Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 12-20-2007, 08:52 PM

Ca. 1195 CE. Michael the Syrian, Patriarch of Antioch, (Syriac) Chronicle. His source for the Testimonium probably being a Syriac translation/adaptation of Eusebius’ Chronicon by James of Edessa, who died ca 708 C.E.). Translation by Shlomo Pines, “An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications,” in Studies in the History of Religion, edited by G. G. Stroumsa, The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1996), vol. IV, p. 58, as quoted by Marian Hillar, M.D., Ph.D., www.socinian.org/files/TestimoniumFlavianum.pdf. Bracketed words are corrections according to the citations of Micheal the Syrian contained in the 13th century chronicle of the Coptic Christian al-Makin ibn al-’Amid, as made by Hillar:

"The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions [i.e. Antiquities] of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it be fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous things [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, have not disappeared till [this] day."

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Thanks for that, Toto. But that's not it. I posted this with him:

Third, there is a Syriac version of the TF that is referenced in the 12th century work, compiled by the Patriarch of Antioch, Michael the Syrian, which lends even more support to Jerome's version of the TF. While tracking our current TF more or less, the Syriac version departs from it by stating that "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." And as Whealey notes, "Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity. Both, however, had access to Greek works. The only plausible conclusion is that Jerome and some Syriac Christian (probably the seventh century James of Edessa) both had access to a Greek version of the Testimonium containing the passage 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than 'he was the Christ.'" (Whealey, op. cit. at 10, n. 9).

And he denies that's what he's talking about. He keeps making claims about some separate Josephus reference in the isolated syriac.

He's not a nut-case. (or doesn't appear to be) he claims a PhD in Semitic Philology from Harvard, and is quite knowledgable about the Ugarit and Hebrew alphabet and usages.

I just don't know what to make of this Josephus thing. But I will look further at those links you posted, Toto.

Mythra · 12-20-2007, 08:53 PM

Ben: I'm really sorry for messing up your thread. I promise I'll be brief.

Here is another little exchange I had with this Harvard man on this subject:

You wrote: "My point is that you insinuated a scholarly consensus on the authenticity of a version of the TF."

Obviously you did not read this thread, even a single post. I said absolutely nothing of the sort. While what you posted is ancient history and of no scholarly significance at this point, if there is any scholarly consensus, it is that the TESTIMONIUM is a forgery. And I agree.

The Testimonium is a forged testimony TO Christ. What Josephus wrote, as it appears in a well-known isolated rescension was quite different. He suggests that the whole idea is ABSURD.

I have to conclude that you have never had a course in the textual criticism of the Old Testament. And further, that you are repeating the standard arguments you would use against someone who thought the Testimonium was authentic. Which, in this context, is rather humorous.

If anyone can offer any insights into this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Toto · 12-20-2007, 09:01 PM

He still hasn't identified the source of the "absurd" comment.

And this is strange: "a well-known isolated rescension" - he needs to identify this. It is not well known, and what does he mean by isolated???

He is taking the position that the TF is forged, true, but that he can figure out what it originally said.

Mythra · 12-20-2007, 09:10 PM

I took that to mean that the Syriac is isolated from the Latin - as Whealey talks about.

I think what's really going on here is what you said. This guy has taken this:

"The idea of a crucified Christ is the sort of thing that minds that tend toward the fabulous or absurd tend to."

From somewhere else, perhaps Eusebius or some other source? and mistaken it as something Josephus said.

And, if that's the case, I'm with you. He is no scholar.

Either that, or he's just way out of his area of expertise and faking it.

DCHindley · 12-20-2007, 09:38 PM

I agree with Toto here. He seems to have confused _The Antiquities of the Jews_ (ca 95 CE) with _The Jewish War_ (Ca 75 CE).

Without actually reading the Whealey article, I'd guess that the quotation from her ended with the words "Some say He was 'the Christ'." "[M]inds that tend toward the fabulous or absurd" shows up in a different post by the same author in a slightly different way as "minds that tend toward the absurd and the fabulous" here:
http://forums.pnj.com/viewtopic.php?...245abf020cf280

Those last 3 paragraphs are the poster's own rationalizations.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Here's some more of what he has posted:

Josephus went further and began his final great project, "The Wars of the Jews" in which he revisited the Roman-Jewish War from 66-72 a.d. in its entirety. Once again he has been found to be incredibly accurate in detiail, despite the vastness of his written works and his use of amenuenses to fill in the gaps, where he apparently dictated, as Paul did, but gave them some leeway over the final product.

Again, James the Just and his role comes up. The whole history of the Kathros family, of Ananus who bought the high priesthood, of his sons and son-in-law, all four of whom took over the high priesthood after him, and of the final son Ananus who murdered James during a brief three-month absence of a Roman procurator, are told in detail.

And as scholar Alice Whealey has shown, the famous "Testimonium" of Josephus to the Christ is of course false. But the Syriac (as well as the Old Latin) contain parallel wording where Josephus writes of Jesus the Christ: "Jesus Himself was a good man, who did many marvelous works. At length, however, Pilate took Him and crucified Him. Some say He was 'the Christ'. The idea of a crucified Christ is the sort of thing that minds that tend toward the fabulous or absurd tend to."

By noting what Josephus actually said, we find several things out. In fact, he says in "Antiquities" in explaining the death of James the Just that "James was the brother of Jesus who is called 'the Christ'" in order that his Roman audience might understand better what the motivation of Ananus was in murdering James.

That is, Josephus takes it as a given that his literate Roman readers would know about "the Christ". And further that the common title "the Christ" was readily understood to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. He also makes it clear beyond argument that both James and Jesus were very real persons, and names their times, the rulers they inter-acted with, and so forth.

Further, his wonderful slam against Christians that anyone who could believe that a crucified man was the Christ had a mind that tended to the fabulous and the absurd does us a real favor: his mocking of the idea makes his attestation to Jesus as known as "the Christ," a man who did many wonderful works, is incredibly powerful!

aa5874 · 12-20-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Wouldn't mention in the TF indicate a knowledge of someone "called" Christ. Just because some called him Christ doesn't mean that he was expected by the vast majority of Jews at that time, nor that Josephus himself considered him to have been the Christ. I think it is entirely possible that there was some kind of TF passage originally, in which Josephus made it clear that he did not believe this was the true Christ prophecied in Daniel, and that this passage is now lost to us, replaced all or in part with the TF. I do not see how that scenario is in any was problematic with the rest of Josephus.

First of all, I regard the TF as a complete forgery or interpolation. This Jesus in the TF was seen alive after being dead for three days, I find that incredible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Another thing to consider is that Josephus was writing after the fact, and the reason he considered 70AD to be the expected time was because of the Temple Destruction, similar to words in Daniel. That does NOT mean a Christ was not expected prior to that event, and we know from his other writings that there was such an expectation prior (Judas the Galilean, the Egyptian) to 70AD.

According to Josephus, the Jews did not believe at all that Temple would have been destroyed, they actually believed that they would have defeated the Romans and that the Messiah would emerge with the victory based on interpretation of scripture.

"Wars' 6.5.4," But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred scriptures, how about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination."

So, the Jews, along with many of the wise men, thought that some Jewish leader, and alive at that time, would rule the world, after defeating the Romans.

It appears that the wise men did not indicate to the Jews that their Jewish ruler of the world was already dead 30 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Don't you agree there is a difference between a person SOME considered to be Christ but the majority and Josephus did not, and a person Josephus considered to have been the true expected Christ?

But Josephus claimed that it was Vespasian and his government who fulfilled the prophecy, not the Jesus that was dead during the reign of Tiberius.

Wars 6.5.4, "Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.

The words "James and Christ" do not seem to have been originally in the passage of AJ 20.9.1

In all the writings of Josephus, he made no references whatsoever to any or a single verse in the NT, or apocryphal writings, yet the TF claims Jesus was raised from the dead and in another passage, this raised dead man has a brother named James. Incredible.

TedM · 12-21-2007, 05:02 AM

aa5874, you seem to have missed or quickly dismissed every point I made. I'll try one more time and then that will be it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa..

First of all, I regard the TF as a complete forgery or interpolation.

This doesn't rule out a different TF passage in the same place, in which Josephus says Jesus was considered by some to have been the Christ, though Josephus didn't believe it himself. As such, it sets a precedence for the mention of Christ in the James passage.

Quote:

According to Josephus, the Jews did not believe at all that Temple would have been destroyed, they actually believed that they would have defeated the Romans and that the Messiah would emerge with the victory based on interpretation of scripture.

This is irrelevant to the point that Messiahs were expected PRIOR to the temple destruction. I refer you AGAIN to Judas the Galilean, and the Egyption, both Messiac figures prior to Vespasian.

Quote:

It appears that the wise men did not indicate to the Jews that their Jewish ruler of the world was already dead 30 years ago.

This is irrelevant to the fact that he could have live and been considered by some to have been the Messiah, and that Josephus could have mentioned that fact in a passage in the same place as we now find the TF.

me

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Don't you agree there is a difference between a person SOME considered to be Christ but the majority and Josephus did not, and a person Josephus considered to have been the true expected Christ?

Quote:

But Josephus claimed that it was Vespasian and his government who fulfilled the prophecy, not the Jesus that was dead during the reign of Tiberius.

I'm sorry, but your answer again is not relevant to the question I asked. Your conclusion about the James and Christ passage cannot logically be based on an assumption that restricts Josephus' use of the word Christ to a person who lived after 70AD.

Quote:

In all the writings of Josephus, he made no references whatsoever to any or a single verse in the NT, or apocryphal writings

All the more reasons why a reference to Jesus would have been fairly brief, and that he likely dismissed him as a false "Christ", which is consistent both with Origen's comment that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ, and with a brief mention of James as the brother of the one "called" Christ, as though he had previously mentioned him. Do you think an interpolator would have put that reference in the James passage without there already being some kind of passage that references the same Christ? I think that is unlikely.

Quote:

yet the TF claims Jesus was raised from the dead and in another passage, this raised dead man has a brother named James. Incredible.

I agree. That's why I think the passage originally said something else, and showed that Josephus did not believe the claims made about Jesus to have been accurate, and would not personally call Jesus "Christ" though others did.

ted

dog-on · 12-21-2007, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Starting a new thread here so as not to derail the one on NT dates....

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Since I believe that the "brother of the so-called Christ" reference in Josephus is not original to the text....

Here is the text as it stands rendered literally into English so as to preserve as much of the Greek grammar as possible. Antiquities 20.9.1 §200b:

Καθιζει συνεδριον κριτων και παραγαγων εις αυτο τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω, και τινας ετερους....

[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, James was his name, and some others.

Removing the part you have identified above as an interpolation (brother of the so-called Christ), we get:

[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them [...] of Jesus [...] James was his name, and some others.

That does not work grammatically. So you need to finesse your interpolation. How do you think it worked? What was there to begin with, and what was added?

Also, if the Jesus at this point is the son of Damneus, why is he identified as the son of Damneus only a couple of paragraphs later? Where else does Josephus suspend the patronymic like this?

Ben.

the brother of Jesus, Son of Damneus, James was his name, and some others...

TedM · 12-21-2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogon

the brother of Jesus, Son of Damneus, James was his name, and some others...

This implies that the interpolator intentionally altered the works in a deceptive way---taking an unknown James, also Son of Damneus, and turning him into James, the brother of Jesus Christ. What would motivate an interpolator to do this without expanding it into a discussion of how wonderful this Jesus Christ was?

ted

Ben C Smith · 12-21-2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

You know, I am inclined to just bracket "του λεγομενου Χριστου" [the being-said christ] as a marginal gloss that was incorporated into the text.

Who the "Jesus" was that this Jacob was brother of is not clear. I think I have, at some time or another, suggested Jesus son of Damneus. As for suspension of the patronym here, all one can say is that Josephus was quirky, and worked from a variety of sources, presenting the details out of context.

Since bracketing the words του λεγομενου Χριστου and identifying this Jesus with the son of Damneus leads to the problem of the suspended patronym, what, in the interests of parsimony, is the problem caused by the words του λεγομενου Χριστου that is worth solving by creating another problem?

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2007, 08:53 PM	#22
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Ben: I'm really sorry for messing up your thread. I promise I'll be brief. Here is another little exchange I had with this Harvard man on this subject: You wrote: "My point is that you insinuated a scholarly consensus on the authenticity of a version of the TF." Obviously you did not read this thread, even a single post. I said absolutely nothing of the sort. While what you posted is ancient history and of no scholarly significance at this point, if there is any scholarly consensus, it is that the TESTIMONIUM is a forgery. And I agree. The Testimonium is a forged testimony TO Christ. What Josephus wrote, as it appears in a well-known isolated rescension was quite different. He suggests that the whole idea is ABSURD. I have to conclude that you have never had a course in the textual criticism of the Old Testament. And further, that you are repeating the standard arguments you would use against someone who thought the Testimonium was authentic. Which, in this context, is rather humorous. If anyone can offer any insights into this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

12-20-2007, 09:01 PM	#23
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	He still hasn't identified the source of the "absurd" comment. And this is strange: "a well-known isolated rescension" - he needs to identify this. It is not well known, and what does he mean by isolated??? He is taking the position that the TF is forged, true, but that he can figure out what it originally said.

12-20-2007, 09:10 PM	#24
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	I took that to mean that the Syriac is isolated from the Latin - as Whealey talks about. I think what's really going on here is what you said. This guy has taken this: "The idea of a crucified Christ is the sort of thing that minds that tend toward the fabulous or absurd tend to." From somewhere else, perhaps Eusebius or some other source? and mistaken it as something Josephus said. And, if that's the case, I'm with you. He is no scholar. Either that, or he's just way out of his area of expertise and faking it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.