|
Moved from Talk:Jesus Christ
Included quote
I have included a bit from Josephus, from an online record of his works at
http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=18&chapter=3
I quote from the bottom of the page:
- Copyright Statement
- These files are public domain.
Deleting Josephus' contested quote
Most of the quote from Josephus is bogus, however. Josephus could only have written that if he himself were a Christian, which he wasn't. There have been attempts to reconstruct what Josephus actually said, but the only source other than the ones with Christian interpolations is an Arabic text which is also pretty dubious. See, for example http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html and various other web-pages. --Zundark
Whether you feel the quote is bogus or not, I don't think it is appropriate to delete it.
I did put some effort into finding a copy of it on the net, and in a copy-able format.
I certainly have no problem with including the quote from the web address you quote as well. That will provide an
alternate view, that would provide some balance.
If I found (and spoke) a copy of Josephus' works in Latin, I would favour including it as well.
The goal of an encyclopedia, in my opinion, is to offer information to those who may not be able to find it.
If the quote I found is NOT that which has appeared in printed copies of Josephus's Antiquities, I'd like to hear it,
because then it would NOT be appropriate to include in this page.
If the quote I included is the one that most people will find in a collection of Josephus's works, then I think it should be available in the encyclopedia article. A neutral point of view does not mean denying what is the historical record. Such denial is blatant manipulation of facts for the point of view that doesn't like what has historically been known.
The quote in question, which Zundark excised is:
Josephus in his work Antiquities of the Jews in Book 18, chapter 3, Item 3 says:
- snip quote (in article)
The page Zundark mentions says this : (I don't know about its copyright status)
Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:
- snip quote (in article)
I am not trying to build up a controversy, but was trying to follow up on the request in the main page for more details about the extra-biblical mention of Jesus by Josephus... -BenBaker
I excised the quote you put in only because it is very misleading if given without any additional comment, as I don't think anyone seriously believes Josephus wrote it like that. I did consider moving it to the Talk page before excising it, but since it's easy to retrieve from the "View other revisions" page I decided there was no need. I think that if we want to cover this, then it needs to be on a separate page, because any serious treatment of it would overwhelm the Jesus Christ page. You could call the page Josephus on Jesus or something similar, and link it from the Jesus Christ page. (The Tacitus quote could also have a separate page.) --Zundark
I have seen changes disappear from the View other revisions page too quickly in my short time involved in wikipedia.
I don't know why, as it is reasonably easy to set the number of days that versions are are retained to a big number like 999999 to keep from losing any.
The idea of putting the quote on a separate page is good. I'll put the link on the main page. Should it be a subpage since it only makes sense in a limited context? or should it be a top level page?
It should be a top-level page, as Larry doesn't like subpages. We would also want to link it from the Flavius Josephus page (when there is one), so it makes sense at top level. --Zundark
The whole point of this article is the quote from Josephus, it needs to exist. CheeseDreams 23:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Proposal for additions
Rather than see this suppressed I offer it here first, for informed, honest criticism:
- Before this goes on the main page, I'd like to hear some honest informed criticism:
- "The passage (XVIII, ch. 3.3) is printed in its original context in [1] (http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=18&chapter=3). Secular historians note that passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and that the passages share common themes of entirely secular life among Jews. The passage 3.3 fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, ed. K. H. Rengstorf, 2002. Consequently secular historians dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation, applying to biblical studies the professional standards applied to textual criticism in neutral areas. In order to accept the Testimonium as authentic, one would have to credit Josephus with being a professing Christian ('He was [the] Christ.'). Though few modern Christian apologists would go so far, many have been at pains to rescue some part as authentic. None of the external links below, for example, reflect a mainstream secular historian's point-of-view.
- And may we delete this: "However, its late date means that it cannot be considered too reliable, even though the source which Agapius quotes may well be much older." Since the Arabic mss are actually older than the common Josephus mss, the dishonesty of this is awkwardly obvious. Does everyone agree? Wetman
- The current text of the article is almost entirely mine. I'm not an expert on this, and much of the wording is not ideal because I was trying to avoid an edit war with BenBaker. I'm happy for you to make any changes you see fit. (BenBaker hasn't been seen here since June 2002.) If you think that some of the external links are not useful, perhaps you could remove them, or replace them with better ones. --Zundark 17:51, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
While the Testimonium Flavianum is not of much use, Josephus does discuss James the brother of Jesus, and the consensus of scholars is that this is, in fact, what Josephus wrote (see Feldman's massive bibliography on this point). Hence, the claim that we have no historical information outside of the New Testament is false, and I've edited the article to tone that claim down.
Interpolation
Here is an interesting example of an interpolation very much like the alleged interpolations in the Josephus text. Notice how it interupts the flow:
The passage 3.3 also is supposed to fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus,
I have removed the interpolation "is supposed to" which has been slipped in. Either the text fails the standard test or it does not. "Supposed to" inserts an inauthentic note of doubt. The fact is, this interpolated text uses vocabulary like "the Christ" and "cross" that does not appear elsewhere in Josephus. It takes a Christological stand ("if it be lawful to call him a man") that is utterly alien to Josephus. And in "he appeared to them alive again the third day" it takes a stand that is not merely Christian, but Pauline!
Let's keep this entry honest if we can. Wetman 04:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
NPOV
(the first comment moved from elsewhere on talk page)
Last section of article is POV. A 10th century manuscript means that the article wasn't edited in the 3rd century? What? What possible reasoning lies behind that??The Rev of Bru
Why does the last section of the article fail to point out that there is no explanation of why a 10th century manuscript shows that a 3rd century manuscript, or 9th century copy of it, was not doctored?CheeseDreams 23:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The phrase:"However, over the last century, the consensus of scholars has moved, not least under the influence of manuscript discoveries."
Apart from the discovery of Pines (which it is stated that most scholars do not accept), why should the consensus change? What manuscripts were discovered? It seems highly non-sequitur. If an explanation is not given, the passage, and associate "in 2004 most scholars believe..." will have to be removed for POV. CheeseDreams 23:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The reasoning I recall being given is that the 10th century manuscript is believed to be based on a much earlier manuscript. The oldest manuscript we have of the Masoretic Text, for instance, isn't any older than that, but it's generally accepted as being based on much older manuscripts as well. Wesley 05:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Style
The last paragraph, on opinions, should be bulleted.
The article should be split into sections, e.g. the text, the accusations of forgery, Pines' theory
Some paragraphs are two large and wordy.CheeseDreams 23:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Wordy as in repetitious and prolix? Or wordy as in using words not in the presidential vocabulary? --Wetman 01:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What does prolix mean? By wordy I mean verbose (I used wordy because I wasn't sure everyone would understand verbose). CheeseDreams 09:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A good style is terse and dense. Remove unnecessary words, by all means. Attempts at streamlining or simplifying content, on the other hand, are often unwarranted. Make no changes that do not add clarity, detail and depth. --Wetman 20:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Disputed?
Why is this article (Josephus on Jesus) disputed? 217.208.148.218 23:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
|
