Talk:Josephus on Jesus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Character and existence

I cannot view p. 431 of the Feldman book in the ref to the sentence that was simply deleted, excised from the article. But if Justin Martyr did discuss the character of Jesus and the character of his divinity in his treatise agains Trypho as the deleted sentence said, then it is also a discussion of his existence that occurred in antiquity, before Eusebius. I believe that is relevant, referenced information that should not be deleted without examining the motives of the editor deleting it. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Page 431 is the index in the book. It is not a chapter or essay in the book. So it looks like someone tried to add that source and inserted the mythicist claim on existence of Jesus. The rest of the books does not make a claim on existence of Jesus either. The deletion was correct. Furthermore, there never were any debates on the existence of Jesus until recently in the last 2 or 3 centuries. Even the enemies of Christians were never doubting Jesus existence.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Shlomo Pines

Someone to add the findings and biblography of Shlomo Pines along with his translations of Josephus' testimony. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Please. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Two suggestions

• Dunn's reconstruction of the Testimonium is quoted via {{quote box}} (fullwidth, in contrast to the quote-boxes that are right-aligned like pictures), Vermes's version is quoted via <blockquote>. It's odd to have such different formatting only a few paragraphs apart, on the same screen; can we pick a consistent format?
• That most modern scholars accept that the Testimonium is partially authentic and had an authntic kernel is repeated 6+ times, sometimes in adjacent paragraphs: It is broadly agreed that while the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, followed in the next section by most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.[51][9] While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.[52] However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and shortly thereafter While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text and a few sections further down Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel and a few sections after that most modern scholars believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus. Can (should?) this be made any less repetitive?

-sche (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If it can be improved then it should be. Perhaps your real question is whether these thin opinions belong here at all. Since "Some people say" is the most common example of weasel words, I support removing them or at least adding citation-needed to each instance. Cutelyaware (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)