maryhelena

The Testimonium Flavianum

“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 at this day.” (Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3, 3.)

Is the phrase “He was (the) Christ” a Christian, a JC historicist, interpolation? If so, was Eusebius, the first Christian writer to reference the TF, the one guilty of the interpolation?

Whether that phrase was interpolated or not, the JC historicists believe there is enough remaining in the TF to support their assumption of a historical gospel JC (of whatever variant). On the other hand, some ahistoricists/mythicists are keen to question much more of the TF than the “He was (the) Christ” phrase.

That there is silence, prior to Eusebius, in early Christian writing, regarding the TF is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to label Eusebius as the interpolator. That the TF is, today, a source of controversy between the JC historicists and the ahistoricists, should suggest that this Josephan passage has a long history of such controversy. Eusebius himself gives amply reason to suspect this is the case.

"Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.
2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our
Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their
fabricators.
3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put
into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign." (Eusebius: Church History; The Times of Pilate)

Eusebius is referencing a “forgery” regarding a story about a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius. Tiberius was co-regent with Augustus from 12 c.e. and sole Roman ruler from the death of Augustus in 14 c.e. The fourth consulship of Tiberius is given, by other writers, as being in 21 c.e. Alternatively, counting those seven years from the co-regency of Tiberius, the year in question would be 19 c.e. And that is the year,19 c.e., in which the TF is found within Antiquities. i.e. the TF is placed in a context prior to the expelling of Jews from Rome. (Wikipedia on dating the expelling of Jews from Rome under Tiberius).

Thus, for early JC historicists, the problem with the Josephan TF centred upon it’s dating rather than it’s content. Eusebius saw a way around this problem. He read Josephus as referencing Pilate ruling from the 12th year of Tiberius - which would, as most scholars do today, make Pilate ruling from 26 c.e. In other words; Eusebius has found a way around the problematic dating of the TF in 19 c.e. With that interpretation of Josephus, Eusebius was then free to reference the TF as evidence for his assumed historical JC.

This Eusebius reading of Josephus is not without questions of it’s own. Daniel Schwartz has addressed them.

Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity. (or via: amazon.co.uk) Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office: Daniel Schwartz (google book view available)

Schwartz makes the case that Gratus was, in regard to his removal and appointments of High Priests, only in Judea for about 4 years. However, Josephus states that Gratus was in Judea for 11 years. That is 7 years more than the account referencing the High Priest removal/appointments, suggests. All such added years accomplish is that now Pilate is ruling from 26 c.e. instead of 19 c.e. What does this achieve? It supports the Eusebius assertion re the ‘forgery’ in the 7th year of Tiberius (19 or 21 c.e.) Pilate was not yet in office! Did Eusebius add, interpolate, the extra 7 years to Gratus - or did Josephus add these extra 7 years?

The Eusebius problem re the ‘forgery’ could not simply be sidelined via the Josephan mention of a 10 year rule for Pilate. From 19 c.e., that gets to 29 c.e. (the 15th year of Tiberius, re gLuke).That ‘forgery’ can only be sidelined if Pilate starts his rule later than 19 c.e. And that requires that Gratus be given an extra 7 year rule. That would be all nice and tidy for Eusebius if Gratus was given an additional 7 year rule...But did Eusebius do it. Or was Josephus doing his own historical reconstructions?

Yes, Eusebius had his reasons, that ‘forgery, that would suggest he challenge the 19 c.e. context for the TF and Pilate. However, what Eusebius seems not to have comprehended is the consequences of gLuke being a late gospel. That 15th year of Tiberius for JC is a late story. Prior to gLuke, gMark has no dating structure apart from Pilate. Consequently, a crucifixion in 19 c.e. could not be ruled out. gJohn has no dating structure, aside from Pilate. GMatthew has an addition, perhaps a later addition, re Archelaus (4 b.c. to 6 c.e.). The gMark storyline is not dependent upon gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius.

What does the Eusebuis “forgery” about a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius relate to?

A storyline re a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 19 or 21 c.e., is a storyline that finds support in a story that is now within Slavonic Josephus: In that storyline, dated prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great, an anointed one is born. That story runs from either 25 or 22 b.c. - and in 19 or 21 c.e. that anointed figure would be around 44 or 46 years old. (gJohn has its JC figure not yet 50 years old..)

Yes, this story is not in Josephus’ War. However, it’s a story that, in view of the ‘forgery’ regarding a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, that was well known. That would mean that when Josephus wrote Antiquities, and chose to include the TF, the wonder-doer storyline, he was not able to change the time slot from that which that story originally was set. (In Slavonic Josephus the story is set between the issue of the standards and the water issue. In Antiquities the story is set after both of these issues - but prior to the expelling of Jews from Rome in 19 c.e.)

Did Josephus have reason to add 7 years to the rule of Gratus? If Josephus is seeking to support gLuke's 6 c.e. birth narrative - then he had reason to add those extra 7 years to Gratus. gLuke referencing the basic wonder-doer story.( Luke 24: 19-21.) gLuke's new setting for the wonder-doer story required that Pilate not be ruling in 19 c.e.

The Josephan TF is placed within a context of 19 c.e. - indicating that Pilate was ruling at that time. If Josephus is referencing historical years re stating that Pilate ruled for 10 years - then Pilate’s rule ended in 29 c.e.. Thus, as with Gratus, Pilate has been given an extra seven pseudo-historical years to take the end of his rule to 36 c.e. Two instances of 7 x 7 years; seven pseudo-historical years for Gratus and for Pilate. gLuke needing Pilate’s rule to end in 36 c.e. (birth in 6 c.e. and about 30 years when crucified...)

Below is a chart setting out how I now view the TF - it’s Josephan from start to finish! Indeed, Eusebius had motive re an interpolation to deal with that ‘forgery’ assigned to the 7th year of Tiberius - but he failed to see that Josephus had his own reasons for the additional seven years for Gratus: gLuke needed support for his 6 c.e. birth narrative!

(not forgetting of course, that since Josephus is a prophetic historian, as modern scholarship is now indicating, then his use of the number seven should immediately raise a red flag....)

Yes, of course, all of the above is suggesting that the Josephan writer had a hand in supporting the gospel pseudo-historical JC storyboard....And a pseudo-historical JC story it is - no flesh and blood figure has multiple birth dates...And no, the gospel writers did not get the dates wrong because they had no historical facts about JC. The gospel JC story has multiple birth narratives because it is a pseudo-historical story; a pseudo-historical story using a literary figure to reflect a prophetic interpretation of Jewish history - it is not a story about a historical gospel JC.

Slavonic Josephus: Birth narrative of anointed one around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 or 22 b.c. (Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison H. Leeming (editor) K. Leeming (editor).-	Josephus Antiquites: Book 18 ch. 3. Slavonic Josephus Wonder-doer story now updated. "He was [the] Christ". TF context around the time Jews expelled from Rome, 19 c.e.-	gLuke: Birth Date of JC during the Census of Quirinius in 6 c.e. GLuke references the wonder-doer story within a new time slot - 15th year of Tiberius. -
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. “At that time there appeared a man if it is proper for me to call him a man whose nature and form were human but whose appearance was more than human and whose deeds were divine. And he worked wonderful and powerful miracles..... And many of the people followed and listened to his teaching. And many souls were aroused, thinking that by him the Jewish tribes would free themselves from the hands of the Romans......And they sought out a suitable time to kill him. For they had given Pilate 30 talents earlier, that he should give Jesus up to them....And they crucified him against (the) ancestral law.and they greatly reviled him". (Slavonic Josephus text online does not have 'Jesus' in this passage. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm. -	Crucified under Pilate: "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 at this day".-	Crucified under Pilate: JC birth narrative in 6 c.e. = crucifixion, at age 30 years, in 36 c.e. "About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; ...but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel". And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.... They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen. Luke 24: 19-21.-
In Slavonic Josephus, the Wonder-doer story is placed between the account of the Roman standards and the acquaduct account. Josephus dating of Pilate ambiguous. (Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office. Daniel Schwartz).-	The TF is placed after the account of the Roman standards and the acqueduct account. It is followed by the expelling of Jews from Rome, dated 19 c.e.-
"For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign. ( Eusebius: Church History Book 1. The Times of Pilate.) Note: If there is a story re a crucifixion in the 7th year of Pilate - either 19 or 21 c.e. (from either 12 or 14 c.e.)then Pilate was in office prior to the usual dating of 26 c.e.-	Josephus Antiquities (Book 20 ch. 9. (94 c.e). "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned". (62/63 c.e.)-	-

(Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison H. Leeming (editor) K. Leeming (editor) (or via: amazon.co.uk) (google book view available)

Duvduv

Aside from the fact that interpolators were really interested in establishing sources for a FIRST CENTURY Jesus, the first Slavonic version is interesting because the word "Jesus" isn't even introduced at the beginning, suggesting that the reference was simply to some revolutionary, with another interpolation regarding the 30 talents for Pilate.

It is interesting that you indicate that the Slavonic version online lacks the word JESUS which is the only thing that would connect the story to the NT Jesus in that excerpt.

In the second excerpt it would seem that compared to the first one the interpolation is the word Jesus, the phrase of three or four words "he was the Christ." Not too much of an interpolation into Josephus, but enough to satisfy anyone that Jesus existed in the 1st century. My hunch is that the second interpolation about James replaced the name of some other person or persons.

It would almost seem as if the interpolator was trying to be careful not to interpolate TOO MUCH, too many words, and to keep it to a minimum.

aa5874

Again, you present TOTAL CONFUSION. You are relying on Forgeries, Fake authorship, Unknown date of Composition, Unreliable sources and sources of KNOWN fiction for your History.

The Slavonic Josephus is NOT credible and so are the Gospels and may have been written DECADES after the original works of Josephus.

Duvduv

Unreliable sources.........not unlike Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian........who are all held in the highest esteem out there. Looks like Josephus was a work in progress as time went along. Interpolations here, changes there.......Gosh, only now he is taken to task for his (or whoever wrote it) "history" of Massada.

maryhelena

So - if Josephus can be questioned re that mass suicide on Masada - no mass burial ground found; no remains for those 960 people that Josephus has placed on Masada; then are we not dealing with a pseudo-historical story? And if Josephus can do that with Masada - creating a dramatic ending to a 7 year prophetic time slot - 66 - 70 - 73 c.e. - then the JC historicists are on very shaky ground attempting to use Josephus, a prophetic historian, as proof for their assumptions re a historical gospel JC.

And that is what my post is basically about. Question Josephus. Yes, Josephus has had a good innings with his prophetic reconstructions of Jewish history. And it's the JC historicists that have been his enablers. Because to question Josephus is to question their assumption re a historical gospel JC.

And no, I'm not knocking Josephus for the sake of knocking Josephus. Josephus, the Josephan writer, is what he is - a prophetic historian - with all the historical license that that designation allows him. Loads of creativity in the reconstruction of Jewish history. Bottom line is that if it's early christian origins that we are seeking, we have no alternative but to find a way around the Josephan potholes. i.e. his mixing of his prophetic interpretations with Jewish history.

Duvduv

Yes, you are correct. It's what we call "kal vechomer." If X is true, then how much moreso is Y....."
As opposed to brief interpolations, I would suggest that whole stories about the Essenes and Massada are inventions of Josephus. Indeed, his description of "Essenes" is quite different than that of Philo. Four Philosophies.......For all we know even Antiquities is a composite of writings. Who knows? And then if we really examine Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, we can certainly argue the same thing even if it is almost heresy to do so.

aa5874

You are just making all sorts of unsubstantiated assertions without even checking the sources yourself.

Justin Martyr mentioned Josephus Antiquities of the Jews and appear to be UNAWARE that any Jew claimed there was a Jesus called Christ.

Hortatory Address to the Greeks Based on Justin there was NO character known to the Jews as Jesus the Christ to the mid 2nd century.

"Dialogue with Trypho" CX Based on Justin Martyr, it is most unlikely that Josephus, a Jew and Pharisee, would have already claimed Jesus was the Christ and that Justin would NOT have made mention of it to Trypho the Jew.

Duvduv

Meaning that the Josephus interpolations happened after the Justin writings were produced. That's fine, but I wasn't questioning the reliability of Justin vis a vis Josephus, but his reliability as a second century writer on the subject of Christianity.

aa5874

Well, you are posting in the wrong thread.

Justin's writings SHOW a BIG BLACK HOLE for the claim that Josephus a Jew and Pharisee mentioned Jesus the Christ.

The Jews did NOT teach at all that the Christ had aready come.

Vorkosigan

That's a very interesting set of ideas. The TF is sometimes interpolated into Wars. It might shed light on your case to find out where the interpolators put it, chronologically.

Also, it seems like the forger of the TF is aware of the Lucan passage and wants to create a counterpart that echoes/confirms it.

Vorkosigan