Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Tower built on sand

The slightest touch, and everything falls apart. Lung salad (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PG I think we should bypass the comment above and not discuss items that do not relate to page improvement, so I suggest we move on to completing the discussions on the two remaining sections, only one of which remains incomplete. I will therefore collapse this comment. History2007 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"page improvement" relates to article to tailor editor's biases. Lung salad (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguments against authenticity (draft)

I have started a new section with a draft of arguments against authenticity, based on the material above, and with the structure suggested by Tom. It does not have WP:RS sources yet, but I have seen sources for every one of those statements before, so it is just a question of finding them again. After sources have been added, it should be a basis for that section. There is a section below it for discussion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by History2007 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Arguments against authenticity

Although rare today, earlier scholars argued that the references found in the Antiquities of the Jews are not authentic to Josephus' original work and are instead purely Christian interpolations. This skeptical view, although now generally rejected, was based on several observations that continue to engage the scholarly debate. First, no Christian author before Eusebius, writing in 324, made reference to the Josephan corroboration of Jesus, even though it is known they had access to his works. Given earlier debates between Christians and Jews over whether Jesus existed (notably that between Justin Martyr and Trypho), it seems unlikely that Christian apologists before Eusebius would not have used the passage from Josephus to bolster their position. Second, the Testimonium is not parallelled in Josephus' work, The Jewish War, even though it includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level fo detail. Third, even after Eusebius' mention, it is not until Saint Jerome's De Viris Illustribus that the passage from Josephus is found again, even though the Testimonium's support for the existence of Jesus would have been highly apposite in the works of many intervening patristic authors (including, for example, Augustine).

Even skeptical scholarship is divided on whether all three references should be rejected as interpolation and each passage has been the subject of scrutiny. It has been suggested, for example, that the passage concerning James is Christian in origin since it includes a negative view of the priest Ananus, who is elsewhere praised in Josephus' writings. (JJC, 1987, 56)

Eusebius

Arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium may be internal, i.e. made based on the textual analysis of the passage, or external i.e. made via the historical and cultural context. One of the main argument against the total authenticity of the Testimonium is that as a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and a reference to the Messiah must be a Christian interpolation. This is further corroborated by the fact that Origen (who does not directly refer to the Testimonium, but refers to James and John the Baptist in Josephus) specifically mentions that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Thus almost all modern scholars conclude that the Testimonium can not be authentic in its entirety, yet the majority of modern scholars still hold that the Testimonium includes an authentic kernel.

Another external argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium is an argument from silence, i.e. that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius, none mentions the Testimonium and the next mention of the Testimonium after Eusebius is by Jerome, about a hundred years later. Ken Olson argues that the entire Testimonium must have been forged by Eseubuis himself. Another argument presented against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that a 5th or 6th century table of contents of Josephus (although selective) makes no mention of it. Other scholars also point to the silence of Photios as late as the 9th century, and the fact that he does not mention the Testimonium at all in his broad review of Josephus.

Scholars such as Zvi Baras, on the other hand, believe that the Testimonium was subject to interpolation before Eusebius. Baras believes that Origen had seen the original Testimonium but that the Testimonium seen by Origen had no negative reference to Jesus, else Origen would have reacted against it. Baras states that the interpolation in the Testimonium took place between Origen and Eusebius. Paul Maier states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the Testimonium must have come early, before Eseubuis. Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.

One of the internal arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates an interpolation. For instance, the phrase "if it be lawful to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation. Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original Testimonium, but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.

A second internal argument against the Testimonium's authenticity is the context of the passage in the Antiquities of the Jews. Some scholars argue that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' text at the point in which it appears in the Antiquities and breaks the thread of the narrative.

A third internal argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the Antiquities, and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.

Origen and Josephus

I removed the paragraph in the section about Origen that had no bearing on Origen. Origen's version of the death of James differs from the accounts existing in the current versions of Josephus, first witnessed by Eusebius. Lung salad (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with that deletion at all. That section is not just about Origen, it is about both Origen and Eusebius, and it is called "Early references". The paragraph Lung Salad removed in this edit was:

"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."

The paragraph is well referenced, both WP:Primary and WP:Secondary WP:RS references exist within it. And the paragraph clearly relates to Jospehus. Eusebius refers to the issue in Book I, Chapter XI and also in Book II, Chapter 23.20 - the deleted reference. That is clear both from the WP:RS reference that was removed at will and from the deleted Wikisource link which in item 20 mentions it. Now why should that well referenced text and the link to Wikisource get deleted based on the explanation that it has nothing to do with Origen? It is clearly related to "Early references". I do not see the logic in that deletion. And why suddenly delete it with no discussion? I thought we were going to discuss these things instead of starting a revert ping pong. History2007 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Placing Eusebius with Origen in a subsection entitled Origen may give the misleading notion that Origen's and Eusebius's accounts were both in agreement with each other. Lung salad (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay the subsection is indeed entitled Early References with a picture of Origen. The differences between the two writers therefore need to be more pronounced than they were before. Origen regarded Josephus as an unreliable witness to Christianity, therefore he could not have known about the Testimonium and his version of the death of James is linked to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Lung salad (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, "read the section title before deleting" at a will. And an article on "Josephus on Jesus" absolutely, utterly needs to mention Book II, Chapter 23.20 of Eusebius for that is a key reference. Now, you need to self-revert and discuss. I am getting tired of this. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Need to highlight the differences between the accounts of Origen and Eusebius, not produce a muddled account where no apparent difference between the two writers exist Lung salad (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that you have self-reverted, you need to read the discussion above, in which we discussed and it was agreed that that small section includes neither the similarities, nor the differences between Origen and Eusebius else it will be arguments for/against. That section was intended to be neither for, nor against authenticity and arguments for and against were/are being developed in Talk:Josephus on Jesus/testpage. If we add differences there, we will also need to add similarities - material that is destined for the "details section". So neither the differences, nor the similarities were included there, so that a lengthy discussion could be presented here within the details section. That was discussed at length. Now I will stop and let other people comment too. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What would the similarities be - that James was executed in Jerusalem? The differences outweigh the similarities considerably. Lung salad (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What outweighs or does not outweigh needs that here elusive item called a "source". Now, I saw that you also made other unsourced changes, e.g. added "but was unknown to Origen." That is not exactly correct, and should be "was not mentioned by Origen", for the debate as to whether Origen knew it or not exists, and some scholars state that he may have known it but did not refer to it - so the correct way is to say not mentioned. And if you are to make such changes, or make claims, you need to add that ever elusive item called a WP:RS source. Now I have not even checked if the other changes you made deviate from the sources or not. We have had that problem before. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that scholars' observations on this subject matter are mainly assumptions, different authors give different opinions in their respective books. Lung salad (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

However, as per our policies and guidelines, it is incumbent on us in such cases to indicate what the majority of the present academic opinion is, if such exists, or, alternately, to indicate individual academics who have clearly taken such positions. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are rules to follow in such matters. And, of course, if we have a reliable source which clearly indicates that these conclusions are assumptions, then that too could be added. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, per WP:V Wikipedia relies on what scholars state in WP:RS sources. That is all. If there are differences among scholars, WP:RS/AC is used to determine the majority opinion, if any, etc. etc. Now you need to check if the changes you made deviate from the sources that follow them. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How many scholars state that Origen knew of the Testimonium, as a direct fact? There are many differing assumptions ranging from - *That Origen read the original unadulterated passage before it was glossed by Christian interpolators (based upon his passage "although Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ" to - *The Testimonium being created sometime between Origen and Eusebius. Lung salad (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the article contains a section on James and all it covers is what is contained in the extant Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 that was first witnessed by Eusebius. Origen referred to a passage about James in Josephus that predates Eusebius and is an earlier, different account - a fact that is missing from the section. Lung salad (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Check this edit and either add a source for the last statement you added (unknown to Origen) or mark it as uncited. Then check and provide assurances that the other two items you added correspond to the sources, then we continue. But I do not want to let unsourced material go bye and start other discussions. So do those first, not have unsourced items added. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier 1999 ISBN 082542948X page 996 states:

How can the same Origen .... say that: "it may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus to be a man, or whether they did not suppose him to be a being of a diviner kind"? This looks so very like the fifth and sixth clauses of this testinomy in Josephus, that Jesus was a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, that it is highly probable that Origen thereby alluded to them; and this is the more to be depended on..."

I kept the same italics as the source. To say Origen did not know about it is incorrect, given that some scholars state that he may have alluded to it. The correct way is to say that Origen did not directly refer to it. By the way, the article already says that further above! Lung Salad: the statement you added is "unsourced and incorrect", while the article already includes the correct form. Go and correct your error yourself. And "stop adding unsourced statements" at will. I really can not babysit and correct these "unsourced edits" forever. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You have repeated the views of one conservative scholar. Do you require other citations?Lung salad (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There are' sourced edits on Josephus mentioning a passage about the death of James predating Eusebius that is different to the passage found in Eusebius. When is this information going to be introduced into the article in the relevant section on James? Lung salad (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We can, of course discuss that after you have fixed the errors you introduced today. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:V correspondence to source

Now, in this edit Galassi made a change that does not represent what the sources say. Of course two of the passages are disputed by a small number of scholars, but as the article states a few lines below: "The majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic" and "Almost all modern scholars consider this Josephus passage about John to be authentic in its entirety." So the correct way to say that if WP:RS/AC means anything these days is that "a small minority of scholars dispute two of the passages, while almost all scholars consider them to be authentic, and most scholars consider the third passage to be based on interpolations of an authentic kernel". I think Galassi just fixing the weasel issues but based on the objection of Lung Salad to his previous change the new form does not correspond to what the sources state and fails WP:V now. I suggest it should be fixed to represent what the sources state. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What you mean is that there are citable references in books that claim that the majority of scholars consider the passages to be accepted as authentic by the "majority" - Feldman provides a list of names per category but his list is incomplete. The degrees by which acceptance is given by the relevant scholars is not related. Lung salad (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

e/c What I mean is that the WP:RS/AC sources are really (yes really) well known to you Lung Salad, given that:

• in this warning you were told that in this deviation from source edit you modified what the sources said about the WP:RS/AC view to make them deviate from the source. You were invited to correct your edit to make the text correspond back to what the source stated, but never did, until you were later reverted.

There is no such thing as a scholar who definitively claims the passages to be authentic, they only provide opinions - even Alice Whealey states the passages are disputed and offers her beliefs within this wider context Lung salad (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the statements you modified before to make them deviate from their sources, and that should explain it to you. In case you can not be bothered, an example is further above on this page: Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of this Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged" Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage" Of course in your edit mentioned above you changed the Feldman quote to read: "Louis Feldman states that the possible authenticity of this Josephus passage has been "almost universally acknowledged" (bold added to show your deviation) so you must be familiar with it. I think the situation is pretty clear here. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you have cited two sources. Lung salad (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the diff. Read the diff. You modified several sources to make them deviate. They are there. Read the diff. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

About the quote from Origen it may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus to be a man, or whether they did not suppose him to be a being of a diviner kind? - from which work by Origen does this originate? Provenance? Wikipedia guidelines indicate that sourced material must be critically examined because that could be wrong. Lung salad (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, one thing at a time, and in the right sections. Address the above issue here. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Objectively, the statements by Feldman, Hata, Maier etc are opinions and 'not the voice of Wikipedia. When quoting from books, it is the opinion of the author and not the "voice" of WikipediaLung salad (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

e/c Look, that type of statement does not authorize you to edit what a source states to make it deviate from the source. WP:V must be respected. History2007 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted. I don't object to the substance of the edits being made, but based on the discussion above, the consensus is clear that detailed analysis of the textual and referential discrepancies belongs in the detailed analysis section currently under construction and not in the general overview. I and, I am sure, every editor on this page is in full agreement that the questions surrounding potential Eusebian interpolation based on inferences from the source apparently available to Origen deserve close attention. But the place for such a discussion is in the detailed analysis. I don't understand why there is this steadfast refusal to make such edits on the test page like everyone else. Lung Salad, please learn how to collaborate. By the way, any response to this that mentions sources, references, etc... is off-topic as the point of my comment is a reminder about the placement of the text. This, I say again, is the matter of agreement above. So first, you will need to argue WHY you feel such material belongs in the general overview. Then you can argue about your references. Meanwhile, let's derive suitable wording before changing the version at hand. I suggest until Lungsalad is forthcoming on this issue specifically, editors disengage as it is not getting as very far. Eusebeus (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But as above, Lung Salad is now again asking about the "majority view sources" that he edited to deviate from sources before. We are going in circles here. History2007 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's it - confine the important material into a marginalised context. Authenticity of the passages is a paramount precondition. The article is biased. Lung salad (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• So is it your view that unless the article presents the detailed analysis of scholarly discussions in the general overview, rather than a separate section devoted to this, it is biased? Eusebeus (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is half-baked. When reference is made to the Testimonium being partially authentic it is not elaborated upon as to what this actually means. Only half the information is given. Lung salad (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Which paragraph do you find objectionable? Eusebeus (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You win! I'm OUT. Lung salad (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was WP:V that prevailed. It always does. History2007 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Except there are no manuscripts predating the eleventh century to evaluate the integrity of these various theories. Lung salad (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

BIASED ARTICLE

Origen never referred to the Testimonium - the reference above attributed to Origen cannot be traced yet there is great emphasis on verifiability from those who introduced the passage. Origen had a completely different version of the death of James in his edition of Josephus, that does not harmonise with the account provided in the edition of Josephus by Eusebius. Origen flatly stated that Josephus did not regard Jesus to be the Christ. None of this is in this biased article.Lung salad (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What I have just outlined is found in all books about Josephus. Except in this article. Lung salad (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Another wasted evening! I'm out of here. Lung salad (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

BIASED ARTICLE 2

Origen never referred to the Testimonium - the reference above attributed to Origen cannot be traced yet there is great emphasis on verifiability from those who introduced the passage. Origen had a completely different version of the death of James in his edition of Josephus, that does not harmonise with the account provided in the edition of Josephus by Eusebius. Origen flatly stated that Josephus did not regard Jesus to be the Christ. None of this is in this biased article.

What I have just outlined is found in all books about Josephus. Except in this article.Lung salad (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This quote would be repeated consistently and substantially if it were "genuine":

How can the same Origen .... say that: "it may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus to be a man, or whether they did not suppose him to be a being of a diviner kind"? This looks so very like the fifth and sixth clauses of this testinomy in Josephus, that Jesus was a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, that it is highly probable that Origen thereby alluded to them; and this is the more to be depended on...Lung salad (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The passage above is quoted in footnote 48 to the article, but where did Whiston get it from? Has anybody checked? Lung salad (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

e/c Look, what you say is not an argument from sources, but arguments "based on inference",. The article as is today says: "Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium". As for other sources, in "Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings and his Significance" ISBN 311009522X on page 823 after a long discussion of the issues as to why Origen would or would not have referred to the Testimonium, and complained about the tone of Josephus there or not, etc., Louis Feldman concludes:

The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form.

So there is even debate as to the tone of the Testimonium that Origen may have read and Feldman thinks it had a neutral tone when Origen read it. I will leave it there. History2007 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's that word assumption again - definition, anyone? Lung salad (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And an unsourced citation exists in the article. Lung salad (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Feldman quote here is a direct quote from a WP:RS source by an expert. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote is devoid of provenance. Someone can write George Washington said "I flew on a flying saucer to mars" that does not make it realistic. Lung salad (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just love that one: a quote from a WP:RS source by an expert is "devoid of provenance" because an editor thinks it is not realistic. What can I say, but smile... History2007 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

William Whiston was the Velikovsky of his day. He inspired Velikovsky. He failed to provide a source for the alleged quote by Origen. The quote is without provenance Lung salad (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant the Feldman quote. In any case, the Feldman quotes settles the issue now, regardless of any other debate. End of story. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

History, can you follow this? I find the objections bewildering and have a hard time even making sense of them. Can you explain what you think is going on? Eusebeus (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

e/c It matters not what I think. My idea would probably lack provenance in any case. But I think given the sources, etc. the issue s settled now. The puzzling, I mean really puzzling issue was when Lung Salad again asked about the majority view sources an hour ago, the very sources he had modified in the diff presented above to make them deviate from the source. That was even more puzzling. But what do I know... History2007 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I understand that he objects to the suggestion that the Test. Fl. is referred to in Origen. But I don't understad his objections to the article as it stands now, quite aside from the bizarre behaviour you reference above in the diffs. Eusebeus (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Assumption - A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Lung salad (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One last thing, now I have actually read Feldman and Whealey I can state they don't give all the facts about this subject matter. Guess what, it takes having to access old books and old articles to obtain the facts not given in Feldman's and Whealey's books. Opinions and assumptions are prone to change with the wind, facts remain facts. Lung salad (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, then the only way is for you to telephone Louis Feldman on Monday, explain his errors to him, set him straight, and ask him to write a new book. Once he has corrected himself and included all the facts based on your instructions, it will be a WP:RS source and we can use that. History2007 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should I care about Feldman? He's dismissed. Lung salad (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps lungsalad is an amateur scholar or something, which would explain why he appears to be arguing against the scholarly RS. These fringe folks certainly appear from time to time to validate their work/ideas via Wikipedia. That would make sense of some of these rather bizarre objections. Eusebeus (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping we would get to hear about the phone conversation between Lung Salad and Feldman. But now that Feldman has been "dismissed", let us stop. This is enough. History2007 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eusebeus and History2007 in that these objections are getting more bizarre as we go along. However, I do agree we need more details in the article and I have a very good source for that--Boyd-Eddy's 2007 Jesus Legend published by Baker academic (978-0801031144). While they don't gather up all the points that they bring up when summing up the for and against arguments regarding the passages all the points are there. We can use that as our main reference and touch on experts that address any points Boyd-Eddy missed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. And I must say this is taking a lot, I mean a lot of time and wasting, I mean utterly wasting, a lot of time. Earlier today, I had started Torus interconnect and was hoping to add more to it. Then this brouhaha started and stopped all development on that. I think I will just leave it as a stub now and move on. So this type of illogical discussion (someone tell me this is not a case of WP:disruptive editing by Lung Salad, where sources he himself had distorted before via deviant edits are requested again), where an expert such as Louis Feldman is "dismissed" because he has not presented all the facts to Lung Salad's satisfaction (after we have mentioned WP:Truth so many times here) is just detrimental to the development of the encyclopedia. Lung Salad must be stopped. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes he does seem to have a strong pov which he wants to push in the article. But the article is not about him, or what he thinks. Might have to report him if he keeps this up. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just his strong POV, it is also ignoring WP:V, adding unsourced items, and talking about "facts" for 2 weeks now, saying that the experts do not matter, etc. Someone tell me this is not WP:TE. As I said this is eating up time that would have gone into productive development elsewhere. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I know the feeling. We have had a lot of this kind of nonsense from both sides with regards to the Christ myth theory which took me and several other dedicated editors more than two years to clean up in terms of NPOV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But sympathy is one thing, wasted time is another. This must stop now. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be WP:TE. Would WP:ANI be the appropriate place to go? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, given that the term "bizzare" has been used by multiple editors to refer to Lung Salad's edits. I am out of breath here. If you could post there, it will be appreciated, given that you were not involved in the discussion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll post this up to AN/I. Eusebeus (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• ANI Thread I have now posted a notice about the editing behaviour at AN/I. The thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Year-long_pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_User:Lung_salad_needs_to_be_addressed. Eusebeus (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the ANI post Lung Salad received a final warning regarding these issues and a suggestion was made for a RFC/U on ANI. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The ANI thread will probably be archived now so we can move on, given that calm has returned, but I would note the following comment by user:Loremaster in case the issue comes up again. History2007 (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD

Origen never referred to the Testimonium in his works when citing Josephus. This is mentioned in all books on Josephus. The Feldman quote introduced into this Talk Page was his theory that Origen could have referred to the Testimonium. That was the context of the quote from Feldman. Lung salad (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Origen referred to the works of Josephus three times. He never referred to the Testimonium and considered Josephus as an unreliable witness to Christianity when refuting the pagan philosopher Celsus, although he recognised the works of Josephus as important testimony to the wisdom of the Jews. His account of the death of James in Josephus does not exist in our current manuscripts and contradicts what is found in Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, 1. This information is found in all books about Josephus and Christianity, but not in this Wikipedia article.

Against Celsus, 1.47

"The same author, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, sought for the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. He ought to have said that the plot against Jesus was the reason why these catastrophes came upon the people, because they had killed the prophesied Christ; however, although unconscious of it, he is not far from the truth when he says that these disasters befell the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, since they had killed him who was a very righteous man. This is the James whom Paul the true disciple of Jesus says that he saw, describing him as the Lord's brother, not referring so much to their blood-relationship or common upbringing as to his moral life and understanding. If therefore he says that the destruction of Jerusalem happened because of James, would it not be more reasonable to say this happeneed on account of Jesus the Christ? His divinity is testified by great numbers of churches, which consist of men converted from the flood of sins and who are dependent on the Creator and refer every decision to His pleasure."

Comm in Matt 10.17

"And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

Against Celsus, 2.13

"His son, Titus, captured Jerusalem, so Josephus says, on account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, though in reality it was on account of Jesus the Christ of God."

It cannot be put any plainer than this. Lung salad (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Lung Salad, as you were told just above here, the page already states: ""Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium". You were told this just above here. And I thought you had already "dismissed" Feldman, so I will say no more. The equation that applies to you here is:

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT + WP:TE = Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

You have been told this just above, dismissed Feldman for he did not have the "facts", now start again based on facts and primaries. I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the facts and primaries above; the reference in the article, by comparison, merely states "Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium" without any further information, notably omitting that Origen's account contradicts what is found in our current Josephus manuscripts and that Origen regarded Josephus as an unreliable witness to Christianity. Yet these facts are found in all books on Josephus. Lung salad (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For the 100th time, please read WP:V. And the text you typed above is already linked to Wikisource in the article, and further above user:Eusebeus addressed your point, so just read this talk page again by yourself please. And did I remember to mention WP:V? History2007 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, many things about several topics are included in most, if not all, books relating to them. We, however, are an encyclopedia, not a book. There is a great deal of information regarding Falun Gong, for instance, which I found in all the books on the subject I have consulted, but which are not of such importance that they have to be included in the main article. While it is true wikipedia is not paper, it is also true that no article will ever have the breadth and scope of any full-length book. Some details regarding all subjects can, and often have to be, omitted from main articles, like this one, due to space considerations. If they are sufficiently notable, they can be included in separate, child articles, or perhaps in some other location. That, however, is a different matter. Regarding verifiability, I think the proper way to proceed would be to contact WP:FRC for assistance in finding out exactly what hard to reach sources say. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronologically important to this article is that Origen was the first Christian to cite Josephus on Jesus. And his testimony differs to the account given by Eusebius. Lung salad (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated before on this talk page above by other users, and as explained on the ANI thread, the issue here is not content, or sources, but "bizzare" editing behavior and really strange statements that experts need to be dismissed etc. This is not a content issue, but a bizzare editing issue, as explained on the ANI thread. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Louis Feldman, "Origen can depend totally on Josephus to argue for the antiquity of the Jewish race, but not to defend Christianity." Lung salad (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice the quote is however seemingly at least somewhat Feldman's own POV, as he says what Origen can and cannot depend on. Also, I note that the quotation, in and of itself, doesn't really say anything direct about Origen and Josephus, and on that basis there seems to be some sort of original research or synthesis involved, both of which are violations of guidelines like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Lung salad (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The surprises never end here.... History2007 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancient and medieval sources

This section of the article is now wonderful. In fact, it (and other parts of the article) far outstrips the article on Antiquities of the Jews itself, and in some ways those on The Jewish War, Against Apion and on Josephus himself! The furious editing of this article has led, no doubt, to some considerable Josephus knowledge being accumulated, so I would suggest that the various editors involved in this article turn their attentions to other Josephus-related matters, especially when detailed parts of the content of this article could be placed more appropriately in another, with a link and a shortened summary here (e.g. large chunks of the extant manuscripts section). What do you think? Gorton k (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I speak for myself, but a nice wire transfer or two would certainly encourage work on the other articles... But in any case, if you look at the testpage below here, the detailed analysis section still needs work, and may take about a week or so to complete. After that we should talk about the rest. But I will probably take a break from Josephus after this (I only started this because the IP 84/etc. kept complaining). I will just watch this page, not do more Josephus elsewhere for a while. However, I looked at The Jewish War and it is just a lede, sans body, and as you said needs an ambulance really. But it will take serious work to fix that. So anyone else who wants to do the Jewish Wars etc. should do that. I guess in time people will arrive and do it....History2007 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Current content disputes?

There is a rather lengthy discussion on my Talk: page about content disputes at this article. Are there any current, specific disputes? In particular, is there a sentence or paragraph which editors wish to add to this article? If so, could they explain what it is, and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see that no-one has offered to post here, though there have been other discussions on this page. I also see there has been some excitement at AN/I. Have things calmed down now, or is there still need for mediation? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that calm has returned. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Another source

Looking around for more sources and found "James was martyred at the Passover. This Epistle was probably written just before it. The destruction of Jerusalem foretold in it (Jas 5:1, &c.), ensued a year after his martyrdom, A.D. 69." in the online version of 1996 edition of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary by [Hendrickson Publishers] (ISBN 1565631978)

This lends support for the 69 CE date because the Epistle of James generally accepted date range is c70 - c100 CE though there are a few claiming a c50 CE date. This creates logical problems because if Hendrickson Publishers is saying James the Just was martyred in 69 CE then how can the James in Josephus be James the Just as he was clearly killed in 62 CE? Something is way wrong here and I wish somebody was explaining it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alice Whealey mentions this in her book about Josephus. How does she deal with it? Lung salad (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, let us discuss this date issue in a few days, for the current situation with Lung Salad does not permit discussion of this amid the current chaos. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that things seem to have calmed down perhaps we can go back to this. I found an interesting theory building on the idea that the "Christ" brother of John Josephus in could be a nickname and not a title (Mason, Steve (2002) Josephus and the New Testament Baker Academic; 2 edition ISBN-13: 978-0801047008 pg 228). The theory is since Jesus son of Damneus became High priest he would have per the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 been annotated and would have literally have been 'the annotated one' ie 'christ' (with a lower case 'c')--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the "son of Damneus" argument is one of the arguments against authenticity that needs to get added to the the testpage. Mason is one source but I do recall that there was another source that mentioned that point as well, and there are those who have replied to that issue as well. We actually discussed this in a peripheral way somewhere above when we discussed that Josephus refers to at least 20 people called Jesus. That argument needs to be added, else in 6 months there will be a question on it. I think we need to add a paragraph that discusses the 20 people called Jesus issue at the start of the arguments section, then introduces the "son of Damneus" as one of those and that Josephus may have been referring to him. The counter arguments can then be presented in the pro-authenticity section. So my suggestion is to keep them separate, given the current structure we have on the test page. So we add Mason+others to the against authenticity section, then add an argument to the pro-authenticity section that says it was not about son of Damneus. That way both perspectives are presented. There are probably a couple of more arguments against authenticity that need to be mentioned, given that the section there is mostly about the Testimonium, and arguments against the other two passages need to be further developed there. In any case, I just copied what you typed above there. We can add one more son of Damneus source against authenticity beyond Mason, for I do recall hat there is another source, and we just need to find it again. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from your comments above that you missed the point of the theory I found--it was not that the "who was called Christ" passage was not authentic per say but that the interpretation was flawed and was worked back into the text.

In other words the theory says that since Greek in Josephus' time was written in all capitals there would have been no way for Origen (or anybody else of later times) to know if "ΤΟΥ͂ ΛΕΓΟΜΈΝΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ͂" should be rendered "τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ" or "τοῦ λεγομένου χριστοῦ" other than assuming the Jesus described was the same as that in Bible. But if you break that assumption then the passage could be "τοῦ λεγομένου χριστοῦ" ie someone who had the nickname of christ rather than the title of Christ.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I also understood it to mean that the "reference" is not authentic, not the passage. Anyway, I think we can even clarify it more and say: "An argument against the authenticity of the reference in the James passage is that "Jesus son of Damneus" may have been the person Josephus was referring to in that passage. The argument is that since Jesus son of Damneus became High priest by the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 he would have been annotated and would have been referred to as 'the annotated one' i.e. 'christ' in lower case." Then that clearly says that the reference is not authentic. But that is one of five or six arguments against, and I also added a few more to the test page. But that one is not one of the strongest arguments, and in fact one of the weaker ones, and the tone with respect to Ananus and how it differs from the Jewish Wars is a stronger argument in favor of interpolation. But we will list them all anyway. However, just as matter of interest, note that I noted in the other section how Ananus had bribed Jesus the son of Damnaeus to be able to take the tithes of other priests, as described in Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9 item 2. So we will list that theory, but as Painter suggests Ananus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus were on pretty good terms. So the killing the bother of the son of Damnaeus theory will be listed, but the friendly relationship between Ananus and the the son of Damnaeus should also be clarified. As for the use of Greek, it goes back to the E=mc2 and 50% readership loss story. But let us see what other people think about that level of detail with Greek. I do not mind, either way. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While the 'James brother of Jesus son of Damnaeus' idea has been around since at least 1887 the argument was that this indicated the "who was called Christ" was a later Christian interpolation ie not written by Josephus.

This nickname theory on the other hand says the passage is NOT an interpolation but rather that the scholars are making a connection that may or may not exist. It is like assuming since scientists have written a lot about John Frum, the white US serviceman that appeared to some island native elders c1930, that he must exist even though the closest history can find is an illiterate native of 1941 called Manehivi. Similarly the logic presented with Josephus means that since there was a guy that called himself Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I that 1) Norton was his first name and 2) that there was an empire for him to be Emperor of--both of which are wrong.

Again referencing Binford's "Archaeology as anthropology" (1962) American Antiquity 8, no 2, 217-225) articles have seen a crap load of explication (ie what the conclusions are) but too little explanations (the how and WHY) in the article. This explanation problem is why the Christ myth theory article has the Christ_myth_theory#Ambiguity_in_definition, Christ_myth_theory#Spectrum_of_Historicity_of_Jesus, and Christ_myth_theory#Three_pillars_of_the_theory sections--they are there to show how definition of the term is all over the freaking map and help future editors deal with the multitude of problems I outlined in User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ. Thankfully I don't see this article needing that kind of insane explanation dump but it sure needs more then we have now just ot stabilize the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce. This absolutely deserves a mention in the analysis section and I for one think we should use the Greek, since it is important to offer by way of textual examples the substance of some of the main arguments. We can always romanise the Greek on the assumption that most readers will not have the language. I agree with History that such examples can turn readers away, but in the detailed analysis I think it appropriate (this is essentially the same logic for why the scholarly back and forth should not overly encumber the general overview). As for the above, this is worth fleshing out. As I recall, the main point is that the Jesus referred to could be one of the other Jesus' of the text (as indicated above) and that this is supported by the nature of the reference in comparison with other similar references found in the Antiquities. Whatever the case, Bruce makes a good point, one that I think we are adhering to already, that we should not just reference different conclusions but explain the how and why of the logic. Indeed, it would be impossible not to, really, given the nature of the arguments put forward. This applies, for instance, to the inferential argument wrt Origen (which is rather weak in my view). Eusebeus (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No big deal really. So why don't you guys add Greek and expand the explanation in the args-against section. After that I will expand Painters argument in the args-in-favor section. Then both sides are covered. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we don't have much regarding explanations on the args-in-favor section. Sure we are told that "the authenticity of this Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"" but we are not told WHY or by what methods. I am reminded of the dismissive attitude my own field of anthropology had regarding the "magical" belief of so called primitive cultures until Horace Miner published his deeply satirical "Body Ritual Among The Nacirema".

Miner's article effectively shoved the unpleasant reality that if something was studied with a particular mindset it not only could taint your observations but if you were unaware of the mindset it would taint your observations into anthropology's face. Right now we see the conclusions but not how those conclusions were arrived or even who produced the key pieces of evidence (or what that evidence even was) than changed the majority idea of that James the Just died in 69 CE as was believed c1900 to he died in 62 CE. This is as I like to call it the Miner problem (excuse the totally horrid pun).--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest additions I made to the in favor-of-James section about an hour ago? The only pending item that I see is the year62 item, but there is plenty of explanation there by various sources now. Do you want more than a page and a half? History2007 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends a little too much on Van Voorst via Eerdmans who I have shown has at best a horrid QA department regarding what it allows writers to say as demonstrated by "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." in Jesus Then and Now 2004 pg 37 which is NOT true--NONE of these authors mention Jesus at all!

Suetonius in fact talks about Jews being stirred by Chrestus and we know from his Life of Nero he knew the difference between Jews and Christians so that this somehow refers to Jesus is a wild stretch. Only Tacitus gave us anything that possibility connected the Christ described to the Jesus in the Bible but it is so late that it could just be parroting Christian myth.

Also Eerdmans further showed their sloppiness with Jesus and Archaeology (2006) where they allowed the Editor James Charlesworth (an expert in Language and Literature) to use illustrations from his own personal collection even if the artifact in question didn't match the text (a bichrome Canaanite decanter in an article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass? SAY WHAT? Why not use a Mayan calender in an article on the Apache while you're at it; makes about as much sense. Sheesh.) We have Brill and Baker whose quality is known to be top notch so why, forget the pun, in the name of God's green Earth are we using anything by Eerdmans? Eerdmans' QA department seems to be borderline slipshod to nonexistent ie a joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, your sheesh, the Mayan calender, green earth and all other issues in your comment aside, let me attempt to extract some logic from your post above and try to understand what you are trying to say in a coherent form. Are you saying that VanVoorst is not a WP:RS source? If so, I am sorry, but you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Van Voorst is a respectable scholar who is mentioned and quoted by a good number of other scholars and he is a totally WP:RS source. If you wish we can waste another half a day and go over to WP:RSN and see if he is WP:RS and I will bet you 5 to 1 that he will be declared a WP:RS source. Moreover, Van Voorst is not the only source in that section. There are a few others who confirm the same conclusions he arrives at. And by the way any, and I mean any discussion of Suetonus here is beside the point given that we are discussing Josephus, not Suetonus, and any attempt to relate the two issues by your own reasoning is as clear a case of WP:OR as one can have. I am sorry, but I am not totally following the logic in the comment you made above. Please try and be coherent, consistent, focused and logical. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am saying Eerdmans (publisher) is not reliable. This is much like the situation with a passage from Mitchel Grant that was in the Christ myth theory article (see Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_14#Grant_as_a_source) which turned out to be Grant quoting two other authors those expertise was (and still is) unknown using publishers not known for their academic quality. Furthermore as demonstrated by Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_18 on Van Voorst occasion totally drops the ball as Wells was accepting a history person behind Q in Jesus Legend a full three years before he supposedly did an "about face" and Jesus Legend by Baker Academic clearly puts both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth in the Christ myth in contradiction to an Voorst. Furthermore it is not just Eddy-Boyd that classified those books as Christ myth but also Robert M Price, Richard Carrier (Did Jesus Even Exist? Stanford University presentation May 30, 2006), Earl Doherty, and Graham Stanton (The Gospels and Jesus Oxford University Press pg 143)

I imagine when he goes through peer review Van Voorst is fine but when one of his statements via Eerdmans is at odds with some of the biggest names in academia you have to raise the red flag with regard to anything he says via that publisher. Remember WP:RS also looks at the publisher of the work and in terms of QA Eerdmans is sorely lacking.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That issue should be easy to settle. First, I should address your remark about Eerdman having "a horrid QA department". That is not how the publishing world works. So do allow me to explain the mechanics of the publishing business to you. I do not know of any publisher, be it Addison-Wesley or Prentice Hall, etc. even having a QA department in the sense that you use the term. They have some quality assurance in terms of the publishing process, proof reading, distribution, etc. but can not afford a large cadre of in house PhD level scholars who know the wide range of advanced topics they publish on. That is not how books get published. The best publishers usually rely on the best professors. The publishing decision is usually made by a senior editor (often with years of experience) at the publisher, based on academic reviews. The publisher has a list of professors on its reviewer list and goes to great lengths to cultivate those relationships. They come into town, buy people nice dinners, etc. to maintain those relationships. And then they will send books to said professors or experts for review and usually pay pittance for the review, but the reviewer does it partly out of interest, partly to maintain the relationship with the publisher, who has already published their own book, or who in time will publish it. The senior editor then compares the 3 to 5 reviews it gets from the academics, and considers the general reputation of the author. The estimation of the general reputation of the author is obtained via conversations the senior editor had with the professors over the dinners they bought. It is a very small world, and everyone knows everyone. That is how academic books get published. Then there are self-publishers such as iUniverse and AuthorHouse which only require a manuscript and a pulse. However, Eerdsmans is a 100 year old academic publisher with a long list of highly respected authors such as David VanDrunen, Howard Marshall, Paul Ellingworth, etc. etc. etc. These are the authors who likely review any new title published by Eerdsman before the book is accepted.

Moreover, if you are disputing the statement by Van Voorst that "the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to the brother of Jesus called Christ and the entire passage that includes it as authentic" based on his publisher (!) I should note that the same statement by Van Voorst appears in Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture An Encyclopedia edited by Leslie Houlden, on page 509, with a different publisher. So Eerdsman does not affect that statement, in any case, although it is a WP:RS publisher. Furthermore, the same statement is said in similar words by Feldman, Maier, Bauckham , etc. all of whom are highly respected scholars "in the field" - a long way away from those who teach in the German language department and write about history on the side.

Now, that tutorial aside, the more general question may be: Is Van Voorst's book Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdsmans 2000) ISBN 978-0802843685 a WP:RS source. There is no doubt that the book meets the WP:RS criteria twice over. The book is quoted by a number of other highly respected authors, e.g. Köstenberger refers to it on page 104 of his book. On page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000)." Do I need to say more? The Van Voorst book is a WP:RS source. Period. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dating error

The article contains the sentence "rebuilt by Herod the Great around 30 AD". This is impossible as Herod died in 4 BC. Should the date read 30 BC? Dimadick (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so - I double checked. Please feel free to correct it to 30 BC. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Date format issue

There is a mini-issue about AD vs CE. I do not think this should turn into a long debate. Can we just use AD/CE so both formats appear and the debate goes away? Or for fun a simple bot could be written that changes AD to CE at midnight every night, so Mondays it says AD, Tuesdays it says CE, etc. and both formats get equal play time. But in the absence of the bot, can we just avoid that issue and say AD/CE and move on? I do not see this as an encyclopedic issue and most readers will probably not care either way.

On a separate note, the testpage has seen a good deal of expansion now. I guess no one added the Greek, but the arguments against authenticity have a long section on the Testimonium, and not much on James yet. I will go ahead and expand that now anyway, given that it was sitting there. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dab once expressed the opinion that the best way to make this problem go away is to remove AD/CE from the article. WP:MOSNUM states "Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it". I think Huon's point is a good one though, that first century dates can, at times, be confused with ages. If you are going with the AD date format, it needs to be preceded by an &nbsp. I'm for whatever constitutes best WP:MOS practices and gets this article through WP:GAC. Ignocrates (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do not care, as long as it does not generate unnecessary fanfare. I think it makes very little difference to 90% of readers anyway. If nbsp solves it do it, else we can write a Monday/Tuesday bot. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You make the call and I will clean up the dates. To AD or not to AD, that is, as they say, the question. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I really do not care. Please discuss it with Huon and you guys decide. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. I added nbsp's, so the formatting is at least correct. Think about how you want it in the final version, assuming everyone involved wants this to be a world-class article. Ignocrates (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the prevailing opinion (as above) seems to be that the other articles such as Josephus, Jewish War, Against Apion, etc. are in such dire shape that they need help anyway. So world class is desired, but when those are starving... Anyway, enough on this. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

They are indeed in dire shape, but creating one silk purse give me a lot more energy to work on all the sows ears! Ignocrates (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I like it the way it is now. Thanks for the formatting! Huon (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Note format issue

Lung salad, I noticed you added a new bibliography to the Notes section. Notes should have the author's name, date, and page numbers. Everything but page numbers (including title, publisher and ISBN) needs to be in alphabetical order in the Bibliography section. Can you fix this? Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I could do that, but I wonder about the purpose of that footnote. It seems rather redundant to what we say in the sentences immediately afterwards, and it does not actually support the sentence it is used as a reference for. I also have doubts about the word "disputed" Lung salad introduced: We describe the dispute in detail; there is no need to allude to it in that sentence. For these reasons I would tend to remove both the footnote and the word "disputed". Huon (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no need to worry about that at all. Much further above on this talk page we discussed that the lede would be changed "after the fact" to reflect the body once the body has been finalized with the details, etc. So those changes may or may not survive the final lede after the testpage has been completed and introduced as the last section. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All else being equal, one more reliable source is better than one less. However, the content should always be an accurate summary of the source, so maybe the wording needs to be tweaked a bit. And it still needs page numbers. Words like "disputed" need to be tied to a dispute that can be shown in the references. Otherwise, it seems like an editors opinion. No room for that at the GA level. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, all that is sideline talk for now. We will deal with those issues when we get there. For now there is still content that needs to be developed.... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense, but where is this development taking place? I noticed a test page, but 99% of the edits are yours. Is this a private party? If so, I don't want to crash it. Ignocrates (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a joke that Bill Gates was not invited to Kardashian's wedding, but in the best of Microsoft tradition crashed it. So you can of course do as Bill did. The testpage has been waiting for anyone to develop, and Eusebeus made some initial edits. No one has done any edits recently. That was why I said that given that it has been sitting there I will add items. I was hoping I did not have to do all the arguments against authenticity, but now I ended up adding several. Now, what we need is someone to check the arguments against authenticity given that I wrote that quickly in the past day. So please check those, add to them etc.

Key questions:

• Are there any missing (post 8-rack era) arguments against the authenticity of John?
• How about against James, apart from the Greek upper/lower case item that needs to get expanded?

The arguments against the Testimonium seem well developed, but there are serious overlaps now with those of James. I cleaned it up a little, but can get cleaned up more. So if you want to check, extend, expand those, that would help a lot.

I will therefore take a break from arguments against, leave those to you until you declare them finished and then we can all check them. In the meantime I can work on finishing the arguments in favor of authenticiy. Then we should be ready to look it all over and call it stable. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It will take a bit of reading to get up to speed - I haven't thought about Josephus for awhile - but I will take a crack at it. You have all done some terrific work here. This article should definitely go through peer review soon, and on to GAC once it can be shown to be stable. Best regards. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for you to look through the arguments against authenticity section. I will touch up the arguments in favor of authenticity in parallel. There is just one section in the in favor of authenticity that needs work. I can probably finish it in a day or two. As for the GA/GB/GC labels, I really do not care about those. If you do nominate it for GA you need to be prepared to tutor whoever reviews it, for some the issues are at times not obvious. So if you do that you need to be prepared to put in plenty of work on it. That is not my area. Anyway, I will wait for you to work on the arguments against authenticity section. History2007 (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I copied the "Arguments Against" section of the test page over to a draft page in my user space. That way I can make notes for myself without disrupting everyone else. So, if you don't see any activity here for a bit that's why. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I have now finished about 95% of my edits to the "in favor of authenticity" section, and I think what remains to do in that section is adding links and using a uniform reference format. When you have fully completed your edits to the "challenging authenticity" section, just let us know and we will go from there. History2007 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not doing more to help with this article. I'm currently jammed with project work off-Wiki. Please proceed and don't wait for me. Ignocrates (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. In that case I will try to touch up the arguments against section as well, fix the ref formats etc. and get a final version together in a day or two so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Final version? Lung salad (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what your question is. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I believe the answer is "final version of the testpage before its content gets added to the article proper". Huon (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I meant. History2007 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Toward peer review

Now that the test page has been incorporated into the article, I suggest you move rapidly to WP:Peer Review. The remaining issues can be resolved there and the reviewers may bring up additional issues. Also, please strive to reach consensus as independent editors. There is a perception of WP:Tag Teaming going on here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

e/c For Heaven's sake Ignocrates, cut out these laughable conspiracy theories about tag teaming etc. That had been said before, but is just laughable. Just laughable. There were laughable suggestions before that I was emailing people "in secret"! Yet I never bothered to enable email in Wikipedia. So I just laughed them off. But now, whatever your perceptions may be, confine your conspiracy theories to the Grassy knoll. This is enough.

If you had bothered to look at the last edit summary on the page, you would have seen that the last edit was based on a "2 person discussion". Is that what gave you the idea of a conspiracy theory? There was a two person discussion and I had the references to support my position. I made the edit based on agreement, not conspiracy. I do my research carefully. So do give us a break and present your conspiracy theories on the Grassy knoll, not here.

You were directly, I mean very directly invited to do some work and contribute to the article, yet you apologized and refused to do anything just above here - so I did the work after your refusal. My guess is that not having done one's research can be a barrier to participation in the face of a direct invitation. But later accusations are just laughable. As for your patronizing suggestions regarding what needs to be done, do what you like. It does not take much to ask for review. Some people like to sit back, do the minimal amount of work and lecture others on what needs to be done. But before lecturing the underpaid workmen here, it would be good for present company to do some work, then provide advice to others. And again, stop these laughable conspiracy theories. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are overreacting. I think you have done one of the most comprehensive editing jobs here I have seen on Wikipedia. However, when I see similar complex reversions of article content by different editors (diff1 and diff2), that suggests a correlation, although not necessarily causality. That is why I said the perception of non-independence. Consider this friendly advice offered in the spirit of cooperation. Ignocrates (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I submitted the request for peer review and asked the reviewers to give feedback as a prelude to submission to WP:FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your heartfelt concern is so touching, it just warms my heart... I will try not shed tears... I have seen what you type on talk pages here and there, so do not make me laugh any more... I can read.... Correlation vs causality, perception vs reality... Do give me a break. As for my comprehensive editing, I started editing this page because an IP complained about it. I do that every day, this is just another page. I was having a nice day fixing RISC today when you ruined it with this type of laughable and insulting comment. Did I tag team there too? Give me a break. You had made insinuation before. You know that. Now just stop it, and do some constructive work somewhere. Heaven forbid, maybe even write an article one of these days. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your faux-outrage and condescending remarks only deepen the perception that something is wrong here. Please follow WP:TPG and observe proper WP:Wikiquette. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing faux. But I will not waste time responding to this. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment In order to make this discussion as open to the rest of us as possible, who are you alleging History2007 is tag-teaming this review with Ignocrates? Although somewhat verbose and emphatic in his statements to the contrary, all I see is History2007 responding to your as-yet-unsubstantiated claim. Lay your cards on the table and substantitate your claim or apologize - seems to pretty obvious to me. Ckruschke (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I added the diffs for the two reversions to my comment above, and I apologize for not doing that at the outset. And I was wrong in saying the reversions are identical when they are just highly similar, so I will correct that in the record too. However, let me be clear about this - the only reason the reversions are non-identical is because Lung salad did not restore the content in exactly the same way. In both cases, all of Lung salad's multiple edits were reverted (diff1 and diff2). That said, I support History2007's efforts here, so don't get the wrong impression. As far as your demand that I apologize - who the hell do you think you are? Ignocrates (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment How about we dispense with the language Ignocrates... Although I agree the history shows mult edits by History and Lung Salad, there are also mult unbroken edits by Eusebius and Huon in the last 10 days - are they part of this too? Also I'm not sure how all of Lung Salad's edits being reverted has any bearing on the discussion. I've seen many editors who have tried to put in items and been reverted over and over. Maybe we could allow Lung Salad to speak for himself instead of blindly jumping to conclusions - we've already heard History state that your assertions are groundless. Ckruschke (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Is this a stable article, or is there an ongoing content dispute? If the latter, then it should not be listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Josephus on Jesus/archive1 The basic idea is that it is pointless to make detailed comments on the article until the content dispute is resolved, as the final version may change significantly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no current dispute over article content. The issue I raised above is one of process. At least 99% of the article content has been written by a single editor. Logically, it should be up to that editor to decide if they want to continue with peer review. Ignocrates (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be very welcome if the editor alleging tag teaming indicated who he is specifically thinking of as tag teaming. Otherwise, I would think maybe allowing others to itemize their concerns and perhaps filing a Request for Comment as per WP:RFC might be a more reasonable next step. I say this particularly regarding some concerns I have regarding how the article may be being used to promote some minority views, as per my comments below. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Testpage

I have now finished about 95% of the additions I think were needed to complete the testpage. I still need to double check a few page numbers, and fix a few reference formats, but those should take no more than a couple of hours. Now:

• After all this research, I could probably write 10 more pages, but the article is approaching 90k or so, and that may be close to the length limit, so this is about all the text that we can get into one article. And frankly it is plenty of text and most readers will need some time to read even half of it.

• I double checked all references (I think) but there is one item that I marked as "failed verification" and that is the reference 91 to Mason, page 228. I said before that I had seen the argument about "Jesus son of Damneus" somewhere, and now I think it was here, a blog website. What is certain is that that statement is not due to Mason page 228. The blog references Mason page 228 to state a separate issue, then continues with its own reasoning. And as I stated before that is a rather weak argument given that according to Josephus Annanus was bribing the son of Damneus anyway. Regardless of that issue, there is no WP:RS source for that statement and unless one is offered, it needs to be excluded.

The next steps are to get comments on the testpage and then find IP 84.22.52.10 and bill him for all this. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now double checked every reference and page number in the testpage. I think it is ready to go to mainspace. History2007 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Several days and no issues, so I will just put it up. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have an issue. What happened to the "son of Damneus" issue and the fact that Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all put the death of James the Just at 69 CE (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, pg 189)? Also there is the idea that "the who was called Christ" was an added gloss that got woven into the text at some point.

Also what is all this stuff about John the Baptist? At best it is tangential to the whole Josephus on Jesus issue and IMHO muddles the focus of the article. Just because John the Baptist existed doesn't mean Jesus existed any more then the existence of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh proves he had a brother called John Frum.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

e/c Fine, let us discuss those. But they are 3 separate issue. So let us do those one by one.

1. I commented just above that I could not verify the "Jesus son of Damneus" argument in Mason's book, but did manage to find it on www.thoughts.com where I think I had seen it before. The argument based on Exodus 29:9 etc. seems to be only from the thoughts.com website which is not WP:RS. The Jesus son of Damneus item was on the testpage for a long time, but I commented it out recently given that it could not be verified. Just now with a few keystrokes I just removed the comment markers, but it has to be marked as "not in citation" until you find another WP:RS source that makes that argument. I think you may have assumed the use of www.thoughts.com as a WP:TERTIARY source, but those are the issues with non-RS tertiary sources, quite often they fail verification.

2. The second paragraph of the section "Variations from the New Testament" discusses the 62 AD vs 69 AD issue. If you think that issue needs to be expanded further, we can certainly discuss and do it. The question then will be how to expand it.

3. The mention of the John the Baptist in this article had been present for long before the current discussion and does not relate to these issues. We can certainly discuss that as a separate issue at some point. Most books that refer to Josephus and Jesus also discuss that passage, however. So I think whoever added the discussion on the Baptist followed the general trend in all the books. But again, that is a separate issue.

I think the main item now is to see if you have another WP:RS source for the "Jesus son of Damneus" argument. Hopefully a somewhat recent WP:RS source, as discussed before. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While the anointed argument is new the idea of Jesus brother of James being the same as Jesus son of Damneus is very old going back at least as far as Richard M. Mitchell and his 1893 book The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ. It shows up again in Remsburg's 1909 The Christ and Arthur Drews in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) states "(i)n the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius (about 300 A.D., Ecclesiast. Hist., 1, 11). Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus."

A little later in the same work Drews states "It is extremely doubtful whether James is understood by Josephus to be the corporal brother of Jesus, as brotherhood might very well mean only that he belonged to the Jesus-sect. In that sense Josephus would merely be saying that James was a " brother of Jesus, or leader of those who venerated the Messiah (Christ) under the name of Jesus. It is more probable, however, that this passage also is a later interpolation, as Credner 2and Schiirer are disposed to admit." (...) We understand, therefore, why Origen knows nothing of the passage. In his polemical work against Celsus he does not mention it when he comes to speak of James, though he refers to another in which Josephus represents the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment of the Jews for having put James to death ; which certainly does not accord with the facts."

Drews is presenting a threefold argument--two that assume the passage is totally authentic and one that assumes it is an interpolation. He even states that there was a version of Josephus as late as the 16th century that had neither reference. Wells and Humphreys both discount the "who was called Christ" Goppelt and Roloff inThe Ministry of Jesus in Its Theological Significance By Leonhard published by Eerdmans states on page 19 that it is possible both parts of Josephus are interpolation while flat out stating the Slavic passages are totally inauthentic (Got to love the right hand-left hand situation with this publisher's QA department).

In short the son of Damneus issue when it does come up is often used to argue for interpolation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Mason's book, page 228

Look, I had no problem with the "Jesus son of Damneus" argument when you first suggested it as sourced to Mason, for Mason is clearly a WP:RS source. And it is in the article now, sourced to Mason. The items you need to clarify are:

1. Do you still state that the argument based on Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 "is sourced to Mason", or do you now agree that Mason is not the source for it? So let us clarify this first.

2. If Mason is not the source for it, then what is a WP:RS source that can be used for it in the article? It does need a modern WP:RS source. And again, as above Arthur Drews is a rather antique source and "modern scholarship" should be used instead. Mason would have been a good source.

So that argument is present in the article as we speak, but a source for it needs to be provided. So you need to provide a WP:RS source before the "failed verification flag" applied to Mason can be removed from it. That is simple. History2007 (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your dodging the points I raised above but I'll play your game just to prove you wrong.

1. "In Greek it (Christ) means simply "wetted" of annointed. Within the Jewish world, this was was an extremely significant term because anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Iserael had been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their assumptions of God-given authority (Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1)." Mason ISBN: 978-0801047008 pg 228.

2. Since Mason clearly DOES say this your claim he doesn't just died a twitching death. But let's go on.

Mason points out to a non-Jew or non-Christan (ie the majority of Josephus' intended readership) the term "Christ" would be an unknown term which along with its visual similarity to "Chrestos" would have made the Testimonium Flavianum as we know it a total "what the..." moment. However Mason goes on to point out "That formulation, "the one called Christ," makes much better sense because it sounds like a nickname. Nicknames were necessary among first-century Jews because there was a relatively small number of proper names in circulation."

Mason then goes into the history of Testimonium Flavianum and where it might have come from. Then on page 239 we get back to the brother of James passage but here Mason falls into the usual argument based on the idea that the Testimonium Flavianum in some form existed and that the Jesus there and the Jesus here are one in the same person seeming forgetting the very point of Christ being a nickname he raised back on page 228. The whole issue of Josephus' James dieing in 62 CE while nearly everybody puts the James brother of Jesus the Christ being killed 69 CE (which would break any connection between the passages) is conveniently ignored.

Now back to the blog you presented. It states "Among our first solution, consider the passage is authentic with absolutely no tampering; even Mason agrees that the use of Christos in this fashion seems more appropriate as it is a nickname rather than a title. (p. 228) Mason suggests that titles were common among first century Jews because of the lack of common names in use. Jesus here is nicknamed “anointed."" As far as that goes Mason does indeed say this.

What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way that does not assume any connection between the James brother of Jesus passage here and the Testimonium Flavianum: "Jesus son of Damneus did in fact get selected to be the High Priest, in which he would have been anointed for the position which the scripture commands in Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1, and thus his nickname would apply."

Though it doesn't mention it the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 part also comes from Mason as shown above. Mason provides all the pieces; all the blog does is put them together without assuming any connection between the James brother of Jesus passage and the Testimonium Flavianum. Once that connection is broken the syllogism is simple enough:

Major premise: Christ simply mean "wetted" of anointed and was the mean which the kings and high priests of Iserael had been installed per Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 and could be used as a nickname (Mason pg 228)

Minor premise: Jesus son of Damneus was made high priest (Mason pg 239)

Conclusion: the "who was called Christ" passage could easily refer to Jesus son of Damneus.

It is interesting the blog does with without considering the whole 62 CE vs 69 CE issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, please just think about it. Just above here you have clearly stated that:

• "What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way"
• "Mason provides all the pieces; all the blog does is put them together"

Clearly, clearly that means that unless the blog is used as a reference along with Mason, that paragraph in the article can not be sourced to Mason's book by itself. It can only be sourced to "Mason+Blog". History2007 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are just moving the goal post as your original premise did a major crash and burn.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not see the logic in that statement. What I ask now is:

• Are you accepting that the paragraph can only be sourced to "Mason+Blog", or not.

Please clarify that. It just requires a simple yes/no answer. History2007 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the blog in question, but if Mason only provides the pieces and does not himself put them together in the way we want them, we either violate WP:SYN by drawing those pieces together ourselves, or we cite the blog to do it for us, and in general blogs are not reliable sources. So unless this blog is an exception (written by an acknowledged scholar on his area of expertise?), we would need some other source beyond either just Mason or the combination of Mason and the blog. Huon (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The author of the blog is an expert at not being an expert at anything. He once attended some military school for a while, but has no scholarly claim whatsoever. He just types things on a public blog as a citizen of the world, not as a scholar of any type. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"If you look a little farther, it says that James and Jesus were the sons of a guy named Damneus, and that they were candidates for the high priest - it wasn't Jesus of Nazareth at all!" Robert M Price interview by Luke Muehlhauser on July 11, 2010 regarding his book The Case Against the Case for Christ ISBN 978-1578840052. Now from roughly 7:50 to 11:00 he talks about the TF pointing out that Josephus "staked his entire livelihood on the flattery that the emperor Vespasian was the Jewish messiah" (9:39-9:46)--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So we are changing topic again. Right? Bruce you have not addressed the issue of Mason+Blog at all. Give a yes/no answer to that question first, for it is pending. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer to that question is "we can ditch Mason and use Price instead". I would greatly prefer to cite his book instead of an interview, though. Does the book make the same point, and if so, can we get a page number? Huon (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Price's book does not present the same argument about Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1. So that would not be a substitute. As far as I can tell, the only other place that argument seems to be used is in the The Christ myth by Arthur Drews, published in 1910. Over 100 years ago, in fact and not a WP:RS reference given its age. From what I have seen, the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 argument is usually only found on blogs or in antique books that seriously predate LP records. Modern scholarship seems to be smarter than to argue that point. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

History2007 you need to do better research. Drews AND Remsburg both make reference to the "son of Damneus" issue and there are repeats of this point in later works (it for example shows up in Drews The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus, page 9 of 1912). In fact, Remsburg's "To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim." is reiterated in Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, ISBN 978-0801031144 pg 189: "The account of James's martyrdom in Josephus differ noticeable from the traditional Christian account (...) Moreover according to the Christian Tradition, James was killed just prior to Vespasian's siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE." The point is still a problem even after 100 years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, the newer (1912) edition of the Arthur Drews book is only 99 years old now, not over 100 years old. I will be more careful with my arithmetic in the future. But the 1912 edition still seriously predates LP records and can not be used in Wikipedia. And John Remsburg also seriously predates the Edsel and is not usable, given that it is Model T era scholarship. There is still no usable source for the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 argument you presented which remains in the article sans a valid reference. Talking of LP records, I do feel that we may need a LP record that keeps repeating: "Wikipedia uses modern scholarship". I wonder how that can be arranged... History2007 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have assume that this was an April Fool post because I presented a 2010 (ie MODERN) reference to the "son of Damneus" issue by Robert Price which also appears in book form.

Nevermind, "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (main article text)

(Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 DOI: 10.1525/ac.1994.5.4.16)

Price points out that even if all of the passages attributed to Josephus were his that it is possible that Josephus was only reporting what Christians believed to be true some 60 years after the events supposedly happened.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference 87 in article: Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1

I really do not understand this Bruce. Really do not. This discussion is about Reference 87 in article: Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1. That is the item sourced to Mason's book, page 228, but has failed verification and has a tag on it. But the topic keeps changing and you discuss "new issues" such as Fischer that do not relate to Exodus or Samuel at all. Not at all. Exactly where does Fischer refer to Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1?

So I started a separate subsection here to get a clear answer to the following question:

• Which Book title= X, ISBN= Y, Pagenumber= Z states that: "Jesus son of Damneus became High priest by the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 he would have been annotated and would have been referred to as 'the annotated one' i.e. 'christ' in lower case."?

All you need to do to resolve this situation Bruce is provide 3 values here for X, Y and Z. That is very, very straightforward. Then the failed verification flag can be removed and we can move on.

So please provide 3 values for X, Y and Z so we can resolve this and move on. That is very straightforward and there is no need to diverge into other topics. History2007 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)