Toto

This James Tabor?

He's written something on the TF, but he does not seem to have discussed the Antiquities reference to James.

Peter Kirby

I can accept that it is possible that Origen was using material both from Josephus and Hegesippus. But when we know that some of Origen's material comes from Hegesippan tradition, even though he attributes it to Josephus, why is it necessary to suppose that the identification was drawn from Josephus? Note that I am not in any way committed to defending Olson's hypothesis, as I have proposed my own distinct theory (and I am open to the idea of complete authenticity), and I would be interested in knowing a way to refute Olson if there were one.

In evaluating the claim that "Christos," the Greek word for "Messiah," is a name and no more to an educated Jew such as Josephus, it would be helpful to look at some Jewish documents before, contemporary, and after the time that Josephus wrote.

Psalms of Solomon 18:6 [First Century B.C.]. "May God cleanse Israel against the day of mercy and blessing, Against the day of choice when He bringeth back His anointed [Messiah]."

4 Ezra 7:28-30 [Late First Century A.D.]. "For my son the Messiah shall be revealed to those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath."

2 Baruch 29:3 [Early Second Century A.D.]. "And it shall come to pass when all is accomplished that was to come to pass in those parts, that the Messiah shall then begin to be revealed."

Thus, to suggest that Josephus used "Christos" and applied it to Jesus only as a name and nothing more is not supported by any evidence and is disconfirmed by what evidence we do have for the Jewish concept of a Messiah. I don't blame Bede for suggesting it; I once held to a similar idea, but it depends critically on the absence of references to a "Christ" or "Messiah" in Jewish literature, when there are in fact such references, so Josephus would not have regarded it as being a simple nickname or something of that sort.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I should state up front that my intent in this discussion is not to persuade you of anything but rather to increase my own knowledge of the text and the various arguments surrounding it. I had previously suggested that the Ant. 20.9.1 passage is completely authentic, while the Ant. 18.3.3 passage is probably an interpolation, on grounds similar to what is being presented here: "Unless there are strong reasons for believing that the phrase is interpolated, we are justified in accepting it as part of Josephus." The problem with this approach is that, in practice, it almost always leads to the conclusion that a passage is authentic, even if it is quite dubious. When I was using Ant. 20.9.1 as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, why would I say that there is any reason to think the passage was interpolated? I was committed to the assertion that there are no such reasons, and it is always easy to say that there is no good reason for an idea, but it ain't necessarily so. More importantly, such an approach makes it impossible to take the position of agnosticism: one has either Proven Forgery or Assumed Authenticity, with nearly everything pushed into the latter category. But I think that there is a middle ground between those two extremes, that where the text is not an "open and shut" case for authenticity, nor with enough disconfirming evidence to drag someone kicking and screaming into the belief of interpolation. I have explained in this thread some of the reasons that I doubt the passage, and if you didn't notice anything to that effect, then perhaps you were not paying attention.

I am interested in the original text of Josephus for its own sake and not as a weapon in the Jesus Myth debate. To say that I am considering a different hypothesis because that's the way I would like it to be is false.

Look at the original post for some of the data that leads me to think that is is not very probable that Josephus would have used the word "Christ" in this passage. The argument is twofold: (a) Josephus takes care to explain Jewish terms to his audience and (b) Josephus nowhere else uses the word, even when describing pretenders who put on the diadem and declaring that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles.

The argument concerning the implication of an earlier passage is twofold: (a) it can be argued that Josephus didn't write Ant. 18.3.3 -- which of course opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms -- and (b) Josephus is not likely to have referred back two books without giving some kind of indication to the reader that this is what he was doing -- and this latter argument can be discussed without getting into the TF.

Steven Carr explains that such a cross-reference as it is in the text as it stands would be unusual:

So we have at least two arguments for an interpolation: that Josephus isn't likely to have thrown in the word "Christ" in this manner, and that Josephus isn't likely to have made a reference to an earlier book without indicating that this is what he is doing. Given moreover that the interpolation hypothesis that I am considering is plausible and explicable, I think I am being rational to doubt that Josephus referred to "the one called Christ" in Ant. 20.200. (And I am not saying that it is irrational to think otherwise, only that my position of doubt is rational.)

What do you think I should do if I am neither convinced of authenticism nor of interpolationism?

But we already know that Eusebius' quotes of Josephus and the extant manuscripts have been interpolated with Jesus material.

This objection might apply to Doherty's hypothesis that the original read "a man named James," but it does not have the same force against the hypothesis that the original read "the brother of Jesus, James by name." There is at least one other occasion in which Josephus identies an individual by identifying his brother and in which this brother is not mentioned earlier in the text, in Wars of the Jews 2.247, which refers to "Felix, the brother of Pallas." I suggest that the reason that Josephus would have written "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James" is that (a) the name of Jesus is used only as an adelphonymic and (b) the identity of Jesus is indicated in the very same passage.

Again, this does not apply to the hypothesis that I have been considering, wherein only "called the Christ" has been added.

The very different account given by Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria only supports the idea that the James of Ant. 20.200 and the James the Just of Christian tradition should be separated.

Calling my suggestion "special pleading" when it does not call for an unexplained abrogation of my general principles is not a real argument, and when "special pleading" is repeatedly invoked without explanation, its status as a mantra is established. Your characterization of my behavior as being of the manner of "stretch, twist and wiggle" is entirely subjective and also not a real argument.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Fair enough.

Yes I know. I've read your article.

I think you slipped up here. If the text was "quite dubious" then you would have "strong reasons for believing the text is interpolated." The TF as found in most manuscripts is quite dubious.


Naturally anything we say isn't necessarily so. I never claimed omniscience. I'm just an amateur pea in a very large pod.

The problem is the distinctions are not as sharp as you might think. Authenticity is somewhat close to agnosticism.

Is Josephus as favorable to Pharisees in War?

Well in Antiquities Josephus is somewhat favorable.

1). Josephus switched views during the time difference for whatever reason (Pharisees came into power?) or 2) some Pharisee(s) may have reworked parts of his text. Can you demonstrate the veracity of number one over number two?

In defense of proposition number two I cite Meier (indirectly) in regards toLife.

Naturally this appears to have been reworked by a Pharisee. That or Josephus is practicing a new Type of math. Josephus tells us himself that entrance to the Essenes itself took three years (initial year of probation followed by a two year period of initiation). Further, the text itself implies the Pharisees and Sadducees demanded an arduous novitiate through which one had to pass. How could all groups have been passed in three years when it took entrance to the Essenes that long? And then, to top it off, “Josephus” claims he also went and lived in the desert with Bannus for three years.

People are capable of making idiotic blunders like this but we can say Josephus made such an error or an interpolator fudged things up in an attempt to make Josephus look like a Pharisee his whole life. Josephus studied all the prominent schools and came out a Pharisee when his earlier work is not altogether favourable to Pharisees.

This is called invent an interpolation and it is pure sophistry. I see it as no different than the arguments being presented here for the Antiquities 20 reference which is neutral, not creedal.

Or perhaps you are being overly skeptical for no good reason? Personally I do not know of many reasons why I should trust any random Josephus passage. Is the attestation for it that secure? How do I know that some Pharisee related material has not been reworked at some point? As with most historical study like this I deem using the text to be a combination of a working hypothesis, presumption and authenticity. I personally know of no reason to assume without doubt that a passage in Antiquities 1, 7, 8, 11, 14 or so on is authentic? Do you? Just because you do not know of a possible motivation for the alteration of a text does not mean there was not one or that it was not altered. That is why I like to think my understanding here of the text’s authenticity is a merging a working hypothesis with presumption and authenticity.

You are misconstruing what I wrote. My comments had nothing to do with mythicism. That fact is that I am looking for evidence for your view on what the passage originally said? It could have said a whole bunch of stuff. What makes your guessing better than the next guy’s? I am not too concerned over what have been proposed. Its not what you canpropose, but what you can demonstrate.

And what makes Crossan’s suggestion less compelling than yours?

Birth of Christianity, p. 14.

Crossan: “In that text he says that Jesus “was called the Christ.” That is a neutral, not a creedal statement. It is possible, therefore, but not much more, that he had used a similar expression in the opening phrases of his earlier mention of Jesus in 18.63-64 and that Christian interpolation had changed “He was called the Christ into the confessional assertion “He was the Christ.” Maybe, at best.

Back to presumption and my favorite mantra. Or maybe not….

But I would also say that your arguments create a little self-friction to the point of competing against one another. Meier disagrees with Crossan above (see Marginal v. 1 pp 60-61) and thinks “Christ” should not be reconstructed anywhere in the TF as it would interrupt the flow. Moreover, a glancing reference to the name Christ or Christians without any detailed explanation, is exactly what we would expect from Josephus, who has no desire to highlight messianic figure or expectations among the Jews.”

Why is your theory more compelling than this one? A and B work against one another. Joseph does not take care to explain the term for the very same reason that he is not motivated to use the term elsewhere or elaborate on the expectations among the Jews. Yet maybe his readers heard of “Christians” would have been familiar with the term Christ?

For the 20 reference it seems best to assume that Josephus figured his readers had enough knowledge to know of Jesus, the so called Christ to be able to identify which James he was talking about.

In defense of Bede’s suggestion Josephus called them Christians and says they were named after him does he not? At any rate it may not be unprecedented even if Meier is correct and Crossan incorrect. As I do not know Greek I am not sure if the connection is there or not (but I suspect it is) would they be able to (Jo’s readers) correlate Christians and so called Christ? Even if not can it be argued that Jo’s Gentile readers had not heard of Christians?

Personally, I think that the shorter reference, if authentic, does strongly argue for the latter. I am convinced that they are almost a package deal. But neither absolutely requires the other. This is history, not physics. We are dealing with people, not protons.

Why is Josephus not likely to have referred back two books without giving some kind of indication to the reader that this is what he is doing? How many instance does Josephus refer back two books and openly state I am referring back two books ago? Don’t read me woodenly, either. Two books, four books, six books, whatever.

We all think our own positions are rational. Otherwise I presume we would not hold to them. The problem is whether your two observations are enough to overcome the presumption of this neutral, non-committal reference to Jesus.

Say you don’t know and study more as time permits. If you come to the conclusion that the question is unanswerable then remain an agnostic on the issue.

Again, the interpolation of the TF does not give us solid reason for doubting the Ant 20 reference.

Interesting and informed proposals of how the text could have been are not arguments for interpolation. This shows that what you think the text originally said is coherent but it does not suggest interpolation.

Most scholars seem to think it is natural for Josephus to explain unknown names for his readers. This does not require an explanation but it makes it a priori, more likely.

Why is such a neutral, non-creedal phrase added, again? Why not alter the James passage when altering that? It seems very tenuous to suggest that a Christian interpolator decided to add in such a non-committal phrase. That is where presumption, in my view, is at its strongest.

Care to elaborate further on that?

The passage gets the same benefit of the doubt as any other until demonstrated otherwise. The non-committal, non-creedal, nuetral reference to Jesus in antiquities 20 is not guilt until proven innoicent. Its the other way around.

Vinnie

Evangelion

Yes, that one.

Allow me to correct you. (Again.)

• Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
  (Testimonium Flavianum)[/b]
  
  Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64
  
  
  The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English.
  
  Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian.
  
  It is worth noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion of this text see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Doubleday, 1991), Vol I, pp. 57-88.
  
  
  "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST.
  
  When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
  (Antiquities 18:63-64)."
  
  
  Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:
  
  
  "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die."
  
  And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.
  
  Source.

Tabor removes the obvious interpolation but accepts that the essential parts of the Testimonium are valid. Yes, he accepts the historicity of Christ.

I believe that Tabor's analysis is both fair and valid.

Evangelion

See also Lowder's work on this subject.

Vinnie

\

Arguments from authority can be valid as long as the authority is an authority and represents scholarly autheority rather than the view of one man. But authory does not take precedence over and can be controverted by valid evidence and argumentation to the contrary. It should be obvious that the major participants of this thread are beyond "Scholar X believes claim z to be true so it probably is." In this context you have only coined a new fallacy in relation to the great Josephus debate: appeal to Tabor.

You may have stuck your foot in your mouth on this one. He said the James passage was not discusses on that site which as best as I can see it is not. We are mainly discussing Ant. 20, not the Testimonium Flavianum which occurs in Ant. 18 though there is some crossover. Though I am not sure what Totoe meant by "He's written something on the TF, but he does not seem to have discussed the Antiquities reference to James." That website, surely, is not indicative of Tabor's total writings?

Partial authenticity is my own position. I would be interested in seeing Tabor's justification for such a reconstruction. I have read Meier and agree with much of his assessment.

But I wonder if Tabor accepts the historicity of "Christ" or of Jesus"

Where does Tabor analyze this at? Or is it John Meier's analysis whom Tabor is relying on that is fair and valid?

I think many of us here have read that at one point or another. The problem is Lowder's comments are restricted to critiquing the idiotic and "hardly thorough" apologetical choir preaching known as NETDAV. Ergo, Lowder's full thoughts on the issue, which I would be interested in seeing, are not presented.

As Lowder says, if anything, Mcdowell coincidentally has the correct conclusions regarding Josephus.

Vinnie

Vinnie

E, let me also suggest a weblink for you:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

See the first article by PK.

Vinnie

Evangelion

I would love to know if you can prove that Tabor's view is not representative of general scholarship. As far as I'm aware, it most certainly is. This is not merely the view of one single man.

The key word here is "discussed." Tabor does cite the passage (here) but does not comment on it. I think it is safe to assume that he takes the reference as valid. If he found fault with it, I would expect some discussion.

So yes, Toto is right (for once); Tabor does not discuss the James reference.

No, obviously not.

I would be interested to see Meier's work. Is it available online?

I really couldn't care less if he doesn't accept the historicity of Jesus as "Christ." As long as he accepts the historicity of Jesus as a literal person, that's fine with me.

Tabor says this:

• These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English. Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian.

As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty much all the analysis we need. Reconstruct the passage in such a way as to arrive at a reasonable account, cross-reference it with the alternative mss, and we have a perfect valid testimony.

Do you see any problems here? I certainly don't.

Lowder presents enough of his thoughts to tell us where he stands. What more do you want from the man?

Really, I don't believe this issue is as complicated as you are trying to make it. There's no need to mystify the TF into something that can only be understood by an Oxford don. This is not the Turin Shroud, Vinnie.

LOL, I couldn't agree more.

Evangelion

I'm one step ahead of you. Mr Kirby's site has been in my Favourites folder for the last two years.

Already read it. Enjoyed it immensely, thankyou.