Robert said
Steefen said
In my book, I am using
Regarding Punctuation
“… a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer…” as opposed to:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. [new sentence] For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.”
Good! I’m glad to see you are taking my advice on this point at least.
I am NOT taking your advice. The Whiston edition of the Works of Josephus has been in my library before there was an ehrmanblog site.
Robert said
Regarding the Term “lawful”
Second, I can see that Meagan Freeze is not using “if it be lawful to call him a man” but is using “if really it is right to call him a man.”
Meagan in the Latin to English is using the new sentence translation:
“a wise man, if really it is right to call him a man. [new sentence] He was the doer of miraculous works.”
So, in the second edition of my book, I can explain “if it be lawful” is one translation, “if really it is right” is another translation.
More importantly, Feldman, who unlike Freeze is translating directly from the Greek, also does not use ‘lawful’. The Greek itself does not relate to legal aspects of citizenship. Any conclusions assuming that it does are simply misguided.
It would also be best for you to contrast the opinion of Gasparini with that of Louis Feldman on the authenticity of the Testimonium. I see you are still avoiding that fundamentally important issue.
I am not avoiding what you mistakenly think is a fundamentally important issue that is still open.
I have consulted Eusebius. I have studied Josephus and the New Testament by Steve Mason.
I have read Dr. Ehrman’s post including his answers to questions at this post:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Ehrman says it is wrong to take the extreme view that the entirety of Passage #1 (the TF) was not by Josephus.
Dr. Mason did not conclude the entirety of Passage #1 (the TF) was not by Josephus.
Mason and Ehrman are in the bibliography of my book, and I do not disagree with the reasons these critical, academic scholars gave for the position that Josephus did author the TF passage in some form.
By no stretch of the imagination are your untruths about me avoiding the nature of the TF Passage #1 valid. And you should be ignored with your erroneous accusations. Of course, I’m not going to re-invent the wheel when I have already have the testimonies of Prof. Mason and Prof. Ehrman. Who are you to ignore my labor, the labor of Mason, the labor of Ehrman–insisting in 100% falsehood that, what did you say? This is what you said
Robert
None of this can be done if you do not take a clear position on whether or not Josephus wrote all or part or none of the Testamonium. Why do you refuse to answer questions about this?
I am not circling back on settled questions for you. If you have a fight with Mason and Ehrman, leave me out of it. Do you understand?
Steefen said
Robert said
Steefen said
In my book, I am using
Regarding Punctuation
“… a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer…” as opposed to:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. [new sentence] For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.”
Good! I’m glad to see you are taking my advice on this point at least.
I am NOT taking your advice. The Whiston edition of the Works of Josephus has been in my library before there was an ehrmanblog site.
Ehrman uses:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. [New Sentence!] For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure.
So much for your fake two cents, Robert.
…you are evading, stalling, spoon feeding, and gaslighting.
I’ve seen the word gaslighting come up in several places recently on online media. Is this a new buzzword?
Steefen how would you tell the difference between someone gaslighting you and someone attempting to penetrate a morass of delusions to bring you back to reality? Perhaps you should view Robert’s posts as interventions.
Remember only the madman is sure.
Steefen said
Steefen said
Robert said
Steefen said
In my book, I am using
Regarding Punctuation
“… a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer…” as opposed to:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. [new sentence] For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.”
Good! I’m glad to see you are taking my advice on this point at least.
I am NOT taking your advice. The Whiston edition of the Works of Josephus has been in my library before there was an ehrmanblog site.
Ehrman uses:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. [New Sentence!] For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure.
So much for your fake two cents, Robert.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Loeb Classical Library
Josephus, Volume XII
Jewish Antiquities: Books XVIII-XIX
Translated by Louis H. Feldman
Book XVIII, Line 63, p. 49
uses:
About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. [Period, end of sentence.]
From the footnote: …the vocabulary and style are basically Josephan … our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote.
Regarding Passage III (Paul figure and Fulvia exploited), the Jews were converting so many Romans to their faith.
In Passage III (Paul figure and Fulvia exploited) Fulvia was an exploited convert. Paul was exploiting people with his
Christian Theology (another Jew converting Romans to either Judaism or as Ehrman suggested in his Great Courses class, Judaism Lite/Pauline Christianity–another sad calamity: another outrage threw the Jews into an uproar (in Loeb Classical Library) as the victims of exploitation Fulvia and Paulina mirror each other, one exploited by a Jesus-figure for sex, another exploited by a Paul figure for money.
Anyway, Passage I about Jesus was an outrage. Josephus has reservations there was an historical Jesus–if indeed one ought to call him a man.
That statement by Josephs casts shade on historical Jesus studies.
I have to say even as a non-believer it is hard to get worked up over Josephus. Even if it is at least partially authentic all it proves is that by end of the first century Josephus was aware of a movement and the stories told about it’s founder. Seems so utterly uncontroversial I have to wonder why the mythicists get so worked up about it. But there is another issue I find interesting.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Seems to me if the the passage was interpolated it must have been done multiple times not just once. First take out the direct assertions which were obviously added by a believer.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
You’re still left with a half-assed affirmation that seems odd in a committed Christian but a bit much for someone like Josephus.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
I am probably not qualified to have an opinion so let me couch this as questions. If this passage was a complete interpolation created by a committed Christian how do you explain the half-assed affirmations? Does anyone but me detect more than two voices here? If so, how can we reconcile that with it being a complete interpolation?
Robert said
Steefen said
Loeb Classical Library
Josephus, Volume XII
Jewish Antiquities: Books XVIII-XIX
Translated by Louis H. Feldman
Book XVIII, Line 63, p. 49
uses:
About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. [Period, end of sentence.]
Steefen, you are still arguing about punctuation in an English translation of an dependent γὰρ clause in a Greek text. Translations will not help you here. If you ever want to engage in scholarly discussions, let alone with your exaggerated pretensions of authority, mastery of Greek is one of the most basic of prerequisites.
From the footnote: …the vocabulary and style are basically Josephan … our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote.
You really must read Feldman’s later discussion: Louis H. Feldman, “On the authenticity of the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ attributed to Josephus,” in: E. Carlebach and J. Schacter (ed), New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations, Brill, 2012, 13-30.
He basically shocked some scholars (Bart included) by casting serious doubt upon the authenticity of the Testimonium and endorsing the idea that Eusebius had written it. See, for example, his conclusion:
In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.
As for Feldman’s earlier brief remark that “the vocabulary and style are basically Josephan,” see pp 20-26 of Feldman’s later book chapter. Even more detailed analyses of the language of the Testimonium have been done since this book chapter of Feldman. I don’t suppose you would like to read any of those–they do not support your case.
Anyway, Passage I about Jesus was an outrage. Josephus has reservations there was an historical Jesus–if indeed one ought to call him a man.
That statement by Josephs casts shade on historical Jesus studies.
Actually, that phrase casts shade on your view that the Testimonium is authentic in its entirety (if that is still your view) contrary to the vast majority of scholars, but I will be content to cite only Feldman here:
“‘If, indeed, one ought to call him a man’ would seem to be a Christian interpolation, since it presupposes that Jesus was divine” (p 22).
I am going with Steve Mason and Bart Ehrman who 1) have engaged in scholarly discussions 2) probably have read your Feldman discussions, 3) do not have exaggerated pretensions of authority, and 4) I know Bart has mastery of Greek. Again, I am going with Mason and Ehrman not with you.
Stephen
I have to say even as a non-believer it is hard to get worked up over Josephus. Even if it is at least partially authentic all it proves is that by end of the first century Josephus was aware of a movement and the stories told about it’s founder.
Steefen
Exactly. But Robert and Feldman refuse to admit that?
Josephus knew the basic story line of Jesus in Passage I. In Passage 2, he knew Jesus was a son of a god who was sacrificed. In Passage 3, Josephus was aware of Paul and the problems Paul had in Judaea which caused him to go to Rome.
Mark 8:31
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:31
* * * Interruption * * *
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Mt 16:28
Jewish Apocalypse by Jewish apocalyptic false prophet
1. repent and get baptized be prepared for the tribulation, judgement and kingdom
2. Tribulation
3. Judgement
4. Glorious kingdom with the Son of Man
1. Jesus said the Tribulation Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies – that’s the Jewish Civil War and the Jewish Revolt
2. Jesus said the Glorious king with the Son of Man would be seen by some living in 30 CE
So, no, that prophecy was time-limited . The Tribulation happened before 73 CE and the Glorious kingdom with the Son of Man was prophesied to happen before 73 CE.
* * * End of Interruption * * *
Stephen said
There is another issue I find interesting.About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Seems to me if the the passage was interpolated it must have been done multiple times not just once. First take out the direct assertions which were obviously added by a believer.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.
He was the Christ.And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.You’re still left with a half-assed affirmation that seems odd in a committed Christian but a bit much for someone like Josephus.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.
He was the Christ.And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.I am probably not qualified to have an opinion so let me couch this as questions. If this passage was a complete interpolation created by a committed Christian how do you explain the half-assed affirmations? Does anyone but me detect more than two voices here? If so, how can we reconcile that with it being a complete interpolation?
Does one honestly believe Josephus did not get wind of Paul, Paul’s theology, the gospel authors, and that the former Roman generals of the First Jewish-Roman War had issues with Jesus of Galilee, John, and Simon–all rebel leaders? Simon turned to the Roman Generals of the Jewish Revolt and asked what will happen to John, the one you loved (the one you had sympathy for)? Roman Generals: he will live but you will be led where you do not want to go: you will be in our Triumph procession.
Josephus’s Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum
In: ** you do not have permission to see this link **