BBC "Documentary" Concerning Jesus

[Baron Scarpia]

I fail to see how Josephus is proof of anything other than that Josephus was familiar with some stories already circulating about Jesus, many decades (or perhaps longer) after the fact. He was, after all, not contemporary to the events in question.

The comparison that familiarity with the events 30+ years after they occured would have been the same as today's familiarity with WW2 is pretty silly. We're talking a completely different world, both culturally and technologically.

When Josephus was writing, the vast majority of people in the Western world at that point had never heard of Jesus, Christians or knew anything about the events that were to be described in the Gospels. So the suggestion that he would be held accountable for any inaccuracies/rumor mongering in his writings about the matter (which are a very inconsequential part of his work) is also rather preposterous.

One of the chief things to remember about historical writing in ancient times is that people got away with a ton of invention and libel, as the notions of scholarship we have today do not apply. My god, maybe half of what we "know" about the Roman Emperors as related by Tacitus and Seutonius is false.

[Mange]

Rye, if you don't mind, I'd like to focus on the historical texts first.

Which is one of the things that indicates that it's likely to be an interpolation.

My point here is that 20.9.1. without "called the Christ" would be very unusal for Josephus. It's a signal of its authenticity, not of an interpolation.

There are things that are atypical of Josephus in 20.9.1. For one thing, James is mentioned last, not first, in the sentence. Also look at the context and how Joseph is mentioned in the text: "... 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.
Now, let's look at how James is mentioned: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim 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:"
The character of James isn't important either, Ananus is the important one. This, combined with the atypical introduction, indicates that "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" didn't exist in the original Josephus manuscript and that it was worded differently.

There couldn't have been a very widespread knowledge about Christianity when Josephus wrote the Antiquities.

Why not? Pliny the Younger and Suetonius matter-of-factly wrote about Jesus and Christians shortly after Antiquities was published. Tacitus does the same, and if we take him at his word (15.44), Christians were widely known to pagans as early as Nero's time.

Suetonius seems not to have written anything about Christians. He refers, not to the title christ, but to the name Chrestus (=Chresto, a common name). To accept that this is about Christians it would also mean that Jesus actually was in Rome around 45-50 AD and led some sort of revolt (perhaps too strong a word, but you get the picture). Furthermore, the Egyptian god Serapis was referred to as Chrestos (however, it should be noted that Hadrianus in a letter that has been dated to 134 AD, if genuine and correctly translated, wrote: "The worshippers of Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves Bishops of Christ.")

And, as I've pointed out earlier, why would Josephus mention Jesus only in passing when he's not mentioned elsewhere? The character should've been introduced somewhere.

Assuming for a moment that the whole of 18.3.3 was interpolated, just why "should" Jesus have been introduced before? Off the top of my head, Josephus does the same thing with Felix' brother Pallas in Jewish War.

Remember that Josephus wrote for a non-Jewish audience. Would Josephus have believed that the title "Christ" would be known by the audience? Pallas is an interesting example. Compare how he's introduced to the atypical introduction of James.

What's not saying that it's an elaborate forgery to make it seem more authentic?

Haha. What if the earth were created 6,000 years ago but made to look several billion years older? Like in this creationist case, "the undetectable interpolation" is just unfalsifiable special pleading.

No it isn't. We know that some of the early church fathers forged books, letters and other materials (and destroyed pretty much the rest).

If there are no signs its an interpolation, we must accept it as authentic.

Yes, but unfortunately there are things that shows that this is an interpolation.

As I mentioned earlier, Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe Jesus to be the Christ (out of all the fourteen different Jesuses that Josephus mentions and Rye correctly points out that he thought Emperor Vespasian was the Messiah) so wouldn't it be strange if a wording that indicated that Jesus indeed was the Christ would suddenly appear?

But the wording doesnt indicate that Josephus thought Jesus was the Christ. As Origen understood in his quotations, "called the Christ" meant just that; a title people used to refer to Jesus.

I refer to my earlier answer.

To drive this point home, look at An 7.4.11. Here, Josephus refers to "Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes." Does that mean Josephus though Antiochus was "God made manifest"? Certainly not; he thought he was a big dick.

Don't you mean 10.11.7. (and the references in books 12 and 15)? The translation I have simply says "Antiochus Epiphanes" while it says "who was called Christ" in 20.9.1. I don't know how it's worded originally though.

Contrary to your claim, "tou legomenou Christou" (or closely worded variants thereof) appears in Christian sources such as in Matt 1:16 (as you pointed out) which isn't by any stretch of the imagination a pagan document, and also in the writings of St. Justin Martyr's (The First Apology, chapter 30).

My point was not that "called the Christ" was never written by a Christian pen, but that its atypical. When we couple this with the James language, it makes (I think) a very strong case against interpolation.

I don't understand why atypical wordings would be a "strong case against interpolation". Indeed, as I've explained, the way that James was referenced is atypical of Josephus.

That's still more than a century after the book had been written. That leaves plenty of time for a scribe to interpolate it. It has also been suggested that the passage in 2.13 is a misquotation made by Origen which later church fathers (read Eusebius) used. Another hypothesis is that one scribe in the 2nd or 3rd Century made a note in the margin and the next scribe thought it belonged to the text and included it. It's a really small change which is needed.

The idea is not that Origen misquoted "Jesus called the Christ," but that he (quite reasonably) misunderstood its context.

Alright.

Yes, but that doesn't prove the existence of Jesus. Just because Paul claims that James the Just was the brother of Jesus doesn't necessarily have to mean that he really was. Take a look at 1 Galatians 1:18-19:

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Paul also calls his fellow Christians "brethren" in Galatians, here's an example:

4:12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.

An other example can be found in 3:15 as well as in the other epistles. I've seen it suggested (although I don't fully buy into it: I'm not a Biblical scholar) that the James that Paul refers to was a convert and that Paul used "brother" to distinguish him from the apostles (indeed, two of the apostles were named James. However, IIRC James the Great was dead by that time and the background of James the Less is confusing to say the least)?

But Paul isnt saying the Christians of Galatia are Jesus' brothers. He's saying they are his brothers.

The closest you'll get is in the deutero-Pauline Philippians (1.14), but there are grammatical differences here that render that interpretation doubtful.

Alright. As I indicated, I was skeptical myself.

In regards to Paul, it's also interesting that the gospels and epistles in general rhymes very poorly with each other (compare Jesus' message in the Gospels to how it's treated in the epistles of Paul, for example. There are claims that directly contradicts what Jesus is supposed to have said.). Strangely enough, the crucifixition seems to be pretty much everything that Paul seems to have had knowledge about as he never mentioned anything about the virgin birth, Jesus' childhood, none of the supposed miracles that Jesus performed, none of the parables that Jesus used (he never referred to anything that Jesus is supposed to have said according to the Gospels), the other circumstances around the death of Jesus Christ (such as Peter's denial etc.) or any other specific events from the Gospels in his epistels. This is very odd considering the fact that he could've gotten first-hand accounts of Jesus from Peter (among others).

There are some instances where Paul's silence is odd, and it is in those instances that I doubt the gospel account (e.g. the silence about Jesus' overturning the food laws, as he supposedly did in Mark, during the debate in Gal 4).

But why would we expect Paul to mention other details that he did not? What occassion did he have? Again, its not enough to simply say Paul was silent about something. You must show that we would expect Paul to mention a detail where he did not.

Certainly. Take a look at these verses from 1 Corinthians:

15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

This would've been a very good time to mention Lazarus, wouldn't you say? Some other things are outright strange. Take for example Romans 8:

8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Jesus told the apostles exactly how they should pray (Matthew 6:9-13), but still Paul didn't know this? Why? The obvious answer: It hadn't been made up yet.

Leaving the Christian sources aside, Tacitus who was a Roman historian, apparently couldn't get his facts straight. "Tacitus" refered to Pilate as a procurator, but Tacitus should've known that Judea was under military rule and that Pilate's title was prefect and not procurator (which was a civilian title). There are many other problems with the Tacitus quotes, but it's sufficient to say is that it's not an eyewitness account and is, at best, hearsay.

Is the use of anachronistic titles unusal for Tacitus? No, I do not think it is (Annals 3.24.25; 4.62.9; 11.14.15; 13.32.13; 13.42.3.).

The fact that he was not an eyewitness is quite irrelevant in itself. Its value as evidence hinges more on his source -- did he hear it from Christians? (I doubt this) Did he read it from Christians? (I doubt this) Did he hear it from pagans or Jews? (I doubt this) Did he read it from pagans or Jews? (I find this most probable).

What can be said with certainty is that he couldn't have gotten it from eyewitnesses or official Roman documents, so it's effectively moot.

I'm not quite sure I'm following you. There were quite a few early Fathers who tried to find evidence for Jesus in non-Christian sources.

But this isnt true. The early Fathers werent going around looking to establish Jesus' historicity with non-christian documents because no one in antiquity had any doubts that he lived.

If Trypho or Celsus or whoever had said "Jesus never lived," then yes, we might expect it. But they did not.

Oh yes there were. The gnostics and docetics teached that Jesus never had existed as a man, but as an illusion. The early church fathers (such as Ignatius) countered that doctrine until that view was branded as heritical.

We've discussed Origen (who never referred to the TF)

Why would we expect Origen to reference the Testimonium?

Origen Contra Celsum, perhaps?

but there are others as well such as Clement of Alexandria (who referred to Josephus, but never to the TF)

Why would we expect Clement to make reference to the Testimonium? Are you quite sure Clement even knew Antiquities? Stromata 1.21 isnt very clear, and scholars disagree.

Exactly what is unclear about the said passage?

Saint Justin Martyr (who I've mentioned earlier made no reference to the TF)

There is no evidence that Justin knew Josephus.

He certainly didn't reference him, so I'll have to concede the point.

and Tertullian.

Did Tertullian know Josephus, or is he dependent on Theophilus? If he isnt, what occassion would he have to mention the Testimonium?

It's obvious that if Tertullian didn't read Josephus himself, then that point is moot as well.

Photius (who we'll come back to later) wrote a revision of Antiquities and wrote that Josephus never mentioned Christ.

Where does Photius write that "Josephus never mentioned Christ"? So far as im aware (and i've read all the codices available in English), this widely circulated internet rumor is confused.

And speaking of English translations, only codices 47 (on The Jewish War) and 76 (on events in Antiquities starting with Jesus son of Gamaliel) are available. At least in theory, only 238 could make reference to the Testimonium, but I have no idea how to evaluate that. I dont read French.

Do you know what 238 says and why we would expect Photius to mention the Testimonium there?

I've looked this up and it really seems as if Photius refers to the Testimonium in codice 48. Photius points out that the style isn't different from Josephus, but that he understands that people doesn't believe Josephus to be the writer and that notes stated that a man called Caius (or Gaius. 3rd Century) had written it.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Mange,

Im going to collect all of this and respond to the new stuff in the process. If I understand you, you think An 20.9.1 originally read "the brother of Jesus, James by name, together with some others." Against this, I argued:

1) Josephus always qualifies common names like Jesus and James. He would not have left the Jesus qualification for the end of the paragraph, particularly when we consider that there were two high priests named Jesus that this could have been referring to (if that is what Josephus had in mind).

The only response to this that I can see is in your last post, where you ask us to "compare how [Pallas is] introduced to the atypical introduction of James." If by this you mean that Pallas is not qualified, this is perfectly explicable in that both Felix and Pallas were well known Roman political figures with atypical Roman names.

I continue to find this, therefore, a very strong argument against interpolation.

2) Josephus refers to James as the brother of Jesus, and not the brother of the Lord or brother of the Savior. This is unknown in Christian literature, and therefore unlikely to have penned by a believer.

You have not responded to this.

3) Josephus says Jesus was "called the Christ," which is unusual (but not totally unknown) for Christians.

This seems to count against Christian interpolation.

4) The account of James' death differs from the received view of the early Fathers, making it unlikely to have been penned by a Christian.

You have not responded to this.

In defense of interpolation, you have argued thus:

1) Josephus would have introduced Jesus and explained "Christ" prior to 20.9.1. I questioned the reasons for thinking this on two grounds.

Firstly, Christians and Christ were known shortly after Antiquities were written. Your only response was that "Suetonius seems not to have written anything about Christians," but that is incorrect. In his Life of Nero (16) he tells us that "punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." This is quite independent of Life of Claudius (25) passage which incidentally, I happen to think is a rather confused reference to Jesus. Thats another story though.

Second, I pointed out that Josephus is known to have introduced figures without prior background. Without falling back on the first point, you did not address this.

In total, I dont think this is particularly strong evidence. That Josephus did not introduce Jesus prior to 20.9.1 (again, assuming the whole of 18.3.3 is interpolated) is fully consistent with how he wrote.

2) Josephus is known to have not considered Jesus messianic. As I said, Origen saw no conflict between what Josephus reports Jesus was called and what Josephus himself believed about Jesus messianic status.

I also pointed out how Josephus refers to Antiochus. You are right that the passage is not in book 7 but 12 (I quickly glanced at the roman numerals and read the XII as VII) and other places (the same language is used in War 1.1.1). In these instances, the language is the same "called" as in 20.9.1, but does not carry any sense of acceptance of the title.

Thus, I think this argument fails.

3) In your last post you said it was significant that "James is mentioned last, not first, in the sentence." If I understand, this Doherty-esque argument goes something like "the passage is about how Ananus was deposed, so why is Jesus more important than James, who is key to the story"?

But this makes no sense. The identification of James after Jesus, in the accusative, is simply the grammatically correct way to render it. Similar instances are all over his work. For example:

"Now as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was John." (Wars 2.21.1)

"He was an impious man, and impure in his course of life; but as the king of Egypt returned from the battle, he sent for Jehoahaz to come to him, to the city called Hamath (12) which belongs to Syria; and when he was come, he put him in bands, and delivered the kingdom to a brother of [Jehoahaz], by the father's side, whose name was Eliakim..." (An 10.5.2)

"Now about this time a son of Jeshua, whose name was Joacim, was the high priest." (An 11.5.1)

And many others.

I will continue with the Testimonium and Paul stuff later.

[God Fearing Atheist]

I don't understand why atypical wordings would be a "strong case against interpolation". Indeed, as I've explained, the way that James was referenced is atypical of Josephus.

Atypical for Christians, not Josephus.

Certainly. Take a look at these verses from 1 Corinthians:

15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

This would've been a very good time to mention Lazarus, wouldn't you say?

It may very well have been. Of course, the Lazarus tradition is not one that I believe is historical.

Some other things are outright strange. Take for example Romans 8:

8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Jesus told the apostles exactly how they should pray (Matthew 6:9-13), but still Paul didn't know this? Why? The obvious answer: It hadn't been made up yet.

But is that what Paul is saying?

Paul begins by telling the Romans that humans are weak and the spirit helps correct that. He then gives a specific example: because we are disconnected from god, we pray for things we should not. But dont worry, he says, because the spirit steps in guides us.

Where, then, is the opportunity to mention the Lord's Prayer? "The spirit is great yada-yada...helps us pray for what we should pray for...yada-yada...oh, and by the way, here is HOW we should pray"?

What can be said with certainty is that he couldn't have gotten it from eyewitnesses or official Roman documents, so it's effectively moot.

Its the latter that I find most probable. Why could he not have gotten it from offical Roman documents?

Oh yes there were. The gnostics and docetics teached that Jesus never had existed as a man, but as an illusion. The early church fathers (such as Ignatius) countered that doctrine until that view was branded as heritical.

You're misunderstanding docetism here. It does not teach that Jesus was an illusion in any mythicist sense, i.e. that Jesus did not exist. Rather, it teaches that Jesus was not man, not part man part divine (however thats intended), but entirely spiritual. Jesus was here on earth, gnostics and other docetics argued, but he only appeared to be fleshy. Hence the word "docetism" itself, derived from the Greek "dokein," or "to seem."

Orthodox Fathers would have no occassion to convince docetics of Jesus existence. They accepted it too.

Origen Contra Celsum, perhaps?

But why would Origen need to reference it in Contra Celsum? Of all the charges leveled against Jesus and his followers by Celsus, an ahistorical Jesus was not among them.

Exactly what is unclear about [Clement's reference to Josephus]?

Here is the quote, which to my knowledge, is the only reference Clement makes to Josephus:

"Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years."

Is this a reference to Wars? To Antiquities? To both Wars and Antiquities?

I've looked this up and it really seems as if Photius refers to the Testimonium in codice 48. Photius points out that the style isn't different from Josephus, but that he understands that people doesn't believe Josephus to be the writer and that notes stated that a man called Caius (or Gaius. 3rd Century) had written it.

The confession Photius read cannot be the Testimonium. This is not Antiquities, but On the Universe. Even with the few uncontroversial interpolations intact, nowhere does it "openly [give Jesus] the name of God." In any case, he was right in questioning its authorship; scholars attribute this work to Hippolytus.

Can we agree that whatever the deal with codex 48, Photius never wrote that Josephus failed to mention Jesus?

[God Fearing Atheist]

I fail to see how Josephus is proof of anything other than that Josephus was familiar with some stories already circulating about Jesus, many decades (or perhaps longer) after the fact. He was, after all, not contemporary to the events in question.

He certainly did not know Jesus personally, but think of it this way: An 20.9.1 is an account of why Ananus the High Priest was deposed. A man of importance in the Jewish community and nearby when it happened, could we really expect Josephus to learn of James, his brother Jesus called the Christ, and the role he played in the downfall of a Jewish High Priest from Christians decades after the fact?

That seems a might strange, dont you think?

[Baron Scarpia]

I fail to see how Josephus is proof of anything other than that Josephus was familiar with some stories already circulating about Jesus, many decades (or perhaps longer) after the fact. He was, after all, not contemporary to the events in question.

He certainly did not know Jesus personally, but think of it this way: An 20.9.1 is an account of why Ananus the High Priest was deposed. A man of importance in the Jewish community and nearby when it happened, could we really expect Josephus to learn of James, his brother Jesus called the Christ, and the role he played in the downfall of a Jewish High Priest from Christians decades after the fact?

That seems a might strange, dont you think?

Not really. We know that well prior to his writings, Paul had been journeying around the Mediterranean spreading his doctrines, and we have evidence of the Q precursor gospel being in existence prior to this time as well. It's perfectly reasonable that Josephus was clued into what the Christians of the era were preaching. All of this, of course, assumes the authenticity of the disputed passages, of which I'm not at all convinced, either.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Not really. We know that well prior to his writings, Paul had been journeying around the Mediterranean spreading his doctrines, and we have evidence of the Q precursor gospel being in existence prior to this time as well. It's perfectly reasonable that Josephus was clued into what the Christians of the era were preaching.

Yeah, because the downfall of Ananus is such an important part of Q and Pauline theology.

All of this, of course, assumes the authenticity of the disputed passages, of which I'm not at all convinced, either.

I sure hope your lack of conviction is based on the evidence.

[Baron Scarpia]

Yeah, because the downfall of Ananus is such an important part of Q and Pauline theology.

Well, my general point was to say that there were certainly "Christians" around at that time, from whom Josephus could have gotten his information, whether it be features in Paul's writings, the precursor gospels, or otherwise. He clearly was not an eyewitness to the events in question, so his information had to come from somewhere.

I sure hope your lack of conviction is based on the evidence.

Indeed. Or rather, a lack of evidence. Tell me--were the phrase "being called the Christ" removed from Antiquities, why would anyone assume the Jesus in question is the Jesus worshipped as the Messiah? After all, but a few sentences later, we encounter a Jesus, son of Damneus, who becomes high priest upon the fall of Ananus.

The first person to be known to have quoted the "Christ" passage in Josephus was Bishop Eusebius. Was he really a trustworthy source? He was not a historian, but a commited propagandist for his faith (who is known to have 'stretched the truth' in other regards).

All in all, I find the Jospehus passages utterly unconvincing as evidence for a historical Jesus, especially given the lack of any first-hand accounts from the actual time of Jesus's life. Even if the Josephus references to "Christ" are not fraudulent, they are not more than circumstantial evidence.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Well, my general point was to say that there were certainly "Christians" around at that time, from whom Josephus could have gotten his information, whether it be features in Paul's writings, the precursor gospels, or otherwise. He clearly was not an eyewitness to the events in question, so his information had to come from somewhere.

Of course it would be silly to deny the logical possibility of Josephus receiving his information from Christians. But how probable is this? How probable is it that a Palestinian Jew in high standing would have to learn of the circumstances of Ananus's replacement from an insignificant group of religious weirdos who, so far as we know, could have given two shits about the whole affair?

Indeed. Or rather, a lack of evidence. Tell me--were the phrase "being called the Christ" removed from Antiquities, why would anyone assume the Jesus in question is the Jesus worshipped as the Messiah? After all, but a few sentences later, we encounter a Jesus, son of Damneus, who becomes high priest upon the fall of Ananus.

As I have been at pains to get across, this notion simply does not work. Perhaps you can tell me where I went wrong.

The first person to be known to have quoted the "Christ" passage in Josephus was Bishop Eusebius. Was he really a trustworthy source? He was not a historian, but a commited propagandist for his faith (who is known to have 'stretched the truth' in other regards).

1) There are two "Christ passages" under consideration in this thread. The one you and I were considering (An 20.9.1)...

2) Is known as early as Origen and appears in all extant mss.

3) Prima facie, Eusebius is no less trustworthy than any other writer of history.

All in all, I find the Jospehus passages utterly unconvincing as evidence for a historical Jesus, especially given the lack of any first-hand accounts from the actual time of Jesus's life. Even if the Josephus references to "Christ" are not fraudulent, they are not more than circumstantial evidence.

That you find the "lack of any first-hand accounts from the actual time of Jesus" (which I take to mean from when Jesus was living) significant from the standpoint of his historicity, im not entirely sure.

Do you ascibe the same significance to Judas the Galilean, Theudas, the Samaritan prophet, John the Baptist, Athronges, carthaginian general Hannibal and all the other uncontroversially historical figures for whom the same evidentiary situation exists? Or just the guy who started Christianity?

[God Fearing Atheist]

By the way, it is quite impossible that Josephus got the information from Paul, seeing as how he was imprisoned in Rome when James was martyred in Jerusalem. He would remain there until he too was put to death only a couple years later.

From what "precursor gospel" you imagine the information coming from, im not entirely sure either.

[Mange]

A quickie.

Mange,

Im going to collect all of this and respond to the new stuff in the process. If I understand you, you think An 20.9.1 originally read "the brother of Jesus, James by name, together with some others." Against this, I argued:

1) Josephus always qualifies common names like Jesus and James. He would not have left the Jesus qualification for the end of the paragraph, particularly when we consider that there were two high priests named Jesus that this could have been referring to (if that is what Josephus had in mind).

The only response to this that I can see is in your last post, where you ask us to "compare how [Pallas is] introduced to the atypical introduction of James." If by this you mean that Pallas is not qualified, this is perfectly explicable in that both Felix and Pallas were well known Roman political figures with atypical Roman names.

I continue to find this, therefore, a very strong argument against interpolation.

No, that wasn't exactly how I was thinking. I was thinking more along the lines that words has been substituted, removed and/or altered.

2) Josephus refers to James as the brother of Jesus, and not the brother of the Lord or brother of the Savior. This is unknown in Christian literature, and therefore unlikely to have penned by a believer.

You have not responded to this.

I have alluded to it. If this is the work of a forger who a) was acquainted with the works of Josephus and b) knew what people had written before him, it would've been foolish to include references that directly points out Jesus as the Christ. In the case of this passage, I've also alluded to the possibility that it could be an honest mistake.

3) Josephus says Jesus was "called the Christ," which is unusual (but not totally unknown) for Christians.

This seems to count against Christian interpolation.

I don't see why (see my answer above).

4) The account of James' death differs from the received view of the early Fathers, making it unlikely to have been penned by a Christian.

You have not responded to this.

If this passage indeed wasn't interpolated by anyone, then that's likely. However, the reservations still stand.

In defense of interpolation, you have argued thus:

1) Josephus would have introduced Jesus and explained "Christ" prior to 20.9.1. I questioned the reasons for thinking this on two grounds.

Firstly, Christians and Christ were known shortly after Antiquities were written. Your only response was that "Suetonius seems not to have written anything about Christians," but that is incorrect. In his Life of Nero (16) he tells us that "punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." This is quite independent of Life of Claudius (25) passage which incidentally, I happen to think is a rather confused reference to Jesus. Thats another story though.

Yes, I'm aware of that (I was referring to the Life of Claudius).

Second, I pointed out that Josephus is known to have introduced figures without prior background. Without falling back on the first point, you did not address this.

In total, I dont think this is particularly strong evidence. That Josephus did not introduce Jesus prior to 20.9.1 (again, assuming the whole of 18.3.3 is interpolated) is fully consistent with how he wrote.

Again, even mentioning the possibility that Jesus was the Christ (even if it only says "so-called") seems strange.

2) Josephus is known to have not considered Jesus messianic. As I said, Origen saw no conflict between what Josephus reports Jesus was called and what Josephus himself believed about Jesus messianic status.

I also pointed out how Josephus refers to Antiochus. You are right that the passage is not in book 7 but 12 (I quickly glanced at the roman numerals and read the XII as VII) and other places (the same language is used in War 1.1.1). In these instances, the language is the same "called" as in 20.9.1, but does not carry any sense of acceptance of the title.

Thus, I think this argument fails.

The passage in 18.3.3. strongly implies that Jesus was the Christ.

3) In your last post you said it was significant that "James is mentioned last, not first, in the sentence." If I understand, this Doherty-esque argument goes something like "the passage is about how Ananus was deposed, so why is Jesus more important than James, who is key to the story"?

But this makes no sense. The identification of James after Jesus, in the accusative, is simply the grammatically correct way to render it. Similar instances are all over his work. For example:

"Now as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was John." (Wars 2.21.1)

"He was an impious man, and impure in his course of life; but as the king of Egypt returned from the battle, he sent for Jehoahaz to come to him, to the city called Hamath (12) which belongs to Syria; and when he was come, he put him in bands, and delivered the kingdom to a brother of [Jehoahaz], by the father's side, whose name was Eliakim..." (An 10.5.2)

"Now about this time a son of Jeshua, whose name was Joacim, was the high priest." (An 11.5.1)

And many others.

I'm not familiar with Doherty, but I'll give you that the passage is grammatically correct (however, it does not exclude the possibility that the some of the words has been added or altered, such as the Christ reference and "brother").

Now, there are some things that you haven't responded to:
* The passage in 18.3.3. doesn't fit contextually. Why would Josephus include this passage about "our" Jesus in a text that deals with various tragedies that happened to the Jews?

* Why does Jospehus speak so favorably about "our" Jesus ("wise man", "doer of wonderful things") compared to how he treated other Messianic characters and cults? See for example 18.1.1. in which Josephus wrote about the cult of Judas of Galilee ("All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men", "the madness of these men"). Even if it's only those lines that were interpolated, it's practically useless as we can't ascertain what Josephus really wrote.

It's also interesting how Josephus refers to this cult in An 18.1.6: "[/i]But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author.". And yet we are to believe that Josephus referred to the Christians as a "tribe"? None of of the pagan or Christian fathers, many of whom we've discussed, ever used the word "tribe". However, there is one notable exception: Eusebius. See Eusebius' Pamphilius 4.12.6.

I think it's interesting that you, in your response to Baron Scarpia wrote that "Prima facie, Eusebius is no less trustworthy than any other writer of history.[/i[" Really? See for example Eusebius' thoughts about the truth in Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31 which has the chapter heading "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" Does this sound like a man you could trust?

[Baron Scarpia]

Of course it would be silly to deny the logical possibility of Josephus receiving his information from Christians. But how probable is this? How probable is it that a Palestinian Jew in high standing would have to learn of the circumstances of Ananus's replacement from an insignificant group of religious weirdos who, so far as we know, could have given two shits about the whole affair?

You're continuing to misinterpret what I'm saying, as I'm not suggesting such information about Ananus was contained in any gospels or necessarily being preached by Christians as part of their story. But he could have, conceivably, gotten his information about James from someone who was overeager to make a connection to Jesus. That's just an example of how it could happen, mind you.

As I have been at pains to get across, this notion simply does not work. Perhaps you can tell me where I went wrong.

I'll need more of an answer than that. I don't see how, if one removes those passages, one should assume the Jesus in question being the same as "Jesus Christ," especially since in absence of those passages, it suggests to me the James in question was the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus.

1) There are two "Christ passages" under consideration in this thread. The one you and I were considering (An 20.9.1)...

2) Is known as early as Origen and appears in all extant mss.

3) Prima facie, Eusebius is no less trustworthy than any other writer of history.

I'm aware there's another passage, but I think Mange is dealing with that fine. As for Eusebius, Mange just beat me to the punch--he was a self-confessed "Liar for the Faith." His goal was not to be an accurate historian, but to be a propagandist for his beliefs. So no, I don't find him as trustworthy a source as other historians.

That you find the "lack of any first-hand accounts from the actual time of Jesus" (which I take to mean from when Jesus was living) significant from the standpoint of his historicity, im not entirely sure.

I would think that any figure who would have caused so much trouble at the time would be documented somewhere, but that's besides the point. You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing something I'm not, i.e., that Jesus did not exist. That is not my position, as I'm undecided on the issue. I am only arguing that there is a lack of anything but circumstantial evidence as to his existence. Conclusions may be drawn from there.

Do you ascibe the same significance to Judas the Galilean, Theudas, the Samaritan prophet, John the Baptist, Athronges, carthaginian general Hannibal and all the other uncontroversially historical figures for whom the same evidentiary situation exists? Or just the guy who started Christianity?

Since such figures' significance to history are relatively minor, I don't really care whether or not they were historical. Keep in mind that Christianity hinges on there being a real Jesus. Nothing really falls apart should the above mentioned folks be shown not to have really existed. But if Jesus didn't really exist, we're talking a collapse of a faith that half the world adheres to (not to mention problems for Islam as well). Note, this is not something I seek, but it's just to show that the question of an extraordinary personage like Jesus merits much more scrutiny.

To provide another example, did Socrates really exist? While it was conventional wisdom for a long time to assume so, there is now considerable doubt from historians as to how much of the described Socrates is genuine and how much is Plato. Many scholars think that virtually everything Plato wrote about the man is a fiction meant for the purposes of creating a mouthpiece for his philosophical goals. This is not an unusual technique in ancient writings. Well, what if the same is true for Jesus? What if he's a Pauline invention, co-opted from a local messianic cult, that allowed the apostle to express the new worldview he'd been longing for?

By the way, it is quite impossible that Josephus got the information from Paul, seeing as how he was imprisoned in Rome when James was martyred in Jerusalem. He would remain there until he too was put to death only a couple years later.

From what "precursor gospel" you imagine the information coming from, im not entirely sure either.

Again, I wasn't saying Josephus got this particular bit of information from these particular sources. I only mentioned them to point out that, at the time, there would have been enough information floating around about Christianity that he could have gotten the information from a Christian source, if the passages are genuine. Hopefully I won't have to clarify this for you a fourth time.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Mange,

Your entire response to the question of 20.9.1 appears to have morphed into the ad hoc, unfalsifiable "perfect interpolation" theory we agreed should be rejected.

Unless you have some other arguments or responses to what I have offered here, I suggest you join the vast majority of the scholarly community in accepting the passage.

Now with respect to 18.3.3....

* The passage in 18.3.3. doesn't fit contextually. Why would Josephus include this passage about "our" Jesus in a text that deals with various tragedies that happened to the Jews?

It should be pointed out that this objection hinges on the reconstruction being neutral, and not negative ala Twelftree, Bruce, Stanton or Bammel. For the record, here is how Bruce (1974, pg. 39) renders it:

"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and many Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on the information provided by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble. The tribe of Christians, which has taken its name from him, is not extinct even today."

A deceiver leading Jews astray and causing problems fits 18.3.4 perfectly. Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a reconstruction, and I find it very doubtful.

All in all, I happen to think this is one of the strongest arguments against 18.3.3 as a whole.

(I should point out, lest anyone get confused, that im not particularly committed to the authenticity of the Testimonium. Im just not very fond of several of the arguments to that extent.)

* Why does Jospehus speak so favorably about "our" Jesus ("wise man", "doer of wonderful things") compared to how he treated other Messianic characters and cults? See for example 18.1.1. in which Josephus wrote about the cult of Judas of Galilee ("All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men", "the madness of these men"). Even if it's only those lines that were interpolated, it's practically useless as we can't ascertain what Josephus really wrote.

Just how laudatory is the language, and is Jesus treated differently than those in similar situations? First the language...

"Wise man" is not a mean thing to say, but its not exactly a ringing endorsement or typically Christian either. Van Voorst (2000, pg. 89) reports that Christians rarely refered to Jesus in these terms, and we know that Josephus used it for Solomon (An 8.2.7), the prophet Daniel (10.11.2), and similar language for that other first century prophet, JBap (An 18.5.2, where is it "good man").

The sense "amazing/wonderful deeds" carries is more problematic. "Paradoxon ergon poietes" can also be read as something like "startling deeds" or "controversial deeds." In any case, the sentence should probably be taken as saying nothing more than Jesus had a reputation for miracles/magic.

With respect to his treatment of messianic types in general, its useful to adopt the "Popular prophetic movements (PPM)/Oracular prophet(OP)" taxonomy of Horsley & Hanson (1985). PPM, like the Egyptian and Theudas, as well as royal pretenders like Menahem and bandit leaders like John of Gischala, all fare very poorly in Josephus. The most likely reason is how they fared among the Romans; PPM were dealt with as explicitly revolutionary. Horsley argues that the Romans would have taken something as innocent sounding (to us) as parting the Jordan and leading his followers out into the wilderness as a self-conscious emulation of the original conquest of Jerusalem. In other words, Theudas did not just promise to part the Jordan like Moses parted the Red Sea as some sort of magic show, but to vanquish the Roman occupiers of god's sacred land.

Oracular prophets were both described and treated more neutrally. Jesus son of Ananias, who proclaimed the destruction of Jerusalem, isnt ruthlessly knocked by Josephus or summarily executed by the Romans. He is treated matter-of-factly in the text and handed over to Albinus for trial. The same with JBap. Jesus of Nazareth would fall into this category.

I think it's interesting that you, in your response to Baron Scarpia wrote that "Prima facie, Eusebius is no less trustworthy than any other writer of history.[/i[" Really? See for example Eusebius' thoughts about the truth in Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31 which has the chapter heading "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" Does this sound like a man you could trust?

Did Eusebius author those chapter headings? Did he author the summaries at the beginning of the book? These issues have been debated for literally centuries.

Suppose he did write it, what did he mean? "Pseudos" need not carry any sense of intentional deceit.

More later.

[God Fearing Atheist]

You're continuing to misinterpret what I'm saying, as I'm not suggesting such information about Ananus was contained in any gospels or necessarily being preached by Christians as part of their story. But he could have, conceivably, gotten his information about James from someone who was overeager to make a connection to Jesus. That's just an example of how it could happen, mind you.

Im not misinterpreting anything here; im pointing out why its silly to think Josephus would have received his information from Christians.

The Antiquities 20.9.1 is not about Jesus. It's not even about James, really. Its about how a Jewish High Priest lost his job, something significant for a Pharisaic Jew and irrelevant to a Christian.

That Josephus would have to hear about the circumstances of this event (including James, that caused his trouble), from a Christian is nonsensical.

I'll need more of an answer than that. I don't see how, if one removes those passages, one should assume the Jesus in question being the same as "Jesus Christ," especially since in absence of those passages, it suggests to me the James in question was the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus.

Ive only addressed that issue in a dozen posts so far. Instead of repeating myself, I refer you to the post I made on March 30th at 6:44 pm.

I'm aware there's another passage, but I think Mange is dealing with that fine. As for Eusebius, Mange just beat me to the punch--he was a self-confessed "Liar for the Faith." His goal was not to be an accurate historian, but to be a propagandist for his beliefs. So no, I don't find him as trustworthy a source as other historians.

You said, with respect to 20.9.1, that "the first person to be known to have quoted the "Christ" passage in Josephus was Bishop Eusebius."

Do you agree that you were in error?

I would think that any figure who would have caused so much trouble at the time would be documented somewhere, but that's besides the point. You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing something I'm not, i.e., that Jesus did not exist. That is not my position, as I'm undecided on the issue. I am only arguing that there is a lack of anything but circumstantial evidence as to his existence. Conclusions may be drawn from there.

Since such figures' significance to history are relatively minor, I don't really care whether or not they were historical. Keep in mind that Christianity hinges on there being a real Jesus. Nothing really falls apart should the above mentioned folks be shown not to have really existed. But if Jesus didn't really exist, we're talking a collapse of a faith that half the world adheres to (not to mention problems for Islam as well). Note, this is not something I seek, but it's just to show that the question of an extraordinary personage like Jesus merits much more scrutiny.

To provide another example, did Socrates really exist? While it was conventional wisdom for a long time to assume so, there is now considerable doubt from historians as to how much of the described Socrates is genuine and how much is Plato. Many scholars think that virtually everything Plato wrote about the man is a fiction meant for the purposes of creating a mouthpiece for his philosophical goals. This is not an unusual technique in ancient writings. Well, what if the same is true for Jesus? What if he's a Pauline invention, co-opted from a local messianic cult, that allowed the apostle to express the new worldview he'd been longing for?

I will simply say this: hypotheses of a historical Jesus are no more exceptional than those of any other personage. The same set of historigraphical research methods apply equally to all, and "no contemporary accounts = significant from the standpoint of historicity" is not counted among them.

And no, it is quite impossible that Jesus is a "Pauline invention." I'd hope someone who freely pontificates on matters Jesus would know that.

Again, I wasn't saying Josephus got this particular bit of information from these particular sources. I only mentioned them to point out that, at the time, there would have been enough information floating around about Christianity that he could have gotten the information from a Christian source, if the passages are genuine. Hopefully I won't have to clarify this for you a fourth time.

If you dont want me pointing the impossibility of the account deriving from Paul or "precursor gospels," perhaps you should stop counting them among potential sources?

Lets also not forget how (as detailed in my many posts on this passage which you cant seem to find) this putative "information from a Christian source" significantly departs from the accepted early Christian view of James martyrdom....

[Mange]

Mange,

Your entire response to the question of 20.9.1 appears to have morphed into the ad hoc, unfalsifiable "perfect interpolation" theory we agreed should be rejected.

Unless you have some other arguments or responses to what I have offered here, I suggest you join the vast majority of the scholarly community in accepting the passage.

As I'm sure you're aware of, there's far from a consensus on the issue. Respected scholars, such as the late Ernst von Dobschütz, maintains that the passage is an interpolation. Also don't forget that the earliest copy found was written 800 years after Josephus originally wrote the book. I'll return to 20.9.1 later.

Now with respect to 18.3.3....

* The passage in 18.3.3. doesn't fit contextually. Why would Josephus include this passage about "our" Jesus in a text that deals with various tragedies that happened to the Jews?

It should be pointed out that this objection hinges on the reconstruction being neutral, and not negative ala Twelftree, Bruce, Stanton or Bammel. For the record, here is how Bruce (1974, pg. 39) renders it:

"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and many Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on the information provided by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble. The tribe of Christians, which has taken its name from him, is not extinct even today."

A deceiver leading Jews astray and causing problems fits 18.3.4 perfectly. Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a reconstruction, and I find it very doubtful.

All in all, I happen to think this is one of the strongest arguments against 18.3.3 as a whole.

I'm glad we agree on that. I'm familiar with other variants as well, but t

There's also this. Have you ever noticed the similarities between the TF and the Gospel of Luke 24:19-20? Oh, and why would Josephus write that: "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"? Josephus would've known that Christ isn't a name, but a title, don't you think? With the exception of Societas Iesu, Christians aren't called Jesuites, are they?

(I should point out, lest anyone get confused, that im not particularly committed to the authenticity of the Testimonium. Im just not very fond of several of the arguments to that extent.)

Well, you certainly fooled me.

* Why does Jospehus speak so favorably about "our" Jesus ("wise man", "doer of wonderful things") compared to how he treated other Messianic characters and cults? See for example 18.1.1. in which Josephus wrote about the cult of Judas of Galilee ("All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men", "the madness of these men"). Even if it's only those lines that were interpolated, it's practically useless as we can't ascertain what Josephus really wrote.

Just how laudatory is the language, and is Jesus treated differently than those in similar situations? First the language...

"Wise man" is not a mean thing to say, but its not exactly a ringing endorsement or typically Christian either. Van Voorst (2000, pg. 89) reports that Christians rarely refered to Jesus in these terms, and we know that Josephus used it for Solomon (An 8.2.7), the prophet Daniel (10.11.2), and similar language for that other first century prophet, JBap (An 18.5.2, where is it "good man").

I'd say that "wise man" is complimentary, it's certainly not a neutral statement. That Josephus used it for Solomon and Daniel doesn't surprise me at all.

The sense "amazing/wonderful deeds" carries is more problematic. "Paradoxon ergon poietes" can also be read as something like "startling deeds" or "controversial deeds." In any case, the sentence should probably be taken as saying nothing more than Jesus had a reputation for miracles/magic.

Yes, but by whom? According to the gospels, the reputation of Jesus went far and wide, but still no contemporary writer wrote about Jesus and the works he did.

With respect to his treatment of messianic types in general, its useful to adopt the "Popular prophetic movements (PPM)/Oracular prophet(OP)" taxonomy of Horsley & Hanson (1985). PPM, like the Egyptian and Theudas, as well as royal pretenders like Menahem and bandit leaders like John of Gischala, all fare very poorly in Josephus. The most likely reason is how they fared among the Romans; PPM were dealt with as explicitly revolutionary. Horsley argues that the Romans would have taken something as innocent sounding (to us) as parting the Jordan and leading his followers out into the wilderness as a self-conscious emulation of the original conquest of Jerusalem. In other words, Theudas did not just promise to part the Jordan like Moses parted the Red Sea as some sort of magic show, but to vanquish the Roman occupiers of god's sacred land.

Yes, and this makes the TF look even more suspicious. Why did Josephus speak complimentary about Jesus when the Romans had executed him? Not only that, he puts the finger on his own people, and worse than that, Josephus was a priest himself! Furthermore, Josephus didn't state why Jesus was executed (compare this to An 18.5.2 which is also a good deal longer than the passage in 18.3.3.)

Oracular prophets were both described and treated more neutrally. Jesus son of Ananias, who proclaimed the destruction of Jerusalem, isnt ruthlessly knocked by Josephus or summarily executed by the Romans. He is treated matter-of-factly in the text and handed over to Albinus for trial. The same with JBap. Jesus of Nazareth would fall into this category.

Uh what? Exactly why would Jesus fall into this category? Didn't "Josephus" refer to him "as Christ" in the TF or the "so-called Christ" in 20.9.1.? That was really stretching it, God Fearing Atheist.

I think it's interesting that you, in your response to Baron Scarpia wrote that "Prima facie, Eusebius is no less trustworthy than any other writer of history.[/i[" Really? See for example Eusebius' thoughts about the truth in Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31 which has the chapter heading "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" Does this sound like a man you could trust?

Did Eusebius author those chapter headings? Did he author the summaries at the beginning of the book? These issues have been debated for literally centuries.

*Sigh* It's not just the chapter heading, for crying out loud. In the chapter itself, Eusebius wrote that:

"Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

In other words, he drew parallells between cheating in one's own work with how he percieves it in the OT (he also refers to Plato). Of course, having been dead for almost 1,670 years, Eusebius can't defend himself but I think it speaks well for itself (and of course, there weren't any academic standards, he was a product of his time).

Suppose he did write it, what did he mean? "Pseudos" need not carry any sense of intentional deceit.

I think it's pretty clear what he meant. See also Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 8.2. Then we also have the letter from Jesus to the King of Edessa which Eusebius translated himself. Fascinating...

[Baron Scarpia]

Im not misinterpreting anything here; im pointing out why its silly to think Josephus would have received his information from Christians.

The Antiquities 20.9.1 is not about Jesus. It's not even about James, really. Its about how a Jewish High Priest lost his job, something significant for a Pharisaic Jew and irrelevant to a Christian.

That Josephus would have to hear about the circumstances of this event (including James, that caused his trouble), from a Christian is nonsensical.

I disagree. It is perfectly possible that he got the information on the supposed identity of this James from a Christian source. Whether or not the rest of the passage is about Jesus or Christianity isn't relevant.

Ive only addressed that issue in a dozen posts so far. Instead of repeating myself, I refer you to the post I made on March 30th at 6:44 pm.

Sorry, I read that post, and it in no way addresses the point that the Jesus in question most logically seems to be a different one, should one ignore the "Christ" text. Do explain.

You said, with respect to 20.9.1, that "the first person to be known to have quoted the "Christ" passage in Josephus was Bishop Eusebius."

Do you agree that you were in error?

No, because I specifically mentioned that I was talking about the passage in Antiquities, which was indeed first mentioned by Eusebius. You are taking what I said out of context, again.

I will simply say this: hypotheses of a historical Jesus are no more exceptional than those of any other personage. The same set of historigraphical research methods apply equally to all, and "no contemporary accounts = significant from the standpoint of historicity" is not counted among them.

I don't see this as being quite the same. When a group of people have a vested interest in a personage existing (such as Christians for Jesus), the stakes become greater. It seems to me that the entire body of evidence for the existence of Jesus is based on pro-Christian religious propaganda. While I wouldn't say this is necessarily false, it is certainly an eyebrow-raising concern. And far different than the situation with, say, Hannibal Barca (who, unlike Jesus, is features on contemporary coinage, thus rendering your mention of him irrelevant).

And no, it is quite impossible that Jesus is a "Pauline invention." I'd hope someone who freely pontificates on matters Jesus would know that.

That's an assertion sans evidence. Why is it impossible? I'm not saying he might have made up the figure wholesale, mind you--just that he created a heavy fiction.

If you dont want me pointing the impossibility of the account deriving from Paul or "precursor gospels," perhaps you should stop counting them among potential sources?

Which I didn't. Thanks for the 3rd (4th?) strawman.

Lets also not forget how (as detailed in my many posts on this passage which you cant seem to find) this putative "information from a Christian source" significantly departs from the accepted early Christian view of James martyrdom....

Well now...this seems to contradict your belief in the accuracy of Eusebius, since it is he who gives the contradictory story of James' martyrdom. Was Eusebius so wrong on the fate of James, or was Josephus wrong on his identity?

I'd say there being such a different version of events is just further evidence that the James mentioned in Josephus is NOT the James believed to have been the brother of Jesus "Christ."

[God Fearing Atheist]

As I'm sure you're aware of, there's far from a consensus on the issue. Respected scholars, such as the late Ernst von Dobschütz, maintains that the passage is an interpolation. Also don't forget that the earliest copy found was written 800 years after Josephus originally wrote the book. I'll return to 20.9.1 later.

I can only be aware of something thats actually the case, and it just aint the case that there is no scholarly consensus here. Aside from one or two early 20th century historians (von Dobschutz died in the 30s) and the modern Usual Suspects (Wells, Doherty), I can count only Twelftree, Brandon and Kautsky as being on the side of interpolation. If a handful of guys can break a consensus, i suppose that means the scholarly community is divided on the historicity of the Holocaust and universal common ancestry as well.

Though a good bit smaller than in the former case, a majority of scholars accept (partial) authenticity of the Testimonium as well. Interestingly, Brandon and Twelftree are both part of this group.

Anyone is free to disagree with majority scholarly opinion. As I said, I have my doubts about the Testimonium. But we need to recognize a majority where one exists, and our disagreement has to be backed up by the evidence

There's also this. Have you ever noticed the similarities between the TF and the Gospel of Luke 24:19-20?

Im aware of that structural parallel, yes. I havent read much of anything on the subject though, so I couldnt comment more fully.

Oh, and why would Josephus write that: "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"? Josephus would've known that Christ isn't a name, but a title, don't you think? With the exception of Societas Iesu, Christians aren't called Jesuites, are they?

A Christian interpolator would have known that too, right?

Anyway, I dont see why "named after him" must carry the sense of "derived from his birth name" as opposed to "derived from his given title."

More later.

[God Fearing Atheist]

I disagree. It is perfectly possible that he got the information on the supposed identity of this James from a Christian source. Whether or not the rest of the passage is about Jesus or Christianity isn't relevant.

Your disagreement has been noted. Now...

1) As I said before and will say again, the issue is not possibility but probability. That the earth could have been created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago does not make it a "hypothesis" worth entertaining. The reason being, of course, that it cannot account for the available data vis-a-vis the alternatives....

2) Which means one who thinks Josephus' source was Christian must account for that data.

Would you care to try Baron? You know, cite some data and stuff? Explain why it was more likely learned from a Christian than a Pharisee?

Sorry, I read that post, and it in no way addresses the point that the Jesus in question most logically seems to be a different one, should one ignore the "Christ" text. Do explain.

1) You have provided precisely zero evidence that Jesus, the brother of James, "logically seems to be a different one." The only evidence that was cited (by Mange, who actually attempts to back up his claims) was found to be wanting. You can do one of two things here; cite heretofore unmentioned evidence that "called the Christ" is a gloss, or deal with my objections to the evidence already offered.

2) The first four points, but particularly point one, explicitly deal with reasons why a gloss is unlikely. You can address them or ignore them, but I suspect you'll do the latter.

No, because I specifically mentioned that I was talking about the passage in Antiquities, which was indeed first mentioned by Eusebius. You are taking what I said out of context, again.

1) Both passages are in Antiquities, buddy.

2) What you wrote is as follows:

Indeed. Or rather, a lack of evidence. Tell me--were the phrase "being called the Christ" removed from Antiquities, why would anyone assume the Jesus in question is the Jesus worshipped as the Messiah? After all, but a few sentences later, we encounter a Jesus, son of Damneus, who becomes high priest upon the fall of Ananus.

The first person to be known to have quoted the "Christ" passage in Josephus was Bishop Eusebius. Was he really a trustworthy source? He was not a historian, but a commited propagandist for his faith (who is known to have 'stretched the truth' in other regards).

The passage in the first paragraph can only be An 20.9.1, which was known to Origen. That you would now claim to be refering to 18.3.3 in the second can mean only that 1) you were wrong and are trying to divert it or 2) are perfectly awful at conveying your thoughts in English.

I don't see this as being quite the same. When a group of people have a vested interest in a personage existing (such as Christians for Jesus), the stakes become greater. It seems to me that the entire body of evidence for the existence of Jesus is based on pro-Christian religious propaganda. While I wouldn't say this is necessarily false, it is certainly an eyebrow-raising concern. And far different than the situation with, say, Hannibal Barca (who, unlike Jesus, is features on contemporary coinage, thus rendering your mention of him irrelevant).

1) That Jesus is religiously significant is irrelevant. The issue is his history and the historigraphical methods applied thereto. As a matter of historical investigation, Jesus is no different than anyone else. The application of absurd criteria to him and no one else is a sign, not of good scholarship, but of personal bias.

2) Jesus is attested to outside of Christian documents. Not that it matters. Im not aware of any principle of historical investigation that says Christian writings are devoid of things that happened in the past.

That's an assertion sans evidence. Why is it impossible? I'm not saying he might have made up the figure wholesale, mind you--just that he created a heavy fiction.

I had hoped you would be aware of the principle of multiple independent attestation. You know, how a tradition must predate two or more sources that report the same tradition without being aware of each other?

Which I didn't. Thanks for the 3rd (4th?) strawman.

Sure you didnt...

Well now...this seems to contradict your belief in the accuracy of Eusebius, since it is he who gives the contradictory story of James' martyrdom. Was Eusebius so wrong on the fate of James, or was Josephus wrong on his identity?

Umm...what the fuck?

Eusebuis quotes Clement's account and then gives Hegesippus', which he finds to be "the most accurate." He then cites An 20.9.1 as agreeing that:

"James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him."

Eusebuis may or may not have been wrong in agreeing with Hegesippus and Clement. But how this shows he was acting as a "propagandist" who is known to "stretch the truth" --in so many words, a deliberate liar -- I havent the foggiest. How this is inconsistant with my statement that Eusebuis is no less trustworthy because he is Eusebuis, I dont know either. I never said he was inerrant.

I'd say there being such a different version of events is just further evidence that the James mentioned in Josephus is NOT the James believed to have been the brother of Jesus "Christ."

How odd it is that a Christian would deliberately alter a passage to be read that way. How odd it would be that two men named James, with brothers named Jesus, were martyred at the Temple.

[Mange]

As I'm sure you're aware of, there's far from a consensus on the issue. Respected scholars, such as the late Ernst von Dobschütz, maintains that the passage is an interpolation. Also don't forget that the earliest copy found was written 800 years after Josephus originally wrote the book. I'll return to 20.9.1 later.

I can only be aware of something thats actually the case, and it just aint the case that there is no scholarly consensus here. Aside from one or two early 20th century historians (von Dobschutz died in the 30s) and the modern Usual Suspects (Wells, Doherty), I can count only Twelftree, Brandon and Kautsky as being on the side of interpolation. If a handful of guys can break a consensus, i suppose that means the scholarly community is divided on the historicity of the Holocaust and universal common ancestry as well.

That is ridiculous.

Though a good bit smaller than in the former case, a majority of scholars accept (partial) authenticity of the Testimonium as well. Interestingly, Brandon and Twelftree are both part of this group.

If it's indeed is authentic, albeit with some heavy interpolating, it's useless as we can't know what Josephus wrote.

Anyone is free to disagree with majority scholarly opinion. As I said, I have my doubts about the Testimonium. But we need to recognize a majority where one exists, and our disagreement has to be backed up by the evidence

If we include the apologetics, then I'm sure you can get a majority.

There's also this. Have you ever noticed the similarities between the TF and the Gospel of Luke 24:19-20?

Im aware of that structural parallel, yes. I havent read much of anything on the subject though, so I couldnt comment more fully.

I know that there has been some work done on this, but unfortunately I haven't read any of it.

Oh, and why would Josephus write that: "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"? Josephus would've known that Christ isn't a name, but a title, don't you think? With the exception of Societas Iesu, Christians aren't called Jesuites, are they?

A Christian interpolator would have known that too, right?

As a matter of fact: not necessarily. "Christ" became a personal name rather early.

Anyway, I dont see why "named after him" must carry the sense of "derived from his birth name" as opposed to "derived from his given title."
[/quote]
The passage is quite clear.

[Rye]

What happened to Durandal and the other people asserting the Mithra-Jesus connections, out of interest? There's not been any refutations or concessions or anything, I expected a bit more than just waiting for the subject to disappear.

[God Fearing Atheist]

*Sigh* It's not just the chapter heading, for crying out loud. In the chapter itself, Eusebius wrote that:

"Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

In other words, he drew parallells between cheating in one's own work with how he percieves it in the OT (he also refers to Plato). Of course, having been dead for almost 1,670 years, Eusebius can't defend himself but I think it speaks well for itself (and of course, there weren't any academic standards, he was a product of his time).

I think thats a wildly uncharitable interpretation.

Remember, first of all, that Praeparatio Evangelica is an apologetic. Eusebius is doing something here that was very common for early Christians defending themselves against or making their case to Roman pagans. In the extremely conservative culture of the Roman Empire, resonance of the Christian message depended heavily on its preceived antiquity. Christianity was no Johnny Come Lately; as an extension or fulfillment of ancient Jewish beliefs, Jesus and the surrounding theology have just as much claim to truth in a world where "old" equals "right." But not only is Judaism old, they argued, but older and the source of much pagan thought. Pagan philosophers borrowed long-held Jewish ideas and invented their deities out of Old Testament prophecy (with the help of demons, according to Justin). Now, we no doubt find these arguments strained. But for their purposes, even a strained argument could work nicely, and its important to keep these issues of literary intent in mind when discussing how early Christians related their religion to broader pagan society.

So the goal is winning converts and the argument that pagans, including Plato, "got all their good ideas from the Jews" (to quote Richard Carrier). But was lying, that is, dishonesty and purposeful deception, counted by Eusebius as among them?

I have a hard time reading Eusebius' personal views of and/or interpretation of Plato's use of "pseudos" in that manner, though I do think that is probably the sense Plato himself intended. Are we really to believe that Eusebius thought the holy scriptures, inspired by YHWH himself, were full of deceit? More likely, chapter 31 carries the sense of "parable" or "moral fiction" in that, though scripture ascribes to YHWH qualities that cant be literally true of a God so conceived, they nevertheless teach important lessons that are true in their own way. Going over to miracle thread, I had mentioned how YHWH is given water-walking powers in Job. I doubt Eusebius would understand this as saying God has two legs and a body, but neither do I think he would say the author of Job was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Instead, I think he would (pretty uncontroversially) understand it as poetic reflection on his God's immense power, a position Eusebius would no doubt approve of.

Face validity aside, several other things point in this direction. In chapter 4 of the same book, Eusebius comments on a similar sort of passage in book 2 of The Republic. Plato writes:

‘In this education you would include stories, would you not?’

‘Yes.’

‘These are of two kinds, true stories and fiction. Our education must use both, and start with fiction.’

‘I don’t know what you mean.’

‘But you know that we begin by telling children stories. These are, in general, fiction, though they contain some truth. And we tell children stories before we start them on physical training.’

‘That is so.’

So too is/was it with the Jews, according to Eusebius. He writes:

And among the Hebrews also it is the custom to teach the histories of the inspired Scriptures to those of infantine souls in a very simple way just like any fables, but to teach those of a trained mental habit the more profound and doctrinal views of the histories by means of the so-called Deuterosis and explanation of the thoughts that are unknown to the multitude.

In other words, scripture has layers of meaning. The literal meaning or "simple way" is best suited for children who, because of their physical and spiritual development, are not yet able to grasp "the more profound and doctrinal views" that lie underneath. The literal reading, though ahistorical like a fable, is not intentionally deceptive. It's simply the language in which these deeper nuggets of wisdom are couched.

I also find what Eusebius does not quote and comment on significant. In Laws 2, Plato writes:

Cleinias: Truth, Stranger, is a noble thing and a lasting, but a thing of which men are hard to be persuaded.

Athenian Stranger: And yet the story of the Sidonian Cadmus, which is so improbable, has been readily believed, and also innumerable other tales.

Eusebius includes the former comment from Cleinias, but not the response from the Stranger. Why? Because Eusebius is not saying the OT is improbable or that people are gullible. Likewise, the larger context of the whole discussion, individual harm for the sake of public good, is of no consequence to him. He has deliberately chosen the words of the Athenian and Cleinias to draw a parallel and hopefully score some points. Remember, this is an apologetic.

I think it's pretty clear what he meant. See also Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 8.2. Then we also have the letter from Jesus to the King of Edessa which Eusebius translated himself. Fascinating...

EH 8.2 is even weaker. Here, Eusebius is introducing an account of the persecution during Diocletian's reign. At 2.2 he writes that he finds it improper to "describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon [the persecuted Christians], as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution." Instead, "we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment." There will be no mention, therefore, of "those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (2.3)

His meaning is obvious. Diocletian's terror was very painful and still fresh in the Christian psyche. Rather than dredge up and relive the sordid details, Eusebius commits to setting them aside. Rather than spreading rumors about the bad behavior of their fallen kinsmen in the months and years leading up to the persecution, Eusebius commits to recording only what was unambiguously derserved in accordance with God's will.

This is not, then, a concession of deception but of omission. He simply doesnt think excessive detail would be morally appropriate given the circumstances.

[God Fearing Atheist]

The sense "amazing/wonderful deeds" carries is more problematic. "Paradoxon ergon poietes" can also be read as something like "startling deeds" or "controversial deeds." In any case, the sentence should probably be taken as saying nothing more than Jesus had a reputation for miracles/magic.

Yes, but by whom?

Phrased as it is, the answer is quite simply "everyone." No ancient writer who addressed the topic seems to have doubted Jesus' reputation for miraculous deeds. It was only the precise nature or source of his powers that were in question.

But I think your objection is more "when was this known," which brings us to...

According to the gospels, the reputation of Jesus went far and wide, but still no contemporary writer wrote about Jesus and the works he did.

Since its such a large part of naive mythicism in general, I think its important to take a close look at this argument. Underlying the ostensibly surprising fact that Jesus and his miracles are absent from contemporary written records are a boat load of assumptions. None of these are reasonable, in my opinion.

1) It supposes Jesus was well known during his lifetime. This is certainly false. Jesus was not a Hellenistic conqueror who traveled far and wide. He was not long-lived teacher who imparted his wisdom on several generations of impressionable youngsters.

His public ministry lasted at most three years (but more probably just one) and was confined exclusively to the sparsely populated peasant villages of Galilee and, for no more than several days, the Jewish holy city.

2) It supposes Jesus was well known to those in a position to write about him. Even a widely received ministry would not be expected to leave contemporary documentary evidence if those who heard it lacked the ability, tools or time to do the documenting!

Literacy on any significant level, though perhaps more common among Jews than other first century groups, was virtually nonexistent in the rural peasantry. Even if they were capable of writing, restricted access to durable writing materials and insufficient time and money meant recording history would remain in the hands of wealthy elites.

3) It supposes that if Jesus were widely known to those capable of writing about him, they would have found it significant to do so. We have to be careful about anachronistically projecting our expectations onto ancient cultures. Living in a literate, educated, secular, technologically sophisticated 21st century Western society, we tend to be more incredulous. But in the uneducated, superstitious first century Roman Empire, supernatural or otherwise extraordinary occurances were taken for granted.

Though Jesus' miracles were outside that ancient mold in ways I find significant for their historicity, the raw fact of a man working miracles would not have made a big impression on the ancient mind. Recall the early anti-Christian polemic I alluded to at the top. Critical pagans never thought to argue that Jesus' followers fabricated the reports of his actions. Instead, Jesus was magician, trained in the arts while on a visit to Egypt. Critical Jews never thought to argue that it was all made up. Instead, Jesus worked wonders by enlisting the aid of demonic forces. So too with his converts. It was in the source and meaning of the miracle -- that Jesus was the mouthpiece of YHWH and the imminence of his coming apocalypse -- not the bare fact of miracle itself, that was so impressive. After all, miraculous healing was something you could just as easily get at a temple to Asclepius or from a Jewish magician/holy man like Hanina or Honi.

And lets not forget the man himself. To ancient elites who considered the lower classes barbarous, lazy and stupid, Jesus' birth as a poor rural peasant from a backwards Galilean hill town could hardly have expected to win him any accolades. Offensive even during his lifetime, he was to meet his end judged a traitor to Caeser and shamed by crucifixion, a fate worse than death itself in a world where honor was everything. Officially, even his message was blasphemy.

Unimportant, uninteresting, revolting or heretical. These factors, either independently or in concert, work against the likelihood of anyone wanting to write about the man.

4) It supposes that had someone known of Jesus, been capable of writing about him and had the desire to do so, that we would have these records. So often i hear less-informed mythicists appealing to un-cited "Roman documents" of various sorts. There are thousands of pages of census records, execution records, details of births, deaths and local histories, they say, in which to discover a contemporary reference to Jesus. As much as I would like this to be true, the unfortunate reality is essentially everything written in the first century Roman Empire is lost to us. To get some sense of the overall problem, Bowman & Woolf (1994, pg. 5) observe that "from a total production of about 225 million in the first three centuries AD," the number of surviving individual military pay records number "literally less than a handful." Or take the eruption of Vesuvius. Though it killed tens of thousands and was known to hundreds of thousands of others, the earliest known written and only eyewitness account is a single letter from Pliny the Younger to his friend Tacitus, authored some 30 years after the fact.

How do the years of Jesus' life, namely 4ish BCE - 30ish CE, compare? By my count, we know of exactly three individuals (four, if you count the Pilate inscription) writing in this period. The first, Nicolaus of Damascus, was most active at the end of the last century BCE and is not known to have written anything subsequent to Jesus' public ministry. Almost all he did write is now lost. We know of one work from the second author, Vellius Paterculus, but here too his Roman history was published prior to Jesus' ministry. Finally we have Philo. Though he wrote both before and after, we know of nothing authored while Jesus was still alive and active.

Let me repeat this: there are only three/four people known to have published anything during the course of Jesus' entire lifetime. What survives dates to before Jesus ministry, and could not conceivably recount anything that occurred therein. In total, the number of written records we have that could both know of Jesus and report his actions while they were going on is exactly zero. Nothing.

What about people who were living during Jesus' ministry but wrote after his death? We can count Phlio here. Phaedrus, whose fables are all that dates from the decade of the 40s, as well. When we get into the 50s and 60s, things are complicated by biographical details. Were the authors born before or after Jesus died? Were they old enough that it would have made a difference? However those are answered, their records are still sparse. We have a book on agriculture by Columella, the works of Seneca, a book by Pliny the Elder, a poem by Lucan, a history from Quinus Curtius and some scraps of a couple satires. Would we expect to find Jesus in any of these pages?

What we do know is this. Jesus' impact during his own lifetime was insignificant. Subsequent to his death, Jewish-directed proselytizing by his brother James and close followers like Peter, but especially the wide reaching gentile ministry of Paul from about 46 to 58, was sufficent to generate a widespread knowledge of the group (if not a clear understanding of its doctrines) by the turn of the century. Its growth in popularity as the decades passed would end up engendering a larger, more coherent non-christian reaction of which we have some record. Though the vulgar charges of worshipping an ass's head, incestuous orgies and the eating of babies (im not making these up) which were common when Christianity was less well understood continued on in the polemic of commentators like Fronto, we also see more thoughtful critiques from guys like Trypho and Celsus.

It took time to get the message out, get it understood, and in get it into an intellectual position that might warrent a detailed assault. When that did happen, it was never "Jesus or his miracles were made up."

Whew. I think thats enough typing.

[Mange]

A quickie.

Phrased as it is, the answer is quite simply "everyone." No ancient writer who addressed the topic seems to have doubted Jesus' reputation for miraculous deeds. It was only the precise nature or source of his powers that were in question.

But I think your objection is more "when was this known," which brings us to...

This is really irrelevant.

If you don't mind, I'll include only the headings for the next reply.

Since its such a large part of naive mythicism in general, I think its important to take a close look at this argument. Underlying the ostensibly surprising fact that Jesus and his miracles are absent from contemporary written records are a boat load of assumptions. None of these are reasonable, in my opinion.

1) It supposes Jesus was well known during his lifetime.

The Gospels makes it clear that Jesus' reputation spread "throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about" (Luk 7:17), that "... his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them" (Matt 4:24), that Jesus teached in front of "multitude" of people (e.g. Luk 19:37) etc.

2) It supposes Jesus was well known to those in a position to write about him.

We've already discussed Justus of Tiberia who lived near Cafernaum from where the rumour of Jesus started to spread according to the Gospel of Luke 7:17 (referred to above). It's also strange that Philo of Alexandria, who wrote about Jewish sects (e.g. the essenes) and Pilate and who visited Jerusalem (De Providentia, 2.107, 2.64) never wrote a word about Jesus or any of his disciples.

3) It supposes that if Jesus were widely known to those capable of writing about him, they would have found it significant to do so.

A marvelous argument as to why the Gospels doesn't depict a historical person and is mere fiction. If we look at the synoptic gospel, they got the geography wrong, the social situation wrong etc. It's impossible to say that Q included sayings of a real person (especially as similar sayings existed in other philosophies e.g. the cynics).

4) It supposes that had someone known of Jesus, been capable of writing about him and had the desire to do so, that we would have these records.

Your argumentation here is quite correct. However, as we know, the early Church destroyed what it didn't find useful or what it found heretical. If we look at Philo, his works has survived due to a misconception of logos.

What we do know is this. Jesus' impact during his own lifetime was insignificant. Subsequent to his death, Jewish-directed proselytizing by his brother James and close followers like Peter, but especially the wide reaching gentile ministry of Paul from about 46 to 58, was sufficent to generate a widespread knowledge of the group (if not a clear understanding of its doctrines) by the turn of the century. Its growth in popularity as the decades passed would end up engendering a larger, more coherent non-christian reaction of which we have some record. Though the vulgar charges of worshipping an ass's head, incestuous orgies and the eating of babies (im not making these up) which were common when Christianity was less well understood continued on in the polemic of commentators like Fronto, we also see more thoughtful critiques from guys like Trypho and Celsus.

It took time to get the message out, get it understood, and in get it into an intellectual position that might warrent a detailed assault. When that did happen, it was never "Jesus or his miracles were made up.

As with the case of Jesus, there are no independent historical sources on Peter, everything we know comes from the NT: Acts, which borrowed word-for-word from Euripides and Galatians which completely reduces this supposedly important character. However, this is not saying that Peter never existed, merely that everything we know about this character comes from Paul.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Im going to briefly comment on the stuff that doesnt appear to address my post.

1) "If we look at the synoptic gospel, they got the geography wrong, the social situation wrong etc."

They got some places confused and wrote some contemporary issues into Jesus' ministry. They are relevant to the historicity of those bits and issues of dating and authorship.

2) "It's impossible to say that Q included sayings of a real person (especially as similar sayings existed in other philosophies e.g. the cynics)."

Its not "impossible to say" because its exactly what Q does say. If you think it instead derived from some "similar sayings" by "the cynics," you need evidence.

3) "As with the case of Jesus, there are no independent historical sources on Peter, everything we know comes from the NT"

Its just flat-out wrong that everything we know about Jesus and Peter are contained in NT documents. I pointed this out on the very first page. Please stop saying this.

4) "Acts, which borrowed word-for-word from Euripides and Galatians which completely reduces this supposedly important character."

Luke did not "borrow word-for-word" from either Euripides or Galatians.

Three places in Acts (5.17-20, 12.6-11 and 16.23-26) contain common Greek prison-break motifs. Acts 26.14 uses "kicking against the goads," a common Greek idiom for resisting the will of a god. Neither of these two little things need to have come from Euripides (they are seen all over, both before and after Bacchae was written). Neither of them seem unusual additions to a document written by and for Greek-speaking gentiles.

Acts shows no dependence on the Pauline epistles. No verbal reminiscence. No trace of the "careful and sober" reproduction of material in textual chunks he is known to have done elsewhere. No inclusion of Pauline material that could have been helpful to his case. Discrepancy between overlapping material that is impossible to imagine if he was working from Paul's letters.

5) "However, this is not saying that Peter never existed, merely that everything we know about this character comes from Paul."

This is wrong even if Luke were dependent on Paul and even if the NT contained our only information about him. GMark? GJohn?

The tiny bit of stuff that might have anything to do with your astounding contemporary silence, i'll comment on later.