Mudcat

Hi All,

This is my first post in this forum of FRDB. I had submitted an article from SkeptiWiki regarding Josephus larger quote and smaller quote regarding Christ.

A poster, Johnny Skeptic (sp?), submitted this in reply.
Here is a link to the article in question.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Non...ences_to_Jesus

If you have the time, I would be appreciative of your thoughts on it. I profess no scholarship on the issue, though I have read documentation from primarily Christian sources. So I would recognize that most of the information I have studied may hold bias on the matter.

It is doubtful that I will attempt to mount any sort of defense to the matter as I am primarily interested in your input on the issue.... But who knows.

I would further by asking a question.

Is there good reason to completely dismiss the statements of Josephus that regard Jesus Christ? And if there are good reasons, then what are they?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Johnny Skeptic

You might be interested in an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...Jesus#Josephus.

mountainman

"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" --- Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, 1762.


The testimonium flavianum ("larger quote and smaller quote ") has been censured since the age of enlightment as a christian political forgery of the fourth century. The name of Eusebius has been specifically associated with this forgery.

Arguments to inauthenticity (put forth by Dr. Lardner)

"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.

"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,'
except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus
who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9,
Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.

"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible
that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or
used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the
Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.

"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage -- of a
man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave
after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment
by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.

"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.

"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.

"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though
he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy
of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.

"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad),
nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors
in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.

"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically
that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.

"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine,
we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

aa5874

The passages in Antiquities of Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 appear to be forgeries. Once it is understood what was expected of a Jewish Messiah, then it will easily be recognised that Josephus would have not called Jesus a Messiah.

Compare the activities of Jesus the so-called Christ and Simon Barcocheba who was called a Messiah.

A resurrection is NOT a criteria to be called a Messiah. And neither is blasphemy.

DCHindley

Having squinted at many opposing viewpoints over the years I have come to the conclusion that if Josephus said anything at all about Jesus (of Christian fame) it was likely only in passing and has been worked over by Christian copyists early in the transmission history of the copies of Josephus which have survived to today. The chances of Josephus actually having anything to say about Jesus in either Ant 18 or even Ant 20 are less than 50%, IMHO.

The problem with the arguments on the various Wickis is that almost all the opposing views are trying way to hard to MAKE points, not really get at the historical core.

DCH

andrewcriddle

You should distinguish between the long quote in book 18 about Jesus and the short quote in book 20.

Most scholars (though probably not most posters in this forum) regard the short quote in book 20 as authentic.

The long quote in book 18 is clearly Christian in its present form and cannot in its present form be by Josephus. Scholars are divided between those who regard this passage as entirely inauthentic and those who regard it as a Christian rewrite of a Josephan original. Even if there was a Josephan original, it is difficult to use the existing form of this passage as evidence about the Historical Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

And there is a big difference between a claim of authenticity and identification of James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 once the TF AJ 18.3.3 is rejected.

Why did not Josephus write any thing about this Messiah but only that his brother was stoned to death?

mountainman

Hi Andrew,

Your assertion for some reason ignores the censure placed on both quotes by a long list of scholars. For example:

Arguments to inauthenticity (put forth by Dr. Lardner)

"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,'
except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus
who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9,
Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.

When you say above "most scholars" what you actually mean is "most christian apologetic scholars" who are clearly acting in this modern world in the role of defence attorneys, and resisting the fact that we are dealing with what has for many centuries been pronounced as a "A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too".

If you research this area you will find that these "most scholars" are characterised by a few specific common characterists in their treatment.

(1) They all defer to the Feldman survey of 87 articles authored between 1937 and 1980 which is summarised as:

Feldman Survey Results oft Quoted

52 scholars reviewing the subject,
39 found portions of the TF to be authentic:

4 scholars regarded the TF as entirely genuine,
6 as mostly genuine,
20 accept it with some interpolations,
9 with several interpolations, and
13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

(2) What is often totally unstated is the position of the map makers in this field - the scholars who examined the TF between the age of Enlightenment and the commencement of this oft-quoted Feldman survey.

Between the Enlightenment and prior to 1937 the following series of scholars examined the TF (both quotes - the major and the minor) and after considering all the evidence available assessed it to be a genuine and authentic forgery.

Bishop Warburton of Gloucester ("a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too"),
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner,
Edward Gibbon – ("may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery"),
Ittigius,
Blondel,
Le Clerc,
Vandale,
Tanaquil Faber,
Dr. Alexander Campbell,
Dr. Thomas Chalmers,
Mitchell Logan,
Theodor Keim,
Cannon Farrar – ('interpolated, if not wholly spurious'),
The Rev. Dr. Giles,
Rev. S. Baring-Gould ("first quoted by Eusebius),
Rev. Dr. Hooykaas ("certainly spurious, inserted by a later Christian hand."),
Emil Schürer,
Edwin Johnson,
Jakob Burckhardt ("Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity"),
Adolph Harnack,
John Remsburg,
Arthur Drews,
Marshall J. Gauvin ("Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage."),
Solomn Zeitlin,
Charles Guignebert ("a pure Christian forgery"),
Joseph McCabe.

(3) We may add to this list those who have made comment on the major and minor TF in the period since the end of the Feldman review and the present day:

George Albert Wells ("Eusebius suddenly "found" it."),
Freke and Gandy ("later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed"),
Earl Doherty - "slender thread by which an assumption hangs),
Acharya S,
Kenneth Harding,
Jay Raskin ("Eusebius the Master Forger"),
David Taylor,
Kerry Shirts,
Ken Olsen ("Eusebius fabricated the TF")
perhaps Gordon Stein.



If you are interested in reading a more complete summary of these ideas I invite you to read a reasonably short PDF entitled Making fruit salad of the Testimonium Flavianum. - Is it an apple? (Genuine and real) Is it a lemon? (a common forgery) Or is it an orange? (something entirely different dreamt up by the defence attorneys)

renassault

Probably for the same reason he almost would have never written anything about John the Baptist if it wasn't for a supplement regarding the war in 37 between Herod and Aretas IV; it has nothing political in it, with which Josephus' history seems intertwined as the most important aspect of that time period.

Mudcat

Thanks for all the responses. I appreciate your thoughts.

I have a bit going on at present but may try to strike a more reciprocating thread at a future point.

Kind Regards,

Mudcat