Jump to content

Talk:Josephus on Jesus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
VanishedUserABC (talk | contribs)
78,528 edits
Can we assume the salad has been consumed and forget about him? Maybe the page needs to be protected?
←Replaced content with 'Get rid of Roman Catholic editing ~~~~'
Tag: talk page blanking
Line 1: Line 1:
Get rid of Roman Catholic editing [[User:Helpsortabout|Helpsortabout]] ([[User talk:Helpsortabout|talk]]) 17:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
{{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=low |class=C |jesus-work-group = yes}}
{{WikiProject Christian History|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion |class=C |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject History|class=C|importance=low}}
}}
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}

== Possible Merger of the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum wiki article with this one ==

Just by chance I came upon the [[Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum]] article on wiki. I have reviewed the page and I noticed that their are arguments on that article that do not come up on this one which discusses the same subject, I think it might be best to either merge the arguments into the authenticity section that doesn't repeat the same argument of this article or commit to the reverse. I am not really familiar with the process of how to nominate a page for merger with another but if someone can do it or inform me of whether or not we should merge a section of this article with that one or vice versa that would be great. [[User:Voiceofreason467|Reason and Logic shall always prevail]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason467|talk]]) 23:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

:On the archives of this talk page that was discussed some time ago and agreed to be moved in here. I had separated that out before, but I will just redirect it, given that the material there has all been included here now. Thanks for the reminder. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 23:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

== FWIW ==

:Jerome made the following claim: "Josephus, himself a Jewish writer, asserts that at the Lord's crucifixion there broke from the temple voices of heavenly powers, saying: 'Let us depart hence'." [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001046.htm] This is not found in our current manuscripts of Josephus and is further evidence of Christian interpolation.

Housekeeping. Lung salad left this on my JoJ user sub-page, so I am moving it here before I have the page deleted. [[User:Ignocrates|Ignocrates]] ([[User talk:Ignocrates|talk]]) 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:A better source for that statement is in Wikisource, since the Cath-encyclopedia source is just printing the original text of [[wikisource:Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_VI/The_Letters_of_St._Jerome/Letter_46|Jerome Letter 46]] sans analysis. In that letter Jerome is referring to the Jewish Wars chapter VI. But as [[Raymond E. Brown]] states in the ''Death of the Messiah'' (ISBN 0385494491 pages 1114-1117) Jerome associates the destruction of the Temple with the crucifixion of Jesus years before at which time "its guardian angels have forsaken it" leaving the Temple vulnerable. Thus Jerome associates the rending of the Temple veil with Jerusalem being surrounded by an army, etc. and leaves "a confusing time gap between the events" in that he implies that the destruction of the Temple was a result of the death of Jesus, given that grace had departed from the Temple at the crucifixion. So that is really an analysis of Jerome's view of the Jewish Wars rather than an analysis of the Antiquities of the Jews. As the article clearly states, the general scholarly consensus is that there is no reference to Jesus in the Jewish Wars and hence Jerome's Letter 46 that refers to the Jewish Wars has no impact on the analysis of "Josephus on Jesus". [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::No need to explain. I just wanted it off my user page. [[User:Ignocrates|Ignocrates]] ([[User talk:Ignocrates|talk]]) 23:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:::No worries, I was not going to charge anything for the explanation. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 23:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== Explanation requested from Bruce Grubb ==

Bruce I am requesting that you explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephus_on_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=489903205 this recent edit] which you performed on this article. The edit is titled "major clean up" but I think an explanation by you is certainly required in view of past discussions.

The background is as follows:
:* In this edit a "failed verification" tag on the statement: "An argument against the authenticity of the reference in the James passage is that 'Jesus son of Damneus' may have been the person Josephus was referring to in that passage. The argument is that since Jesus son of Damneus became High priest by the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 he would have been annotated and would have been referred to as 'the annotated one' i.e. 'christ' in lower case" was removed. That statement was sourced to page 228 of Steve Mason's book. The tag existed since page 228 of Mason's book does not include that statement, or the argument regarding "Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1" and you had been directly informed of that before several times, and you participated in those discussions.

:* The same statement was added again, and was yet partly sourced to the same page 228 of Steve Mason's book, partly left with no source, but a passing reference was made to "Recent amateur research" in that context with no explanation or source at all.

:* In this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephus_on_Jesus&diff=next&oldid=489903205 next edit] you added a reference to the (by now well known) page 189 of Eddy and Boyd's book which has been discussed several times on this page. As we all know, given the long discussion with you regarding that specific page of Eddy and Boyd it ''absolutely'' does not refer to the "Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1" issue.

It thus appears that the argument regarding "Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1" is not supported by the sources added, and hence does not justify the removal of the "failed verification tag". None of the sources that follow that statement include that argument, as has been discussed on this talk page several times (and I mean ''several'' times as explained below) - and your past comments refer to those discussions.

Hence you do need to provide an explanation for this.

To clarify the relevant issues, here are some detailed facts:

:* You first suggested the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 argument [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=479079388 in this edit in February 2012], and you sourced it to page 228 of Mason's book. I accepted that from you on good faith, stated that Mason was a fully [[WP:RS]] source and mentioned that I recalled seeing the same argument somewhere else. I also noted that it was a weak argument and needed to be added at the end of the section, for there are stronger arguments that challenge authenticity.

:* In March 2012 I checked Mason's book and I informed you that the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 does not appear within his book, page 228 or elsewhere that I could see. In [[Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#Discussion_of_Mason.27s_book.2C_page_228|this thread]] on this talk page (titled ''Discussion of Mason's book, page 228'') I informed you that the Mason reference fails verification and that the other place I had recalled seeing it was a blog.

:* On March 19 2012 you accepted that the material does not actually appear in Mason's book, and stated: "What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way" and that "Though it doesn't mention it the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 part also comes from Mason as shown above. Mason provides all the pieces; all the blog does is put them together".

:* The discussion continued and it ''became clear to everyone involved ''that Mason without the blog can not support the issue and only (Mason+blog) could support it. But it was also accepted by everyone involved that the blog was by some amateur person with no scholarly training and was clearly not [[WP:RS]].

:* The statement was kept in the article with a "failed verification tag", and [[Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_87_in_article:_Exodus_29:9_and_1_Samuel_10:1|in this thread]] I specifically asked you for 3 values X, Y and Z and on April 9 2012 asked you:

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

:* You never responded to that and the statement remained with the "failed verification tag".

:* In a separate discussion, page 189 of Eddy and Boyd's book was also discussed at length on this talk page, but it does not refer to Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1.

:* On April 30 2012 you removed the "failed verification tag", and sourced the statement to page 228 of Mason's book again and made a passing reference to "amateur research" without specifying what the amateur research was.

In view of the above, I think you ''certainly'' need to provide an explanation here Bruce as to how this type of editing amounts to a "major clean up" as stated in your edit summary. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 14:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:Bruce Grubb, I noticed that you made a spelling edit to the article after this message, but did not respond to this message. I am formally requesting that you explain your addition of "incorrect sources" to the article as discussed above. Else I will move to have your changes reverted altogether. I will now mark your changes as having failed verification again, and will leave you a message on your talk page. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 09:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

::Do you deny the following is an exact quote from Mason? "First, the word "Christ" (Greek ''christos'') would have special meaning only for a Jewish audience. In Greek it means simply "wetted" or "anointed." Within the Jewish world, this was an extremely significant term because anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Israel had been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their assumption of God-given authority (Exod 29;9, 1 Sam 10:1) The Hebrew word for "anointed" was mashiach, which know usually as the noun Messiah, "the annonted [one]."--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 21:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:::What seems to be missing is the connection to Jesus son of Damneus. Does Mason make this connection? If not, who does? [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::No, Mason ''absolutely'' (and I mean ''absolutely'') does not make that statement or the connection. The blog does. The terms Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 do not appear on page 228 of Mason's book. And I do not need to tell you that. Bruce stated (as above) "What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way" ... "Mason provides all the pieces; all the blog does is put them together". So he clearly admitted that Mason does not state it and the blog does. And the reference to "the amateur research community" in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephus_on_Jesus&diff=490198364&oldid=490132612 last edit he made] seems to be to the blog. And the Richard Gibbs reference he added is [[self-published]] again. This is just [[Amateur adventure game]]s now. Just laughable. But let us laugh and some fun with it. It will not last long. Bruce is about to get on a train to blockland now. No one can add these types of failed references to Wikipedia and not get blocked or banned. I am sure of that. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 22:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}History2007, you do not [[WP:OWN]] this article. As noted in the internet archive (the text only version is somewhat of a mess) the 1866 ''The Imperial Bible-Dictionary'' was published by Blackie and Son (which had an ''educational'' text division) and includes a Professor of Theology from Presbyterian College among its authors.

And ''that'' source clearly and directly states "Because '''the high-priest''' was emphatically the anointed one at the first institution of the taliernacle worship, he is therefore called '''"the priest, the Christ"''' (Heb. hamaschiach, Gr. b lepevs 6 -xpiarbi, Lo. iv. 3) It even admits the name Christ "was capable of being applied, and actually was was applied, in the earlier parts of the Scripture, to a variety of persons"

So much for self published claim. You can hem and haw but your empty threats of blockage ring hollow when you ignore such sources as ''The Imperial Bible-Dictionary'' to IMHO POV push.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:Actually I did not delete your edits, just marked them as unverified, so there is zero issue of ownership here. And your source for Richard Gibbs ''is'' self published. I will mark that as such and leave you a message. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 23:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

::::Mason mentions "So it would make sense of Josphus to say, "This man had the nickname Christos", and he could do so without further explanation." It would be like calling a really smart person by the nickname "professor" while "Professor" would be a title.

::::"Prophets were "christ," priests were "christ," and kings were "christ,..." (Burdette, Dallas R. (2008) ''Legalism to Freedom'' Page 10)
::::"In those days only a king and a priest were anointed." John Paul II ''The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortations of John Paul II'' quoting from Arthur James Mason's 1893 ''The relation of confirmation to baptism''

::::"Dionysus is a savior god, titled Christos ("anointed one"),..." (Franklin, Anna; Paul Mason (2001) ''Lammas: celebrating fruits of the first harvest'' Page 240)
::::Johann Peter Lange's 1879 ''A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures'' references "anointed one" (ie christos) High Priest Onias III while also talking about Jesus the "anointed one" (ie Christos)

:::: "The high-priest is called 'the anointed priest' (Lev iv 3)" (Kitto, John (editor, 1881) ''The cyclopaedia of Biblical literature, Volume 2'' pg 109)

::::"For David the king, and Aaron, the high priest, '''are also called Christ for it is customary to make kings and priests by anointing'''." Schaff, Philip; Henry Wace (1899) ''A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Socrates, Sozomenus: Church histories. 1890''

::::"The high priest, as we have seen, was a type of Christ." Meyrick, Frederick; Richard Collins, Cave A. (1882) ''Leviticus'' Page 129

::::"Because the high-priest was emphatically the anointed one at the first institution of the taliernacle worship, he is therefore called " the priest, the Christ" (Heb. hamaschiach, Gr. b lepevs 6 -xpiarbi, Lo. iv. 3)" (Fairbairn, Patrick (1866) ''The Imperial Bible-Dictionary'' pg 307)

::::So we see that there is Christ the title and christ the nickname and Mason flat out admits the passage can be read the second way. As for the connection between the term christ and High priest...see the above.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 22:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}
No, that is not the case at all. Not at all. Let me say it again: not at all. Page 228 of Mason's book ''absolutely'' (and I mean ''absolutely'') does not make a statement about Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephus_on_Jesus&diff=490198364&oldid=490132612 your edit claims]. The blog that you kindly called the "amateur research community" states that - but you did not provide a reference to "amateur research community ", did you? But why do I even need to tell you that? You had stated yourself (as above) "What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way" ... "Mason provides all the pieces; all the blog does is put them together". So why do I need to tell you that? And by the way, the reference you added for Richard Gibbs is self published... Sorry to have to tell you to read [[WP:SPS]], but I have a feeling you have seen that page before. I will remove the self-published source, mark your edit as failed verification and leave you a message to that effect. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:Actually Mason does mention "(Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1)" on p. 228, just as [[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] cited him above. I haven't read the book itself, but Google Books' [http://books.google.com/books?ei=12ugT_e9LYPatAbG8Ii5AQ&hl=en&id=C3agAAAAMAAJ&dq=Josephus+and+the+New+Testament&q=God-given+authority#search_anchor snippet view] showed me those very lines. Maybe there was a change between the first edition and the 2003 second edition? Of course I agree that "amateur research" raises all kinds of red flags; we should not employ it. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 23:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

::Mason does not relate them to "Son of Damneus". That is what I meant. The blog makes that connection. Check that again please. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:::OK,let me repeat so that we agree on the problem: Mason does mention Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1, but he does not claim that Josephus' "anointed one" is Jesus the son of Damneus? I am not convinced any of BruceGrubb's list of citations above makes that connection; if no reliable source makes that very argument about the son of Damneus, we are using unreliable sources or we are engaging in [[WP:SYN|original synthesis]], neither of which we should do.
:::As an aside, I'm a little sceptical about the age of the scholarship cited in that entire paragraph. Quite a few of those sources are a hundred years old. Is that still the state of the art? [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}
Yes, that is the case. Mason does not relate Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 to "son of Damneus", as Bruce had ''clearly admitted'' before. But then if you read his last edit carefully, it says:

:* This along with Mason's statement that the passage could be read "This man had the nickname Christos" was picked up by the amateur research community to justify their previously stated idea.

:* "with the amateur community citing Mason as a reference supporting this interpretation."

So he has now placed the amateur community in there with no clear indication of who the amateur community is. He no longer uses Mason as a ''direct reference'', but bounces the claim from the wall of the amateur research community. So in fairness, he no longer uses Mason alone, just uses (Mason + the amateurs) as his source without saying who the amateurs are. In the above, he had previously also accepted the amateurs as the blog we mentioned before.

And regarding your comment "is that still state of the art", no, not at all. As had been discussed on this talk page major developments have taken place since the 1920s and the dearly departed who wrote those material were unaware of many items (say the 1970s material discovered by [[Shlomo Pines]]) and hence they may have changed their minds. If you recall I joked that Bruce needed to contact [[Arthur Drews]] through a channel to see what he thought now in view of modern scholarship...

Most of Bruce's sources are either vague, self-published or predate the [[Model-T]]. Way to go [[WP:RS]]... [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:I should note that I advised Bruce on his talk page to avoid self-published sources and the "amateur research community" and someone else (John Carter) mentioned there that they have had similar issues. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABruceGrubb&diff=490218778&oldid=490218011 this deletion], Bruce is aware of that. I asked him to remove the self-published source he had added. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 00:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}"The Bible uses the term "christ" or "messiah" for a variety of figures, including all of the high priests and kings of ancient Israel." (Wright, Stuart A. (1995) ''Armageddon in Waco'' University of Chicago Press pg 296)

(regarding Eusebius) "In a characteristic typological reading he asserts that Moses himself was the first to recognize the glory of the name of Christ because he applied this title (in Greek as in the Hebrew, mashiah means simply "the anointed one") to the High Priest." (Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim (1993) ''Freud's Moses'' Yale University Press pg 91

Marshall D. Johnson's 1989 ''The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies'' Cambridge University press ISBN:9780521356442 pg 120 on gives a nice outline of the problem in OT regarding the term messiah in the classic sense and in its more modern reading.

Here we have TWO MODERN UNIVERSITY PRESS books that show that "christ" could and was used in reference to high priests and a third that explains what is going on in the OT. All the old material shows is this connection has been around for a ridiculous long time. As for the self published they seem to be going 'ok you accept a possible christ-high priest connection over here but why are you ignoring it with regards to Josephus'? It is a kind of elephant in the room when you sit down and think about it.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

:Step 1: You remove the self-published item you added Bruce, then we see what remains. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::Beyond that, the author of ''Freud's Moses'' is clearly making a gigantic, and incorrect, leap. Of course the High Priest was called the "anointed" - he was ''ANOINTED'' as the priest just as many pastors or lay people today are "anointed" physically when they take their position. Beyond that, 1) the word quoted above, "Mashiah", means simply "anointed" and nothing more, 2) conversely, "ANOINTED ONE" in Hebrew is ''Ha-Mashiach'', and 3) besides that, Jesus Christ in Hebrew is '''Yeshua Hamashiach'''. All these words come from the root verb "mashach" which means "to anoint". So clearly Bruce's author is VERY wrong. If the book can't cover the topic correctly, I'm not sure why it should be considered anything more than fringe. [[User:Ckruschke|Ckruschke]] ([[User talk:Ckruschke|talk]]) 19:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

:::In any case, those types of issues are now being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_topic_ban_for_User:BruceGrubb]] regarding Bruce's use of self published sources, original research, etc. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::::I have now read Mason, and while I thought History2007's scorn undue before, I now understand his reasoning. BruceGrubb ist twisting Mason's points beyond recognition. The passage about the word "Christ" that he cited is indeed from Mason, but it's not about the James passage at all but about the Testimonium Flavionum, where Mason argues that Josephus usually explains Jewish terminology to his readers; that he doesn't do so in that case is an indication that someone tampered with Josephus' words. Mason explicitly says that the use of "Christ" in the James passage does not offer the same problem; it's a nickname by which the relevant Jesus can be identified. I haven't seen Mason mention Jesus son of Damneus at all; he shows no doubt whatsoever that the James passage indeed refers to the Biblical Jesus. From what I infer from Mason (though he does not explicitly say so because he does not even mention it), he would strongly disagree with the "son of Damneus" theory, for the following reasons: Firstly, if in that context "christ" were to denote a high priest, we would once again be lacking Josephus' usual explanation of Jewish customs for his non-Jewish readers. We know that Jewish high priests were anointed; I doubt that would have been common knowledge among Romans - at least not more so here than for the Testimonium. Secondly, if "son of Damneus" and "Christ" are both nicknames used to uniquely identify the same Jesus, it would be counterproductive to alternate using them. To me it seems much more likely that Josephus would refer to James as another son of Damneus than to refer to him as the brother of a Jesus who was called christ except that Josephus ''doesn't'' call him christ when he speaks of him.
::::As an aside, Mason also mentions the idea that James wasn't really Jesus' brother and that it might be a figurative meaning, just to dismiss it with prejudice.
::::In summary, Mason is used out of context to support a position he does not hold (and which he would probably strongly disagree with), and he also contradicts one of our century-old references. This is [[WP:SYN|original synthesis]] of the worst kind. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 20:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for the effort in reviewing the source and the information, which seems to confirm History2007's original statement. I am myself less concerned about his contradicting a centuries-old reference or two, because, well, some of them might have been rather less than biased themselves. But that in no way justifies an editor engaging in SYNTH to support a contention. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 20:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::That Mason contradicts the 1912 scholarship is, in my book, a point against the 1912 scholarship, not against Mason. At the very least it does not inspire confidence that those old texts still are considered up to date and relevant. It is, of course, entirely independent of the "son of Damneus" issue. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 20:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Right, the other issue just comes from the blogs. And that is the insinuation in the way it is worded in the article now, as "amateur research". [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::::::Thanks Huon for looking into it. I guess one could have guessed it by the fact that "blog/amateur research" was always added as a vague qualifier, but in any case, now the "failed verification tag" can be justified after all. But the real test was the X=... Y=... Z =... question that never received a reply from Bruce regarding any other books that could confirm that. Equations do speak louder than words. But anyway, let us be done with this Marathon discussion of Mason. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 20:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::::In any case, the material is now again tagged as original research and failed verification. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 10:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}
I will just note here that after a discussion at [[WP:AN]], Bruce Grubb was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABruceGrubb&diff=490823238&oldid=490528190 topic banned from Christianity related articles], broadly construed, and hence should no longer edit this article. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 18:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:Under the circumstances, it would then be reasonable to remove any material that individual added to the article that failed verification and/or was tagged as OR. That editor obviously will not be able to return to the article in the light of the ban. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
::It is already tagged, and the original version sat there tagged for a long time anyway and no source was added. So, will do. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:::I have removed all the original synthesis which was used to support the "son of Damneus" theory without actually mentioning Jesus the son of Damneus. Some rather ancient sources remain; I have no idea whether they are still state of the art (I rather doubt that) or whether they are fringe sources. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 19:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
::::They were Model-T era, outdated material. Some even predated the [[Model-T]]. I think we have already added all modern arguments against authenticity that we could find to that section. If these were still considered, they would have shown up in one the many books we searched and referenced. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

== Self-published section on the Egyptian ==

A new section on the Egyptian was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephus_on_Jesus&diff=494071452&oldid=493960899 in this edit] by the author of a self-published book ([[Createspace]]) on that topic. It includes a passing reference to Evans' book, but I checked page 358 of Evans' book and that page does not refer to Josephus, it just discusses King of the Jews without relating it to Josephus. The entire section seems based on the self-published book and I have seen no modern and serious scholarship that supports those self-published claims. I tagged the section accordingly. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 01:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

:Well, whoever posted the above is misinformed. The main quote of the section comes directly out of the Evans books. See "Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies" By Craig A. Evans at page 75. You can read this specific page in [http://books.google.com/books?id=DRcQ2bkLxc8C&pg=PA75&dq=jesus+%22the+egyptian%22+josephus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q2O9T97OH9HeggfFoJClDw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=jesus%20%22the%20egyptian%22%20josephus&f=false books.google]. Pray tell what self-published book are you referring to? Don't be cryptic. What book? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jjray7|Jjray7]] ([[User talk:Jjray7|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jjray7|contribs]]) 03:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::The self-published book I referred to, is of course your own book, [http://www.jjraymond.com/religion/jesustheegyptian.html on your own website], now reference 141 in the article. Is that not clear? That website and that book and all statements that are based on it are not [[WP:RS]]. Your next step is: delete that website because it can not be used in Wikipedia - rest assured that I am informed about the use of self-published books and websites. They can not be used. As an aside, your book seem to be subject to a simple application of [[WP:Fringe]] in that according to its summary it is "supporting a shocking theory, that Jesus was the grandson of both Herod the Great and the last Hasmonean king"... That is pure WP:Fringe and not in any way mainstream scholarship. I think you know that already. Once that reference is deleted, we will see how much of that section can be attributed to Evans. And as I said that page of Evans does not seem to mention Josephus. Now, please delete your own website reference, then we will talk further. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 07:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no reference to "the Egyptian" in Herodian Messiah. None. Here is my email address: jjray7 (at) gmail.com. Give me your smail address and I will send you a copy of the book so you may verify this for yourself. Every point in the section added to the wiki on "Josephus and Jesus" is easily defensible from the standpoint of history. Give me your objections to the entry as to where you think there has been a misstatement of fact in the entry as your claim that the entry relies entirely on a self-published book is completely erroneous. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jjray7|Jjray7]] ([[User talk:Jjray7|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jjray7|contribs]]) 12:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:History2007, I believe you confused Evans and Brandon in your comment: It's pages 77-78 of Evans, where he cites p. 358 of Brandon. Evans does mention Josephus in detail on pages 75-76 where he discusses the Egyptian, but Brandon's page 358 does not mention Josephus. Issues of self-published sources and [[WP:FRINGE]] aside, that section also strikes me as rather off-topic. This article is about Josephus on Jesus, and unless there is a reliable source claiming that Josephus meant Jesus when he wrote of the Egyptian (Brandon and Evans make no such claim), Josephus on the Egyptian is irrelevant to the article's topic. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 12:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
::Huon, the point is that several authors and scholars (I can list more if you like) have noticed the connection between Jesus as a messianic figure who performs miracles and other similar figures of the 1st century CE mentioned by Josephus. They do not say Jesus = 'the Egyptian', nor does the wiki entry make that claim, but their point is that the story of these individuals as found in Josephus help to give greater context in understanding the historical Jesus. Josephus gives the most detailed account of 'the Egyptian' out of the group. If you want this section moved to its own wiki entry, I'm fine with that.[[User:Jjray7|Jjray7]] ([[User talk:Jjray7|talk]]) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Yes, I did think he meant page 358 of Evans' book. I guess I misread that. But in view of the above that makes no difference to the irrelevance of this section within this article. So there are a few issues now:

::::* Why is the personal website of Jjray7 still sitting pretty in this article, given that no defense was provided against its being [[self-published]]. Jjray7 please either provide a statement as to why that is not a self-published website, or remove it before your next post here. Those types of self-published items may not be used as references unless they talk about themselves - which this does not.

::::* The parallels drawn between Jesus and other messianic figures are well known. But why bring it up in this page with these types of rock bottom references like Einhorn? That type of argument has been made by serious scholars such as [[Ulrich Luz]] and is a really, I mean really well known theological topic - which however, does not relate to this page.

::::* Regarding the valid question Huon raised: "Does Josephus say that Jesus was the Egyptian?" the answer is a ''solid'' "no". That section itself already says that according to Josephus the "Egyptian incident occurred while [[Antonius Felix]] was prefer of Judea, which is roughly 20 years too late to be Jesus." That statement is actually correct, yet unsourced again, and also irrelevant to this page given that Jesus is certainly not the Egyptian by any measure in any scholarly publications. Evans, for instance, specifically says (page 75) that the Egyptian was around the year 56, and given that elsewhere Evans says that Jesus died before the year 36, Evans does not equate Jesus and the Egyptian. Evans is a solid scholar, he would not make that kind of claim.

::::* The sourcing situation here is heading downhill pretty fast now. Apart from Jjray7's self-published website the source by Lena Einhorn is really not WP:RS on this topic, by any measure. Its summary says it is a book "written by a filmmaker, not a theologian". It is a non-scholarly book of almost no significance to modern scholarship. Jjray7, a frank question here: why not use books by serious scholars who teach at Harvard, Oxford and those types of places instead of Einhorn type references by film makers. These are not [[WP:RS]] and not encyclopedic. This new gem of a book you added claims that "Jesus and Paul were one and the same"! Hello? Are we in [[WP:Fringe]] territory yet?

:::I suggest that section should be removed from this article on multiple grounds of serious lack of relevance and promotion of fringe views. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
History2007, you are entering into the territory of defamation. "This new gem of a book you added claims that "Jesus and Paul were one and the same"! Hello?" The book does not say that. That's another garbage statement. You have have already incorrectly disparaged me in two instances. Why you feel the need to rampage against a book not related to the post in question is beyond me. Again, I'll be happy to send you the book so at least your attacks can be accurately sourced. [[User:Jjray7|Jjray7]] ([[User talk:Jjray7|talk]]) 17:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jjray7|Jjray7]] ([[User talk:Jjray7|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jjray7|contribs]]) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:First of all, it's Einhorn's book which advances the hypothesis that Jesus and Paul are one and the same, and that indeed makes [[WP:FRINGE]] relevant. I don't think Einhorn, as a medical doctor and filmmaker, is an authority on 1st century historiography; therefore her work is hardly a reliable source on Josephus' writings on Jesus.
:Secondly, while Einhorn's book does discuss other messianic figures of the 1st century, she does not do so in the context of Josephus' writings on Jesus; she does not allow us to draw parallels between Josephus' coverage of Jesus and of the Egyptian without engaging in [[WP:OR|original research]].
:Thirdly, the "Jesus as 'the Egyptian' of Josephus" website is indeed self-published; I don't see why it should be considered a reliable source.
:Fourthly, as I said before, Brandon and Evans also do not bring up the Egyptian in connection with Josephus' writings on Jesus. We therefore do not have a single reliable source connecting the Egyptian to Josephus' writings on Jesus, and discussing the Egyptian in this article is either off-topic or [[WP:SYN|original synthesis]].
:For these reasons I have reverted [[Special:Contributions/Jjray7|Jjray7]]'s addition. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 17:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

::I agree with that revert. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
::I also consider the removal of the material to be completely justified. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 23:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

== "Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone" ==

Compare this with Fitzgerald;
:"Origen in particular relied extensively on him; his own writings are filled with references to Josephus. But it is obvious Origen had never heard of the Testimonium.
:When his skeptical Roman opponent Celsus asks what miracles Jesus performed, Origen answers that Jesus‘ life was indeed full of striking and miraculous events, “but from what other source can we can furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives?” (Contra Celsum, 2:33) In the same book (1.47), Origen even quoted from Antiquities of the Jews in order to prove the historical existence of John the Baptist, then adds that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, and criticizes Josephus for failing to mention Jesus in that book!
:And no one else seems to have heard of the Testimonium for 300 years either – It is never quoted until the 4th century, when the notorious Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea begins quoting it repeatedly. And where did Eusebius get his copy of Antiquities of the Jews? He inherited it from his master… who inherited it from Origen! No matter how you slice it, the Testimonium sticks out like the complete fraud it is."

If Fitzgerald is accurate then this argument appears highly notable and necessary to include in the article. Hopefully this is a new development in the field. If not I'd ask what other salient research is not mentioned in this article. [[Special:Contributions/124.148.164.7|124.148.164.7]] ([[User talk:124.148.164.7|talk]]) 16:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

: I assume you refer to [http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf this essay] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Fitzgerald_%28author%29 this David Fitzgerald]. Is that so? If so, where was that essay published? His book was self-published by Lulu, so the book can not be used, FYI. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
::Agree with History2007. I would ask the IP to read [[WP:SPS]]. While it is in some rare cases possible to use self-published sources, such as those volumes published by Lulu, it is extremely rare that we would do so, and then only in rather unusual circumstances. The one exception I can think of is when Lulu published the three books of the [[Meqabyan]] in English translation a few years ago. I think it might not be unreasonable to include a few quotes from that book in our article [[Meqabyan]], particularly if there might be a dearth of other recent translations and if, perhaps, the translation has received some approval from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. But except in very rare cases similar to that, the opinions of self-published authors and their works do not meet wikipedia policies and guidelines, including [[WP:SPS]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:RS]], and the like. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 18:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Yes, that is a correct arguument for excluding Fitzgerald. I really did not even want to spend keystokes talking about Fitzgerald, but now that we are discussing him, I would mention that Fitzgerald does not bring anything new to the party - it is a rehash of previously published items. The article already includes the statement: "although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius in 324 AD, none mentions the Testimonium. Given earlier debates by Christian authors about the existence of Jesus, e.g. in Justin Martyr's 2nd century Dialogue with Trypho, it would have been expected that the passage from Josephus would have been used as a component of the arguments." in the External Arguments section. So IP 24.148/etc. you can stop wondering about "missing salient research" - believe me, we have researched this topic. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
All substantial points conceded.
Yes thats the Fitzgerald.
"Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ." Feldman (William Harbury et al., ed., The Cambridge History of Judaism vol. 3 (1999) pp. 911 - 912)
Origen "knew Book 18" and explicitly stated "that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ". However Goldberg proposes the original read perhaps "They reported he appeared to them spending a third day alive again, and accordingly, that he was perhaps the Messiah, ...". This allows for Origin's version to show disbelief in Christ and for a later version to be "changed" to have Josephus personally identifying Jesus as the Christ.

You are all doing a pretty good job at something that WP usually fails dismally at - controversial history. Well done. [[Special:Contributions/124.148.164.7|124.148.164.7]] ([[User talk:124.148.164.7|talk]]) 01:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you. As an aside the fact that Josephus did not consider Jesus to be Christ points to authenticity, for an interpolating monk would have been laudatory, as the references state. Anyway, do believe me that all of this started because some IP in Kansas complained about one quote in this page, and we all went down this road via the Wiki-[[butterfly effect]]... And the IP in Kansas has not been heard of since....[[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 02:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:08, 8 June 2012

Get rid of Roman Catholic editing Helpsortabout (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus&oldid=496624739"