Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 31 March 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Another source

Looking around for more sources and found "James was martyred at the Passover. This Epistle was probably written just before it. The destruction of Jerusalem foretold in it (Jas 5:1, &c.), ensued a year after his martyrdom, A.D. 69." in the online version of 1996 edition of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary by (ISBN 1565631978)

This lends support for the 69 CE date because the Epistle of James generally accepted date range is c70 - c100 CE though there are a few claiming a c50 CE date. This creates logical problems because if Hendrickson Publishers is saying James the Just was martyred in 69 CE then how can the James in Josephus be James the Just as he was clearly killed in 62 CE? Something is way wrong here and I wish somebody was explaining it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alice Whealey mentions this in her book about Josephus. How does she deal with it? Lung salad (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, let us discuss this date issue in a few days, for the current situation with Lung Salad does not permit discussion of this amid the current chaos. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that things seem to have calmed down perhaps we can go back to this. I found an interesting theory building on the idea that the "Christ" brother of John Josephus in could be a nickname and not a title (Mason, Steve (2002) Josephus and the New Testament Baker Academic; 2 edition ISBN-13: 978-0801047008 pg 228). The theory is since Jesus son of Damneus became High priest he would have per the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 been annotated and would have literally have been 'the annotated one' ie 'christ' (with a lower case 'c')--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the "son of Damneus" argument is one of the arguments against authenticity that needs to get added to the the testpage. Mason is one source but I do recall that there was another source that mentioned that point as well, and there are those who have replied to that issue as well. We actually discussed this in a peripheral way somewhere above when we discussed that Josephus refers to at least 20 people called Jesus. That argument needs to be added, else in 6 months there will be a question on it. I think we need to add a paragraph that discusses the 20 people called Jesus issue at the start of the arguments section, then introduces the "son of Damneus" as one of those and that Josephus may have been referring to him. The counter arguments can then be presented in the pro-authenticity section. So my suggestion is to keep them separate, given the current structure we have on the test page. So we add Mason+others to the against authenticity section, then add an argument to the pro-authenticity section that says it was not about son of Damneus. That way both perspectives are presented. There are probably a couple of more arguments against authenticity that need to be mentioned, given that the section there is mostly about the Testimonium, and arguments against the other two passages need to be further developed there. In any case, I just copied what you typed above there. We can add one more son of Damneus source against authenticity beyond Mason, for I do recall hat there is another source, and we just need to find it again. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from your comments above that you missed the point of the theory I found--it was not that the "who was called Christ" passage was not authentic per say but that the interpretation was flawed and was worked back into the text.

In other words the theory says that since Greek in Josephus' time was written in all capitals there would have been no way for Origen (or anybody else of later times) to know if "ΤΟΥ͂ ΛΕΓΟΜΈΝΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ͂" should be rendered "τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ" or "τοῦ λεγομένου χριστοῦ" other than assuming the Jesus described was the same as that in Bible. But if you break that assumption then the passage could be "τοῦ λεγομένου χριστοῦ" ie someone who had the nickname of christ rather than the title of Christ.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I also understood it to mean that the "reference" is not authentic, not the passage. Anyway, I think we can even clarify it more and say: "An argument against the authenticity of the reference in the James passage is that "Jesus son of Damneus" may have been the person Josephus was referring to in that passage. The argument is that since Jesus son of Damneus became High priest by the requirements of Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 he would have been annotated and would have been referred to as 'the annotated one' i.e. 'christ' in lower case." Then that clearly says that the reference is not authentic. But that is one of five or six arguments against, and I also added a few more to the test page. But that one is not one of the strongest arguments, and in fact one of the weaker ones, and the tone with respect to Ananus and how it differs from the Jewish Wars is a stronger argument in favor of interpolation. But we will list them all anyway. However, just as matter of interest, note that I noted in the other section how Ananus had bribed Jesus the son of Damnaeus to be able to take the tithes of other priests, as described in Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9 item 2. So we will list that theory, but as Painter suggests Ananus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus were on pretty good terms. So the killing the bother of the son of Damnaeus theory will be listed, but the friendly relationship between Ananus and the the son of Damnaeus should also be clarified. As for the use of Greek, it goes back to the E=mc2 and 50% readership loss story. But let us see what other people think about that level of detail with Greek. I do not mind, either way. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While the 'James brother of Jesus son of Damnaeus' idea has been around since at least 1887 the argument was that this indicated the "who was called Christ" was a later Christian interpolation ie not written by Josephus.

This nickname theory on the other hand says the passage is NOT an interpolation but rather that the scholars are making a connection that may or may not exist. It is like assuming since scientists have written a lot about John Frum, the white US serviceman that appeared to some island native elders c1930, that he must exist even though the closest history can find is an illiterate native of 1941 called Manehivi. Similarly the logic presented with Josephus means that since there was a guy that called himself Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I that 1) Norton was his first name and 2) that there was an empire for him to be Emperor of--both of which are wrong.

Again referencing Binford's "Archaeology as anthropology" (1962) American Antiquity 8, no 2, 217-225) articles have seen a crap load of explication (ie what the conclusions are) but too little explanations (the how and WHY) in the article. This explanation problem is why the Christ myth theory article has the Christ_myth_theory#Ambiguity_in_definition, Christ_myth_theory#Spectrum_of_Historicity_of_Jesus, and Christ_myth_theory#Three_pillars_of_the_theory sections--they are there to show how definition of the term is all over the freaking map and help future editors deal with the multitude of problems I outlined in User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ. Thankfully I don't see this article needing that kind of insane explanation dump but it sure needs more then we have now just ot stabilize the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce. This absolutely deserves a mention in the analysis section and I for one think we should use the Greek, since it is important to offer by way of textual examples the substance of some of the main arguments. We can always romanise the Greek on the assumption that most readers will not have the language. I agree with History that such examples can turn readers away, but in the detailed analysis I think it appropriate (this is essentially the same logic for why the scholarly back and forth should not overly encumber the general overview). As for the above, this is worth fleshing out. As I recall, the main point is that the Jesus referred to could be one of the other Jesus' of the text (as indicated above) and that this is supported by the nature of the reference in comparison with other similar references found in the Antiquities. Whatever the case, Bruce makes a good point, one that I think we are adhering to already, that we should not just reference different conclusions but explain the how and why of the logic. Indeed, it would be impossible not to, really, given the nature of the arguments put forward. This applies, for instance, to the inferential argument wrt Origen (which is rather weak in my view). Eusebeus (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No big deal really. So why don't you guys add Greek and expand the explanation in the args-against section. After that I will expand Painters argument in the args-in-favor section. Then both sides are covered. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we don't have much regarding explanations on the args-in-favor section. Sure we are told that "the authenticity of this Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"" but we are not told WHY or by what methods. I am reminded of the dismissive attitude my own field of anthropology had regarding the "magical" belief of so called primitive cultures until Horace Miner published his deeply satirical "Body Ritual Among The Nacirema".

Miner's article effectively shoved the unpleasant reality that if something was studied with a particular mindset it not only could taint your observations but if you were unaware of the mindset it would taint your observations into anthropology's face. Right now we see the conclusions but not how those conclusions were arrived or even who produced the key pieces of evidence (or what that evidence even was) than changed the majority idea of that James the Just died in 69 CE as was believed c1900 to he died in 62 CE. This is as I like to call it the Miner problem (excuse the totally horrid pun).--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest additions I made to the in favor-of-James section about an hour ago? The only pending item that I see is the year62 item, but there is plenty of explanation there by various sources now. Do you want more than a page and a half? History2007 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends a little too much on Van Voorst via Eerdmans who I have shown has at best a horrid QA department regarding what it allows writers to say as demonstrated by "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." in Jesus Then and Now 2004 pg 37 which is NOT true--NONE of these authors mention Jesus at all!

Suetonius in fact talks about Jews being stirred by Chrestus and we know from his Life of Nero he knew the difference between Jews and Christians so that this somehow refers to Jesus is a wild stretch. Only Tacitus gave us anything that possibility connected the Christ described to the Jesus in the Bible but it is so late that it could just be parroting Christian myth.

Also Eerdmans further showed their sloppiness with Jesus and Archaeology (2006) where they allowed the Editor James Charlesworth (an expert in Language and Literature) to use illustrations from his own personal collection even if the artifact in question didn't match the text (a bichrome Canaanite decanter in an article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass? SAY WHAT? Why not use a Mayan calender in an article on the Apache while you're at it; makes about as much sense. Sheesh.) We have Brill and Baker whose quality is known to be top notch so why, forget the pun, in the name of God's green Earth are we using anything by Eerdmans? Eerdmans' QA department seems to be borderline slipshod to nonexistent ie a joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, your sheesh, the Mayan calender, green earth and all other issues in your comment aside, let me attempt to extract some logic from your post above and try to understand what you are trying to say in a coherent form. Are you saying that VanVoorst is not a WP:RS source? If so, I am sorry, but you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Van Voorst is a respectable scholar who is mentioned and quoted by a good number of other scholars and he is a totally WP:RS source. If you wish we can waste another half a day and go over to WP:RSN and see if he is WP:RS and I will bet you 5 to 1 that he will be declared a WP:RS source. Moreover, Van Voorst is not the only source in that section. There are a few others who confirm the same conclusions he arrives at. And by the way any, and I mean any discussion of Suetonus here is beside the point given that we are discussing Josephus, not Suetonus, and any attempt to relate the two issues by your own reasoning is as clear a case of WP:OR as one can have. I am sorry, but I am not totally following the logic in the comment you made above. Please try and be coherent, consistent, focused and logical. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am saying Eerdmans (publisher) is not reliable. This is much like the situation with a passage from Mitchel Grant that was in the Christ myth theory article (see Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_14#Grant_as_a_source) which turned out to be Grant quoting two other authors those expertise was (and still is) unknown using publishers not known for their academic quality. Furthermore as demonstrated by Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_18 on Van Voorst occasion totally drops the ball as Wells was accepting a history person behind Q in Jesus Legend a full three years before he supposedly did an "about face" and Jesus Legend by Baker Academic clearly puts both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth in the Christ myth in contradiction to an Voorst. Furthermore it is not just Eddy-Boyd that classified those books as Christ myth but also Robert M Price, Richard Carrier (Did Jesus Even Exist? Stanford University presentation May 30, 2006), Earl Doherty, and Graham Stanton (The Gospels and Jesus Oxford University Press pg 143)

I imagine when he goes through peer review Van Voorst is fine but when one of his statements via Eerdmans is at odds with some of the biggest names in academia you have to raise the red flag with regard to anything he says via that publisher. Remember WP:RS also looks at the publisher of the work and in terms of QA Eerdmans is sorely lacking.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That issue should be easy to settle. First, I should address your remark about Eerdman having "a horrid QA department". That is not how the publishing world works. So do allow me to explain the mechanics of the publishing business to you. I do not know of any publisher, be it Addison-Wesley or Prentice Hall, etc. even having a QA department in the sense that you use the term. They have some quality assurance in terms of the publishing process, proof reading, distribution, etc. but can not afford a large cadre of in house PhD level scholars who know the wide range of advanced topics they publish on. That is not how books get published. The best publishers usually rely on the best professors. The publishing decision is usually made by a senior editor (often with years of experience) at the publisher, based on academic reviews. The publisher has a list of professors on its reviewer list and goes to great lengths to cultivate those relationships. They come into town, buy people nice dinners, etc. to maintain those relationships. And then they will send books to said professors or experts for review and usually pay pittance for the review, but the reviewer does it partly out of interest, partly to maintain the relationship with the publisher, who has already published their own book, or who in time will publish it. The senior editor then compares the 3 to 5 reviews it gets from the academics, and considers the general reputation of the author. The estimation of the general reputation of the author is obtained via conversations the senior editor had with the professors over the dinners they bought. It is a very small world, and everyone knows everyone. That is how academic books get published. Then there are self-publishers such as iUniverse and AuthorHouse which only require a manuscript and a pulse. However, Eerdsmans is a 100 year old academic publisher with a long list of highly respected authors such as David VanDrunen, Howard Marshall, Paul Ellingworth, etc. etc. etc. These are the authors who likely review any new title published by Eerdsman before the book is accepted.

Moreover, if you are disputing the statement by Van Voorst that "the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to the brother of Jesus called Christ and the entire passage that includes it as authentic" based on his publisher (!) I should note that the same statement by Van Voorst appears in Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture An Encyclopedia edited by Leslie Houlden, on page 509, with a different publisher. So Eerdsman does not affect that statement, in any case, although it is a WP:RS publisher. Furthermore, the same statement is said in similar words by Feldman, Maier, Bauckham , etc. all of whom are highly respected scholars "in the field" - a long way away from those who teach in the German language department and write about history on the side.

Now, that tutorial aside, the more general question may be: Is Van Voorst's book Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdsmans 2000) ISBN 978-0802843685 a WP:RS source. There is no doubt that the book meets the WP:RS criteria twice over. The book is quoted by a number of other highly respected authors, e.g. Köstenberger refers to it on page 104 of his book. On page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000)." Do I need to say more? The Van Voorst book is a WP:RS source. Period. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dating error

The article contains the sentence "rebuilt by Herod the Great around 30 AD". This is impossible as Herod died in 4 BC. Should the date read 30 BC? Dimadick (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so - I double checked. Please feel free to correct it to 30 BC. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Date format issue

There is a mini-issue about AD vs CE. I do not think this should turn into a long debate. Can we just use AD/CE so both formats appear and the debate goes away? Or for fun a simple bot could be written that changes AD to CE at midnight every night, so Mondays it says AD, Tuesdays it says CE, etc. and both formats get equal play time. But in the absence of the bot, can we just avoid that issue and say AD/CE and move on? I do not see this as an encyclopedic issue and most readers will probably not care either way.

On a separate note, the testpage has seen a good deal of expansion now. I guess no one added the Greek, but the arguments against authenticity have a long section on the Testimonium, and not much on James yet. I will go ahead and expand that now anyway, given that it was sitting there. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dab once expressed the opinion that the best way to make this problem go away is to remove AD/CE from the article. WP:MOSNUM states "Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it". I think Huon's point is a good one though, that first century dates can, at times, be confused with ages. If you are going with the AD date format, it needs to be preceded by an &nbsp. I'm for whatever constitutes best WP:MOS practices and gets this article through WP:GAC. Ignocrates (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do not care, as long as it does not generate unnecessary fanfare. I think it makes very little difference to 90% of readers anyway. If nbsp solves it do it, else we can write a Monday/Tuesday bot. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You make the call and I will clean up the dates. To AD or not to AD, that is, as they say, the question. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I really do not care. Please discuss it with Huon and you guys decide. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. I added nbsp's, so the formatting is at least correct. Think about how you want it in the final version, assuming everyone involved wants this to be a world-class article. Ignocrates (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the prevailing opinion (as above) seems to be that the other articles such as Josephus, Jewish War, Against Apion, etc. are in such dire shape that they need help anyway. So world class is desired, but when those are starving... Anyway, enough on this. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

They are indeed in dire shape, but creating one silk purse give me a lot more energy to work on all the sows ears! Ignocrates (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I like it the way it is now. Thanks for the formatting! Huon (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Note format issue

Lung salad, I noticed you added a new bibliography to the Notes section. Notes should have the author's name, date, and page numbers. Everything but page numbers (including title, publisher and ISBN) needs to be in alphabetical order in the Bibliography section. Can you fix this? Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I could do that, but I wonder about the purpose of that footnote. It seems rather redundant to what we say in the sentences immediately afterwards, and it does not actually support the sentence it is used as a reference for. I also have doubts about the word "disputed" Lung salad introduced: We describe the dispute in detail; there is no need to allude to it in that sentence. For these reasons I would tend to remove both the footnote and the word "disputed". Huon (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no need to worry about that at all. Much further above on this talk page we discussed that the lede would be changed "after the fact" to reflect the body once the body has been finalized with the details, etc. So those changes may or may not survive the final lede after the testpage has been completed and introduced as the last section. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All else being equal, one more reliable source is better than one less. However, the content should always be an accurate summary of the source, so maybe the wording needs to be tweaked a bit. And it still needs page numbers. Words like "disputed" need to be tied to a dispute that can be shown in the references. Otherwise, it seems like an editors opinion. No room for that at the GA level. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, all that is sideline talk for now. We will deal with those issues when we get there. For now there is still content that needs to be developed.... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense, but where is this development taking place? I noticed a test page, but 99% of the edits are yours. Is this a private party? If so, I don't want to crash it. Ignocrates (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a joke that Bill Gates was not invited to Kardashian's wedding, but in the best of Microsoft tradition crashed it. So you can of course do as Bill did. The testpage has been waiting for anyone to develop, and Eusebeus made some initial edits. No one has done any edits recently. That was why I said that given that it has been sitting there I will add items. I was hoping I did not have to do all the arguments against authenticity, but now I ended up adding several. Now, what we need is someone to check the arguments against authenticity given that I wrote that quickly in the past day. So please check those, add to them etc.

Key questions:

• Are there any missing (post 8-rack era) arguments against the authenticity of John?
• How about against James, apart from the Greek upper/lower case item that needs to get expanded?

The arguments against the Testimonium seem well developed, but there are serious overlaps now with those of James. I cleaned it up a little, but can get cleaned up more. So if you want to check, extend, expand those, that would help a lot.

I will therefore take a break from arguments against, leave those to you until you declare them finished and then we can all check them. In the meantime I can work on finishing the arguments in favor of authenticiy. Then we should be ready to look it all over and call it stable. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It will take a bit of reading to get up to speed - I haven't thought about Josephus for awhile - but I will take a crack at it. You have all done some terrific work here. This article should definitely go through peer review soon, and on to GAC once it can be shown to be stable. Best regards. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for you to look through the arguments against authenticity section. I will touch up the arguments in favor of authenticity in parallel. There is just one section in the in favor of authenticity that needs work. I can probably finish it in a day or two. As for the GA/GB/GC labels, I really do not care about those. If you do nominate it for GA you need to be prepared to tutor whoever reviews it, for some the issues are at times not obvious. So if you do that you need to be prepared to put in plenty of work on it. That is not my area. Anyway, I will wait for you to work on the arguments against authenticity section. History2007 (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I copied the "Arguments Against" section of the test page over to a draft page in my user space. That way I can make notes for myself without disrupting everyone else. So, if you don't see any activity here for a bit that's why. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I have now finished about 95% of my edits to the "in favor of authenticity" section, and I think what remains to do in that section is adding links and using a uniform reference format. When you have fully completed your edits to the "challenging authenticity" section, just let us know and we will go from there. History2007 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not doing more to help with this article. I'm currently jammed with project work off-Wiki. Please proceed and don't wait for me. Ignocrates (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. In that case I will try to touch up the arguments against section as well, fix the ref formats etc. and get a final version together in a day or two so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Final version? Lung salad (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what your question is. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I believe the answer is "final version of the testpage before its content gets added to the article proper". Huon (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I meant. History2007 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Testpage

I have now finished about 95% of the additions I think were needed to complete the testpage. I still need to double check a few page numbers, and fix a few reference formats, but those should take no more than a couple of hours. Now:

• After all this research, I could probably write 10 more pages, but the article is approaching 90k or so, and that may be close to the length limit, so this is about all the text that we can get into one article. And frankly it is plenty of text and most readers will need some time to read even half of it.

• I double checked all references (I think) but there is one item that I marked as "failed verification" and that is the reference 91 to Mason, page 228. I said before that I had seen the argument about "Jesus son of Damneus" somewhere, and now I think it was here, a blog website. What is certain is that that statement is not due to Mason page 228. The blog references Mason page 228 to state a separate issue, then continues with its own reasoning. And as I stated before that is a rather weak argument given that according to Josephus Annanus was bribing the son of Damneus anyway. Regardless of that issue, there is no WP:RS source for that statement and unless one is offered, it needs to be excluded.

The next steps are to get comments on the testpage and then find IP 84.22.52.10 and bill him for all this. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now double checked every reference and page number in the testpage. I think it is ready to go to mainspace. History2007 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Several days and no issues, so I will just put it up. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have an issue. What happened to the "son of Damneus" issue and the fact that Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all put the death of James the Just at 69 CE (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, pg 189)? Also there is the idea that "the who was called Christ" was an added gloss that got woven into the text at some point.

Also what is all this stuff about John the Baptist? At best it is tangential to the whole Josephus on Jesus issue and IMHO muddles the focus of the article. Just because John the Baptist existed doesn't mean Jesus existed any more then the existence of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh proves he had a brother called John Frum.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

e/c Fine, let us discuss those. But they are 3 separate issue. So let us do those one by one.

1. I commented just above that I could not verify the "Jesus son of Damneus" argument in Mason's book, but did manage to find it on www.thoughts.com where I think I had seen it before. The argument based on Exodus 29:9 etc. seems to be only from the thoughts.com website which is not WP:RS. The Jesus son of Damneus item was on the testpage for a long time, but I commented it out recently given that it could not be verified. Just now with a few keystrokes I just removed the comment markers, but it has to be marked as "not in citation" until you find another WP:RS source that makes that argument. I think you may have assumed the use of www.thoughts.com as a WP:TERTIARY source, but those are the issues with non-RS tertiary sources, quite often they fail verification.

2. The second paragraph of the section "Variations from the New Testament" discusses the 62 AD vs 69 AD issue. If you think that issue needs to be expanded further, we can certainly discuss and do it. The question then will be how to expand it.

3. The mention of the John the Baptist in this article had been present for long before the current discussion and does not relate to these issues. We can certainly discuss that as a separate issue at some point. Most books that refer to Josephus and Jesus also discuss that passage, however. So I think whoever added the discussion on the Baptist followed the general trend in all the books. But again, that is a separate issue.

I think the main item now is to see if you have another WP:RS source for the "Jesus son of Damneus" argument. Hopefully a somewhat recent WP:RS source, as discussed before. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While the anointed argument is new the idea of Jesus brother of James being the same as Jesus son of Damneus is very old going back at least as far as Richard M. Mitchell and his 1893 book The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ. It shows up again in Remsburg's 1909 The Christ and Arthur Drews in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) states "(i)n the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius (about 300 A.D., Ecclesiast. Hist., 1, 11). Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus."

A little later in the same work Drews states "It is extremely doubtful whether James is understood by Josephus to be the corporal brother of Jesus, as brotherhood might very well mean only that he belonged to the Jesus-sect. In that sense Josephus would merely be saying that James was a " brother of Jesus, or leader of those who venerated the Messiah (Christ) under the name of Jesus. It is more probable, however, that this passage also is a later interpolation, as Credner 2and Schiirer are disposed to admit." (...) We understand, therefore, why Origen knows nothing of the passage. In his polemical work against Celsus he does not mention it when he comes to speak of James, though he refers to another in which Josephus represents the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment of the Jews for having put James to death ; which certainly does not accord with the facts."

Drews is presenting a threefold argument--two that assume the passage is totally authentic and one that assumes it is an interpolation. He even states that there was a version of Josephus as late as the 16th century that had neither reference. Wells and Humphreys both discount the "who was called Christ" Goppelt and Roloff inThe Ministry of Jesus in Its Theological Significance By Leonhard published by Eerdmans states on page 19 that it is possible both parts of Josephus are interpolation while flat out stating the Slavic passages are totally inauthentic (Got to love the right hand-left hand situation with this publisher's QA department).

In short the son of Damneus issue when it does come up is often used to argue for interpolation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Mason's book, page 228

Look, I had no problem with the "Jesus son of Damneus" argument when you first suggested it as sourced to Mason, for Mason is clearly a WP:RS source. And it is in the article now, sourced to Mason. The items you need to clarify are:

1. Do you still state that the argument based on Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 "is sourced to Mason", or do you now agree that Mason is not the source for it? So let us clarify this first.

2. If Mason is not the source for it, then what is a WP:RS source that can be used for it in the article? It does need a modern WP:RS source. And again, as above Arthur Drews is a rather antique source and "modern scholarship" should be used instead. Mason would have been a good source.

So that argument is present in the article as we speak, but a source for it needs to be provided. So you need to provide a WP:RS source before the "failed verification flag" applied to Mason can be removed from it. That is simple. History2007 (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your dodging the points I raised above but I'll play your game just to prove you wrong.

1. "In Greek it (Christ) means simply "wetted" of annointed. Within the Jewish world, this was was an extremely significant term because anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Iserael had been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their assumptions of God-given authority (Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1)." Mason ISBN: 978-0801047008 pg 228.

2. Since Mason clearly DOES say this your claim he doesn't just died a twitching death. But let's go on.

Mason points out to a non-Jew or non-Christan (ie the majority of Josephus' intended readership) the term "Christ" would be an unknown term which along with its visual similarity to "Chrestos" would have made the Testimonium Flavianum as we know it a total "what the..." moment. However Mason goes on to point out "That formulation, "the one called Christ," makes much better sense because it sounds like a nickname. Nicknames were necessary among first-century Jews because there was a relatively small number of proper names in circulation."

Mason then goes into the history of Testimonium Flavianum and where it might have come from. Then on page 239 we get back to the brother of James passage but here Mason falls into the usual argument based on the idea that the Testimonium Flavianum in some form existed and that the Jesus there and the Jesus here are one in the same person seeming forgetting the very point of Christ being a nickname he raised back on page 228. The whole issue of Josephus' James dieing in 62 CE while nearly everybody puts the James brother of Jesus the Christ being killed 69 CE (which would break any connection between the passages) is conveniently ignored.

Now back to the blog you presented. It states "Among our first solution, consider the passage is authentic with absolutely no tampering; even Mason agrees that the use of Christos in this fashion seems more appropriate as it is a nickname rather than a title. (p. 228) Mason suggests that titles were common among first century Jews because of the lack of common names in use. Jesus here is nicknamed “anointed."" As far as that goes Mason does indeed say this.

What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way that does not assume any connection between the James brother of Jesus passage here and the Testimonium Flavianum: "Jesus son of Damneus did in fact get selected to be the High Priest, in which he would have been anointed for the position which the scripture commands in Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1, and thus his nickname would apply."

Though it doesn't mention it the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 part also comes from Mason as shown above. Mason provides all the pieces; all the blog does is put them together without assuming any connection between the James brother of Jesus passage and the Testimonium Flavianum. Once that connection is broken the syllogism is simple enough:

Major premise: Christ simply mean "wetted" of anointed and was the mean which the kings and high priests of Iserael had been installed per Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 and could be used as a nickname (Mason pg 228)

Minor premise: Jesus son of Damneus was made high priest (Mason pg 239)

Conclusion: the "who was called Christ" passage could easily refer to Jesus son of Damneus.

It is interesting the blog does with without considering the whole 62 CE vs 69 CE issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, please just think about it. Just above here you have clearly stated that:

• "What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way"
• "Mason provides all the pieces; all the blog does is put them together"

Clearly, clearly that means that unless the blog is used as a reference along with Mason, that paragraph in the article can not be sourced to Mason's book by itself. It can only be sourced to "Mason+Blog". History2007 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are just moving the goal post as your original premise did a major crash and burn.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not see the logic in that statement. What I ask now is:

• Are you accepting that the paragraph can only be sourced to "Mason+Blog", or not.

Please clarify that. It just requires a simple yes/no answer. History2007 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the blog in question, but if Mason only provides the pieces and does not himself put them together in the way we want them, we either violate WP:SYN by drawing those pieces together ourselves, or we cite the blog to do it for us, and in general blogs are not reliable sources. So unless this blog is an exception (written by an acknowledged scholar on his area of expertise?), we would need some other source beyond either just Mason or the combination of Mason and the blog. Huon (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The author of the blog is an expert at not being an expert at anything. He once attended some military school for a while, but has no scholarly claim whatsoever. He just types things on a public blog as a citizen of the world, not as a scholar of any type. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"If you look a little farther, it says that James and Jesus were the sons of a guy named Damneus, and that they were candidates for the high priest - it wasn't Jesus of Nazareth at all!" Robert M Price interview by Luke Muehlhauser on July 11, 2010 regarding his book The Case Against the Case for Christ ISBN 978-1578840052. Now from roughly 7:50 to 11:00 he talks about the TF pointing out that Josephus "staked his entire livelihood on the flattery that the emperor Vespasian was the Jewish messiah" (9:39-9:46)--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So we are changing topic again. Right? Bruce you have not addressed the issue of Mason+Blog at all. Give a yes/no answer to that question first, for it is pending. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer to that question is "we can ditch Mason and use Price instead". I would greatly prefer to cite his book instead of an interview, though. Does the book make the same point, and if so, can we get a page number? Huon (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Price's book does not present the same argument about Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1. So that would not be a substitute. As far as I can tell, the only other place that argument seems to be used is in the The Christ myth by Arthur Drews, published in 1910. Over 100 years ago, in fact and not a WP:RS reference given its age. From what I have seen, the Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 argument is usually only found on blogs or in antique books that seriously predate LP records. Modern scholarship seems to be smarter than to argue that point. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

History2007 you need to do better research. Drews AND Remsburg both make reference to the "son of Damneus" issue and there are repeats of this point in later works (it for example shows up in Drews The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus, page 9 of 1912). In fact, Remsburg's "To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim." is reiterated in Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, ISBN 978-0801031144 pg 189: "The account of James's martyrdom in Josephus differ noticeable from the traditional Christian account (...) Moreover according to the Christian Tradition, James was killed just prior to Vespasian's siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE." The point is still a problem even after 100 years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Toward peer review

Now that the test page has been incorporated into the article, I suggest you move rapidly to WP:Peer Review. The remaining issues can be resolved there and the reviewers may bring up additional issues. Also, please strive to reach consensus as independent editors. There is a perception of WP:Tag Teaming going on here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

e/c For Heaven's sake Ignocrates, cut out these laughable conspiracy theories about tag teaming etc. That had been said before, but is just laughable. Just laughable. There were laughable suggestions before that I was emailing people "in secret"! Yet I never bothered to enable email in Misplaced Pages. So I just laughed them off. But now, whatever your perceptions may be, confine your conspiracy theories to the Grassy knoll. This is enough.

If you had bothered to look at the last edit summary on the page, you would have seen that the last edit was based on a "2 person discussion". Is that what gave you the idea of a conspiracy theory? There was a two person discussion and I had the references to support my position. I made the edit based on agreement, not conspiracy. I do my research carefully. So do give us a break and present your conspiracy theories on the Grassy knoll, not here.

You were directly, I mean very directly invited to do some work and contribute to the article, yet you apologized and refused to do anything just above here - so I did the work after your refusal. My guess is that not having done one's research can be a barrier to participation in the face of a direct invitation. But later accusations are just laughable. As for your patronizing suggestions regarding what needs to be done, do what you like. It does not take much to ask for review. Some people like to sit back, do the minimal amount of work and lecture others on what needs to be done. But before lecturing the underpaid workmen here, it would be good for present company to do some work, then provide advice to others. And again, stop these laughable conspiracy theories. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are overreacting. I think you have done one of the most comprehensive editing jobs here I have seen on Misplaced Pages. However, when I see similar complex reversions of article content by different editors (diff1 and diff2), that suggests a correlation, although not necessarily causality. That is why I said the perception of non-independence. Consider this friendly advice offered in the spirit of cooperation. Ignocrates (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I submitted the request for peer review and asked the reviewers to give feedback as a prelude to submission to WP:FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your heartfelt concern is so touching, it just warms my heart... I will try not shed tears... I have seen what you type on talk pages here and there, so do not make me laugh any more... I can read.... Correlation vs causality, perception vs reality... Do give me a break. As for my comprehensive editing, I started editing this page because an IP complained about it. I do that every day, this is just another page. I was having a nice day fixing RISC today when you ruined it with this type of laughable and insulting comment. Did I tag team there too? Give me a break. You had made insinuation before. You know that. Now just stop it, and do some constructive work somewhere. Heaven forbid, maybe even write an article one of these days. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your faux-outrage and condescending remarks only deepen the perception that something is wrong here. Please follow WP:TPG and observe proper WP:Wikiquette. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing faux. But I will not waste time responding to this. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment In order to make this discussion as open to the rest of us as possible, who are you alleging History2007 is tag-teaming this review with Ignocrates? Although somewhat verbose and emphatic in his statements to the contrary, all I see is History2007 responding to your as-yet-unsubstantiated claim. Lay your cards on the table and substantitate your claim or apologize - seems to pretty obvious to me. Ckruschke (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I added the diffs for the two reversions to my comment above, and I apologize for not doing that at the outset. And I was wrong in saying the reversions are identical when they are just highly similar, so I will correct that in the record too. However, let me be clear about this - the only reason the reversions are non-identical is because Lung salad did not restore the content in exactly the same way. In both cases, all of Lung salad's multiple edits were reverted (diff1 and diff2). That said, I support History2007's efforts here, so don't get the wrong impression. As far as your demand that I apologize - who the hell do you think you are? Ignocrates (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment How about we dispense with the language Ignocrates... Although I agree the history shows mult edits by History and Lung Salad, there are also mult unbroken edits by Eusebius and Huon in the last 10 days - are they part of this too? Also I'm not sure how all of Lung Salad's edits being reverted has any bearing on the discussion. I've seen many editors who have tried to put in items and been reverted over and over. Maybe we could allow Lung Salad to speak for himself instead of blindly jumping to conclusions - we've already heard History state that your assertions are groundless. Ckruschke (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Is this a stable article, or is there an ongoing content dispute? If the latter, then it should not be listed at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Josephus on Jesus/archive1 The basic idea is that it is pointless to make detailed comments on the article until the content dispute is resolved, as the final version may change significantly. Ruhrfisch _><>° 11:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Requests for peer review