemed the references to Jesus and James found in Josephus as Christian interpolations. You forgot to add that. The earliest manuscripts of Josephus only date from the 1Oth century AD and the earliest testimony to the reference of Jesus in Josephus only dates from Eusebius during the fourth century. Not very good evidence for Josephus being a worthy testimony to the existence of Christianity. And where are the references in this Wikipedia article to the Slavonic Josephus that is universally acclaimed as having Christian interpolations, that can be used as evidence that Christians tampered with the texts of Josephus? --Lung Salad (talk)

And that published scholarship, although the minority voice, is in this article. You seem quite confused but here is a hint: Wikipedia is not intended to reflect the personal opinions of editors. Now that we have got that out of the way... --Ari (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact - not "opinion" - remains that the majority view cannot be justified from the existing evidence. For example it's majority view that the Gospels were written during the first century AD despite the fact that no extant Gospel fragment dates from the first century AD and no Christian from the first century AD ever mentioned the Gospels. The existence of Gospels was first mentioned by Justyn Martyr during the early 2nd century AD. No personal opinions referred to here. Only the facts, and how majority views are so divorced from the facts. The title of this Wikipedia article is "Josephus on Jesus" and reference to the Slavonic Josephus is suppressed from it in the same way that it is suppressed from that majority view that argues the authenticity of the passages in Josephus relating to Jesus Christ, because that would cast immediate doubt. So biased opinion goes hand in hand with the majority view. --Lung Salad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC).