Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Consensus for change

I have reverted to the article to an earlier version so that we can develop consensus for changes and then implement them. I strongly recommend that editors offer proposed wording here so that the revision can be discussed and agreement attained. By reverting to an earlier version, I do not intend to make comment on the quality of subsequent edits, but rather as a result of the above dispute which clearly shows the need for consensus to form here prior to revising the article. I presume we can all agree on this? Eusebeus (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the edit by user:Eusebeus, given that it restores the scholarly quotes before they were edited to diverge from sources, etc. I think that was a good edit and a good strategy. History2007 (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored Lede, Restored Manuscripts section

I have restored the lede - Wikipedia guidelines state that Lede's should be brief. Also, much of what was in the Lede was also repeated several times in the body of the article. There is no need for constant repetitions. The Manuscript section has also been restored. Basic facts about the Josephus manuscripts need to be included in an article about Josephus. Also, the opening paragraph giving a brief overview of Josephus, giving basic information of who he was and how many languages he spoke needs to be retained. Lung salad (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your points in general, but I am going to revert your changes until editors agree on the wording after discussion here on the talk page. Should other editors disagree and wish to revert me back, then fair enough (3RR), but if we can agree that consensus should first be established here, then I suggest you offer your rewording and I would ask editors to maintain the version I reverted back to until we establish consensus to the make changes. (Lung Salad, if you need to review the relevant policies, let me know and I will point you to the various pages that outline the process for editing an article that is subject to dispute.) Eusebeus (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits that contain verified citations should not be removed. Constant repetitions within body of article should not exist. Edits containing verified citations were removed. Repeated statements were restored. Lung salad (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So - no. In the event of a dispute, you need to establish consensus first via the talk page, solicit feedback from your fellow editors and then the changes should be introduced. Are you familiar with Wikipedia policies and procedures in the event of content disputes? Simply pointing to statement x or y and saying, "but look there's a reference" so it should be kept reveals something of a misunderstanding of the project. Have you been editing here a long time? Have you been involved in other disputes? Are you aware of things like WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:DR? Let's establish a basis here first about your level of familiarity with Wiki practices before you start reverting back and end up blocked with a 3RR since you appear to be the only editor who is insisting on these changes. Eusebeus (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be no dispute if the content within the article is a verifiable fact. Lung salad (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it your view that this page is not currently the subject of a content dispute? Anyway, you should post your proposed rewording of the lede below so it can garner comment. I agree that the current lede is not ideal. Oh, I am going to revert you back again and I am afraid I am going to file a 3RR on you if you revert again since my restoration of the earlier version has support for the moment form other editors. Sorry about that. Eusebeus (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this article going to be an apology for passages about Jesus in Josephus are authentic or is it going to be NPOV? What's your answer to that? Lung salad (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This article, like every article in Wikipedia, is going to be the result of discussion and consensus with other editors following the basic principles of engagement (AGF, CIVIL), policy (V, RS, FRINGE, UNDUE) and practice (BRD, CON, DR). I warmly applaud your enthusiasm to build strong content, but I am confused at your resistance to discuss your changes with other editors before moving them to the article. This behaviour is at odds with fundamental Wikipedia policies for building up content. Eusebeus (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The verifiable facts about the subject matter should not be deleted as they are at the moment. Citations from existing works should not be deleted from the article, as they are at this moment. Lung salad (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) 12:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this article building up again to being an apology for the passages about Jesus in Josephus being authentic? Lung salad (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Original Lede

Below find the Lede to the article, please tell me how many repeated statements it contains, and how many of the repeated statements in the Lede below were also repeated in the main body of the article, also please confirm that the Lede to articles should be brief. Lung salad (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

text from the lede

The writings of 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus on Jesus are important non-Christian historical documents that could, if genuine, shed light on the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18. These references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as The Jewish War. In Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities Josephus refers to the death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". Some authors who think this passage is authentic also believe the James referred to is most likely James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called James the Just in Christian literature The majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic. Scholars generally consider this passage to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. In Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities Josephus refers to the imprisonment (and death) of John the Baptist by order of Herod Antipas and states that the Jews of that time attributed Herod's defeat (historically established as 36 AD) by Aretas IV of Nabatea to Herod's unjust execution of John. Almost all modern scholars consider this Josephus passage about John to be authentic in its entirety. Given that the death of John also appears in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the Ministry of Jesus. In Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities Josephus refers to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. This passage is generally called the Testimonium Flavianum. It is the most discussed passage in all of Josephus' writings and perhaps in all ancient literature. Scholars have differing views on the authenticity of the Testimonium. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation. A number of scholars suggest a relationship between the Testimonium and the reference to James the brother of Jesus, viewing the Testimonium as the initial reference to Jesus, which is then referred to again in the passage on James in Book 20.

I don't think the lede itself is unduly redundant, and it does a rather good job of summarizing the content of the article (except the Slavonic Josephus). Per WP:LEDE, the purpose of the lede is to give a summary so that editors who don't want to read all 25KB of article text can get the gist of the matter. I don't think a single paragraph for each major section of the article is overly long, and redundancy to the main article is, frankly, unavoidable for a good lead section. Huon (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

True enough, although perhaps the presentation and wording could be improved. But in principle providing an overview of the references seems pertinent to the lede. Eusebeus (talk)

How about doing the lede last, after all else has settled down, so it can reflect what the body says after the body has become stable. History2007 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Idea. I have collapsed the text above for easier navigation. Eusebeus (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavonic Josephus

Resolved

Since the Slavonic Josephus section was written and endorsed by History2007 and contained in Lung salad's preferred version of the article, there seemed to be consensus to have that section. I've re-added it to the article. We might need to shorten the previous mentions of the Slavonic Josephus to avoid redundancy. Huon (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. This section does have general consensus and should be reintroduced to the article. My apologies for not including it in my original restoration to the earlier consensus version. Eusebeus (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Ironically, we now have an island of serenity in Slavonia - an unusual situation, given the recent history there... But let us leave that as is, and move on. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

James the brother of Jesus

Resolved

As written, this is a cumbersome muddle that includes rather more citations than necessary and is not helpful in providing a general overview of mainstream scholarly views. I propose to replace the existing text with what I have weritten below. Suggestions for improvement welcome! Eusebeus (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1) Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest who died c. 68 AD. The James referred to in this passage is most likely James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called James the Just in Christian literature, and to whom the Epistle of James has been attributed. The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.

The context of the passage is the period following the death of Porcius Festus, and the journey to Alexandria by Lucceius Albinus, the new Roman Procurator of Judea, who held that position from 62 AD to 64 AD. Because the Albinus' journey to Alexandria had to have concluded no later than the summer of 62 AD, the date of james' death can be assigned with some certainty to around that year. The 2nd century chronicler Hegesippus also left an account of the death of James, and while the details he provides diverge from those of Josephus, the two accounts share similar elements.

A few scholars have questioned the authenticity of the reference, noting primarily that the passage concerning Ananus and James' death in the Antiquities does not match the equivalent description Josephus provides in his work, '"The Jewish Wars", in which the martyrdom of James is not mentioned and the destruction of Jerusalem is ascribed to the death of Ananus. As a result, it has been suggested the reference to James might have been the result of a later interpolation by Christian scribes who were copying the work.

However, modern scholarship generally or overwhelmingly views the entire passage, including its reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ", as authentic and has rejected the supposition that it was the result of later interpolation.. Further, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.

Discussion of Proposed rewrite

I think a couple of things need to be changed, an some items need to be added - which I never got to address - they will come up in 3-6 months. The of "accounts describing James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable" is related to Hegesippus mentioned further up and should probably be smoother. There needs to be a discussion of "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who is mentioned somewhere near there, and there is "strong" scholarly agreement that it is a different Jesus and there should be some mention that Josephus refers to 20 different people called Jesus, etc. and how the called Christ is actually a qualifier, etc. Those arguments will be brought up on the talk page within 6-9 months, by new IPs, etc. I think. And I think not mentioning what Painter, Maier etc. said weakens the weight of the scholarly position, but we can probably include that in the footnotes - yet need to say that it is an overwhelming majority, as Van Voorst said. And there are, of course, various answers why the Jewish Wars does not mention it - and many scholars do no see that as a major barrier to authenticity, although the current text positions it a such. And the Origen issues need to be addressed somewhere, maybe in a separate section, for there are again answers to those by many scholars. This will take work. So maybe we should go back to what was there on January 25th, then see what needs to be added. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC) You are aware that other citations can also be used. Lung salad (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Even the majority view acknowledges that the passages are disputed. I will have to quote from the respective books on this. Quoting Van Voorst again: , "Because the few manuscripts of Josephus come from the eleventh century, long after Christian interpolations would have been made, textual criticism cannot help to solve this issue." Lung salad (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks History07. I think you are right, although I would suggest two points. First off, the various uses of the name Jesus in Josephus, including Damneus, is probably better made as a more general point, since it is relevant to all three passages, not just James. Second, we can add in "overwhelming", preferably in quotations, although we should ask ourselves if, for the average reader, it is necessary. Most people coming to this page are not going to care about the trivial dispute here on the talk, and so it is important that we not infect the text with reflections of the behind-the-scenes edit wars. That said, if you think signaling the level of scholarly consensus is useful, then I am open to the idea. Finally, unless there is a compelling reason to cite specific scholars in the body of the article, this is better left for the footnotes, no? (Again, I see this as a reader issue.) Eusebeus (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I agree. The "reader perspective" should come first. And given that as we speak most readers are getting conditioned to expect everything in 140 characters, the more we write the faster they will click away. But then the 20% of the readers interested in the details still need to be served. But then that is what hypertext was invented for - the ability to click and zoom in. So what if: We have a somewhat shorter item, say 70% of the size of the Slavonic section, so it almost fits on screen. We have a Main to the details, say: "Josephus on James" or something like that, which will in fact be substantial once we add all the items about the differences to Jewish Wars, etc., etc. On that note, "Josephus on John the Baptist" can be a longer page too, in fact there is also plenty of material that can be added there. We still remember these things now that we have researched them, but in 3 months, they will be long forgotten, so we might as well write them consistently. That way we do no get the "let me click away" response from the 140 character crowd, and also provide information to those interested in the details. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC) On a side note, have you read Victor Ulrich(!)'s 2010 article on the Testimonium Flavianum? Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) No, I had not. I guess you mean this? Thanks for pointing it out, I will take a look later. Now I have to sign off for a while. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ulrich's article? The Testimonium Flavianum is an authentic text by Josephus. Its authenticity was long denied because the language and ideas of the time of origin were misunderstood, because the author's intention was misjudged and because of failure to recognise the circumstances of the manuscript tradition. Lung salad (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC) @History07, to your suggestion, I think it is a good idea. I suggest that we separate the stuff out on the differences between the A and JW and put them into the pre-existing section in the article since, again, this is part of the larger picture. So, in effect, we could concentrate on the references made in Antiquities, and then have a section that discusses the various aspects that point to authenticity v. interpolation. That would probably allow for a more lengthy expostulation regarding the basis for different scholarly perspectives that doesn't otherwise interfere with the flow of information. I am not sure Ulrich should be taken that seriously considering his "Synoptic solution"! Eusebeus (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Refusal to address points raised by me has been noted. It seems that the disputed nature of the passages can be addressed by scholars who have the opposite view but not on Wikipedia. Lung salad (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC) The majority view acknowledges that the passages are disputed, and I don't think anybody advocates removing any mention of this dispute. But per WP:UNDUE we should mention the various viewpoints in proportion to their prominence: The majority viewpoint should not be swamped by the minority viewpoint. In Lung salad's version of this section, we have three and a half paragraphs providing background and explaining the majority view followed by about six (admittedly mostly short) paragraphs all casting doubt on that majority view. That's hardly proportional when we have multiple sources stating there is very little opposition to the majority view. In particular, in Lung salad's version: Lung salad's paragraph about the death of Ananus and the Jewish War seems a violation of WP:SYN. Eusebeus' version does a much better job at covering the same stuff. Despite Lung salad's claims about "explaining the history of the scholarly opinion" (not a verbatim quote) many of his paragraphs come without a date. Our coverage of Wells is redundant; we explain his position (and his change in position), and afterwards we mention him again. We should remove the second mention of Wells. The Paget and Setzer paragraphs have too little context. Unless the authors draw conclusions about the authenticity of the passage, I don't see what those paragraphs are supposed to tell us about Josephus on Jesus. In general, we should shorten the coverage of the minority viewpoint so that it's actually shorter than the majority viewpoint. I believe Eusebeus' proposed version is much more balanced, though we should probably give the more prominent minority scholars (within reason - not everybody needs to be mentioned). An unrelated aside: I believe it's Ulrich Victor, not the other way around: Note the comma on the page History2007 linked to! Huon (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Quite right. I just skimmed through the thing and its title is rather ambitious, given the content. Eusebeus (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Setzer provides the information that the accounts of James and John in Josephus are different to those in the New Testament and cannot be reconciled. I think these are notable facts. Lung salad (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Lung Salad, I think I have informed you a few times now that those Josephus variations from the NT are seen by scholars as "indications of authenticity", (for an interpolator would have made them similar to the gospels) and should be presented as indications of authenticity, not the other way around. Could you please try and get this point straight after all this, so it represents the scholarly view? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, it's better known as shoehorning. Lung salad (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Huon, I agree with your comments and that per WP:RS/AC the minority view can not be allowed to perform a long opera that obscures the major scholarly view. I think Long Salad's position is clearly against policy as stated in WP:RS/AC and WP:Undue. But we have said that a few times now. So I suggest we assume he/she is not going to agree with us and move on. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, do we have agreement then to replace the text on James with something along the lines of the above, moving the stuff on the discrepancies to the section as I have sketched out below (which is just the beginning obviously, since we will need to present the mainstream view that deals with Origen, interpolation theories, etc... )? History07, note the changes I have made per your suggestion above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) In principle, yes. But please give me a little time to read it again, I will need to read over it in a little while, and perhaps comment. I suggest that we should have a shorter version as you suggested and move the details to another section, or a sub-page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I agree to the changes suggested by Eusebeus and History2007. I'm not sure an entire article on Josephus on James is necessary, but more subsections should help. Huon (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC) There's absolutely nothing complicated about this subject matter once all the multitudinous hypotheses, opinions and viewpoints (built on many layers of suppositions that become 'accepted facts') are sidestepped and the demonstrable facts are allowed to speak for themselves. I believe the background demonstrable facts to this subject matter should be presented as a priority. Lung salad (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, will wait for H07's thoughts. Also, as a follow-up to History07's point about "The Christ" being the qualifier, how about something like the following, which can lay out the basic issues and tease the later discussion on authenticity: "The name Jesus (Greek: Ἰησοῦς; Hebrew: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) was not uncommon among Jews during this period and Josephus makes reference to at least twelve distinct people named Jesus in the Antiquities. In book XX of the Antiquities, Josephus refers to a number of people with this name, including Jesus, the son of Damneus, Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, Jesus, the son of Josadek. His two mentions of the Jesus of the Christian tradition are, however, qualified differently - as "a wise man" in book XVIII and, unambiguously, as "the one called Christ" ( τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ) in book XX. Many scholars have thus argued that Josephus' references, if authentic, demonstrate the existence of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest extant manuscripts of the work date from the tenth century, however, the authenticity of these references has been a matter of scholarly debate." This anticipates having the debate (textuality, Origen's Matthew commentary, etc...) in its own section. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC) While Josephus cites the other Jesuses as Messianic claimants, he does not designate any of them as "Christ". And according to Origen, Josephus did not consider Jesus as the Christ either, which was why he regarded Josephus as an unreliable witness. Here lies the wedge between the accounts of Origen and Eusebius. Lung salad (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Eusebeus, here is my suggested version for the short introduction. It is basically what you had, but I touched up the last paragraph. I think we need o say what it is, the Porcius Festus context etc. and just have a two sentence summary of the main scholarly view, followed by one sentence on the minority view. Then, as Huon suggested above, no separate page but a section called "Detailed analysis" or something of the like that can get populated later by agreement among editors, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

James the brother of Jesus

Section on James

Icon of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1) Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest who died c. 68 AD. The James referred to in this passage is most likely James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called James the Just in Christian literature, and to whom the Epistle of James has been attributed. The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts. The context of the passage is the period following the death of Porcius Festus, and the journey to Alexandria by Lucceius Albinus, the new Roman Procurator of Judea, who held that position from 62 AD to 64 AD. Because the Albinus' journey to Alexandria had to have concluded no later than the summer of 62 AD, the date of james' death can be assigned with some certainty to around that year. The 2nd century chronicler Hegesippus also left an account of the death of James, and while the details he provides diverge from those of Josephus, the two accounts share similar elements. Modern scholarship overwhelmingly views the entire passage, including its reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ", as authentic and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation. Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable. However, a few scholars still question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in the Jewish War differ from it. I like this redacted version and support its inclusion over the existing text. Eusebeus (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, great. And I will again note that the detailed analysis section can include other items, but for the basic overview, we just keep one paragraph on authenticity with 3 sentences, 2 majority view, one minority. Then we can discuss details in the detailed section. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, I think that's appropriate and ditto for the other two references. Indeed, it will be salutary to have an overview of the evolving scholarly consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, fine. The ref names get overridden here, so they do not show all the way, but I have details in them but not in the text itself. Anyway, I think it is a good and simple overview now. Thanks for your help. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Right. Maybe check to make sure the refs carried over properly? Eusebeus (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Off topic back and forth

Lungsalad is continuing to revert. Other editors need to assist in reverting back to restore the agreed upon text above; if s/he does it again we'll have to solicit a block to get the editor to AGF in this discussion, instead of tirelessly repeating the same thing over and over again. Eusebeus (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Did I read somewhere on this Talk Page that references to the passages being disputed were not going to be removed? Why therefore have the passages referring to the passages being disputed been removed? Lung salad (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I noticed that this issue is up in WP:ANI/3RR. I do not think it is a good idea to start a multi-party revert ping-pong game here. I think Lung Salad has not only been ignoring policy, but "arguing against policy"... The road to an indef block is paved that way. I suggest you do not revert him, and wait for some resolution to his continued "arguments against policy". Wikipedia is a community with policies, and those who argue against community norms will in the end be pushed out of the community. Please just wait for that inevitable end to take place. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) In any case, I left a Tendentious editing note for Lung Salad, given that he/she has been arguing against WP:V with 3 other editors. I suggest that instead of reverting him, you bring up the tendentious editing issue on the 3RR thread you started. One can not continue to argue against WP:V and not be blocked. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, good. I was thinking more that the editor may think s/he is in a private edit war, as opposed to reverting the general consensus we have been developing here and, as such, involvement from other parties could be salutary. But as you remark it shouldn't matter in the long run since the editor is headed for a block or topic ban based on their behaviour. Eusebeus (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, but given that you posted on WP:ANI, you should probably amend that with the observation that the reverts were in the context of Lung Salad's "continued argument against policy" as tendentious editing and I did not hear that, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Placing content supported by verifiable citations is not a violation. Lung salad (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) How many scholars represent the consensus? Have you got a figure? Lung salad (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That goes back to your previous comment that "every single book needs to be read"... Discussed before at length, and issues therefrom per WP:RS/AC, etc. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That's funny, because Feldman provides that information in one of his books. Lung salad (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I see no reason why cited sources giving details of scholars who dispute the passage should be omitted - and let's not forget the passage regarded as authentic was unknown to Origen. These passages have citations and should remain in the article: James Carleton Paget has noted the passage about the death of James in Josephus "contrasts strongly with known Christian accounts of his death found for instance in Hegesippus, the Ascents of James, Clement of Alexandria's Hypotyposeis, and the Second Apocalypse of James." Claudia Setzer has noted that "what is striking is that Ananus [in Josephus] accuses James of transgressing the Torah, but in the New Testament James appears as an advocate of loyalty to the Torah (Gal. 2:12, Acts 21:20-24)." Scholars who have doubted the authenticity of the passage about James in Josephus include Tessa Rajak (1983) and Ken Olson (1999). Carl Clemen commented on the unreliabilty of the passage about James: "especially because Origen, who three times mentions Josephus' account of the death of James, read it differently". G. A. Wells has also commented: "That there has been some tampering with that passage is suggested by the fact that Origen, who refers to Josephus's account of the death of James, claims to have read something rather different on that subject in his text of Josephus from what now stands there." Lung Salad, please read what I wrote, based on what Huon suggested. There will be a "detailed analysis" section that goes into details and arguments from both sides can be presented there subject to policies and guidelines. But the basic idea is given in the overview section atop. Then details follow for those interested. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Let's jettison the "detailed analysis" and keep things simple. Lung salad (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Detailed analysis

This section then goes into details of the arguments...... This should be populated later, and each line of argument can be discussed and subject to agreement here, etc.

Would this also include the fact that Origen did not know the passage? He claimed Josephus wrote the following "When wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ." This is not found in our editions of Josephus. Lung salad (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to the Jewish Wars

I propose that the discussion regarding the differences between the Josephus texts be centralised to this section. I have moved lungsalads edits to this section and suggest they be incorporated into a more general discussion from the prevailing scholarship. Since s/he has a strong command of the issues surrounding authenticity, I invite the editor to make additional edits to this section as needed. Eusebeus (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

These three references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in other works by Josephus, most importantly his history The Jewish War. Since it was a common practice among medieval scribes to add to into ancient material passages that substantiated Church teachings (called interpolations), some scholars have argued that the passages in Josephus referring to Jesus are not authentic, but instead later additions. The discovery of a Russian version of The Jewish War, at the beginning of the twentieth century, commonly called the "Slavonic Josephus" or Testimonium Slavianum, contained clear examples of such interpolations, showing that Josephus text was, indeed, subject to such later emendation. However, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider Josephus' reference to James, "the brother of Jesus called Christ" to be authentic.

James

The passage about Ananus from the Antiquities is contradicted by the equivalent account Josephus gives in the Jewish Wars. In this latter text, Josephus makes no mention of the martyrdom of James, and instead cites the death of Ananus as the trigger for the destruction of Jerusalem. From the surviving fragments of the Jewish Wars: "I should not be wrong in saying, that with the death of Ananus began the capture of the city, and from that very day on which the Jews beheld their high priest and the guardians of their safety, murdered in the midst of Jerusalem, its bulwarks were laid low, and the Jewish state overthrown." . It has also been noted that the passage in the Antiquities about the death of James "contrasts strongly with known Christian accounts of his death found for instance in Hegesippus, the Ascents of James, Clement of Alexandria's Hypotyposeis, and the Second Apocalypse of James." Suggestions of a later Christian interpolation have also been made with reference to apparent discrepancies between the third-century textual account in the Antiquities available to Origen with the later versions that have survived.

I would suggest putting this quotation into the footnote "That there has been some tampering with that passage is suggested by the fact that Origen, who refers to Josephus's account of the death of James, claims to have read something rather different on that subject in his text of Josephus from what now stands there."

Establishing a Baseline for how to Proceed

It would seem we have a forming consensus for how to build up this article, which is to include a descriptive analysis of the three passages in question and then have a separate section on the controversies and competing analytical perspectives of the main scholarship on Josephus. The purpose behind this is for the reader. The idea is that: 1) The lead provides a general overview of the passages and mentions the scholarly dispute over authenticity. 2) The body offers an overview of each passage, including the relevant entailments. 3) A section on the extant manuscripts, which can explore problems of authenticity in Josephus based on the surviving manuscripts. As written now, we assume, for instance, that the reader will know what interpolation means (it wasn't even wikilinked). That is a poor showing for a generalist encyclopedic discussion. 4) Finally, a detailed discussion of the scholarly debate, which should touch on the problem of interpolation, the references in Origen and Eusebius, issues of textual inconsistencies, with a general summing up of what parts are generally agreed to be fabrication, and what parts scholars largely consider to be authentic.

Much of the problem here (apart from the unfortunate manner of engagement of some editors), is that an encyclopedic treatment of the subject must discriminate in its use of the scholarship. That a book has been published on Josephus is, on its own, insufficient grounds for meriting consideration in an encyclopedic overview of the topic. If a senior scholar were asked to contribute an encyclopedia entry on the topic, she would be able to choose from the dozens of works that discuss this issue, discounting those that have failed to gain much acceptance, and relying on peer-acceptance as a measure for authority. I mention this because it would appear that some editors are having a difficult time distinguishing between the ability to provide verifiability for an assertion, and the value of the assertion itself in the context of a generalist overview. That there is a body of work that has cast into doubt the authenticity of Josephus is not only undeniable, but indeed important to acknowledge. But we will end up creating a text that is alienating to our readers if we are unable to provide a clear framework for presenting this debate.

The suggestion that "verifiable information" is being systematically expunged by POV warriors (like myself) who are somehow intent on suppressing alternative views to the existence of the historical Christ is simply untrue. I am sure I speak for myself, History07, Huon and others when I say that we have no interest in somehow cherry-picking the scholarship to enforce our own POV. If anything, my scholarly sympathies fall on the side of the skeptics. But that is irrelevant, because the purpose of an encyclopedia entry is not to serve as a platform for my own views, but rather to provide readers with a general discussion of the topic and a reasonable and balanced presentation of the academic consensus in a way that offers them a basis for further exploration of the topic.

So can we set aside the rancour here and agree on this as a way to proceed? Lungsalad, let me reassure you that your efforts to cull from the skeptical literature are fine, but that for the purposes of making this article reader-friendly, the best solution is not to pepper the article with competing views willy-nilly in a way that would bewilder an uninformed reader, but rather to organize the material coherently in the context of the larger debate, the main issues involved, and what leading scholars have to say about it. If your only answer to a restructuring of this article is going too be "don't remove verifiable material", the value of your participation is limited and don't expect other editors to engage with you. You get back what you are wiling to give.

Can we agree on this? Eusebeus (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think what you wrote is logical, and I must say some of it is also obvious in view of policies such as WP:RS/AC, WP:Undue, etc. and should not even be repeated again. The way I see it:

• The main scholarly view needs to be provided as a basis, then the opposing minority views are also mentioned. That is the basic policy per WP:RS/AC.

• Having a "details section" is a logical way of allowing for the presentation of an overview, then the details. No need for fanfare on that.

• I would add that the presentation of the "mainstream scholarly view" in not just an issue in historical research articles, and also applies to topics ranging from Quantum computer to Equivalence principle. In the case of the equivalence principle there are a small minority who challenge Einstein, but Wikipedia does not just say "Einstein is disputed" and not present the views of the majority of physicists as mainstream scholarship.

Now that we have a draft version of James, I will suggest a draft version of the overview of "Josephus on John", and then the Testimonium so we can get settle the top level overviews of the three passages, then discuss the details after the top level items have settled down. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but apparently it needed to be said! I will do the Testimonium Flavianum (quite easy given the separate article), so we will then have the three passages completed. Eusebeus (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the Testimonium does not need a details section, given that it has a lengthy article. Hence we just need the John section. And needless to say, we should not make a Jambalaya of quotes in the Testimonium overview section, and keep it the same length as the James overview section. I will work on the draft of the John section. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits - James

Eusebeus proposed a rewritten version on the James section. Then History2007 proposed a completely different rewritten version on the James section that Eusebeus quickly accepted without any reservations whatsoever. History2007's version was biased concentrating solely on authenticity without giving reasons why the passage was disputed. The passages supported by verifiable citations were removed completely. This is article should be NPOV and not POV. Lung salad (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lung Salad's arguments against policy, tendentious editing, 3RR and block

Arguments against policy, tendentious editing I am sorry, but I have to inform you again that your arguments against WP:V on Josephus on Jesus, and the need to primarily use "facts" instead are against policy. I am making a note here that your continued insistence that WP:V should be secondary to the "facts" as you seem them, after being reminded by 3 other editors to read and follow WP:V amounts to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You can not expect to continue to "argue against WP:V" and not get blocked. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC) All my edits on the article page conform with Wikipedia policy. I have included facts within the article supported by verifiable citations. Providing facts into an article supported by verifiable citations is not a violation. Every Wikipedia article presents the facts of the subject matter concerned within the body of its text as well as the scholarly opinions. Lung salad (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I am sorry, WP:V: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. History2007 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.' Lung salad (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, we are all aware of that but the repeated arguments you have made against WP:V and in favor of facts, are a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT given that 3 editors have now repeatedly informed you about the basic tenet of WP:V. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) There was a complete and total removal of all the references, supported by verifiable citations, why the passages are considered to be disputed. 100% removal of every single verifiable reference. This was biased POV editing. Lung salad (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC) You are referring to a main space "edit". My comments are about your "continued arguments against policy" on the talk page and how facts are more important than WP:V, WP:RS/AC, etc. as a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. A different issue altogether. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC) All sorts of personal attacks and sarcasms from all parties concerned are found on the Talk Page. I was referring to the content in the body of the article. Lung salad (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC) No, the discussion has been quite civil, and at times quite humorous, given your repeated statements against WP:V, in favor of facts, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Show me a Wikipedia article about any subject matter where the facts are not given, especially a history article. And history is a subject matter that is always disputed. Lung salad (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Again, WP:V is about verifiability, not "facts". I did not invent WP:V, it is a policy, as is WP:RS/AC, of course. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I have not made any edits without verifiability. Every edit I have made without exception is supported by verifiable citations. The majority view has always remained intact in the article which I have never removed except in the case of excessive repetitions. The article it must be repeated is about history and about passages that are acknowledged to be disputed even by those who hold the opposite view, and devote space to it in their books. You would have it so that no space at all would be devoted to it on Wikipedia. You want a systematic censorship of the fact that the passages are disputed using WP:RS/AC Lung salad (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I believe it may be appropriate at this point to file an RfC relating to History and Religion areas to bring a broader number of editors, including uninvolved editors, into the discussion to determine the consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS. And I would also remind all parties that verifiability in not the only criterion for content in a article. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Boyd-Eddy in their Jesus Legend book talks about the James passage on pages 127-130 but they leave out the most important reason why "Some scholars, however, argue that the James passage was inserted into the text by a later Christian copyist." in there list even though they do mention it later (on page 189) --"Hegesippus has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 ad, and as thus being in direct conflict with Josephus." (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, usually known as the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) The Epistles to Thessalonians,Timothy and Titus (R.V.) by H. W. Fulford printed in 2003 by Cambridge University Press admits this problem on page 51. Furthermore Boyd-Eddy clearly state Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Clement of Alexandria and Christian tradition all put the death of James the Just c70 CE with Josephus the odd man out but ludicrously conclude that this somehow proves the James passage in Josephus is genuine. More realistically it would prove otherwise given how well Church fathers checked their dates. Irenaeus (c180 CE) for example states in Demonstration (74) that "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified" which is a historical impossibility as Herod Antipas was NEVER "king of the Jews" though his successor Herod Agrippa was...in 41 CE the same year that Claudius became Caesar. But this is long after Pontius Pilate had been recalled to Rome. The majority of sources say James dies c69 but we are to reject them in favor of Josephus and his 62 CE even though the passage is questioned. Do these scholars explain how in terms of the historical method this makes a lick of sense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Using WP:RS/AC to prevent all mention that the passages are disputed is underhand. And introducing 10 editors to argue consensus for the authenticity of the shroud would not make the Turin Shroud "authentic", just a biased POV Wikipedia article. There are more authors arguing for the authenticity of the Turin Shroud than those who argue it is a fake. That does not make the Shroud "genuine". I go back to mentioning demonstrable historical facts. Lung salad (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Please avoid the word censorship as you did above, given that I have not made an edit to the article since Jan 30th 2012. I have not deleted any of your additions for the past 11 days. There has been "zero censorship". Period. I have, however, stated that: You modified scholarly quotes to make them diverge from their sources, breaching WP:V. And you are well aware of that, given that you were directly asked to remedy those edits. Your comments and edits run against WP:RS/AC and your insistence on facts runs against WP:V, as stated to you by other editors. And I do stand by those statements. I will not repeat this again. We have had enough WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC) There are more authors arguing for the authenticity of the Turin Shroud than those who argue that it is a fake - by a considerable margin. Is the Wikipedia article on the Shroud suppressing the views that the Shroud is a fake, implementing heavy-handedly WP:RS/AC ? Is the Wikipedia article on the Turin Shroud a soapbox for the authenticity of the Shroud? Lung salad (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Please focus on this article. There are 2 million other articles and their status does not relate to this. There was a discussion before where you were informed that "the fact that someone else double parks is not a reason for double parking". You have been down that argument path before. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Double parking metaphor is not logical in this case. And you have been told that before. And if other Wikipedia editors do not heavy-handedly impose WP:RS/AC on other articles like the Turin Shroud then that reveals your agenda here. Lung salad (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) No, sorry, double parking is the logical analogy here. Whether WP:RS/AC gets imposed on another article or not is no reason to breach it here. A policy can be applied to any article. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC) No sorry, double parking is double parking and Josephus on Jesus is Josephus on Jesus. Lung salad (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I have seen these kinds of fights before, and it would be best if you just dropped the point. On Wikipedia, the viewpoint with more editors will always win over against the viewpoint with fewer editors. You won't win this (though you might get yourself blocked given all of the reverts) so you should just drop it. I am not saying I disagree with you on the material. I think you have a strong point, but that is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Pick your fights well, and since you are outnumbered, this isn't one you are going to win.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I have seen these types of fight before too and more often then not the reverts are NOT what the majority of the wikipedia community agrees should be in the article. The Christ myth theory article had similar problems and only by continually pushing the point for nearly two years on both the talk page and Wikipedia:NPOVN that the theory was not as originally presented (Jesus the man did not exist in any shape way or form) but something broader (Jesus of the Gospels did not exist but there may be a human figure behind him) did the article finally improve.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Lung Salad's disregard for policy and rampant reverts Lung Salad, I should note here that in addition to tendentiously "arguing against policy", your edits have shown a consistent disregard for Wikipedia policy. As you know, 9 reverts by you were listed here on the noticeboard and after those you have reverted again (another editor) and yet again, adding up to at least 11 reverts in a single day, if not more on that day. And I should note that you are familiar with the WP:3RR policy, having been recently informed by an admin to avoid it on other pages. You can not expect to breach Wikipedia policy and argue against it. Policy must be followed, not ignored, disputed and breached. History2007 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Aren't you going to count Eusebeus's reverts? Lung salad (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Included in my list of "reverts" were two instances of vandalism by 209.53.181.135 that I removed from the article. 209.53.181.135 had other similar "edits" removed here [1] and here [2] Lung salad (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC) And I note the Testimonium is allowed to be called a disputed passage in this Wikipedia article Crucifixion of Jesus containing the footnote: Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part". Feldman, Louis H (1989). Josephus, the Bible, and History. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 430. ISBN 9004089314. [3]. Lung salad (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Actually, as you well know, WP:3RR is a bright-line rule and "content based arguments" regarding what a book says about a subject have no relevance to the 3RR, 4RR, 5RR lines being crossed. The facts are that: Your edits on the talk page are a case of WP:TE, as you have continued to argue against WP:RS/AC's validity with multiple editors who have repeatedly informed you that WP:RS/AC is a valid policy and must be followed. Your continued arguments against multiple other editors regarding the applicability of WP:RS/AC and WP:V as a policies are clear cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You do not deny crossing the 3RR, 4RR or 5RR lines, but attempt to justify the breaches via content-based justifications. It is certain that you have crossed 5RR and 6RR and 10RR is a distinct possibility. Some of your edits to the page itself have been a clear case of WP:Disruptive editing whereby you have altered scholarly statements, based on the argument that the scholarly views are less than sufficient. And you do not deny your diverging edits, (e.g. injecting the word "possibly" within Van Voorst's quote etc.) but argue that it is necessary to change the scholarly statements for they differ from your perception of "facts". You were informed to correct your "diverging edits" that made the scholarly quotes "deviate fro the sources" and refused to correct your edits. The items I have listed above are clear cases of disregard for Wikipedia policy. History2007 (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC) It does not matter how many times you repeat this, your opinions are biased towards a certain point of view, and are focused on a particular version of this article that omits all references to the passages in Josephus as being disputed. Or at least omitting all detailed references as to why Biblical scholars consider the passages to be disputed. Your original quibbling concerned citing G. A. Wells. Now that Biblical scholars like James Carleton Paget, Clare K. Rothschild, Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert, J. Neville Birdsall, Steven Bowman, Tessa Rajak, Ken A. Olson have been cited you are getting more and more agitated. Their inclusion in the article is not tolerated. Wikipedia policy argues for NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Lung salad (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) As stated before, my last edit to the page was about 12 days ago, and I have not altered your edits. And again, content-based arguments are "no justification" for policy violations. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Eusebeus copied-and-pasted your contribution yesterday from the Talk Page to the article, yes? Eusebeus invited me for my input and then proceeded to ignore my response, yes? Lung salad (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Look, I will say this one more time, then stop for now. You are not denying that you have breached policies, but are attempting to justify your breaches on various grounds from the content of specific page in a specific book to actions of another editor. Those arguments cannot justify a disregard for Wikipedia policy. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC) That was a nebulous statement to say the least. Which book? Which specific page? Lung salad (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC) In any case, I will just note that Lung Salad was blocked here, and will collapse this thread so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Redraft - John & Testimonium

Sections on John, James and testimonium

Here is a draft of the John section. It includes the major scholarly view per WP:RS/AC and also has references to the small minority opinion. And it clarifies that the differences between Josephus and the NT are seen by scholars as indications of authenticity, not as doubting points. I think there should be no major issue that this represents the mainstream scholarly view. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC) John the Baptist The Baptist scolds Herod. Fresco by Masolino, 1435 Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 5, 2) Josephus refers to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist by order of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea. The context of this reference is the 36 AD defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with Aretas IV of Nabatea, which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John. Almost all modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety, although a small number of authors have questioned it. Because that the death of John also appears prominently in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the Ministry of Jesus. A few scholars have questioned the authenticity of the passage, contending that the absence of Christian tampering or interpolation does not itself prove authenticity. While this passage is the only reference to John the Baptist outside the New Testament, it is widely seen by most scholars as confirming the historicity of the baptisms that John performed. While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive. While the gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias in defiance of Jewish law (as in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18) Josephus refers to it as a pre-emptive measure by Herod to quell a possible uprising. Louis Feldman, who believes the passage is authentic, states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words). While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as Machaerus, southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned. However, according to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by Herod the Great around 30 AD and then passed to Herod Antipas. The 36 AD date of the conflict with Aretas IV mentioned by Josephus is, however, consistent (and shortly after) the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias estimated by other historical methods. I am not sure whether you have picked up the revised Schurer reference; but if not this is the Google Books preview: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p75tWhrwGT8C&pg=PA336&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false. Vermes and Millar's evaluation of the John the Baptist passage is in note 24 on page 346. TomHennell (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Adding in my redraft on the Testimonium. Please note I have added in Olson 1999 for the Eusebian interpolation and Whiston on Origen. Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Testimonium Flavianum A 1631 Testimonium page with commentary Main article: Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities. The Testimonium is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature. The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing in about 324, Eusebius quotes the passage in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ. However, it is also possible that others, including the third-century patristic writer Origen also knew of the passage. Although Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium, the way in which he writes about the passage involving James (see above) suggests he may have been familiar with this passage as well. While this does not furnish direct evidence, it has been used by a number of scholars to argue that the passage is not the product of a Eusebian interpolation. Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation. Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as "the aforementioned Christ" relates to the earlier reference in the Testimonium. Discussion I like your redraft very much. I think it offers a strong, clear and informative overview. Two quick points. 1) I think it might be better to remove the paragraph on the use of discrepancies to argue for authenticity, since that is a crucial plank of the larger debate involving all three passages. In other words, it should be reserved for the more detailed discussion. 2) I wonder if is better not to make specific reference to individual scholars in these descriptive overviews. In the context of the scholarly dispute discussion I see no problem with it, but in this part of the article I wonder if it might impede the flow for a general reader. I feel these "x says this and y says that" do not come across well except in cases where x or y are clearly and overwhelmingly associated with a particular position such that a general reader ought to want to know who they are. Eusebeus (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Eusebius, Regarding the John passage, please make the changes you suggested there in, given that I also see them as logical. I made a touch up to the Testimonium item, e.g. evidence for crucifixion, etc. If you don't like it change it, but I think it is by and large fine with me. And it seems that we have these three overview drafts now, and the Slavonic item which is no longer subject to discussion is ok too - so that makes 4 overview sections, with two "details sections" to be separately discussed later. There needs to be a re-entry of a 5th section as the "manuscripts section", however, given that users will ask about that. If you would like to try a draft of that, it would be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that! I have removed the one paragraph on the Christian consonance and have tidied up the language a bit on the "outside" view. I am happy to do the manuscript section. I suggest we also come up with an approach for tackling the Scholarly Debate. Perhaps if we have a single large section divided up into various subcategories that list the broad areas into which the debate has generally divided it will be easier to provide a comprehensible and systematic approach? Eusebeus (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, so the question is: one long section called "Detailed analysis" or two subsections, one for James and one for John. Now that you have suggested one large section for that, I think it makes sense, e.g. given that the issue of "variations from NT" is an issue both in James and John. If we do that then the structure will be: James brother of Jesus John the Baptist Testimonium Flavonium Slavonic Josephus Detailed analysis Now, where should the manuscripts section fit? It can either come upfront, at the end or in the detailed analysis section as a subsection. But there is a larger issue, namely that the manuscripts section is not just about Joephus on Jesus and said manuscripts should also be discussed in the larger context of Josephus' other writings, e.g. Jewish wars, etc. So perhaps most of that needs to go to Josephus or somewhere with a summary in the Detailed analysis section. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Ok here is a rough suggestion for how to rework the manuscript section, written from a generalist perspective to contextualise the debate (e.g. I have not bothered getting into the various branches of different transmissions, etc etc...) What additional details do you think we should provide in order to accommodate what you have outlined above? Eusebeus (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I'm not quite happy with our coverage of Origen in the Testimonium section. It sounds as if we cannot tell whether Origen knew the Testimonium and then draw conclusions from a rather unfounded assumption that he did. I haven't read the reference, but I believe what we actually mean is that some scholars have presented indirect evidence for Origen knowing the Testimonium, evidence that is probably disputed. I currently cannot think of a good way to clarify this without expanding it inordinately. Ideas? Maybe "There is some indirect evidence that others, including the third-century patristic writer Origen, also knew of the passage, in which case at the very least it would not be the product of an Eusebian interpolation."? I believe there were references stating that according to Origen Josephus does not mention Jesus at all, which would be evidence in the opposite direction. Should that too be mentioned? (I don't know what the mainstream opinion about Origen on Josephus is, but if he did say that, claims that he knew the Testimonium would require rather strong evidence.) Huon (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, you are probably right. That needs more careful treatment. Also please see how it is addressed below in the Manuscripts section. I think the solution maybe that we make very brief references to Origen in the Testimonium and the manuscripts section, then a pretty long discussion in the "Detailed analysis section". From what I recall, that will be a detailed issue. Is that approach a good idea? History2007 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I have attempted to address Huon's concerns. As written it is a bit ambiguous. I have expanded the text and in the footnote provided the following (drawn from the source): William Whiston, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Kregel Academic, 1999. p 995-996. Origen writes, "It may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus a man," which appears to make reference to the language in the Testimonium. In general, however, given its complexity, the details of this discussion should probably be left for the Debate section. It would probably be useful to add an additional reference that draws on or supports Whiston's argument, and I have included the phrase "it has been used by a number of scholars..." in anticipation of building out the supporting material. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, but from what I recall, the Origen/Eusebeus discussion can be pretty lengthy, and I am sure in 6 months some IP will challenge it. So we must do it very carefully, in the details section. There were many people after Whiston who published on that. My guess is that it will take 3 to 4 paragraphs at least with 10 references probably. As is that discussion is dominating the section anyway now, and if expanded will just colonize it. So my suggestion would be to have a brief reference to it in this section, with a see the details section qualifier, then do it justice there in detail. We could not possibly handle the issues related to those in the overview. Is that a good idea? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Manuscripts

Title page of a Welsh language translation of Josephus, 1860.

Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. 71AD) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks. (Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.)

There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus, of which thirty three predate the 14th century, with two thirds from the Comnenoi period. The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the Testimonium is the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the Antiquities. There are about 170 extant Latin translations of Josephus, some of which go back to the sixth century, and according to Louis Feldman have proven very useful in reconstructing the Josephus texts through comparisons with the Greek manuscripts, reconfirming proper names and filling in gaps.

There is considerable evidence, however, that attests to the existence of the references to Jesus in Josephus well before then, including a number of ad hoc copies of Josephus' work preserved in quotation from the works of Christian writers. The earliest known such reference to Josephus' work is found in the writings of the third century patristic author Origen, although he does not provide any direct reference to the passages involving Jesus. The first witness to any of the passages relating to Jesus was Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in about 324. Both Origen and Eusebius had access to the Greek versions of Josephus' texts. The works of Josephus were translated into Latin during the fourth century (possibly by Rufinus), and, in the same century, the Jewish War was "partially rewritten as an anti-Jewish treatise, known today as Pseudo-Hegesippus, but [which] was considered for over a millenium and a half by many Christians as the ipsissima verba of Josephus to his own people."

Because manuscript transmission was done by hand-copying, typically by monastic scribes, almost all ancient texts have been subject to both accidental and deliberate alterations, emendations (called interpolation) or elisions. It is both the lack of any original corroborating manuscript source outside the Christian tradition as well as the practice of Christian interpolation that has led to the scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of Josephus' references to Jesus in his work. Although there is no doubt that most (but not all) of the later copies of the Antiquities contained references to Jesus and John the Baptist, it cannot be definitively shown that these were original to Josephus writings, and were not instead added later by Christian interpolators. Much of the scholarly work concerning the references to Jesus in Josephus has thus concentrated on close textual analysis of the Josephan corpus to determine the degree to which the language, as preserved in both early Christian quotations and the later transmissions, should be considered authentic.

At the end of the 19th century a Slavonic version of the Testimonium was discovered (see the Slavonic section above) and was announced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1971/72 a tenth century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis was discovered and announced by Shlomo Pines who also discovered a 12th century Syriac version by Michael the Syrian.

Reads ok to me. I would suggest:

• Some more references to beef up some of the assertions. I usually add at least 2 refs, just in case. That he was considered a traitor needs a ref, etc. The fact that the first mentions were Origen, etc. needs more refs, and there is subtle debate there as I recall that may need to get added - alas I have misplaced my photographic memory and do not remember where.

• Ok will do. I suspect the Origen issue you are probably thinking of is found in Whiston's appendix (I refer to the pages in the text above on the Testimonium so we can simply repeat the reference.) Let me know if you have an additional source. The Jewish treachery is from: Josephus, Flavius, L Osinkina, Nikita A. Meshcherskiĭ, and Katherine Leeming. Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.a. Mescerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript Translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina. Leiden: Brill, 2003, page 26. The same authors attest to a 2nd century Christian tradition, via Minucius Felix and Irenaeus, for the Christian embrace of Josephus. We can get a better source surely.

• I think the explanations about "by hand-copying, typically by monastic scribes" will be useful to some readers, given that they may have forgotten there were no Xerox machines in those days. But those may need some more refs just to make them solid.

• Fair enough, although we should also link to to the relevant article, perhaps use the sources there? Kind of like sourcing water being wet :)

• I would suggest some other wording for "plenty of" etc. to make it more formal, etc.

• Done, but please feel free to make changes to eliminate such infelicities.

• There is a website that actually lists all the manuscripts in various locations around Europe. From what I recall it was not totally WP:RS as a website and if we can find a RS source that shows there were many and how they were compared etc. that would clarify things.

• You are referring to this site presumably? At any event, we can always add in Niese as the standard reference for the manuscript branches.

But overall, I think a good section to get it started. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. So where should this be placed in the article as a whole? As written, I have intended it as introductory context. Eusebeus (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that it should be the first subsection in the "Detailed discussion". The detailed discussion can have something like the following format:

1. Origins and manuscripts
2. Relationship to the Jewish Wars
3. Early references (here Origen etc. are handled in great detail)
4. Variation from the New Testament
5. Arguments for authenticity
6. Arguments against authenticity

How does that sound? History2007 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Really good work; a couple of points however; I do not think 'elision' and interpolation are the same thing (may not be what you meant, but it's how it reads to me). Secondly, I think you make too much here of the lack of 'original' manuscripts; by which I suppose you meant autographs. If we had a fifth century manuscript of Josephus (which would be exceptionally fortunate) it would make no difference to the debate on authenticity. TomHennell (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hear that a 5th century manuscript may show up any day now... kidding, of course. But your points about elision and the lack of originals are valid, and the manuscript point should be made with a WP:RS reference that says it. If you have an idea of the reference please suggest. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I have changed the text slightly to provide more clarity to address Tom's points above. Let me know if you think this is better. Also, i think the structure outlined above by H07 is fine. Eusebeus (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reads fine to me, and in any case, seems to work. It just needs a few more references. This article has come a really long way from mid-January before an IP comment started the improvements. I will, however, try to add more references to the 3rd paragraph in a few hours. My guess is that now that 4 editors have commented and seem to be in agreement (except the Origen item in Testimonium) we do not need to complete the details section before we put up the 4 initial sections. We can have a version up which has the 4 sections: James, John, Testomonium and Slavonic, while we work on the details section. Shall I move the Origen item to a subsection of details, so it can be expanded there? Or do you prefer to do it? History2007 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can migrate this to the main article, although perhaps wait a bit longer to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. As for Origen (in Test. Fl.), we could just remove it if it is still too awkward, or, if editors agree it is appropriate to observe as a general point, perhaps it can stand as is (more or less), on the understanding that the complexities of the argument will be explored subsequently. Eusebeus (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. My preference would be not to have Greek text in the overview. A publisher once told a well known physicist that for every equation in the introductory chapters of his book, his sales would drop by 50% so he just used E=Mc2 and let it get published that way. So I think we should avoid Greek there... will lose 50% of the audience, etc. and have the Greek in the details. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 here but one of the things that should be in the "Detailed discussion" is why when all others sources and Christian tradition put his death at c69 CE (as documented by Boyd Eddy in their 2007 Baker Academic Jesus Legend) why scholars are going for the odd man out in the form of Josephus at c62.

Also to be fair to Humphreys' publisher Historical Review Press, Did Six Million Really Die? was published in 1974 a time when seemingly every publisher was dabbling in the kooky theory of the week (Bermuda Triangle prime case in point). This is like saying Mcgraw-Hill is an unreliable publisher regarding medicine because they also publish books on homeopathy (Easy Homeopathy for example) and just as ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the 69 AD vs 62 AD discussion is one of the items for the detailed analysis section. Now that we are making progress on the manuscripts, I will start a section for that below, we can make a list of the items to go in, then we can make it flow. I think we need to make the list first, then have an orderly presentation of the pro-con issues rather just list them in semi-random order. The Origen item etc. is another topic that needs a good treatment there. History2007 (talk)

Perhaps a historical view as we have done with the Christ myth theory might be the best way to tackle the issue using some of the "big names" to show how views regarding Origen changed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to gather the relevant links and references first, e.g. exactly where Origen refered to Josephus and what he said, etc. And what Eusebeus said, and where he said it, etc. as the basic elements that inform the reader. And as it happens the text is in Wikisource, so we can just link to that. That will just clarify the references sans commentary. Then there are a range of views as to how things happened, e.g. did Origen get confused between Josephus and Hegesippus, or not, etc. And these can be presented in the pro/against authenticity sections. So the basic "early references section" can just explain what parts of Origen's writings or Eusebeus refer to Josephus. Then the pro-authenticity section will say "professor X thinks Origen did this..." and the against authenticity section says "professor Y thinks Origen did that..." etc. so it will be clean and compartmentalized. Pretty straightforward actually if we approach it systematically. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But as Boyd-Eddy point out the 69 CE date is not just from Origen (184-253 CE) but Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263 – 339), and Early Christian tradition as well. Clement of Alexandria is a persecutor-contemporary of Origen and the majority of sources agree with the c69 date so why again do scholars choose Josephus over ALL these other sources?

Back to the Testimonium Flavianum for a moment you have Photius in his ninth century Bibliotheca writing that "Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias,4 entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias (...) Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him." (code 33) This would seem to trounce the entire Testimonium Flavianum as the entire thing is about "events of His life" Have the scholars addressed this issue in their acceptance of the Testimonium Flavianum?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce. We will certainly need to provide a thorough account of how these various points are addressed in the literature and why. Eusebeus (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I added bullet points for those to the against authenticity section, so they can get expanded as we go along. History2007 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way Eusebeus, now that there are three new refs e.g. Maier285A, there were 3 refs that had names but no text. I think they are:

• name=Feldman331 : Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered by Louis H. Feldman 2006 ISBN 9004149066 pages 330-331

• name=Bauckham : "FOR WHAT OFFENSE WAS JAMES PUT TO DEATH?" in James the Just and Christian origins by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1999 ISBN 9004115501 pages 199-203

• name=Maier285 : Josephus: The Essential Works by Flavius Josephus and Paul L. Maier 1995 ISBN 082543260X page 285

There is also Maier285A etc. that has an explicit quote in it. We an either use both Maier285A and Maier285 or just make it all Maier285A, etc. I think the one with the quote needs to remain, but do not mind if we have two refs or just the one with the quote. In any case, please suggest and/or modify as you see fit. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(See below for the reference question). I took a closer look at the separate article on the Test.Fl. authenticity and now am wondering if it really makes sense to have that material in its own article. It is true that there is a lot of scholarship that focuses specifically on the Test.Fl., but I am starting to think that separating that debate is rather artificial, especially since (1) it relies on many of the same arguments that inflect the questions surrounding the other passages and (2) because scholars typically use the other references wrt to their discussion of the Test.Fl. If we build up a proper section int his article, don't we end up having a lot of duplication between the two? It seems to me that we might want to merge and redirect. Just a thought. Eusebeus (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree absolutely with Eusebeus here; there is no need for the separate article on Test.Fl.; as that subject has to be fully covered here; and also that several of the arguments for and against authenticity require reference across the three notices covered in this article. Merge them. TomHennell (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. The formal way to do it is to just put a merge-flag on both articles. Then by the time we figure out what it should look like here, enough time has passed and the merge can just take place without fanfare. In the meantime, we can just integrae it here on teh talk page and the merge will be a push-button merge. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Slavonic item which is stable, should probably replace the Jewish War comparison which is going to move into the details section. Right? History2007 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a paragraph abut the 20th century manuscript discoveries to the Manuscripts section. That section looks complete to me, but please check it, and if ok, can we just move it in to mainspace to get it out of the way. I think it can just sit there as a standalone section for now, and when we have material for "early references" we make hem two subsections. Then as the arguments pro/con take shape the whole section will materialize. Is this a good idea? History2007 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)