Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 2

The reference to James brother of Jesus
In the first paragraph of this article it states - "The second passage mentions James as the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), possibly James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine." and cites - Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990. I hoped to find this book on Google Books in order to verify exactly what Feldman has to say, and how he came to a conclusion that merits the assertion in this article. Unfortunately Volume 3 does not appear to be online (and I don't think the volumes that are online have a preview facility anyway). So I cannot make this verification. I would like to request a confirmation that the cited page supports the assertion made in this article. So would it be possible for someone to track down this book and insert the relevant quote either into the body of the article, into the references section or into this talk page? I have found a few references to the same source on the websites of various Christian apologists which quote variations of the phrase "almost universally acknowledged.", but I would like to know the context of this phrase and how this 'near universal acknowledgement' was determined. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure quite what your point is 87.194.131.188 (incidentally does it helps discussion if you sign your posts). The Anchor bible dictionary is pretty much the standard work of reference on Biblical History, and Louis H Feldman has been, since the early 1960s, a leading scholar in the field. For obvious reasons, he cannot be counted a Christian apologist. He does expounds his assessment in another book, (which is on Google) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PtUUAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Louis+H.+Feldman,&source=bl&ots=QV0tZYk3Ug&sig=zsrzryJPt-Ft3Tbml9unsfqhpJk&hl=en&ei=T8VQTL_lH5Ci0gSJ95GHBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=james&f=false   Perhaps that will satisfy your concern. TomHennell (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I did sign. That's why my IP is up there. The point I was making is as follows. I have no idea of what the cited reference to the Anchor Bible Dictionary actually says. I think it would be helpful to have a quote from it. At the moment we've got a claim that "Most scholars consider this passage genuine" and further down in the article this point is restated in strong terms as "The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars". As far as I can gather the basis of this claim is an assessment by Feldman. Now I fully accept that Feldman is not a Christian apologist but we have no idea, or at least the reader of this article has no idea, what criteria he used to make the assessment, or how valid it is. Is it a 95/5 split or 55/45 split? Are the majority of those who think its genuine Christian apologists? At the moment all we can say about the claim is that it is an opinion (and perhaps a fact) that most scholars accept it as genuine. Without any further information, we have a claim backed up by an apparently subjective assessment and I don't think that its sufficiently robust. In the link you provided Feldman indicates that Tessa Rajak (in a work written in 1983) believes the case for the account being an interpolation is "very strong". Rajak appears to be a reputable scholar and her case is not made in this article. Given that her book is nearly 30yrs old I'd be interested to know if opinions have swayed on this matter since Feldman wrote these words. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A consensus statement is fine. Feldman and others (e.g. Evans) have independently made statements on the majority position. These consensus statements are reliable facts on the state of scholarship, and there seems to be no detractors claiming that majority of scholarship leans the other way. --Ari (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "A consensus statement is fine." - Is that your opinion on the matter or is that a fact? You refer to a majority, but as I pointed out earlier Feldman is used in this article to support the statement that the passage is "considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars"". Also again, Rajak's position is not referred to in this article. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy states that it is fine. Multiple reliable sources have stated what most scholars believe, so we report on this appropriately. If Tessa Rajak disagrees with it, she would be an excellent reliable source to represent the minority position. However, I am not quite sure that she holds to the minority position so it would be nice if you could provide the reference. On a personal note, I have discussed Josephus with Tessa Rajak before although I now regret not asking her about the TF! --Ari (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the source. It would be fine to attribute something to Rajak. E.g. "Tessa Rajak has argued that the reference to James the brother of Jesus may be a complete Christian interpolation because of X, Y and Z.Footnote." However, this attributed opinion does not take precedence over what most believe. --Ari (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy states - I don't see any demonstration of consensus. I see a statement in this article that refers to Feldman apparently stating a consensus, but -
 * a) The level of this consensus is not clear because we have part of the article referring to most and another part referring to almost all.
 * b) We don't have the quote being referenced and so are unable to verify whether it supports the statements in this article
 * c) We do not have an assessment of whether Feldman's alleged comment is accurate, or the method used to make the assessment.

At least some clarification of these points is needed in order to "demonstrate a consensus". Its clear that support for the position that the passage has not been subject interpolation or forgery is not unanimous, but its unclear just how many scholars do not support this view. We have at least Rajak, Wells and Schürer (and some indicate Henry Chadwick, but I have no verification on this). 87.194.131.188 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feldman and others make reliable consensus statements. As we have seen, Feldman is aware of Rajak's objection, but this is still against most scholars. You are engaging in exactly what the policy you quoted says not to do: "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material, and any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." Just because someone disagrees with what most scholars believe, does not mean it is no longer the majority position. --Ari (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am certainly not engaging in the behaviour you suggest. I have not even edited this article. I am simply asking for a source validation. I am going to try to make my position very clear, which I thought it already was. We have this article citing a note by Feldman in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. But we do not know what it actually says, we only know that whatever it is supposed to say it apparently supports the two statements I have quoted above. I am simply asking for verification that whatever it says does indeed support these statements. In short I would like it demonstrated that Feldman's assessment is reported accurately and that Feldman's assessment is accurate. I don't see why this should be problematic. I am perfectly happy for some other verifiable citation, so long as it too meets the standards of demonstrating a consensus. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus statements:
 * "The passage about James (A XX, 197-203) has generally been accepted as authentic." L.H. Feldman, "A selective critical bibliogrpahy of Josephus" in L.H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, ''Josephus, the Bible, and History. p.434
 * "The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words "the brother of Jesus called the Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found." Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An introduction tot he ancient evidence. p.83
 * "Though a few scholars have held this passage to be a Christian interpolation, the vast majority have considered it to be authentic." Richard Bauckham, "For what offence was James put to death?" in Eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, James the Just and Christian Origins. p.199
 * "It is not surprising, therefore, that, in the words of Louis Feldman, "few have doubted the genuiness of this passages on James." Craig A. Evans, Jeuss and his Contemporaries: Comparative studies. p.44.
 * --Ari (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feldman in ABD:
 * "The passage about the death of James the brother of Jesus (Ant 20.9.1) has been regarded as authentic by almost all scholars, since the language is thoroughly Josephan; yet it sharply diverges from the eulogy of the high priest Ananus, as found in JW 4.5.2 §319–20."
 * "Moreover, the fact that Josephus refers to Jesus in his reference to James the brother of “the aforementioned Christ”(Ant 20.9.1 §200)—a passage the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged—indicates that Jesus had been mentioned previously."
 * --Ari (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Testimonium Flavianum
I've rearranged the Testimonium material so that it is arranged by argument and counter-argument. I hope that this improves the logical structure of the article. Please feel free to add more arguments and counter-arguments, preferably sourced :) Grover cleveland 10:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is very unclear just exactly what the Testimonium Flavianum actually is. Is it just a passage from one of Josephus' works?  If so, which one? The article needs to be clear about this right from the start. --Michael C. Price talk 03:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus as brother of James
This is an interesting section, and I'm glad it quotes Wells, since he seems to be the loudest voice questioning the authenticity of this reference. However, I'm not sure if it's comprehensive or balanced enough as it stands. A quick search turned up this article, which not only includes the usual suspects (such as Doherty), but some other notable views pro and con. Would anyone object to some of this material being incorporated? Would anyone like to do the incorporating instead of leaving it to me? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I do not trust Web Sites but Peter Kirby does a good job. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and Satan, are they one?
It has been asked, but not answered. And only some scientists know the answer. Scientists have recently tested the artifacts from when Jesus Christ was crucified. The findings were not pretty. Pots and pans were found from Jesus' "tomb," and there on the pots, were scribblings of pictures of satan, and Jesus forming together as one, with a shining light above, and a dark cloud taking over. What does this mean to you?Will satan take over? Are satan and jesus one? Or is this just made up bologna. You decide. --71.57.63.191 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Jesus Christianson
 * Not total bologna. The Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a states:


 * The master said: "Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray."  (Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 35 and Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 114) Google link

This implies that Jesus performed his miracles by the power of satan. As a Christian I believe they were done by the Holy Spirit. Go figure. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dylan Dude
I see you are new to Wikipedia and would like to welcome you. I think your reverts were a little harsh. It is important to promote goodwill. My edits are far from controversial and are from a basic text called the "Historical Jesus for Dummies" See this. Also AD and CE should not be used in the same article. Please discuss. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mean to be harsh in my reversions, but would you care to explain the changes you wanted to make in the paragraph that starts with "There is broad scholarly"? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you explain why you reverted, I have an issue with one word used, but otherwise do not see what is controversial and think the reversion was baseless. Hardyplants (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern and interest, but I'd really appreciate it if you would let Ret.Prof speak for himself and answer the question. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylan, it would be helpful to know why you reverted and why you seem so upset? I will walk you though my edits pertaining to the lead. Feel free to revert but please explain. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I said anything about being upset. However, I did revert it because I don't see any reason for this change. Perhaps you could share your reasoning. Why did you change it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually have no trouble with the content. However, the article is not very "readable". I also felt adding references would be a good thing. Finally, I am a great fan of Murphy's the "Historical Jesus for Dummies" which has clarity of prose, great scholarship, and is written from a NPOV. I plan to add her as a source to a number of Wikipedia articles. Finally I am a firm believer that scholarly debate should be fun, good natured and edifying. All the best and happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for references, so long as they're reliable, relevant and balanced. My concern is that, in addition to readability, the meaning was being changed in a way that distanced the text from its sources. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

With apolgies for butting in on a private discussion; would I be correct in thinking that one (or both) of you contirbuted the current form of the following from the lead para: I have not read The Historical Jesus for dummies - so this may be referenced there; but otherwise I believe this statement to be misleading (and indeed teechnically wrong). Pre-modern Christian authors might have been troubled by the lack of explicit references to Christian doctrines or apostolic leaders, but I know of no modern scholar of Josephus - whatever their view of the overall authenticity of the Testimonium - who appears at all bothered. Pace Whiston (who thought Josephus to have been an Ebionite Christian) the Antiquities are a justification for Judaism, not a study of contemporary religion. The significane of Christians for Josephus was as a party within Jersualem, he is not primarily concerned with their beliefs. Moreover, the surviving text of the Testimonium does refer to Jesus as having attracted support from both Jews and Greeks. The latter phrase is rejected by Vermes as inauthentic precisley because he regaqrds the Jesus movement as being wholly Judaic; but other scholars - e.g. Philip Comfort - read this as meaning "Hebrew and Greeek speaking Jews"; and as such they regard it as original. But if it is original, then the statement that there is no mentsion of the founders of the Christian Church does not stand. TomHennell (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even more troubling to modern scholars is what is omitted. There is no mention of the founders of the Christian Church such as St. Paul, St.Peter or any of the Twelve Apostles, nor are basic Christian doctrines, from the Virgin Birth to the Holy Trinity to be found.
 * Tom you have won me over. Always glad to have you join in the conversation. I agree. The fact that there is no mention of the founders of the Christian Church such as St. Paul, St.Peter or any of the Twelve Apostles, nor are basic Christian doctrines, from the Virgin Birth to the Holy Trinity to be found. should not be troubling as it would support authenticity. Now I am off to the library to find out why Pace Whiston thought Josephus to have been an Ebionite Christian. Cheers- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To my mind (not that that is strictly relevant here, but still) the most convincing indicator of at least partial authenticity for the Testimonium is its placing in the context of a series of passages critical of Pontius Pilate. A hypothetical Christian interpolator would most likely have introduced a Jesus reference (were one otherwise wholly lacking) immediately following the description of John the Baptist (i.e. in accordance with the sequence in the canonical gospels).  Pontius Pilate was regarded in a very postive light in the early Cristian centuries - indeed the Coptic Church reveres Pontius Pilate as a supposed saint and martyr.  TomHennell (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. I have finished reading Pace Whiston. He is not an easy read but his research has changed my mind on several issues. I think he is a must read for editors of this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, the son of Damneus
Looking for a more reliable (and older) source then the self published The safe side: a theistic refutation of the divinity of Christ (1893) by Richard M. Mitchell I found Isaac Mayer Wise's (1868) The origin of Christianity states on Page 137 "Although the words "who was called Christ," or Messiah, are evidently the addition of a Christian transcribe..." John E. Remsberg in his "The Christ" (1909) makes much the same argument in chapter 2.

Social Anthropologist Peter Cresswell in his 2010 Jesus the Terrorist Page 293 that the "who was called Christ" part may be added and even if it was not the way the passage is worded saying that the James here is the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus is not that out of line. Other source that say this are The Anointed (2009) John Ostrowick, Kenneth Humphreys' 2004 "Radical Jew Sanitized into Pious Christian Martyr" So the Jesus, the son of Damneus passage has been used to question the book 20, chapter 9 passage for over 140 years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting and a distinct possibility. Of course we must remember that the name "Jesus" was very common. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * True which makes the passage very strange. Remember who Josephus was writing for--Romans.  So why reference a title that to them would be as unknown as Viscount is to the average US citizen?  Ostrowick points out that James was as common a name as Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus → Testimonium Flavianum — Per WP:COMMONNAME. Testimonium Flavianum is emphasized in such sources as Josephus.org, Early Christian Writings, Historical-Jesus.info, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic" (New Testament Studies, (2008) etc and is more consistent. The majority of other wikis also use this title. Twilight chill  t   09:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose the change. 'Testimonium Flavianum' is undoubtedly the common term used in specialist literature; but it has two disadvantages in terms of this article. Firstly, it is not on the face of it clear to the general reader what this title refers to - searching on neither 'Jesus' nor 'Josephus' would identify it.  Similar considerations apply to the 'Pericope Adulterae', which in wikipedia redirects to Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.  Secondly, the article covers three passages in Josephus - not just the 'testimonium' itself, but also the references to James the Just, and to John the Baptist.  I am not aware that the present title is causing any confusion. TomHennell (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * to give a few numbers; both "Josephus on Jesus" and "Testimonium Flavianum" give around 12,000 hits. 'Josephus' + 'Jesus' gives around 900,000 hits.  I have not checked in detail, but I suspect that the majority of textbooks on the Gospels that refer to, or quote, Josephus on Jesus do not use the spcialist term. TomHennell (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to expand on the above point; I checked in a local bookstore on four studies of the Historical Jesus for the general reader - from Sanders, Vermes, Murphy and Stanton.  All four discuss the passages in 'The Antiquities' in detail and give paragraph references; but only Vermes employs the term 'Testimonium Flavinianum'. TomHennell (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move or renaming Per the reasons given above by TomHennell above.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: At first it seemed to make sense but on closer examination, the arguments of Tom and Bruce won me over. The 'Testimonium Flavianum' would be a stumbling block to many readers. My Google search results confirms what was said above. Also the sections on Jesus' "brother" James and John the Baptist would be left out notwithstanding many scholars believe they are relevant to the Historical Jesus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

William Whiston
He has written a great deal about the topic which should be incorporated into the article.

Josephus as Jewish historian
Traditionally, Josephus was seen as a Jewish historian. However, there were concerns about the way he wrote about Jesus. Particularly his very favorable account about Jesus did not ring true. Scholars have speculated that a Jew would never write this way.

Also Origen states that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ" x:17 Google Link, but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. This suggests that the section on Jesus may have material added to the text sometime after the time of Origen. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Interpolation by a Christian Monk
This has lead to speculation that there may be interpolations to the section on Jesus by a Christian monk. This possibility has been wildly received in scholarly circles. However, there are problems with this view.

First, when Josephus wrote his Antiquities, there were no printing press to publish his work. The Roman Emperor employed scribes to copy Josephus' history of the Jewish people. During this period Christians would not have had access to any part of the publishing process. The works of Josephus would be circulated and transcribed by others for almost 300 years before Christians had access to them.

However, by the time of Constantine the fortunes of the Christians had changed but so had their theology. Also the logistics of "interpolation", although now possible were still difficult. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is one flaw in this summation is the idea that the interpolation could be the result of misunderstanding of glossing by later transcribers. Also this argument ignores one key question--if the passages in Josephus existed before the 4th century why didn't Justin Martyr use them in his arguments with Trypho?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Josephus as Ebionite
William Whiston carefully examines both views mentioned above. He comes to the conclusion that there are serious scholarly problems with both the aforementioned. Josephus could not have been a Jew, nor is it likely that a Christian monk falsified part of the text. He argues that Josephus was an Ebionite.Google link These were Christian Jews who did not accept Jesus was a god, born of the blessed virgin.

Though Josephus did not design here to declare himself openly to be a Christian, yet could he not possibly believe all that he here asserts concerning Jesus Christ, unless he were so far a Christian as the Jewish Nazarenes or Ebionites then were, who believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the true Messiah. Indeed the only possible explanation is that he was a Jewish Nazarene or Ebionite. Jewish Christians of the time believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, but not the "Christ God" of Catholic Church. They believed Jesus to a man born of Mary in the normal way.

Secondly, they also believed in "Law of Moses."

These were the two main articles of faith for "Jewish Christians", though in opposition to the whole Catholic Church of Christ in the following centuries.

Josephus was a (Nazarene or Ebionite) Jewish Christian for his entire testimony on of John the Baptist, and of James the Just leads to no other conclusion. Also his absolute silence about Paul, Peter, Mary and all the rest of the apostles and their companions, prove he must be a Jewish Christian.

This is clear from his own words, that "so many ten thousands of Jews as believed in Christ, (in the first century), were all zealous of the ceremonial law" For these testimonies and many other reasons, it is logical, Josephus was no other than a (Nazarene or Ebionite) Jewish Christian. This is the key to comprehending this whole matter according to William Whiston.

Since therefore Josephus appears to have been, in his own heart and conscience, no other than a (Nazarene, or Ebionite) Jewish Christian, by consequence, with them he must reject all our Greek gospels and Greek books of the New Testament.

The only gospel that he would have used used is Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews sometimes called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, (so hated and feared by Catholic Christianity that none but fragments survived unto this day) Google Link If we study said Nazarene and Ebionite fragments, (when we consider any passages of Josephus relating to Christ), we see that Hebrew Gospel omitted all that is in the beginning of  St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gospels.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews, began with the ministry of John the Baptist; Thus when we find that Josephus calls James, the brother of Christ, by the name of James the Just, and describes him as a most just or righteous man. In a special manner, we are to remember that such is his name and character in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and in the Jewish Christian remains of Hegesippus, but nowhere else.

Although there are many theories, William Whiston has the advantage of fitting the evidence. His theory has no need of explaining away statements made by Josephus or the Church Fathers particularly Origen.

Origen, quoted Josephus for the excellent character of John the Baptist, and of James the Just, but his silence about  Christ is the principal argument against authenticity. The clause "this was the Christ" twice contradicts that "Josephus did not himself acknowledge Jesus for the Christ".

Now, as to this clause, Josephus did not here, in writing to Greeks and Romans, mean any such thing by those words, as Jews and Christians naturally understood by them.

All the ancients agree, with Origen, that Josephus did not, (in the Jewish and Christian sense) acknowledge Jesus as the Christ God.

The following shows Origen's copy had both clauses, which to a Jewish Christian are not contradictory:

(1.) When Origen introduces Josephus' testimony concerning James the Just, he thought the miseries of the Jews were an instance of the divine vengeance on that nation for putting James to death (instead of Jesus). Origen uses an expression not necessary to his purpose, nor occasioned by any words of Josephus there. Origen states "they had slain that Christ which is foretold in the Prophecies".

Why did this expression come here into Origen's mind, when he was quoting a testimony of Josephus concerning the brother of Christ?

It came from his remembrance of a clause in the testimony of the same Josephus concerning Christ himself, that the prophets had foretold his death and resurrection.

(2.) Why would Origen be surprised at Josephus's ascribing the destruction of Jerusalem to the Jews' murdering of James the Just, and not to their murdering Jesus, if  Origen had not known that Josephus had spoken of his good opinion of Jesus  before? Nor do the words he here uses, that Josephus was not remote from the truth, allude to any thing else but to this very testimony before us. (3.) Why would Origen, (when he had written that testimony of Josephus confirmed that James the Just, the brother of Jesus, was called Christ), say: " it may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus to be a man or whether they did not suppose him to be a being of a diviner kind?" This looks like so very much like the fifth and sixth clauses of that "Jesus was a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man" that it is highly probable Origen was alluding to them.

(4.) Why did Origen say twice, that Josephus did not himself believe, (in the Jewish and Christian sense) that Jesus was Christ, notwithstanding his quotation of such eminent testimonies for John the Baptist, (Jesus' forerunner), and for James the Just, (Jesus' brother and disciple) ? There is no passage in Josephus, as likely to persuade Origen of this, as is the famous testimony before us. The truth is Origen and all the ancients understood Jesus was called Christ, but only as a very "common name" (From which the name Christians was derived, and where he all along speaks of those Christians as a sect then in being, whose author was a wonderful person, and his followers great lovers of him and of the truth) yet Josephus was not a "Christian" in the Catholic sense but in the Ebionite sense.

Thus, Origen's copy having had both clauses is the natural explanation. This is also supported by the parallel language of Josephus elsewhere, (when he speaks of James as the brother, not of Jesus who was Christ, but of Jesus who was called Christ) and there is no other reason that could so naturally induce Origen and others to be of that opinion.

This is my rough summary of the material. Today, I have been simply been trying to make the article more readable but not changing content. (added J the B) However, I would like to include the above next week. Therefore please raise any concerns you may have. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would appear that Josephus himself claimed to be a pharisee, and he happens to be one among a total of two persons who are thought to be pharisees. The other one being Paul of Tarsus. And whiston appears to have lived in the 17th-18th century?- Civilized education talk  14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because Whiston lived closer in time does not make him 'better". He seems to be a respected scholar who has done a lot of scholarly research on topic. He has a lot of fans but also many detractors. You raised a good point. If Josephus himself claimed to be a pharisee, then that will cut the legs out from under Whiston. Please cite where Josephus makes such an admission. Ret.Prof (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Doing a cursory search for the point, I found this link . However, the same point can be found in numerous scholarly books. But again, there seems to be no unanimity as to how seriously this claim should be taken. Some scholars seem to think that Josephus was not a Pharisee, despite his claim.- Civilized education talk  15:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Stopped in my tracks. I will have to do more research before I can do the substantial editing I had planned. If you see any other problems, please let me know. - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for appreciating my suggestion. I too appreciate your inclination for researching your points. I feel it may be better to stick to current mainstream sources. They may have developed some ideas which were not known to dated sources. The current mainstream view seems to be that josephus was a jew, and there being some disagreement on whether he was a pharisee or not.- Civilized education talk  01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Prof. I have been reading this article and I think it is vastly improved and much clearer, almost free from irrelevancies, thanks to your recent edits. I have also taken the liberty to remove some refs from whiston. I hope you don't mind.- Civilized education talk  01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Deleted
Please explain your reasons for deleting the Sitz im Leben section of the article. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it, but I propose deleting it because of WP:NOT. We're on a blatantly neutral encyclopedia that specifically doesn't prepare its readers to think in the other way or another to understand a topic in the orthodox way. More specifically Wikipedia is not the street-preacher's forum, trying to bias any article to "prove" personal opinions. All religious habits and dogma are overridden by the Wikipedia policies. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Upgrade objection. The section is more like WP:SYNTH and WP:OR without the proper referencing, using a sequence to lead the reader in a certain direction to achieve WP:NOT. That's improper. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you are the second person to have trouble with this section it is back to the drawing board for me. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO the section was good, it may need to be renamed perhaps, but the material looked valuable, helpful, relevant to me.- Civilized education talk  01:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for the last paragraph, this section (removed) had nothing to do with Josephus and simply doesn't fit in the article. The facts cited are available in other articles. The last paragraph would be very interesting if it were sourced. That is, how accurately did Josephus' writings portray the time frame he wrote about? Was he a reliable reporter, or was he writing to please a specific audience? If someone would care to fill out this last paragraph and include the appropriate references, I think it would improve the article and place Josephus' writings in better context. Rklawton (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Was Josephus an Ebionite Christian
I noticed the references in this area were deleted? Please explain your reasons. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this query directed at me?- Civilized education talk  00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A.J. Deus
I marked A. J. Deus as questionable as a WP:RS source. A. J. Deus is a researcher in economics and writes political economics articles. That does not make his work scholarly in this field. He does not fit WP:RS in this field. We can discuss that on WP:RSN if you like. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have taken his credentials from his webpage: "A. J. Deus is a researcher in economics and writes economics articles on politics and religion. His research focuses on social economics and history of economics in the context of systemic poverty. He is an expert in religious terrorism and the evolution of religions." Allthough it seems to have been overlooked before, the entry about the "legality" is verifyable by anyone with basic theological education. Giovanni.R.Hume (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We agree that he is "a researcher in economics". How does that qualify him as an authority or an expert in Roman history? And what on earth does religious terrorism (whatever that might mean) have to do with Josephus? And the statement that his expertise in that field " seems to have been overlooked before" looks like an admission that "he is not well recognized" even in that field - whatever that field may be. Has Mr Deus taught graduate courses on history at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, etc.? Has he published dozens of articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals on Roman history, or Christian history? Or was he basically self-taught on those issues? I see no indications that he is a "recognized scholar" on Josephus. And the book you refer to is on "Social Economics" - a field that is far apart from this subject. And as I was typing this, I just clicked on teh ISBN and realized hat the book is published by iUniverse - not exactly the imprint you would be looking for: he is a self-published author and absolutely fails WP:RS. Sorry, but I am ready to bet 20 to 1 that a discussion at WP:RSN will count iUniverse material as unacceptable. Please see: RS History2007 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What has this to do with the fact that the "legality" of Jesus's humanity has not been on the plate for centuries after Jesus? If you studied the history of Christian theology even superficially, you can't argue against the statement. Just because you think the author does not fit your profile and you may not like the argument, does not invalidate it. I have not said that his authority has been overlooked, just the argument. If it is a solid fact it can hardly matter who the discoverer is. Giovanni.R.Hume (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia does not work that way. What I think has the same value as what you think, or any other editor thinks about the subject, i.e. an absolute zero. What matters in using supporting WP:RS references per WP:V. I think you have realized that Deus is not a WP:RS source. And that is not "my profile", it is Wikipedia policy. If you do not like Wikipedia policies that is not for me to comment on. The policies are clear if you read WP:V and WP:RS. That is simple and not subject to debate between you and me. It is Wikipedia policy. History2007 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to be entirely your choosing whether Deus is reliable or not. Obviously, the author has made a discovery that is novel and at the same time theologically obvious. I deleted the entry as I am not going to spend the time to defend it here. I don't know enough. Giovanni.R.Hume (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just find a reliable source or two that says this guy knows his stuff, or even better, that this particular idea has merit. If it's a new idea, wait six months and see if it has gained any traction. Rklawton (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A year is more like it. People in those ancient fields have a different concept of time. They talk about events 2,000 years ago, so things do not happen that fast. If it is a "novel discovery" (and I will not be the judge of that) then it will be debated among all scholars and we will see. In any case, the fact that he is self-published is certain. History2007 (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire section on James was written using non historians
Why are any of these sources considered remotely valid in discussing the passage about James?

Isaac Mayer Wise is a very much dated source, John Remsburg is not a historian, neither is George Wells, Arthur Drews or Kenneth Humphries.

Seeing no one responded to my question I went ahead and deleted this section as it was almost completely composed non historians who support the Jesus Myth. I see no credible reason to use non academics who support a fringe theory in an academic article which is supposed to support mainstream views

Most of these sources are Jesus Mythers, which is a conspiracy theory with no academic support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without sources to support your point of view, it would not be appropriate to remove this section simply on your whim. Rklawton (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Drew's was a math teacher, George Wells is a German professor. Kenneth Humphries is not a historian. When did supporting fringe theorist become acceptable for wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no sources supporting your opinion. You simply can not remove sourced information from an article because of your personal opinion. Remove this content again, and you will be blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if people paid attention to questions that were asked DAYS AGO it wouldn't be necessary to do an edit to get peoples attention

Drew's was a philosophy teacher, George Wells is a German professor. Kenneth Humphries is not a historian. When did supporting fringe theorist become acceptable for wikipedia?

John Remsburg- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Remsburg He was a horticulturalist who died in 1919

George Wells- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells German professor

Arthur Drews- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Drews Philosopher- died in 1935

Kenneth Humphries- http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Every single one of them is a garbage source that is used to support the Jesus Myth which is pseudo history. Why are they being used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Following your logic, we should trash the Gospels because Jesus was a carpenter. That's just the ironic bit. The problem as I have stated and you have not addressed, is that it is your *opinion* that these aren't good sources. However, your opinion holds zero weight. If you want to show that these are bad sources, come up with some reliable sources that say so. Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What blazes does that have to do with my issue? Since when is it appropriate in ACADEMIC articles to use non experts for the subject in question. It is irrational.

They are not historians. They should not be used as experts in subjects they are not. Even if they were experts, which they are not, they are clearly dated.

Again please explain to me why you feel a dead philosopher, a farmer and a German expert have any particular expertise on Josephus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Our opinions don't matter. What matters is what comes from reliable sources. If your opinion is right, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find reliable sources to support it. If you can't, you're out of luck. The reality is, scholars do believe that "who was called Christ" was inserted by a later author. The fact that you don't like it isn't relevant to an encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see what is going on here. Name these scholars, certainly not Josephan schiolars. I will challenge you for ONE Josephian scholar who would support that absurd argument.

So again why do you think any of these people are experts when I gave more then enough reason for any rational person to reject your claim of them being anything other then garbage sources?

Please explain to me why a degree in German offers special insights into Josephus. Or a degree in philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have no sources of your own? Rklawton (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is simple, these people are not historians, therefore they should be used in a article about history. Why is this so difficult for you?

You can copy and paste this sentence in your answer.

I believe Well's degree in German is relevent to the study of Josephus for the following reason ( fill in the blank)

I also think a degree in philosophy is useful to understand Josephus for the following reasons ( fill in the blank)

I believe all things considered these people should be considered equally relevent to Josephan scholarship for the following reasons ( fill in the blank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a first reading of Sphygmomanometer would be in order for 84.22.52.10. However, he does have a valid point that there should be better sources. Indeed there are, and one of the respected scholars, is of course, Louis Feldman. But Feldman is quoted only partially in this article and what is said is actually not his total view but cherry picked quotes... I think this is a very low quality article overall. I have been trying very hard not to work on this article.... I am still succeeding... But a few more complaints and I may have to clean it up one day.... History2007 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)That's not how Wikipedia works, but you don't seem to want to listen. Here's a different tact: L. Michael White also argued against authenticity, and he was a bible scholar, and he's not alone. The reality is that some sources favor authenticity and some sources do not, and as a neutral encyclopedia, there's no way we're going to favor one side by deleting the other. Rklawton (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Did he argue against the longer passage or the shorter passage. The authenticity of the shorter is not disputed.

If Wikipedia wants to support fringe theories that is in it the end it's business but on no rational planet is a farmer, a philosopher, a German professor and nobody considered to be the equal of experts in their fields.

I just gave you the opinion of a historian ( finally one has been produced) who just said the passage is authentic and could not have been edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RK, it is not taking sides to present academic reality. Do you think creationism deserves to be treated as the academic equal of evolution in a wiki article? Do you think Kent Hovind is the equal of a biologist?

Not all sides are equal. Classical scholars simply do not support the view of this article and is irresponsible to give equal voices to non historians in an article on history.

If you could have defended these peoples as scholars you would have done so by now. I have shown more then enough evidence why they are not scholars and why this section should be removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I listed one addition scholar - a biblical scholar as you requested - and you have presented no scholars at all. Rklawton (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So Geza Vermes is not a scholar now, seriously do you have the slighest clue what you are talking about in this discussion? You gave me a CLAIM, which you provided no source for.

Would you please answer my question on why you think a German degree or a Philosophy degree makes one an expert on Classical History? All you have to do is copy the sentences I provided? Why is this so difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read this article- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

See this part- Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

That disqualifies Humphries

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Certainly historians would be a better source on history then non historians. That disqualifies the other three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Show me where you cited Geza Vermes. Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why it didn't post the article from Vermes- http://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes

Pages 3-4 discuss this issue.

Why do you refuse to answer my very reasonable question on why these people are considered expert historians. I am getting the distinct feeling you know they are not experts but are keeping them up simply cause you like their views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose the removal of sourced material on the basis of the source's professions. Not once have you argued that these sources were not popular or do not represent a popular point of view, a view which has persisted over time. Your only beef is that the view is "fringe" - which it clearly is not - and that these people are not "scholars". Their biographical articles all indicate their notability in this field. Rklawton (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am suspecting you will never answer my question cause you are well aware these people are not experts. They are popular among a certain crowd, by that logic Kent Hovind is an expert biologist. Of course they represent a point of view, but they do not represent a point of view taken seriously by academia. Your sources are mythers and their is not a professional myther historian on the planet period. They are at best ameteur historians. Certainly none of them are qualified to hold an ACADEMIC opinion on Josephus.

My beef is simple, this article is using garbage sources which I ( and wikipedia) think is not appropriate.

Actually their biographies indicate they are either self published, one ( Humphries) published with a holoaust denial press and the others print with various freethought presses.

None of those are academic presses.

Why are you trying to deceive people?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to remove the non academic sources and replace it with an academic source which supports your view.

No one reading this discussion is going to think you are in any way interested in anything other then ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case, for now, I added the Van Voorst item that is a summary of the general scholarly opinion. Although 84.22.52.1 is getting overworked on this, more sources are easy to find. I will do that gradually and add them. The Van Voorst is OK for now. But his point that the long list of Drews etc. is less than representative of the "general scholarly opinion" is valid. But said point can be made in a calmer way, of course with sources. So 84.22.52.1 wait a few days and I will add a few more scholarly quotes, put things in context etc. In the mean time, read this and see what Conan O'Brian said about Wikipedia the other day. That may calm you down. Check back by Monday for more sources. Ok? History2007 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All I am doing is objecting to academic dishonesty, I am willing to wait till Monday to see what happens. Seriously all one has to do to fix this article is to scrub the mythers, then it would be pretty decent.


 * (ec)Sounds like a good plan. The bottom line is this - even the IP's own source says "The critical revival since the 19th century brought about a shift of opinion among leading scholars, tending towards the denial of the authenticity of the Jesus notice, and less frequently of those about John the Baptist and James. Nowadays, opinions are divided. Hence the question must be asked: Are the three notices the work of Josephus, or have they, or some of them, been produced wholly or partly by a Christian forger?" This article should reflect both sides. Removing one side isn't appropriate. "Upgrading" that side with better sources is a much more suitable approach. The biographical articles of all the authors the IP wanted remove all indicate that these men were notable in this subject area in their time, so simply removing them (rather than upgrading) just isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * RK clearly does not understand what a source is. These people were fringe in the past and they are fringe now. Being "notable" does not mean they have anything of academic merit to offer. If that was true then Kent Hovind would be a great biologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually RK does understand. Wikipedia does not work by deletion at will. Their views (although a small minority view) need to be mentioned, not deleted. However, statements such as that of Van Voorst (and others to follow) can provide the overall academic view. That is enough. Now 84.22.52.10 read Conan again and wait until Monday. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well in all fairness to me I asked my question about sources and no one answered it for days. Deleting finally got it answered and brought up serious issues with the article. Should you at least mention the mythers under discussion are not historians in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That approach does not work that well in Wikipedia. A general scholarly overview is needed in any case. Please wait until Monday. This is 2,000 years old, so 2 days is no big deal. Now I will stop and add sources later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

84.22, if you want to get further input on these sources, I suggest you raise the topic at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. You won't get a "decision" there, but you will get the opinion of other experienced editors regarding the reliability of those sources in the context of this article. If you do so, I recommend you follow the instructions at the top of that page closely so the editors there fully understand your concerns. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Many (but may be not all) of those sources will probably pass WP:RS. There is no doubt that there are people who doubt Josephus (or specific pieces of Josephus) and those views can not be just suppressed. The issue is doing an overall survey of the field and presenting the "overall scholarly view". And that is not hard, just needs a couple of days. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They probably qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia. However, 84.22's points are not completely groundless either. For example, the guideline on Identifying reliable sources states that, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."
 * Perhaps identifying higher-quality sources from scholars with expertise in this area is a reasonable request. It seems as if that is coming, which is always welcome on Wikipedia.
 * 84.22, consider also how you could contribute to the article in other ways. You could identify additional high-quality sources (such as Vermes above) with which to replace/modify the passages in the article. You could also find high-quality sources that oppose the viewpoints in the article. It's OK for more than one viewpoint to exist in the same article. In that case, WP:Weight serves as a guideline to weight the sides appropriately.
 * And thanks to all for your interest and contributions. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I should get a user name, this is 84:22

My recommendation would be to use the article by Geza Vermes and the article by Tim O'Neill as he has a masters in history. I would recommend removing all of the mythers, especially Humphries, as they are not historians and have no place in an article about history. You could replace their view with that of the bible scholar RK mentioned.

I am not trying to supress a minority view, I am simply asking that an article on history use historians.

I think my views are reasonable, especially seeing RK could provide no justification on why any of them were experts in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can get a user name. It is free. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you have done an awesome job correcting this article. It is good that you got rid of that vile Humphries and made the fringe status of the myther objections to be obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that the historians and scholars involved (mainly New Testament scholars, with an axe to grind) who believe the passages in Josephus about Jesus to be possibly authentic, sometimes present their opinions as facts, and that's a fact. Lung salad (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All scholars have an axe to grind (their own pet theories), and with respect to most historical subjects, pretty much everything anyone writes is a matter of opinion as there is no way to "prove" any of this. Unlike mathematics, this uncertainty just comes with the territory. Rklawton (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, of course. But as an interesting side note on issues such as Energy Catalyzer there are still various shades of opinion, and again the "majority scholarly view" needs to be represented, regardless of what users with Noble prizes may think. If they are running against the majority scholarly view, they get a small amount of attention, but can not just say what they consider to be "the facts". They would need to publish it in Physical Review Letters first, not type it into Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Historical facts exist independently outside of scholarly opinions. Historical facts and scholarly interpretation are two different things. Lung salad (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Time to read WP:V. Did I mention that yet? History2007 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lung, if you wish to engage in neo atheist apologetics then there are many freethought forums for you to visit and post to your hearts content. The purpose of wikipedia is to discuss scholarly MAINSTREAM views on subjects. That is why your views are considered extremely fringe on this topic. It is the same reason creationist arguments are not given equal validity in the page on biology. It is the reason why holocaust denial is not treated the same as the brute fact of the holocaust.

The overwhelming view is that the passage in Josephus that talks about James is authentic ( not an interpolation) and that it refers to the Brother of Jesus. If you do not wish to believe that that is fine but you have to acknowledge this is the mainstream view on Josephus regardless of ones religious or irreligious views.

Just because you do not like something does not mean you are free to change it. You have to provide just cause like I did with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article quality
As I said above I had been trying not to work on this article and I had not looked at it in any detail. Now, after a first look, I think it is by and large Murder, She Wrote. It is a disaster, and a disgrace that makes Wikipedia look bad. Sadly, this is the type of article that makes the Wikipedia jokes by Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien ring true.

It is not just a question of adding references, but the overall clutter, disorganization and slipshod writing needs to be cleaned up. There are large pieces of Greek text here, along with the English translation and they buy nothing on English Wikipedia. They should go. And there is no need for the really large quotes from Josephus when the actual text is within Wikisource. Just the key passages that refer to the subject matter are enough. The rest can just link to Wikisource. But what is worse is the huge amount of attention and space given to WP:Fringe-like obscure items such as a database analysis by Goldberg which dwarf the space and attention paid to key mainstream scholars such as Feldman. And the overall views of Feldman are by and large obscured here by a few quotes from his very large volumes of writings. And of course other mainstream scholars are by and large ignored. This article is a haphazard collection of semi-random sentences and quotes added by multiple authors over time and has thus turned into an absolute mess that breaches WP:Undue more times than one cares to count. I do not think the references to HG Wells etc. should be deleted, for they are scholarly views, although minority views. Yet per WP:Undue they can only get a minority portion of the article real-estate.

I added a single sentence about Van Voorst's review of the field a few hours ago, but before that the only time he was mentioned in the article was in reference to a fake Russian version of the manuscripts! And of course that gem appears in the lede. Speaking of the lede, it is a disaster in itself. Of course, it should be only 4 paragraphs per WP:LEDE but that aside, it is even a more disorganized presentation of the subject than the article itself.

Anyway, I will start to clean this up now. I think as a start the passages should be briefly presented without comment or debate, so the reader can see what they are, then a discussion of the overall scholarly vies, followed by the summary debates among the various groups, etc. It is not hard to do this right - it need to stop being a collection of sentences randomly piled on top of each other. But that can be fixed. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be great! Rklawton (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the removing Humphries, that is someone that should go. To pretend he is an academic is absurd. He is a kook with a website that is it. His recent " learned tome" on the Christ Myth was published by International Historical Review, which publishes such gems of historical research such as Did Six Million Really Die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not got to that section yet... Patience is a virtue... Please wait, I am doing this systematically and carefully and checking each item. I touched up the Baptist section first. The Humphries reference is in the James section. It is not WP:RS as you said but there are other authors who question that passage (although a small number of them). Wait until tomorrow on that. A more serious issue is that I just realized the entire second section is only about the authenticity of the Testimonium. In fact there is twice as much material (7 pages vs 3) on the Testimonium authenticity than there is on the other two items (text and all) combined. This article, as is, should hence be called "Authenticity of the Testimonium" rather than Josephus on Jesus. The Testimonium is just one of three items. But I have not even checked the material there to see what it is like. Will let you know sometime tomorrow. That section may have to become a sub-article anyway, given that it is so long. It is 5 times the length of Antiquities of the Jews anyway. I will try to fix the James section next. Then onto the Testimonium. So do not panic, it has to be be done carefully, so it will take a little time. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, apart from your complaint about Humphries, it seems that even the totally WP:RS sources in that section are used incorrectly and the presentation is "pretty inaccurate" to say the least e.g. the current text uses Painter's article in Chilton's book "The brother of Jesus" (ISBN 0814651526) as a source to state that the difference between the dates of death of James in the accounts of Hegesippus and Josephus point to the inaccuracy of Josephus, but fails to mention that the next paragraph in that very source on Hegesippus and Josephus directly states: "At every point of conflict it seems that the account of Josephus is to be preferred". The same source then goes on to say that modern scholarship considers the account of Josephus on James to be historically the most accurate among others. So although Painter/Chilton is a WP:RS source, what the article now says by using it as a reference is just incorrect, and is not the view of Painter. I also separately verified that in Painter's own book on James (ISBN 0567041913) to be sure. That section is pretty inaccurate overall, and needs to get really cleaned up. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I applaud your efforts and look forward to the revised version. This isn't my area of expertise, but if you'd like a second look for copyediting or to bounce it off the GA/FA criteria from the "forest" view, just let me know. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the GA mark will also consume effort that could go into other fixes elsewhere. I have been saying soon.. soon, elsewhere for months now (since July) and these other things just keep coming up. So there are much larger problems like those to address. This one is Ok for now I think. History2007 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking just as a reader, this article is rife with repetition... just removing the many repetitive statements would shrink this article by half or more. 66.112.157.111 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is repetition now, because we are having an intellectual potluck. That was not the case a few days ago. The section on the Testimonium is a testament to the repetition from the main article on it... What a waste of time this has been repeating WP:V 30 times now.... I suggest you ask for a refund in any case... History2007 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From the The Jewish War to edit wars
Is the reversal by Lung salad an invitation to an edit war? It is not necessary. The statements are clearly a "minority opinion" and must be stated as such given the overwhelming references. In any case can not have 5 paragraphs in the LEDE.

Lung Salad: Please discuss on talk first. Your statements have no supporting references and are contradicted by the existing references. History2007 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I invited Lung Salad to discuss on talk, not add non-RS sources and not get close to 3RR. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Facts are not determined by a vote. Something is either factual or it is not. If something is disputed by a minority, the minority is mentioned, and if the majority do not like certain facts should those facts be suppressed. Lung salad (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not suppressed. They can be mentioned, but per WP:Undue they get a smaller mention depending on how minority they are. And once they are a "small minority view", they do not get the front row seat in the lede. You do not seem to dispute that your items are a "small minority view" among scholars. Do you? Do you dispute that the "overwhelming majority" see the James and the Baptist passage as authentic? I think you know that to be the "overwhelming majority view". As an example, there are scholars who think free energy can be created, but Wikipedia gives them a small minority view, and not state that as the basic idea of all physicists . That is how Wikipedia works. FYI your statement that "Something is either factual or it is not" is not (yes, it is not) part of Wikipedia policy, per WP:V. As WP:V states: Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. The statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" was the subject of a large Wiki-debate at WP:V recently and survived - see the long talk page debate there please. So your view of "fact or not fact" is not he Wikipedia approach and runs against basic Wiki-policy per WP:V. History2007 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Jewish Biblical scholars and G A Wells fall into Wikipedia criteria guidelines. You must know that majority view survives through suppression of discussion in this subject area. Lung salad (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are saying that "that majority view survives through suppression of discussion in this subject area" in the scholarly world, but you do not like it. You clearly know what the majority view is, but do not like what the majority state. I am sorry, but you need to publish papers elsewhere to change that view in the scholarly world. Wikipedia works based on what the scholarly majority is, and if some editor does not like that, it is subject to WP:I just don't like it. And let me point out that this is absolutely (I mean absolutely) not a Jewish/Christian debate. Louis Feldman teaches at Yeshiva, is a highly respected scholar on Josephus, and he is the one leading the chorus of authenticity. So the overwhelming majority side with authenticity, on all fronts. History2007 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all been done, discussed and analysed in relation to Josephus and the passages relating to Jesus, James and John the Baptist. It's got a long history. There is no overall consensus. Barring the archaeological discovery of very early editions of Josephus. Feldman is not representative of the Jewish position in relation to this subject matter. Care to add this to the article? Lung salad (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding your statement "There is no overall consensus" that is not so, per the clear, clear, clear references that state the overwhelming majority view several times. If you mean "100% agreement", there never is in any historical area. Take "any statement" and there is probably someone who disputes it. Again, the way Wikipedia works is to state the "overall majority view" and then give a small mention to the small minority views. The overall survey of literature is clear to you and me. That is not in dispute. What is happening is that you do not like the majority view. I am sorry but I just don't like it is "no basis" for editing Wikipedia. Overall, we have no dispute about what the majority scholarly view is, our dispute is on whether your dislike of the majority view gives you cause to press for that view. It does not give you cause per WP:Undue.


 * I have to stop for an hour or two, to attend to other matters, but your statements are clearly against Wikipedia policy. It is clear that you know what the majority view is, you just do not like it. I am sorry if you do not like Wikipedia policies. But policies are not subject to debate here. Policies must be followed here, not debated. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is either NPOV or apologetics towards the passages in Josephus being genuine. Lung salad (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for carefully wording passages to accurately convey the authors' intended message. In fact, there are a few passages I would reword to avoid the appearance of POV (such as sentences that go "xxx, but xxx." as opposed to "xxx. xxx."). However, Lung salad, did you check the sources to make certain that your edits accurately reflect their words and ideas? --Airborne84 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Lung Salad's edits are not correct or accurate. I already informed Lung Salad that the edits "deviated from the sources. I will also explain below. History2007 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect edits to article
In this edit Lung Salad changed Van Voorst's statement so it no longer corresponds to the source.


 * Van Voorst says (word for word): "The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic". Lung Salad's edit changed it to be: "the "overwhelming majority" of scholars consider they could be authentic" thus adding "could be" and deviating from the source. The source did not say "could be" and  Lung Salad does have access to that book since this edit used it as a reference - alas incorrectly.

So the situation here is that Lung Salad has access to the source then edits the article to change it and deviate from the source. Then again this edit changed a number of statements so they no longer correspond to what the sources says.


 * Feldman says, (word for word): "by the passage — the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged" and Lung Salad's edit changed it to say: "the possible authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged". That is not what the source says. The source does not have "possible authenticity". The edit deviated from the source.


 * Craig Evans says (word for word): "his account of the preaching and death of John the Baptist is widely accepted as authentic". Lung Salad's edit added "possibly authentic", again deviating from what the source said.

I can go on and on...., but these edits are just deviating from the source. Period. I checked the sources carefully. Per WP:V those edits need to be just reverted to what they were before to keep the article accurate. History2007 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Care to add that there's a lot of scholarship out there that is taking things back to beyond the 16th century - yes, these scholars who take the possible Christian interpolations within Josephus seriously as if they were authentic words of Josephus - but do so by sidestepping all the arguments that the passages could be fake, as repeated by Wells, who has to remind his readers about that again and again. Lung salad (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, your edits are incorrect and deviate from the sources. That is clear. Very clear. You are not even disputing that your edits deviate from the sources, just seem to think you can do it and get away with it. That is not how Wikipedia works. You are hereby informed again that you should correct your edits per WP:V given that you know they deviate from the sources and do not even dispute the deviations. Please correct your errors now. History2007 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The scholars you cite merely offer "proof" through self-serving arguments and sidestep the facts that suggest the passages in Josephus about Jesus may not be authentic. G A Wells repeats this. Lung salad (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is too bad. Because Wikipedia does not work that way, per WP:V. I do not know how many times I have mentioned WP:V but if you think the scholars are sidestepping facts, that is just too bad. Wikipedia follows what the scholars say, not determine "facts" or truth. As WP:V states: Wikipedia's basis "is verifiability, not truth". Did I mention that before? History2007 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Slavonic treasure?
There was an addition to the lede in this edit that added the Slavonic item to the beginning of the article based on the claim that "Slavonic Josephus is important reference" discovered at the beginning of the 20th century, etc.

As I had said before, I did not even want to work on this article until the IP 84.22.52.10 kept pressing for it. But anyway, now that the article has been cleaned up, there is no reason to add incorrect information to it again.

The first paragraph on the Slavonic section that quotes Van Voorst as saying that "the discovery of a Russian version of The Jewish War" is a reason for considering the Antiquities less authentic is not Van Voorst's view, and fails verification. It needs to be just deleted now that I have correctly stated what Van Voorst thinks of the Slavonic version, and what other scholars think too.

The statement in the lede about the Slavonic Josephus is just incorrect now, and the lede does not correctly summarize the body of the article, as required by WP:LEDE.

The section I added clearly establishes that the Slavonic version (actually discovered in 1866, then arrived in the west in 1906) is basically useless. It is no treasure and apart from a very dead Robert Eisler no one else takes it seriously. Craig Evans said it: "to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research". Steven Bowman also said that the Slavonic Josephus should be removed from the scholarly discussions of the first century. So we should not really bother with it. I do not think there is need for a brouhaha on the Slavonic item.

Lung Salad, now that you have seen the correct WP:RS references on this, can we drop the subject of the Slavonic treasure? This is taking up time for no specific value now. History2007 (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Do I detect a religious evangelism behind the edits of History2007, who is also using Wikipedia Guidelines to bolster his soapbox? Lung salad (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No evangelism, just a correction (based on WP:RS sources) of the glaring errors in the statements you made. And Lung Salad your accusation of evangelism runs counter to WP:AGF and I will issue a warning on your talk page now. You can not just type incorrect statements that are not supported by sources, edit text to make it deviate from the sources and when your errors are pointed out accuse other editors. Just stop this and follow Wikipedia policy. You must follow Wikipedia policy. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is clear and I will contribute the material to this article that you have deleted because it is "outdated" by modern scholarship which is going back to before the 16th century. Please do not correct me when you can be equally corrected. The material by G A Wells in this respect can be added. Lung salad (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not say you can not add Wells. But the reader must be informed that Wells is singing a lonely tune per WP:Undue. History2007 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And the vast majority of scholars that you cite are clearly taking this subject matter back to before the 16th century. Lung salad (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? These are modern scholars publishing just a few years ago. That is what modern scholarship is about. Using modern scholars in WP:RS sources from just a few years ago. History2007 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It means that critical analysis of the material has been replaced by less stringent criticism of the evidence. Lung salad (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That was too hard for me to understand... Sorry.... I must be having a bad hair day... But your statements about the Slavonic Josephus are just incorrect. Period. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Where do these scholars offer proof that the passages in Josephus about Jesus are authentic? They only offer self-serving arguments and nothing else. Lung salad (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. That way I do not have to type a response. I can just copy and paste that per WP:V Wikipedia follows what the scholars say, not determine "facts" or truth. As WP:V states: Wikipedia's basis "is verifiability, not truth". Did I mention that before? History2007 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wells fits into Wiki guidelines. If 100 scholars are publishing self serving arguments that are put into question by one lone dissenter saying "Hey, read this, why don't you mention this?" it can still be included in the article Lung salad (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that. That way I do not need to type a response, but point to this. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an article entitled Josephus on Jesus, therefore cited material from historical sources can be added as well as scholars opinions. It can be added that scholars opinions have been expressed as facts since no ultimate proof exists that the passages in Josephus about Jesus are authentic. Lung salad (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Eisler is dead
Eisler is dead. We cannot use his works because he is dead. Even though he is still today regarded as a notable figure. Charles Dickens is dead. William Shakespeare is dead. Albert Einstein is dead. What on Earth is Wikipedia doing devoting articles to dead people. Lung salad (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing at Reliable sources that says anything about an author needing to be alive to be reliable. -- Jayron  32  12:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. A heartbeat is no requirement for accuracy of the statements made by an author. However, WP:RS does suggest that "some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories" and that hence reliance on outdated material should be avoided give that modern scholarship may have discredited it. Eisler's work that goes back to 1926 is just outdated and his philology was later shown to be "extremely flimsy" as the article says. Regarding modern scholarship, Craig A Evans is quoted regarding the Slavonic version: "to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research". So outdated theories must be declared as such per WP:RS. I did not delete Eisler because the reader needs to know he existed. But the reader needs to be informed that his views have been discredited by modern scholarship. History2007 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reader needs to be informed that scholars who believe in the authenticity of the passages in Josephus do so because they are practicing Christians. Lung salad (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for clarifying that. I will be sure to call Feldman, Vermes, etc. right away and tell them that you think they are practicing Christians. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that they are not. Their errors regarding their own life must corrected, of course..... That will be news to them... History2007 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that these scholars sidestep material that suggests the passages in Josephus relating to Jesus is not watertight. Lung salad (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that is too bad. Because Wikipedia does not work that way, per WP:V. I do not know how many times I have mentioned WP:V but if you think the scholars are sidestepping facts, that is just too bad. Wikipedia follows what the scholars say, not determine "facts" or truth. As WP:V states: Wikipedia's basis "is verifiability, not truth". Did I mention that before? Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wells needs to be introduced to balance the article. Lung salad (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the article has to reflect academic reality and Wells is not any expert by any definition of the word.

Thank you for saying that. That way I do not need to type a response, but point to this. History2007 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The facts surrounding the passages relating to Jesus in Josephus can be given independently of scholarly opinion, and thereby it could be ascertained how much scholarly opinion (favouring authenticity) squares with the known facts. Lung salad (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight just to be sure I am not dreaming: "You want to present facts regardless of scholarly opinion"? After all this discussion on WP:V? Way to go... way to go... After all this talk about WP:V you want to ignore the scholarly view and present "the facts"? I am sorry but I just can not stop chuckling here... History2007 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What's actually wrong with doing that? The earliest reference to Testimonium Flavianum is Eusebius (4th century). The earliest manuscripts are all medieval. We know that Christian interpolations were made to texts by Josephus through the existence of the "Slavonic Josephus". We know that even the works of the Church Fathers are not free from interpolations. There are no references to Jesus in any of the other works by Josephus. As for the execution of James ordered by Ananaus, Josephus provides completely different and contradictory descriptions of his character in Antiquities and Jewish Wars. What part of scholarly opinion establishes beyond question the authenticity of the passages about Jesus in Josephus? Paul L. Maier states the Testimonium to be authentic solely on the basis that it is found in all extant Greek manuscripts, we have noted these are medieval, and this is not too surprising since it was mainly Christians who preserved the works of Josephus. The source is mainly Christian and not independent. For the passage about James, Maier repeats the same thing (all passages are found in extant manuscripts, manuscripts that date from medieval times and originate from Christian sources). Maier further states that the passage about James must be authentic because Josephus called Jesus "the Christ" in passing, and that he also mentioned some 20 other Jesus in his works, overlooking the fact pointed out by critics that Josephus does not call all any of the other 20 Jesuses as "Christ", therefore indicating that the introduction of the word "Christ" specifically into the two passages about Jesus could have been done by Christian interpolators. And how could Josephus ever have done such a thing if he was a Roman sympathiser believing Vespasian to be the saviour? Maier does not address this issue at all. Lung salad (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Time to read WP:Forum. We can not discuss the facts... After WP:Forum, time for you to read WP:V. Ok? History2007 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lung it seems the only person interested in apologetics here is you. Josephus never believed Vespasian was the Messiah, he made a very self serving prophecy that he would become the next Emperor in order to save his skin. Might I strongly suggest you leave history to those who have a strong background in history and stop trying to promote pseudo history on this forum. To answer your other question, Josephus would have referred to him Christ or more then certainly as the so called Christ because by the time he wrote his histories Jesus was becoming a lotmore well known. Why he didn't call the other Jesus Christ should be obvious, they were not considered in any way messianic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More serious than that it that as I stated above, Lung Salad changed the what the sources say to make them deviate from the source. That is a no-no in Wikipedia and if it continues can lead to a block on Lung Salad's account. Those errors need to be be reverted yet, removing the could be, possible etc. History2007 (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to restoring the cited sections to reflect the citation. Rklawton (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will appreciate your help in making them correct. I can, of course do it, but I usually do not even want to come close to flirting with the 3RR line. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk)

I would recommend blocking Lung from editing this article and then reverting. It is obvious he wants to engage in neo atheist apologetics. The purpose of wikipedia is to present mainstream view and it cannot be hijacked by any group of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not make personal attacks against Lung Salad or other editors. Please stay calm and discuss the article content based on sources, not facts. And let us stay away from WP:Forum. That is policy. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not personal to say he is editing this article in a deceitful manner and it is not personal to call neo atheist apologetics neo atheist apologetics. My recommendation is to remove his edits and if he does it again block him from this article. I would say the same thing if anyone engage in this behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, those statements are personal attacks. Please delete them before Lung Salad reads them. They will just waste time. And feel free to just undo those changes that deviated from sources. The article is not protected and you can edit it, and RK also supports the change, so there are 3 editors in agreement and it can be done without fanfare. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We disagree on if this a personal attack. I see it as simply stating fact. I can careless if he reads them, he can get upset all he wants or he can grow up and stop being ideological. Is there any way to simply revert back to your article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been too long and needs to be removed one word at a time based on this link. It would take a few minutes. But then we are spending time n the talk page anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an article entitled Josephus on Jesus, therefore cited material from historical sources can be added as well as scholars opinions. It can be added that scholars opinions have been expressed as facts since no ultimate proof exists that the passages in Josephus about Jesus are authentic. My previous message was about the shortcomings contained in scholar's opinions. And Josephus was a Roman sympathiser, thus making him calling Jesus the Christ unrealistic. Lung salad (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow no historical event has ULTIMATE PROOF first off. Secondly YOUR argument about Jesus is absurd. Of course Josephus would use the term Messiah cause he was writing a history of Judaism and messianic movements were part of it's history. Why the Roman's would be threatened by a so called Messiah who they crucified is beyond me.

Seriously there are plenty of freethought forums where you can engage in your neo atheism apologetics. However the purpose of wikipedia is to spread scholarly views, would you try to remember this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually there is nothing "atheistic" about questioning the passages about Jesus in Josephus. And here are Josephus's thoughts about the Messiah: "What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea." (Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 6.312-313) Lung salad (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lung, this has been explained to you again and again, the purpose of wikipedia is to show academic views on subjects. The academic view on this subject is miles apart from what you believe. Again this shows why you need to study history, remember Josephus was attached to the Flavian Emperors so of course he would put in nice comments, as doing so literally saved his skin. So no he did not truly think Vespasian was the Messiah. And being a history of Judaism he would mentioned notable figures, such as Jesus.

Now your objections are not taken seriously by scholars so move on.

Again if you want to discuss these issues many freethought forums encourage these things. However these are dead issues in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What "academia"? The sum total of their claims that the passages relating to Jesus found in Josephus ammount to nothing more than stating "They are authentic because I say so". Maier is laughable. Lung salad (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lung. If you wish to believe academia is engaged in a conspiracy that is your own business. However I do not, and I have evaluated the many the reasons that academics support the total authenticity of the shorter passage and why partial authenticity is the best explanation for the longer passage. However the purpose of an article on wikipedia is to show scholarly academic views and that needs to be respected, even if you think the academics are engaged in a conspiracy.

Now you have two options you can accept the rules of wikipedia or if this issue is truly important to you you can Get a Ph'D in ancient history, learn Aramaic, Greek and Latin and then publish many papers overturning the academic concensus. Which will it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You yourself have acknowledged there is no absolute certainty that the passages are authentic. You don't need a PhD to know that. And I never mentioned there was a conspiracy. Lung salad (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lung. There is no such thing as an ABSOLUTE fact in any subject outside of mathematics. However the overwhelming evidence favors authenticity for the shorter passage and partial authenticity for the longer passage. Yes certainly are acting like this is a conspiracy cause you are alleging scholars are not presenting facts and that only you have presented them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)