Talk:Josephus on Jesus
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Tgeorgescu in topic Modern scholars are divided?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
Q1: The article refers to "internal arguments" and "external arguments". What is the difference?
A1: In the general context of historiography, internal arguments are those which only analyze a document on its own, e.g. look at the tone or phraseology of a passage and compare it with the entire work, etc. The external arguments may rely on comparison with the works of other authors about historical dates, etc. and go beyond the document being analyzed. Q2: Does the New Testament (say Acts 12:2) refer to "the death of James" as Josephus does?
A2: No, it does not. That is why the article states "Christian tradition" when discussing that issue. And the footnote explains that the unrelated New Testament reference is to James, son of Zebedee, who is killed by King Herod in Acts 12:2 with a sword. Q3: How does the difference between the account of Josephus about the death of James and the Christian tradition indicate authenticity?
A3: That rationale does not just apply to this passage or Josephus but is used by historians in a more general context. The reasoning is that a Christian scribe would have been unlikely to differ from the Christian tradition and would have likely interpolated items to agree with it. Similar reasoning is used elsewhere about the "negative tone" in passages about Christians as indications of authenticity, in that Christian scribes were unlikely to be derisive of their own traditions. Q4: Why does the article state that the "overwhelming majority of scholars" hold the James passage to be authentic? Did we do a survey ourselves?
A4: The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states what the "academic consensus" may be. That is what the article does. Q5: The article states that most scholars hold that the Testimonium Flavianum had an authentic kernel that referred to Jesus, but was enhanced later. Are these just the Christian scholars?
A5: No. That "most scholars" agree that the Testimonium had an authentic core is supported by a variety sources, e.g. the highly respected Jewish scholar Louis Feldman, as well as the leader of the the 20th-century myth theorists G. A. Wells who acknowledges that after the discoveries of Shlomo Pines in the 1970s most scholars support that view. (The Jesus Legend, 1996, by G. A. Wells, ISBN 0812693345, page 48) |
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shlomo Pines
editSomeone to add the findings and biblography of Shlomo Pines along with his translations of Josephus' testimony. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Please. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Two suggestions
edit- Dunn's reconstruction of the Testimonium is quoted via {{quote box}} (fullwidth, in contrast to the quote-boxes that are right-aligned like pictures), Vermes's version is quoted via <blockquote>. It's odd to have such different formatting only a few paragraphs apart, on the same screen; can we pick a consistent format?
- That most modern scholars accept that the Testimonium is partially authentic and had an authntic kernel is repeated 6+ times, sometimes in adjacent paragraphs:
It is broadly agreed that while the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus
, followed in the next section bymost modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.[51][9] While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.[52] However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel,
and shortly thereafterWhile early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text
and a few sections further downAlmost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel
and a few sections after thatmost modern scholars believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus
. Can (should?) this be made any less repetitive?
-sche (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it can be improved then it should be. Perhaps your real question is whether these thin opinions belong here at all. Since "Some people say" is the most common example of weasel words, I support removing them or at least adding citation-needed to each instance. Cutelyaware (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
ISBN error
editThe Google search for the ISBN 0-8146-5152-6 leads to a different book (James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth) not The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission.-- İskenderBalas💬 20:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Academic consensus
edit@Eggventura: Please obey WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I was manually reverting an edit (i.e. from "Almost all" BACK to "some" as I interpreted that as itself a violation of WP:RS/AC. I was patrolling new edits on WikiLoop Doublecheck and closed the page by accident so went back to do it manually. Shouldn't it be reverted (again!) back to "some"? Eggventura (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Eggventura: Every scholar worth his salt will say that it is impossible that Josephus wrote that piece of Christian propaganda, simply because he wasn't a Christian. Only a Christian would write that Jesus is the Messiah, or that Jesus was resurrected the third day. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- While I doubt that Josephus wrote anything of the sort about Jesus, it is possible that the apocryphal text replaced or embellished one of Josephus' original texts. Some copyist simply altered the text to fit his/her pious bias. Dimadick (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Point taken, you're right and we should leave it as "some"-- I'm just hardwired to be put off by hard-and-fast near definitive wording like "almost all" and saw it as a necessary reversion; will be more cautious in the future Eggventura (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Eggventura: Every scholar worth his salt will say that it is impossible that Josephus wrote that piece of Christian propaganda, simply because he wasn't a Christian. Only a Christian would write that Jesus is the Messiah, or that Jesus was resurrected the third day. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Arabic Testimonium
editIt would be beneficial, I think, to include the translation made by Shlomo Pines of the Arabic version of the Testimonium:
- "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Bogus
editcontains an authentic nucleus referencing the life, execution, and resurrection of Jesus by Pilate is just bogus. First, Josephus did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, we know full well that Josephus wasn't Christian. Second, even if he did, that nucleus could never pass for authentic historical fact among modern historians. Third, the edit by the IP distorted the majority view of mainstream Bible scholars, who do consider that the passage was altered/interpolated by Christians. Perhaps it does not distort it in a blatant way, but it distorts it by implication (suggestion). Fourth, it leaves the words Christian addition
utterly unexplained. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well stated 67.4.155.2 (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Modern scholars are divided?
editNo, modern scholars are not divided. They recognize that since Josephus wasn't a Christian, he did not believe that Jesus was resurrected. So, if the fragment says that Jesus was resurrected, the fragment was at least interpolated by later scribes (Christians). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your interpretation relies on common sense. Wikipedia does not rely on common sense, logic, or the truth. It relies on "reliable" sources. Can you support your argument with sources? Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Dimadick, the WP:RS are already inside the article, I was reacting to an IP who claimed he is studying Judaism at the university. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)