I thought this discussion was over . . . done . . . the decree was issued. It was never a discussion; it was a pontification (if I may coin a word). Instead of an online forum, perhaps he should just be posting on the great pan-psychic network. (Perhaps he was already banned from there too . . . or perhaps I have been banned from there.)
Steve Campbell, Author and Publisher of Historical Accuracy
If there is no full interpolation, the outrage/sad calamity is Christian dogma and creed.
If there is full interpolation, the outrage/sad calamity is the riot brought about by Pilate.
Furthermore, not only Passage I is an interpolation, why would Paulina being being exploited for sex and Fulvia being exploited for money be an outrage/sad calamity for Jews?
Answer: because Jews did not want their reputation tarnished by exploitative evangelism
It was bad enough Rome was already annoyed by so may Romans converting to Judaism.
Antiquities
About this time, another sad calamity/outrage
Footnote d
AD 19, not AD 30 with the biblical Jesus
So, reject Josephus’s dating. Although rejecting Josephus’s AD30, this year, “this date” was prompted by the danger Jews were in due to Sejanus’ opposition to them.
Steve Campbell, Author and Publisher of Historical Accuracy
Yes, so this gives the Biblical Jesus’s opponents extraordinary reason to be on edge about stirring up trouble with Rome–and Jesus conspicuously turns over tables in the Temple. Even if he did not, he was talking up a rival kingdom, albeit not of this world, but was of this world before he got caught.
Footnote f
C. Pharr says Passage II is influenced by Nectanebus II deceiving Olympias that he was Zeus Ammon to father Alexander the Great.
Passage III (Paul Figure exploiting Fulvia), Footnote a
On the Jewish zeal for proselytism in Rome, see most notably
Horace, Sat. i.4 142
and
Tacitus Hist. v.5.
Jews banished from Italy in AD19
Steve Campbell, Author and Publisher of Historical Accuracy
Continuation of a dating problem
Josephus bringing up an item from AD19 that was supposed to be “about that time” of Pilate and Jesus.
= = =
Passage I – Jesus/Christian dogma/creed
Passage II – Jesus/Christian dogma/creed continued with Biblical Jesus sacrificed himself = Decius Mus sacrificed himself /Decius Mundus sacrificed himself for the world
Passage III Paul Figure exploiting Fulvia as a reference to Jewish proselytism
It is presumably relevant to Burton scholars, of which there must be at least one or two.
Actually I was referring to its relevance to this here forum where presumably we err the further we stray from New Testament themes. One of those Burton scholars, Mary Ann Lund, has recently published a very entertaining “** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Poe’s Eureka is very popular these days in Poe scholarship circles, mostly for reasons that elude me.
Not to be cynical but isn’t the rest of Poe’s landscape fairly well trodden?
Mostly, I suspect it is because it has been relatively neglected, and because so much can be read into it (which may seem pointless but allows one to publish and add things to the ole vita).
My opinion is that Poe was “singing in the shower” if you take my meaning.
Much like the Bible, most of Poe’s writings are well trodden . . . and yet people are still taking about them, although for different reasons. (On the other hand, how many people are talking about Poe’s “Why the Little Frenchman Wears His Arm in a Sling”?) . . . but we have perhaps digressed as much as this thread can stand.
Robert claims The Jewish Affairs, the second passage after the Testimonium Flavianum is not Paul from the New Testament.
The TF is about Jesus.
The fist passage after the TF is about a person who sacrificed his life to save others and Josephus changes his actual last name to mundus to make the person one who sacrificed his life for the world: again a claim about Jesus.
The second passage after the TF is still about Christianity. SO, although Robert claims Josephus could be writing about any Jew who ran to Rome because he was chased out of Jerusalem, that person would have to be connected to Christianity and that person is Paul.
That is reading comprehension 101. not even college Freshman, Literature 101, or high school. That could be 4th or 5th grade reading level.
There isn’t an argument here, it’s tutoring elementary school intelligence.
Robert
If this were true, Steefen, then certainly all Josephus scholars, having achieved much greater than 4th- or 5th-grade reading proficiency, would endorse this allegorical reading of Josephus, but in fact almost none do, as we’ve discussed before.
Steefen
Not as we’ve discussed before.
Those who do or do not have written what about the first and second passages after the TF?
What is the best piece of writing you’ve put forward?
I would like to read the best piece of writing explaining the meaning behind the first and second passages after the TF.
I’d consider it for my second edition.
I’d consider sharing it with Joseph Atwill.
You can share something Bart wrote.
Finish this once and for all.
The allegorical reading will have value but your expansion make sure it does not stand unopposed may or may not be an enhancement.
You cannot tell us the interpretations ny Schwartz. He didn’t make an impact on this topic for you but you are opposing Atwill’s view and how I improved Atwill’s interpretation.
You haven’t laid out the importance of Schwartz input or its contents, SO, that discussion is non-existent. You have nothing to overturn the Atwilll-Campbell reading.
You propose something may or may not be there? That is lazy and doesn’t pass muster.
Robert
Gasparini does not cite anyone but readily admits that “very few scholars [] have viewed the Jewish and Isiac episodes in conjunction with the” Testimonium Flavianum “(and vice versa).”
Steefen
We already know this about The Temple of Isis passage followed by The Jewish Affairs passages.
Robert
note Robert Price’s criticism: “Atwill hypothesizes that the Flavian jokesters were compiling the gospels-plus-Josephus as a kind of intelligence test
Steefen
Paul appears in the Pauline Letters and Acts. Given the dating of Acts and the general nature of Price’s comment, this is unimportant.
…the very recent commentary by Daniel R. Schwartz: Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 8: Judean Antiquities, Books 18-20. It’s very expensive…
Yeah boy. Published of course by [The “B” word]. May they be unable to chain bears*.
Apparently Schwartz takes the current mainstream view that the TF is a Christian edit of an authentic Josephusian passage.
Interestingly another new interpretation is coming out soon which claims that the TF is almost entirely authentically Josephusian!
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by T C Schmidt
I was prepared to dismiss this work as a fundamentalist screed but it is being published by Oxford Univ Press and is from a genuine scholar in the field.
*This is one of my favorite ancient curses, from Sumer.
Robert
it’s “very recent” commentary (came out late last year with a copyright of 2025), “expensive” ($195), and “I do not yet have access” to it.
Steefen
And no one reviewed it or interviewed him about it?
No pre-publication articles?
= = = = =
Josephus liked to organize material in three-part structures, which imparted a sense of completion by indicating to readers that an end had been reached. – Daniel R. Schwartz
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Well Schwartz agrees with Atwill: Josephus liked to organize material in three-part structure.
The TF is NO exception.
The TF gets most of the scholarly bandwidth but I’ve always been much more interested in the reference to James in Antiquities Book 20. This seems to me to be the sort of historical kernel that scholars live on. An illuminating but disinterested, dispassionate reference. And the Olympic gymnastic level question-begging cartwheels mythicists have to go through to try to undermine its historicity is right up there with fundamentalist attempts to reconcile the two Nativity stories.
Robert:
I have no problem seeing them in conjunction with each other, but not in an allegorical fashion.
Steefen:
TF – allegory, a story because of the fictional nature of the Jesus narrative
The Temple of Isis – allegory, a story because it is not actual history
The Jewish Affairs – allegory because it mirrors The Temple of Isis passage
What? These passages are in conjunction but not in an allegorical fashion? Then how?
Joseph Atwill knows part of the Temple of Isis passage is fictional.
A mirror of an allegory is an allegory.
I have to leave in less than four weeks due to having learned enough about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in light of the second edition of Historical Accuracy. I have learned enough to be satisfied with the second edition of Historical Accuracy. Maybe I will return for a month or return in July 2026. I will not be reversing more than 50% of my conclusions in Historical Accuracy; so, judgement is for the conclusions I reached after working on my writings for 17+ years.
I barely can do justice in expressing how the Gospel of John has corrupted Christianity.
Continuing to study Christianity out of obligation or nostalgia would corrupt me. Christianity is one thing I will not follow into corruption.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)