Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

The importance of WP:V and WP:RS

Lung Salad, You must do the following:

• Please ""accept WP:V" and stop arguing against WP:V and stop arguing that scholarly WP:RS sources matter not and the "facts" as you see them should take precedence.
• Please stop insisting that you can modify the article to make it deviate from WP:RS sources to which you have access. The integrity of sources must be maintained.
• Please read WP:Tendentious editing and WP:Forum.

The importance of WP:V has been mentioned to you 21 times now. Three editors (myself, RK and the IP) have stated that your modification of the text to deviate from WP:RS sources is not within Wikipedia policy. It is clear that once you have been informed of WP:V's importance "21 times", you must follow it, not show contempt for it. Your continued insistence on ignoring Wikipedia policy (both WP:V and WP:RS) has clearly run against WP:Tendentious editing and your attempts at "discussing the facts regardless of sources" runs against WP:Forum.

Unless you stop arguing against WP:V and WP:RS your access to Wikipedia may be blocked. History2007 (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Any notable citation is valid, from any period of time. It's obvious what you are doing. I'll gradually balance this article over a period of time. You yourself need to read WP:Tendentious editing. Lung salad (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No:

• I am not arguing against WP:V. You are.
• I am not making content deviate from sources. You are.
• I am not treating this page as WP:Forum to discuss "facts" regardless of WP:V. You are.

You have already been told that WP:LEDE requires 4 paragraphs at most you disregarded that again today. Your edits are "walking over Wikipedia policy at will". You are clearly in breach of policy on multiple grounds. Period. After a while you will realize you can not breach policy and get away with it. Period. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have included Origen. Lung salad (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can minimise the amount of repetitions you have put into the article. Lung salad (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Origen relates to the larger issue not just this issue.

In any case, you did not address my point about your disregard for Wikipedia policy. You are clearly aware of the fact that the weight of scholarly opinion is against your views. Hence you must accept that and the article must represent the overall scholarly view as its main theme. You must accept that you will not be allowed to "attempt a run-around" to deviate from the scholarly views (as clearly documented by WP:RS sources here). Wikipedia policy will prevail. You must accept that. If and when scholarly views change in your favor that is a separate story. But gradual edits that make the text deviate from the source, repeatedly stress minority views, etc. are not and will not be allowed by Wikipedia policy. You must accept that this article will represent the majority scholarly view, and until WP:RS sources say otherwise, the article will reflect that as the primary theme. Period. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the article should include all notable views. But note that I'm not suggesting it contain *all* views. And if significant scholarly opinions have changed over time, we should include that history to help readers better understand how current beliefs have evolved. I write this to clarify but not to suggest that I disagree with your comments above. In fact, I appreciate your diligence in cleaning up a rather messy article. Rklawton (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But of course. I actually added the opposing views of Berendts, Eisler, etc. myself. They wee not there before if I remember right, but were important to note to give the history. The problem is that apart from Wells and a couple of others, we do not know of any other scholars who still support Eisler. And as I said twice before "I did not say you can not add Wells. But the reader must be informed that Wells is singing a lonely tune per WP:Undue." That is clearly the case. I really did not even want to work on this article, or dig out the history of the Slavonic item. But it needed to clarified. As Evans said: ""to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value" so they are mentioned but qualified with the scholarly assessment of their value. But the article lede still refers to the Slavonic item - clearly an incorrect position. And the first paragraph of the Slavonic section fails verification etc. So alas the mess still persists. History2007 (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

One of you two is going to have to simply block Lung from editing this article. Maybe draconic but you cannot reason with a zealot with an axe to grind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocks do not work that way in Wikipedia. Lung Salad has been quiet now and not criticized WP:V for at least 3 minutes. So he/she can be given the benefit of the doubt until now. However, in parallel, there has been enough discussion and his/her breaches of policy been clearly documented so that the path to a block has been paved. If that type of behavior continues, I will ask for a block, without hesitation. But I like to do my homework, have my case prepared before I do that. I have clearly documented the deviations from sources, etc. He/she is still one or two steps away from getting blocked, and can avoid it with "good behavior". So we will wait and see. I will in time remove his/her errors from the article and if he/she adds them again over the objections of the two of us, myself or you can just revert her to restore the correct version. If he/she edit wars on it, then will get blocked for sure. That is how it works, per policy. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can count on my support dealing with Lung. Rklawton (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mine too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, it might be useful to adjust a few of the cited passages to include direct quotes. Potentially less arguing about meaning then (although that won't alleviate all the issues I see above, of course). I suggest that because I suspect that there will be others who come through eventually who might also disagree with the material.

Again, that won't eliminate problems. It could help though. Just a thought. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to use longer "direct quotes". The tradeoff is, of course, that of not tripping over the WP:COPYVIO wire. So I generally try to give some direct quotes but not look like I am ripping off large chunks of text that would amount to copyvio. But in this case, given that there is clear demonstration that there was no intent to do copyvio due to laziness to paraphrase, I can do more direct quotes. So I will try to do that when I clean up the deviations without running against WP:QUOTEFARM. So the article has to be aware of the need for quotations as well as policies against being a quote farm.

The remaining issue will be the lede, because it can not just be a collection of quotes and needs to summarize the article. So at some point we need to summarize what the WP:RS sources say without too many quotes. And of course one can just build a collage of quotes to make any argument. It reminds me of when Jay Leno cuts and pastes a series of interview clips of various people, matches them to take them all out of context as a parody. That should be avoided.

And I should say that this issue of stating the general scholarly opinion, someone arguing for ever against it and then getting blocked is not limited to this type of article. As an interesting aside, I watched the comedy that unfolded as a well known expert in the field got totally blocked out for arguing against the scholarly opinion, as well as beefing up his own views on his own page. He then got so upset that he set up a web page (really!) about the Corruption of Wikipedia and asked for the WMF board to change. I kid you not, he did that. To no avail, of course. It was a fun comedy to watch from the sidelines. But then the debates spread to other pages, as he stared using IP accounts to attack Wikipedia policies, but they eventually calmed down after I reminded them not to act like children in front of their students. So much for cool headed scientists. But Hewitt (who used to be a top expert) was clearly arguing against the prevailing majority scholarly views and there was no way to stop him short of a total block. They did not want to suppress his view, they just wanted it to be seen as a smaller minority view and not the "greatest gift to science" as he viewed it - so he called them censors and so on and it had to end. So this situation is not entirely new.

Now, as a practical matter, to clean the article up and remove the errors, I will make suggestions here, we can discuss them on the talk page, then act on them and be done. There is really life beyond this page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A notable citation, whether it dates from 1866 or 2026, does not violate Wikipedia Guidelines. The title of the article is "Josephus on Jesus" and not "Current scholarly opinions in vogue". The subject matter consists of historical facts that exist independently of historical conjecture and the reason for the conjecture is because there is a historical vacuum. Pushing forever and ever and ever the opinions in vogue because it suits certain editors beliefs just may also be a violation of Wikipedia NPOV. I have not violated either WP:V or WP:RS. Lung salad (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that statement is flatly incorrect. You are not reading WP:RS. Read it:

"However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available"

Is that clear? So what you call the "the opinions in vogue" is what matters in Wikipedia and is called "present scholarly consensus" - which happens to be available. And it is just common sense. So in fact you can not use physics articles from the 1866 as a key source in a page on physics because many of those ideas have now been discredited. They can be mentioned as old, discredited theories such as Phlogiston but not presented as the current state of physics of Combustion in 2012. Is that clear? But I am getting tired of telling you these obvious facts. So I will stop.

But I do have a good suggestion for you that may help the scientific community. Please go and modify the page on Combustion and set them straight. They are using modern scholarship. Explain to them that Phlogiston takes precedence over "Current scholarly opinions in vogue" and that the article is not called "modern theory of combustion" and hence should discuss Phlogiston at length. After that you may convince some automobile manufacturers to go and use "Phlogiston fuel". You may even want to patent that. After that come back and type here. Ok? History2007 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to change the subject, but History2007, I wouldn't worry too much about copyright violations as long as the quote is properly attributed. The main legal issue that could arise for text works is when the quoted material is a high percentage of the actual work (such as quoting three of five stanzas of a poem, or four of five paragraphs of a short web article), or when the quoted material encompasses the main thrust or central focus of the work (i.e., possibly leading to people not wanting to purchase the copyrighted original work because the "ending was given away" or the central idea is explained, among other things). These are general guidelines, of course, and you're right to be cautious.

The other issue, (quote farm) can be handled "by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text" instead of using lengthy and/or block quotes. By sprinkling in small portions of direct quotes for key and potentially controversial passages, future challenges might be mitigated, at least in part. Maybe. But, I'm sure you know all this anyway. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Lung's comments are in keeping with mine with regard to the history or evolution of scholarship on this subject. We really don't want an article that says in effect: "bang - here's how things are, it's up to you to guess how we got here." Rklawton (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did cover the history of the Slavonic item myself. It is already there. I added that. However, there has not been much discussion on that in terms of history. The facts are: Popov, Sreznevski and Barsov. Then Eisler and Williamson. These were the scholars. Eisler was discredited - bad philology etc. Then as Van Voorst said: no strong defense has been made for the authenticity of the Slavonic Josephus. Wells has some arguments, and Wells is mentioned. So exactly what is missing? Which part of the history has article ignored? History2007 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment on "modern scholarship" above rather than on the content of the article. Rklawton (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so where does that leave us? We already have the history. But should the history be presented as "current scholarship"? History2007 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent comments indicate you might be benefit from a short break from this article. You have certainly made significant, high quality improvements. Rklawton (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think it was a total mistake for me to attempt to clean up the rummage sale that existed. But now that it is so close to completion, there is no reason to let it go back to being the rummage sale that it was. And frankly I think the types of edits that are being made now are heading back there. The article needs to achieve the quality it deserves. Not go backwards.History2007 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The scholars that are quoted in the article also acknowledge the viewpoints opposite to their own, this should be repeated in the article. Lung salad (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I will not engage in much debate on whether Josephus used Phlogiston to keep himself warm. But I will make suggestions for cleaning up the errors introduced in the past few days by Lung Salad. Then discuss it and clean it up again. History2007 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I made errors. You want a slanted and biased POV article that is an apology for the argument that the passages about Jesus in Josephus are authentic. Lung salad (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Enough of this. History2007 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You are so obviously over-reaching. Reading the sources some of the scholars concerned do really present their opinions as theories and not as facts. eg, Voorst mentioned nothing is certain and had the courtesy to explain the viewpoint that was opposite to his own, Lung salad (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for for the record, warning regarding WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You must stop breaching Wikipedia policy again and again. History2007 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks were made against me above by user 84.22.52.10 and you asked it to be stopped. But no warning. Lung salad (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I made it clear that I do not support personal attacks. And given the dynamic nature of IP addresses, the mention on the talk page, and the request to remove it before you could read it was sufficient. Let me give you a hint: I know the policies and I respect them. I have written a couple of articles before. I will not allow you to continue to make personal attacks against me, and/or to continue to violate policy. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material from an article Talk Page is a violation of Wikipedia policy (except the User's Talk Page). Lung salad (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody removed anything. And removal of a breach by the user himself is not a big issue. People remove WP:Forum all the time anyway. The IP could have corrected it and moved on. In any case, that comment is beside the point here. Enough of this. Now, do not breach policy again. Clear? History2007 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was removed, but the suggestion to remove it was made, as were the personal attacks against me without any warnings. Clear? Lung salad (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Make the edits and block lung fish if he so much as touches this article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Lung fish does appear to need to cool it. I am very tempted to revert to History2007's last edit. However, scholarship as it stands does appear to in recent years have settled from the ultra-critical approach of years past nearer to the the idea that the James/John references are mainly genuine and the Christ reference a corruption of what was probably a critical statement (just as Josephus criticises other false messiahs), a subject covered in Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. History2007 are you able/willing to go through Lung fish's recent edits removing what is over the top, dating where necessary, and keeping the WP:RS sources? Or failing that someone else? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, on further view, I see History and other editors have already tried that. I also note that Lung fish thinks "Paul L. Maier is laughable," which sounds like WP:Truth is in play. On that basis reverting to History2007's last. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn it. Some of Lung fish's sources need to stay. Not easy to clean this up now. Back to suggestion above. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is good that you have started to watch this page. For the record, In ictu oculi is more knowlegeable about the topic and the field than myself. But in any case, I think you are right, and a simple revert may not work because a few statements have references, but are placed in various places in less than orderly form. But it is not hard to clean up compared to the very brief and succinct discussions we have been having on this page. My suggestion is to achieve agreement on what each section should include, hen settle on it and be done. I would start with the last section, namely the Slavonic item because it is probably easiest to settle, given that I looked into it in detail just this week. Then after that we can deal with the James and John sections, and finally the Testimonium section - which is now in a chaotic status, and much of it needs to move out to its authenticity page. I will make a suggestion below. History2007 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you not aware of what is stated above? Lung salad (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Slavonic Josephus section clean up

I would like to clarify the situation with respect to the Slavonic Josephus section. Are there any questions or doubts about the last 4 paragraphs. I do have a question about the Scobie reference, however. What is the article that "cites" Scobie in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Volume 84, 1965) and who wrote the article and what is the page number so I can double check it. And why not quote Scobie directly? Its use as is is a WP:Tertiary and needs to become WP:Secondary. In any case, let us discuss these paragraphs first.

Existing text

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

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

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

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

I have checked these references and the text is almost entirely mine. No one has objected to it. But let us confirm that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Slavonic Josephus contains Christian interpolations and this is used as proof that Christians interpolated passages within Josephus. This is omitted. Lung salad (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So the only objection you have is that a fact you consider relevant is missing from these last paragraphs, not that the sources are wrong, etc. So your objection is the lack of the statement "The Slavonic Josephus contains Christian interpolations and this is used as proof that Christians interpolated passages within Josephus." (i.e. the one in the 1st paragraph ) right? History2007 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you disputing the fact that the Slavonic Josephus contains Christian interpolations? Is this a contentious statement? Lung salad (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point I am neither disputing nor agreeing with the 1st paragraph. I would like to see if these paragraphs are agreed to first. They already say similar things anyway. So regardless of the 1st paragraph, let us see what everyone thinks of these. History2007 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will therefore add citations given in Feldman. Lung salad (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So you want to add citations to the 1st paragraph, and have no objection to these. Right? They do say that the Slavonic was mostly a 10th-11h century creation, and probably not due to Josephus i.e. "is Josephus the author of the additions and modifications in the Slavonic version" has usually received a negative answer" as the text says. So I am assuming you have no objections to these paragraphs. Let us see if anyone objects, etc. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing the fact that the Slavonic Josephus contains Christian interpolations could be an On-Topic inclusion for this article. Lung salad (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello? These paragraphs say:

• the contents of the passages in the Slavonic Josephus show that "they are Christian compositions"

and it says:

• the question "is Josephus the author of the additions and modifications in the Slavonic version" has usually received a negative answer

Do I need a new optometrist or what? It is there 3 times over.

Then Wells citation needs to be given from Jesus of the Early Christians where he states these facts indicate that the passages in the Greek texts could also be interpolations. Lung salad (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, Lung Salad, please clarify where you obtained the Scobie reference as requested above. History2007 (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference originates from Wells about Scobie's book. I found an online citation where Scobie's book was mentioned in a journal. Lung salad (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So you never read Scobie's book. Right? Now, please provide the online Scobie link you just mentioned so I enhance my knowledge about it. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wells provides information about the contents of Scobie's book. Was he wrong? The Scobie link [1]. Lung salad (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lung Salad: You just provided a Google link to 33 different books. Hello? Have we all read WP:RS? After all this talk of WP:RS.... ? You need the page number and the content of the Scobie book to use the Scobie book as a WP:Secondary item, else can just use Wells himself as the reference. The long and short of it is that you have "never" seen the Scobie book and do not even have a link to the online citation for it, except a generic Google search. Right?

So let us see what other people say.

In any case, I have to stop for a while. Need to see my optometrist... kidding... History2007 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a review of Scobies book that appeared in the Journal [2] and citing this does not violate guidelines. Lung salad (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So did you actually read the review? And if so, what does it say exactly? Or are you just saying that "the review exists"? History2007 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer mentions the author rejected the value of the Slavonic Josephus. Lung salad (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

But that does not mean that Scobies said that it leads to the conclusion that the other Greek texts also have interpolations. Therefore it is clear that Scobies can not be used as you have used it. So again the reference fails verification and can not be used as that, and just leaves Wells as the reference.

Moreover, the paragraph is poorly worded and now and is illogical as it is. It says it has no parallel then mentions a parallel. And seems to mix VVoorst with Wells, which is not right. And it should be made consistent with the east/west discoveries. So it needs to get replaced with:

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

That is flat and without judgement, then discusses the history/evolution/etc. Wells should be mentioned to maintain WP:NPOV, but given that it is a minority view can not get telegrammed at the start. There we we can add Wells to the end (after Craig Evans) with the sentence:

"G. A. Wells has used the existence of Christian interpolations in the Slavonic version of the Jewish Waras part of his reasoning that the other works of Josephus also contain Christian interpolations".

And then the references will be "correct" and we will not fall over WP:Undue as it is now. A minority opposing view (in this case Wells) should be mentioned, but can not overstated that way with references that do not check out. This should then conclude the discussion on this section. Now, let us see if any one else has comments. And again, be careful how you use references so we do not have to spend all this time cleaning them up here. History2007 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article "The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus'" by Solomon Zeitlin could be cited (Jewish Quarterly Review, 1948), where Zeitlin argues that the reference to Jesus in Greek manuscripts are a forgery because Josephus, a sympathiser of Rome, would not have mentioned Jesus because the Christians were accused of burning Rome - and the origin of the Jesus passage in Antiquities 18 was a forgery by Eusebius who used the giveaway word "tribe" (tribe of Christians). Lung salad (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will look at that, but 1948 article again... If that checks out can go next to Wells, but needs to have the 1948 qualifier... And how does Zeitlin's argument relate to Slavonic? And what is the page number, year, etc.? History2007 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You keep mentioning minority views. These views are not really minority because they are still respected even by the detractors, who refer to them and I have cited this. These views held as majoroty views for centuries. The origin and development of Josephan criticism needs to be given. Lung salad (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I assume you mean Jewish Quarterly Review, 1948 New Series, Vol. 39, No. 2, right? History2007 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, many more where that came from. Lung salad (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. But I assume Scobie is out now. But let me just try to figure this out: Does "These views held as majority views for centuries" refer to the Slavonic Josephus? How can that be? That comment does not apply to this section. Period. Please try to use the correct logic here. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Zeitlin's view that the passages about Jesus in Josephus in both Greek and Russian were later additions was the majority view at the time he wrote his article. Besides, even what you describe as scholars holding majority view concede that there is no certainty as to the absolute facts. Lung salad (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My understaning of "century" is 100 years, so that statement is "illogical" given that the Slovonic was discovered in the 20th century, 50 years before Zeitlin. So your statement is "incorrect". Period.

And Zeitlin specifically wrote that article in response to Spencer Kennard's theory, not as a general analysis. What he was doing was criticizing Kennard, and Kennard accepted that a few months later. Your statement fails verification as you have stated it.... Aaaaahhhhh! History2007 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How could he write a response without providing a general analysis.....Lung salad (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, let us do this one thing at a time, then move on to "logic". Now:

• Scobie fails verification. That is clear.
• The statement that "it was held for centuries" that Slavonic Josephus impacts the Greek versions is illogical, and incorrect, given that the Slavonic is recent.

Are we set on these two items? History2007 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I omitted reference to Kennard to give Zeitlin's position about Josephus within the context of this article. The statement it was held for centuries about the passages in Josephus referred to the Greek text and Zeitlin dismissed the Slavonic version on this basis. Scobie was described by Wells as an example of a scholar citing the existence of Christian interpolations within the Slavonic Josephus (something argued by Zeitlin). Lung salad (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the logic of "your jump" from Scobie to Zetlin is incorrect and WP:OR in any case given that the sources do not include them. In any case, Scobie can not be used and Wells can. Very simple logic. and your deduction from Zeitlin is also not logical. Zeitlin correctly discredited Kennard, but did not use an inference from Slavonic to Greek. He just said the Slavonic is interpolated (as many others do, as cited) and also that some of the the Greeks are interpolated but implied no implication there in.... It would be incorrect logic and WP:OR to say it the other way. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, the rest of you guys who are no doubt watching, I am selling tickets here. Please do send funds to me directly for this tutorial on logic... kidding... But I suggest that to wrap this up for now as follows:

• We do not use Scobie that fails verification (as remarked here [3]), but use a sentence on Wells at the end as I have suggested above

• Correct the first paragraph's logical error and 19/20th century issue (not a big deal)

Then use that as the section for now. If and when Lung Salad finds another reference that he/she thinks does not fail verification he/she can discuss it on talk first, we will check it out and see where to add it in that section. Then we are done with this section and normal life and logic can resume for a brief period. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks here of course and are you dictating that all edits to this article should be channelled through yourself via the Talk Page? I will pass on that one. And I have Zeitlin's article here before me. Lung salad (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of correct citations

I would like to again remind you and record that you have been reminded to only add "correct information" to Wikipedia. In this edit you used the Scobie reference, which then failed verification, as discussed on talk. This will just consume effort for other editors to check the references you add. Please use references and information carefully and logically to be sure the article is accurae with respect to its sources. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (1986 revised edition) page 159. He was wrong? Lung salad (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As explained to you before, You can not just use "Scobie on its own" without mentioning that you were relying on Wells' use and interpretation of it. As Wikipedia editors, we can not attempt to determine if Wells was right or wrong here by ourselves, per WP:Secondary, WP:OR, etc. etc. as before. If you have not actually seen a reference (and in this case you have clearly stated that you have "never seen" Scobie's book) do not just use it as a reference on its own. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The review of Scobie's book stated he dismissed the value of the Slavonic Josephus. Lung salad (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Action replay: As sated to you before, the reviewer did not say Scobie stated that the lack of value in Slavonic implies interpolations elsewhere in Greek. Period. Now I will stop repeating the correct logic here and wait for comments from other editors. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's merely face-value dismissal of Wells. Lung salad (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, applies to any other author as well, not just Wells. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you have got a job on to edit out all the other examples on Wikipedia. A big place. Lung salad (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me lungs argument is that cause other articles have flaws he can knowingly put flaws in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if someone double parks, does not give others the right to double park. That is siimple logic. Anyway, do you agree that Lung Salad's argument is incorrect, and we can not use Scobie just because someone else makes that error elsewhere? History2007 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Citations are provided in Wikipedia articles with additional information what sources the authors were using. Lung salad (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, if someone double parks, or runs through a red light that is no justification for others to do it. End of story. Please respect Wikipedia policies, as you would respect no parking signs. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that you have not responded to this, I assume you realize that Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We? is not a Wikipedia policy, and that you will respect policies and guidelines on your own regardless of what other editors may do elsewhere. So let us assume this discussion has concluded, and I have left you a reminder as such. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I second this, just because others have broken the rules does not mean you get to break them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, based on that I have now corrected that section, so we can move on. As stated, I kept Wells, but not Scobe. I added Zeitlin as well, but questioned it, since I have looked at the Zeitlin paper and I do not see him making that inference. In any case, that section is now "error free", and I have double checked all references. I think if Lung Salad continues to add unverified items, he/she should be just reverted. History2007 (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And you need to be reverted if you make mistakes, and do not treat others in a patronising way and make illogical comparisons about double-parking. Lung salad (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Errors are to be avoided all around. However, the double-parking analogy was and is exactly correct. And I stand by it. The last edit you made to Zeitlin is not 100% incorrect, however. I have checked Zeitlin's paper and he does make two statements similar to what you typed (one of which is not novel at all, as stated further up by multiple more recent references, so no big deal), but the "makes similar arguments" which I had added is clearly not in his paper. Hence I will delete just the comparison, and I assume we will be done with "the Slavonic section". However, errors remain in other sections, and I will address those later. History2007 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's best to drop references about double parking about an article dealing with passages in Josephus. If only for the sake of logic. Lung salad (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I will check your edits. Lung salad (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

But of course. I did comment with a null edit that the "in Greek" needs more explanation, theoretically, since it is out of context there, but it is no big deal, so I left it as such given that it is not a major issue. And I also left you another AGF reminder here. History2007 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that the Slavonic version is translated from a Greek version. And the interpolations were introduced by the translators.Lung salad (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, lines 19-21 of the article state: "This may be the reason Josephus did not mention Jesus by name, for he did not want the Romans to associate the followers of Jesus with the Jews". So, in context Zeitlin's general points actually refer to "mention by name". Of course a quote that ignores the general context may be pulled out of that article as well, but this is a trivial issue after all. So I will not bother to add other comments from Zeitlin's article to clarify that, or the Greek issue, given the insignificance of the point. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes

We need to watch changes on this article like a hawk. We need to assume bad faith until shown otherwise. If someone wishes to make a change they should explain why even for something tiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but let us avoid the general idea of "bad faith" on Wikipedia. The general assumption in Wikipedia (built into the system) is that of WP:Assume good faith and in most cases most editors do act in good faith - although they may have differing opinions. The assumption of bad faith will be rejected by thousands of Wikipedia editors very quickly. However, the situation may be different when a "specific editor" has shown a pattern of adding which introduces incorrect material, perhaps not even through bad faith, but due to lack of familiarity with the process, or lack of familiarity with logic. In such cases, we can try to be more cautious before accepting citations and need to double check them very carefully. History2007 (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No "incorrect material" was introduced. I was citing Wells. And Wells is mistrusted. Lung salad (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD on James brother of Jesus

This is a WP:BRD discussion on the James section, since major non-WP:RS sources were added and had to be reverted. Please discuss the issues one at a time here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop reverting to a version of the James the brother of Jesus section that has POV problems with no discussion here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there was detailed discussion and I ONLY modified it based on the request from an IP. The material you reinserted is not WP:RS, I will revert, and wil be the last of the 3RR. So you should follow WP:BRD and discuss. The sources you restored were non-RS as discussed 7 days ago ont his talk page. That is how WP:BRD works. You must reverting given that it had been discussed. History2007 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The FULL quote of Josephus and the statements Isaac Mayer Wise, Arthur Drews, Emil Schürer, and a book by Westminster John Knox Press are not RS?!? Are you joking?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes joke, but not in this case. Now, one by one:

• The full quote of Josephus was discussed and I stated that it could be more concise and linked to Wikisource that has the full source and I did link there. As is, "the central part" is there, and there are links to that passage in several places in the article, so any reader can just click. I do not see that as even a WP:RS issue, but a verbosity issue on not making the article seem like it was written by Josephus, given that the full text is in Wikisource in any case.

• Then there are 3 other authors you mentioned. That was discussed on talk in the context of "current scholarship" and out of date issues. As is the article states: "Going back to John Remsburg in the 19th century these authors have included Isaac Mayer Wise and Arthur Drews and their views culminated in the writings of George Albert Wells." In fact Wells is the "current state of opposition" if you will, and it is his view that matters now, given that per WP:RS sources about a century old have "to be supersede" by modern scholarship that may have (and usually has) improved upon them. So if you have a more modern scholar, in the age range of Wells, that can certainly be discussed. Per WP:Undue, modern scholarship and the general consensus among scholars should be given prominence, as stated in WP:GEVAL.

• There were a number of websites that were clearly not WP:RS, and they were deleted. There were "www...." references you added that are clearly not WP:RS. We must follow WP:RS guidelines. As it happens, 30 minutes or so before this discussion, I had made this statement about the need to remind users of WP:V and WP:RS.

And I should note that material I had modified had WP:RS sources all the way and respresented the "summary overview" of modern scholarship, while mentioning Wells, etc. as a minority modern opposition, as the WP:RS sources indicate. History2007 (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop the preaching because your edits always need checking as we all know. Lung salad (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that a WP:Primary item was now added. May I suggest a reading of WP:RS again. In any case, I have to stop for a few hours, but let us continue this discussion in any case, a little later. And I think you did well not to hit revert and followed WP:BRD, but in general, you would have done better to focus on WP:Secondary sources and in general let the main BRD issues be discussed first. Any way, we will resume this pleasant conversation later. History2007 (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because a source is WP:Primary does NOT mean it is not RS only that you have to be careful using it. I should point out Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy in their Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition book (a 2007 Baker Academic publication) specifically cite Well's Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth as examples of what they call mythic Jesus thesis along with Drews and Bauer on page 24-25 which refutes the claim that Wells has accepted the existence of the historical Jesus. Sure, there is a challenge to this but it is gasp A WP:Primary source! Catch-22.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

All three passages are disputed (Jesus Christ, James, John The Baptist), and this is acknowledged by those who believe in the existence of a tampered version of the Testimonium, they acknowledge that fact themselves. Josephus is not a reliable source on Christianity because the references come from late manuscripts and the first witness Eusebius, we know tampered with Josephan texts altering the original passages. It cannot be repeated ad infinitum like it is all the time on this article that "all scholars consider Josephus passages to be authentic" when those very same scholars who believe the passages to be authentic also acknowledge in the same breath that they are disputed. Lung salad (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, one item at a time.

• Primary source usage: In this edit Lung Salad added a statement and added a reference based The Jewish Wars. Page 353 in that Book provides just the text of Book 4, Chapter 5 of Josephus, in Wikisource. There is in fact no need to use a book reference there, unless the book says something apart from repeating Josephus. I just provided the Wikisource link that should be used there given that. Wikisource is the general direction of Wikipedia. Now, by virtue of the absence of "any other material" except Josephus' text that edit in itself, is a clear violation of WP:OR given that the commentary "the above passage ... is directly contradicted .." was his/her own comment on Josephus. So that type of thing should certainly be avoided for it will impose on other editors to go and clean it up and add proper references, etc. Now, as it happens, the statement Lung Salad made is not entirely incorrect does appear in WP:RS sources elsewhere, along with counter-arguments against it. In time I can fix that (IP 84 you really do need to send me a nice large wire transfer for getting me started here). In a few days I will draft a sub-section called "Relationship to the Jewish Wars", and post it on this talk page first so we can discuss it at our leisure. In the meantime, the use of a WP:Primary source, and adding WP:OR comments just reduces the quality of the article and makes it look amateurish at best, and should be avoided.

• Wells' position: I got that from Van Voorst's article in Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia 2003 ISBN 1576078566, page 660, where Van Voorst says, Quote: "Wells has moved away from this hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus" After mentioning "Q", Van Voorst states: "Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Wells' about-face will have on debate... etc." So Van Voorst said that Wells had done an "about-face". Now if there are other sources that say Wells did not do an "about-face" please mention them and we can see what the situation may be.

• Scholars on the James passage: Now, is there "any debate" here on this talk page as to what the "main scholarly view" is among modern scholars about the authenticity of the James passage. Are there any and I mean any WP:RS sources that categorically say: "most scholars consider Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of Josephus not to be authentic". Is there a single, modern overview of current scholarly research in a WP:RS source that states that? If so, I would be interesed in seeing it.

Please address these one by one. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we move away from the historicity of Jesus because this subject matter is not a "Did Jesus Exist?" subject matter. Wells is used because he uses critical arguments about the passages that have either been abandoned or are sidestepped by today's scholarship. Lung salad (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have shown through RS the Christ myth theory is NOT so much "Jesus the man didn't exist" but "Jesus as presented in the Gospels didn't exist". Even Drews stated that if we insisted that there was a flesh and blood man behind the Jesus of the Gospels that we knew nothing about that Jesus.

Regarding History2007's points:

Primary source usage: The "Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." that ends the passage has long be a issue going back as far back as the 19th century. It is a known problem and glossing it over IMHO is POV pushing.

Wells' position: Van Voorst claim is challenged by Doherty, Price, Stanton, Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd who all put Wells Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth in some form of the Christ Myth category:

• Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend Baker Academic pp. 24–27

• Carrier Richard (2006) Did Jesus Even Exist? Stanford University presentation May 30 2006

• "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review

• Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine

• Stanton, Graham. (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.

Scholars on the James passage: This seems to be a game of pick that source.

• "There is a brief passage in Josephus respecting James the brother of Jesus that must be taken into account. Once again, there is an absence of scholarly consensus regarding the authenticity of the passage in question." (Thomas, Michael (2011) Jesus 100 B.C. pg 141)

This is starting to look like the same nonsense the Christ myth theory article went through.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Antiquities by Josephs vs Antiquities by Wikipedia editors

I have mentioned the need for reliance on recent scholarship several times now. So let me clarify it again in this section, as follows:

• There is no doubt that the Antiquities of the Jews written by Josephus is a central element of this page.

• There is also no doubt that the use of Antiquated sources as in this edit (published in 1905) are not the best way to represent modern scholarship in Wikipedia, as required by WP:RS which states: "some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories". There may be better, modern references for that type of statement and repeatedly adding statements based on "Wiki-Antiquities" is not part of achieving the goals of WP:RS or WP:GEVAL. I have mentioned WP:RS many times now. I mentioned WP:V 21 times and now it seems to have been accepted. How many times does WP:RS and modern scholarship need to be stated?

Editors in general (and Lung Salad in particular) should be nicely reminded to use "modern scholarship". The use of out of date sources simply turns the page into an "intellectual antique store" rather than achieving the goals of WP:RS and WP:V. As I said before, about half an hour before the discussion started today, my previous experiences on this talk page had prompted me to suggest on WP:VP that WP:RS should be displayed in bright flashing neon colors. I hope they do not need to be placed in flashing neon colors on this talk page.

Please do take care to rely on "mainstream modern scholarly sources" and avoid the use of antique reference. After all this article is not titled The Antiquities of Wikipedia. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Modern scholarship acknowledges the reasons why the passages are disputed. This article is not entitled "The authentic passages about Jesus in Josephus" and the fact that the passages are disputed would still have to be acknowledged. And Feldman is not a proponent of the Testimonium is authentic theory. 16:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Lung salad (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was, let us say, an "astute" observation regarding the article title, alas it missed the point about "mainstream scholarly view", which I will now discuss below. I was, however making a general recommendation regarding WP:RS usage and antique sources, and Feldman's position, does not relate to it. Yet I must mention that both Setzer (that you recently mentioned) and Feldman believe that "the core of the Testimonium was written by Josephus, then extended." So that is the correct representation of their view. Anyway, I have a feeling that you have now grasped the point about the "Antiquities of Wikipedia". That is progress. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for adding an item by Claudia Setzer about the differences between the Josephus statements in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities and the gospel accounts. That is one of the arguments in favor of (yes, in favor of) authenticity of that Josephus passage as also noted by WP:RS sources (may I say Feldman?); for an interpolator would have followed the gospel accounts. I will explain and expand on that later as I clean up and clarify that when I get to it. I will, of course, not speculate if you intended to add an argument in favor of authenticity, but please allow me to thank you in advance, in any case. History2007 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream views have taken things back to before the 16th century. Never let it be said that there are no antique theories in this article. The "sit tight and believe" nonsense exists in the 21st century. But we have to refer to the passages as being disputed because the believers refer to them as being disputed. Lung salad (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I read 16th century? After all that discussion on WP:RS on using sources for modern scholarship? Did I read that? Perhaps it is time to see my optometrist again... History2007 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right, folks before the 16th century believed the passages in Josephus were authentic. We're there again, now in the 21st century. Centuries of criticism alchemically transformed into wishful thinking. Lung salad (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So do I take it that you are aware of the current scholarly opinions on the issue but are displeased with the scholars? In any case, I think the point about the use of modern sources has been made. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's evident that you are displeased with critical history of Josephus that dismissed the Jesus passages as interpolations for centuries and you want all reference to this possibility to be completely eliminated from the article. Lung salad (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the case, and it again fails WP:AGF. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only recently that scholarship has abandoned its position of stringent criticism of the passages in Josephus. It's not that old. I can cite Brandon. Feldman provides a history of the subject matter. Lung salad (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I will stop on this now, given that it has been made clear that modern scholarship matters, and "antique shop intellectuality" does not amount to WP:RS. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Antique shop scholarship has re-appeared and become mainstream in the 21st century (How many more times?). Centuries of critical scholarship cannot be dismissed at a swipe that disputed the passage. The Wikipedia guideline supports that this should be repeated in the article, and Wikipedia guidelines also mention context. And there is a centuries-long history of criticism that disputed the James passage. Lung salad (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Critical scholarship is an ongoing process, and revisionism affects very many areas. Who is running the antique shop here, I wonder? You can't stop the clock at 1920. If rejecting the passage is no longer the mainstream view, the rejections can be mentioned in context, but we should be clear what the current position, or balance of views, actually is. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As currently given in the article, several times. Today's majority view is given in the article. Lung salad (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary of the majority scholarly view on the James reference

There has been some discussion regarding the "majority mainstream scholarly view" on the James reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities (hereafter the "James pasaage"). I would like to settle this issue and provide an opportunity for all editors in general, and Lung Salad in particular, to clarify their position on that based on WP:RS sources. There are really two cases here:

• Case A: "The majority of modern scholars consider the reference to Jesus in the James passage to be authentic".

• Case B: "The majority of modern scholars consider the reference to Jesus in the James passage not authentic".

Please only provide references about "the summary of the scholarly views", not just the opinion of a scholar about the passage. So a statement such as "Professor X said he thinks it is authentic" does not apply here. We need a statement "Professor X said he thinks that most scholars consider it... ". That is what a "summary of modern scholarly views" means. My apologies for explaining this rather obvious point, but better be safe on that, and save explanations later.

Your help in clarifying this and settling the issue will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, this is going to be an open article free from censorship. Lung salad (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who said anything about censorship? I certainly did not. I just invited all editors to comment on the "majority scholarly view on the James reference" on this talk page based on WP:RS sources. I would like to invite you Lung Salad, in particular, to participate and provide WP:RS references that support either Case-A or Case-B. You are invited to participate in this discussion. Should you choose not to participate to provide WP:RS sources to support either Case-A or Case-B, that is also your option, of course. But the situation regarding the existence of such WP:RS sources will become clear in any case and the issue will be settled. In Wikipedia, WP:RS sources always prevail. The entire system is built on that. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Lung salad (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So it appears that you have read WP:RS etc. But the purpose of this section is to ask the opinion of editors on "what the majority view" is and "what the minority view" is. That is all. So please address that, or not, but in any case do not deviate from the focus of the thread and its question by restating general (and I should say obvious) items. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The majority view is repeated ad finitum in the article. How many more times do you want to see it repeated? Or are you implying that today's minority views - that spanned a period of centuries and only recently has been abandoned - should be eliminated altogether: is this what you are getting at? Lung salad (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. I am just being through and want to make sure that "there is no disagreement among editors about the majority view". So for the sake of clarity, please oblige us and simply state if you think Case-A or Case-B represents the majority view based on WP:RS sources. That would be a simple and helpful answer, and your help in achieving clarity will be appreciated. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Stick to the general Wikipedia guideline: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Lung salad (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The general guidelines will, of course, be followed. But I am once again, asking for cooperation in determining which of Case-A or Case-B is supported by WP:RS sources. I am seeking your opinion on this "for the last time" now, and should you not provide one, I will assume you have declined to provide a specific selection and will leave it there. Then I will await responses from other editors regarding Case-A vs Case-B. History2007 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" - I don't follow either A or B, when this guideline can be followed. Lung salad (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I will assume that you have declined to participate in the discussion of what the "majority of modern scholars" hold as modern scholarship. You did however, confirm that in your view the "majority view is repeated ad finitum in the article". We will leave it at that and I will provide my analysis later. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's majority view does not have a long history behind it. Wikipedia mentions that context has to be considered when evaluating content of articles. Lung salad (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So what is the majority view, in any case? History2007 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How many times is it repeated in the article? It's not like it's omitted. And I repeat the point that historical facts on this subject matter exist independently of scholarly interpretation and these have to be included in the article. It's not all about scholarly opinions. Lung salad (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Lung Salad, but in view of WP:V and WP:Truth, the statement that "historical facts on this subject matter exist independently of scholarly interpretation" should be abandoned. And the same applies to "It's not all about scholarly opinions." Indeed, Wikipedia is all about scholarly opinions in WP:RS sources and not facts suggested by editors. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Truth is a nebulous word with a nebulous meaning. Truth is different things to different people. This article is entitled "Josephus on Jesus" and not "Today's opinions on the Josephus passages" that means information and facts about the passages independently of scholarly opinion can be addressed (eg. manuscripts date to the 11th century, Eusebius was the first to witness the Testimonium etc). There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that prohibits this unless the title of the article changes and is expressly about today's opinions about the Josephan passages and absolutely nothing else. Lung salad (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but WP:V states otherwise. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:V does not prohibit mentioning that the earliest Josephus manuscripts date from the 11th century, that Eusebius was the first witness to the Testimonium, that there are differences in the Josephus passages about Jesus compared to the New Testament etc. It can all be verified. And this does not involve scholarly opinion. And these facts (not "truths") have all got citations in the article. Lung salad (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually you would need a WP:RS source for each of those statements, per WP:V. But we are claerly geting off topic on this. So I will stop and wait for other editor comment. History2007 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite off topic because without independent verifiable historical facts scholars would have no material with which to build their hypotheses. Lung salad (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread is about the WP:RS sources for the majority view. History2007 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, my view on the authenticity is Case-A, given thatthere are 4 WP:RS sources in the article that state:

• According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of today's scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as possibly authentic.

• Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic".

• Louis Feldman states that the possible authenticity of this Josephus passage has been "almost universally acknowledged".

• Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage".

Let us wait 2-3 days to see if opposing WP:RS references (summarizing the majority view, not the views of a specific person) are provided, else we can assume the majority scholarly opinion is Case-A. History2007 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion at least somewhat problematic, particularly Lung salad's basic position. Saying that a theory does not have significant scholarly support is not the same as saying that it is not being presented. WP:FT seems to me to be the relevant guideline to follow. Having said that, I think that maybe the two options above might be insufficient. From what I have read, it is to at least a reasonable degree assumed that the quote is not authentic, but that there was material in the original which did discuss Jesus. Unfortunately, I am far from sure exactly what the supposed nature of that possibly original statement is thought to have been. That being the case, maybe something to the effect of the quote is not widely regarded to be authentic, but seems to be a variation on some original statement mentioning Jesus, the exact nature of which cannot be determined? Unfortunately, I am myself not particularly knowledgeable about the subject. It certainly could not hurt, however, to file an RfC or a request for input at the Fringe theories noticeboard for further input. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Except for centuries the position that the James passage was disputed as authentic was not fringe amongst scholars. Lung salad (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

John, That may be the case for the Testimonium Flavianum, not the James passage. The scholarly opinion is that the Testimonium had a core that referred to Jesus, but was later extended. The scholarly opinion on the James passage is clearly stated by the 4 summary views just above. In fact it was also clear in the article a few days ago. History2007 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I can cite the opposite opinions. But according to you the later the opinion the closer to the "truth" regardless of external evidence. Lung salad (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

G. A. Wells (and countless scholars before him since the 19th century) has cited Origen as being a witness to a different version of the James passage demonstrating it has been tampered with by the time it reached Eusebius. This is a fact when comparing the text of Origen about the James passage compared to that by later Christian Fathers. If it is the vast majority view that the James passage as it exists in today's manuscripts is authentic - then the majority of scholars override the evidence of Origen. If only one person states this, does that mean it should not be included in the article? Repeat guideline "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Lung salad (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You said it yourself: " countless scholars before him since the 19th century". The 20th century view points to authenticity. You do NOT have many 20th century scholars. You have to parade G.A. Wells as a "single scholar song and dance show" all the time. Period. As the 4 summary views state that the "overwhelming majority view" is authenticity. You are not even disputing the majority opinion, just stating that the 19th century views are more important. History2007 (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How old is this present position? Feldman cited how many scholars disputed these passages and I can add to those citations. Lung salad (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) Thanks for the clarification there. I skwewed up. Based on the opinions presented above, I would have to say that there does seem to be current scholarly agreement on the topic. I suppose it could be argued that perhaps the minority which has rejected it is in some way significant, particularly if there are perhaps religious views involved. Also, if appropriate, it might be relevant to mention that the current consensus on the topic is recent, if that is the case, as it seems perhaps to be. That might be particularly relevant if there had been earlier religious or irreligious opinions on the subject based on that opinion. But, regardless, it does seem to be the case that the scholarly consensus should be indicated in the body of the article. This is not to say that, perhaps, some mention of the alternate opinions might not be relevant, with perhaps links to articles on the relevant books or individuals, but that is another matter entirely. Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, a group I am at best marginally associated with, might be a good group to contact for information on how to deal with such matters. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with John. And at no point have I made a suggestion to eliminate Wells and his minority view. So I think the sources make it clear that the overwhelming majority view is authenticity (and it is several decades old now), and there should be a discussion of the fact that there is a minority view. As for religious issues, the scholar leading the Chorus of authenticity, and the "leading Josephus scholar" is Louis Feldman who teaches at Yeshiva. This is not a purely Christian issue, but scholars from various backgrounds agree on it. History2007 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Feldman omits mentioning Solomon Zeitlin and it's not like he could never have heard about him, Zeitlin was a leading Jewish historian who gave reasons why he considered the passages were disputed and Feldman sidesteps all this.Lung salad (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You want to remove all past history relating to this subject matter and consign it to some marginal article about "alternate views" - the subject matter is too important to be pigeon holed in such a manner especially when these scholars who shout and bang their drums that the passages are authentic cannot provide any justification for doing so and more to the point sidestep the reasons why the passages were considered disputed for centuries. Lung salad (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Lung Salad, but your statement that "these scholars who shout and bang their drums that the passages are authentic cannot provide any justification for doing so" runs against WP:V and WP:Truth. In Wikiedia we cite what the scholars say in WP:RS sources, not decide if they are justified in having obtained their professorships. I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Lung salad (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter and History2007: There are multiple sources describing the majority opinion among scholars. We should represent that and may note minority views, but we should take care not to give them undue weight. For all I can tell, Lung salad's position seems to be that we should ignore the modern scholarly consensus and may disregard any scholars promoting that point of view because we know better than them. I don't see how that approach is supported by Wikipedia policies. I must also add that repeating the same lines of policy over and over will not help, especially when following those lines isn't even in dispute. Huon (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The majority view is given in the current article, several times. It is not being suppressed. Note the overkill. Lung salad (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I also note what might be an attempt to perhaps dodge the real issue. There is a difference between your allegation above that in some way the academic consensus is being "suppressed", something to the best of my knowledge no one has even indicated. The question is whether we should present the consensus academic opinion as the consensus academic opinion, and that issue is more or less avoided in the above comment. And it is hardly "overkill" to indicate that the consensus academic opinion is such, and to abide by WP:WEIGHT in regards to other opinions. I sincerely hope that any future comments will be more clearly relevant and on-topic. John Carter (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article, do you want the parts that allude to the passages being disputed removed? Lung salad (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Again you are getting off topic Lung Salad. The discussion here is about the determination of the majority view regarding the "James passage" based on WP:RS sources. The minority view can, and should be mentioned of course within the guidelines of WP:Undue and WP:GEVAL, etc. John Carter and Huon have provided their logical analysis of the situation with respect to authenticity. Now we wait a day or two for further comments, then decide how to present the majority view and mention the minority views based on Wikipedia guidelines as appropriate in a manner that is not confusing. I have found some of your semi-random text insertions somewhat less than orderly, and not contributing to the flow of logic. And for Heaven's sake please do not "argue against the scholars" again. It will not go far in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And for Heaven's sake please acknowledge the fact that today's scholarship is no different to the situation that existed before the 16th century when people who literally believed that Jesus Christ walked on water and rose from the dead also believed in the authenticity of the Josephan passages. The critical position has alchemically transmuted into wishful thinking. And I can cite sources where the critical approach lasted for centuries. Lung salad (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Most scholars find that these arguments prove that, at the very least, certain aspects of this passage come from the hand of a Christian interpolator." (Eddy Boyd (2007) Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic PG 188)--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you have confused "this passage" with the Testimonium Bruce. The quote you mentioned is about a passage in Book 18, Chapter 3. We are discussing Book 20, Chapter 9. So you just confused the quotes. And wwe can all read things without the bold letters - I have been to the optometrist, as I said... There is in fact general scholarly agreement that "the other passage", i.e. the Testomonium had an authentic kernel, which was then most probably altered, as the article states. Boyd and Eddy do review the state of the scholarship on this current passage about James, of course, but I do not see their view of the general opinions as decisive given that their approach is mostly to list various criteria for and against, etc. I guess we can go through and list all arguments for and against from all authors, but that would need to pop to a Main (as in the Testimonium), for it would make this page too long. In fact that may be necessary now that all arguments are going to get listed. But in any case, in this statement you just confused the passages. And I noticed that you had another quote elsewhere from a book published by AuthorHouse. That is a self-publishing place. Please just delete that yourself for it will only waste time. Authorhouse, Xulon Press, etc. are not usable in Wikipedia - so please do not bring that one up here next. And please check the books you use as references to be sure they are not self published or from the 1920s etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I now noticed that you used 2 other self-published sources below Bruce. Please avoid those so I do not have to check every one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The History of the subject matter

The history of the subject matter should be mentioned in the article. Today's situation is the same as before the 16th century. Today's scholarly opinions are a recent development. For centuries the authenticity of the passages was disputed. Wells was not born during the 16th century. Wells is simply repeating the elements of the subject matter that placed the Josephan passages in dispute since the 16th century. Present day scholarship sidesteps the reasons why the passages are disputed. Even when reasons are clearly given, scholars believe them to be authentic (Van Voorst). Lung salad (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Boyd and Eddy in The Jesus legend on page 189 admits that Eusebuis, Hegsippus and Clament of Alexandria all tell the same tale regarding the fate of James which differs significantly from Josephus. These three people all agree that James was thrown from a battlement, then stoned, and finally clubbed to death by laundrymen c70 CE while Josephus simply has him stoned c64 CE. The argument regarding the well known brother presented fall flat as Josephus was writing for Romans--outside of Paul and a few converts what Roman even knew who what Christ even meant in c94 CE?

"This James, however, also fits well as the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus, mentioned in the text a few lines later" (Cresswell, Peter (2010) Jesus the Terrorist Page 293)

Ostrowick, John (2009) The Anointed Page vii admits the commonality of the names Jesus and James and that the Christ reference is likely a Christian insertion.

Unterbrink, DT (2010) The Three Messiahs claims the idea that Josephus' mention of James, the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200), was really about James, the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus (Ant. 20.203) is the the domain of the mythologists all the while the fact ignoring that Christians such as Wise also held or hold this view.

In short there is NO evidence other then Weasel words references. Not a good situation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Cresswell again! Guys please give us a break and only use WP:RS sources.

• Please see Talk:Joseph_of_Arimathea#Peter_Cresswell about an unrelated analysis of Cresswell, by two admins and the eventual deletion of material by him.

• The book The Anointed by John Ostrowick, is self-published by Lulu (company). It is of no use.

• The book The Three Messiahs by Unterbrink is self-published by iUniverse. It is also of no use.

Bruce, please check your sources and publishers much more carefully and save us all the time and effort to check them for you. These publishers and various www.... websites are just not WP:RS. Please avoid them, and do not draw any conclusions from them at all. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with History2007, self published sources are only reliable for the opinions of the author and then only when they are notable (to help establish due weight). Policy based reasons why the opinions of Ostrowick and Unterbrink have due weight has not been established. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The references cited can very easily be found from non self-published sources. Wells mentions them all in his books citing known past established scholars. Lung salad (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie that those are far from WP:RS. As for Wells, yes, he remains a WP:RS source, but why not just use Wells himself as your source all the way without bringing in all these self-published items that take up time to check. So can you guys just use Wells without using all these self-published Authorhouse, Lulu, iUnivers, www. type sources please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, using unreliable sources does not help backup a statement based on a reliable source. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Classics, or Ancient History, are reputable scholarly disciplines. Theology and the history of Christianity are reputable scholarly studies. All of these have ample academic publishing modes, in peer reviewed journals, and books published by scholarly (or in the case of some theology, high status organised religion) presses. Self-published, vanity published, "supported publication," or any of the other ways in which people avoid scholarly review or editorial review to publish are works that are radically insufficient for this article. Start with JSTOR, and a university library. Avoid books that have not been reviewed by the scholarly journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• And Roland Fischer in his 1994 peer reviewed Anthropology of Consciousness article "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" stated "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." while Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth is self published. Your point?

Even Albert Schweitzer (also self published) admitted "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb."--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Bruce, but your comments have no relevance either to Fifelfoo's correct statement of policy or to the title/topic of this article:

• One aspect of your comments seems to address the existing Wikipedia policy against the use of self-published sources. That issue relates to the WP:RS page and should be addressed there, not here. A change/challenge to Wikipedia policy is a Herculean task, yet please feel free to attempt that elsewhere.

• The second aspect of your comment relates to the details of the life of Jesus, as assumed by various people. The issue of whether Jesus came from Nazareth, Antioch or Amsterdam, or whether he was a carpenter or electrician has no relevance to the brief references by Josephus which are the topic of this article. Please avoid discussions that do not relate to this aricle.

Please feel free to discuss Wikipedia policy change issues on the relevant policy pages, but not here. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's likely this article will become more balanced in the future. There's an obvious identifiable agenda behind the article that need smoothing out. Origen will definitely be expanded. Lung salad (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Manuscript sources

I was thinking it would be good to know how old the oldest fragments are that contain each of the 3 passages? It might also be a good idea to have a section in Antiquities of the Jews on the oldest extant complete and partial copies (who copied them, where they are kept, etc.). I notice that lung salad has provided a reference for the 11th century as "Feldman (1989)," which could probably be expanded on =) Gorton k (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, such information would be useful to a reader interested in the details, and the Antiquities article should contain 90% of that with a brief summary and Main here, given that the 3 passages are but a small part of the Antiquities and any such details would apply to all of the Antiquities not just these passages. And similar information should also be added to the Jewish Wars article. The scholars involved generally spend long periods of time comparing multiple sources etc. But in the end a general format for the Greek version, etc. has emerged that is subject to "general scholarly agreement" among most scholars. However, please feel free to research the details of the path to that add to the suitable main articles with WP:RS sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said' 2 that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius (about 300 a.d., Ecclesiast. Hist., I, 11). Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. (...) 1 Cf. Origen, Contra Celmm, I, 47. 2 I, 362. 3 Contra Celsum, I, 47." (Drews 1912 [The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus]). If we are to take Drews on his exact words there supposedly was a version of the Antiquities "in which there was not a word about Jesus" as late as the 16th century ie a version that contained neither the Testimonium Flavianum nor "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" because having either would have contained a word about Jesus. QED.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies Bruce, but the "QED" statement there is the conclusion of "an inference" based on an argument you have presented. I have a feeling that many scholars may be aware of the argument you just presented and some may agree with it and many more may not. Our task in Wikipedia is to provide a summary of the mainstream scholarly opinions, and avoid crossing the mainstream view line and use inferences as facts against WP:OR. I think most scholars in the field are likely aware of the reasoning you presented above, and yet many do not support the QED portion. And again, please do not go back to 1912 and Drews but present Wells, given that Drews is just "antique shop intellectuality" as discussed before. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Gorton k was asking if putting a history regarding the versions of the Antiquities would be a good idea and in that endeavor as old as Drews is it shows that as late as 1912 a notable scholar held there was a version of Antiquities existing clear into 16th century "in which there was not a word about Jesus". I should add that most of Wells work is self published which by the reasoning you have presented above we cannot use. I would point out that Isaac Mayer Wise, Remsburg and Arthur Drews already appear in the article but the reasons why they rejected the "who was called the Christ" as a Christan addition are not.

Remsburg in particular stated "This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, "who was called Christ," which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it." And these authorities were the notables of his day such as Rev. Dr. Giles, Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Dr. Chalmers, Dean Milman, Cannon Farrar, Theodor Keim, Hausrath, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, and Alexander Campbell who similarly rejected the Testimonium Flavianum either in whole or in part.

"Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage (Testimonium Flavianum). Chrysostom, a reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ." (Remsburg)

"The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ's existence, do not cite it [James the brother of Jesus], while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third century or later."(Remsburg)

Samuel George Frederick Brandon in his 1967 Jesus And The Zealots Manchester University Press gives a long and detailed discussion on the references to Jesus presented by Josephus. His take was that if Josephus did write about Jesus it was so derogatory that some time between Origen and Eusebius was radically altered into the version we have today.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Many (in fact most) scholars are aware of the arguments you just typed. They go to conferences and discuss these issues. And most scholars do not share your conclusion that there is "conclusive proof" that reference is not authentic. Your 2nd presentation of a specific argument, followed by a confident QED/conclusive statement again runs against WP:RS AC and also WP:OR of course, the moment you typed "conclusive proof". In fact most scholars consider the reference in James to be authentic, contrary to what you typed. History2007 (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Van Voorst stated nothing is certain and nothing can be determined by textual analysis. The claim that the passages are genuine cannot be verified and it is a theory. Yes, scholars can say the passages are genuine but they cannot prove it, and it is wrong that they say it is anything but a theory. No Christian before Eusebius cited the existence of the Testimonium and here's a thought, did the Greek manuscripts during the time of Eusebius contain the Testimonium or was the Testimonium added later into the Greek manuscripts after Eusebius claimed it existed. Eusebius was a bit of a versatile character, misquoting Josephus in other places and inventing the "vision of Constantine" involving the Chi-Ro. Christianity had not long become the religion of Rome and conversion of the pagans was high on the agenda. Lung salad (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To use Binford's "Archaeology as anthropology" (1962) American Antiquity 8, no 2, 217-225) article as the baseline--this article is very short on explanations (the how and WHY) and very long on explications (ie what the conclusions are) and that IMHO hurts the article as a whole.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical context is usually a good indicator to any subject matter, but this is religious history, not secular history, remember. So the rules change. Lung salad (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Bruce: Explanations, can, of course, be provided on both sides of the table to assist those readers who are interested in the details. Yet for those readers who do not want to read through long details, a summary of the general view and the major scholarly opinion needs to be provided. The explanations can not change the overall academic view about authenticity per WP:GEVAL and WP:RS/AC. One can drag out lists of various scholars on each side of the debate of course, and for every scholars who think it is not authentic there are "at least" 2 or 3 who think it is authentic. One can do much better than 2 to 1, but I think 2 to 1 will be sufficient, as a start. However, the article can not just have the form of a pre-election debate that reports barbs between the opposing parties - the result of this debate is "known well in advance" as the majority opinion: authenticity. And the article should state that as the mainstream view, while mentioning the minority view for the sake of completeness, per WP:GEVAL, to avoid WP:Undue, as well as WP:OR and QED type conclusions, etc. History2007 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The academic view - from both sides - is an argument from silence. And Van Voorst's statements "Nothing is certain" and "textual criticism cannot help to solve this issue" is an open admission that nothing can be determined. Lung salad (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You guys should get your story straight. Bruce says there is conclusive proof, you think there is nothing certain either way - hat does not match. Actually RK explained that correctly to you sometime ago: in the realm of history, scholars ascertain things, and one restates the scholarly assessments. That is all. The same applies to Napoleon's invasion of various parts of Europe. People debate the details (e.g. that his troops died of insect infections, not cold), but there is general agreement that he went to Russia, turned back etc. So this is a simple issue of the historical method. We should just state the general agreement among scholars. No need for fanfare. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To determine what the general agreement is amongst scholars every current book on the subject matter needs to be read. Lung salad (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Lung Salad, yours statement that "every current book on the subject matter needs to be read" is flatly incorrect, and against Wikipedia policy. But I have added so many links to that policy on this page that one more does not a difference make, if you are not to read policy, but invent it. I am beginning to get speechless here at the statement "every current book on the subject matter needs to be read" when the policy pages have been linked and you yourself stated in this edit The majority view is given in the current article. ... Please read your own statement. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As quoted in your citations, that follow Wikipedia policy. Lung salad (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Again citing Binford we are seeing explications regarding Wikipedia policy rather explanations regarding the policy in question. I saw something like this in the Weston Price talk page where BLP was being misused to effectively squech reasonable RS discourse regarding a particular source. As the situation in the Focal infection theory and Christ myth theory articles shows Lung salad is right so much is we need a more diverse sampling.

A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume V: Supplement University Press of the Pacific (2004) ISBN-13: 978-1410217301 is actually a reprint of James Hastings century plus work and it clearly states "Origen refers to both these passages" (pg 472). Furthermore, the university is promoting it as "the definitive reference" raising the question of quality of the material being used to argue for the validity of Josephus regarding Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: are you also saying that "every current book on the subject matter needs to be read"? I am sorry that statement is flatly incorrect and runs counter to policy, as I have stated, linked and explained before. It is an error to say that. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What part of SAMPLING did you not understand?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

An innuendo that I am not smart enough to understand sampling techniques? ... that will be the day. My friend, I am a scientist, I can teach classes on that subject if you like. But what I said was that Lung Salad's statement that "every current book on the subject matter needs to be read" is flatly incorrect and runs counter to policy. That's all. History2007 (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from books is allowed, it does not contravene Wikipedia policy - if an author writes "the current position is that all scholars think the Josephan passages are authentic", that can be included because it is a citation. However, reading all books on the subject matter to put that allegation to the test is another matter. Conservative New Testament scholars have their reasons for being happy with the possibility that Josephus mentioned Jesus at all (makes for good propaganda). Jewish scholars are happy with the possibility because the revised paragraph presents a demythologised Christ. Lung salad (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you have figured out that part and changed your view, that is ok. But on to the next topic, it is flatly incorrect to position this article as a Christian vs Jewish debate, given that leading, and highly knowledgeable, Jewish scholars such as Louis Feldman, Geza Vermes, etc. consider the passage authentic, as you have been told several times now. I think that has been made clear a few times now. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right, they consider it authentic, they don't say it's definitely authentic, and their consideration of it is as a revised rewritten version that knocks out all the supernatural content. And each scholar has his own interpretation of the possible version of the reworked paragraph that could have mentioned Jesus. Feldman, Vermes, Setzer, as Jewish scholars, all have their own personal reworked versions of the Testimonium, and likewise all Christian scholars have their own interpretations of what the reworked Testimonium consisted of. And both Jewish and Christian scholars refer in their books that the Testimonium is a disputed passage in its very existence. Lung salad (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Eisler, John P. Meier, Schlomo Pines, Geza Vermes, Paul Winter, James Charlesworth, F. F. Bruce, Claudia Setzer: all these scholars have contributed different versions of what the Testimonium originally consisted of. Lung salad (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Eisler is a no-no as I said. But Vermes, Setzer etc. all agree on the authenticity of the core reference. But we have said that before. a few times... And James is a different passage. Right? History2007 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And anyway, all of this "logic of consideration" is beside the point here... one could say the same about many aspects of quantum mechanics. Do the physicists consider quantum field theory correct or do they think it is definitely correct.. Please do give us a break on logic here... However, a careful reading of The Logic of Scientific Discovery may be in order. You could probably read that and clarify that issue for yourself in all the effort spent typing on here...History2007 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All wrong, Eisler is a major name in this subject matter and is mentioned by Feldman, Vermes, Maier et al. This article needs to be continually revised. The authors who consider the passages to be authentic include notable scholars of the past who rejected the passages in their books. This is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to include the history of this subject matter. And no, historical theories are nothing like quantum mechanics - you cannot compare a historical vaccum with mathematical certainties. Lung salad (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The James passage is disputed. Please read the article where examples are given. Lung salad (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

History is one thing, "current scholarly view" is another. That is what I meant. And I was referring to "mathematical uncertainties".... But I will let that pass. I have explained the rest enough times now anyway.... History2007 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no prohibition in Wikipedia to give the history of a subject matter in its articles. Current majority scholarly view is the same as that which existed before the 16th century. I have explained this enough times. Lung salad (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see how the scholars that say the "who was called Christ" is genuine explain how Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome in the 4th century could argue that John was NOT the brother (αδελφός ο) of Jesus but his cousin with this passage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you confused "James" with John, but that is another story, in any case... History2007 (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

as I recall, this is discussed by Vermes and Millar in the revised Schurer. I think the point that Bruce raised is discussed; that is to say, that whether is unlikely that Eusebius or Jerome would have described James as 'brother of him called Christ'. Hence he scholars tend to speculate that if the phrase were a late Christian interpolation, some other form of word than 'brother' would be more likely. TomHennell (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that point has in fact been at times used in favor of authenticity, as a number of other items in the article, e.g. differences from the gospels that are there now, incompletely "hinting" at lack of authenticity, while they are generally used in scholarly arguments in favor of authenticity. History2007 (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Point is, scholarly arguments and scholarly opinions aside, Origen did not know about the Testimonium or the passage to James, and regarded Josephus as an unreliable witness to Christianity. The first witness to the Testimonium and the passage of James was Eusebius, some 76 years later, who contradicted Origen saying Josephus was a reliable witness to Christianity. The passages about Jesus suddenly appeared out of nowhere by about 324 AD. Lung salad (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I read "scholarly arguments and scholarly opinions aside?"... Did I read that? I am speechless... That statement deserves some type of prize... I am not sure what type of prize... History2007 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That Origen did not know the Testimonium is a fact not reliant on scholarly involvement. You just need to read Origen and discover not all editions of Josephus contained passages to Jesus. Lung salad (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I need to read WP:V a few hundred times more. No one else seems to be reading it, so I might as well, read, read and read again it on their behalf. As I recall (help me out here Lung Salad if I am wrong) Wikipedia does not work based on "facts" as perceived by its supremely knowledgeable users, but works based on verifiable scholarly sources. I am not sure how many times I have said this now, but your help in counting those statements about WP:V and providing a spreadsheet will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You know very well that scholars can be cited on every take relating to this controversial subject matter. Even today's scholars. I will get around to including Origen within the body of the article. Lung salad (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to mention "majority scholarly opinion"... but nah, I will not. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably because today's majority scholarly opinion is the same as existed before the 16th century. Lung salad (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me think about that one now... So if today's scholars think 2+2=4 and someone in the 15h century thought 2+2=4 does that make any difference? I will think about it... I will... I promise. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be the exact opposite, today's scholars claim the Testimonium exists in all Josephus manuscripts, whereas the earliest only date from the 10th-11 centuries, amounting to between 3-5 from which all other manuscripts are copied from, and we know from Origen writing in about 248 AD that his Josephus manuscript did not contain the Testimonium. Rather sweeping statement from today's scholars, that "all" Josephus manuscripts contain the Testimonium. Why have all the Josephus manuscripts from before the 10th-11th centuries not survived? What happened to the manuscript used by Origen? Lung salad (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I read "rather sweeping statement from today's scholars"? Are you arguing against the "majority scholarly view" again? What can I say... An argument in Wikipedia against the majority scholarly view may also deserve a prize, but maybe I can figure out what type of prize after I read WP:V a few hundred times more... History2007 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Again I repeat documented facts about any subject matter can exist within the body of a Wikipedia article conforming with Verifiability guidelines. Lung salad (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me on that. That was truly enlightening indeed yes, indeed. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the majority view is skewed, it does no harm to present the verifiable independent facts divorced from opinions and conjectures, and let's not compare verifiable mathematics with historical vacuums again. Lung salad (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So do I take it that you think the "majority scholarly view is skewed" in the literature and some self-appointed all knowing Wikieditor needs to set the scholars straight here? It is, of course, flatly incorrect to attempt to do that and against policy. The Majority scholarly view should always win in Wikipedia, of course, with the other views given a smaller mention per WP:Undue, naturally. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The basic facts of the subject matter are required to be presented in the article. The history of the subject matter also needs to be presented. Even the scholars who deem the passages to be authentic present in the books the reasons why the passages are disputed. And the majority view of scholars concerned includes the basic fact that the passages are disputed. Lung salad (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, further above on this talk page, it was established by several editors that the sources say: quoting Van Voorst page 83: "the overwhelming majority of today's scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic". So there may be a very small number of those who dispute it, but the majority opinion is clear. We have said that a few times now. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The majority view is an opinion, not an establishment of historical fact - and there is a difference between those two things. Quoting Van Voorst: "Because the few manuscripts of Josephus come from the eleventh century, long after Christian interpolations would have been made, textual criticism cannot help to solve this issue." Lung salad (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:V Wikipedia does not work based on fact.... it works on references. I think I have said WP:V a few times now. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lung salad's position seems to be that we know better than all those scholars, and if they get it wrong, we should contradict or ignore them. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. History2007 has linked to the relevant policies repeatedly. We have multiple sources for the majority opinion, and no amount of dissenting individuals will trump those references. Huon (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the current majority view is only five minutes old compared to the previous majority view that lasted for centuries stating that the Jesus passages in Josephus were 100% Christian interpolations. Is there any Wikipedia guideline prohibiting the history of a subject matter? The reasons why the passages have been considered Christian interpolations for centuries has been explained enough times on this Talk Page. Please read the article, please identify where the current scholarly opinion is not mentioned. This is a history article. Not a theological act of faith hinging on what Josephus may have written. Lung salad (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Huon, I agree with your characterization. As is, the majority view is stated (kind of) although the actual text of the quotes were made to "diverge from the sources" by Lung Salad at will by adding the word "possibly" etc. that does not appear in the source, so while the source says "authentic" he/she made it read "possibly authentic" diverging from the scholarly view based on those types of reasoning. And then there are a number of "doubtful sounding" quotes surrounding the majority view at times in a very confused form, e.g. as I have said before, the deviation from the gospel accounts is not an issue to be used as a "doubting point" because scholars use that as an indication of authentictty for an interpolator would have made it sound like the gospels.... so an argument based on "the scholars are skewed" should not be used to tilt the majority view. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The basic facts surrounding this subject matter are included in the article. They might give the impression that what current scholarly opinion represents may not chime very well with those basic facts. Lung salad (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There, you stated this one correctly! As you said:

• You added some "facts" as you call them.
• Said facts that were piled up with peripheral statements "do not chime with scholarly views".

Conclusion: An article that includes the scholarly views, then buries them under so called facts that deviate from them. Not to mention the "corruption of scholarly quotes" which you performed, and do not deny. That is a flatly incorrect approach, and against policy. History2007 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no "so-called facts" in the article, that's the language of an evangelist. Lung salad (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not allow the facts to get in the way of current scholarly opinion. Lung salad (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You got that one right too! What is happening here? Did you read WP:V? If so, great. Then tone down your "so called facts" so per WP:RS/AC they do not distort the scholarly opinion. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You got that wrong because majority scholarly opinion does not fit in with the facts of the subject matter, and everything in the article has verifiable citations. Lung salad (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I must say, I will have to frame your statement that the: "majority scholarly opinion does not fit in with the facts of the subject matter". I think I will frame it in gold, and hang it on my wall... And by the way, it is against policy to edit based on your statement. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not against Wikipedia policy to provide verifiable facts about a subject matter. And the facts concerned were in circulation for centuries used as an argument against authenticity, which I am sure you very well know about. Lung salad (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But stating facts so as to draw conclusions from them not drawn by the sources themselves is a violation of WP:SYN, and there seems to be quite a bit of this going on. Huon (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you also like to frame his/her statement that "majority scholarly opinion does not fit in with the facts of the subject matter" and hang it on your wall? We could even market the posters to other Wikipedians.... History2007 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

How about "[I]f the majority view is skewed, it does no harm to present the verifiable independent facts divorced from opinions and conjectures" instead? I think it more clearly shows that (a) those pesky "experts" all have a bias, and (b) WP:SYN? We don't need no stinkin' WP:SYN! I also like "the current majority view is only five minutes old compared to the previous majority view that lasted for centuries" - and here I thought it would be the pro-religious side arguing from centuries-old dogma. Huon (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very good. I had forgotten about the "the current majority view is only five minutes old compared to the previous majority view that lasted for centuries" ... That one needs to be framed in gold too... Of course that would also apply to the "round earth theory" that has a much shorter lifespan compared to the longer-lasting flat earth "fact" that the scholars no longer accept... This is at last beginning to inject some fun into a set of totally illogical statements about the need to ignore policy, dispense with scholars, etc.... But in all seriousness, the article does need to get fixed. If we allow a single user to "dictate by personal edict" that scholars do not matter, then that strategy will be carried out elsewhere all over Wikipedia by others. That can not be allowed. History2007 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I am pretty impressed that Lung salad has remained so civil in the face of all this sarcasm. But that said, History2007 and Huon are of course completely right. It is unacceptable per V, RS, FRINGE, UNDUE, etc... to construct an article that does not reflect the majority scholarly viewpoint. And while other positions should indeed be mentioned, they should also be contextualised within that larger view. I would recommend, Lung Salad, that if you feel you have compelling arguments for reviving an earlier position, then rather than waste your time trying to insert them here, which is never going to fly given unambiguous Wikipedia policy, you instead publish them in a peer reviewed journal and then come back, RS and V in hand! Eusebeus (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if/when Lung Salad's material has been published in a respectable journal, then he/she can "set the other scholars straight" and then present that in Wikipedia. At the moment, as you stated, it runs against the scholarly opinion, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. As is, the article is in need of repair, given that it has been modified to reflect the so called "facts" against WP:V and WP:RS/AC, and selectively edited the scholarly quotes to make them diverge from their sources state. That situation needs to be remedied. History2007 (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is there an earlier version of the article that provides a better representation of the mainstream scholalrly view? Eusebeus (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was a total mess and an IP complained on January 20th 2012 or so. To help the IP 84... I made the mistake of fixing it and added RS sources, etc. in about 3 days and the January 23-24th 2012 version was called "very good" by a couple of other users. Then after Jan 25th or so, "the facts" started to replace the scholarly views. The only section that is in good shape now is the Slavonic section I wrote after that. But the scholarly opinions on the other sections are still there and did not get deleted, they were just edited to make them diverge from sources, then crowded over with other items. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All of my edits are supported by verifiable citations conforming with Wikipedia guidelines. There are no "so-called facts" in the body of the article. Lung salad (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)