Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

Good that you have replied to this one. I have just found the book "The Interview" by Joseph Mendson. It was published by Vantage Press in New York in 1987. The author must still live.

Vantage Press is a publisher for people who can't publish their books anywhere else because they are rejected. The book isn't available in university libraries, or even amazon, because it isn't credible. The author is a nobody, and the book apparently has zero status anywhere.

If you want your points on Josephus to be taken seriously, how about citing modern scholars (by scholars I mean someone with some sort of expertise in biblical studies or ancient history) and a book that was published by an academic press (and not one so obscure it is virtually impossible to find because it was published by a nobody)?

You can't have anything more recent than this.

I can and I do. There have been many publications on Josephus since 1987. Moreover, Joseph Mendson is a nobody, and not a scholar. Off the top of my head, J. P. Meier, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, J. D. G. Dunn, and several others have all worked on Josephus more recently than 1987. Moreover, for the past hundred years virtually all scholars have accepted that the shorter reference to Jesus by Josephus is unaltered and genuine, and a wide consensus believe that the longer reference is altered but contains a genuine reference by Josephus to Jesus.

In the biographical details of his life, one of his majors was a degree in Christian Theology.

A major is meaningless. The guy doesn't have a PhD or any sort of relevant expertise. His book is so obscure it is almost impossible to find.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Special pleading, exactly.

I think this thread has gone as far as it can.

For me, other than the one supposed reference by Josephus and the NT writings we have nothing else to validate the historicity of Yeshua. And these supposed pieces of evidence seem to be a stretch.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Vantage Press is a publisher for people who can't publish their books anywhere else because they are rejected. The book isn't available in university libraries, or even amazon, because it isn't credible. The author is a nobody, and the book apparently has zero status anywhere.

If you want your points on Josephus to be taken seriously, how about citing modern scholars (by scholars I mean someone with some sort of expertise in biblical studies or ancient history) and a book that was published by an academic press (and not one so obscure it is virtually impossible to find because it was published by a nobody)?

OK....but with this criteria....Robert M. Price meets it......

Apparently not...huhhhh?

 

[Oberon]

OK....but with this criteria....Robert M. Price meets it......

Apparently not...huhhhh?

Robert Price remains the one scholar in the right field who adheres to the mythicist argument. However, when it comes to the reference to James, the brother of Jesus, he offers no arguments to support his view that this is not a reference to a literal brother of a historical Jesus. He simply asserts (without stating why or with what evidence) that this reference does not refer to a literal brother. Which is why Price's arguments are rarely taken seriously.

 

[dogsgod]

Robert Price remains the one scholar in the right field who adheres to the mythicist argument. However, when it comes to the reference to James, the brother of Jesus, he offers no arguments to support his view that this is not a reference to a literal brother of a historical Jesus. He simply asserts (without stating why or with what evidence) that this reference does not refer to a literal brother. Which is why Price's arguments are rarely taken seriously.

Have you searched through all his books?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Have you searched through all his books?

We're just going to have to get back to the drawing board because it appears non of the scholars presented by us make the grade.

Have you found any earlier version of Josephus earlier than 3/4th century?

 

[dogsgod]

We're just going to have to get back to the drawing board because it appears non of the scholars presented by us make the grade.

Agreed, but just for the record, Oberon is of course dead wrong about Price and the chapters he devotes to James, the son of Zebedee, the brother of the Lord, and Jesus' family.

Have you found any earlier version of Josephus earlier than 3/4th century?

No, none that refers to the two Josephus references in question.

 

[Oberon]

We're just going to have to get back to the drawing board because it appears non of the scholars presented by us make the grade.

Have you found any earlier version of Josephus earlier than 3/4th century?

So far you have presented one. Price makes the grade, but he stands alone and offers no evidence for his position other than his a priori stance that Jesus was mythical.

Ben Masada has offered no scholars whatsoever.

 

[Oberon]

Agreed, but just for the record, Oberon is of course dead wrong about Price and the chapters he devotes to James, the son of Zebedee, the brother of the Lord, and Jesus' family.

You are hardly in a position to be able to judge the evidence he presents. I have not read all of his books, but they aren't all relevant. I have read Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (and incredible waste of time), and his arguments range from bad to awful. Price offers no evidence for his opinions about the brothers of the lord, only assertions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No problem. I guess I should have seen that one coming .......from you....

My expectations are also quite low ...

What Josephus scholarship have you read? How would you compare Price to Feldman? How would you compare Price to Whealey?​

Price is agenda and innuendo wrapped in a PhD. Nevertheless, since you apparently need him, I'm glad you found him ...

 

[dogsgod]

My expectations are also quite low ...

What Josephus scholarship have you read? How would you compare Price to Feldman? How would you compare Price to Whealey?​

Price is agenda and innuendo wrapped in a PhD. Nevertheless, since you apparently need him, I'm glad you found him ...

Of course, those that don't believe THIS saviour from our mythologies is a real hero is agenda driven, we all know that.

 

[dogsgod]

Back in the day we used to be able to burn these agenda driven non believers at the stake. That pesky little separation of church and state allows for these non conformists to be heard without any form of punishment. Oh for the good ol' days.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course, those that don't believe THIS saviour from our mythologies is a real hero is agenda driven, we all know that.

What a you babbling about? I "that don't believe THIS saviour from our mythologies is a real hero" but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question of historicity. Given Josephus, Paul, and Acts, there is no reasonable historiography that would warrant the mythicist presumption.

 

[Oberon]

How would you compare Price to Feldman?

Let's see...On the one hand we have Louis Feldman, who is Jewish, and perhaps THE Josephus scholar of the 20th century, who states (concerning the James brother of Jesus reference) that "few have doubted the geniness of this passage on James," (see the notes to Loeb Library version of Testimonium Flavianum) and who also states about the other reference in Josephus to Jesus "The great majority of modern scholars have regarded it [the longer reference to Jesus] as partly interpolated, and this is my conclusion as well" (Flavius Josephus Revisited).

On the other hand, we have Price, a Systematic Theologian. Hmm...

Well, who else can we add among the non-christian scholars (to avoid being written off as biased) with relevant expertise who argue that the longer reference to Josephus is altered but has a genuine core concerning Jesus? I can't name them all, because I don't know the religious background of most scholars. However, there are some notable non-christian supporters:

There is Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, who reconstructs the genuine passage about Jesus underlying the Testimonium on pg. 60 of his book The Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium.

There is the notable Jewish scholar Paul Winter, who likewise defends an authentic core of the longer reference in the Testimonium in his chapter in Schürer's The History of the Jewish People.

There is the well known Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, who notes that the passage contains typical Josephan syntax and vocabulary, and for this and other reasons also defends an authentic core (see "The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-Examined" Journal of Jewish Studies 38).

There is the ex-priest and lapsed catholic J. D. Crossan, who reconstructs the original passage on Jesus in his shorter work on the historical Jesus.

I know the Rabbi and expert in Judaism Jacob Neusner defends the total authenticity of the James reference, but I can't recall if he ever wrote about the longer reference.

Other notable defends of either total or partial authenticity for the longer reference who are either Christian or I don't know their religious background include:

J. P. Meier, J.D.G. Dunn, Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz, Fanz Dornseiff, Etienne Nodet, Morton Smith, S. G. F. Brandon, A.-M Dubarle, W. Bienert, R. Eisler, L. von Ranke, A. von Harnack, N. T. Wright, James H. Charlesworth, Carlo M. Martini, Wolfgang Trilling, and others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I like Feldman and Meier and have always been a bit of a Vermes and Neusner fan. I would also strongly recommend ...

Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times​

The problem with the mythicist position is that it is little more than dogma and defended with the same fixated and thoughtless intensity as is any other dogma.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Price is agenda and innuendo wrapped in a PhD. Nevertheless, since you apparently need him, I'm glad you found him ...

OK....don't get me wrong. I have absolutely nothing against any of the scholars Oberon has presented unless, within their writings, their bias is apparent.

I actually do except the possibility of a historical Yeshua. I'm not convinced there's a way to prove he existed.

 

[Oberon]

OK....don't get me wrong. I have absolutely nothing against any of the scholars Oberon has presented unless, within their writings, their bias is apparent.

I actually do except the possibility of a historical Yeshua. I'm not convinced there's a way to prove he existed.

Proof is not a matter even for science, let alone history. The fact is, every historian with relevant degrees (as far as I know, Price's degree's are in theology, not history) agrees that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for almost every figure from anceint history.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I actually do except the possibility of a historical Yeshua. I'm not convinced there's a way to prove he existed.

Therefore? Historical discourse is peppered with those whose existence is unproven and unprovable. History, unlike dogma, is about reasonable inference.

 

[logician]

OK....don't get me wrong. I have absolutely nothing against any of the scholars Oberon has presented unless, within their writings, their bias is apparent.

I actually do except the possibility of a historical Yeshua. I'm not convinced there's a way to prove he existed.

If there's not a way to prove he existed, for intents and purposes he didn't.

 

[Oberon]

If there's not a way to prove he existed, for intents and purposes he didn't.

You keep making this fundamental mistake. We can't "prove" that anything in history. There are still idiots out there saying the holocaust never happened, despite mountains of evidence. We can't "prove" it did happen, but we can produce abundant evidence and show that there is no other plausible explanation for the facts.

Ancient history, of course, has by its very nature less evidence. But there is virtually no one from ancient history who has as many early sources written about them as Jesus does.