Vorkosigan

Actual citations, TedM. For example, Origen cites Josephus in Contra Celsus to claim that JBap *existed*:

CC 1:

• I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

Note that in this passage Celsus uses Josephus twice for support. Can you imagine the drooling ecstasy he'd have had over an actual reference to Jesus? But his language here rules one out when he notes that Josephus should have mentioned the loss of the city was due to Jesus being killed by the Jews, which of course confirms there is no such mention in Josephus.

maryhelena

Hi, Ted

In a recent post I set out a chart dealing with the Slavonic Josephus mention of the wonder-doer and how Eusebius could have used this story, as the TF, and placed it within the 19 ce context of Antiquities - as it is in Slavonic Josephus. (The possibility being that Josephus opted not to carry over this storyline from an earlier version of War.) I’ll repeat this chart below rather than giving a link.

What I now will suggest is that the reason no mention is made of the TF prior to Eusebius is not because there would not have been, in some circles anyway, no knowledge of the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer storyline, but because this storyline was controversial re it’s connection with the messianic birth narrative dated to around the 15th year of Herod the Great, ie 25 b.c. It is this connection that would have, at some stage, been decried as heresy or falsehood - especially after gLuke was written - and especially when the historicists won the day..... Thus, Eusebius takes only the wonder-doer, the TF type storyline, and ditches the reference to the birth narrative in the 15th year of Herod the Great. He also labels the crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, a dating related to an earlier birth narrative and gJohn’s “not yet 50 years” for JC, as “forgery”.

(don’t be put off the Slavonic Josephus storyline re the wonder-doer - Slavonic Josephus just happens to be the name given to the manuscripts in which that story is now found.)

Slavonic Josephus	Eusebuis	Antiquities
At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man.	And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man.	Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;.
His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel...And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings.	For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness.... And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.	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.
The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.	When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross.... Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.	And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.... And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Second Mention of the Wonder-doer	-	-
Again Claudius sent his authorities to those states—Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander.................many had been discovered as servants of the previously described wonder-doer; and as they spake to the people about their teacher,—that he is living, although he is dead, and that he will free you from your servitude,—many from the folk gave ear to the above-named and took upon themselves their precept...	...those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him......For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him.	...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.

The developing JC storyboard.

Slavonic Josephus	gJohn	gMark	gMatthew	gLuke
Birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c.	-	-	No specific dating for JC birth narrative during the rule of Herod the Great. 40 b.c. to 4 b.c.	-
John the Baptizer and Herod Archelaus.(4 b.c. to 6 c.e) “And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.”	Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.	King Herod (Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) The divorce of Archelaus and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra. (story later changed to Antipas and Herodias)	-	-
-	-	-	-	JC and JtB birth narratives in 6 c.e.
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. Pilate can be dated to 19 c.e. Eusebius mention of crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e	JC, “not yet fifty. Wonder-doer is around 46/47 years old in 21 c.e. Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate	-	-
-	-	-	Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas 4.b.c. to 37 c.e.). The divorce of Antipas and his marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias.	Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius. 29/30 c.e. JC about 30 years old.
-	-	-	Crucified under Pilate - can be any date up until the last date given for Pilate 36 c.e.	Crucified under Pilate, about 30 c.e. – with a 1 year ministry. Or, in 36 c.e. if JC only 24 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - and 30 years old in 36 c.e.

Why the changing storyline? One reason is that JC is a composite pseudo-historical figure modelled upon two historical figures who lived in two different time slots. Antigonus who was bound to a cross, crucified and flogged and beheaded in 37 b.c. And Philip the Tetrarch who lived a long life, was not crucified, and who died, in 33/34 c.e. (using the Josephan account for the sake of the argument...). 70 years between the two events. Another reason is prophetic interpretations based on Daniel. .gLuke has moved the storyline along to cover these 70 prophetic years of Daniel ch.9. Luke 3:1 indicates his interest in doing so - from 40 b.c. and the rule of Lysanias of Abilene (which is also the year in which Herod the Great became King in Rome) to the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 c.e. – 70 years.

So, while Eusebius did his cherry-picking from the wonder-doer story (now preserved in Slavonic Josephus) to ‘update’ Antiquities - his interpolation does provide evidence that an earlier TF storyline existed, ie he did not make up the TF out of his own head. His admission that a ‘forgery’ existed regarding a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e., indicates that he knows very well the background to the interpolation that he has made into Antiquities.

Vorkosigan

Where is this admission that there was an earlier crucifixion in 21 CE?

maryhelena

The earlier crucifixion storyline is here:

Vorkosigan

Thanks!!

maryhelena

Your very welcome....

Remember also what Tertullian wrote:

my formatting

The christian story, the wonder-doer story, goes way back before gLuke put his new development ideas on record....

Dating manuscripts is all well and good, interpreting 'Paul' is playtime - but if we hope to ever reach ground zero re early christian origins - it's the wonder-doer story itself that has to be unraveled.

TedM

Thanks. The mention of JTB is interesting because it seems unnecessary to his point. I will have to go back and look at the entire passage more closely before I agree with your conclusion. I'm not sure what he is trying to address here, as he hits on quite a few things in the passage.

Are there any others that you think qualify or is this the only one?

Doug Shaver

I was kind of wondering where you'd seen the suggestion that it was out of place. Your post was first time I'd ever come across it.

EarlDoherty

Ted, you are carrying this to ridiculous extremes. What do you mean, "evidence"? The argument is one of common sense. Don't try to deflect that by asking for some indefinable 'evidence'. As I said, Christian commentators for a few centuries were concerned with the public attitude toward the Christian movement, with persecution, with (once it was established that such a figure had existed) views of the founder of their sect. I pointed out in both The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man that Origen was one who should have seized on Josephus' perceivably favorable view of Jesus in the 'genuine' TF in, for example, defending against Celsus' scoffing about Jesus' miracle-working. The idea allegedly expressed by Josephus that the movement had persisted even after Jesus' execution would not be a matter of superfluous 'knowledge' but of perceived commendation by a non-Christian historian of followers and believers even in the face of adversity. An apparent condemnation, or even just a neutral assigning of responsibility, for Jesus' death on prominent Jews in Jerusalem would have played right into Christian hands in their animosity toward Jews and their failure to recognize Jesus as Messiah. And so on.

If Origen could remark on James the Just's murder being the reason for the fall of Jerusalem, or his mention of John the Baptist (as Vork has pointed out), why wouldn't he anywhere find occasion or desire to remark on Josephus' comments on Jesus? (And please don't bring up his comment that Josephus did not regard Jesus as the Messiah: that could have been entirely motivated by Josephus declaration of Vespasian as the prophesied Messiah in Jewish War.)

You are starting to sound like GakuseiDon, impervious to common-sense expectations. Such things as the above do not impose some kind of solely modern disposition ("of what we would expect": Don's favorite mantra) on the ancients.

Earl Doherty

Doug Shaver

I readily agree that we cannot infer from "Some of it's obviously forged" that "None of it can be authentic." But I do have a problem with the supposition, apparently very widespread, that whatever is not obviously forged must be authentic.