₦airaland Forum

Richirich713:
This assumes that the passage was inserted to mislead, which I disagree with. It also doesn't change the fact that ancient writer's commonly digressed from their main points, so appealing to the flow of narrative as an argument is not valid -which was the point I was making earlier

Again we are essentially saying the same things but for different reasons. Agreed, the appeal to the flow of the narrative is in itself a red-herring, however the Testimonium as provided in the writings of Eusebius undoubtedly contained an insertion, that insertion served only to mislead readers, I see no other reasonable explanation for it.

Richirich713:
A broad consensus cannot just be brush aside so easily just because we cannot be 100% certain. One should always seriously considered what the vast majority of experts in a certain field have to say.

A broad consensus is just that and nothing else. It won’t be the first or the last time for that matter that a bunch of so-called experts will get it spectacularly wrong.

In that case, your argument supports the fact that secular sources mentioned Jesus, which supports the fact of his existence (especially if we take it into account the other evidence of Jesus existence). Unless of course one just assumes Josephus probably originally said Jesus never existed - at that point I can't really take the argument seriously.

Of course Jesus existed, but the mere fact of a mention by a secular source does not in itself confirm the existence of Jesus. My point is that you cannot draw that conclusion from Josephus’ writings as it stands, there are two fatal flaws. In the first instance the accounts are anecdotal and not an eyewitness account and in the second instance the accounts themselves have been further corrupted by interpolations.

I disagree, if christians wanted to counter his views they could have painted Jesus much better than the passage does and we also have to remember that the writing style is consistent with Josephus and it contains phrases and words that Christians would have most likely not have used.

But evidently the christian copyists painted Jesus in a much better light than whatever was contained in Josephus' original writings. Consider that Josephus was nothing if not meticulous. If as suspected Josephus gave a contemporary historical account of Jesus from the Roman point of view wherein Jesus was considered a brigand, and a trouble-maker, that would explain the statement of Origen. In other words Josephus mentioned Jesus in the context as he was known on the day and not two hundred years later after having being deified by church leaders.

The writing style counts for nothing. Christian copyists had two hundred years to write whatever caught their fancy

Sarassin:
Again we are essentially saying the same things but for different reasons. Agreed, the appeal to the flow of the narrative is in itself a red-herring, however the Testimonium as provided in the writings of Eusebius undoubtedly contained an insertion, that insertion served only to mislead readers, I see no other reasonable explanation for it.

A completely reasonable explanation is that certain words and phrases were inadvertently added based on marginal notes by a Christian scribe, something not uncommon in textual transmission.

Sarassin:
A broad consensus is just that and nothing else. It won’t be the first or the last time for that matter that a bunch of so-called experts will get it spectacularly wrong.

The onus is on u to demonstrate that a bunch of experts got it wrong.

Sarassin:
Of course Jesus existed, but the mere fact of a mention by a secular source does not in itself confirm the existence of Jesus.

I'm not arguing that by itself proves Jesus existed, I would argue that Josephus plus other secular and biblical sources demonstrate quite easily that Jesus existence is a historical fact.

Sarassin:
My point is that you cannot draw that conclusion from Josephus’ writings as it stands, there are two fatal flaws. In the first instance the accounts are anecdotal and not an eyewitness account and in the second instance the accounts themselves have been further corrupted by interpolations.

Again I disagree, the Testamentum Flavianum definitely has interpolations, but the other mention of Jesus by Josephus has none.

Sarassin:
But evidently the christian copyists painted Jesus in a much better light than whatever was contained in Josephus' original writings. Consider that Josephus was nothing if not meticulous. If as suspected Josephus gave a contemporary historical account of Jesus from the Roman point of view wherein Jesus was considered a brigand, and a trouble-maker, that would explain the statement of Origen. In other words Josephus mentioned Jesus in the context as he was known on the day and not two hundred years later after having being deified by church leaders.

I don't necessary have a problem with your view, as I said it can be used to support Christ existence and death - which is what most people do when they used this passage. I just don't think it's correct.

Sarassin:
The writing style counts for nothing. Christian copyists had two hundred years to write whatever caught their fancy.

Completely disagree, the stylistic/linguistic features of a text is always taken into account when dealing with textual criticism. If the writing style is consistent with Josephus it makes perfect sense to accept that he wrote it than to assume that christians forged it so well. If they were such good forgers and they had ~ 200 years to write whatever caught their fancy, they surely would have remove all the obvious interpolations and would have made it agree with church father Origen regarding Josephus view on Jesus being the christ and make it corroborate with Josephus other passage on Jesus.

Richirich713:
A completely reasonable explanation is that certain words and phrases were inadvertently added based on marginal notes by a Christian scribe, something not uncommon in textual transmission.

I am familiar with Dr. Ehrman’s writings. Alterations and changes were always “inadvertently” made by copyists in transcribing the Christian scriptures. These “inadvertent” words and changes always seemed to corrupt the texts in favour of the copyists bias. And yes, it was not uncommon.

I'm not arguing that by itself proves Jesus existed, I would argue that Josephus plus other secular and biblical sources demonstrate quite easily that Jesus existence is a historical fact.

I don’t agree. There is not one secular historical source as a standalone that confirms the existence of Jesus as a historical fact. At most we can only draw debatable inferences.

Again I disagree, the Testamentum Flavianum definitely has interpolations, but the other mention of Jesus by Josephus has none.

Josephus' account of the death of James is to some degree corroborated by the historian Hegesippus and more reliable. The words employed "the one called Christ" is deemed an "inadvertent "interpolation. It is believed the original reference by Josephus was to James, a brother of Jesus, son of Damnaeus who was to become High Priest.

Completely disagree, the stylistic/linguistic features of a text is always taken into account when dealing with textual criticism. If the writing style is consistent with Josephus it makes perfect sense to accept that he wrote it than to assume that christians forged it so well

Unlike some biblical texts which could be compared against earlier documents i.e the dead sea scrolls and Bodmer Papyri for accuracy, textual styles and comparisons, none of Josephus original writings exist therefore we cannot make a meaningful comparison of writing styles when we have only the christian copyists texts to examine.

If they were such good forgers and they had ~ 200 years to write whatever caught their fancy, they surely would have remove all the obvious interpolations and would have made it agree with church father Origen regarding Josephus view on Jesus being the christ and make it corroborate with Josephus other passage on Jesus.

That is exactly what they set out to do. One passage was set out to buttress the other. The argument is now about which accounts are authentic, in the meantime we lose sight of the fact that the copyists re-wrote the entire book!

@Sarassin

Again we disagreeing about most things, but looking at the discussion I consider most of our disagreements irrelevant, since all I'm interested is if Josephus did mention Jesus. Since we agreed on that, I found it unnecessary to go back and forth regarding what the original text said exactly.

Richirich713:
It was common for ancient writer's to insert passages that interrupted the flow of their narratives. As professor of history E. Mary Smallwood points out:

"One feature of Josephus' writing which may be disconcerting to the modern reader and appear inartistic is the way in which at times the narrative is proceeding at a spanking pace when it is unceremoniously cut short by a paragraph or a longer passage of material unrelated or only marginally related to the subject in hand, and then resumed equally abruptly. Basically, these interruptions are of two types, with different reasons behind them, and it may therefore be helpful if a word is said here about the conventions of ancient historiography, which differed considerably from ours. One type of interruption, such as a sudden move to another theatre of war, occurs because ancient historians usually wrote annalistically---literally, by years ... A quite different explanation lies behind other interruptions to the flow of the narrative. The ancient world never invented those useful lay-bys in which the modern author can park essential but intractable material, and thus avoid breaking the main thread of his argument, the footnote and the appendix ... what we relegate to notes and appendixes appeared as digressions." G.A. Williamson translation, Josephus, "The Jewish Wars". Revised with introduction by E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books 1981, pp20-21

This is a ridiculous rationalization based on choice-supportive bias.

Now it's appendix and notes abi?

Do you even understand what appendix and footnotes are for?
Abeg i no get time for this one...

4kings:
This is a ridiculous rationalization based on choice-supportive bias.

You the one who's bias here my friend, If i gave u several academical sources written by non-christians making this point yet u will still denial it.

4kings:
Now it's appendix and notes abi?
Do you even understand what appendix and footnotes are for?
Abeg i no get time for this one...

Deal with the main point, I don't have time for word games since I've seen ur dishonestly in spinning stuff when u tried to force Josephus to say something he never did . Her main point was this was common in Josephus writings, it is also known to be common in the ancient world, another point made by several historians.

Richirich713:
You the one who's bias here my friend, If i gave u several academical sources written by non-christians making this point yet u will still denial it.

"several academic sources" really?
So you were even copying and pasting, i thought it was just the last post, smh.

Well i don't need a title, position or an authority to make my point for me, i make deductions from things i've read, so does your sources.

Deal with the main point, I don't have time for word games since I've seen ur dishonestly in spinning stuff when u tried to force Josephus to say something he never did .

How did i do this?
All assertions i've made so far are from Josephus writing, so where is this coming from?
Are you not the one trying interprete the words in another manner?

Her main point was this was common in Josephus writings, it is also known to be common in the ancient world, another point made by several historians.

In what ancient world?
Is the bible not also an ancient writing, are there verses in chapters of scriptures that are out of context from what the subject of discussion is about?

Talking about context, Antiquities 18, started by talking about all the misfortune that befell the Jews for the period of 32 years from Taxation by the Romans, arrival of Pilate, Pilate massacre action on jews then up until the "Jews messiah(Jesus) death"/Testimonium, then the fourth paragraph emphasizes how these were great misfortunes for the Jews.
Each Paragraph had a story to tell, why must the Testimonium be the one that is supposed to be in an appendix. Mr. man?

4kings:
"several academic sources" really?
So you were even copying and pasting, i thought it was just the last post, smh.

Quoting, not copying and pasting.

4kings:
Well i don't need a title, position or an authority to make my point for me, i make deductions from things i've read, so does your sources.

That's probably becuz u don't got any one with credentials to back up ur claims.

And who u kidding, u never read Josephus Antiquities of the Jews a day in ur life. Anyone familiar with this work wouldn't have made the error u made earlier when u said that he clearly claimed Jesus was the Christ. If u making such elementary errors when reading Josephus, there's no way in hell I or anyone should trust your deductions.

4kings:
How did i do this?
All assertions i've made so far are from Josephus writing, so where is this coming from?
Are you not the one trying interprete the words in another manner?

Below u replied to my claim that Josephus never claim Jesus was the Christ in the original Testimonium and that he only said he was called the christ.

4kings:
Nah, this is very wrong.
That verse clearly referred to jesus as the christ when he was talking about James and his eventual death

Then when u realized u were completely wrong, instead of admitting u were wrong - u decided to try and put a spin on Josephus words to make him say something he never did.

4kings:
Na wa ooo.
This is similar to Mathew 10:2 "The first, Simon, who is called Peter".
We can also apply that logic here.

So there u go.

4kings:
In what ancient world?
Is the bible not also an ancient writing, are there verses in chapters of scriptures that are out of context from what the subject of discussion is about?

Don't know, never consider that when reading the bible. But irrelevant since we specifically discussing Josephus, we know he did it and we know it was not uncommon in the ancient world - but that doesn't mean every writer in the ancient did so.

4kings:
Talking about context, Antiquities 18, started by talking about all the misfortune that befell the Jews for the period of 32 years from Taxation by the Romans, arrival of Pilate, Pilate massacre action on jews then up until the "Jews messiah(Jesus) death"/Testimonium, then the fourth paragraph emphasizes how these were great misfortunes for the Jews.

Each Paragraph had a story to tell, why must the Testimonium be the one that is supposed to be in an appendix. Mr. man?

No one said it was an appendix, Mary Smallwood just gave a explanation on why our historiography don't have these digressions, namely becuz we have footnotes and appendices.

Her explanation could be dead wrong for all I care but that wouldn't change the fact that Josephus writings has such digressions, points in his narrative where he wrote something that interrupted the flow of his narrative - something which u deny.

Richirich713:
Quoting, not copying and pasting.

I see...

That's probably becuz u don't got any one with credentials to back up ur claims.

From what i know my claim is also a consensus among most scholars.
And you're yet to debunk them.

And who u kidding, u never read Josephus Antiquities of the Jews a day in ur life.

Anyone familiar with this work wouldn't have made the error u made earlier when u said that he clearly claimed Jesus was the Christ. If u making such elementary errors when reading Josephus, there's no way in hell I or anyone should trust your deductions.

Below u replied to my claim that Josephus never claim Jesus was the Christ in the original Testimonium and that he only said he was called the christ.

Then when u realized u were completely wrong, instead of admitting u were wrong - u decided to try and put a spin on Josephus words to make him say something he never did.
So there u go.

What sort of delusion is this?
The reason i first quoted you is because you said Josephus never said Jesus was the Christ, and my response was clearly based on what i could remember from his works, I only posted one passage at first before we progressed to this level.

You're are not the first person i'm discussing this case with.
Even the person i had a debate with(here on nairaland) on this issue is way more knowledgeable than you about history(that's if you know much about history anyway).
Though during my discussion with him i used Sarassin's point of view of Christian fathers not mentioning the Testimonium when they were propagating Christianity and during debates with guys like Celsus.
Here was his response to the Josephus interpolation at the end of the day:

I agree that the belief in Eusebius' possible interpolation is warranted and this is the major reason why scholars in the 19th century doubted the testimonium flavanium since Eusebius was the first to quote the text, but with other manuscripts such as the Arabic manuscript devoid of reference to Jesus as messaiah or other possible Christian interpolation, it is more reasonable to believe that an original core existed which was then interpolated, the original remained but additions were made to it to make it align with Christian beliefs. But you can hold on to your belief though if you so which, we agree to disagree.

Here's the thread --> https://www.nairaland.com/3267097/athiest-view-arguement-against-christianity/1#48188935

Though your close-mindedness is not surprising, i just want to let you know that issue(or most other historical events) is not a fresh one to me.

Don't know, never consider that when reading the bible. But irrelevant since we specifically discussing Josephus, we know he did it and we know it was not uncommon in the ancient world - but that doesn't mean every writer in the ancient did so.

A simple answer to this is that you've never observed this.
Observing it in another literature should come up strange and fishy, but again i'm not surprised at your close-mindedness.

No one said it was an appendix, Mary Smallwood just gave a explanation on why our historiography don't have these digressions, namely becuz we have footnotes and appendices.

Can you give me any other digression from any old literature that you can remember?

Her explanation could be dead wrong for all I care but that wouldn't change the fact that Josephus writings has such digressions, points in his narrative where he wrote something that interrupted the flow of his narrative - something which u deny.

@bolded, shows that you don't even understand the point you quoted(or care to understand) as long as it supports your belief, smh. I'm not surprised, honestly.

But you made a strong statement here: "that wouldn't change the fact that Josephus writings has such digressions"
Can you point out any other digression in Josephus work?, maybe i don't understand what this digression is all about.

OLAADEGBU:
Who was Flavius Josephus? Can the writings of Flavius Josephus be trusted? What are the writings of Flavius Josephus? Flavius Josephus was a 1st century historian mainly of Jewish history, including Jesus' teaching. How important is his work?

Check this link for possible answers:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/is-josephus-reliable/

I can see inbred hatred from u against the Catholic Church. You mentioned the council of carthage as If it were a pentecostal gathering. You failed to let the world know that it was a Catholic Church organised council by African Catholic Church under the chairmanship of St. Augustine and that the decrees of that great councils reached regarding the canonicity of the Bible was submitted to Pope Damasus for ratification. You lucky my phone is having issues. I wish I can encounter you one on one and let's discuss theology, not this copy and paste u doing.

donnie:
The testimony of Josephus is very important and was held in very high regard by the early church as that was a major reference in choosing Canonical books and rejecting of non-canonical books.

See the below post I made in response to a NL catholic (cyrilamx) who argued that the early church didnt refer to or regard the scriptures highly as God's Word to live by. This they normally say to excuse their introduction of several false and unscriptural teachings into the church.

_________________________________
https://www.nairaland.com/3330371/peter-obi-visits-vatican-canonization/3#49189516

Donnie:

You lie! Or rather, you beleived a lie. The scriptures have always been sacred to God's people as they were regarded as God's Word. Early in history, God began the construction of a book which became the medium of His revelation of Himself to man. It began with the Ten commandments which were written on stone. [Deut 17:18] Moses' laws written in a book were put in the Ark [Deut 31:24-26]. As Early as the days of Samuel, the first record of Israel's history was preserved in the School of the prophets where there was both academic and religious training. [2kings 22:8; Jeremiah 36:32; Zechariag 1:12].

However, the progression of the Canon of the Old Testament books was gradual. The Pentateuch was recognized as canonical when Ezra read the Torah to the people publicly. [Ezra 7:6, Nehemiah 8:5]. Ezra and Nehemiah were social and religious reformers who desired clear and definite guidiance for the people and so set up the Pentateuch as the standard for faith and moral instruction.

The Jewish tradition believes that Ezra, the renowned scribe and reformer was the first person to compile the Old testament.As these books were written beginning with Moses, they were at the time recognised as inspired by God and placed in the tabernacle or the temple along with the collection of sacred writtings. During the Babylonian captivity, they were scattered, and many copies destroyed.

It is believed that Ezra after returning from captivity, re-assembled these scattred copies and restored them to their original place in the temple. From the temple other copies were made for the synagogues. So Ezra the prophet led the first recognition council.

The complete works of Josephus asserts that the Old Testament cannon was fixed during the reign of Artexerxes (the time of Ezra).

His words... "We have but 22 books containing the history of all time, books beleived to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerses the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of events that occured in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. from the days of Artaxerxes to our times every event had indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our scriptures; for though so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life on their behalf."

This testimony is held in very high regard. Josephus who was born in AD 37 in Jerusalem, was from the Hasmonean (priestly) aristocracy. He received an extensive education in Jewish and Greek cultures. He was governor of Galilee and military commander in the wars with Rome.

These words of Josephus unquestionably concurs with:
1. The beleif of the Jewish nation of Jesus' day as to what books comprised the Hebrew scriptures.
2. The belief that the collection of books had been completed and predetermined for 400 years preceeding his time.

PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE CHOICE OF CANONICAL BOOKS:

1. They were books that had been in existence for a considerable time and were well known.
2. They were books associated with some great names e.g. Books of Moses, Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon.
3. They were books closely associated with national history or with national festivals.
4. It was believed that the voice of God was heard in all the books admitted into the canon, as He had spoken to the Patriachs, leaders and prophets of the Hebrew race.
5. They were recognized or quoted by Christ or the apostles.

UNCANONICAL BOOKS Historically many wrote novels and fantastic stories about Jesus Christ; His life and His parents, and other Bible chracters. This became a problem for the early church to decide which books were inspired until the final settlement at the council of carthage in 397A.D. There were also a group of fable books which were rejected from the present canon of scriptures.

REASONS FOR REJECTING UNCANONICAL BOOKS

1. They were not written by prophets and there were no prophetic elements is them.
2. The jews did not recognize them as inspired and part of scriptures.
3. They were not recognized or quoted by Christ and the Apostles.
4. Most were written during the space of the silent 400 year period between Malachai and the birth of Christ. It was so called, because of the gap in the biblical record and the silencing of the prophetic voice.
5. The authors do not claim divine authority.
6. The books contain statements at variance with bible history.
7. They are self contradictory and in some cases directly oppose the doctrines of scriptures.
8. Josephus who lived during the time of the apostles did nit recognise any of the books. He stated that the old testament in our present version was the only inspired writing.
9. The apocryphal were not a part of the ancient versions of scripture.
10. They reveal free use of the imagination which led to preposterous stories.
11. The genuineness of its apostolic origin could not be proven.

THE APOCRYPHA Apocrypha literally means,"that which is hidden". This the name usually given to the 14 books contained in some bibles between the old and new testaments.
They originated between the first to third centuries BC, mostly of uncertain authorship. They were added to the Greek Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament written in that period. They were not co-opted into the Hebrew old Testament, because they were written after Old Testament prophecies, oracles and direct revelation had ceased.

Josephus rejected them as a whole. The jews never recognized them as part of the Hebrew scriptures. Neither did Jesus or any of the other New Testament writers ever quote from them. They were not accepted as cononical books.

In the council of Trent in 1546 A.D. THE ROMAN CATHOLICS accepted these books and added them to their modern version of scripture known as the Douay Version. These books are: 1Esdras, 2Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1Maccabees, 2Maccabees.

These books were declared uncanonical because they possessed little or no evidence of divine inspiration and authority; neither did they have bearing with redemption by faith. Hence they are not a part of the scripture as a rule of faith for every christian.
It must be understood that the bible is not an authorised collection of books but it is a collection of authorised books.

IN THE DAYS OF JESUS They had The Scriptures which they read from and which later became known as The Old Testament. The people commonly regarded it as having come from God and as the Word of God. Jesus recognized it thus [Luke16:29] and it was read publicly and taught regularly in the synagogues [Luke 4:21].

THE EARLY CHURCH: As the writings of the apostles appeared, they were added to the Jewish scriptures as were held in the same sacred regard. Each church wanted not only what had been addressed to it, but copies of writtings addressed to other churches. The collections of writings of the apostles for the church began while they were still alive and were personally supervised by them. They were placed with the old testament as the Word of God.

PAUL declared that his teachings were divinely inspired [1Cor 2:7-13; 24:37; 1Thes 2:13]. From his epistles, it was obvious that his intention was for them to be read in the churches. [Col 4:16; 1Thes 5:27].

PETER (your pope) wanted them to have these things always in their remembrance [2Pet1:15]. PETER referred to Paul's epistles in his epistle as scripture [2Pet 3:15-16].

Now let me come to you. I would not have taken time to give you all this information if you hadn't begun to refer to protestants as without a definite history or connection to the apostles and prophets while pretending and protraying yourself and your Roman catholic church as custodians of the scripture.

Time will not let me delve into the many attrocious activities and the attempt by the roman catholic church to conceal the scriptures during the dark ages (a period or worldliness where corruption, greed and politics ruled the church).

The bible as we have it today came to us by the blood of many who were killed as heretics by the Roman catholic authorities because they beleived that eveyone should have apportunity to hear and read the truth of God's Word. As long as people are uninformed and in the dark with little or no knowledge of God's word, you can tell them anything and they will beleive. They even sold indulgences to those who could afford for the "forgiveness of sins" and to reduce the days they will spend in purgatory.

Since their failed attempt at concealing truth, and in order to continue in their corruption unchallenged, they carried out Plan B: To water down the truth such that it looses its relevance as divinely inspired and a guide for faith, society and everyday living. They would rather that the Papacy maintained its wicked control, giving dictates as the so-called vicar of Christ. They introduced uncanonical books and mixed heathen cultures and traditions with the faith handed down by the apostles of the Lord.

You my friend unfortunately want to sell the same lies. But it will not work.

OLAADEGBU:
Who was Flavius Josephus? Can the writings of Flavius Josephus be trusted? What are the writings of Flavius Josephus? Flavius Josephus was a 1st century historian mainly of Jewish history, including Jesus' teaching. How important is his work?

Here are the answers to the questions of the OP. Click and be blessed.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Flavius-Josephus.html