Archeological data and primary sources for New Testament characters

[Kafka]

Explain why it makes you angry for me to tell you things about Josephus' antiquities you were not aware of until I told you.

You make me angry because you ALWAYS misrepresent my points and lie about my position.

I never said, NOT ONCE, that the TF was 100% a forgery. I merely noted that there is discussion EVEN TODAY that questions it.

I note you didn't respond to the critique of the Arabic Translations. I'm curious why.

That fact that you so quickly and curtly dismissed all the supporting lines of evidence as lies, deceptions, fabrications

I NEVER did. NOT ONCE. Please for the love of god, STOP LYING about my position.

It is VERY annoying. Your lies are non-stop.

show you are not a skeptical thinker. You are an emotional thinker with preconceived notions you desire to cling to.

I sense that the critique of your favorite Arabic translations is a problem for you which is why you didn't address it and you attack me.

 

[Kafka]

Why does the guy who argues that Jesus was real hold his teaching in SUCH disregard.

 

[Kafka]

My point is evidence. Archeological data always favors white European interpretation of reality. We live in a time when everything we were taught is now being questioned.

May I ask what is the "white European interpretation of reality"? Genuinely curious.

 

[goat]

May I ask what is the "white European interpretation of reality"? Genuinely curious.

European bias is prominent in the Clovis point. Whitey refuses to dig deeper than their personal beliefs. No offence intended.

 

[Cypress]

Why does the guy who argues that Jesus was real hold his teaching in SUCH disregard.

When you quickly dismiss multiple corroborating lines of evidence which you haven't even heard of before or read extensively about, you don't look like a critical thinker. You look like an emotional thinker who wants to cling to something you read on an atheist blog 20 years ago.

 

[Cypress]

The Arabic and Syriac translations of Josephus' Antiquities seems to go back to an older Greek translation that does not contain Christianizing decorations found in Medieval Latin translations. The mainstream consensus is that this 5a genuine reference to Jesus.

Even if one wanted to completely chuck out Josephus attestation of Jesus and ignore it, one still had to explain why Josephus specifically identified James the Just as the brother of Jesus. Why would Josephus write that unless he knew about Jesus?


The authenticity of the ossuary of James brother Jesus is controversial.

On the one hand, one study used oxygen isotopes and microfossils to suggest the inscription identifying James son of Joseph and brother of Jesus is a modern addition to the ossuary; a forgery.

Another study found that the oxygen isotope signature of the patina had been contaminated by cleaning fluids.

A more recent archaeometric analysis of the patina on the ossuary inscriptions supposedly reinforces the antiquity of the inscription.

The authenticity is still open to debate.

The Authenticity of the James Ossuary

Archaeometric analysis strengthens authenticity of James Ossuary inscription. Beige patina, striations, dissolution pits, and minerals support inscription's credibility. Wind-blown microfossils and quartz further reinforce authenticity.

www.scirp.org

 

[Kafka]

When you quickly dismiss

Yet ANOTHER lie. I never dismissed anything. In fact I asked you to support your claims and you took that as an invitation to simply attack me.

multiple corroborating lines of evidence which you haven't even heard of before or read extensively about, you don't look like a critical thinker. You look like an emotional thinker who wants to cling to something you read on an atheist blog 20 years ago.

You know, after a bit I note you don't actually support your own claims. You make a claim (usually just quoting someone else) and then you proceed to "defend" that claim by simply insulting and attacking the other person.

Have you actually read the Bible? Perhaps you missed Luke 6:31

You seem to have missed almost all of Jesus teachigns yet you somehow manage to blather on about the great moral teachings from Jesus.

Ironic to say the least.

 

[Cypress]

Yet ANOTHER lie. I never dismissed anything. In fact I asked you to support your claims and you took that as an invitation to simply attack me.



You know, after a bit I note you don't actually support your own claims. You make a claim (usually just quoting someone else) and then you proceed to "defend" that claim by simply insulting and attacking the other person.

Have you actually read the Bible? Perhaps you missed Luke 6:31

You seem to have missed almost all of Jesus teachigns yet you somehow manage to blather on about the great moral teachings from Jesus.

Ironic to say the least.

I'm not here to teach you.
I am not a frantic Googler for tidbits of information like you are. So I don't have usually have Google links to share. Most of what I know is from books, articles, podcasts, classes.

For people who don't scream at me, don't lie to me, treat me with respect, I will invest the effort to do internet research requests for them.

The attestation about Jesus in Josephus is widely considered authentic. It is found in all language translations of The Antiquities, even if Medieval Latin translations have some Christian elements superimposed on the authentic original text.

But you obviously read some atheist blog post years ago which told you the Jesus references in Josephus were total and complete lies, fabrications, fakes. And I am sure you are emotionally invested in maintaining a tight grip on that preconceived idea.


Per Wikipedia, Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews:

-Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James 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"
-Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.
-Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic"
-Agnostic/Atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman considers the refence to Jesus authentic, even with later modifications.
-Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may commence frantically googling for fringe and minority opinions to uphold your preconceived ideas about what Josephus wrote.

 

[Kafka]

.....

 

[Kafka]

Hey @Cypress here's book that you might wanna check out. I just found it and have started reading it so I'm not very far into it. It's by a pretty well-known neurobiology researcher at the Univ of California. It's about what we know about how the brain functions and the larger quesitons of freewill and autonomy from a neurological viewpoint.

So far it's pretty interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Charge-Free-Science-Brain/dp/0061906107

 

[Kafka]

I am not a frantic Googler for tidbits of information like you are.

Per Wikipedia,

You may commence frantically googling for fringe and minority opinions to uphold your preconceived ideas about what Josephus wrote.

This is like a fractaly hypocritical post. Hilarious. The man who thinks he's above "googling" for information quotes Wikipedia.

Interesting but so far you've been unable to address the PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE I Provided which critiques your arabic translation point and you have yet to address any of it.

Ironic, no?

 

[Kafka]

I am not a frantic Googler for tidbits of information like you are. So I don't have usually have Google links to share. Most of what I know is from books, articles, podcasts, classes.

This claim is fascinating. You excoriate so many people for "frantic googling" and usually after you can't defend your own position. So I thought I'd do quick check to see how often YOU utilize Wikipedia (which is but one step up from "Frantic Googling").

Interestingly I found a LOT of times in your posts where you cite Wikipedia. A lot.

So maybe you can just let this canard go? Or will I need to post this everytime you accuse someone of "frantic googling"?

Next time Cypress accuses you of “Frantic googling”, just remember how many times he cites Wikipedia for his own points. Just sayin’….

Per Wikipedia, Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews:

unfurl="true"]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele[/URL]

unfurl="true"]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele[/URL]

Form of the Good - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

[/URL]

unfurl="true"]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#:~:text=Major%20figures%20of%20New%20Atheism,conversion%20to%20Christianity%20in%202023.[/URL]

... a warrant was issued for Smith's arrest on a charge of banking fraud. Rather than submit to arrest, Smith fled the jurisdiction, escaping Ohio into Missouri.
-- Wikipedia

]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal[/url]

https://en.m.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism[/url]

https://en.m.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States[/url]

https://en.m.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms[/url]

https://en.m.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_mercy[/url]

https://en.m.

wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism[/url]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_tan_suit_controversy

[/URL]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

[/URL]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

[/URL]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_(play)

[/URL]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

[/URL]

source credits: ...Wikipedia book summaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

[/URL]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Waterboard3-small.jpg

[/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom

[/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom

[/URL]

 

[Cypress]

This is like a fractaly hypocritical post. Hilarious. The man who thinks he's above "googling" for information quotes Wikipedia.

Interesting but so far you've been unable to address the PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE I Provided which critiques your arabic translation point and you have yet to address any of it.

Ironic, no?

If you have a preconceived idea, and are emotionally invested in it, you can always find something on Google to support it.

I'm only placing weight on the consensus, widely held expert opinion.

You frantically Google "peer reviewed" articles without ever having read the whole article, and you have dashed in before to post links to articles which didn't say what you claimed it said. You have to build up your credibility first before I just take your word for it

 

[Cypress]

This claim is fascinating. You excoriate so many people for "frantic googling" and usually after you can't defend your own position. So I thought I'd do quick check to see how often YOU utilize Wikipedia (which is but one step up from "Frantic Googling").

Interestingly I found a LOT of times in your posts where you cite Wikipedia. A lot.

So maybe you can just let this canard go? Or will I need to post this everytime you accuse someone of "frantic googling"?

Next time Cypress accuses you of “Frantic googling”, just remember how many times he cites Wikipedia for his own points. Just sayin’….

So now you are doing troll posts

The widely held consensus opinion among experts in the field is that the references in Josephus are authentic, even if the Latin translation has been spiced up with Christianizing elements

I don't expect you to accept it, because you are emotionally committed to a preconceived idea based on an atheist blog post you once read

 

[Kafka]

So now you are doing troll posts

Nope. Just pointing out your hypocrisy.

I've supported my questions with peer reviewed articles. You have opted for Wikipedia. Which of course is a HUGE tell that you just "frantically googled".

 

[Kafka]

If you have a preconceived idea, and are emotionally invested in it, you can always find something on Google to support it.

Says the Wikipedia Scholar.

I think it's HILARIOUS that the one peer reviewed article so far produced was by ME and YOU have NEVER responded substantively to it.

Sounds like you might be the "frantic googler" .

 

[Cypress]

Since @Cypress is unable to support his claim of an Arabic translation of Josephus that retains the TF I have decided to look on my own.

Indeed, one such thing appears to exist! And has been critiqued and debunked by some.

It appears that it is the "Chronicle" by Agapius? But it was written in the 10th century....honestly I don't know how that could confirm the TF since it appears fully 1000 years after the TF was supposedly written. But, according to Alice Whealy, writing in the journal New Testament Studies the Chronicles were actually a translation of Eusebius (who is the first person to even note that the TF existed loooooong after the TF was written) (SOURCE, Full Article HERE). So even the Arabic translations cannot be counted on to support the claim that the TF is original to Josephus.

Obviously I'm no Syriac scholar but at least this shows that there is legitimate criticism of the TF. I will gladly grant that some thought contains the "partial interpolation" that Cypussy mentioned however it is not as clear cut as Cycunt would have you think. The accession that the TF is real vs a forgery has been ongoing since the 18th century. For quite a long time people before the 20th century thought it was a forgery. Then in the 20th opinion shifted, but now it appears scholarship may be reopening the debate.

Jesus Christ, this is why you can't be trusted. Your own source Whealy concludes right in the abstract that the Jesus reference is authentic, but her point is that the Syriac version is more authentic than the Arabic version.
She's saying the Syriac version is the most authentic. She is not saying the Arabic and Latin versions are total hoaxes

Michael’s Testimonium (Syriac version) is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium, and it is more authentic than the textus receptus in reading that Jesus was ‘thought to be the Messiah’. Some features of Agapius’ Testimonium previously considered to be more authentic than the textus receptus can be explained by distinctive readings in the Syriac text that Agapius used.

Don't waste anymore of my time Perry. I simply can't trust anything you post.

What an utter waste of time on a troll and a stalker.

 

[Kafka]

Jesus Christ, this is why you can't be trusted. Your own source Whealy concludes right in the abstract that the Jesus reference is authentic, but her point is that the Syriac version is more authentic than the Arabic version.
She's saying the Syriac version is the most authentic. She is not saying the Arabic and Latin versions are total hoaxes

Michael’s Testimonium (Syriac version) is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium, and it is more authentic than the textus receptus in reading that Jesus was ‘thought to be the Messiah’. Some features of Agapius’ Testimonium previously considered to be more authentic than the textus receptus can be explained by distinctive readings in the Syriac text that Agapius used.

Don't waste anymore of my time Perry. I simply can't trust anything you post.

So when she says "‘Agapius of Hierapolis’ and Michael the Syrian’s versions of the Testimonium
Flavianum, a passage about Jesus from Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, both derive
from the Syriac translation of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Historia Ecclesiastica.
Michael’s Testimonium is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium,..."

That sounds to me like she is saying that the Arabic translations DERIVE FROM EUSEBIUS.

That is the problem. Eusebius is the FIRST PERSON to find the TF. That is why it is considered to NOT be evidence that the TF is original.

 

[Cypress]

So when she says "‘Agapius of Hierapolis’ and Michael the Syrian’s versions of the Testimonium
Flavianum, a passage about Jesus from Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, both derive
from the Syriac translation of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Historia Ecclesiastica.
Michael’s Testimonium is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium,..."

That sounds to me like she is saying that the Arabic translations DERIVE FROM EUSEBIUS.

That is the problem. Eusebius is the FIRST PERSON to find the TF. That is why it is considered to NOT be evidence that the TF is original.

Thanks for providing a source that proved my point, and undermined yours.

I'm never going to trust you when your dash up to me hollering you have a "peer reviewed source".

Your own author does not call the Josephus reference a hoax.

She goes out of her way to say the Syriac version is the most authentic, but does not deny there are authentic elements in the other translations, even when there are Christian elements added to into the narrative.


You should really be paying me tuition at this point. All you knew about Josephus was an atheist blog post your read a few years ago. Now I have given you a plethora of information about Josephus that undermines your faith in it being a complete hoax.


What a fucking waste of time

 

[Kafka]

Thanks for providing a source that proved my point, and undermined yours.

So are you of the opinion that the TF doesn't show up until Eusebius?

Your own author does not call the Josephus reference a hoax.

Then I think you may not understand the topic. The first appearance of the TF is when Eusebius mentions it in the FOURTH CENTURY CE.

That's the key problem. It does not appear to show up in any translations that I am aware of that are concurrent with Josephus.

Let me hightlight an important bit you seem to be glossing over

"both derive from the Syriac translation of Eusebius"
Now, TO YOUR CREDIT, Whealy does seem to think that there is SOME reference to Jesus in Joesphus. And that's not anything we really are debating at this point. I've already acquiesced that most scholars think the reference to James' brother is authentic.

This really sounds much more like it supports an hypothesis YOU put forther that it is only PARTIALLY christianized. This may also be true. But it doesn't sound like your Arabic Translations pre-date Eusebius.

Which means your arabic translation cannot be counted on to reflect the original Josephus commentary.