rlogan

Ding! Ding! Ding!


The TF as it stands is already out of character (short), especially given the subject matter.

The partial interpolation solves one problem but creates another. Why does our verbose author make such a radical departure for a subject matter that should command vastly more attention?

GakuseiDon

I think you'd need to establish how much space Jospehus spends on other similar figures. The attention given is consistent with that given others. In fact, as Jesus never killed anyone or lead a revolt, Josephus perhaps talks too much about Him.

Here is Josephus on John the Baptist:

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.

On the Egyptian Prophet (Josephus repeats essentially the same story elsewhere):

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171

... about this time, someone came out of Egypt to Jerusalem, claiming to be a prophet. He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer. He added that he would show them from hence how the walls of Jerusalem would fall down at his command, and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those collapsed walls. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. The Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.

On Thadeus:

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98.

It came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.

Information from here: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants00.html

Peter Kirby

Hi GakuseiDon,

The length issue has come up before; here is what I wrote:

I should be doing this in Greek, but that would take me forever, and for the purposes of merely estimating comparative lengths English will suffice.

John the Baptist - Ant. 18.5.2 - 260 English words

The Egyptian - Ant. 20.8.6 - 206 English words

Theudas - Ant. 20.5.1 - 139 English words

Judas the Galilean - Ant. 18.1.1 - 153 English words

Jesus son of Ananias - Wars 6.5.3 - 531 English words

Honi the Circle-Drawer - Ant. 14.2.1 - 201 English words

So it seems that it could be said that Josephus wrote an average of 191.8 words per figure described in the Jewish Antiquities. The reconstructed Testimonium contains 88 English words. Does this mean that Josephus did not write a short note about Jesus the Galilean? Maybe not. The story of Jesus son of Ananias is aberrational (in being long), so perhaps the length of the mention of Jesus the Galilean is also aberrational (in being short) yet authentic.

best,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

It's just too crazy there, GD - we have to establish a preliminary context, and this can be a variety of things depending on our predisposition:

If we accept the premise that GMark is already in circulation then the zany old Josephus decides to devote a few sentences to the son of God, but multiple paragraphs to salacious side shows and minor players. Much of what is in GMark is worthy of exposition in Josephus, as it is so spectacular. I'm familiar enough with JW and AJ to say this with high confidence indeed.

If JBapt gets so much attention and explanation, it is inconceivable that Jesus would get so little attention. Even the length of the full TF is short for someone JBapt says he is not worthy of latching the sandals for. But of course the fawning over "the Christ" is problemmatic.

If Jesus was just a punk not worthy of note then he isn't Jesus.

No matter how we slice it there is a problem with the TF. The only explanation that does not buy us more trouble is full interpolation of the TF and also the James passage.

What remains as a problem if we take this stance? Do we have to explain why we have the bones of Jesus? The tomb veneration cult of 36 CE? The annual crucifest? The abundance of historical details in the epistles? The copious material from other secular historians? The gospel fragments from 40 CE?

So let me pose this question: If we kick the legs out from under the two Josephus entries, what are the most dramatic pieces of evidence that demand explanation?

This is a sincere question - I don't see where the problem lies.

spin

The Greek in bold has accidentally been left in a different transcription system from the one I usually use (I use a 128 character system instead of a full 256 character system, ie no caps on vowels, no graves, no umlauts, etc) and seems even more diverse from the text with which we were comparing.

Qaumasta gar kai paradoxa dia ths profhteias epedeixato erga
labein epinoian ergwn kainwn kai paradoxwn

Of the two examples profferred by Layman second is a little more credibly "most notably" as per his online defence of the TF.


spin

spin

I'm not sure, Peter, that this is a fair process, and I mean this transplanting these passages from their specific contexts. Judas the Gaulonite is given in a long passage about taxation and he is related specifically to that issue. Honi the Circle-Drawer is also strongly related to his context as are the Egyption and JB. Theudas is the only one who is not, yet he is given pride of place at the beginning of a chapter.

The TF is neither closely related to its context (if fact it merely disrupts the text), nor is it given any pride of place.


spin

rlogan

Finally can make use of myself here. Using Peter's data we can make a formal statistical test of the hypothesis that the short version of the TF "belongs" to the distribution of Josephus' writings.

"Executive Summary": We would reject the proposition that Josephus wrote this at about the 3% critical level. Loosely speaking, it is 97% unlikely that Josephus wrote this.

(Beg forgiveness from professional statisticians for such an obscenely informal summary)

Formal test approach:

assume lognormal distribution to X (obvious choice)

sample Xi data: 260, 206, 139, 153, 531, 201

mean ln(Xi) = 5.405256

std dev ln(Xi) = .49232 (Used sample formula)

cumulative lognormal probability for (Xi=88) = .029729

Q.E.D.

If someone wants to do a short paper on this to one of the theology journals I'd be happy to work with them on it. PM me. Serious inquiries only.

GakuseiDon

Thanks for that Peter.

Johann_Kaspar

You do know that Geza Vermes is a catholic priest?

Actually, I assume you did not know.

spin

He was. He has returned to Judaism I believe.


spin