Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

John Painter

John painter is a theologian see Pseudo-scholarship. He is NOT AFIK a historian, and this is a blatant disregard for proper sourcing. John Painter needs to be removed from this article. Josephus is not theology it is HISTORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:RNPOV theology does not trump history and history does not trump theology. Both are scholarship, albeit one of them is an empirical science and the other isn't. There is no policy saying that theology should be deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, the Oxford dictionary defines theology as "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." I see nothing in the definition that covers history. In fact the wikipedia article on Theology makes it clear that Theology is NOT the same as Religious Studies and states in some areas theology involves "some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied"--67.42.65.212 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

67.42.65.212 (talk) You couldn't be more right.

Tgeorgescu (talk) Ya, I think your confusion may lie in that this is not a religious article. It is an article about a historical document. Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies, myths, misconceptions, and forgeries in scripture. That's where their use is done. Observe the following passage:

John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.

What? Who is John to say that? A Theologian has no authority to make such statements. Like I said, he can interpret, reinterpret this with scripture (aka. the myth or legend parts), but he as NO authority to talk about historicity. Given that the consensus on this talk page so far is generally that he should be limited to bible babble and "portraits", not actual historicity, he should be given Wikipedia:DUEWEIGHT. Unfortunately for you and the amateur theologians who wish to have John Painter's theological opinions reflected in the article, some of his citations need to be moved or removed.Greengrounds (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of Painter's statements (some of which have page numbers in the body text instead of proper citations) in this article relate to a comparison of historical sources with Christian theology. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Nor is it inappropriate to indicate where Painter agrees with other broadly accepted historical sources. There is no reason to suggest that "John Painter needs to be removed from this article." However, if Painter is being used to suggest something as historical that does not have broader support, then those specific statements should be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

" Given that the consensus on this talk page so far is generally that he should be limited to bible babble" - There is no such consensus.Smeat75 (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is beginning to change. 67.42.65.212 (talk) Seems to agree with me, and Jeffro seems to agree partially with my premise. What's your input?Greengrounds (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139-142). Painter discusses the role of Ananus and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by Jesus the son of Damnaeus, Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.(Painter page 136) Painter points out that as described in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 2) Ananus was bribing both Albinus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some of whom then starved to death.(Painter pages 139-142).

Jeffro77 and others, do you think that Painter has authority to positively assert historicity without being given Wikipedia:Undue weight to the source. Why are we using a theologian to comment on historicity? Shouldn't it be a historian? In other words, who cares if John Painter says "nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical. He can say the first part, but he can't say the second. Not only that, the paragraph goes on in too much detail about how John Painter came to this conclusion. If he were to simply say he doesn't oppose it on a theological ground, it would be fine.

His book, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (2005) is being cited allot in this article, allot of it poorly cited, it gets repetitive some of the stuff he Wikipedia:Undue weight to the source states: Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

What I see is first, Painter was used (needlessly) to strengthen majority view citations by other scholars. Then he gets shoehorned in behind some more majority view information, and he presents a minority view scholars.

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, there is also a reference to Jesus son of Damneus who was a High Priest of Israel but is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ" mentioned along with the identification of James.[29] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.[30]

Here again he is attempting to interpret historical documents as a historian, not as Theologian. It is one thing for him to say that something makes sense theologicallyfrom a theological view as well, but it's another thing to for him to say that ya historically that's what Josephus did, and from what Josephus did in the past we can assume this is what he meant not. No. Sorry, Painter's minority view is being presented as a majority view. He may be right. He may be wrong. But his use to this article is oversteps it's boundries. Anything he says outside of Theological interpretation is considered minority view on the subject unless he has historians backing him up. Likewise, Richard Dawkins wouldn't be able to assert anything outside of Biology with any authority, other than as an opinion. We might as well have him essentially putting words into Josephus' mouth. Also by adding the Painter citation at the end, it basically changed What the previous (29) citation is saying. It is a synthesis of Painter's interpretation and what Eddy and Boyd bring up. Greengrounds (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be hanging my supposed 'agreement' with your 'premise' on a single citation. I do not agree that Painter cannot be used to either compare historical and theological understandings, nor to provide views that accord with broader historical views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro77 (talk)Painter can (sparingly) be used to compare historical and theological research, and he can provide (limited) views that accord with broader historical views. But he cannot (on his own) assert or claim independently any broad historical views. In the above paragraphs, he does this by independently claiming what Josephus meant and didn't mean in his writings. He can't do that.Greengrounds (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a long way from "John Painter needs to be removed from this article."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

John Painter, see the WP article is an" Australian New Testament scholar.He is currently Professor of Theology at Charles Sturt University in Canberra." The book "Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition" was published by an academic press, the University of South Carolina and is therefore a WP:RS[1]. Greengrounds' contention that references to the book or material cited to it have to be removed from the article because Painter is a theologian and " Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies", stated above, is silly. Your argument "he is a theologian so he cannot be used to support any material which I define as historical since theologians are only "pseudo-scholars",don't know anything about history and tell lies" is juvenile. He is a professor, a New Testament scholar, the book was published by an academic press, it is a reliable source.Smeat75 (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No valid reason has been given not to use Painter as a source. I agree that Greengrounds' assertions about theologians are silly. A scholar can be called a theologian simply because s/he is employed within a department of Theology, which is the name that some colleges/universities use for the study of religion--in other words, the same types of scholars might be employed in a department of Religious Studies or Religion at one school, but in Divinity or Theology at another. So the term "theologian" carries no necessary implications about what methods a scholar uses to study religion, nor even any necessary implications about whether said scholar is a believer in any particular religious tradition--there are theologians who are agnostic or atheist. In addition, one of the major activities that theologians/scholars of religions carry out is historical investigation--they study the religious beliefs of a particular time period, e.g. views of Jesus' divinity (or lack thereof) in the 2nd century. In conducting such historical studies scholars are supposed to set aside their religious beliefs and other preconceptions. Perhaps they don't always succeed, but this is a far cry from the disguised evangelism that Greengrounds seems to think theologians do. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was right the first time. He really adds nothing to the article, and as for what I said that he can be used to compare historicity of Jesus to bible gibberish may be true, but it adds nothing to the analysis of historicity. Please explain how his opinion has any more weight than a Biologist would? Greengrounds (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, do you see four different people on this page, in this section, telling you that Painter is WP:RS? I do, that is me,Akhilleus,Jeffro77 and Tgeorgescu, all telling you that there is no reason to remove material cited to Painter. To then say " I think I was right the first time" amd remove it anyway is not acceptable.Smeat75 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Meat, there are other editors on here who have said Painter should be removed entirely, and Jeffro has said "However, if Painter is being used to suggest something as historical that does not have broader support, then those specific statements should be removed."

The paragraph I removed meets the criteria of both of those people, as the paragraph I removed has Painter, a Theologian interpreting historicity of Josephus unilaterally. He can't do that. That's why he's not considered a historian. If he were a real scholar on historical matters, he could but as it were, he's nothing more than an interpreter of "portraits" of bible babble. And like user 67.42.65.212 (talk) said the Oxford dictionary defines theology as "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." I see nothing in the definition that covers history. In fact the wikipedia article on Theology makes it clear that Theology is NOT the same as Religious Studies and states in some areas theology involves "some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied"--

Josephus is not "religious belief" (zombies, apocalypses, winged angels, demons, monsters) Josephus is a historian, and experts on interpreting religious belief are not allowed to do that other than attempts to reconcile their religious babble with history from a THEOLOGICAL standpoint.Greengrounds (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that this is not going to be a productive discussion, because Greengrounds is more interested in going with his preconception that theology is religiously driven pseudoscholarship, rather than learning about how things work in the real world. To repeat myself: at some universities and colleges, Theology is the name given to the academic department that studies religions and their history. In this case, "theologian" would be exactly equivalent to "religious scholar." Scholars who study the history of a religion are (obviously!) authorities on religious history, and, as the two passages of Josephus covered in this article are some of the most often discussed extra-biblical testimonia about Jesus, they're obviously important to the history of early Christianity--it's obvious material for anyone who studies this area to be familiar with and to write about, as it seems Painter has done. In case it's not clear, I am saying that Painter is writing about history, and as such, it's natural for him to assess Josephus and other other ancient textual source for the history of Christianity.

It's really not a good idea to base arguments on dictionary definitions of theology, even less so on Wikipedia articles about theology. Dictionary definitions are hardly exhaustive descriptions of what particular types of scholars do, and Wikipedia articles about academic disciplines are almost never written by people who have any real experience with said disciplines. Also, 67.42.65.212 (talk) is a sockpuppet of the banned User:BruceGrubb, so anyone following in his footsteps should exercise caution.

By the way, "theologian" is, as far as I've seen in this discussion, a label that Greengrounds has given Painter, rather than what Painter calls himself. If you're going to call him that, especially if you're going to assert that this means his work is pseudoscholarship, biased, etc., it would be a good idea to provide some evidence that he claims to be a theologian, that his work is religiously motivated, and that it's out of the mainstream. Otherwise, you're being needlessly insulting (not to mention potentially violating BLP). --Akhilleus (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision of second sentence of lead beginning "Although"

I am not happy about the revision of the second sentence of the lead and particularly about the word "Although" at the start of the sentence which now reads " Although Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[3] his Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18." It isn't a very elegant phrase for one thing and also the two ideas in the sentence don't really connect, yes, "Jeshua" or "Jesus" was a very common name and there are other figures in Josephus' works with that name, but using "although" like that is trying to insinuate,right at the beginning of this article, that when Josephus says "Jesus" in the two "Jesus" passages, he doesn't mean the Biblical Jesus. We don't need hints and insinuations, just come right out with it at an appropriate place and say "critics don't think 'the brother of Jesus whose name was James' is referring to the Christian Jesus". Also "although" there are other people named Jesus does not connect at all to " a reference to John the Baptist" at the end of the sentence, the fact that there are various Jesuses has no significance to someone named John. I am not objecting to that information in the lead, just not in that way or in that place, I think it would be much better in the third paragraph before the other sentence you have inserted in the lead, Radath, can you please move it and change it so it reads "considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling."Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made that change myself.Smeat75 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Swedish article on Josephus on Jesus

sv:Testimonium Flavianum is mostly written by sv:Roger Viklund, a Jesus mythicist. Could someone here check the article in Google translate and determine if changes are to be made, and which? Please check this. Thank you./Swedish wikipedian 145.235.0.28 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Swedish wikipedian, your English seems to be very good, can't you compare the Swedish article to the English one? it is hard trying to rely on google translate. Here is what I think, just my opinion of course and no particular reason to rely on what I say either.

• The lead is broadly neutral and fair, "a minority believe that the whole Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian creation" could perhaps be clarified that that is not only a minority opinion but rather old-fashioned now, most current scholars would endorse the view that Josephus did say something about Jesus which was then subject to Christian interpolations later.

• In the section which comes out in the google translate as "Christian passages added a genuine Josefustext" the second paragraph starting "However, there is no similar example of a Christian interpolation where you inserted the short extensions in a real text so that the consequence is true, false, true, false, true, false, true, etc" - is that sourced to anything? It reads to me like someone's personal opinion.

• I have no idea what it is talking about with "Michael the Great".

• In the section "Arguments in support of the authenticity" I would say that there is far too much argument against authenticity. If I were an editor on that article, I would not want to have the article divided up that way into "for" and "against" unless the "for" section was really going to be totally "for" and the "against" section "against", otherwise what is the point? The article also counters "against" arguments in the "against" section however so maybe it is fair. Actually what most modern scholars say is that the passage is partially authentic, not completely a forgery or completely something Josephus wrote.

• In the section "Testimonium Flavianum unknown until the 300's" it appears to be using Louis Feldman as someone saying that the passage did not exist prior to the 300's as it was not quoted by Justin Martyr but our article, sourced to Feldman, says " Louis Feldman states that Josephus was ignored by early Christian writers before Origen because they were not sufficiently learned, and not sophisticated enough in historical matters." It seems to be saying the same thing, although very hard to follow in the google translation, in the section that begins "A manuscript where the Testimonium Flavianum missing" about Feldman and John Chrysostom. Feldman does not believe the whole passage is a forgery. And also at the end of the article, again it seems to be saying that Feldman thinks the whole passage is a forgery, but that is not right. Our article (English) says " Louis Feldman views the reference to Jesus in the death of James passage as "the aforementioned Christ", thus relating that passage to the Testimonium, which he views as the first reference to Jesus in the works on Josephus." Feldman is the leading authority on Josephus of recent times and his views should carry the most weight and not be misrepresented. (He is Jewish, by the way, not that that makes any difference to anything, but often "mythicists" will say "Of course so and so will say the passages about Jesus are authentic! He is a Christian priest /pastor/ minister/ went to Bible college etc.")Feldman wrote in his annotations to the Loeb Classical Library Josephus in 1961, of the Testimonium Flavianum "The most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote, but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator" and of the James the brother of Christ passage "Few have doubted the genuineness of this passage". Since then, in 1971 "Shlomo Pines publishes citations of the TF appearing in Arabic and Syriac works of the 9th-10th century. These quotations substantially resemble our current Testimonium, but do not have two of the most suspicious phrases: "he was the Messiah" and "if indeed he can be called a man". Pines suggests these editions may have used an authentic, uninterpolated version of Josephus' work."

• I have only read the translation of the Swedish article quite quickly and find parts of it very hard to follow so I don't know if this will be useful at all but hope it helps a little.Smeat75 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The significance of Shlomo Pines' findings

Shlomo Pines' findings of toned down TF quotes in Arab/Syrian texts of the 10th-12th century seems to be used extensively to support the argument that TF has an authentic core. But isn't it equally possible that the translators/copiers of this non-Christian arab branch of the text just "applied a fix" to the tone of the Christian forgery to something that was more acceptable to their own religious views? Unless it can be ruled out, perhaps that possibility should be covered in the article?

Finally, shouldn't it be mentioned that some writers argue that the Book 18 Chapter 3 paragraph 3 (TF) seems out of context and is breaking up the natural flow between paragraph 2 and paragraph 4? This is another argument to support that the entire TF is a forgery.

Paragraph 2 deals with a conflict between Pilate and the Jews and ends with "... there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. "

Paragraph 4 begins "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, ...".

79.161.42.138 (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The present year is 2005. Right?

Count these. More than 130 of them! Didn't we reach a consensus on this back in 2005? That was nine years ago, wasn't it? 2601:2:4D00:27B:80D0:EB01:39CF:3979 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

New findings shed light on interpolations in Testimonium Flavianum

This http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm is something I think should be incorporated into the article, but I am not an expert in history and I want to tread lightly on this controversial section of Josephus. If there is a more educated wikipedian reading this, could you put this in the article somewhere?--Corkiebuchek (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This "new finding" seems to be almost 20 years old. Surely there are better sources for it than some website, say peer-reviewed research papers or, by now, even textbooks? Huon (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a cited peer-reviewed paper just above the site directory.--Corkiebuchek (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And in fact we already discuss the Goldberg paper in the section on "arguments challenging authenticity". What else should we do, in your opinion? Huon (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was a different paper.Carry on then.--Corkiebuchek (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 332-342 which uses the Goldberg article as one of its many references regarding Josephus: "He [Goldberg] concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it [Testimonium Flavianum] or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and the later is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly)" Carrier provides a whole hosts over references ending with a reference to The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus (Guest Post) - Olson--216.223.234.97 (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The maisntream scholarship on Jesus' brother in Josephus' writings is as follows

Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), pp. 489-514.

Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

Perhaps this should be reflected in the article to balance the non neutral POV being pushed here with reference to this section of Josephus' writing. As you can see, this IS fairly new research (2012), so no it's not the same as the 20 year old paper you were talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.226 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

problematic interpolation

James (the brother of Jesus) is executed by Ananus. The Jews get angry at this. Complaints and demands are made. The King removes Ananus from being High Priest. Jesus, the son of Damneus, is made high priest.[32]

This is problematic, because of the part in brackets (the brother of Jesus). That part needs to be clarified, because the peer reviewed article is saying that the reference to Jesus was NEVER talking about james the brother of Jesus Christ, but james the brother of Jesus son of damneus. So, the article should say (the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.226 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a wacky idea, how about it says what Josephus actually wrote?Corkiebuchek (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What text of Josephus says that this Jesus who was called "Messiah" was the son of Damneus? I can't think of any.--TMD Talk Page. 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference is to the line from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 already mentioned in the article. The argument is that the reference to Christ is a later interpolation, so, instead of the rather clunky grammar in the current version: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" it originally read: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". This would mean that the reference was not to James the Just and Jesus Christ, but to the sons of the (former) High Priest Damneus. In this interpretation, Josephus wasn't writing about the killing James the Just, but about the struggles between two factions (the Ananus and Damneus families) over who should be High Priest of Jerusalem. Thus, the incumbent High Priest, Ananus ben Ananus, has one of the sons of his predecessor Damneus stoned, leading to Ananus being deposed as High Priest and replaced with another of Damneus' sons, Jesus ben Damneus, which is the what rounds off this section in Josephus and who shows up a little later in Book 20, Chapter 9, 4 as well. The interpolation scenario also resolves the odd problem of why the killing of James the Just should have led to reprisals from the Roman and Herodian authorities against Ananus the High Priest, since presumably neither Romans nor Herodians would have cared much about what happened to the leader of a possibly heretical sect. Mojowiha (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What manuscript evidence do you have that "who was called Christ" was not in the original version? Your entire post looks like nothing more than speculation and conjecture, which has no place in Wikipedia.--TMD Talk Page. 17:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi TMD. You asked a question and I answered it. If you want a reference, then read the relevant bit of the article where Richard Carrier is already cited in favour of this interpretation and provides an explanation how it may have come about. If you don't like this scenario or find it implausible, fine, but there's no reason to come out all aggressive just because someone provides an explanation that you asked for, but apparently don't like. Mojowiha (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reconstruction of an authentic kernel

I have amended the line "Based on the reconstruction, it would have read..." (my Bold) - which is a dogmatic assertion that cannot be justified (or there would be no controversy in the first place!) - to what I suggest is a more reasonable and more accurate "Based on the reconstruction, it is thought the original passage may have read...".Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I find your wording to be very clunky and unnecessary. It is already placed in the realm of non-dogmatism by the phrase "Based on the reconstruction", which by it's wording shows that it is a hypothesis, not a dogmatic assertion. I'm not going to revert, as I want to get more thoughts, but "Based on the reconstruction, it is thought the original passage may have read..." simply reads terribly. If you must have a "more accurate" representation (which as stated I believe is unnecessary given the 'based on the reconstruction') I would suggest "Based on this reconstruction, the passage may originally have read...". Not perfect, but reads better. Vyselink (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I agree in part with Vyselink. The wording "would have" was already non-dogmatic because of the "Based on the reconstruction" and "it is thought the original passage". If you soften it even more, it reads like some revisionist holocaust denial language. Perhaps we can settle for something like "Based on the reconstruction, it is thought the original passage likely read..." because the reconstruction is a probable wording of the contents held by the consensus view. It is obvious that Jesus was mentioned by Josephus, and most opt for this reconstruction at a minimum Mayan1990 (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the "likely" change, but the "it is thought" is still completely verbose and arbitrary, as the rest of the sentence makes it clear that it is not a 100% fact, and it makes the sentence clunky. I think "Based on the reconstruction, it is likely the original passage read..." would be the best compromise. Vyselink (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed revised wording, Vyselink. Mayan1990 (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Tarquin Q. Zanzibar would that be acceptable to you? "Based on this reconstruction, it is likely the original passage read..."? Vyselink (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, yes.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Arabic and Syriac Josephus

Should'nt that section explain that that translation derives from Eusebius and that the changes are a later variation and that it's not an original text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.188.234 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes and it should never mention the oldest Christian source without noting how Eusebius' writing style is overt within it, thus fingering him as the forger. The most objective presentation is to line-by-line the Arabic, Greek and any Hebrew version with the dates of each clearly stated, this is one of those rare cases where relying wholly on commentators without a full statement of the (brief) text is just not viable. What's being argued is interpreting a text that is so short it can be put into a paragraph, so the logical thing to do is present all versions of it, so the reader has some context and actually knows what is being discussed.

What about the Paulina and "Anubis" anecdote in Bk. 18, Ch. 3?

Right after the notorious Testimonium Flavium, there's a long-winded, colorful, but seemingly pointless story about a faithful pagan wife who is tricked into "accidental adultery" by a cad who manages to persuade her that he's really the Egyptian god Anubis making love to her in a dream!

I've read, somewhere or other, that the off-topic digression is an allegorical fable intended by Josephus to link the short "Jesus passage" with the final section of the chapter -- in which an unnamed Roman Jew swindles a sincere but naive convert to Judaism out of a huge pile of cash (ostensibly for the Temple in Jerusalem). Which is to say that the racy anecdote about a seducer who pretends to be a god is meant to draw an analogy between the Jewish con-artist in Rome and another Jewish con-artist in Jerusalem!

In other words, could the gushingly "Christian-sounding" quality that skeptics have complained about in the Testimonium Flavium be nothing more than SARCASM on the part of Josephus?

At the moment, I cannot find an online source describing this hypothesis, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Throbert McGee (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

combine con and pro sections

It's bad form to have two separate sections about the historicity question. We should have one section that addresses both sides of the issue, and each side should get an amount of coverage comparable to the proportion of coverage they get in professional reference works. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree. This is a centuries-long debate and the passages are still pored over and argued about by "mythicists" and others. I think it is best to let each "side" make its case. Those sections had a lot of work put into them over a number of years and do not need substantial revision in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, state the "sides" separately, but be aware that Jewish & Muslim scholars also have positions (and translations!) of their own, and this article as it stands is abusively POV by ignoring them. I proposed generally introducing historicity issue with this (from my "neutralizing paragraphs" below):

" To atheists these texts can prove no more than that persons by these names existed and experiences like Jesus' were quite common. To agnostics or non-Abrahamic believers they more likely suggest that the Bible story is entirely made up from other events, e.g. that "Joseph" the father of Jesus is really Josephus himself his inventor, and any hint that Joseph is not his biological father is a typical Roman style joke inserted by Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth is a spiritually disguised Jesus son of Ananus. Agnostics - like the Gnostic Christians for which they are named - are unconcerned whether a physical Jesus had ever existed."

"The question for believers in Abrahamic faiths is whether these passages represent objective Jewish or Roman validation that the persons described in the Bible existed, or not, and is of major concern to them. This one question is examined in detail below."

I'd say there are at least five positions: 1. Josephus provides objective historical validation of Jesus and all this weird stuff like other Jesus & other Ananus & Albinus being strangely like Pilate etc is irrelevant because lots of Messiahs got whipped to the bone and didn't object and kept prophesizing until their own self-prophesized death. To me this is the position of "apologists". 2. Josephus may or may not be historical but is clearly conflicted & clearly did write about similar characters with the same names, took the position himself that Titus was the Messiah like the other Flavian historians, so simply can't be relied on as a "source". 3. Josephus wrote something that is lost due to a fork between Christian and Muslim editing, with no idea which was the original, but that demonstrates that his work has been altered by all sides, and accordingly can't be trusted even if it was originally historical. 4. The similarities and re-use of names and story elements is too profound to be coincidence and does not reflect a general prevalence of forgiving whipped-to-the-bone doom-prosphesizing messiahs named Jesus in Jerusalem, but are two versions of the same story that had not yet been "finalized" in the "Gospels", whoever wrote them, none of this is "history". 5. essentially Ceasar's Messiah view: Jesus was never historical, Paul is more likely the founder of the faith as known today, the Gospels were recruiting tools essentially adapting a Horus/Mithra type sacrificed resurrected gentle god into the Hellenistic Judaism structure which retained really only the Ten Commandments, and early Christians especially Gnostics knew or suspected this.

There is no reconciling these views, they have to be presented in their own right. However the translations can be contrasted and other normal comment about historians (their conflicts, biases, other writings, other claims, who they personally knew, etc.) should be there as and not censored to avoid offending Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

John the Baptist

Given that this article is specifically about Josephus' references to Jesus and not about Biblical claims in general, is there a particular reason to include a section about John the Baptist? It contains no reference to Jesus, either explicit or implicit.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarquin, yes I though about that too. However, I think the reasoning for the inclusion of John in this article was that John was involved directly with Jesus in some of the Gospels so he is a link to Jesus in that sense. James interacted with Jesus too since he was his brother. Among historians all 3 passages have been used when discussing Jesus in history. Mayan1990 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"I think the reasoning for the inclusion of John in this article was that John was involved directly with Jesus in some of the Gospels"

The problem is that that is a Biblical link; Josephus makes no reference to Jesus with his mention to John the Baptist. Both Josephus and the Bible refer to Caesar and other people, but they get n mention. I think the section is attempting to establish John the Baptist's historical credentials, and hence strengthen Biblical or Christian credentials, and thus goes beyond the remit of the article. I suggest the removal of this section unless there are good reasons provided for it's retention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Badboy! (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The biblical credentials are already well supported either way by Josephus and other sources and if you look at it the other way, the biblical documents also support the credentials of non-biblical sources. They all provide details and context to the first century Palestine, which is why historians are not prejudiced against these sources a priori. I would say that since John the Baptist does play a role with Jesus personally in the New Testament and since he was a contemporary who knew Jesus (he baptized him), the article should probably note that Josephus has a passage on John the Baptist too. But the specific sections throughout the article on John may be removed. Go ahead and remove the sections on John in the whole article and see if anyone objects. What do you think?Mayan1990 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't wish to lose the John the Baptist discussion; most of the published academic studies of the Jesus/James notices in the surviving text of Josephus also cross-reference to the John the Baptist notice - so removing or curtailing reference to the latter in the article would truncate published scholarship on the issue. If the consensus of published scholars regards the John the Baptist matter as relevant, it is no business of Wikipedia editors to determine otherwise. TomHennell (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TomHennell: "If the consensus of published scholars regards the John the Baptist matter as relevant..."

The question is - is it relevant to this particular Wikipedia article? The topic is very specific; Josephus on Jesus. No-one else. Much expansion and/or deviation and it would cease to have any raison d'etre as an independent Wikipedia entry, and would be better assimilated into one of the many other articles about the various aspects of Jesus, John the Baptist, Christianity etc.

I am certainly not suggesting the J the B section simply be tossed away; I concur, it is a matter of significance - but as it really only has a tangential connection with the topic of the article - let us not forget, that is Josephus on Jesus. Josephus simply makes no connection between the two, but once we accept the inclusion of entire sections based on such tenuous connections there may be no end of things we can squeeze in, making the article too wide ranging and not serving the purpose it's title proclaims.

If we want to keep the article we need to keep it on track, not so puffed up that a researcher has to sift through lots of non-relevant information to get to the essence of what the article purports to be.

Thus I maintain the position that the John the Baptist section does not belong here.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The function of this, as any, Wikipedia article; is only to record current authorititive published scholarship on the subject of the article. So we cannot say "it really only has a tangential connection with the topic of the article"; we can only say "no current authortitative published scholarship on 'Josephus on Jesus' includes a discussion of the John the Baptist passage"; or otherwise "Major current published scholarship on 'Josephus on Jesus' does include discusson of the John the Baptist passage". If the former, then the section should be removed; if the latter, then it must stay. As it happens, my reading of the major studies on the subject consistently do include discussion of the John the Baptist passage. It is up to those who would remove the passage to produce current authoritative published scholarship that supports removal. Otherwise, it should stay. Simple as that. TomHennell (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got to admit that as interesting as the JTB passage is, most of it has nothing to do with Josephus' writing on Jesus, instead focusing on JTB. The only parts that I think are necessary here are the first two, starting with "In the Antiquities of the Jews..." and ending "...historicity of the baptism's John performed". The last two parts I don't think belong here. Vyselink (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting; but beside the point as 'original research'. Which are the authoritative scholars who say that discussion of the the John the Baptist passages are not relevant? TomHennell (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, though I initially ended up agreeing with the removal of all the John the Baptist sections, I was reluctant because of like, TomHennell, I remember reading about research on Jesus in Josephus and how John the Baptist passage is used to support what is disputed, by very few, about the Testimonium Flavianum. In other words, what Josphus says on John (undisputed by scholars) is of great use to support what Josephus said on Jesus (partially disputed). For example, here is some of the stuff that Robert Van Voorst said in his research text called "Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" : "Sixth, the neutral presentation of Jesus is supported by a roughly parallel presentation, held to be undoubtedly genuine by most interpreters, of John the Baptizer (Ant. 18.5.2). Josephus's report on John is also a descriptive treatment of a popular religious movement with political implications. Josephus depicts John as a good man who attracted large crowds by his teaching, as Jesus did. John, like Jesus, leads a reform movement within Judaism. Also, both leaders are killed unjustly, John on the suspicion that he might lead a popular revolt against Herod. Differences also exist undoubtedly, of course. John does not work miracles, the Romans are not involved, and Josephus does not indicate that his movement continues. Nevertheless, that Josephus can write sympathetically about a controversial figure like John the Baptizer indicates he could write a neutral description about Jesus as well" (p.98). In the book, John is cited 4 times on the Josephus section on Jesus. For this reason, I would have to agree with TomHennell on keeping at least the relevant material on John in this article. John is used to support that Josephus wrote about Jesus.Mayan1990 (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it resolve the matter to general satisfaction; if the article were moved to "Josephus on Jesus and John the Baptist"?. TomHennell (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I would completely oppose doing that. Wouldn't it be easier, and more accurate, to create a new article? "Josephus on John the Baptist"? Then we could cut out, or greatly reduce, his mentions here and link to that article? That would leave us with no information lost, a reduced article size here which translates into a clearer focus for this article (Josephus on JESUS), and a separate article that can grow. There is more than enough research and RS to create an initial separate article, and then it could be teased out even more, potentially making it a great article in its own right, not a subsection of an article that it has very little direct relation to. In all three subsections named "John the Baptist", Christ is mentioned once, in the first sections I pointed out above. And the JTB parts can be expanded, for instance the argument about authenticity could be better talked about (i.e. who says its fake, why, what's the evidence against, so on), so a separate article makes more sense to me. But if the only options are keeping as is or changing it to "...and John the Baptist", I'd vote for leaving it as is, as that title suggests that it is about the connection between Jesus and JTB mentioned in Josephus, which as we all know doesn't happen.

And as a side note, TomHennell you keep saying "find the authoritive sources" that say it isn't relevant. While I can't say I'm familiar with every source in the JTB sections, I do know a couple of them, and while they are important to discussing the Origins of Christianity and their authenticity, which is what the JTB sections here really do, they are not relevant to discussing Josephus' writing on Jesus, which is what this article is about. There is a separate article for Origins of Christianity, and these passages arguably belong there. Or, better yet, on its own page. Vyselink (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make two specific points. Firstly, the quote from "Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" and remarks regarding it are indeed germane to the topic of it's title; but as I keep re-iterating, that topic is NOT "Josephus on Jesus" (as indeed is evident from the title). To expand it for the reasons you gave would simply means it would very clearly impinge upon the territory of another Wikipedia article, "Historicity of Jesus". In fact it seems to me, especially given these comments of yours, that that page would be certainly be a better home for this section, if not the obvious "John the Baptist" page.

You have given reason to accept Josephus on JtB as part of a dialogue on the Historicity of Jesus, but I still see no justification within the remit of the Jesus on Josephus article to keep it here. We can't just put every bit of information relating to Jesus in every single Wiki article on every aspect of Christianity.

Secondly - on the question posed by TomHennel "Which are the authoritative scholars who say that discussion of the the John the Baptist passages are not relevant?"

I would suggest that that question betrays a fundamental misconception of how Wikipedia works; it is for those who make entries to establish and source their claims. If entries are challenged, they must be able to withstand that challenge within the framework of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If they cannot stand up to scrutiny they must be removed, and if they can, then and only then does the onus transfer to any critics to demonstrate any shortcomings. Thus, on this particular question, it is for you to provide sufficient authorities to defend the charge that "discussion of the the John the Baptist passages are not relevant?" in this particular article. I believe you have established that sufficiently for any article on the wider topic of the historicity of Jesus, but insufficient to include it in this particular article.

For those reasons I suggest the JtB section be relocated in the existing Wikipedia Historicity of Jesus article. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarquin. Actually, the quote from Van Voorst is about the Testimonium Flavinum. The book is not so much about the historicity of Jesus. It is a collection of sources on Jesus outside the NT, and one of the sources is Josephus. As such, the book makes comments based on the research on Josphus on Jesus. John is a parallel used by those studying Josephus on Jesus so it is not something that can be completely eliminated - it is relevant to the article. I opt for a compromise to keep some stuff on John with respect to the Testimonium (per Voorst) since that is what this source mentions. Mayan1990 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Leave it in. One important question is illustrates is that Josephus takes a generally political and pragmatic view of events not a strictly religious one, for instance, he ascribes Herod's motives to politics, and beheading John to political expedience, and says nothing about any religious illegitimacy of Herod's marriage. For those who want to claim that Josephus is objective, as sad and stupid and obviously false as that is, this detail is important because it's where Josephus departs from religious sources. For those who want to claim that Josephus was directly involved in creating the Gospels, it's surely relevant that he feels he knows Herod well enough to decisively state his motives, i.e. he may have personally known members of the Herod family, who would have been centrally involved in picking a winning harmless messiah cult and ensuring it spread above more violent ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Extant manuscripts

The first line of the article reads: "The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include..." So far as I'm aware there are no extant manuscripts of Josephus. PiCo (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Start of eighth line

The start of the eighth line currently reads "alteration and/or alteration". It is not clear why the and/or is inserted if there is a repetition. Vorbee (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know how that crept in there. I have corrected it.Smeat75 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus ben Ananias

If this article is going to be Josephus on Jesus or even Josephus on Jesus of Nazareth it has to have some note of that same author's other Jesus, a remarkably similar one. I suggest adapting some of this really careful text from josephus.org:

here is a very scholarly summary about the fall of Jerusalem where a quite neutral account of the parallels with at least Jesus ben Ananias appear saying

"Students of the New Testament cannot fail to have noticed parallels in these passages with events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. The fantastic events occurring at the Passover bring to mind those related at the death of Jesus thirty years earlier, also at a Passover, when the curtain of the Temple was split in two, and the earth shook (Matthew 27:51). At the following Pentecost the apostles have a vision of Jesus and begin to speak in tongues, while at Josephus' Pentecost sounds and voices are heard -- there are auditory miracles in both texts.

The sad story of Jesus son of Ananias related by Josephus has a number of parallels with the New Testament, the first of which is the coincidence of a man named Jesus prophesying against the Temple. As the name "Jesus" (Joshua) is one of the most common held by men in Josephus' works, it should not be taken as significant in itself. But one wonders if the tales of the two Jesuses became intertwined by their tellers, with elements of one story creeping into the narrative of the other. For this hypothesis one notes several parallels.

Woe to the people - Matt. 23 "Woe to you, scribes and pharisees!" (The Greek word translated as "woe" is "aiai" in Josephus, "ouai" in Matthew.)

Prediction of the Temple Destruction - Matt. 24:2, which is associated with the "woes".

The leaders of Jerusalem bring the doomsayer to the Roman governor - Matt. 27:2. As an aside -- Whiston mistranslates this section to refer to "our rulers," not "the rulers." Readers who have studied my article on Josephus' account of Jesus will recognize this important point. Josephus does not use the first person here, despite Whiston (why did he do this?); see rather the Loeb edition for the Greek "hoi archontes" and Thackeray's correct translation.

The governor interrogates him, but the accused says nothing to defend himself. (Matt. 27:13-14)

The accusation as unclear in Josephus' story as in the New Testament. The grounds here are simply said to be " supernatural impulse." What crime is that for the leaders?

The major difference is that the nonresponding Jesus ben Ananias is let free in Josephus, and allowed to continue his woes against the city; Jesus of Nazareth was not set free, although Pilate was supposedly inclined in that way. What is the difference between the cases? Was it due to additional claims the earlier Jesus made about himself?

An odd coincidence was that Jesus ben Ananias arose near the beginning of Albinus' governorship, very soon after the death of James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"here is a very scholarly summary"- no, it isn't. It is a blog. You or I could start a blog and put wacko ideas in it with refernces but that would not make it a reliable source in wikipedia terms. Please read WP:RS.Humphreys and Atwill have no place here, they are not academic reliable sources.Smeat75 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, by WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author of that blog is Gary J. Goldberg the author of the 1995 "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 pp. 59-77. (PDF of which is provided on the website) This meets the criteria of WP:SPS and therefore qualifies as "a very scholarly summary". More over the connection between Jesus ben Ananias and Mark is documented by Carrier in his peer reviewed On the Historicity of Jesus pp. 428-430. That is an academic reliable source.--2606:A000:7D44:100:4448:489D:7384:8133 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can these contradicting paragraphs get straightened out?

At the intro to the article:

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.

In the first of three passages:

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation. Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable. However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.

They don't appear to me to say the same thing. They appear to be saying the opposite. Which is it? 96.237.136.210 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Christian cultists are "managing" this article to avoid any mention of the Hebrew or Arabic versions that contain no trace at all of the Christian apologetic text. This article is beyond POV, it's a censored joke with 95%+ of its references coming from apologists.

Here is my proposal for how to solve this problem, essentially to leave the "Christian" examination intact, but with a strong premable to explain the Arabic (and should add Hebrew) version of the James reference, and explain the parallels to War of the Jews that are clearly relevant to the other (notably James) stories.

I'm a tad confused - is this two comments by different editors, or one comment by one editor? Could our editor PLEASE get himself an account and sign his edits? It would help. Ta. PiCo (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

neutralizing paragraphs

A massively POV deletion by Tgeorgescu citing apologist Bart Ehrman who apparently dislikes Atwill, but ignores literally all the factual background Atwill & Humphreys rely on. This is a POV editor deleting the perspective of all the world's atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Gnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who do not view "Josephus on Jesus" as evidence of anything, given his conflicts and his use of identical names (Jesus, Ananus) in other stories - as no historian would today. Using the dodgier parts of Josephus to validate Jesus was avoided prior to the fourth century, and that was for very good reason, the educated persons of that time knew that the stories had parallels to Horus & War of the Jews.

The following include much more than references to Atwill, and removing them constitutes a POV edit to this article. Discuss:

Lol. Barth Ehrman, apologist? He is an atheist. In theological parlance (not my view, but there surely are apologists who partake of this view): an apostate, a renegade Christian, a murderer of Christ, a deceiver from Satan, he has been called the Antichrist many times by true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No one cares what fanatics say. Atheists are apologists of the historicity of Jesus because they generally take the position (similar to Muslims or Jews) that Jesus was a real person, so that they can then attack the credibility of miracles. As my text clearly states below, atheists prefer a historically real person to a fictional or composite target they cannot attack on grounds of anti-scientific wonders. Atheists and Christians thus agree and engage in irrational attacks on the Flavian origins theory, without addressing any of the facts it relies on. For instance, the undisputed fact that all of the Flavian historians including Josephus & Tacitus took the position that Titus Flavius was the "son of Man" and the "returning" messiah "within a generation".

One need not read a word of Atwill nor care about the textual parallels to believe that when this hacked Emperor cult generally failed to convince Jews and/or followers of whoever Paul is or was based on, they invested in Rabbinic Judaism and adapted Hellenistic Judaism with a Mithra/Horus figure and hijacked the whole story. For all we know Paul was actually a big fan of Jesus of Ananus and his meek attitude to being whipped, and Tacitus made up the Nero story to discredit both non-coopted Christians (followers of "Paul") and the competing Julio-Claudian family. Or he relied in 102 CE on sources the Flavians gave him. Making up fake history so you can prophesize yourself fulfilling it was a common ruling class sport in those censored days.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:SOURCES: postflaviana, truthbeknown, carm.org, tektonics, jesusneverexisted, all these are crappy sources for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

So is Josephus himself. However, all those sources are heavily referenced, and their POV is clearly stated in both my text and put in context. Are you doubting for instance that the Arabic version is translated correctly, or that facts and text copied in from other Wikipedia articles regarding the Flavian historians are neutral? You deleted many things that are in other articles with only mild copyedit by myself. The factual claims in the paragraphs below are generally drawn from those that were already there, including the same sources of English translation they used. The POV of the sources added includes a mix and none of them is presented as anything like an authority but merely coherently stating exactly what the position is. That's as it should be, see the comment above re reconciling vs. separating position statements, and also the comment on ignoring the Hebrew version.

Just for the record, Erhman is a reliable source in terms of the Wikipedia definition of that term, and postflaviana, truthbeknown, carm.org, tektonics, jesusneverexisted are not. Carry on :). PiCo (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

10 century Arabic version

Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like, thanks in part to Arabic translations of the 10th century without the Christian expansion . The variations between which, according to Matt Slick, are (noting those [claims apparently added by Christians in the Greek] and which reflect divinity claims that are not part of Islam which considers Jesus a prophet but human, nor part of Roman or Jewish faiths of Josephus):

• inserting doubt about humanity:
  • “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] vs
  • "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.
• inserting term "Christ" meaning saviour or messiah
  • "For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.]" vs
  • "And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples."
• amplifying Jewish leadership's responsibility for the crucifixion
  • "When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him." vs
  • "Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship."
• claiming resurrection in the body, cause being certainly prophesy without doubt
  • "[On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” vs
  • "They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

10th century Arabic translations were of high fidelity & extremely reliable, sources were carefully verified, especially on religious matters (the major collections of hadith were being gathered at this time with their citations or isnads). However as Arabic was not used for religious texts in the 4th century, indeed barely existed as a language, the older copy that was used as basis for the Arabic translation cannot be older than Islam's origins in the early 7th century, as it presents " a carefully balanced compatibility with Muhammad's view of a Jesus as a prophet who did not die on the cross". It reflects Islam as the Greek version reflects Christianity, so there is no reason to conclude that either was the authentic text - the Arabic version may well have itself been edited from the Christian version to "correct" the well known exaggerations without challenging that the original Josephus had validated Jesus. For these reasons, Christian apologists have tried to avoid directly commenting on the Arabic version as it raises more doubts about all early texts on which both faiths rely. There are no known sources of this passage that weren't modified by believers.

You are undermined by the fact that Mahbūb ibn-Qūṣṭānṭīn (Agapius son of Constantine) was a Christian, hailing from a long Christian tradition in Hierarpolis, Syria. 93.161.80.130 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Before the Arabic discovery

Before the discovery of the Arabic version of a text reflecting the more moderate Muslim view of Jesus, modern scholarship had largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation. In part because Josephus very clearly describes Herod's motives as political - and is totally unconcerned with John's religious criticism of Herod's marriage, unlike religious sources.

The references found in Antiquities have no directly parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as The Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence. A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts. Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them..

Significance of Josephus

The significance of Josephus in particular is that he held a central position of trust with the Roman Flavian family, authoring the only permitted history of the war against the Jewish uprising in 70CE, and that he personally knew Herod & Ptolemy families who played a defining role in the emergence of Hellenestic Judaism & later Rabbinic Judaism which moderated Zealotry.

Beyond that, generally, atheist, Christian, Muslim scholars seem to accept that these passages validate existence of a real person named Jesus of Nazareth who was objectively reported, and whose family relationships were as stated in the Bible. A minority of agnostic, Jewish, atheist agree with early Gnostic Christian interpretations that the story of Jesus was more apocryphal & inspirational, compiling many stories into one, and was only post-facto validated by four Flavian family historians: Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio, all of whom also claimed that Jewish messianism foresaw not a Jew but the Flavian Caesar, as did all Emperors prior to Constantine (another Flavian). There is no reconciling these views, and atheists are not fair arbiters, as they find the question of fictional Jesus a distraction and prefer to focus on whether the miracles or wonders are feasible for a human to perform. If Jesus is fictional, then, of course, he could perform any "miracle", and the entire atheist history of argument about credibility of the miracle stories is wasted, and atheists appear ridiculous and unscholarly for not noticing that the most cogent argument about Christian origins had been overlooked & even stated by Gnostics. See main articles Origins of Christianity, Christianity in the 1st century, Early Christianity, Historicity of Jesus, Sources for the historicity of Jesus, Tacitus on Christ and be warned they generally reflect a Christian POV.

why did early Christian scholars avoid citing Josephus?

It was well known historically and is not disputed that "not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words. The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ." - Kenneth Humphreys concludes that "Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written. It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum." It thus appears that early Christians knew of the forgery or variance in versions.

Roman history texts including those of Josephus were widely available before the 4th century, so citing him would have raised a number of much more difficult issues for Christian apologists. One of those regards the Gospel of Luke's Emmaus road narrative which have often been presented as "proof that Luke is fabricating history, merely borrowing it from Josephus and tailoring it for his purposes" or indeed that Josephus himself authored Luke on behalf of the Flavian, Herod, Ptolemy families which were at that time also supporting alternatives to blunt violent Jewish messianism including seemingly insane Zealot uprisings & the Pharisee's Temple Judaism. See origins of Rabbinic Judaism & split of early Christianity and Judaism & why Romans named the land Palestine after the second Jewish war. The most blunt theory of Flavian origins for Christianity - Caesar's Messiah - assigns Josephus the central role.

There is no question that highly placed Romans were aware of, and intervened in, the evolution of the Jewish faith & messianisms derived from it. Hellenistic Judaism, another variant that like Christianity relaxed Jewish laws for an open secular culture with many religions under one rule of law, spread to Ptolemaic Egypt from the 3rd century BCE with the Greeks, becoming notable religio licita after the Roman conquest of Greece, Anatolia, Syria, Judea, and Egypt. It clearly provided very many tenets to Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, and is a root of both faiths, but without any messiah or savior figure. To make reference to this faith would have opened, to early Christians familiar with Egypt, questions of parallel to Horus, that is, the argument that Christianity was simply Hellenistic Judaism plus an existing familiar Egyptian sacrificed & resurrected god.

Josephus' "other Jesus"

Another "Jesus" is mentioned by Josephus in The Jewish War, "one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began" was prophesizing the fall of Jerusalem cryptically and was condemned by the "most eminent among the populace" who "gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before". Whence "the Roman procurator" Albinus "had him whipped till his bones were laid bare" with the same result. Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said...till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him." This Jesus did not "give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food [but] continued this ditty for seven years and five months until adding "Woe, woe to myself also!" just as during the siege there came "a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.".

It is transparently obvious why Christians would painstakingly avoid any mention of this other Jesus, as this story has parallels to Jesus of Nazareth that can't be ignored, couting as strong evidence that Josephus authored or edited or inspired the Gospels, using this story as his basis for a fictional Nazarene. Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiahis the best known Flavian origin theory which generally follow this pattern:

• Undeniable patterns and parallels exist between all the Gospels and Josephus' War of the Jews
• Both books had to have been authored by the same team (not just one being based on the other) for various reasons to do with the sophistication of the parallel system, i.e. it cannot be coincidence nor mere copying of one from the other, as they refer each other intensively
• War of the Jews is about Titus Flavius' campaign. If he is prefigured by Jesus in the Gospels then Christianity would have been invented during his reign when Josephus published Wars of the Jews, perhaps to control a faith that some figure (Paul) had brought to Rome. Tacitus provides more "Flavian" evidence that it was there prior to the War, by way of discrediting Nero
• The Seven Seals of Revelation are parallel to Suetonius' biography of Domitian, so Domitian also had involvement with later books of the NT, after hijacking the Christ title from his brother, i.e. the title was meant to apply to the Roman Emperor.

Whatever the validity of this theory, it is undisputed that:

• Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus, and Dio – literally all the people who talk about this character Jesus Christ and about Christians - are Flavian court historians, working directly for the Flavian family to reinforce their rule, including religious domination.
• Each also took the position that Jewish messianism foresaw not a Jew but the Flavian Caesar, as did all Emperors prior to Constantine (another Flavian).

The three passages

In his comment on "James", Josephus mentions "another" Ananus, son of Ananus. In the same passage he mentions Albinus, the procurator who whipped Jesus son of Ananus to the bone and dismissed him as a madman. As Albinus was in transit, Ananus the younger takes the opportunity to whip James and sentence him to death, whereupon some seek out Albinus to plead for clemency, and that the sanhedrin isn't lawfully convened. Josephus also - contrary to religious sources - presents John the Baptist as a political threat to Herod, indicating insider knowledge of that family's concerns. Herods and Ptolemies were key allies of Flavians so it is entirely credible that Josephus would personally well know the motives of Albinus, Herod and Titus Flavius. To atheists these texts can prove no more than that persons by these names existed and experiences like Jesus' were quite common. To agnostics or non-Abrahamic believers they more likely suggest that the Bible story is entirely made up from other events, e.g. that "Joseph" the father of Jesus is really Josephus himself his inventor, and any hint that Joseph is not his biological father is a typical Roman style joke inserted by Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth is a spiritually disguised Jesus son of Ananus. Agnostics - like the Gnostic Christians for which they are named - are unconcerned whether a physical Jesus had ever existed.

The question for believers in Abrahamic faiths is whether these passages represent objective Jewish or Roman validation that the persons described in the Bible existed, or not, and is of major concern to them. This one question is examined in detail below.

What is all the above meant to be? Whoever wrote it please see WP:TPG, this is not a soapbox for promoting fringe bloggers like Kenneth Humphreys or, worse, lunatic fringe theorists such as Joseph Atwill, please.. These people have zero academic credibility, please see WP:RS. Also, whoever wrote this, please sign your posts on talk pages. A "neutrality disputed" tag has been placed on the article, presumably for the article's not sufficiently reflecting the deranged ideas of Atwill, I am taking it off.Smeat75 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

References

1. You can't dismiss an idea simply because you personally first heard it from Humphreys or Atwill, or you fear it might lead people to look at their other ideas. Nowhere in the text I propose is there any validation nor mention of Atwill's theory that the Gospels themselves were entirely written by a group of people associated with Josephus or Josephus himself. That actually does deserve mention as a proposal, since the facts would absolutely demand us at least mentioning such a theory by way of dismissal, if these were any OTHER ancient texts.

2. There is nothing even remotely original or soap-boxish about listing who tends to find what theory credible. Atheists do in fact defend the historical Jesus often, as they have an immense amount of effort invested in arguing that as a man he could not have done these miracles. If you find the statement too generalized, fine.

3. It's very easy to find believers who will list about 3/4 of the same facts and observations when they honestly assess what is important about Josephus on Jesus.

in Hebrew versions there is no trace of your Jesus

in Hebrew versions there is no trace of your Jesus, which instead appears as the editions of the fifth century. Ergo put Jesus in the works of Joseph is a Favio undertake action of historical revisionism, without offedere anyone and as in the Stalinist period in russia were added or took away characters in historical photos --Aseptix (Italian • talk) 09:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is this 5th century Hebrew edition of any of Josephus' works? Without it your claim makes no sense whatsoever. 169.230.243.177 (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bold claim with no evidence. NT scholar Dunn states that Josephus wrote Antiquities in the 90s and that there is a "broad consensus" that he actually wrote about Jesus (citing other sources). --Bermicourt (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

'Not good enough. This is a major question in historicity of Jesus and Josephus is the smoking gun in the Flavian theory, given he mentions Jesus son of Ananus in War of the Jews, and "another" Ananus son of Ananus a persecuting Pharisee whose story is identical to those in the Gospels, including mercy being held out by Albinus who seems to basically "be" Pilate. You cannot dismiss the question that arises from the Hebrew and Arabic versions, which clearly mark out the ways Christians "edited".

"Where is this 5th century Hebrew edition of any of Josephus works? Without it your claim" makes less sense but the Arabic one came from something, and a 5th century Hebrew version would have been known to the 7th or later century Arab scholars copying it. Finding such a Hebrew root would resolve whether the Muslims modified the Christian modification or drew on an earlier Hebrew root. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The Flavian theory is by Joseph Atwill who is a total crank. The idea that it must be true because it's the core claim of a crank is hardly compelling. It's clearly fake because Josephus the good Jew is in the middle of a list of bad things that happened to the Jews and suddenly becomes a Christian preaching the gospel of Luke. Tat (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard Carrier original research

Richard Carrrier violate wikipedia's policy of original research. his claims and credentials have been rebutted by relevant scholars in the field, Bart Ehrman, Dale Martin, James McGrath etc. and have been removed accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:2110:A700:6CBB:8102:6459:DE6A (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s definition of original research, is of course referring to original research done by the one writing the Wikipedia article – not to the research done by those scholars who have published in peer reviewed magazines. If so, then every scholar’s contribution is their own original research and should be banned from Wikipedia. And, of course, nothing has been rebutted. How could it be when nothing can be proven? Restoring the deleted passage. Roger Viklund (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

True, it isn't a violation of WP:OR, it may be a violation of WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

indeed Roger; not original research unless the contributor is Carrier himself - which we don't know one way or the other. But questionable whether to be included in the article; as Carrier is far from being a notable scholar in the field. Wikipedia is not concerned with what can be 'proven' or not 'proven'; but with the published opinions of leading scholars in the field. That would include Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes etc; but not Carrier (in my view). Carrier is a published gadfly controversialist; but not a scholar in this field; so his published views have no more status for inclusion as those of the legions of other Christian and ant-Christian apologists. TomHennell (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the applicable guideline here is WP:FRINGE especially WP:PROFRINGE "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". Carrier is a promoter of a fringe theory, the Christ Myth hypothesis, which has zero support in academic sources. What he says about that passage is not supported by authorities in the field, it does not belong right at the beginning of the article like that, especially since there is a section "Arguments challenging the authenticity of the three passages". I am moving Carrier's ideas to follow G. A. Wells there. And does anyone know why there is a big red notice at the start of the article "Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 66: Tried to write global div"? What does that mean and how do we get it to go away?Smeat75 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind about that mysterious big bold red message, it has now disappeared.Smeat75 (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Biased and based on handwavy amathematical, common sense comments

Because the center of the universe is christians, the fact that Titus Flavius Josephus (Jo Flavio) diverged from the Bible in various ways for the same subject, doesn't mean that pro-standardized christians bullshited around his initial texts. Mind that initially christianity was a collection of heresies! Not some Nikaean canned dogma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:844B:4500:3195:AE82:26CD:EFC3 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Without WP:SOURCES you comment is useless here. See WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Page Title/Content Mismatch

While the title is "Josephus on Jesus", about a third of the content is related to John the Baptist. If the page is designed to be "Josephus on Early Christianity", then it could be retitled and pages which link to it updated. If the intent is to be "Josephus on Jesus", then it needs a heavy edit to strip a third of the content and about a hundred references to John the Baptist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.82.232.102 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would actually tend to agree with this. Montgolfière (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am opposed to removing the references to John the Baptist. Josephus is very important for confirming the historicity of this figure who also of course features in the New Testament. I don't think the title mismatch matters but if it were to be changed it shouldn't be Josephus on Early Christianity " as he doesn't really discuss the religion but Josephus on Jesus and John the Baptist."Smeat75 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That's okay, we can leave it for now. It just struck me when I was reading the article that the passage on John the Baptist seems kind of off-topic, but the material should definitely stay on Wikipedia. Perhaps we could turn it into a separate article "Josephus on John the Baptist", with this article linking to that one. Or not. Montgolfière (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to re-structure article

I found that this article is quite hard to read and is needlessly repetitive due to its structure. Right now, material on each of the three Josephan passages is split up into three different sections: "The three passages", "Arguments challenging the authenticity of the three passages", and "Arguments in favor of the authenticity of the three passages". Most people reading this article are going to want to read about one particular passage, or read about all three passages, one passage at a time. Therefore, I'd like to propose that we re-structure the article so that there are three sections, one for each passage, with sub-sections for the text of the passage, the arguments for its total/partial authenticity, the arguments against, etc.

If there's no opposition to this proposal, I'll probably go ahead and do it myself in the next couple days. Montgolfière (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not exactly opposed but rather dubious. There is a lot of detail there, combining all the arguments for and against with discussion of the passages themselves will make the sections very long. Smeat75 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern, although I would point out that the sections are very long as they are. The "Arguments in favor of authenticity" section is roughly 3,067 words. "Arguments challenging authenticity" is about 2,028 words. "The three passages" is around 1,743 words.

If re-structure the article as I'm proposing, before taking into account any elimination of redundant material, the Testimonium section would be about 3,771 words; the James section would be about 2,199 words; the John the Baptist section would be about 919 words. Also, currently we have a lot of material on the question of what parts of the Testimonium are authentic, and reconstructing a hypothetical form of the Testimonium, under the "Arguments in favor of authenticity" section. This is really a misnomer since virtually all scholars agree that the Testimonium is not wholly authentic in its current form. If we split things up by passage first, then we can have better, more accurate sub-section headings under the Testimonium section; something like "arguments against total authenticity", "arguments for partial authenticity", and "arguments against partial authenticity". This would make it easier to read and would make it a lot clearer what most scholars think and where the debate currently lies. Montgolfière (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I can generate better flow and keep things packaged with simple movement. I am dubious myself of rearranging, but let me try something. Feel free to revert.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance! I went ahead and adjusted the section headings for clarity & to make them match Wikipedia capitalization conventions. I'll go through it later tonight or tomorrow in detail to see if there is anything else that needs to be changed given the new layout. Montgolfière (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Naming religious/institutional affiliations of cited scholars

@Ramos1990: @Warshy: I noticed that User:Ramos1990 recently undid my edit in which I added the religious & institutional affiliations of scholars whose opinions were directly cited on the page, while User:Warshy thanked me for the edit. It looks like we have a disagreement here that needs to be solved. I'm open to hearing criticism about the specific way that I added the affiliations in certain cases, but I think it actually is pretty important to include them here, in light of the WP:BIASED guidelines.

Over half of the scholars whose opinions are cited in this article are priests or theologians of one stripe or another, whose careers and livelihoods rely on the truth of the Christian gospel. That matters, on an issue like this. Of course, atheists and religious skeptics can be biased, too. Which is why, in my edit, I indicated those affiliations for scholars like Richard Carrier, G. A. Wells, and Robert M. Price, who are quite public critics of Christianity. These potential biases don't invalidate the opinions of the scholars who hold them, but they are important for readers to be aware of.

Also, given that this article is basically a massive web of different scholars' names and their opinions, I think it's actually good for readability to give readers some info about the professional/institutional background of each scholar. Montgolfière (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any need to mention all that distractive information when these scholars are all scholars in their own right and the wikilinks are there for people to see their biography info. Aside form it biasing the article, it does not add to the article content which is about Josephus and his writings. Furthermore, WP:BIASED does not say that anyone must be labelled by their religious affiliation or nonreligious affiliation - especially since they are all trying to do some scholarly work on the topic. Considering the content of the article, it is best to leave the text focused on what they contribute to the topic instead of adding weird labels like "religious skeptic" or otherwise. That speaks for itself rather than adding distracting info.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the WP:BIASED guidelines do list the examples "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..." and "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..." and "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...", which all relate the ideological predilections of the people cited, not merely their career or institutional affiliation. So I don't think religious affiliation should be off-limits here. But nevertheless, would you be okay with including their career/institutional affiliation (i.e. "theologian," or "biblical scholar at Denver Seminary") while omitting their religious affiliation? Montgolfière (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Let readers on wikipedia come to their conclusions on the content and which scholars make sense to them. Rather than trying to frame it into a team opinion of religious vs nonreligious ideologies. That is the point of NPOV. Keeping in mind that Richard Carrier and Robert Price depend on the income of people who have similar views they have a clear axe to grind. For instance, Richard Carrier in his own blog has to keep his fan base happy to get money to live off of [2]. Also [3]. I don't think that potentially adding this layer of controversy on the article is helpful at all. Actually Carrier has no institutional affiliation either. I don't think that pointing that out would help out in the scope of the article either. Best to just keep the article focused since it is very intricate with all the details already - just your add alone was almost 6,000 characters of distraction. Wiki links already do a great job of redirectiong reader to the scholar's biographies and views if they really care about that stuff. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the vast majority of those "almost 6,000 characters" were the citations for all the affiliations. I really wasn't adding very much text to the body of the article at all. And yes, Robert Price and Richard Carrier have Patreon accounts. That is a potential avenue of bias. Which is why I included their affiliations as well. It's pretty much analogous to the potential bias generated by working in the theology department of a religious university, or worse, working directly for a church. Anyways, it doesn't sound like we're going to come to an agreement on this by arguing back and forth. I'd be interested to hear what User:Warshy has to say. Montgolfière (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If you think at there is potential for bias on both sides, the it obviously makes sense to leave the article without such distractions (as of course that would be speculative to assume causation or automatic inclination for any particular view just because of a religious or nonreligious affiliation). It is irrelevant info. Let the readers decide for themselves. Wikilinks already allow readers to see their biographies if they care to learn more about their views.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I thought that Montgolfière's addition of all the scholars involved affiliation is a good idea, on a quite sensitive religious topis that is also quite controversial. I still think it is a good idea. It is also remarkable that, notwithstanding what arguments each scholar is using, the ones that come to the issue from an initial religious point of view all end up in one side of it, whereas those coming from a different initial point of view also fall on the other side. Let the readers choose any argument on its intrinsic merits, but pointing out the affiliation of the scholar helps clarify for the reader the potential biases that may inform that particular scholar in his views. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Interesting observation Warshy, but I don't agree with that observation as a generalisation of scholarly opinions on Josephus. On the face of it, those scholars who come to the issue from a Conservative Evangelical perspective would have no skin in the game at all; if the Gospel accounts are unquestionably, reliable true and early, it matters not a jot what Josephus may have said subsequently. Equally, for scholars with an agnostic or skeptical perspective; someone like Bart Ehrman is convinced of the essential reliability of the Josephus accounts (minus the blatant Christianisms), other agnostic scholars reject the lot. Similarly with critically-inclined Jewish or Christian scholars - as with Geza Vermes or Graham Stanton. The only group for whom their perspective implies a prior commitment to the truth or falsity of Josephus account, would be that (very peripheral) tendency who wish to deny the Historical Jesus altogether; clearly the uncritical of these would be predisposed to deny the authenticity of these two passages. TomHennell (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Without getting to the fine academic points of your comment, I still think that Montgolfière's addition of the specific academic affiliation of each scholar that has a stake in the overall debate here is a good addition and should be reinstated. The main point raised above against it was the text length, but I don't think this factor is really relevant when weighed against the improvement to the academic content of the article. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The point being that very few scholars 'have a stake' in the overall debate. Sorting out what Josephus may have been saying in this passage provides a valuable historical context to understanding early Christianity; but no mainstream scholar would find himself in trouble with his academic institution through adopting one view or another. So far as I am aware, the 'heated' accusations tend rather to be from uncritical 'mythicists' attacking non-religious critical scholars for not rejecting authenticity absolutely. As usual, Bart Ehrman is both forthcoming and most amusing on this aspect of his postbag; one of the reasons he tends to be cited in Wikipedia so much. TomHennell (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that my objection is not based on character count. It is based on multiple things: 1) readers are not stupid people that need labeling of scholars by biased wikipedia editors when reading articles on content - wikilinks already provides any reader access to looking at a particular scholars further if they want - so adding an ideological view is unnecessary and of course distracts from the content of the article, as can be seen in this talk page discussion, 2) from the point of NPOV, adding a layer of ideology actually biases the article heavily by potentially polarizing content along with the polarizing of scholars by wiki editors - it ignores the nuances in views from scholars and does not clarifying anything useful on the content, 3) assuming a worldview like "religious skeptic" or "theologian" leads to a particular view on Josephus (or Christianity for that matter) is pure speculation on any wiki editors part and incorrect since as User:TomHennell has pointed out - Christians and non-Christians of diverse backgrounds have a diverse range of views on the matter even overlapping in many instances 4) most non-Christian scholars (atheists, agnostics, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc) do not deny Jesus existence so most - who have no stake in Christianity - are not automatically denalists where everything written on Jesus is forgery, historically unreliable, false, tampered with, plagiarized, invented, etc. and most Christian scholars are not inerrancy supporters either. They dwell in gray areas, not black and white.

Bart Eherman himself has written in "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" on how fringe atheist organizations (usually mythicist oriented) are the only ones concerned with secular vs religious ideology, whereas actual scholars themselves are not focused on such matters because it is irrelevant to the pursuit of research on history.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's avoid discussion of the historical existence of Jesus here. Of course the authenticity of the references to Jesus in extant manuscripts of the Antiquities does have some bearing on the historicity of Jesus, but these are certainly distinct issues. It's possible to be a mythicist about Jesus but believe in the partial authenticity of the Testimonium (especially since, as Goldberg 1995 showed, it comes straight out of the Gospel of Luke and is therefore not independent evidence), and it's certainly possible to be a historicist about Jesus and reject the Testimonium as a complete forgery (as Louis Feldman did, and probably also Ken Olson, and others).

As for TomHennell's claims that "those scholars who come to the issue from a Conservative Evangelical perspective would have no skin in the game at all," and that "very few scholars 'have a stake' in the overall debate," I think that's quite a naive perspective. People whose livelihoods depend on the truth of Christianity will certainly want to show that there are all kinds of secular, independent evidence for the life and deeds of Jesus. Yes, they might try to argue, implausibly, that the gospels are reliable eyewitness testimony, but it's even better for them if they can show that the gospels and the Pharisaic Jewish historian Josephus both back up their beliefs about Christ.

Again, I have to come back to the guidelines at WP:BIASED. They are quite broad, and even allow for purely ideological affiliations (like "feminist" or "Marxist" or "conservative") to be listed. I'm fine with limiting it to career/institutional affiliations only here, although that would probably mean that the outspoken atheist scholars would simply be listed as "scholars" or "historians." At the very least we should let people know when a scholar commenting on this is a theologian or a priest rather than a historian, classicist, linguist, etc. Honestly I'm not convinced that theologians necessarily have the relevant expertise to be making authoritative, citable judgements about this issue. It's not solely a matter of bias, it's also a matter of expertise and reliable sourcing. Montgolfière (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about ideologies. So far no evidence has been presented to show that worldview actually impacts a particular augment for or against Josephus so WP:BIASED does not apply. Thus far it is pure speculation. Furthermore, the guideline applies to sources that do not meet reliable source criteria, not reliable sources or well known scholars that have some degree of peer review or editorial oversight. And adding labels on scholars could get needlessly messy too (Richard Carrier seems to have caused lots of controversy in the Talk sections above and seems questionable as a legitimate scholar and Robert Price is a theologian himself who has taught at a theological seminary). On the other hand User:TomHennell is correct that any Christian would not need Josephus or Tacitus or anyone else to be a Christian. The Bible, churches, and people seems to be good enough for that. I have never heard a rank and file Christian use or rely or need Josephus or other extra biblical sources for anything aside from FYI stuff. This type of religious vs secular agenda is what Bart Ehrman noticed is prevalent when he goes to an atheist convention whereas when he goes to Biblical conferences, it does not exist.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think our debate here is starting to become unproductive, but I'll quickly respond to your main points. You claim that "the [WP:BIASED] guideline applies to sources that do not meet reliable source criteria, not reliable sources or well known scholars that have some degree of peer review or editorial oversight." This is simply false; if a source is unreliable, then it shouldn't be in an article at all. Here's what the guidelines say about biased sources:

However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate...

— Wikipedia:BIASED

The guidelines clearly indicate that 1) "reliable" sources can also be "biased" in the Wikipedia jargon definitions of those terms, and 2) that religious beliefs and affiliations count as a potential biasing factor for religion-related topics. I'm not saying we should strip all the citations of theologians and priests out of the article (it would be quite a short article at that point). I'm just saying we should let the readers know their career/institutional affiliation, explicitly, because very few people are actually going to click the wikilinks for each of the scholars cited and find out what their background is. Hell, I didn't even do that until after my first few edits on this page.

Richard Carrier has PhD in ancient history from Columbia who has a background in papyrology. He's more qualified to write on this topic than most of the other scholars cited. And the one article of his that is now cited here was peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Early Christian Studies. You could argue that he's philosophically biased, and I would even be willing to mention that he's a religious skeptic on the article (hell, I added that info myself before you reversed it), but he's certainly more of a reliable source than say, Craig A. Evans. As for Robert Price, I do think his views aren't to be taken as seriously as those of a PhD historian, classicist, or linguist. We can make some indication of that if you like- but only if we're consistent. Montgolfière (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:TomHennell and am opposed to labeling authors of RS as "priests" or "theologians". That seems like an attempt to discredit them to me and is based on false assumptions that "theologians" and "priests" are by definition biased in favour of literal Christian doctrine. That is far from being the case in many instances, as stated above the most scholarly of the present day "Jesus mythicists" who deny that Jesus even existed is theologian Robert M. Price. Lutheran Pastor Hermann Detering denied that there was ever any such person as St. Paul. Bishop of the Episcopal Church John Shelby Spong denies the resurrection. Ex-Catholic priest and theologian John Dominic Crossan has publicly stated that he does not believe in God. There are many more examples. We don't "label" Richard Carrier as "anti-Christian pusher of a fringe theory" and neither should we "warn" readers not to trust priests or theologians.Smeat75 (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the clarification that a scholar is a "feminist" or "Marxist" or "conservative" (all examples listed in Wikipedia:BIASED) an attempt to discredit them? Look, I would be happy and more than willing to end this discussion if we just specified the most relevant expertise each scholar has to the topic at hand, labeling those with divinity degrees and nothing else "theologians" (even omitting the fact that they're priests/pastors, if applicable), and referring to the historians as historians, classicists as classicists, and linguists as linguists. Montgolfière (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Per what you quoted about WP:Biased, the guideline says " When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." However, you have not established that any of these sources are biased or "potentially biased" from their worldview or that their worldview leads to a particular view. You are just assuming it does - but clearly from all of the examples provided it clearly looks like personal worldview does not necessarily impact a particular view on Josephus or Jesus. So WP:BIASED does not apply at all here. Many religion articles exist on wikipedia and usually attribution with the name of the scholar is the most neutral thing to do (maybe add a wikilink). Not adding charged labels "religious skeptic" or "priest".

By the way, you cannot be serious about Richard Carrier and Craig Evans. Carrier is not a reliable scholar since most of his publications on Christianity have been off of "Secular web" and self-publications [4] (Carrier also seems to rely on self-published ideas from amateurs like Earl Doherty too). He also has never been a professor or been involved with an institution of higher learning. Only a few publications of his have ever been through peer review and no one really cites him even with those. However, he does go to atheist conventions a lot. In my opinion, Robert Price has superior credentials and academic experience than Carrier [5]. He has proven his ability to investigate Christianity through mythicist eyes, started his own peer reviewed journal, and even has contributed to primary source compilations.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Biased

Like most articles on religion, this one is extremely biased. For example, Craig Alan Evans is an evangelical New Testament scholar and author. Using him as a definitive source, is bad enough. But this article also uses One of his statements to claim that “nearly all scholars“ believe something. That is his conclusion, but since he is an evangelical, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that he might have a bit of bias in his beliefs. SheldonHelms (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@SheldonHelms: Evans isn't the only one quoted here, but also other scholars including Jews (Geza Vermes), Catholics (John P. Meier) and agnostics (Bart D. Ehrman). So it's not biased.-Karma1998 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

IP edit warring re Richard Carrier

IP 147.10.12.178, whose only contributions are to this article, has repeatedly tried to remove any reference to Richard Carrier, while leaving attacks on him in edit summaries calling him a "known fraudster" and "pseudo-scholar". I am no fan of Richard Carrier but deleting this sourced material without discussion and then edit-warring to keep it out is unacceptable. I have left a note on the IP's talk page warning them not to edit war or attack living people in edit summaries or anywhere else.Smeat75 (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: Richard Carrier is a supporter of the Christ myth theory, which is widely regarded as a fringe theory in scholarship. His views are regularly dismissed and derided by scholars, including atheist ones like Bart D. Ehrman.-Karma1998 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Sudden unjustified changes

@Karma1998: are all the changes you made justified by the sources? I am referencing this series of changes. Veverve (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I think so. Most scholars do believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and I have quoted Bart D. Ehrman to prove it. Anthony Drews is a notorious fringe theorist and Wikipedia does not accept fringe theories.-Karma1998 (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: Well, yeah, I think so. What do you mean? Did you check the sources or not before changing the sentences they supported? Veverve (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: yes I did. I checked the blog of Bart D. Ehrman (who isn't exactly a Bible-basher) and the works of John P. Meier, Geza Vermes (a Jew) and James H. Charlesworth. All confirm what I wrote.-Karma1998 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: I am not asking what works you read in general, I am asking: does Kenneth A. Olson states it is has been suggested "by a minority of scholars"? Is Ehrman refering the theories of Feldman? And who says that Arthur Drews has a fringe view if he is simply reporting on a manuscript he saw?

As a sidenote: adding a possessive " ' s" to words ending with an "s" is apparently a personnal choice and not a correction. Veverve (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: 1. Yes, Olson's theory is a minority one 2.Ehrman states that "the majority of scholars continue to believe", which means that Feldman's theory is also a minority one 3. Drew was indeed a fringe scholar, since he supported a fringe theory (Christ myth theory) and the manuscript he mentions has never been found.--Karma1998 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Price and Carrier

User:Karma1998, are Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier to not be considered WP:Reliable Sources for any subject then? Editor2020 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Well, Richard Carrier most assurely is not a reliable source, he's basically the laughing stock of modern academic world. Robert M. Price has more training in New Testament studies, but his views are still WP:Fringe.--Karma1998 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)