Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers

[Minimalist]

I'm simply asking you to show me where your version exists.  I have given you my evidence for the existence of it in a source from antiquity.  If you don't have such evidence then just admit it.

My point is that you claim it to be phony. 

What evidence do you have that demonstrates that it actually is phony?

I don't have to provide any evidence. You are the one who made the claim, so now let's see the evidence.

I can't tell if you are being dense or scared.  For now I'll go with dense.

I have presented the original version of the TF as we now have it.  It appears in Eusebius' 4th century work Historia Ecclesiastica.  There is no question that this is the authentic TF.  It's bullshit, of course, but it is what Eusebius wrote.

Do you accept it as authentic, or

If you do not can you produce a citation for the version you prefer?

I should think you could handle a simple question like that but if you need it simpler I suppose I could write it out for you in crayon.

[Bucky Ball]

That is not evidence. It's an argument from silence. It's a suspicion that may or may not be warranted. It really depends on they eye of the beholder. At the end of the day, numerous opinions vary, but no one actually has any evidence.

The book in which this is found, claiming Vespasian is the messiah,  and the fact Josephus never ever, anywhere else said anything about that, is your circumstantial evidence. You're nothing but fraud, who uses whatever he has, when it's convenient .... just like your use of consensus.  
I asked you to justify these two things. You can't. All you can do is have a tantrum about "You're asking for evidence".
I am not. I want YOU, (great historian and logician that you claim to be) to EXPLAIN these things. You can't. All you can do is respond "so ?".
LMAO

[Free]

I'm simply asking you to show me where your version exists.  I have given you my evidence for the existence of it in a source from antiquity.  If you don't have such evidence then just admit it.

My point is that you claim it to be phony. 

What evidence do you have that demonstrates that it actually is phony?

I don't have to provide any evidence. You are the one who made the claim, so now let's see the evidence.

I can't tell if you are being dense or scared.  For now I'll go with dense.

I have presented the original version of the TF as we now have it.  It appears in Eusebius' 4th century work Historia Ecclesiastica.  There is no question that this is the authentic TF.  It's bullshit, of course, but it is what Eusebius wrote.

Do you accept it as authentic, or

If you do not can you produce a citation for the version you prefer?

I should think you could handle a simple question like that but if you need it simpler I suppose I could write it out for you in crayon.

Correction: You have not provided the original version of the TF. You have provided the oldest known citation of it.

What I accept as authentic is that Eusebius wrote what he claims to have read in Josephus. What we see from Eusebius is a very good approximation to what we see in the extant version of Josephus.

[Minimalist]

And if you cite something else which pre-dates it now is your opportunity to do so.

[Free]

And if you cite something else which pre-dates it now is your opportunity to do so.

My point stands. You have provided only the oldest citation of the TF, not the original as you have claimed.

You stand corrected.

[Free]

That is not evidence. It's an argument from silence. It's a suspicion that may or may not be warranted. It really depends on they eye of the beholder. At the end of the day, numerous opinions vary, but no one actually has any evidence.

The book in which this is found, claiming Vespasian is the messiah,  and the fact Josephus never ever, anywhere else said anything about that, is your circumstantial evidence. You're nothing but fraud, who uses whatever he has, when it's convenient .... just like your use of consensus.  
I asked you to justify these two things. You can't. All you can do is have a tantrum about "You're asking for evidence".
I am not. I want YOU, (great historian and logician that you claim to be) to EXPLAIN these things. You can't. All you can do is respond "so ?".
LMAO

You are showing your ignorance of Josephus.

Josephus did not call Vespasian as "Messiah" anywhere. Read carefully:

"But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil." - (Loeb translation)

Josephus claimed that the Jews had misinterpreted their sacred scriptures due to some ambiguous oracle insomuch as they thought that someone from their own country would be their ruler. Josephus argues that the oracle signified that Vespasian would be the ruler of the conquered Jews. No where does Josephus' interpretation of the oracle indicate that he believed that a Roman would be the Messiah of the Jews, only that Vespasian would conquer the Jews.

The word Messiah or Christ does not appear anywhere in the text.

[Minimalist]

And if you cite something else which pre-dates it now is your opportunity to do so.

My point stands. You have provided only the oldest citation of the TF, not the original as you have claimed.

You stand corrected.

Bullshit.  This is the oldest version we have - as stated by Eusebius in all its glory...3 centuries later.

No one prior to Eusebius ever heard of the fucking thing.  So, unless you are prepared to hang your hat on this version I still want to know where the version you prefer is written down.  Don't be ashamed if you don't know.  It's fairly obscure.

[Free]

And if you cite something else which pre-dates it now is your opportunity to do so.

My point stands. You have provided only the oldest citation of the TF, not the original as you have claimed.

You stand corrected.

Bullshit.  This is the oldest version we have - as stated by Eusebius in all its glory...3 centuries later.

No one prior to Eusebius ever heard of the fucking thing.  So, unless you are prepared to hang your hat on this version I still want to know where the version you prefer is written down.  Don't be ashamed if you don't know.  It's fairly obscure.

It's the oldest citation. Eusebius quotes from Antiquities of the Jews numerous times, therefore we know he cites from the book.

We do not have the original.

Your tactics are very transparent. Trying to say that what we see from Eusebius is the "original" TF is hilarious, since we do not have an original copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in order to qualify that claim.

[Minimalist]

So you don't know.  Okay.  I expected nothing more.  It's what comes from surrounding yourself with theologians who you consider scholars.

[Bucky Ball]

My point stands. You have provided only the oldest citation of the TF, not the original as you have claimed.

You stand corrected.

Bullshit.  This is the oldest version we have - as stated by Eusebius in all its glory...3 centuries later.

No one prior to Eusebius ever heard of the fucking thing.  So, unless you are prepared to hang your hat on this version I still want to know where the version you prefer is written down.  Don't be ashamed if you don't know.  It's fairly obscure.

It's the oldest citation. Eusebius quotes from Antiquities of the Jews numerous times, therefore we know he cites from the book.

We do not have the original.

Your tactics are very transparent. Trying to say that what we see from Eusebius is the "original" TF is hilarious, since we do not have an original copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in order to qualify that claim.

More of your equivocation about "circumstantial evidence". If it was never mentioned before Eusebius, and many Christians would have given their balls for such a piece of evidence, then (YOUR) "circumstantial evidence", says it was made up later. How can you keep track of which way you flip-flopped this hour ?

[Bucky Ball]

My point stands. You have provided only the oldest citation of the TF, not the original as you have claimed.

You stand corrected.

Bullshit.  This is the oldest version we have - as stated by Eusebius in all its glory...3 centuries later.

No one prior to Eusebius ever heard of the fucking thing.  So, unless you are prepared to hang your hat on this version I still want to know where the version you prefer is written down.  Don't be ashamed if you don't know.  It's fairly obscure.

It's the oldest citation. Eusebius quotes from Antiquities of the Jews numerous times, therefore we know he cites from the book.

We do not have the original.

Your tactics are very transparent. Trying to say that what we see from Eusebius is the "original" TF is hilarious, since we do not have an original copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in order to qualify that claim.

Thanks for a great example of a non-sequitur.

[Minimalist]

I suspect he knows where the re-vised TF comes from and is embarrassed to say it.

But only fundie morons maintain that Josephus wrote the passage exactly as Eusebius recounted it.  Perhaps Free is a fundie moron?

[Bucky Ball]

Lots of good reasons to question it here :
Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]
1.Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger then 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
2.Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
3.Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
4.Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
5.Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
6."Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
7.Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.
Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]
1.Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger then 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
2.Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
3.Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
4.Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
5.Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
6."Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
7.Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus

[Minimalist]

It suffers from the same problem that the religitards had to deal with in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, Buck.  The church having lost its power to compel belief - or at least publicly punish disbelief - was unable to stop the advance of rationalism.  So the great miracle-working godboy began to fade away.  To borrow Robert Price's book title he became the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man!  Now he is reduced to some schmuck who got himself killed.  In much the same way as "Nazareth" was a city in gLuke but has now shrunk to a miserable little farming hamlet.  The TF was this magnificent tribute to jesus and for 1,200 years the church trumpeted it but then someone took a look at it without the threat of being burned at the stake and the fucking thing fell apart.

The earliest revision of it into what the jesus freaks now swear is the "original" was concocted in 1929 by Robert Eisler, a Jewish art historian who presumably is one of those great scholars that Free swears by.  Eisler's other works include discussion of astrology, werewolves, and economics.  He had a PH. D. in philology.  But he tells Free what he wants to hear so I'm sure he makes the grade.

Anyway, I can see why he'd be embarrassed by it.

[Free]

So you don't know.  Okay.  I expected nothing more.  It's what comes from surrounding yourself with theologians who you consider scholars.

You have made a lot of positive claims here.

1. "Eusebius had the "original version" of the TF." You don't know this at all. You have no evidence at all.

All you have is Eusebius claiming to be quoting the TF directly from Josephus. That's it. Nothing more. Nada. Anything else is 100% speculation.
 
Just because he is quoting the TF by no means can be used as evidence that what he wrote was the original. All it means is that it's the oldest known citation. Period.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the TF we see in the extant versions is the result of an interpolation by Eudebius.

You are reading into it only what you want to see, not what is actually there.

[jerry mcmasters]

Guys guys guys...does it really matter if Harvey existed as a Harvey the Rabbit in real life or that he never existed at all? It just doesn't really...oh wait...we're back on Jesus again? Oh fuck.

[Free]

So you don't know.  Okay.  I expected nothing more.  It's what comes from surrounding yourself with theologians who you consider scholars.

Nor do you know. All we both know is that Eusebius says he is quoting directly from Josephus.

And you're trying to spin that with mere speculation and flat out rubbish.

Go with what you know, not what you believe, otherwise you behave like a theist.

[Free]

Lots of good reasons to question it here :
Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]
1.Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger then 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
2.Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
3.Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
4.Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
5.Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
6."Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
7.Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.
Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]
1.Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger then 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
2.Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
3.Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
4.Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
5.Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
6."Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
7.Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus

Okay so now .... where is the actual evidence that proves, or even supports, that it's not authentic?

For the record, I side with the vast majority of the scholars who believe it was partially authentic and contained the nucleus of Jesus being crucified by Pilate. But that is still only a belief. WE DO NOT KNOW.

And it's unlikely we will ever know. What we have is exactly what we have. 

We don't know if:

1. It was interpolated wholesale.
2. If it was partially interpolated.
3. If is completely authentic.

The argument that it was partially interpolated is supported by a 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium, which is older than the extant version of Antiquities, and a Syriac version. One or the other does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, does not contain the phrase of "at the suggestion of the principal men among us," and instead it says "Pilate condemned him to be crucified." Does not say "He was the Christ" but rather "He was believed to be the Christ."

That's evidence. That's tangible. But what does it prove? Nothing. It only supports that the argument for partial interpolation is the best argument. It does not disprove wholesale interpolation or that it is completely authentic.

So, until you can provide evidence that supports wholesale interpolation, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Mere speculation and the opinions of all the scholars in the world won't change anything no matter what side of the argument you are on.

The best argument is partial interpolation, but even that is weak at best.

Therefore, the only honest thing we can say when we look at the TF is ...

"Whoomp, there it is!"



And here the thing; because "whoomp there it is," and because you cannot disprove it's authenticity, it is considered evidence to support the existence of Jesus.

And it doesn't fucking matter if we like it or lump it.

[Free]

It suffers from the same problem that the religitards had to deal with in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, Buck.  The church having lost its power to compel belief - or at least publicly punish disbelief - was unable to stop the advance of rationalism.  So the great miracle-working godboy began to fade away.  To borrow Robert Price's book title he became the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man!  Now he is reduced to some schmuck who got himself killed.  In much the same way as "Nazareth" was a city in gLuke but has now shrunk to a miserable little farming hamlet.  The TF was this magnificent tribute to jesus and for 1,200 years the church trumpeted it but then someone took a look at it without the threat of being burned at the stake and the fucking thing fell apart.

The earliest revision of it into what the jesus freaks now swear is the "original" was concocted in 1929 by Robert Eisler, a Jewish art historian who presumably is one of those great scholars that Free swears by.  Eisler's other works include discussion of astrology, werewolves, and economics.  He had a PH. D. in philology.  But he tells Free what he wants to hear so I'm sure he makes the grade.

Anyway, I can see why he'd be embarrassed by it.

XX WRONG! XX

That will be all.

Dismissed.

[Old Man Marsh]

 Oh no,  not again!




Opps, wrong horse. 

...is that guy jerking off while beating a dead horse?

[Minimalist]

You probably have no idea how fucking worthless your opinion is, Free.  Must have happened to you a lot though.  I can't believe that this is the only subject where you are a complete asshole.

[Minimalist]

Anyway, this is what Eisler came up with.... and frankly he pulled it out of his ass, which was the Slavonic Translation of Josephus which is a 13th century piece of shit. 

“At that time, too, there appeared a certain man of magical power, if it is permissible to call him a man, whom (certain) Greeks call a son of God, but his disciples the true prophet, (said to) raise the dead and heal all diseases. His nature and his form were human; a man of simple appearance, mature age, small stature, three cubits high, hunchbacked, with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair (but) with a parting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazirites, and with an undeveloped beard. Only in semblance was he superhuman, (for) he gave some astonishing and spectacular exhibitions. But again, if I look at his commonplace physique I (for one) cannot call him an angel…”(Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus’ recently rediscovered ’Capture of Jerusalem’ and other Jewish and Christian sources, 1931, p. 466–467

The 1931 date refers to the English translation.  Eisler wrote in German in 1928.  So all you have to do, Free, is find an earlier effort to reconstruct this bullshit that dates between 325 and 1927.  To be sure, other jesus freak assholes have used more common translations of Josephus and tweaked a word here or there over the years because they love to quibble about words...it's something of a cottage industry, you know. But Eisler gave them the idea.

[Bucky Ball]

Lots of good reasons to question it here :
Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]
1.Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger then 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
2.Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
3.Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
4.Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
5.Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
6."Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
7.Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.
Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]
1.Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger then 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
2.Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
3.Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
4.Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
5.Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
6."Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
7.Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus

Okay so now .... where is the actual evidence that proves, or even supports, that it's not authentic?

For the record, I side with the vast majority of the scholars who believe it was partially authentic and contained the nucleus of Jesus being crucified by Pilate. But that is still only a belief. WE DO NOT KNOW.

And it's unlikely we will ever know. What we have is exactly what we have. 

We don't know if:

1. It was interpolated wholesale.
2. If it was partially interpolated.
3. If is completely authentic.

The argument that it was partially interpolated is supported by a 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium, which is older than the extant version of Antiquities, and a Syriac version. One or the other does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, does not contain the phrase of "at the suggestion of the principal men among us," and instead it says "Pilate condemned him to be crucified." Does not say "He was the Christ" but rather "He was believed to be the Christ."

That's evidence. That's tangible. But what does it prove? Nothing. It only supports that the argument for partial interpolation is the best argument. It does not disprove wholesale interpolation or that it is completely authentic.

So, until you can provide evidence that supports wholesale interpolation, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Mere speculation and the opinions of all the scholars in the world won't change anything no matter what side of the argument you are on.

The best argument is partial interpolation, but even that is weak at best.

Therefore, the only honest thing we can say when we look at the TF is ...

"Whoomp, there it is!"



And here the thing; because "whoomp there it is," and because you cannot disprove it's authenticity, it is considered evidence to support the existence of Jesus.

And it doesn't fucking matter if we like it or lump it.

Wrong. 
You are not the Master Arbiter, Your Holiness. YOU don't get to Pontificate. What you said is nothing but your opinion, and everyone is free to decide for themself what it might be evidence for, or not evidence for. You dogmatic authoritarian approach does not serve you, not does it support much your *claim* to be trained in history.  

You STILL have not explained why, if Josephus really thought this, why does it never come up anywhere else ? 
Why does it break the "flow" of the book's narrative ? 
Why does it contradict the KNOWN position he had, that someone else was the messiah ? 

You are AVOIDING  the questions. They are EXACTLY what you were claiming was evidence, last week.

[Minimalist]

Free thinks he is the fucking pope.

[Free]

You probably have no idea how fucking worthless your opinion is, Free.  Must have happened to you a lot though.  I can't believe that this is the only subject where you are a complete asshole.

The reality is that everyone's opinion on the TF is worthless. It doesn't matter if you are the best scholar in the world, your opinion is still worthless.

That's what you don't seem to understand. Opinions only go so far when the evidence is scant. All we really have with the TF is .... there it is. It exists. We know it existed within 300 years of the purported time of Jesus. We do not know for sure one way or the other if it existed before Eusebius, but since he claims to be quoting it from Josephus then that is evidence to support that it did.

You have to make a choice. You can either believe Eusebius interpolated it and then support that hypothesis with evidence, or accept that ... there it is. Unless you have evidence to support Eusebius interpolating it, then you don't even have a theory, you have only your imagination.

History is never determined by imagining it. It is always determined by ... there it is.