| Revision as of 07:44, 29 February 2012 editBruceGrubb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,222 edits →Another source← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:24, 29 February 2012 edit undoVanishedUserABC (talk | contribs)78,528 edits →Another sourceNext edit → | ||
| Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
| :I am saying '''Eerdmans''' (publisher) is not reliable. This is much like the situation with a passage from Mitchel Grant that was in the ] article (see ]) which turned out to be Grant quoting two other authors those expertise was (and still is) unknown using publishers not known for their academic quality. Furthermore as demonstrated by ] on Van Voorst occasion totally drops the ball as Wells was accepting a history person behind Q in ''Jesus Legend'' a full three years before he supposedly did an "about face" and ''Jesus Legend'' by Baker Academic clearly puts both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' in the Christ myth in contradiction to an Voorst. Furthermore it is not just Eddy-Boyd that classified those books as Christ myth but also Robert M Price, Richard Carrier (''Did Jesus Even Exist?'' '''Stanford University''' presentation May 30, 2006), Earl Doherty, and Graham Stanton (''The Gospels and Jesus'' '''Oxford University Press''' pg 143) | :I am saying '''Eerdmans''' (publisher) is not reliable. This is much like the situation with a passage from Mitchel Grant that was in the ] article (see ]) which turned out to be Grant quoting two other authors those expertise was (and still is) unknown using publishers not known for their academic quality. Furthermore as demonstrated by ] on Van Voorst occasion totally drops the ball as Wells was accepting a history person behind Q in ''Jesus Legend'' a full three years before he supposedly did an "about face" and ''Jesus Legend'' by Baker Academic clearly puts both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' in the Christ myth in contradiction to an Voorst. Furthermore it is not just Eddy-Boyd that classified those books as Christ myth but also Robert M Price, Richard Carrier (''Did Jesus Even Exist?'' '''Stanford University''' presentation May 30, 2006), Earl Doherty, and Graham Stanton (''The Gospels and Jesus'' '''Oxford University Press''' pg 143) | ||
| :I imagine when he goes through peer review Van Voorst is fine but when one of his statements via Eerdmans is at odds with some of the biggest names in academia you have to raise the red flag with regard to anything he says via that ''publisher''. Remember WP:RS also looks at the publisher of the work and in terms of QA Eerdmans is sorely lacking.--] (]) 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) | :I imagine when he goes through peer review Van Voorst is fine but when one of his statements via Eerdmans is at odds with some of the biggest names in academia you have to raise the red flag with regard to anything he says via that ''publisher''. Remember WP:RS also looks at the publisher of the work and in terms of QA Eerdmans is sorely lacking.--] (]) 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| {{od}} | |||
| That issue should be easy to settle. First, I should address your remark about Eerdman having "a horrid QA department". That is not how the publishing world works. So do allow me to explain the mechanics of the publishing business to you. I do not know of any publisher, be it ], ] or ] even having a "Q&A department". Academic publishers can not afford in-house Q&A staff who know the advanced topics they publish on. That is not how books get published. The publishing decision is made by a senior editor (often with years of experience) at the publisher, based on academic reviews. The publisher has a list of professors on its reviewer list and goes to great lengths to cultivate those relationships. They come into town, buy people nice dinners, etc. to maintain those relationships. And then they will send books to said professors or experts for review and usually pay pittance for the review, but the reviewer does it partly out of interest, partly to maintain the relationship with the publisher, who has already published their own book, or who in time will publish it. The senior editor then compares the 3 to 5 reviews it gets from the academics, and considers the general reputation of the author. The estimation of the general reputation of the author is obtained via conversations the senior editor had with the professors over the dinners they bought. It is a very small world, and everyone knows everyone. That is how academic books get published. Then there are self-publishers such as ] and ] which only require a manuscript and a pulse. However, Eerdsmans is a 100 year old academic publisher with a long list of ''highly respected'' authors such as David VanDrunen, Howard Marshall, Paul Ellingworth, etc. etc. etc. These are the authors who likely review any new title published by Eerdsman before the book is accepted. | |||
| Now, that tutorial aside, the question we have is: Is Van Voorst's book ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' (Eerdsmans 2000) ISBN 978-0802843685 a ] source. There is no doubt that the book meets the WP:RS criteria twice over. The book is quoted by a number of other highly respected authors, e.g. Köstenberger refers to it on page 104 of his book. On page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000)." Do I need to say more? The Van Voorst book is a ] source. Period. ] (]) 09:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Ancient and medieval sources == | == Ancient and medieval sources == | ||
Revision as of 09:24, 29 February 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arguments against authenticity (draft)
I have started a new section with a draft of arguments against authenticity, based on the material above, and with the structure suggested by Tom. It does not have WP:RS sources yet, but I have seen sources for every one of those statements before, so it is just a question of finding them again. After sources have been added, it should be a basis for that section. There is a section below it for discussion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by History2007 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Arguments against authenticity
Although rare today, earlier scholars argued that the references found in the Antiquities of the Jews are not authentic to Josephus' original work and are instead purely Christian interpolations. This skeptical view, although now generally rejected, was based on several observations that continue to engage the scholarly debate. First, no Christian author before Eusebius, writing in 324, made reference to the Josephan corroboration of Jesus, even though it is known they had access to his works. Given earlier debates between Christians and Jews over whether Jesus existed (notably that between Justin Martyr and Trypho), it seems unlikely that Christian apologists before Eusebius would not have used the passage from Josephus to bolster their position. Second, the Testimonium is not parallelled in Josephus' work, The Jewish War, even though it includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level fo detail. Third, even after Eusebius' mention, it is not until Saint Jerome's De Viris Illustribus that the passage from Josephus is found again, even though the Testimonium's support for the existence of Jesus would have been highly apposite in the works of many intervening patristic authors (including, for example, Augustine).
Even skeptical scholarship is divided on whether all three references should be rejected as interpolation and each passage has been the subject of scrutiny. It has been suggested, for example, that the passage concerning James is Christian in origin since it includes a negative view of the priest Ananus, who is elsewhere praised in Josephus' writings. (JJC, 1987, 56)
Arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium may be internal, i.e. made based on the textual analysis of the passage, or external i.e. made via the historical and cultural context. One of the main argument against the total authenticity of the Testimonium is that as a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and a reference to the Messiah must be a Christian interpolation. This is further corroborated by the fact that Origen (who does not directly refer to the Testimonium, but refers to James and John the Baptist in Josephus) specifically mentions that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Thus almost all modern scholars conclude that the Testimonium can not be authentic in its entirety, yet the majority of modern scholars still hold that the Testimonium includes an authentic kernel.
Another external argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium is an argument from silence, i.e. that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius, none mentions the Testimonium and the next mention of the Testimonium after Eusebius is by Jerome, about a hundred years later. Ken Olson argues that the entire Testimonium must have been forged by Eseubuis himself. Another argument presented against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that a 5th or 6th century table of contents of Josephus (although selective) makes no mention of it. Other scholars also point to the silence of Photios as late as the 9th century, and the fact that he does not mention the Testimonium at all in his broad review of Josephus.
Scholars such as Zvi Baras, on the other hand, believe that the Testimonium was subject to interpolation before Eusebius. Baras believes that Origen had seen the original Testimonium but that the Testimonium seen by Origen had no negative reference to Jesus, else Origen would have reacted against it. Baras states that the interpolation in the Testimonium took place between Origen and Eusebius. Paul Maier states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the Testimonium must have come early, before Eseubuis. Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.
One of the internal arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates an interpolation. For instance, the phrase "if it be lawful to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation. Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original Testimonium, but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.
A second internal argument against the Testimonium's authenticity is the context of the passage in the Antiquities of the Jews. Some scholars argue that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' text at the point in which it appears in the Antiquities and breaks the thread of the narrative.
A third internal argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the Antiquities, and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.
References
| References |
|---|
|
Discussion of arguments against authenticity
Current content disputes?
There is a rather lengthy discussion on my Talk: page about content disputes at this article. Are there any current, specific disputes? In particular, is there a sentence or paragraph which editors wish to add to this article? If so, could they explain what it is, and why? Jayjg 20:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Origen and Josephus
| Discussion of Content dealt with on the test draft page |
|---|
|
I removed the paragraph in the section about Origen that had no bearing on Origen. Origen's version of the death of James differs from the accounts existing in the current versions of Josephus, first witnessed by Eusebius. Lung salad (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Now that you have self-reverted, you need to read the discussion above, in which we discussed and it was agreed that that small section includes neither the similarities, nor the differences between Origen and Eusebius else it will be arguments for/against. That section was intended to be neither for, nor against authenticity and arguments for and against were/are being developed in Talk:Josephus on Jesus/testpage. If we add differences there, we will also need to add similarities - material that is destined for the "details section". So neither the differences, nor the similarities were included there, so that a lengthy discussion could be presented here within the details section. That was discussed at length. Now I will stop and let other people comment too. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
One thing at a time. Check this edit and either add a source for the last statement you added (unknown to Origen) or mark it as uncited. Then check and provide assurances that the other two items you added correspond to the sources, then we continue. But I do not want to let unsourced material go bye and start other discussions. So do those first, not have unsourced items added. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:V correspondence to sourceNow, in this edit Galassi made a change that does not represent what the sources say. Of course two of the passages are disputed by a small number of scholars, but as the article states a few lines below: "The majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic" and "Almost all modern scholars consider this Josephus passage about John to be authentic in its entirety." So the correct way to say that if WP:RS/AC means anything these days is that "a small minority of scholars dispute two of the passages, while almost all scholars consider them to be authentic, and most scholars consider the third passage to be based on interpolations of an authentic kernel". I think Galassi just fixing the weasel issues but based on the objection of Lung Salad to his previous change the new form does not correspond to what the sources state and fails WP:V now. I suggest it should be fixed to represent what the sources state. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
e/c What I mean is that the WP:RS/AC sources are really (yes really) well known to you Lung Salad, given that:
Please read the statements you modified before to make them deviate from their sources, and that should explain it to you. In case you can not be bothered, an example is further above on this page: Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of this Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged" Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage" Of course in your edit mentioned above you changed the Feldman quote to read: "Louis Feldman states that the possible authenticity of this Josephus passage has been "almost universally acknowledged" (bold added to show your deviation) so you must be familiar with it. I think the situation is pretty clear here. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
|
BIASED ARTICLE
|
Origen never referred to the Testimonium - the reference above attributed to Origen cannot be traced yet there is great emphasis on verifiability from those who introduced the passage. Origen had a completely different version of the death of James in his edition of Josephus, that does not harmonise with the account provided in the edition of Josephus by Eusebius. Origen flatly stated that Josephus did not regard Jesus to be the Christ. None of this is in this biased article.Lung salad (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
|
BIASED ARTICLE 2
| Concluded discussion of Origen and sources |
|---|
|
Origen never referred to the Testimonium - the reference above attributed to Origen cannot be traced yet there is great emphasis on verifiability from those who introduced the passage. Origen had a completely different version of the death of James in his edition of Josephus, that does not harmonise with the account provided in the edition of Josephus by Eusebius. Origen flatly stated that Josephus did not regard Jesus to be the Christ. None of this is in this biased article. What I have just outlined is found in all books about Josephus. Except in this article.Lung salad (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
How can the same Origen .... say that: "it may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus to be a man, or whether they did not suppose him to be a being of a diviner kind"? This looks so very like the fifth and sixth clauses of this testinomy in Josephus, that Jesus was a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, that it is highly probable that Origen thereby alluded to them; and this is the more to be depended on...Lung salad (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
e/c Look, what you say is not an argument from sources, but arguments "based on inference",. The article as is today says: "Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium". As for other sources, in "Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings and his Significance" ISBN 311009522X on page 823 after a long discussion of the issues as to why Origen would or would not have referred to the Testimonium, and complained about the tone of Josephus there or not, etc., Louis Feldman concludes:
So there is even debate as to the tone of the Testimonium that Origen may have read and Feldman thinks it had a neutral tone when Origen read it. I will leave it there. History2007 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I just love that one: a quote from a WP:RS source by an expert is "devoid of provenance" because an editor thinks it is not realistic. What can I say, but smile... History2007 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
e/c It matters not what I think. My idea would probably lack provenance in any case. But I think given the sources, etc. the issue s settled now. The puzzling, I mean really puzzling issue was when Lung Salad again asked about the majority view sources an hour ago, the very sources he had modified in the diff presented above to make them deviate from the source. That was even more puzzling. But what do I know... History2007 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, then the only way is for you to telephone Louis Feldman on Monday, explain his errors to him, set him straight, and ask him to write a new book. Once he has corrected himself and included all the facts based on your instructions, it will be a WP:RS source and we can use that. History2007 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is right. And I must say this is taking a lot, I mean a lot of time and wasting, I mean utterly wasting, a lot of time. Earlier today, I had started Torus interconnect and was hoping to add more to it. Then this brouhaha started and stopped all development on that. I think I will just leave it as a stub now and move on. So this type of illogical discussion (someone tell me this is not a case of WP:disruptive editing by Lung Salad, where sources he himself had distorted before via deviant edits are requested again), where an expert such as Louis Feldman is "dismissed" because he has not presented all the facts to Lung Salad's satisfaction (after we have mentioned WP:Truth so many times here) is just detrimental to the development of the encyclopedia. Lung Salad must be stopped. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
|
FOR THE RECORD
| Second concluded discussion of Origen and sources |
|---|
|
Origen never referred to the Testimonium in his works when citing Josephus. This is mentioned in all books on Josephus. The Feldman quote introduced into this Talk Page was his theory that Origen could have referred to the Testimonium. That was the context of the quote from Feldman. Lung salad (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Origen referred to the works of Josephus three times. He never referred to the Testimonium and considered Josephus as an unreliable witness to Christianity when refuting the pagan philosopher Celsus, although he recognised the works of Josephus as important testimony to the wisdom of the Jews. His account of the death of James in Josephus does not exist in our current manuscripts and contradicts what is found in Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, 1. This information is found in all books about Josephus and Christianity, but not in this Misplaced Pages article. Against Celsus, 1.47 "The same author, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, sought for the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. He ought to have said that the plot against Jesus was the reason why these catastrophes came upon the people, because they had killed the prophesied Christ; however, although unconscious of it, he is not far from the truth when he says that these disasters befell the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, since they had killed him who was a very righteous man. This is the James whom Paul the true disciple of Jesus says that he saw, describing him as the Lord's brother, not referring so much to their blood-relationship or common upbringing as to his moral life and understanding. If therefore he says that the destruction of Jerusalem happened because of James, would it not be more reasonable to say this happeneed on account of Jesus the Christ? His divinity is testified by great numbers of churches, which consist of men converted from the flood of sins and who are dependent on the Creator and refer every decision to His pleasure." Comm in Matt 10.17 "And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James." Against Celsus, 2.13 "His son, Titus, captured Jerusalem, so Josephus says, on account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, though in reality it was on account of Jesus the Christ of God." It cannot be put any plainer than this. Lung salad (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Another source
Looking around for more sources and found "James was martyred at the Passover. This Epistle was probably written just before it. The destruction of Jerusalem foretold in it (Jas 5:1, &c.), ensued a year after his martyrdom, A.D. 69." in the online version of 1996 edition of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary by (ISBN 1565631978)
This lends support for the 69 CE date because the Epistle of James generally accepted date range is c70 - c100 CE though there are a few claiming a c50 CE date. This creates logical problems because if Hendrickson Publishers is saying James the Just was martyred in 69 CE then how can the James in Josephus be James the Just as he was clearly killed in 62 CE? Something is way wrong here and I wish somebody was explaining it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alice Whealey mentions this in her book about Josephus. How does she deal with it? Lung salad (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bruce, let us discuss this date issue in a few days, for the current situation with Lung Salad does not permit discussion of this amid the current chaos. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now that things seem to have calmed down perhaps we can go back to this. I found an interesting theory building on the idea that the "Christ" brother of John Josephus in could be a nickname and not a title (Mason, Steve (2002) Josephus and the New Testament Baker Academic; 2 edition ISBN-13: 978-0801047008 pg 228). The theory is since Jesus son of Damneus became High priest he would have per the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 been annotated and would have literally have been 'the annotated one' ie 'christ' (with a lower case 'c')--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, in fact the "son of Damneus" argument is one of the arguments against authenticity that needs to get added to the the testpage. Mason is one source but I do recall that there was another source that mentioned that point as well, and there are those who have replied to that issue as well. We actually discussed this in a peripheral way somewhere above when we discussed that Josephus refers to at least 20 people called Jesus. That argument needs to be added, else in 6 months there will be a question on it. I think we need to add a paragraph that discusses the 20 people called Jesus issue at the start of the arguments section, then introduces the "son of Damneus" as one of those and that Josephus may have been referring to him. The counter arguments can then be presented in the pro-authenticity section. So my suggestion is to keep them separate, given the current structure we have on the test page. So we add Mason+others to the against authenticity section, then add an argument to the pro-authenticity section that says it was not about son of Damneus. That way both perspectives are presented. There are probably a couple of more arguments against authenticity that need to be mentioned, given that the section there is mostly about the Testimonium, and arguments against the other two passages need to be further developed there. In any case, I just copied what you typed above there. We can add one more son of Damneus source against authenticity beyond Mason, for I do recall hat there is another source, and we just need to find it again. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It is clear from your comments above that you missed the point of the theory I found--it was not that the "who was called Christ" passage was not authentic per say but that the interpretation was flawed and was worked back into the text.
In other words the theory says that since Greek in Josephus' time was written in all capitals there would have been no way for Origen (or anybody else of later times) to know if "ΤΟΥ͂ ΛΕΓΟΜΈΝΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ͂" should be rendered "τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ" or "τοῦ λεγομένου χριστοῦ" other than assuming the Jesus described was the same as that in Bible. But if you break that assumption then the passage could be "τοῦ λεγομένου χριστοῦ" ie someone who had the nickname of christ rather than the title of Christ.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I also understood it to mean that the "reference" is not authentic, not the passage. Anyway, I think we can even clarify it more and say: "An argument against the authenticity of the reference in the James passage is that "Jesus son of Damneus" may have been the person Josephus was referring to in that passage. The argument is that since Jesus son of Damneus became High priest by the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 he would have been annotated and would have been referred to as 'the annotated one' i.e. 'christ' in lower case." Then that clearly says that the reference is not authentic. But that is one of five or six arguments against, and I also added a few more to the test page. But that one is not one of the strongest arguments, and in fact one of the weaker ones, and the tone with respect to Ananus and how it differs from the Jewish Wars is a stronger argument in favor of interpolation. But we will list them all anyway. However, just as matter of interest, note that I noted in the other section how Ananus had bribed Jesus the son of Damnaeus to be able to take the tithes of other priests, as described in Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9 item 2. So we will list that theory, but as Painter suggests Ananus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus were on pretty good terms. So the killing the bother of the son of Damnaeus theory will be listed, but the friendly relationship between Ananus and the the son of Damnaeus should also be clarified. As for the use of Greek, it goes back to the E=mc2 and 50% readership loss story. But let us see what other people think about that level of detail with Greek. I do not mind, either way. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- While the 'James brother of Jesus son of Damnaeus' idea has been around since at least 1887 the argument was that this indicated the "who was called Christ" was a later Christian interpolation ie not written by Josephus.
- This nickname theory on the other hand says the passage is NOT an interpolation but rather that the scholars are making a connection that may or may not exist. It is like assuming since scientists have written a lot about John Frum, the white US serviceman that appeared to some island native elders c1930, that he must exist even though the closest history can find is an illiterate native of 1941 called Manehivi. Similarly the logic presented with Josephus means that since there was a guy that called himself Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I that 1) Norton was his first name and 2) that there was an empire for him to be Emperor of--both of which are wrong.
- Again referencing Binford's "Archaeology as anthropology" (1962) American Antiquity 8, no 2, 217-225) articles have seen a crap load of explication (ie what the conclusions are) but too little explanations (the how and WHY) in the article. This explanation problem is why the Christ myth theory article has the Christ_myth_theory#Ambiguity_in_definition, Christ_myth_theory#Spectrum_of_Historicity_of_Jesus, and Christ_myth_theory#Three_pillars_of_the_theory sections--they are there to show how definition of the term is all over the freaking map and help future editors deal with the multitude of problems I outlined in User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ. Thankfully I don't see this article needing that kind of insane explanation dump but it sure needs more then we have now just ot stabilize the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Bruce. This absolutely deserves a mention in the analysis section and I for one think we should use the Greek, since it is important to offer by way of textual examples the substance of some of the main arguments. We can always romanise the Greek on the assumption that most readers will not have the language. I agree with History that such examples can turn readers away, but in the detailed analysis I think it appropriate (this is essentially the same logic for why the scholarly back and forth should not overly encumber the general overview). As for the above, this is worth fleshing out. As I recall, the main point is that the Jesus referred to could be one of the other Jesus' of the text (as indicated above) and that this is supported by the nature of the reference in comparison with other similar references found in the Antiquities. Whatever the case, Bruce makes a good point, one that I think we are adhering to already, that we should not just reference different conclusions but explain the how and why of the logic. Indeed, it would be impossible not to, really, given the nature of the arguments put forward. This applies, for instance, to the inferential argument wrt Origen (which is rather weak in my view). Eusebeus (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- No big deal really. So why don't you guys add Greek and expand the explanation in the args-against section. After that I will expand Painters argument in the args-in-favor section. Then both sides are covered. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is we don't have much regarding explanations on the args-in-favor section. Sure we are told that "the authenticity of this Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"" but we are not told WHY or by what methods. I am reminded of the dismissive attitude my own field of anthropology had regarding the "magical" belief of so called primitive cultures until Horace Miner published his deeply satirical "Body Ritual Among The Nacirema".
- Miner's article effectively shoved the unpleasant reality that if something was studied with a particular mindset it not only could taint your observations but if you were unaware of the mindset it would taint your observations into anthropology's face. Right now we see the conclusions but not how those conclusions were arrived or even who produced the key pieces of evidence (or what that evidence even was) than changed the majority idea of that James the Just died in 69 CE as was believed c1900 to he died in 62 CE. This is as I like to call it the Miner problem (excuse the totally horrid pun).--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have you seen the latest additions I made to the in favor-of-James section about an hour ago? The only pending item that I see is the year62 item, but there is plenty of explanation there by various sources now. Do you want more than a page and a half? History2007 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It depends a little too much on Van Voorst via Eerdmans who I have shown has at best a horrid QA department regarding what it allows writers to say as demonstrated by "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." in Jesus Then and Now 2004 pg 37 which is NOT true--NONE of these authors mention Jesus at all!
- Suetonius in fact talks about Jews being stirred by Chrestus and we know from his Life of Nero he knew the difference between Jews and Christians so that this somehow refers to Jesus is a wild stretch. Only Tacitus gave us anything that possibility connected the Christ described to the Jesus in the Bible but it is so late that it could just be parroting Christian myth.
- Also Eerdmans further showed their sloppiness with Jesus and Archaeology (2006) where they allowed the Editor James Charlesworth (an expert in Language and Literature) to use illustrations from his own personal collection even if the artifact in question didn't match the text (a bichrome Canaanite decanter in an article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass? SAY WHAT? Why not use a Mayan calender in an article on the Apache while you're at it; makes about as much sense. Sheesh.) We have Brill and Baker whose quality is known to be top notch so why, forget the pun, in the name of God's green Earth are we using anything by Eerdmans? Eerdmans' QA department seems to be borderline slipshod to nonexistent ie a joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Now, your sheesh, the Mayan calender, green earth and all other issues in your comment aside, let me attempt to extract some logic from your post above and try to understand what you are trying to say in a coherent form. Are you saying that VanVoorst is not a WP:RS source? If so, I am sorry, but you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Van Voorst is a respectable scholar who is mentioned and quoted by a good number of other scholars and he is a totally WP:RS source. If you wish we can waste another half a day and go over to WP:RSN and see if he is WP:RS and I will bet you 5 to 1 that he will be declared a WP:RS source. Moreover, Van Voorst is not the only source in that section. There are a few others who confirm the same conclusions he arrives at. And by the way any, and I mean any discussion of Suetonus here is beside the point given that we are discussing Josephus, not Suetonus, and any attempt to relate the two issues by your own reasoning is as clear a case of WP:OR as one can have. I am sorry, but I am not totally following the logic in the comment you made above. Please try and be coherent, consistent, focused and logical. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am saying Eerdmans (publisher) is not reliable. This is much like the situation with a passage from Mitchel Grant that was in the Christ myth theory article (see Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_14#Grant_as_a_source) which turned out to be Grant quoting two other authors those expertise was (and still is) unknown using publishers not known for their academic quality. Furthermore as demonstrated by Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_18 on Van Voorst occasion totally drops the ball as Wells was accepting a history person behind Q in Jesus Legend a full three years before he supposedly did an "about face" and Jesus Legend by Baker Academic clearly puts both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth in the Christ myth in contradiction to an Voorst. Furthermore it is not just Eddy-Boyd that classified those books as Christ myth but also Robert M Price, Richard Carrier (Did Jesus Even Exist? Stanford University presentation May 30, 2006), Earl Doherty, and Graham Stanton (The Gospels and Jesus Oxford University Press pg 143)
- I imagine when he goes through peer review Van Voorst is fine but when one of his statements via Eerdmans is at odds with some of the biggest names in academia you have to raise the red flag with regard to anything he says via that publisher. Remember WP:RS also looks at the publisher of the work and in terms of QA Eerdmans is sorely lacking.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
That issue should be easy to settle. First, I should address your remark about Eerdman having "a horrid QA department". That is not how the publishing world works. So do allow me to explain the mechanics of the publishing business to you. I do not know of any publisher, be it Addison-Wesley, Macmillan or Prentice Hall even having a "Q&A department". Academic publishers can not afford in-house Q&A staff who know the advanced topics they publish on. That is not how books get published. The publishing decision is made by a senior editor (often with years of experience) at the publisher, based on academic reviews. The publisher has a list of professors on its reviewer list and goes to great lengths to cultivate those relationships. They come into town, buy people nice dinners, etc. to maintain those relationships. And then they will send books to said professors or experts for review and usually pay pittance for the review, but the reviewer does it partly out of interest, partly to maintain the relationship with the publisher, who has already published their own book, or who in time will publish it. The senior editor then compares the 3 to 5 reviews it gets from the academics, and considers the general reputation of the author. The estimation of the general reputation of the author is obtained via conversations the senior editor had with the professors over the dinners they bought. It is a very small world, and everyone knows everyone. That is how academic books get published. Then there are self-publishers such as iUniverse and AuthorHouse which only require a manuscript and a pulse. However, Eerdsmans is a 100 year old academic publisher with a long list of highly respected authors such as David VanDrunen, Howard Marshall, Paul Ellingworth, etc. etc. etc. These are the authors who likely review any new title published by Eerdsman before the book is accepted.
Now, that tutorial aside, the question we have is: Is Van Voorst's book Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdsmans 2000) ISBN 978-0802843685 a WP:RS source. There is no doubt that the book meets the WP:RS criteria twice over. The book is quoted by a number of other highly respected authors, e.g. Köstenberger refers to it on page 104 of his book. On page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000)." Do I need to say more? The Van Voorst book is a WP:RS source. Period. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ancient and medieval sources
This section of the article is now wonderful. In fact, it (and other parts of the article) far outstrips the article on Antiquities of the Jews itself, and in some ways those on The Jewish War, Against Apion and on Josephus himself! The furious editing of this article has led, no doubt, to some considerable Josephus knowledge being accumulated, so I would suggest that the various editors involved in this article turn their attentions to other Josephus-related matters, especially when detailed parts of the content of this article could be placed more appropriately in another, with a link and a shortened summary here (e.g. large chunks of the extant manuscripts section). What do you think? Gorton k (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I speak for myself, but a nice wire transfer or two would certainly encourage work on the other articles... But in any case, if you look at the testpage below here, the detailed analysis section still needs work, and may take about a week or so to complete. After that we should talk about the rest. But I will probably take a break from Josephus after this (I only started this because the IP 84/etc. kept complaining). I will just watch this page, not do more Josephus elsewhere for a while. However, I looked at The Jewish War and it is just a lede, sans body, and as you said needs an ambulance really. But it will take serious work to fix that. So anyone else who wants to do the Jewish Wars etc. should do that. I guess in time people will arrive and do it....History2007 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Painter 2005, pp. 155–167. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPainter2005 (help)
- 'Josephus, Judaism and Christianity by Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 pages 55-57
- Josephus: The Essential Works by Flavius Josephus and Paul L. Maier 1995 ISBN 082543260X page 285
- ^ Mason, Steve (2002) Josephus and the New Testament Baker Academic ISBN 13978-0801047008 page 228