Geoff Hudson

I cannot see how one can consider the TF in isolation from its following text about Paulina and Mundus - a story that is clearly hiding some dark secrets that the editors of Josephus wished to hide. Given this obvious chicanery, where does that leave everything said about the TF? If an editor can obfuscate so much in this following text, why not do the same in the TF? The more I read Josephus, the more I think it has undergone rewriting in "sensitive" areas.

I hold the same view about the death of John said to be at the hands of Antipas - its a fake that is duplicated in the NT showing the same lying editors at work.

Geoff

Peter Kirby

What has to be demonstrated is that a Christian would not use a particular term, if this argument for authenticity is to succeed.

I can agree with that. Could this be used to say that Eusebius would have picked up on the style of Josephus?

A big problem that I have with the stylistic argument (either way) is the tiny size of the sample. A few hundred words at the least are normally required for determining authorship based on literary style.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

OK, guys, let's poke holes in the arguments for authenticity in the original post. Or let's show how they hold up; I'm sure there are flaws or deficiencies in the rebuttals I gave.

best,
Peter Kirby

Geoff Hudson

Does anyone know of anyone who thinks that Ant.18.3:4,5 has something to do with the TF of Ant.18.3:3? :banghead:

Or, am I alone in thinking that it does?

Geoff

Vorkosigan

Meier concludes: "Unless we want to fantasize about a Christian interpolator who is intent on inserting a summary of Jesus' ministry into Josephus and who nevertheless wishes to contradict what the Gospels say about Jesus' ministry, the obvious conclusion to draw is that the core of the Testimonium comes from a non-Christian hand, namely, Josephus'. Understandably, Josephus simply retrojected the situation of his own day, when the original 'Jews for Jesus' had gained many Gentile converts, into the time of Jesus. Naive retrojection is a common trait of Greco-Roman historians." (p. 65)

I have a couple of problems with Meier's argument. It seems Meier is having his cake and eating it too. If Jesus' story in the TF contains at least some demonstratable elements of naive retrojection, then that raises the issue of whether any of it is trustworthy. We know that Meier already accepts that Tacitus could have got his story from Christians; why not Josephus too?

Meier argues: While Mark and Luke are not as explicit as Matthew on this point, they basically follow the same pattern: during his public ministry, Jesus does not undertake any formal mission to the Gentiles; the few who come to him do so by way of implication.

This argument is disingenuous. The TF says merely that Jesus won many converts among the gentiles. It does not specify how he won them. Meier has deployed a non sequitor against the inauthenticity arguments.

If Josephus knew about Christians, why did he not discuss them? The TF supposes that Josephus knew a number of legendary details about Jesus but nothing about his followers. Since they were, in Jewish eyes, a heretical sect, why didn't he condemn them to separate them more firmly from the real Jews?

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

You are not alone sir.

Vorkosigan

I am currently reading The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. Leidner makes the following argument for inauthencity.

The Crucifixion story shows a clear line of development from Jews running the show, to Jews running the show with Pilate present, to the Romans carrying out the Crucifixion under Pilate's authority with Pilate's active involvement. Thus, the TF must be an interpolation because it says Pilate executed Jesus as only the final development of the tale postulates:

"Antiquities 18.3.3. "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 wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst 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 ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I'm not sure why but maybe Josephus simply did not feel inclined to mention them outside of his surprise at the fact that this (minor?) cult still existed?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Such a line of development is not clear to me. It would have to be more of a parabola than a straight line, as from the second century onward the Jews were getting almost all of the credit, with Pilate smelling like roses. Out of curiousity, does Leidner assume that 1 Thess 2:15 is authentic?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

He doesn't say; or, I can't find it. The book has no index. He does say only traces of this development remain in the gospels. He writes on p222:

• The gospel of Luke also has Pilate surrendering Jesus "to their will," after which the Cruicifixion takes place, and only ten lines later do the Roman soldiers show up, as an afterthought and after the event.
  
  "Pilate delivered him to their will and they led him away...And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified him... And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him."
  
  Just who are the "they" who did the crucifying? In the plain context of the episode, it is the same "multitude" to whom Jesus was delivered.
  
  The Gospel of John has a similar gap between the "delivery of Jesus," the journey to the crucifixion, and the belated appearance of the soldiers.
  
  "They cried out, Away with him, crucify him! Pilate said to them, shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then he delivered him to them to be crucified and they led him away. And he, bearing his cross, went forth to the place called Golgotha. There they crucified him and two others with him...Then the solders, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments."
  
  There is a clumsy insertion of "soldiers" who were invisible in the prior eight verses. Only the Jews had Jesus in custody, as a candid reading of the text will show. The "soldiers" come in as an editorial amendment.

I don't know if I like your objection. It is true that traces of the trajectory Pilate is going to ride are already present in the gospels, but I think that is a late emergent trajectory, even later than this.

He also raises another issue against the TF. For the very minor figure Jesus Ananias (and other minor figures) Jos devotes 100 lines of text, for Jesus the founder of the tribe that continues to this day, a single line suffices for his meteoric career. Is that really believable? Finally, he notes that the reconstructed TF by Meier ends with "christians" in the last sentence but strikes "christ." Is that really possible?

Leidner also argues that the non-appearance of Christianity is even odder than I thought, because Contra Apion is written against those who attack the Jews, but at least three gospels must have been in existence by 95 by the conventional chronology, plus all of Paul's letters, but of this extensive anti-semitic apparatus Josephus knows nothing. This is very difficult to imagine. The conclusion is obvious that these documents did not exist when he was active.

Hope this helps. I'll be writing a review soon, this week, probably. Leidner's book is quite interesting -- extremely polemical, economical, uneven, stolid, earnest, not at all like Price the Trickster, Wells the Ponderous, Doherty the Impassioned. There are moments of stolid manly wit. Leidner himself led an interesting life. In addition to having an attorney's training, he also served in the merchant marine for most of his life, and was radio operator on board Exodus in 1947. He was born in 1916, and published this book in 2000.

Vorkosigan