We have antispam filters here. The problem is probably too may links. We have a limit of 3 links. If there are more than that the post goes to moderation. Alwyas check moderated threads when a member complains of not being able to post. Also, on posts as long as these be sure to copy them before submitting the post. Then if there is a problem you can past. Lonts posts might get timed out by theirs or our server.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Allow me to fry some fish:


Does that include the TF? I'm making a joke! Anyway, I think it is relevant, forged or not, it demonstrates that to even this late a date in history, the forger thought it important enough to address the issue more.



Where did I say I accepted authenticity? I have no idea what the scope of that debate is. I do know that Julian did try any bring back the Pagan traditions and that many of those traditions had dying and resurrecting godmen. Once again, I think the fact that there is debate on the authenticity of the Christian religion as a whole at this late date is indication that the issue dogged the early Christians from the start (whenever that may have been). Obviously, the quote from the Bible also said there were "many" who doubted the Jesus coming in the flesh, this simply demonstrates that the debate extended even into the time when the religion started to become well known.


Are they? Then why is there controversy? Why does the The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia report:


Why does the Encyclopedia Britannica admit:


Why does the Wikipedia assert:


Why does John Crossan, PhD say:


Why does Robert Price, PhD say:


Seems like much doubt for all this unison of scholarship you talk about.


I'm so glad you brought this up, Harvey1, digression or no. This is part of the mythicist stance that New Testament scholars either cannot understand or simply ignore. The similarity is based on basic structure as an allegory for explaining phenomena. Although it is difficult for us to imagine with our covered houses, TV's and Internet, at one time, one of the greatest activities, indeed the chief science of the time, was sky gazing. It was so prominent it became the basis for many mythic stories. For those interested in a great overview of this, I would direct them towards Hamlet's Mill [6].

Anyway, the paths of the sun, moon, and stars are the structure for all these stories, especially the solar godman stories. I'm sure even Harvey1 is aware that the Central American pyramids are constructed based on astrological coordination. Does one have to posit the Egyptians came there as well? Would you like to see the "son/sun" of God hung on the cross (that is, the cross of the celestial equator with the ecliptic of the Sun)?



The point is that in antiquity, whether one believed in supernatural things or not was not the issue in determining authenticity. The standard was rather: "How old is it?" Because, in antiquity, the one thing you could not be, was new. And to the Pagans, despite the attempts to use the Jewish scriptures to establish some sort of antiquity, they recognized this story as a rehash of their more established ones. So why believe it? If Jesus’ historicity was an assured thing, wouldn't that prevent the need for the type of apologetics they had to concoct?

It’s not unlike today when people ask, "Why doesn't God do miracles anymore?" It has the underline statement that at one time, incredible miracles occurred frequently in the past, but now no longer. When a Freethinker asks this of a believer, do you really think he doesn't question the historicity behind it at all?


This is not what I was asked to do. I wasn't asked to just admit the possibility I may be wrong. I was asked to admit my position has a small chance of being right while your position has a large chance of being right. Of course I have the possibility of being wrong, but that in no way indicates your position has a greater chance of being correct.


That is an argument that does not follow since I have already stated that even if the TF passage were original to Josephus it can still only be considered hearsay. Not even in the James passage does Josephus say he was witness to the events. Does this mean if Harvey1 is wrong, he is willing to admit Jesus was mythical? Of course he won't, he'll just move onto the next "evidence". However, when I move onto the next evidence, I'm just building more conspiracies.


This is what you said first:


Then you attribute "the fish" to me with:


I think you ought to be clearer in your wording. I see now that you intended "combination" to indicate "if we choose either/or" as opposed to meaning "a little bit of each".

Its amazing to me that you can have three interpretations, all claiming very different things, but as long as the reader is willing to accept one of the three as the most plausible, that's all that is really desired.

1. Eusebius for those who like their Jesus with all the frills of his divinity attested to.

2. Meier for those who attempt a bit of scholarly humility in admitting some obvious Christian interpolations and a more neutral rendition.

3. Stanton for those who try not to betray Josephus' Judaism by giving a slightly more hostile attitude to it.

End result of any of these, is of course, you get to maintain the appearance of an historical Jesus to attempt to salvage him from first century obscurity. Why? Because the real object for salvaging Josephus is preserving an article of faith. As Meier himself admits when presenting his evidence for the partial interpolation theory:


Why admit that is sobering if nobody doubts the authenticity? It isn't from a lack of good reasons to doubt it, it’s that they don't want to have to. They are desperately trying to explain Origen's comments on top of the omission by everyone else but Eusebius, and later, Jerome. The fact they have to explain the omission and the negative claim of Origen is evidence that there is serious reason to doubt its originality to Josephus.


His card-stacking claim, as always, hinges on "improbable belief", as opposed to alternate view. The problem is that his position is actually so weak, they need a clique of scholars to pat each other on the back and then claim they have no bias towards a desired outcome. I wonder, if we surveyed all New Testament Scholars, what percentage of them would you think would identify themselves as Christian?

But, this constant appeal to authority, let me correct that, biased authority, is used extensively. Its as if us poor slobs have to bow down to the PhD, that we cannot think critically for ourselves, and that the overriding force of the objection is tempered by nuances a bit beyond our skill level. One such barfly at the "Skeptics Lounge" (admittedly without his New Testament scholarship credentials), notes:



How in the world would he know? Harvey1 is claiming something he can have no direct knowledge of. Why can't a student of history examine the evidence and spot fallacies of other’s claims to historicity? Why can't someone who specializes in ancient Greek civilization and language give credible commentary on interpretation? All he is doing is making the pool of available information so small so that he can assure himself of a "majority". He's not stacking cards, he's stacking the whole deck. I noticed you left off Dr. Price again, I wonder why?

The truth of the matter is that very few people get into New Testament scholarship that aren't motivated by their personal ideology of Christianity. When people from related fields stick their nose into their turf, they tend to get a little defensive. Why is it impossible for good arguments to be raised by people, who don't have an affinity for Christianity to begin with, to want to examine the field and use the scholarly skills they accumulated initially for other ventures, towards a new one? It seems to me a way of casually dismissing good arguments.

In another example of dismissal, Harvey1 claims:


As he is fully aware, "Gnostics" were not a unified group, and saying they all didn't deny Jesus came to earth is specious. It is specious because the charge is taken mainly from what their opponents, particularly Irenaeus, tell us. It completely misses the point, as is expounded by Dr. Pagels in her studies of the Gnostic Gospels, that these Gnostic Gospels were often written in two ways. One was to give the appearance of historicity, but that was only considered the "hook" for potential initiates. The second was to reveal the "true" meaning, which was often only a mystical apprehension, for which the historical value of the exoteric story was cursory at best.

Another of the great 19th century, self-taught freethinkers, Gerald Massey notes:


As to his "poor methodology" claim, I suppose that comes from where one is leaning. I don't think Harvey1 has given sufficient explanation to account for the silence concerning the Josephus TF omissions, both before and after Eusebius. He accepts the excuses of PhD's as if they are something more than guesses, and then derides people without such credentials for doing the same when they offer counter guesses to his expert’s guesses.

If the name "Jesus" were substituted with "Serapsis" or "Tammuz" in Josephus, are we even having this conversation? Of course not. The only reason there is an entire enterprise and scholarly field on this subject is because it’s a huge article of faith for a majority religion. If the passage even caught someone's eye as a possible interpolation under either of those other names, I'm sure the scholarly position would have dismissed it as being historical long ago, with the slightest notice from hardly anyone.

The only reason it is such a lightning rod is because there are no other mentions about this Jesus Christ guy in the first century. Harvey1 wants examples of people denying something that frankly I don't think many people even ever heard of. By the time they had heard of it, its like asking someone today if Johnny Appleseed was a real person. "I don't know, who cares?" That's what I believe the likely response would have been.

Its not until the religion had become a dominant player that anyone might take notice. Since most people of the time don't concern themselves with such studies, one doesn't debate whether someone they never heard of who supposedly existed over a century ago really said and did whatever it is alleged they said or did. They debate if the allegations have relevance to their life as they live it now. To me, this demand doesn't have the force Harvey1 thinks it does. There were lots of mystery religions, we don't see huge Pagan polemics whether the founders of those were real or not. I'm sure the uneducated didn't care and the educated understood them to be archetypes and didn't feel the need to explain the obvious.

So who has the burden of proof on the historicity of Jesus issue? Dr. Price says:



Let me get this strait, you can offer guesses as to why something may have occurred, but when I do it, its humorous? I still see no reason why this would cause Origen to declare that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ. It’s an astonishing admission that has to be continually apologized for. He doesn't refer to anything about a TF because its not there. When he probably conflates Church history with his study in Josephus, he does not reference where this recollection is as opposed to other times when he does cite Josephus.



I suppose because I don't believe it indicates what he thinks it does. Its obvious Josephus is concluding what he has already PREVIOUSLY mentioned, not what he is going to discuss next. The final sentence concludes with:



Are we now to equate Ananus (or is it James?) as a dagger-wielding robber? If this serves as the scholarly equivalent of educated assumptions, one can see why the less educated freethinkers began to question the motives of the educated elite. Out of my own curiosity, is this a leap you made yourself, or is it from Meier or Stanton? Do you possess the high list of credentials you deemed necessary to offer such suggestions? Personally, I don’t think you require them as I think you demonstrate a very apt mind. It would, however, seem a bit dubious to require it of others and not apply the same standards to yourself.


It would seem to me, that if these were sufficient reasons to retain a following sixty years after his death, Josephus would be compelled to give us some description of the teachings. Even if he didn't believe them, you would expect him to state why they were so fanatical to him and why they were so happy with this form of self-delusion. But it’s dismissed without an afterthought, as if the reader (remember, as a writer of history, he's writing for posterity and primarily for Pagans) ought to be familiar with these supposed teachings.


What? What did he say? What did he do? This core TF presupposes that the reader ought to have some familiarity with this person. Once again, if the name "Apollonius" is inserted for "Jesus", does it hold the same connotation for being included?


Yes, but we don't know, he never states the observance in the first person. He could have been out of town. We simply don't know. That's not evidence.


I'll wait to address this in my closing post in greater detail.


I've already discussed the duplicity about offering suggestions. We don't need the entire range of Josephus' publication to be originally interpolated. One copy will do which stays in the hands of, or in close proximity of, the Christians who desired it. This text is retained until efforts can be realized to increase the scope of the forgery.


Seems like a lot of assumptions being thrown around. Historically, we don’t know Christianity started in Palestine; we don’t know that the sayings attributed to Jesus were originally from his lips; we don’t know when the Gospels were first written down and who wrote them. New Testament scholars offer their best guesses, but we don’t historically know.

At one time, New Testament scholars, only about a century ago, assured us the Gospels were eyewitness account written down shortly after the crucifixion (35-50 CE). They then couldn’t maintain those dates because it seemed as though the writers had knowledge of the fall of the Second Temple, so they revised their dating system to around 70-110 CE. The decision did not come without a great deal of protest. Did the revision take into account new texts or clues found from the earlier dating system other than the Temple problem? Not really, it just had to account for the Temple foreknowledge. The fact is we have no complete extant copies older than fourth century and no citation that these Gospels are mentioned by name until the end of the second century. For example, I don’t think Luke is written until approximately 170 CE, its companion Acts not until maybe seven years later. We can’t even be historically certain what order the Gospels appeared in, there have been models suggested for many different orders.

These dates are assigned for two factors, the Temple destruction and trying to maintain a history of the “historical Gospels" as close to the assumed “historical event” they purport to describe as possible. The early Church Fathers cite the Septuagint and Pagan literature to support their claims, not the Gospels. Is it really difficult to imagine that a Jewish history entitled Antiquities (Ancientness) of the Jews wouldn’t be targeted by the early Christians to help flesh out their story?

If the TF had been original to Josephus, and had been given the scant treatment of the Meier or Stanton translation, are we really to believe it would have escaped the apologists’ attention, in total, until Eusebius? Shouldn’t we really have expected some long rant entitled Against Josephus? The only reasonable explanation is that it wasn’t there, not in any form. That’s why such a work is unnoticed. Why would the Pagans want to quote Josephus? They are not claiming a connection to that ancientness of the Jews, that’s what the new Christians needed.

[1] The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, 83

[2] Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia - Ready Reference , Vol. 6, 624

[3] Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[4] Crossan, John, The Historical Jesus, 373

[5] Official Home Page of Robert M. Price

[6] Hamlet's Mill

[7] Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew, 62

[8] Cutner, Herb, Jesus: God, Man or Myth, 27-28

[9] Massey, Gerald, Historical Jesus and Mystical Christ, 177

[10] Ibid.

In this post I'd like to focus on the scientific nature of judgment, and how this relates to Josephus, especially the TF.

Within the philosophy of science, human judgment is a key factor in determining both the merit and acceptability of hypotheses (see, for example, Harold J. Brown, 2000: Judgment, Role in Science. In A Companion to Philosophy of Science, ed. W.H. Newton-Smith (Blackwell Publishers), 194-202). Therefore, when ever someone shows distain for the opinions of experts in the field, they aren't just showing distain for those experts, they show distain for science because without the ability to cite expert judgment, there is no basis by which to have any scientific or historical investigation.

The view that there is a purely objective means to investigate scientific (and by extension) historical events of the past is non-sensical:


Notice what Travis says:


He questions the judgment of the majority of experts, and what's worse he seems to identify the majority of experts as religious nuts:


I have to state here that this is not a reasonable position. In my opinion, it is completely non-sensical. Anyone who buys into this kind of reasoning is making a huge jump off the deck of reality. This is true for no better reason than Josephus scholars aren't New Testament scholars, and some of the best scholars are Jewish.

When we consider the hypothesis that Travis is advocating, we ought to consider the criteria that would need to be in place to accept it as a viable hypothesis or what evidence would be needed to accept it as a hypothesis. The key elements in verifying a historical hypothesis is not much different than purely scientific hypotheses, with the exception that historical facts rely on the evidence left by human beings. Astronomers can collect data from distant stars with the assurance that the star isn't actually trying to deceive astrophysicists, however the historian is not in that position. There are forgers, liars, and re-interpretations to historical events by the historical source (now and in the past), and therefore there is some additional risks in trusting a source. However, outside of any evidence of tampering, historical events can be given a higher probability of having occurred under the basic assumption that forgers, liars, and re-interpretations often leave a trail that the historian can detect and label as untrustworthy. Astronomers can collect data without the fear that aliens or God has tampered with the data, but historians do not have the assurance that the source is fully safe from tampering. In that narrow sense, history is a much more difficult profession than the pure sciences.

In the case of ancient history, though, we are limited to these human sources of evidence, and therefore we either decide:

a) ancient history is worth doing and mostly trust these sources (i.e., we give them the benefit of the doubt unless required to do otherwise), or,

b) we just abandon historical research. If you believe (a) is not viable, then your quest on this topic ends here.

What you don't want to do is follow:

c) I'll cherry pick historical sources as historical depending on how they verify and reinforce my philosophy.

(c) is my argument against Travis's approach to history. He derides expert sources unless he finds one that he likes what they say (e.g., his making a big deal of Price). He excuses historical quotes as authentic unless he finds ones that he likes (e.g., Gnostic quotes). This is a poor methodological approach to history since if everyone followed that approach the study of ancient history would be an ideological mess.

If we decide (a), then what we must look for in a hypothesis that throws the historical source into question is supporting evidence for impugning the source. The hypothesis must also provide the following:

F1) Means (or Capability): Show that the source is impugned by showing how the probable forger had the capability to pull it off.
F2) Motive: Show that the source is impugned by a probable motive by certain identifiable forgers.
F3) Opportunity: Show that the source is impugned by having the forger in the probable location and probable circumstances to tamper with the source without history recording these events.
F4) Convincing counterevidence to any evidence brought forth that suggests that the source is probably not tampered with.

These arguments, as I've mentioned a number of times, are arguments about what is probable. What must be kept keenly in mind is that the historical source gets the benefit of doubt unless the probable case against it is convincingly made. If this were not true, then (a) would be false and hence (b) would be true. Again, if (b) is true, then nice knowing you, there's nothing more to discuss about anything dealing with ancient history.

I've already given counterargument reasons (F4) that support the James the Just as fully authentic, and the TF as partially authentic (the John the Baptist passage, regretably I don't have much time to comment, but no credible scholar has, as least recently, questioned the authenticity of this passage as far as I know). In addition, I've already discussed (F2), and touched upon some arguments dealing with (F1). So now, let's talk about opportunuity (F3) and more about means (F1) and more counterargument arguments (F4).

In order to establish that forgers had the opportunity to tamper with Josephus, again the case must be made that they probably had opportunity. Of course we can always imagine any situation in history where someone knew Josephus, or they were the librarian at a Roman library, but that is not probable. (As I mentioned before, we can also imagine a situation where Josephus became a Christian.) What Travis must show, in making the case that a forger had the probable opportunity to tamper with the text, is that this is something that history records as being prevalent at the time. If he or anyone fails to show this, then (F3) has not been established. If enough of his hypothesis has not been established, then we must go back to putting more trust in the Josephsan extant texts (to the chagrin of Travis, I'm sure). To do otherwise is to commit (c) above.

G1: Scroll Configuration:

One of the first points in establishing opportunity is to show how the scroll made it possible for a forger to have tampered with the text by writing on the margin. Immediately there is one problem with this argument. There was not much room on the scroll to put such extensive passages on the scroll. For example, see this first-century surviving scroll from the fourth book of Thucydides (Chapters 29-41 fragments have been found). There's a margin note at the top right hand corner. The typical margins for first century scrolls were 1-2 cm between the columns, and usually 1.5 - 3 cm on top and bottom margins (see descriptions of the first-century scrolls found in the Pompeii devasted Roman city of Herculaneam: L. Michael White, 2003: A Measure of Parrhesia: The State of the Manuscript of PHerc. 1471. In "Philodemus and the New Testament," ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, (Brill Supplements to Novum Testamentum), p. 116-117). What does this mean? Opportunity to change the scroll was limited because it would have required an extensive patch job that would not have made it easy for someone to come into a public library to make. It seems very unlikely that a forger would have have been able to write into the scroll the TF and somehow have been successful at inserting the TF passage in its entirety into the text. Limited margin space just would not allow it.

G2: Circulation of Literary Texts in Roman World: We actually know a great deal about how texts were circulated in the Roman world, and it is nothing like how Travis makes light of.

Josephus finished the 60,000 lines of Antiquities in 93/94 CE, and some scholars think that it was not "published" until around 100 CE (see Joseph Sievers, "A Synopsis of Portions of War, Antiquities, and 1-2 Maccabees: Problems and Results, 2000). The way that works were released was very gradual. They would have been sold to friends and the scholarly elite, but not to the general public:


So, unlike the picture that Travis presents of just about any text that he doesn't like (presumably because it contradicts what he wants to believe) being changed by whomever he imagines changed the text (such as a supposed group that made up the belief of John the Baptist and therefore decided to amend Josephus for John the Baptist), here we have historical confirmation that this wasn't like the Roman world at all. Books were difficult to find, and private unread collections ruled the day. Seneca in De tranquilitate animi said that all the private libraries "are destined to embellishment the house walls". Petronius in 'Satiricon', states that Trimalcius was ignorant because of being conceited due to possessing numerous books. (see Javier Rodriguez, "A Brief History of Roman Libraries"). Maybe we can see more clearly why only one pagan writer quoted Josephus? His works simply disappeared in its importance shortly after its introduction. For Jews in the second century, Josephus was probably not a popular figure by his own account. He was considered a traitor (and if you read some of his works it is not difficult to see why). Christians would have probably hardly known about Josephus's works, much less read them unless they had a need to form apologies based on Jewish history. This is, in fact, what we see later in the second century and more fully in the third century when Tertullian, Ireneaus and Origen come on the scene. Again, the opportunity aspect of Travis's argument is lacking, and leans heavily to Josephus's works being a later discovery for the emergent Christian religion.

G3: Roman Libraries:

We know from Eusebius that Josephus's works were in one of the Roman libraries:


According to Schaff:


A reconstruction of this library is (within the temple of Apollinus). If we could look inside the library, you would see this. Scholars believe that there were 20 scrolls to the Antiquities since Josephus referred to work as being composed in 20 books (Sievers, 2000). So, you would go to the library and request to see Josephus's Antiquities where you would be allowed to read the scrolls at the tables in the middle of the library. Reading a scroll would mean rolling the scroll as you read it. You can see a rolled out scroll of the Dead Sea scrolls in this picture. The library might be the place for reading, but in the case of the imperial library there were over 6,000 books in the library. So, unless you knew what book to read and really wanted to read it, chances are that the scroll remained unread.

I don't see any pervasive reason to think that Josephus being in a library means that early Christians had probable opportunity to change the scroll in the library. Of course it's always possible, but if changing of text were rampant, then this would have affected not just Christians and Josephus but a great deal of historical works. That's not to say there were never any errors or the like, but it does suggest that there is no probable opportunity--only possible opportunity.

-------------

When we look at the means (F1), one factor that Meier picked up on was the need to write like Josephus. This is all the more true when we take Meier's core TF (i.e., by removing the three interpolations argued by Meier which I discussed in my second post (1990)).

What I did is took passages from other Josephus statements (in Greek) that matched the core TF. Here is the core TF as translated by William Whiston:


Every phrase in the following comes from Josephus in a number of other passages in his works to form this:


So, just by pulling phrases from other parts of Josephus, we can basically construct the TF. This is not to be expected since we could not, for example, construct the TF using the New Testament. There are phrases that are never used in this way. The fact that we can't exactly match the TF is in no way an argument for the TF being spurious since Josephus undoubtedly took from other sources as he did in the majority of his work.

Here are also other examples that are very close to the TF (in fact, they immediately follow the TF in the Antiquities) which challenge the means argument:



Travis said: "If the name 'Jesus' were substituted with 'Serapsis' or 'Tammuz' in Josephus, are we even having this conversation?"

I'll turn this around and say if the men mentioned in these stories referred to the New Testament how quick would Travis be to say that these are interpolations?

What we see in both accounts, however, is a similar structure to the TF:

H1) Introduction

i) "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure"
ii)"There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws"
iii)"The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased"

H2) Actions to Gather a Following

i)"He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles."
ii) "He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners."
iii) "so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim"

H3) Punishment

i) "And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross"
ii) "but punished a greater number of them"
iii) "and when it came to an action, some of them they slew"

H4) The Current State of the Followers

i) "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"
ii) 'Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men."
iii) "and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away"

This kind of interpolator would have to have been very skilled in historical methodology, and when we consider the probability of that being the case, I think we can safely say that it is not very probable. There are, in fact, general Josephan themes in the Antiquities that the TF fits nicely within:


The quotes I provided which include the TF fit well within this overall theme. This is significant since an interpolator would probably have snuck other Christian themes in the text that would probably have not fit Josephus's themes. For example, why is there no mention about Jesus being a sacrifice for sins? What about him being the Son of God? How about his ascending to Heaven and returning to set up God's kingdom?

It's also interesting that Tactitus (c. 116), who wrote a few years after the publishing of the Antiquities wrote the following:


Scholars Franz Dornseiff and, earlier von Harnack, have argued that Tacitus and Josephus follow a similar pattern (see (Meier, "Marginal Jew," 1991, p. 101-102 n10-n13). The similarities mentioned by Meier are as follows:

I1: "Jesus/Christ is named"
I2: "His execution in Judea by Pilate"
I3: "the derivation of the name 'Christian' from him is noted"
I4: "the Christian group that stems from him is said to have continued after his death"

This might suggest that Tacitus draws upon Josephus, or possibly the Josephan theme was following Roman sources that Tacitus had available to him. In any case, an interpolator would have surprisingly followed a structure that we wouldn't expect of a later Christian. (Btw, if Travis stays true to form he'll just deny Tacitus... quite predictable behavior on his part.)

So, as we can see from the above, the TF continues to "fit" Josephan themes, and the evidence for opportunity does not support Travis's contention of interpolations.

Josephus does not provide us the evidence that Jesus Christ was a historical man. There was no need for such a man, in fact, a real man would have been more of a hindrance than help. If one puts their preconceptions aside, for just a moment, there is nothing more than an anonymous reference to a thought and an idea. The reasons, with regards to the passages in Josephus, are clearly laid out in my first post of this debate. I do not believe that anything that has been presented comes close to swaying the obvious conclusion that it is a forgery, an insertion, or an interpolation.

Although many counterarguments have been waged, I believe the one my opponent opines carries the strongest weight is that the works of Josephus simply wouldn’t have been of much use to the early Christians, that we would have been hard pressed to find someone who would actually seek Josephus out for confirmation, and then when finding none, would seek to insert what he thought should have been there.

As we know, Josephus finishes his Antiquities of the Jews around 93 CE. His Jewish Wars was released a couple decades earlier in 75 CE. According to the opinions of Harvey 1’s experts, the author(s) of Acts is complete no later than c. 110-115 CE. Why is this important to keep in mind? Dr. Robert Price notes:


“…and Josephus.” So, what exactly is it about Josephus that finds itself associated with Acts?

Robert Gnuse listed 12 coincidences of content between the two. His article is Vita Apologetica: The Lives of Josephus and Paul in Apologetic Historiography [JSP 13.2 (2002) 151-169]. The main difference is that Josephus is traveling to Rome on behalf of god-fearing priests who have been unjustly accused and forced to plead their case before Caesar.


Now, Paul never mentions Josephus and Josephus never mentions Paul. I’m not sure what the odds are that these similarities are completely by chance, but I would bet it is rather small. So we have to ask ourselves:

1. Is it probable these events happened to both men in roughly the same time period?

2. If not, which account seems more probable to believe?

We can cross reference Josephus in history, but we can’t do the same for Paul of Acts. What else is striking about Acts/Luke and Josephus? Richard Carrier has summarized the work of Josephus scholar, Steve Mason, detailing some incredible parallels. I’ll just highlight them here and one is free to follow the provided link for more details; (L) for Luke/Acts; (J) for works of Josephus.