Moved from Talk:Jesus Christ
I have included a bit from Josephus, from an online record of his works at
http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=18&chapter=3
I quote from the bottom of the page:
- Copyright Statement
- These files are public domain.
Most of the quote from Josephus is bogus, however. Josephus could only have written that if he himself were a Christian, which he wasn't. There have been attempts to reconstruct what Josephus actually said, but the only source other than the ones with Christian interpolations is an Arabic text which is also pretty dubious. See, for example
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus and various other web-pages. --
Zundark
Whether you feel the quote is bogus or not, I don't think it is appropriate to delete it.
I did put some effort into finding a copy of it on the net, and in a copy-able format.
I certainly have no problem with including the quote from the web address you quote as well. That will provide an
alternate view, that would provide some balance.
If I found (and spoke) a copy of Josephus' works in Latin, I would favour including it as well.
The goal of an encyclopedia, in my opinion, is to offer information to those who may not be able to find it.
If the quote I found is NOT that which has appeared in printed copies of Josephus's Antiquities, I'd like to hear it,
because then it would NOT be appropriate to include in this page.
If the quote I included is the one that most people will find in a collection of Josephus's works, then I think it should be available in the encyclopedia article. A neutral point of view does not mean denying what is the historical record. Such denial is blatant manipulation of facts for the point of view that doesn't like what has historically been known.
The quote in question, which Zundark excised is:
Josephus in his work Antiquities of the Jews in Book 18, chapter 3, Item 3 says:
- snip quote (in article)
The page Zundark mentions says this : (I don't know about its copyright status)
Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:
- snip quote (in article)
I am not trying to build up a controversy, but was trying to follow up on the request in the main page for more details about the extra-biblical mention of Jesus by Josephus... -BenBaker
I excised the quote you put in only because it is very misleading if given without any additional comment, as I don't think anyone seriously believes Josephus wrote it like that. I did consider moving it to the Talk page before excising it, but since it's easy to retrieve from the "View other revisions" page I decided there was no need. I think that if we want to cover this, then it needs to be on a separate page, because any serious treatment of it would overwhelm the
Jesus Christ page. You could call the page
Josephus on Jesus or something similar, and link it from the Jesus Christ page. (The Tacitus quote could also have a separate page.) --
Zundark
I have seen changes disappear from the View other revisions page too quickly in my short time involved in wikipedia.
I don't know why, as it is reasonably easy to set the number of days that versions are are retained to a big number like 999999 to keep from losing any.
The idea of putting the quote on a separate page is good. I'll put the link on the main page. Should it be a subpage since it only makes sense in a limited context? or should it be a top level page?
It should be a top-level page, as Larry doesn't like subpages. We would also want to link it from the
Flavius Josephus page (when there is one), so it makes sense at top level. --
Zundark
All Wikipedia text
is available under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License