If I Had Faked the Resurrection

Focus on the Family ^ | Wednesday, April 16, 2003 | Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler

[malakhi]

Get real. Your quote talks about temple libraries not the Alexandrian library.

His statement confirms that the library never existed since the fifth century.

But even if one stipulates that only temple libraries were destroyed, you have just conceded the point under discussion -- that Christians destroyed pagan manuscripts.

You still have no support for your anti-Christian bigotry.

Really, Dataman, such hysteria is beneath you. If I am not mistaken, you are not Catholic, correct? So it is not as if I am making accusations against your own denomination, or you personally. I made the claim that pagan and "heretical" works were destroyed by Christians. That this is true is not even debated by historians. Christians have, at times, done bad things. To speak of them is hardly "anti-Christian bigotry".

[malakhi]

Joeephus (Jewish hostile source) Antiquities 18.3.3

There are many modern scholars who believe that portions of these passages of Josephus are interpolations. You are familiar with the Catholic church's record of creatively editing and forging "historical" documents? The controversy over the Ignatian epistles? The Donation of Constantine? The pseudo-Isidorian Decretals?

The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a.

You may be surprised to learn that this is not, in fact, a reference to Jesus. "Yeshua" and all its variants was a common name in late Second Temple times. Naturally, then, there are references to people with this name in the Talmud. A look at the passage in context will demonstrate that this has nothing to do with the Jesus of the gospels.

First, read what it says. Does this even sound remotely like the passion accounts of the gospels? Forty days before the Passover, according to the gospels, Jesus wasn't even in Jerusalem. He arrived days before, and was greeted by cheering crowds. I'm sure on Palm Sunday the herald would have had no problem finding people to speak on Jesus's behalf. Other problems with the identification:

Yeshu was executed on the eve of Passover; Jesus on Passover itself.

Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court, not by the Romans.

The clincher, though, is that the real Yeshu lived 100 years before Jesus! Sanhedrin 107b decribes Yeshu and another rabbi, Yehoshua ben Perachiah, going to Alexandria, Egypt to avoid Sadducean persecution of the Pharisees during the reign of John Hyrcanus. After Hyrcanus's death, Alexander Yannai became king. He appointed a Pharisee, Shimon ben Shetach, to the Sanhedrin. Over time, Shetach grew in influence, and with that the Pharisee influence in the Sanhedrin. Eventually, it was safe for Pharisee rabbis in exile to return (around 80 BCE). It was sometime after this return that Yeshu broke with the Pharisees and started his own sect.

[malakhi]

Perhaps they don't want to bump the thread so others will not see their weak arguments.

Oh, please. I stated above the reason for my absence. I just happened to have a little time tonight to check in; I wasn't planning on doing so until Sunday.

[Dataman]

The Catholic Church forged Josephus?

You, sir, are beyond reason. You apparently reject all sources, whether primary or secondary, and manufacture history as it suits you. That is your choice but it is a self-serving one.

[Dataman]

What conclusions can reasonably be drawn by these significant contradictions? Either: a) Luke is pious fiction or inaccurate, based on exterior evidence, or b) your proof texts are fiction (pious or impious) or inaccurate, and you are back to square one.

You left out a third possibility: The Jewish trials were illegal and they smoothed over their mistakes. Nonetheless, they didn't deny the miracles of Christ, only attributed them to the devil. That's exactly what you requested: a secondary source that mentioned the miracles. You can claim the Talmud was referring to some other historical-yet-non-existent character, you can claim Josephus was forged but you must present as convincing evidence for your theories as you have demanded from us.

You don't like the primary sources and you don't like the secondary sources.

[malakhi]

The Catholic Church forged Josephus?

Did you read what I said? Let me quote it again for you.

There are many modern scholars who believe that portions of these passages of Josephus are interpolations.

Now, your hysteria aside, it is quite clear that the claim I made is much more limited than "The Catholic Church forged Josephus". Good grief, you can't even read my words accurately, and I'm supposed to give credence to your reading of scripture and other ancient Christian documents? Quit mischaracterizing my statements.

You do know what an interpolation is, don't you?

in·ter·po·late
v. tr.

1. To insert or introduce between other elements or parts.
2. 1. To insert (material) into a text.
   2. To insert into a conversation. See Synonyms at introduce.
3. To change or falsify (a text) by introducing new or incorrect material.
4. Mathematics. To estimate a value of (a function or series) between two known values.

v. intr.

To make insertions or additions.

---

[Latin interpolre, interpolt-, to touch up, refurbish, from interpolis, refurbished. See pel-⁵ in Indo-European Roots.]

---

in·terpo·lation n. in·terpo·lative adj.
in·terpo·lator n.

Now, as to the interpolations in Josephus. This is hardly a new question. From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Josephus:

Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations.

So even the Catholic church concedes that the passage is questionable. Secular scholars are more forthright in their opinions.

Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English. Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian. It is worth noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion of this text see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Doubleday, 1991), Vol I, pp. 57-88.

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 wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among 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 THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Like it or not, this is representative of the scholarly consensus on the subject.

You apparently reject all sources, whether primary or secondary, and manufacture history as it suits you. That is your choice but it is a self-serving one.

Physician, heal thyself. (Luke 4:23)

Anyone who reads this thread can decide who is dealing with real history, and who is in denial.

[malakhi]

You can claim the Talmud was referring to some other historical-yet-non-existent character

I have offered a detailed explanation of why this is correct. I haven't seen you offer a shred of evidence in refutation.

you can claim Josephus was forged but you must present as convincing evidence for your theories as you have demanded from us.

Where is your evidence to support your conclusions?

It is going to take a little more than your unsupported denials to refute the proffered evidence.

[Dataman]

Your rant revealed two things:

1) At best, the alleged interpolations are only likely, not fact.

2) The part about Christ's working of wonders is not in question.

[Dataman]

I haven't seen you offer a shred of evidence in refutation.

Must I refute each of your fantasies? This is getting rather one-sided: The Christians on this thread have presented coherent and supported arguments. You dismiss them with a wave of the hand and then demand that we disprove your unsupported dismissals.

Again, you have the right to deny anything- even your very existence.

[malakhi]

At best, the alleged interpolations are only likely, not fact.

The scholarly consensus is that they were interpolations.

2) The part about Christ's working of wonders is not in question.

From Josephus, you mean? Yes, I agree that that part is original. What this signifies is an entirely different question.

[Diamond]

I have just taken on a big project at work, and won't be able to FReep during office hours (how inconsiderate of my boss!)

I know how you feel. I feel the same way. Don't worry about it. Life keeps getting in the way of having a good time on FR:^)

Cordially,

[malakhi]

Must I refute each of your fantasies?

Your characterization of my posts is becoming tedious. Please specify precisely what I posted that you consider to be a "fantasy". I have presented specific documentation to support my claims (claims supported by mainstream scholarship). All you have done is deny them. You haven't even dealt with the evidence.

Look at one example specifically. You made a claim about a "Yeshu" in the Talmud, and asserted that this referred to Jesus. I provided you with specific information about this person, and showed how he could not possibly have been the same person as the Jesus of the gospels. To this point, you haven't provided any evidence to refute what I said. You only comment was "You can claim the Talmud was referring to some other historical-yet-non-existent character". Would you like to provide a substantive response to what I posted?

This is getting rather one-sided: The Christians on this thread have presented coherent and supported arguments. You dismiss them with a wave of the hand and then demand that we disprove your unsupported dismissals.

Again, the readers, if any, of this thread, can see for themselves who is supporting their arguments and who is being dismissive.

[Diamond]

Regarding the alledged interpolations in Josephus:

You all may find this information interesting; it is a newer THEORY. (It is a just a THEORY so don't get all worked up, Ok?:^) Did Josephus and Luke share a common source?

Cordially

[malakhi]

Dataman, have Christians, at various times in history, destroyed pagan, "heretical", or "blasphemous" works? A simple yes or no will suffice. Evidence to support your answer is welcome.

Diamond, will you weigh in with your opinion on this?

[malakhi]

From your link:

For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery

As I understand it, the scholarly consensus has been the more limited claim that parts of the passage were interpolated, but that the rest was authentic.

The conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that Josephus and Luke derived their passages from a common Christian (or Jewish-Christian) source.

An interesting theory, with some plausibility.

This is because the Antiquities account cannot plausibly be derived from the form of the text as it appears in Luke.

But what about the reverse possibility? Could the author of Luke have used Josephus as an historical source? That would greatly depend upon the dating of the gospel. An early date of composition would preclude this, but it would be possible if one assumes a late date.

[Dataman]

To this point, you haven't provided any evidence to refute what I said. You only comment was "You can claim the Talmud was referring to some other historical-yet-non-existent character". Would you like to provide a substantive response to what I posted?

I'm sorry you don't get it. Let me try to make it understandable: You haven't refuted the sources in question, only offered a left-field alternative. Therefore there is no need for me to refute your non-refutation. If you don't understand that, fine. Let's just leave the heavy lifting to PaganConservative.

[malakhi]

"Left field alternative"? I gave you a different passage from the Talmud, and explained how it proved that your interpretation of the other passage was wrong. I guess that's too far out there for you.

I see that you can't or won't offer a substantive response, so I'll quit wasting my time with you.

[1 spark]

RE: I see that you can't or won't offer a substantive response,

Dismissing your evidence suggests it's the former, rather than the latter. Somehow, this is akin to watching a politician change the subject when confronted with evidence or questions he can't handle and/or doesn't like.

[Diamond]

Diamond, will you weigh in with your opinion on this?

You guys are too prodigious for me! I haven't even gotten around to answering your comments on Daniel!:^)

Could the author of Luke have used Josephus as an historical source? That would greatly depend upon the dating of the gospel. An early date of composition would preclude this, but it would be possible if one assumes a late date.

I agree with you that the point probably hinges on the dating of Luke's writings. I personally tend toward the view that there are compelling reasons to date Acts prior to the death of Paul. One of these, alluded to by Dataman, is that Acts was possibly written as either a formal or informal legal brief to a Roman "Special Master" in charge of legal cases.

Cordially,