5 questions on josephus

[Net2004]

Greetings people



In regards to Josephus:

1. When were his words changed, and what evidence can you provide to prove it conclusively?

2. Who changed his words, and what evidence can you provide to prove it conclusively?

3. What eye-witnesses do you have to support that his words where changed?

4. Where did the alleged change of Jospehus words take place?

5. What historical records can you provide that prove his words were changed?

If there are articles dealing with these question then i would appreciate it if you could provide a link for them articl. I don't know much about josephus but i do remember reading that christians reinterpreted josephuses account to support the ressurection narratives in the nt.

[Vorkosigan]

Go to here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html) and read the online articles relating to the TF, particularly the historical review by Alice Wheatley, the article by Doherty, the article by Ken Olsen, and the article by Kirby.

Vorkosigan

[TerryDucDaul]

Hello Vorkosigan,

Can you summarize any of this here? It would be good to know in case anyone may want to pursue this further. Also, do you know of any other sources or references which may help? Thank you in advance.

Terry

[Toto]

Hello Vorkosigan,

Can you summarize any of this here? It would be good to know in case anyone may want to pursue this further. Also, do you know of any other sources or references which may help? Thank you in advance.

Terry

TerryDucDaul:

This forum is for people who take at least a semi-scholarly interest in the subject, and are willing to do some reading on their own.

The really short summary: references to Jesus in Josephus are embedded in Christian forgeries, as demonstrated by the language used.

For more, go to that link and read.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm going to say first of all that these questions are mostly red herrings in that they are mostly asking about aspects that have nothing to do with proving the TF was interpolated.

Now I'll take them one by one:

1. When were his words changed, and what evidence can you provide to prove it conclusively?
We don't know when exactly the interpolations were made and it doesn't matter at all to the case for forgery.
2. Who changed his words, and what evidence can you provide to prove it conclusively?
Christian forgers inserted the interpolations. We know they were Christians because of the content. This is a case of Res ipsa loquitor.

If you're asking for the precise identity of the forger, we don't know and it doesn't matter. If you see a moustache on the Mona Lisa you don't have to know the name of the person who did it in order to know that it's not original to the painting.
3. What eye-witnesses do you have to support that his words where changed?
None are required. The determination is made by content and context, not by eyewitnesses. I'll go back to the Mona Lisa analogy. You don't need an eyewitness to tell you that someone besides the artist put a moustache on it.
4. Where did the alleged change of Jospehus words take place?
Probably Rome, but again, it's not relevant.
5. What historical records can you provide that prove his words were changed?
if you're asking for some sort of contemporaneous documentation that the TF was interpolated there isn't any but, again, it's irrelevant. No documentation is required in order to prove forgery.

Having said that, there does exist an implication of forgery in the words of Origen who said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Since the TF has Josephus claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, then this would constitute some documentary evidence that the TF was not genuine.

Please be advised, though, that Origen is by no means the reason that the TF is almost universally regarded as being at least partially forged. It's just an incidental point.

[andrewcriddle]

Having said that, there does exist an implication of forgery in the words of Eusebius who said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Since the TF has Josephus claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, then this would constitute some documentary evidence that the TF was not genuine.

Please be advised, though, that Eusebius is by no means the reason that the TF is almost universally regarded as being at least partially forged. It's just an incidental point.

By Eusebius do you mean Origen ?

Andrew Criddle

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By Eusebius do you mean Origen ?

Andrew Criddle
Origen, yes of course. :banghead: I meant Origen.

Thank you.

[Atheos]

:huh: Wondering if the OP may have been a drive-by. The wording of the questions had that "attorney looking to cast a shadow of doubt in the minds of the jury" tone to it. No matter. Absent the obvious "smoking gun" of an autograph copy of Josephus's antiquities or a demonstrably earlier copy that didn't include the forgeries we'll likely never see what anyone would call "conclusive proof".

But the two instances do stick out. They are out of character with their contexts when you look at it objectively. The first one is as obvious as Diogenes's proverbial "moustache on the Mona Lisa". Even most of the apologists concede that it's a forgery. The other is certainly more subtil, much more consistent with someone wanting it to appear objective, but still smells quite fishy. Other evidence suggests that Josephus would have been quite interested in a "Christ". The cavalier way he ostensibly mentions a man many believed to be the Christ strains the bounds of credulity.

Of course I'm just parroting what I've read about it. But IMO the forgery theory sure makes a lot of sense.

-Atheos