Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Jesus template and "Jesus and History series of articles"

I added:

This article is part of the Jesus and history series of articles.

and the "Jesus" template (See right). However they keep getting removed. The argument put forth is that this passage is disputed. This is however, irrelevant as long as the dispute to their authenticity is mentioned in the article. People reading this article would probably want to read other Jesus related articles, including other articles relating to Jesus and history. Josephus' passage plays a large role in the debate over the historicity of Jesus. So the inclusion of those links can be very beneficial. Can we get some consensus on this? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the inclusion. Harizotoh9's point is valid. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The authenticity of the Josephan passage relates to a reconstructed text, based upon 100% guesswork, that demythologises Jesus Christ into a mortal human being devoid of any supernatural powers. What you are adding is to do with the New Testament. A different subject matter, surely. Lung salad (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Lung Salad's statement above runs counter to the current mainstream scholarly consensus. But in any case, I think Harizotoh9 needs to seek a wider audience to discuss his point, else we will go on and on here. So Harizotoh9 please feel free to ask for further opinions from a suitable noticeboard, etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The current scholarly consensus that argues for the authenticity of the passage (an opinion) comprises the following revised passage in Josephus about Jesus: About this time came Jesus, a wise man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

From L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, page 97. Lung salad (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is diverging into a surrogate discussion not related to the use of the template. So I will wait for further user comment on the template. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Which notice board should I go to? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please ask on WP:Help desk and they will suggest a few that may be appropriate. And given that this is part of Wikiproject Christianity a message on that talk page would also be appropriate, of course. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is directed at Lung salad: Why is discussion of the authenticity of this passage relevant to the inclusion of the template? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The template is surely directed at New Testament Christianity. It's part of a theme devoted to religion. This article is about spurious passages contained in Josephus about Jesus that are disputed, and cannot be verified. The historicity of the passages about Jesus in Josephus have no certain historical provenance. Lung salad (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether the passages in Josephus which mention Jesus are authentic or whether those references are later insertions, the template is relevant to the article. I think a point could be made that the template detracts from the focus of the article on Josephus's writings, however that could be solved by placing a more appropriate infobox template (such as Infobox manuscript) at the top of the article, followed by the Jesus template. • Astynax ^talk 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

At present, I could myself question the inclusion of the template, as the current article is not itself currently included in the template so far as I can see, and I personally prefer having such navigation templates be limited to the articles included in it. Having said that, if the article were to be included, my opinion would change. There might also be a basis for a separate "quest for historical Jesus" or similar subsection of the template, or perhaps separate template, which I don't yet see and would probably welcome. But, if an article is included in a navigation template, I can't see any reason not to include it. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If the template is valid for this article, then it should also be included in articles like Turin Shroud and The Da Vinci Code, that are every bit as distant from the template's purpose as is this article. Lung salad (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Davinci Code is a work of fiction that's only tangentially related to Jesus or the New Testament. If a template would be used it would be {{Fiction featuring Jesus}}. Similarly, a the template you'd use for the Shroud of Turin would be {{Claimed relics of Jesus Christ}} or something to that effect.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And claiming the passages in Josephus are authentic is only a theory with a centuries long history of dispute that you do not wish to address. Josephus probably never referred to Jesus at all and the dispute is still in existence today and mentioned by those scholars in their books who claim the passages are authentic. Nothing, absolutely nothing is certain about this subject matter. The scholars who claim authenticity are unable to prove their case, their case rests on their personal opinions, not upon demonstrable proof based upon empirical analysis. Lung salad (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the original version of the Template [1] that included reference to "Josephus on Jesus" that is absent from the current template. Lung salad (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code is regarded by Dan Brown as fact presented in the form of fiction, the foreword to his novel cites that background to the fiction in the novel is all fact. Lung salad (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the template, and I don't think there's any policy or guideline to only use navigation templates on the articles mentioned therein. The "theory with a centuries long history of dispute" is still about Jesus, and since the Christ myth theory carries the same template, its use seems independent of whether the article considers Jesus as historical or not. Huon (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added Josephus on Jesus, Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum and Tacitus on Christ to the Jesus template under "Jesus and history". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. But the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum is going to merge into this page, per discussion here before, so I suggest not putting that one in the template. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. I was in fact going to make a post arguing that the Authenticity article should be merged into here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference style discussion

Given repeated citations from the same source (e.g. Maier, Feldman), with no doubt more to come as we build up the above, we should probably think about which citation style we should use. I have converted Maier (1995) to a single citation, using the rp template to provide inline page numbers (this way we don't have to recite for every different page). However, there may be better solutions, so please share your thoughts. Eusebeus (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and hereby volunteer for converting all existing references into whatever format we choose (and into {{cite book}} when I'm at it). As the format of choice I would suggest a separate bibliography and footnotes of the type "Maier p. 285", as does for example the 0.999... article. I wouldn't mind using {{rp}} either, but it seems rather clumsy. Huon (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are willing to do this, then I am happy with whichever convention seems to you the most reasonable. I am not happy at all with the rp template - I find it very inelegant and, frankly, somewhat weird. However, it may be useful while this article is being rebuilt so that, at the end, we can determine common references and simplify the citations. Eusebeus (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok with me too. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm done for now. Several issues arose; I'll list them below. Also, I should sort the books alphabetically by author, and we should add publishers and maybe a few Google Books links when the relevant pages are available online. I'll work on that, but not right now (I need a break). Huon (talk)

Looks pretty good to me. Thank you. By the way, the Googlebooks links are here today, gone tomorrow. They keep changing them it seems, and blocking different sections, so maybe not a long term solution anyway. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and suggest using an actual page number if possible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference Issues

1. The existing reference to Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Feldman & Hata) links specifically to pages 55 - 57, which discusses only the authenticity of the Testimonium. I have migrated the reference away from that specific page range since it has been used to support statements that appear elsewhere in the text. We'll need to build up the proper page numbers, then, in the citations (using the rp template if desired). Eusebeus (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Flavius Josephus appears as (co-)author of several works. I believe we shouldn't name him "Josephus, Flavius".
3. The McGiffert 2007 reference looks rather strange. If I'm not mistaken, the chapter link points directly to Eusebius, not to anything written by McGiffert.
4. Due to the intricacies of the templates I used, the work by "Flavius Josephus; Leemning, Henry; Osinkina, Lyubov V.; Leeming, Katherine" appears in the list of notes as "Flavius Josephus et al.", which while not wrong isn't really helpful. Should we turn that into "Leeming et al." by changing the order of authors?
5. The Cambridge History of Judaism had a different list of editors than what Google Books said. I followed Google Books and removed the surplus editors, William Horbury and John Sturdy; should we re-add them?
6. I managed to almost get a link to the right page of the Cambridge History of Judaism. If someone knows how to fix that and to link directly to the correct page, I'd be grateful for an explanation.
7. We currently list Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Feldman & Hata, editors) thrice in the bibliography, because we refer both to the entire book and to two specific chapters written by different authors. Especially interesting is reference 55 where we claim Feldman says something but provide as a reference a chapter written not by Feldman but by Zvi Baras. Should we unify that? If so, how? Should we change the claim that Feldman says something at reference 55? Huon (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the editor names for a volume, I think as long as we have an ISBN and the first editor, that should be enough. The ISBN is unique and the ISBN finder will always lead to the book anyway. Regarding Baras vs Feldman, I think what you did is right, i.e. Baras a separate reference. In fact, Baras and Feldman, and Baras and some other authors do not agree on all issues and so Baras should be a separate reference by himself. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A minor issue: "Khazars.Template:Svn" seems to be hanging in Slavonic (where the header is somehow repeated too). But I do not see any other immediate issues and overall, I think it looks pretty good. History2007 (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for Authenticity (draft)

Variation from the New Testament

There are a variations between the statements by Josephus regarding James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts. Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts.

Josephus' account places the date of the death of James as 62 AD. This date is supported by Jerome's 'seventh year of the Emperor Nero', although Jerome may simply be drawing this from Josephus. However, James' successor as leader of the Jerusalem church, Simeon, is not, in tradition, appointed till after the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and Eusebius' notice of Simeon implies a date for the death of James immediately before the siege, i.e. about 69 AD. The account of Josephus also differs from that of the New Testament in that while Josephus states that James was stoned, Christian tradition holds that he was thrown from the top of the Temple.

Herod Antipas from the Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493

John Painter states that the relationship of the death of James to the siege is an important theologoumenon in the early church. On the basis of the Gospel accounts it was concluded that the fate of the city was determined by the death there of Jesus. To account for the 35 year difference, Painter states that the city was preserved temporarily by the presence within it of a 'just man' (see also Sodom); who was identified with James, as confirmed by Origen. Hence Painter states that the killing of James restarted the clock that led to the destruction of the city and that the traditional dating of 69 AD simply arose from an over-literal application of the theologoumenon, and is not to be regarded as founded on a historical source. Moreover, the difference between the Josephus account and the New Testament method of death for James is seen as an indication that the Josephus account is not a Christian interpolation.

The marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias is mentioned both in Josephus and in the gospels, and scholars consider Josephus as a key connection in establishing the approximate chronology of specific episodes related to John the Baptist. However, although both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and motives, e.g. whether this act was a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (as indicated in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18), or a pre-emptive measure by Herod which possibly took place before the marriage to quell a possible uprising based on the remarks of John, as Josephus suggests in Antiquities 18.5.2.

Louis Feldman has stated that there is "no necessary contradiction between Josephus and the gospels as to the reason why John was put to death" in that the Christians chose to emphasize the moral charges while Josephus emphasized the political fears that John stirred in Herod.

Josephus stated (Antiquities 18.5.2) that the AD 36 defeat of Herod Antipas in the conflicts with Aretas IV of Nabatea was widely considered by the Jews of the time as misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John the Baptist. The approximate dates presented by Josephus are in concordance with other historical records, and most scholars view the variation between the motive presented by Josephus and the New Testament accounts is seen as an indication that the Josephus passage is not a Christian interpolation.

This glosses over the reason why this passage has problems--according to the Gospels Jesus began his ministry after the execution of John the Baptist and Irenaeus (c180 CE) in Against Heresies argued that a 10 year ministry was 'supported by the Gospel and the Elders' which is expressly stated in Demonstration (74) "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar came together and condemned Him to be crucified" ie 42-44 CE a fact mentioned by Price in Deconstructing Jesus. As you can see the dating methods used back could lead to all kinds of anachronistic migraines--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think the Bible says that Jesus started his ministry after the death of John the Baptist, you must be using a different Bible than most scholars Bruce. E.g. see: The Life and Ministry of Jesus: The Gospels by Douglas Redford 2007 ISBN 0784719004 or The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 9780805443653 or the many scholarly analyses in Chronos, kairos, Christos 2 by Ray Summers, Jerry Vardaman 1998 ISBN 0865545820. And I would recommend a careful reading of the New Testament a couple of times. That should clear the issues up. History2007 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavonic Josephus as possible separate article?

This is probably an old question, but do the rest of you think that the Slavonic Josephus text, which seems to be one of the primary subjects of this article, merits a separate article until itself or not? John Carter (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not say so. In fact there was a suggestion by Harizotoh9 and previous discussion to bring in the Testimonium sub article (which is now already cleaned up and merged). The Slavonic is probably not notable enough for a page. But please look at the test page to see what it looks like there, and comment. To me, it seems to fit there. History2007 (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Josephus on James - references

Not sure whether to put a separate section here; but I have, to avoid skipping around a long string of discussion threads.

There is an extensive discussion on the James notice in 'Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition' by John Painter (T&T Clark, 1997). Painter pulls together all the material on James in the New Testament, Eusebius, Jerome, Hegesippus, Josephus etc.

In particular, he discusses the issue of the date of James's death. Josephus clearly indicates a date of 62 CE, and this is backed up by Jerome 'seventh year of the Emperor Nero' (although Jerome may simply be drawing this from Josephus). But James's successor as leader of the Jerusalem church, Symeon, is not, in tradition, appointed till after the siege of Jerusalem, and Eusebius notice of Symeon implies a date for the death of James immediately before the siege (i.e. circa 69 CE).

Painter points out that the relationship of the death of James to the siege is an important theologoumenon in the early church. On the basis of the Gospel accountes it was concluded that the fate of the city was determined by the death there of Jesus. So why the delay of 35 years? The answer concluded was that the City was preserved temporaily by the presence within it of a 'just man' (see also Sodom); who was identified with James. This is confirmed in Origen. So killing James restarted the clock that led to the destruction of the City.

Hence the traditional dating of 69 CE simply arises from an over-literal application of the theologoumenon, and is not to be regarded as founded on any historical source. TomHennell (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a good analysis. Should the 62 v 69 item go in the arguments for/against or the variations from the NT? I think given that it is a comparison to the NT it should go there. I will add it there, and we can discuss in any case. Thanks. I will assemble these in this testpage anyway, given that there is so much on the talk page now. History2007 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And Painter is also a highly regarded source meeting RS standards. The only thing I might add is to make sure that the analysis is from Painter. We should not present it in our own voice, and, in general, Painter is probably in some ways more reliable than we are anyway, so attributing it to him would only strengthen the contention. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

However Ronald L. Conte Jr points out that Jerome also puts Mark death in Nero's 8th year while scholars put it in his 14th year (See Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, n. 558). Another problem is that the James in Jerome is James the Less who may or may not be James the Just. Some of these connections remind me of those those who play the Game a little too much and point to the official records of a John H Watson fighting in the Boar war as "proof" Sherlock Holmes really lived and about as as convincing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Two issues and a contradiction in your approach. First, Jerome is not essential to the reasoning Painter presents. So whenever Jerome says is a secondary issue, and Painter's arguments still hold. Secondly, while Conte is not an official member of the amateur brigade, he is a wanna-be scholar by and large - that is why he runs his own website instead of teaching at Oxford. The contradiction in your view Bruce is that in one breath you subscribe to the view that all the Bible is fiction, and in the next breath try to use it as a chronology. However, what is clear is that Painter is a fully WP:RS source and his reasoning (the core of which does not depend on Jerome) is usable in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the word "fiction" with mythological; the Bible is most definitely mythological with some parts historical and others philosophical. Christopher Columbus sailing west to prove the world was round as well the stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood are all historical myths while the story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree is a philosophical myth. While this is using Remsburg's simplified terms you can find much the same material in J. W. Rogerson's "Slippery words: Myth" in Alan Dundes' 1984 University of California book Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth ISBN: 9780520051928 so similar ideas are held by modern scholars.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not bother with word play here. Let us move on. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not word play to point out the vagueness of the terms. The reality is that myth does NOT mean false.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the Manuscripts section ready to use?

I think the manuscripts section which was mostly written by Eusebeus is probably ready to use, and can go in where the Slavonic section is in the article now given that it has been discussed and no further issues seem to be pending. I added a summary of Origen, etc. to the front a few days ago and that seems to be stable too; and the Slavonic is already part of this. However, I added two sentence today by Feldman about the number of extant manuscripts in Greek and Latin translations, etc. I think it is useful to know how many manuscripts there are.

I have included it in collapsed form below, and unless there are suggestions, it should be ready to include any time. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancient and medieval sources

Early references

Origen

In the 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria was the first ancient writer to have a comprehensive reference to Josephus, although some other authors had made smaller, general references to Josephus before then, e.g. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century, followed by Clement. Origen explicitly mentions the name of Josephus 11 times, both in Greek and Latin. However, despite the fact that most of Origen's works only survive in Latin translations, 10 out of the 11 references are in the original Greek.

The context for Origen's references is his defense of Christianity. In Contra Celsum (Book I, Chapter XLVII) as Origen defends the Christian practice of baptism, he recounts Josephus' reference to the baptisms performed by John the Baptist for the sake of purification. In Book II, Chapter XIII Origen mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James. And again in his Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17) Origen refers to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews by name and that Josephus had stated that the death of James had brought a wrath upon those who had killed him.

The 4th century writings of Eusebius of Caesarea refer to Josephus' account of James, John and Jesus. In his Church History (Book I, Chapter XI) Eusebius discusses the Josephus reference to how Herod Antipas killed John the Baptist, and mentions the marriage to Herodias in items 1 to 6. In the same Book I chapter, in items 7 and 8 Eusebius also discusses the Josephus reference to the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a reference that is present in all surviving Eusebius manuscripts.

In Book II, Chapter 23.20 of his Church History, Eusebius describes the death of James according to Josephus. In that chapter, Eusebius first describes the background including Festus, and mentions Clement and Hegesippus. In item 20 of that chapter Eusebius then mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. However, Eusebius does not acknowledge Origen as one of his sources for the reference to James in Josephus.

Extant manuscripts

A 1640 edition of the Works of Josephus

Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. 71AD) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks. (Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.)

There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus, of which 33 predate the 14th century, with two thirds from the Comnenoi period. The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the Testimonium is the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the Antiquities. There are about 170 extant Latin translations of Josephus, some of which go back to the sixth century, and according to Louis Feldman have proven very useful in reconstructing the Josephus texts through comparisons with the Greek manuscripts, reconfirming proper names and filling in gaps.

There is considerable evidence, however, that attests to the existence of the references to Jesus in Josephus well before then, including a number of ad hoc copies of Josephus' work preserved in quotation from the works of Christian writers. The earliest known such reference to Josephus' work is found in the writings of the third century patristic author Origen, although he does not provide any direct reference to the passages involving Jesus. The first witness to any of the passages relating to Jesus was Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in about 324. Both Origen and Eusebius had access to the Greek versions of Josephus' texts. The works of Josephus were translated into Latin during the fourth century (possibly by Rufinus), and, in the same century, the Jewish War was "partially rewritten as an anti-Jewish treatise, known today as Pseudo-Hegesippus, but [which] was considered for over a millenium and a half by many Christians as the ipsissima verba of Josephus to his own people."

Because manuscript transmission was done by hand-copying, typically by monastic scribes, almost all ancient texts have been subject to both accidental and deliberate alterations, emendations (called interpolation) or elisions. It is both the lack of any original corroborating manuscript source outside the Christian tradition as well as the practice of Christian interpolation that has led to the scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of Josephus' references to Jesus in his work. Although there is no doubt that most (but not all) of the later copies of the Antiquities contained references to Jesus and John the Baptist, it cannot be definitively shown that these were original to Josephus writings, and were not instead added later by Christian interpolators. Much of the scholarly work concerning the references to Jesus in Josephus has thus concentrated on close textual analysis of the Josephan corpus to determine the degree to which the language, as preserved in both early Christian quotations and the later transmissions, should be considered authentic.

At the end of the 19th century a Slavonic version of the Testimonium was discovered (see the Slavonic section below) and was announced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1971/72 a 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis was discovered and announced by Shlomo Pines who also discovered a 12th century Syriac version by Michael the Syrian.

Slavonic Josephus

The three references found in Book 18 and Book 20 of the Antiquities do not appear in any other versions of Josephus' The Jewish War except for a Slavonic version of the Testimonium Flavomium (at times called Testimonium Slavonium) which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.

Title page of a Welsh language translation of Josephus, 1860.

The existence of the documents that led to the discovery of the Slavonic Josephus was first brought to light by A. N. Popov in Russia in 1866. In 1879 I. Sreznevski pointed out that the language used was not Bulgarian or Serbian, but comparable to the Russian chronicles. At about the same time as Sreznevski, the subject was also studied by E. Barsov and by the end of the 19th century knowledge of the existence of the documents was established in the west via its listing by Niese and Destinon in 1894. The Estonian scholar Alexandeer Berendts published a German translation in 1906 and proposed the theory that the Slavonic version had been derived from the original Aramaic of Josephus. However, Paul L. Maier states that the Slavonic Josephus "includes so many sensationalized accretions" that most modern scholars consider it as a highly colored translation and paraphrase, and do not consider it to be true to the original Aramaic.

The Slavonic Josephus was defended in 1926 as authentic by Robert Eisler and was later supported by George Williamson. Robert Van Voorst states that apart from Eisler's controversial book and Williamson statements, "no strong defense has been made" for the authenticity of the Slavonic Josephus. Henry Leeming states that Eisler at times used insufficiently substantiated material which were then discredited. Leeming adds that Eisler's philological attempts to reverse translate from Old Russian to Greek were shown to be "extremely flimsy". Van Voorst states that the contents of the passages in the Slavonic Josephus show that "they are Christian compositions and that they do not provide an authentic textual alternative to the main Testomonium Flavianum".

Steven B. Bowman states that the consideration of the Slavonic Josephus should be removed from the scholarly discussions of the first century, for it only pertains to the Macedonian elements of the 10th and 11th centuries. The Cambridge History of Judaism states that the Slavonic version includes statements which Josephus could have hardly written, and that recent scholarly opinion dismisses the Slavonic Josephus as less than authentic, but an 11th century creation as an idealogical struggle against the Khazars. Van Voorst states that the Slavonic Josephus at times focuses on blaming Pilate and the Jews, to the point of suggesting that the Jews and not the Romans crucified Jesus.

Louis Feldman states that the question "is Josephus the author of the additions and modifications in the Slavonic version" has usually received a negative answer. Craig A Evans states that although some scholars had in the past supported the Slavonic Josephus, "to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research".

G. A. Wells has argued that the existence of Christian interpolations within the Slavonic version of the Jewish War prove that other works of Josephus also contain Christian interpolations. In 1948 Solomon Zeitlin stated that "There is no passage in Josephus which mentions Jesus" and "The Slavonic Josephus which is a paraphrase of Josephus's Wars of the Jews, was composed for the purpose of giving a Christian version of Josephus in Greek. Hence we find in it many Christian interpolations."

Manuscripts discussion

I have added the section to the article, but there were two reference issues where I'd like an expert to have a look:

1. We have one reference to Feldman (1989), p. 431, but we don't cite any 1989 work by Feldman. Is that supposed to be Feldman & Hata (1987)?
2. We cited one book twice, with subtly different titles and coauthors: Flavius Josephus; Leeming, Henry; Osinkina, Lyubov V.; Leeming, Katherine (2003). Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript Translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9789004114388.

I followed Google Books in choosing the list of coauthors and the title; please check whether that's the way we want it. Huon (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good observations. The second point is easier, and you were right in choosing the source that Leeming item. The Feldman 1989 page 431 is not, however Feldman & Hata (1987) because after page 426 that book starts its reference/index and has no text on 431. The Feldman 1989 item came from Eusebeus I think and we should wait for him to clarify it. However, it is a straightforward sentence and a well known issue, and there are other sources for it too. An alternative source for it is "Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings and his Significance" listed as "Feldman, 1984" in the article already, and if you like you can just use that instead, given that the sentence is straightforward statement about extant manuscripts. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall coming up with the Feldman 1989 reference so I am unsure what it is referring to - sorry. On Huon's second point, that I did pull out from the google book citation tool and it was my oversight that I missed one of the cites in the text that corresponded to the earlier format. Postscript. Is the Feldman 1989 reference possibly this? (Josephus, the Bible, and history, Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata, BRILL, 1989 ISBN 9004089314, 9789004089310) Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

e/c Maybe it is that, but it matters not, it may have been a typo somewhere, but we can just use the "Flavius Josephus Revisited" source for that, and it says the same thing anyway, and is a straightforward sentence in any case. It goes back to our no Xerox machine at the time of Xerxes discussion, so they used Xerxes machines at that time instead... History2007 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked that the book mentioned by Eusebeus is the right one and have added it, thanks. This way we have the relevant page number, which is probably more helpful than referring to an entire book. Huon (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the manuscript section is pretty good. I would suggest, however, that the "Early References" section follow, not precede, the discussion of the manuscript tradition. That would seem more logical, especially since the Eusebian and Origen references are outlined in the manuscripts part and then explored in detail in the early references section. If this is agreeable, I suggest we reorder it in the article. Eusebeus (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes no difference to the text, but if you prefer it that way, I see no problem. History2007 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Now that I read it through again, I think the Slavonic section should be reduced. Reference to specific scholars, with maybe a few exceptions, should be left for the footnotes given the general academic consensus regarding its authenticity. I find it breaks the flow too much with its overly-detailed historiography. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is long, but it came about because it was needed to clarify the issues for it. Maybe we should do what John Carter suggested and spin it out as a separate small article, keeping just one or two paragraphs on it. What I do not want to do is explain the Slavonic to a new IP in 6 months time, so the text needs to be saved somewhere, and John's suggestion may end up being the best way to do it. History2007 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How about condensing via this quote from Meier, since it offers a good summary:

The clearly unauthentic text is a long interpolation found only in the Old Russian (popularly known as the "Slavonic") version of The Jewish War, surviving in Russian and Rumanian manuscripts.[4] This passage is a wildly garbled condensation of various Gospel events, seasoned with the sort of bizarre legendary expansions found in apocryphal Gospels and Acts of the second and third centuries. Despite the spirited and ingenious attempt of Robert Eisler in the 1920s and 1930s to defend the authenticity of much of the Jesus material in the Slavonic Jewish War, almost all critics today discount his theory. In more recent decades, G. A. Williamson stood in a hopeless minority when he tried to maintain the authenticity of this and similar interpolations, which obviously come from a Christian hand (though not necessarily an orthodox one).

And we could move the historiographical minutiae to the footnotes. Eusebeus (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Will you sign a legally binding agreement that in 6 months you will spend the 12 hours needed to explain it all again to an IP who finds that quote too brief? The way this Slavonic is used in various places needs more explanation than that. What is the problem with implementing John's suggestion and keeping a shorter summary than you have here. What you wrote is correct but has too much life in it and needs to get painted battleship grey anyway. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha. no, fair enough. That is from Meier directly, btw, not my own purple prose. What I was suggesting was that we keep the main gist, but move the references to Feldman, et al to the footnotes while retaining the obvious points for its invention at the hands of enthusiastic interpolators. Muh, not that big a deal, I just feel that it distracts from the flow between the extant manuscript and early references discussion. Perhaps just moving it someplace in the article would do the trick. Eusebeus (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I was even going to suggest an extended maintenance contract for 12 years.... And Meier's text should be toned down really. And given that there are 3 million articles already and the Slavonic is clearly Notable why not just pop it out, leave a summary and be done. Spinning it out will solve the flow problem and the IP in 6, 12, 18 months problem too. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Good idea. Eusebeus (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you just saved 2 weeks of my life in 2013.... The Welsh image, however, needs to go too now. But the text you kept is just great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that there is a small subsection on the Slavonic (1900 or so, low value), why not have a small subsection on the "Arabic and Syriac Josephus" which are high value, 1970s items. There is just one sentence on that now, but the Pines discovery of those has been a key item in a field that is by and large as dynamic as elevator music. Those really need more than one sentence, e.g. the same size paragraph as the Slavonic, and should follow that section, given the temporal order. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arabic and Syriac Josephus

In 1971, a 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis was brought to light by Shlomo Pines who also discovered a 12th century Syriac version of Josephus by Michael the Syrian. These additional manuscript sources of the Testimonium have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus' mention of Jesus in the Antiquities, principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the Testimonium.

There are subtle yet key differences between the Greek manuscripts and these texts. For instance, the Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principle men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified". And instead of "he was Christ," the Syriac version has the phrase "he was believed to be Christ". Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the Testimonium more closely reflect what a non-Christian Jew may have written.

Anyway, here is my suggestion for the Arabic/Syriac subsection. I deliberately kept away from how these may be used in arguments for/against authenticity not to bring that discussion into this section. But this subsection includes basic 1970s items that I think need to be mentioned. History2007 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit the prose. Good job - you are right this deserves a mention. Eusebeus (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but the "further evidence for the mention of Jesus in the Antiquities" is an argument for authenticity and we should not even mention it in this section that should be free of arguments. So please just say that "it has been used to study it" or something like that without suggesting an outcome for the study. And the term "replacing the key phrase" implies a temporal order, so should be changed to a simple "states" probably. Then it should be ready. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to point out their value for the debate, although you are right we should not get into the back and forth of authenticity in this section. I have edited the text accordingly. Eusebeus (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. I added "may" instead of "would" to tone down again, but looks right to me now. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if I ever get shipwrecked on an island somewhere for a few weeks, a separate article on Arabic and Syriac Josephus may be the thing to do, given that the explanation of the text, the background etc. is interesting. Or maybe we could talk Feldman into typing here.... History2007 (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

good arguments

2. Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to reserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate's denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.

3. On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar's images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.

4. After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.Erm here the qoute whith the rest of it> I think we sould inclond the fact hes on a tangent. and itnot the table of contents.

How Quirinius was sent by Caesar as an assessor of Syria and Judea and custodian of the estate of Archelaus. How Coponius, from the order of the knights, was sent as prefect of Judea. How Judas the Galilean persuaded the multitude not to register their estates, until Joazar the high priest persuaded them rather to submit to the Romans. Certain sects, even as many of the philosophers among the Jews, and certain laws. How Herod and Philip the tetrarchs created cities for the honor of Caesar. How Samaritans threw the bones of dead men into the temple and defiled the people for seven days. How Salome the sister of Herod died and left her possessions to Julia the wife of Caesar. How Pontius Pilate wished to bear busts of Caesar secretly into Jerusalem, and the people did not accept this, and rebelled. What happened to the Jews in Rome at this time under the Samaritans. An accusation of Pilate by Samaritans in the time of Vitellius, and how Vitellius compelled him to go up to Rome to give account for what he had done. The war and defeat of Herod the tetrarch against Aretas the king of the Arabs. How Tiberius Caesar wrote to Vitellius to persuade Artabanus the Parthian to send him hostages, and to make war against Aretas. The death of Philip, and how his tetrarchy became a prefecture. The sailing away of Agrippa to Rome, and how he was bound after having been accused by his own freedman; in what manner he was set free by Gaius upon the death of Tiberius and became king of the tetrarchy of Philip. How Herod went up to Rome and was banished, and how Gaius gifted his tetrarchy to Agrippa. The strife of the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria and the embassy from each to Gaius. Accusation of the Jews by Apion and of the fellow ambassadors for not having a statue of Caesar. How Gaius became irritated and sends Petronius the leader of Syria to make war against the Jews, unless they wish to receive his statue. The destruction that happened to the Jews in Babylon on account of the brothers Asineus and Anileus. These are good arguments agist the pasage which we should inclonded. Sorry I spell bad.

more good arguments here http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossDressingNazi2 (talk • contribs) 20 January 2007

Detailed analysis section (an outline for now)

Origins and manuscripts

We can include the manuscripts section from above, and precede it with a paragraph about origins etc.

There is a reference to Origen here. Maybe should somehow tie in (or say see below) with the "early references" section which will also include Origen?

Relationship to the Jewish Wars

These three references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as The Jewish War. Some critics believe the passages could have been later Christian interpolations and cite the discovery of a Russian version of The Jewish War, during the beginning of the twentieth century, commonly called the "Slavoic Josephus" or Testimonium Slavianum, that is universally acknowledged by all scholars to contain Christian interpolations. However, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" to be authentic.

Early references

Origen

In the 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria was the first ancient writer to have a comprehensive reference to Josephus, although some other authors had made smaller, general references to Josephus before then, e.g. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century, followed by Clement. Origen explicitly mentions the name of Josephus 11 times, both in Greek and Latin. However, despite the fact that most of Origen's works only survive in Latin translations, 10 out of the 11 references are in the original Greek.

The context for Origen's references are his defense of Christianity. In Contra Celsum (Book I, Chapter XLVII) as Origen defends the Christian practice of baptism, he recounts Josephus' reference to the baptisms performed by John the Baptist for the sake of purification. In Book II, Chapter XIII Origen mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James. And again in his Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17) Origen refers to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews by name and that Josephus had stated that the death of James had brought a wrath upon those who had killed him.

The 4th century writings of Eusebius of Caesarea refer to Josephus' account of James, John and Jesus. In his Church History (Book I, Chapter XI) Eusebius discusses the Josephus reference to how Herod Antipas killed John the Baptist, and mentions the marriage to Herodias in items 1 to 6. In the same Book I chapter, in items 7 and 8 Eusebius also discusses the Josephus reference to the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a reference that present in all surviving Eusebius manuscripts.

In Book II, Chapter 23.20 of his Church History, Eusebius describes the death of James according to Josephus. In that chapter, Eusebius first describes the background including Festus, and mentions Clement and Hegesippus. In item 20 of that chapter Eusebius then mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. However, Eusebius does not acknowledge Origen as one of his sources for the reference to James in Josephus.

• There's a good online source for Eusebius in Greek (with English translation).... If needed.

I am sure you know that better... Yet, the general direction in Wikipedia now is to use Wikisource, because it is not going to be subject to WP:Linkrot, so most links should have a Wikisource element. But as you can see not all of Eusebius is in Wikisource, but Church History happens to be there. In any case, we need to make a list of these references, and given that you know the Greek versions, if you want to add some of those, it will be great... unless of course Goddess Angela says Greek is not allowed unless they clean up their act... kidding... History2007 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this section now includes the "basic elements" about the early references, with Wikisource links so a reader can just read them anyway, as well as WP:Secondary references. I deliberately did not include any discussion of the implications on authenticity (or lack of it), here so the for/against authenticity arguments can appear in an orderly form in the sections below, and this section just gives the basic references and links. Unless there are other comments/errors in this section, I think we can assume it ready to be included, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for authenticity

• Louis Feldman, who believes the John passage is authentic, states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words).

• 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"

• Paul L. Maier, states that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the Testimonium: 1. It is entirely authentic, 2. It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3. It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus. Maier adds that the first case is generally seen as hopeless, given that a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given that the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative.

• Need to add TomHennell's point about the revised Schurer reference regarding Vermes and Millar's evaluation of the John the Baptist passage.

• Need to get WP:RS sources for the statement (mentioned in the section below) that in antiquity there was no motive for interpolations which would attempt to prove/confirm the existence or crucifixion of Jesus, given that these were not questioned in antiquity and the main attacks against Jesus were based on the theme of his being condemned and crucified as a sorcerer, etc. which in effect presupposed his existence and crucifixion.

Arguments against authenticity

• The 69 AD vs 62 AD discussion about death, etc. Discuss Clement of Alexandria Eusebius of Caesarea, etc.

• Regarding the Testimonium Flavianum discuss Photius, and ninth century Bibliotheca.

• Find out more about Drews' comment in his The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus where he states "Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus."

I did a search on that and I could not see any modern scholars that confirm, or even discuss the Vossius document. Somehow, I think if the Vossius document had acceptance in modern scholarship, some of the authors arguing against authenticity would have used it as a topic, in the half a century after Drews. So I doubt if that can be used as an argument, but what can be used (and is not questionable) is the following, based on Eusebius:

• 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. 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.

This is Isaac Vossius being referred to I would assume? Or is it Gerard? In any case, year that's not serious and I am surprised that Drew would credit the remark. Anyway, there are much more legitimate points to be made against authenticity. Olson's work on Eusebius is certainly worth a mention, given that it employs the comparative textual method often used for the gospels, etc... and makes a serious (if not widely accepted) case for Eusebian interpolation. Eusebeus (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are better arguments against authenticity than Drews. As a side note, Drews really reminds me of old quantum theory - a pre-WW2 set of ideas that were just forgotten afterwards. Referring to Drews is somewhat like using 8-track tape (a good friend of mine remembers those) instead of the iPod. There is better, modern scholarship against authenticity and that should be usedHistory2007 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern scholars who claim the Christ myth theory has no validity in academic circles don't mention not only did Schweitzer put Frazer in the "Most Recent Disputing of the History of Jesus" chapter of his 1912 and later editions of his Quest of the Historical Jesus but stated in his own 1931 autobiography "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." despite Frazer stating in the 1913 edition of his Golden Bough "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth". Small wonder modern scholars that support the idea the Josephus passages as being real want to ignore stuff like Vossius.

Furthermore Van Voorst's publisher of choice is Wm. B. Eerdmans who I demonstrated years ago to at best to have horrid fact Q&A with this quote from Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould's Jesus Now and Then: "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." (pg 37) At best, NONE of those authors mention "Jesus" but rather Christ which is a title--Josephus gives us a long list of would be Christs so at best all these authors show is that there was some guy name unknown who was called Christ that people still followed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So I think those two statements on Eusebius can be used as an argument in this section, for they are based on modern scholarship. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The main reason I brought up the Vossius manuscript (which per Acharya S "the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century.") is that it is very popular with the amateur brigade just as exaggerations of the whole sun deity connection are popular in some parts amateur brigade part of the Christ myth theory (Christ_myth_theory#The_solar_deity_connection exists mainly to address the flaws in their argument--yes there is a connection but it appears in the 4th century ie long after the core story of Jesus is documented). Also Drews is not the only person of his time to reference the Vossius manuscript--L. Gordon Rylands does in his 1927 The Evolution of Christianity by Watts and co. Acharya S in her The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled states "According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled ("CMU"), this Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of Josephus's Antiquities lacking the TF is "I. Vossius," whose works appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works."

A little digging shows that this work is by Mitchell Logan and viewable online though Google books This was enough for one blog forum regarding Christ Myth theory to go and look for the source. One of them believes it to be Gerardi Joannis Vossii (1601) De historicis graecis libri IV. They thought that the passage being refereed in Latin is "Illustre apud eum de Christo testimonium habemus in duodevigesimo Antiquitatum libro: unde illud etiam citat Hieronymus in Ecclesiasticorum scriptorum catalogo, item Suidas in Iosepos. Mirum verò non meminisse ejus Photium in excerptis suis cap."

In Google translate (I don't know Latin from a hole in the ground) this becomes "Clear evidence that we have in Christ with that of the eighteen days of the antiquities, from which it also cites Jerome in his catalog of ecclesiastical writers, also Suidas Iosepos. The wonder is not to remember her in the extracts of Photius his cap." Err, anyone out there know Latin?

We have clear evidence of Christ in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, which Jerome also cites in his catalog of ecclesiastical writings, Josephus and also Suidas. It is remarkable that this extract is not mentioned in the extract of his chapter in Photius. Eusebeus (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Another passage from the same work comes out a little more understandable in Google Translate:

"Scripsit, Photio teste a, Judaeorum regum Chronicon qui coronati fuere. Incepisse illud ait à Moyse, & perduxisse usque ad exitum Agrippae, septimi è familia Herodis, ac Iudaicorum regum ultimi: qui Claudij tempore regnare coepit; sub Nerone crevit, majoraque incrementa sumsit sub Vespasiano; ac tertio Trajani anno obiit: quò usque & historiam Instus perduxit. Ibidem judicium tale de eo sert, stylum esse. Adhaec dicit, communi Hebraeorum vitio laborare, ut, cùm Iudaeus genere effet, nullam de Christi adventu, aut miraculis ejus, faceret mentionem."

Google translate: "He wrote, Photio as a chronicle of the Jewish kings who were crowned. He said it began with Moses, and brought up the issue of Agrippa, the seventh member of the family of Herod, and the last of the Jewish kings, who Claudij time he began to reign of Nero has grown, the growth of the greater things took under Vespasian, Trajan, and the third year he died, and the story so far A he asked. There such a judgment of a wreath, that style. Besides, he says, and the common fault of the Hebrews, work hard to make, kind of being tired out with the Jews, none of the coming of Christ, or by its miracles, would he mention."

Hope that info dump helped.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the key obstacle I see here to Vossius may be what you said as well, namely: "Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works." And moreover, there is a debate, as you said, as to which Vossius we may be referring too, father or son. Another point is that blog type websites by the likes of Acharya are just not usable in Wikipedia per WP:USERG. And by and large discussions that circulate in the "amateur brigade" websites do not pass WP:RS. And again going back to Rylands in 1927, will bring up the question of out of date scholarship. We should remember that Drews etc. were all unaware of the 1970s discovery of the Arabic version etc. mentioned above,so they had incomplete information anyway.

What we should not do is WP:OR in connecting 1920-1930 sources to suggest a theory. Those types of discussions and theory formations take place in the websphere out there by amateur enthusiasts, but can never, really never, be used in Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:OR unless they get published in a major academic source. So my feeling is that the Vossius item is not going to fly, given that no one knows which Vossius and no one even knows which document is being suggested.

As I said, there are better (and verifiable) arguments against authenticity, e.g. that 12 authors were silent on the Testimonium, until Eusebius and that the comparison with the Arabic version suggests an early interpolation. That one is based on modern scholarship and can be used. History2007 (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Remember how far biblical and classical scholarship has come over the last decades. To draw from older work is inappropriate, unless it is still specifically recognised as a major contribution by modern scholarship. That said, I think I know what Bruce is getting at, which is that it may be useful to acknowledge this earlier position (including why it is discredited) for readers who may have encountered this point elsewhere. Eusebeus (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that is a possible angle. But one needs to find a WP:RS source that even discusses Vossius and discredits it. If that exists then fine. History2007 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my goal. I should mention just because a work is old doesn't mean it is useless--it can is still useful as a snapshot of the mindset of the time it was written in. Remsburg for example give you a good starting point for views on Josephus up to 1909 and the varies views as to why the references to Jesus were thought to be genuine or insertion. Also we need to relize that much of this stuff is being republished; for instance Remsburg's 1909 The Christ was republished as The Christ Myth by John Remsberg in 2007 and some people may not be up on the fact the information in that book is over 100 years old. Similarly Schweitzer's 1912 The Quest of the Historical Jesus got republished in 2001 and didn't really make clear that despite the 1950 copyright listed there were NO meaningful updates to the work from 1912 on. So this old stuff is out there and it doesn't always make itself clear it is old.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an old work being republished does not make it modern scholarship. And Schweitzer is pretty much in the pre 8-track realm as well. But the key difference is tha there have been "many" scholars who have followed on Schweitzer's footsteps, e.g. Sanders, Fredriksen, etc. etc. as part of a series of "quests". So Drews and Schweitzer themselves are just of historical items of what used to be, and not a source for current scholarship. So drawing the analogy with old quantum theory again (which was happening roughly at the same time) some ideas in physics survived, some did not. The Wikipedia article on quantum mechanics may make a passing mention to old quantum theory as a "has-been" but does not base anything on it, except say that it did not survive. So we can start the "arguments against section" with a brief history, but the main arguments against should be those of Wells, etc. who are modern scholars. The Wikipedia physics articles use the ideas that survived in the 21st century as their basis. We should do the same here. History2007 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking generally of arguments against authenticity of the T.Fl. itslef; the strong ones that I have found quoted are all internal;

• That the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates an interpolation. Attempts to discrimiate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular; of course if you remove the obviously Christian words, the rest is non-Christian.

• That the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus's narrative at this point.

• That the T.Fl. is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally in the Antiquities.

The external arguments against authenticity are mainly arguments from silence, and inherently weak as directed against a theory of partial authenticity (although stronger against a theory of full authenticity). The theories that Jesus of Nazareth may never have existed, of if existed was not claimed to be the Christ, or if claimed to be the Christ was not crucified; are entirely modern in their formulation. Early Christian writers would have no reason to note a T.Fl that did not explicitly support Christian doctrines. TomHennell (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a good structural point to separate the internal and external arguments. And you have another point, which should actually be part of the other section (on authenticity arguments) namely that in antiquity there was no need to "attempt to prove the existence of Jesus" given that the basic attacks against him in antiquity were that he was crucified due to being a sorcerer, etc. And I think as Paul Maier summarized the situation:

• There is hardly any support that the Testimonium is entirely authentic - he called that hopeless
• There is very little support that it is entirely a forgery
• Most scholars are in the mid-way camp, i.e. some of it was authentic, but was then interpolated.

So we should just present the modern arguments in view of that. History2007 (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is the same one the Christ Myth theory has --the one field best suited to properly dealing with this, historical anthropology (Ethohistory), is next to totally absent. Also, contrary to what TomHennell thinks many elements of what is now call the Christ Myth theory date back to the 1st and centuries.

For example, the Classicist Michael Grant state "This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence." This clearly connects this part of Christ myth theory with docetism which kicks that part to c70 CE.

Similarly Muslims hold that Jesus was not crucified which kicks that idea back to the 6th century if not early--hardly modern.

Similarly the idea that the story of Jesus was not true and was in fact pulling its idea form older pagan religions goes back to at least Celsus c180 CE.

Finally the Jesus of Nazareth may never have existed may also be old depending on how you mean it-didn't exist ala King Arthur Pendragon or ala Dr Who or King Lear (those are the very examples Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall gives in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus). Remsburg for example made it bluntly clear about just what he was arguing: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist. (...) While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination."

As Marshall states, "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."

Remsburg didn't go to the extreme Marshall did and said "A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

So as you can see the core of these points go back far before modern times--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the "pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about" item, for I am not sure what we are talking about now. Tom had provided a sketch/summary of the arguments "against authenticity" for the Testimonium. His summary can be useful in writing down the arguments used in that section based on modern scholarship. You seem to be discussing the more general Jesus myth theory, mentioning Remsburg, Strauss and other dearly departed which do not impact the modern scholarship on this issue. The irony is that Tom was building up the arguments for "lack of authenticity", which seems to be your goal too. So we should let those items be developed using modern WP:RS sources for the items Tom mentioned so that section can get completed. I think we just need to start writing that section based on the items we have now, plus WP:RS sources to see where it goes. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This goes back to the history issue I suggested before. Clinton Bennett's 2001 In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images is a treasure trove of information with Josephus talked about from page 23 to page 26 and he refers you to to the more detailed Josephus on Jesus by Alice Whealey. While Bennett is using the 1995 and 98 editions there is a later 2003 edition of the work ISBN:978-0820452418 that we could use.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I had seen the Bennett item and did not use it because it is a WP:Tertiary source. However, the reference you suggest to Whealey does not belong in this section at all, given that Bennett states that Whealey "concludes in favor of the authenticity" of the Testimonium. Although Whealey can be used as a source in the other section in favor of authenticity, why bother with her, given that she is an also-ran in scholarship, and there are far better sources than that to argue for authenticity. Again, I am sorry, but I am not at all, not at all sure what we are talking about here, given that you are now mentioning modern sources "in favor of authenticity", in a section that is about sources "against authenticity". History2007 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, read the passage again. "Whealey (1995, 1998) discusses the Testimonium Flavinium at length, as well as the history of its criticism, and concludes in favour of authenticity, suggesting that the original text read 'he was believed to be the Messiah'" You use Whealey NOT for authenticity but for the history regarding criticism of the Testimonium Flavinium passage. This what actual researchers do--a source they find may itself may not be that useful but it can lead them to other sources that are more useful. Sure by WP:USERG the blog of Acharya S in of itself is not usable but it can point you in the direct of material that is; the same is true of discussions of the "amateur brigade" websites. Furthermore following these sources can reveal problems with the way the referenced material is being used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this section is about arguments against authenticity, as I said, so Whealey is not relevant in this section. If there is to be a section called "history of criticism", then she may go there. As for the "amateur brigade" please feel free to read those. History2007 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sign, you have to start thinking like a real modern researcher--in terms of system theory. Eisler for example is also old (1929) but he shows that the argument from silence is ridiculously old and not just the product of modern scholars. It's a case of been there, done that, gotten the freaking T-Shirt...back in 1909 if not earlier. While on the Bermuda Triangle David Kusche's comment also applies to Josephus:

"Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out."

The full title Whealey's work is "Josephus on Jesus: the testimonium Flavianum controversy from late antiquity to modern times" so she is presenting the against arguments as well even if she didn't find them compelling. THAT IS HOW SHE IS USEFUL. Sheesh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument from silence may be old, but it can only be used because modern scholars use it. Had modern scholars not used it, it could not be used. History2007 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it could have still been used even if they weren't being used by modern scholars if we were presenting a history of views on the Josephus passages--the Focal infection theory is a prime example of such an article.

The main reason that the argument from silence has lasted so long is that doesn't stand on its own--there are other things that it ties into. For example, why would Josephus writing for a Roman audience use a term (Christ) that many of them of the time likely didn't know from a hole in the ground and more over why only use it for one of the many would be messiahs? Also what about these other versions that supposedly didn't have any reference to Jesus as the Christ?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the value in this discussion. The argument based on silence against authenticity "has been presented". Now, the fact that it is old does not buy anything about the current state of scholarship, and would have only been of value to the study of what people thought half a century ago. But the modern scholarly views on the argument from silence has been presented here in any case.

Yet the fundamental (and recurring) problem I see here is that you seem to have an attachment to the presentation of the works of the dearly departed such as Arthur Drews, etc. I should (again) point out that those 1930s publications can not represent "reliable modern scholarly views", given that people such as Drews were totally unaware of discoveries made long after their death and could not easily correct themselves even if they tried. An example is the well known "about-face" which one of the "Drews sympathetic authors" G. A. Wells made at the end of the 20th century after James Dunn presented him with specific arguments and historical pointers - we discussed that about-face on this talk page before. Now, let us ask the following general questions (extending beyond arguments from silence) about the works of Drews:

• Was Drews aware of the scholarly debates on the topic that took place all the way after 1940? Was Drews aware of the key discoveries Shlomo Pines made in the 1970s, regarding the Arabic manuscripts of Josephus? Did Drews comment on Pines? The answers are clear: no, no and no.

• Would Drews have changed his mind and done an "about-face" as Wells did on some issues he wrote about if he had become aware of the discoveries by Pines and the arguments presented by other scholars in the 1980s? The answer is: there is no easy way to know.

Those types of speculative issues are best left to the websphere, not Wikipedia. Now if you want to keep insisting on Drews, etc. there is only one way to know if he can be used. Please do contact Acharaya S. or other enlightened members of the amateur brigade, and ask them to contact Drews through channels that they may have unique access to and see if he would, or would not have, done an about face now that new evidence has come to light. Once Drews has provided an answer through those channels, then it may be published in WP:RS sources and then Wikipedia can use it. Come to think of it Acharaya S. may even be able to contact Josephus himself and ask if he ever wrote any of this.... Until then, a discussion of what we should term "antique shop scholarship" is just not going to work in Wikipedia. That is policy. Per WP:RS we should really focus on modern scholarship as the key theme for the discussions. History2007 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Latin Table of Contents

One significant piece of external evidence is the 5th/6th century selective table of contents in manusccripts of the second part of Antiquities in the Latin version, (on which see Feldman) which does not mention the T.Fl. I have seen a discussion of this by Christopher Price in an essay on the web, but have not found his arguments published. Price argues that the table appears to be translated from the Greek, and hence must be rather earlier in date. Moreover, there is nothing in the table to indicate a Christian origin for its composition. It omits not only the T.Fl, but also the notices of James and John the Baptist (though these are items of great interest to Christians such as Origen), and uses no characteristically Christian turns of phrase or vocabulary. Price argues that it is Jewish; most probably originating in the original circulation of the text by Josephus or his assistants. Price refers these observations to H. StJ. Thackeray, the editor of the 1930 Loeb edition of Josephus. Does anyone have access to this edition? TomHennell (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The silence of the 5th/6th century table of contents is mentioned in the text of the "arguments against authenticity" section below, and uses Feldman as a source - that is where I saw it, and added it. My guess is that Feldman is as good a source as any given that he wrote that himself, and was not by another author. Even if we have another source for it, it will not make a difference for that subsection, given that it is already mentioned as an argument against authenticity and sourced to Feldman as a WP:RS item (the bede.org website is not WP:RS and will be called an apologetic item). As a side note, these days most scholars respect Feldman on that topic because he has spent all his life on Josephus, and probably dreams of him at night... Somewhat like Ulrich Luz and Matthew (he has written at least 10 books on Matthew and knows everything about it). One can wonder how someone will spend so many decades on a single topic, but that is a separate story.... History2007 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Subsection structure

Now that the manuscripts section has been moved in, I think we can later arrange the subsections in a form that will make the structure clear to a first time reader. I suggest we use a top level heading called "The three passages" that groups the three brief overviews. The suggested structure is:

1. The three passages

1.1 James the brother of Jesus

1.2 John the Baptist

1.3 Testimonium Flavianum

2. Ancient and medieval sources

2.1 Early references

2.2 Extant manuscripts

2.3 Slavonic Josephus

3. Detailed analysis

3.1 Variations from the New Testament

3.2 Arguments in favor of authenticity

3.3 Arguments against authenticity

4. See also, etc.

Most of the subsections take up approximately one screen, so the organization seems to make sense. And this is independent of the text therein, so should be straightforward. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There we go: Errors being served again

In this edit an unsourced statement was added to the section on James, i.e.:

• "the passage was not mentioned by Origen during the 3rd century, and the existence of the passage is first attested to by Eusebius."

Either that is a flat error, or the text of Origen's Book II, Chapter XIII in Wikisource is incorrect, for at the end of the last paragraph it says "whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ". And of course Wikisource has Origen's Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17) also refer to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews by name and says: "that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “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, that 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".... So errors are being served again, as a side dish for the article... What can I say? History2007 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the erroneous information. Such edits should first be proposed here on the talk page to gain consensus and then moved to the body of the article. Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No "errors", our extant manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 do not mention the destruction of Jerusalem in relation to James, whilst Origen, in Contra Celsum I:47, gives the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem as a consequence of the death of James. The accounts found in Antiquities 20:9 and Contra Celsum I:47 are two completely different accounts. Origen was ignorant of Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 Lung salad (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We would need a reliable secondary source, preferably one using Origen's supposed lack of a mention of these lines as an argument against their authenticity in order to avoid WP:SYN problems. Of course WP:UNDUE also must be taken into account, and given the very short mention of the majority opinion in that section I doubt mentioning the minority position at greater length would be adequate. If I understand History2007's scheme correctly, a longer discussion of the arguments for and against authenticity will be added to the article, and that seems a better place for this content. Huon (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that this is a new subject matter to the editors concerned. Secondary sources to the passage that was edited out of the article are legion. The point is made every time Origen is mentioned in relation to Josephus. That Eusebius was the first to attest the existence of Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 is not a controversial fact. Lung salad (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Then it should have been easy to (re-)add a reliable source to that statement, and it does not address the WP:UNDUE issues. Huon (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Lung Salad is using that dreaded word again: "fact".... Have we all already forgotten about WP:V? Does WP:Truth ring a bell? I am getting really, really tired of this "comedy of unsourced edits" based on assertions of facts. The claim Lung Salad's edit "was presenting" made it sound like Origen never referred to Josephus and James - that is just flatly incorrect based on sources and yet he is still arguing for it again based on "facts".

Now, once upon a time, there was a scholar called Zvi Baras, and said scholar wrote in the first reference within this article (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity ISBN 978-90-04-08554-1.) on on page 341:

Let us observe these stages in Origen's writings and note carefully how Origen uses Josephus apropos the martyrdom of James. Origen mentions James' martyrdom three times in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and each time he introduces a small but meaningful addition.

After quoting Origen, Baras continues on page 342:

What strikes us immediately is the unanimous conclusion that places the blame for the destruction of the Temple on the execution of James. Yet Origen bothers to distinguish between Josephus' conclusion and that of the people. He directs us to Antiquities XX, where, indeed, the story of James is recounted; but when he refers to the people's same deduction

Baras continues on pages 342 and 343:

Origen "corrects" Josephus' alleged conclusion, saying that Josephus should have assigned the blame for the destruction not on the execution of James the Just, but rather on the Jews' mistreatment of Jesus.

Do I need to retype the whole article here? Or do you want to call Baras and tell him to get his "facts" straight, change what he wrote in the book, etc.? That would have been funny, if it had not been so tedious to repeat.

Lung Salad: accept it, Josephus referred to the death of James. Accept it, and stop. Period.

Correcting these flatly incorrect edits introduced here with no source, in the "veritable name of fact" is getting to be very tedious indeed. History2007 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

See Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History page 73 (2007) where he treats the statements by Origen and Eusebius relating to Josephus about James as being completely different, as do all other scholars (including Baras above). Lung salad (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So Eusebius and Origen may differ on some things, but the statement that Origen never referred to Josephus' mention of the death of James remains two things: unsourced and flatly incorrect. Period. And by your admission here, if Origen and Eusebius differ on their treatment of James and Josephus, that means Origen referred to it and Eusebius was not the first, as your edit incorrectly portrayed, sans a source. So now you understand that your edit was incorrect, and source free. Period. I am going to stop on this for a while... History2007 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Origen referred to the death of James as the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not found in Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, 1. The first to attest the existence of this passage is Eusebius, who conflated it with Origen's account (read Baras). Lung salad (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• This section of the article wants to establish ONLY that Origen made reference to a "James, brother of Jesus" from the Antiquities by Josephus. Nothing more. I see no need to to add further information in this section given the intent of these paragraphs outlined above in the discussion and the larger analytical scheme envisioned and being drafted. Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Then there were no "errors" as initially claimed. Origen is an important testimony to Josephus about James and is found universally in all scholarly books on the subject matter. It should not be omitted from Wikipedia. It would be the only place where this reference would be omitted.

I propose the additional sentence to the final paragraph of the section on James, and I can provide ample citations:

However, a few scholars still question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in 'The Jewish War' differ from it. While Origen was the first Christian to attest to the execution of James within Josephus, his account related to linking the death of James to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple that is different to the account found in 'Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, 1' that was later referred to by Eusebius in his 'Ecclesiastical History'.

Do we have agreement on this? Lung salad (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, for reasons stated N times above. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Then it is a biased article violating NPV. Lung salad (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with that either, and your initial statement did/does have errors. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No to the proposed edit - it should be reserved for the more detailed analysis section. Comment about NPOV is incomprehensible (and I removing the banner per WP:TE. I will not comment further on this unless it becomes clear that the proposed redraft discussed extensively above should be scrapped and the article redesigned. Eusebeus (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Origen is a primary source for Josephus on Jesus because he is the first Christian witness to Josephus about James and Jesus. How can this be omitted from the article? How can referring to Origen be descibed as tendencious editing within the context of "Josephus on Jesus"? It is found everywhere. Example: Here are the references from Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome [2] Lung salad (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI Lung Salad: Origen has not been ignored or omitted. There is already a section on early references which includes Origen, and there is a picture of Origen in the article! Do you want a different picture of Origen, perhaps with a different hair style? As the lengthy and detailed discussions above show, the section on Origen was discussed on this talk page and was "only included" after agreement among editors. And the issue of Origen's impact on authenticity is currently being discussed within the "authenticity section". Your insistence that Origen is not mentioned, while his image appears in the article next to his discussion, and despite the fact that the nature of Origen's reference is currently being discussed a few sections above on this talk page, is a clear case of WP:TE.

Note that the article structure, to have a basic overview first, then a "detailed discussion section" was also agreed upon on this talk page among editors and the text is being developed based on that. And again, and again, and again, your reference to www.earlychristianwritings.com is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because you have been informed N-times now to only use WP:RS sources, and that is not WP:RS. This is just WP:TE applied to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And again, your initial edit (i.e. "the passage was not mentioned by Origen during the 3rd century) that started this discussion was both unsourced and incorrect as manifested by your own statement just above that: "Origen is a primary source for Josephus on Jesus because he is the first Christian witness to Josephus about James and Jesus." The problem is that your statements do not seem logical as they change in an hour. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is a user issue more than a content issue. (see this diff for my comment on his talk page which I suspect will be deleted shortly). I propose we close down this section as nothing fruitful can be gained here. Eusebeus (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a user issue, more than a content issue. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, in this edit John Carter informed Lung Salad about this ANI post he started regarding Lung Salad's behavior. I will just note that because Lung Salad's talk page has received a large number of "blank line edits" that push that notification back into history and a little hard to see. And I agree with the suggestion of Eusebeus that we close this issue and move forward with the improvements we were discussing. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)