gurugeorge

Well I think that Doherty's got the main outlines. See also this neat little essay by Robert M. Price. And while the rigour of Freke and Gandy's scholarship has been questioned, they also offer valuable insights and are fairly consistent with Doherty and Price, and also have the added benefit of having some experience in the kind of non-dual mysticism they believe to be at the root of the MJ, and so can offer a clear, live reading of some of the Gnostic texts. (I'd also say that F&G overestimate the degree of non-dual mysticism, and underestimate the degree of magical practice - i.e. purported communication with discarnate intelligences - in the early Christian writings, but that's another story.)

In rough outline, from a personal point of view: since there's no indisputable contemporary evidence of "Jesus" existence as a human being, and since historical characteristics seem to be rather absent in the earliest Christian writings, and proliferate more as time goes on, the simplest explanation for the phenomenon of Christianity is that it was a Jewish version of the god-man "myth" (actually an allegory of our true condition, and a pointer to how one can transcend it), using a "spiritualised" version of the (previously kingly and revolutionary) Jewish "Messiah" figure instead of a local god or (as was common with the pagan "mysteries"), and probably arising from several sources, but mostly Paul (who was actually the "Simon Magus" of Acts - Acts being a complete forgery, based on, but distorting some real events).

This initially "mythical" figure of the Christ (i.e. either a representation of the non-dual natural state of pure, unconditioned awareness, a Platonic intermediary redeemer figure, or an apparently discarnate intelligence believed to be contacted in spirit communications, or some combination of these) became historicised by what was at first a minor sub-sect(s) of Christianity (either in Rome or Alexandria or both), in what was at first a gradual process (making his advent relatively recent in historical time), which accelerated when that sub-sect gained political power through Constantine.

In actual fact the "Catholic" Church was in the minority for a long time, and most Christians belonged to one or another of the proto-Gnostic Jewish variants arising from Paul (and probably a few others - e.g. James), or the more thoroughly hellenicized and thoroughly gnostic later churches. (This can be seen very clearly from F.C.Baur's analysis of what we actually know about the post-Apostolic Church - everywhere it seems that the "Catholic" missionaries come upon already well established churches and congregations.)

The good news is that because Christianity has these roots, there's actually a good deal of truth in it. As a smorgasbord of the mysteries, pagan ideas, etc., Christianity is actually quite a good guide to life in many ways. And it really is true that "Christ" is "in you" (that is to say, the awareness of the world that's more essentially you than anything else about you, is - so to speak - God's eye, wherewith He canvasses some of His infinite possibilities, and that divine element is present here and now, crucified in the flesh, but at the same time untouched, immortal, and ready to welcome you Home).

The only really bad thing about Christianity has been the invented historical connection to a supposed one-shot avatar of the Divine - which is really a rather hideous kind of blasphemy if you believe that the Divine is omnipresent (already present even in you and me) anyway. In retrospect, it looks like the only real function of this idea was to strengthen the priesthood politically - i.e. the whole raison d'etre of the historicisation of a one-shot Avatar of God, was to give "bishops" psychological ascendancy over others, by virtue of a supposed "Apostolic" connection with that one-shot Avatar.

jakejonesiv

The Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus, Antiquities, 18.3.3) is considered to be the most important, perhaps the only, extra-biblical witness to the historicity of Jesus as described in the gospels. If significant doubt is cast upon the genuineness of the Testimonium Flavianum, the "case for Christ" is considerably weakened.

The oldest extant manuscript of the "Testimonium Flavianum" contained in "Antiquities of the Jews (18.3.3)" of Josephus, is the Codex Ambrosianus F 128 Superior, eleventh century. The earliest MS. of the "Demonstratio" is the Codex known as the Medicean or "Parisinus
469," of the twelfth century, registered in the Catalogue of the Library of Paris, vol. ii. p. 65.
Reference: Josephus: the Main Manuscripts of "Antiquities", Roger Pearce.

There is no mention of the TF in the corresponding section of Wars with the Jews Book 2..
This means the earliest known mention is actually from Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History (1.11)", "Demonstratio Evangelica (3.5)", and "Theophania." (The Theophania survives only in a Syric translation). There no mention of it in the writings attributed to Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, or Arnobius.

In the period of time between Eusebius and the earliest extant manuscripts of Josephus (11th century), we have the writings of Chrysostom and Photius that had copies of Josephus but make no mention of the Testimonium. (Chrysostom first knows of Josephus in "Homilies on
the Gospel of St. Matthew", where the subject is the apocalyse of Matthew chapter 24.) This indicates the possibility that there were two manuscript
traditions at that time of Josephus, one that included the Testimonium Flavianum and one that did not. See The Jesus the Jews Never Knew,
Frank R. Zindler, 2003, 45. ISBN 1-57884-916-0.

The extant text for the TF can be viewed at Early Christian Writings, and is reproduced here.

Obviously, the passage as it stands could not have been written by Josephus, who was not a Christian. According to Origen, Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ. "And the wonderful thing is, that, though he {Flavius Josephus} did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Commentary on Matthew 10:17).

In addition, if Josephus had written anything like this, he would have been guilty of treason against Rome. It is painfully apparent from the claims that Jesus was more than a man, a miracle worker, a teacher of truth, that he was the Christ, appeared alive on the third day, was foretold by the prophets, and did ten thousand other wonderful things (cf John 21:25 ) that this passage was written by a Christian. There is not a harsh or questioning word against Jesus in the whole TF. It is 100% Christian propaganda.

The rational approach to this text would be to omit it from consideration and move on to something else.

However, the TF is so important to the modern conventional understanding of Jesus, that an effort has been made to salvage something for this passage.

Defenders of the partial authenticity claim that parts of the Testimonium were interpolated, but not the entire thing. This retreat (e.g. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, chapter 3) merely deletes (without any textual support) the parts of the T.F. most grevious to modern sensibilities, and assumes that whatever remains is by the hand of Josephus.
Meier butresses this with a statistical analysis of comparing the reduced TF to the rest of Josephus works, with the not suprising result that all is in comformity. But here is the "Catch-22" from which they cannot escape without difficulty. A neutral mention of a certain teacher Jesus would not have been the sad calamity to the Jews we see linked by Antiquities 18:3:4.

On pages 63 ff, Meier butresses his case with several arguments.

1. Meier: After stripping out the clearly Christian statements, we are left with a "low christology." JJ4: Duh? This statement is too self serving to merit anything but contempt. Obvously, if any "high Christology" was left in the stripped down TF, Meier would have merely omitted that also. Meiers also doesn't seem to care that much of what he had left was straight of of the NT also, startling deeds and Teller of Truth.
2a. Meier: The statement that Jesus gained many followers among the Greeks flies in the face of the gospels. JJ4: The TF speaks of the tribe of Christians that existed to "this very day" which would be preponderantly non-Jewish. Man, this is some weak stuff.
2b. Meier: The TF does not tell us why Jesus was put to death. JJ4: What does Meiers want from a one paragraph summary?
2c. Meier: The TF does not exactly jibe with the gospel with the roles played by the Jew authorities and Pilate. JJ4: Seems close enough to me.
3. Meier says that the use of tribe (gk. pylon) for Christians is unusual, but then admits Eusubius also uses pylon for Chrsitians. JJ4: Meier doesn't seem to realize that pylon becomes an argument in favor of Eusbian interpolation rather than partial authenticity.
4. Meier: The alleged passage of John the baptist is separate from the TF. JJ4: Assuming for sake of argument that the passage about JBAP in Josephus is authentic, why would would the TF fit better there than in the passage about Pontius Pilate?

A certain apologist (Truemyth) in this thread has suggested that such speculative attempts to salvage the TF deserve a priveleged position, and that the burden of proof is upon those who suggest that the entire passage is worthless for historical purposes. (Even JP Meier disagrees with this. He calls his reconstruction plausible, not probative). No offense to any poster, but that is special pleading of the worst sort. The burden of proof is upon the advocate of partial authenticity.

Nevertheless, it is more than a possibilty that the entire text of TF is an interpolation.

Evidence that the whole TF is an interpolation was first noted in the 17th century. The authenticity of the TF was debunked by Reformed scholars Louis Cappel (Historia Ecclesiastica, Leiden, 1687), Tanaquilius Faber (Fabri Epistulae I. Saumur, 1674, Ep. 43), and Jean Daillé. It is only with twentieth century that, with ecumenialism and an retreat from skepticism, attempts to rehabilitate the TF have arisen.
See THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM CONTROVERSY FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE PRESENT

Here is the text surrounding the Testimonium Flavianum from Josephus, Antiquities Book 18.
Notice how the text without the TF moves from one calamity to the next. The passage breaks the continuity of the narrative concerning Pilate. To claim Josephus wrote any of it, one must beg that it is a digression.

It is Ken Olson's conclusion that "Christian scribes interpolated into our texts of Josephus. They accepted on Eusebius' authority that the Antiquities ought to contain such a text and "corrected" their texts according to the reading found in the Historia Ecclesiastica.
The version of the Testimonium found in our texts of the Antiquities is the Eusebian version, and, if there ever was a Josephan version, that fact remains to be demonstrated." This is contained in the Files section of Jesus Mysteries List. (Oh well, it used to be).

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

1. The TF is not found in Origen in any form. Were you thinking about the James passage?
2. The 10th century Arabic version, while it may have been copied by a Christian, still conforms the TF to Islamic sensibilities about Jesus. It is not original.

The Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross. So instead of appearing alive again, he merely is represented as appearing alive. {see note below}. Either way, it still contains a portion of what "Partial Autheticity" advocates want to omit.

Jake Jones IV

Note on the Arabic version. NO, I have not read the original in Arabic. I can't read Arabic. I am depending on an English translation. sheesh!

andrewcriddle

One should note the presence of a version of the TF in Pseudo-Hegesippus written in Latin c 370 Online http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he...s_02_book2.htm

IMO this is unlikely to have been influenced directly or indirectly by Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle

gurugeorge

Oops, that should be Walter Bauer, not F C Baur!

While I'm at it, I should note that:-

This should of course have included Jewish ideas. Although Price points out some interesting research which shows that Judaism itself may not have been as well-formed or monotheistic roundabout the time of "Jesus"' purported lifeline as we tend to think, and much more of a mosaic, more closely connected with "paganism". Our image of a well-formed, thoroughly monotheistic Judaism at that time is partly in reflection of our reading those times through the lens of an early Christian reaction against Judaism, as evinced in the NT - which, interestingly, suggests that the general outline of the "Jesus" story may well have been put in place after the establishment of Javneh Judaism. IOW the image of a fully formed Judaism in the gospels, etc., is an anachronism, projecting a religious culture from a later time back to a past when in fact Judaism wasn't as well-formed as portrayed.

This mosaic nature of "Jesus"-contemporary Judaism lends credence to Jews being at that time directly familiar - or at lost not unfamiliar - with dying/rising saviour gods (in the form of Baal and other fairly local deities), so the notion of a dying/rising Messiah figure would not be all that strange, at least in some circles.

It also potentially loosens up the picture of the early Jewish Christians. It also makes sense that a spiritualisation of the earthly, revolutionary/kingly Messiah (the ideal of which had brough such disaster), combined with the semi-familiar dying/rising god motif, could be attractive to some Jews.

jakejonesiv

This Pseudo-Hegesippus text could not have been written before 370 CE. Eusebius (ca 260-340 CE) had been dead for at least 30 years by then.

Christianity is generally supposed to have evangelized the entire Roman Empire in less time than that, but you are sure that au_P-H couldn't have gotten his mitts on (or heard of) the Eusubian TF in that time?

Jake Jones IV

gurugeorge

Yeah to me this has always been the most convincing argument for interpolation. The text just screams at you that there's a more logical flow without the TF. What the hell is this little song of praise doing interrupting a pairing of calamities ("... about the same time also another sad calamity ...")?

Or are we to suppose the advent of Christianity was a calamity? (Ahem )

andrewcriddle

It's obviously possible that Pseudo-Hegesippus knew the TF from Eusebius.

However there are few other distinctive parallels between Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius only seems to have had a major influence on the Latin Christian world somewhat later, towards the very end of the 4th century with the works of Jerome Rufinus etc.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

There may be an even greater calamity, the Book called the Bible may contain more forgeries and interpolations than all of Josephus' writings put together.

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Since the Pseudo-Hegesippus reference is not a quotation, or even a paraphrase, but a tenditious discussion of the TF, I don't see how a pre-Eusebian textual tradition of the TF can be established from it.

Ken Olson, Pseudo-Hegesippus' Testimonium commented: "We can derive Pseudo-Hegesippus discussion from the text of the Testimonium actually found in our manuscripts of the Antiquities and Historia Ecclesiastica."

Jake Jones IV