charlarley

Feldman, L (2012) ‘On the authenticity of the “Testimonium Flavianum” attributed to Josephus’, in: E. Carlebach and J. Schacter (ed), New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations, Brill; 13-30

“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.” (p. 28)

** you do not have permission to see this link ** r/ AcademicBiblical/comments/7ot6s6/xpost_early_sources_of_christianity/
[after copying the above to a URL field, remove the space before r/

Steefen

Yes but Eusebius did not understand how Josephus, in effect, trouble-shooted any tampering with Passage I, by criticizing Jesus in Passage II and Paul and Pauline Christianity in Passage III.

Robert said
I did say you needed that view, but it is certainly part of your argument. Do I need to quote you back to yourself?

  

It is not needed: your criticism is superfluous.

Robert said

Steefen said

charlarkey quoting Feldman

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.

Steefen

If Eusebius tampered with Passage I (the TF), Josephus’s criticism still stands when reading Passage II and Passage III.

Feldman does not make a persuasive case against Passage I being Josephus’s awareness of the historical fiction of Paul and the gospel authors. Josephus was not writing a historical account about Jesus and Pilate ! Josephus was writing an about the story line invented to exploit Roman women for sex and money.

Steefen, you have not even read Feldman’s book chapter, yet you’ve already decided he is not persuasive. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

  

Just because you are ignoring post 339, people who are taking this discussion seriously are not ignoring post 339.

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus / Gary J. Goldberg:

In short, the argument put forward by Prof. Feldman is interesting but unconvincing.

Just because you are ignoring Ehrman, Mason, and Goldberg do not agree with you and judgement has been rendered, I, for one, am not ignoring the discussion is over because the case has been decided. Write your letters to Ehrman and Mason. Let us know if they are convinced. Ehrman would at least write a post or in an interview mention he is convinced. Mason would at least do the same (if not come out with a new edition of his book).

Robert
You are completely wrong to imagine that I have disagreed with Ehrman and Mason.

Steefen
Ehrman and Mason have not agreed with the Feldman conclusion, and everyone knows that.
Everyone following this discussion knows that: stop gaslighting and using stall tactics to avoid addressing Passage #2 and Passage #3.

If anyone other than Robert has a fair question or comment, please post.

This discussion has run its course. Read the TF/Passage #1, read Passage #2 and know who Decius Mus (the father) and who Decius Mus (the son) were, and read Passage #3.

I might look at:

Sculpting Idolatry in Flavian Rome by Jason von Ehrenkrook

Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. (Katherine) Bond

First Converts: Rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity by Shelly Matthews

Year 1: a Philosophical Recounting by Susan Buck-Morss

(The above items do not jump ahead of an already long reading list and they certainly do not jump ahead of the publication of my upcoming book in another field.)

Robert
I agree on essentials with Mason, Ehrman & Feldman (perhaps a little less so with Feldman) …

Steefen
You agree perhaps a little less with Feldman.
Feldman is perhaps less convincing than Mason and Ehrman.
Gary Goldberg who did understand Feldman’s position very well concluded: it was unconvincing.

So, Feldman’s contribution is not going to move the needle.

As to Josephus originating Passage I (the TF) and having written something about the biblical Jesus, the needle is not moving.

Apparently, your writing skills or less than the writing skills of Goldberg who can get an A on his paper: “Relaying Feldman’s Argument and Is It Convincing.”

But you cannot write that paper. You have more than a bachelor’s degree, more than a high school diploma, and cannot relay a scholar’s argument. You developmental plan: improve reading comprehension skills, improve writing, reporting, tutoring, teaching, presentation, advisory skills and be able to reach conclusions as opposed to being wishy washy. Perhaps Feldman has something critical to say about the TF that is agreeable; but, Robert cannot think it through to a conclusion for recommendation.