Camio

Sorry for the eye-catching title, but this is my third, and I hope this time last and successful try to discuss here the Testimonium Flavianum viewed as authentic.

There is a French scholar called Serge Bardet who wrote his PhD dissertation some years ago on the TF, thoroughly reviewing all that had been said on the subject in the past two centuries. Some high-ranking scholars in France (and maybe elsewhere) changed their mind on the subject (i.e. from "the TF is total forgery" to "the TF is authentic", Pierre Geoltrain for instance) after considering his work. His book wasn't translated in English, but his main arguments (without the complete development of course) are included in the entry of the French Wikipedia on the TF. Here they are:

1. Origen states two times that "Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ". This proves that he knew the TF. He understood that Josephus didn't believe in the messianity of the Christ even if Josephus called him that way.

2. Josephus could hardly be unaware of Jesus since he described the events as an historian and christianity had gained momentum in Rome at the time he was writing.

3. Josephus often wrote using digressions, which explains the "strange" location of the TF in the story.

4. Regarding the impossibility for Josephus to have said that Jesus was the Christ, we could as well argue that a Christian convinced of his divinity could not have written that he was a "wise man". As well, a Christian would not have used the imperfect tense nor the words "wonder maker". Actually, this "Christ" word is a mere denomination, the only one known by Romans that Josephus could use. Serge Bardet insists that it probably had a polemic objective : the word "annointed" was only used, outside the judeochristian context, to speak about walls.

5. The phrase "he appeared to them the third day, etc" is just the repetition of what christians said, explaining why their group hadn't disappeared.

6. It is extremely difficult to believe in an intentional interpolation. Nobody argued against the existence of Jesus at the time of the Church Fathers, explaining incidentally why they hadn't to quote the TF. Producing a forgery should have a motive clearly lacking in this context. Moreover, how could one falsify all Josephus' manuscripts? The style of the TF is Josephus', a forgery would require an extraordinay talent. At last, the idea of this kind of forgery would not have come across the mind of a writer from the Antiquity: the theory of imitation as a forgery doesn't appear before De arte poetica from Marco Girolamo Vida in 1527.

7. The TF includes a very old christology, dating back to the first century.

8. The TF appears in a book written for a Roman but also a Jewish audience, among which were Christians against whom Josephus stands: he condemned messianism, to which he linked the Christ, whom he ironically described as participating in a rioting period, leading to the destruction of the Temple.

IMHO the most interesting points are #4 and #6: in a nutshell, why couldn't have Josephus simply used "Christ" as a "moniker" so to speak (a question rarely raised and thoroughly investigated to my knowledge. Bardet's development on the question is quite extensive IIRC), and who would have gained benefit from writing such a forgery at this time?

Thanks!

J.

spin

You need to actually cite the references in Origen. If I remember correctly this is a passage related to "the brother of Jesus called christ James by name" in AJ 20.200 in which Origen talks erroneously of Josephus in the way described.

This bald assertion has no basis.

This is a sorry attempt at explaining why Josephus talked about one thing before the TF, then talked about another thing after the TF related directly to the previous one

Josephus working from the LXX doesn't use any of the LXX references to κυριος, ie he avoids the term, yet it suddenly appears twice, when there is a kerygmatic passage about Jesus and a contorted passage ostensibly about James. We see an active avoidance of κυριος only to have it used for Jesus. This is an obvious sign of material not my the devout Jew, Josephus.

So these hypothesized christian interlocutors were blabbing their theology to a Jew.

Do an internet search for Ken Olson, who provided a trajectory for the TF.

Another assertion.

Josephus did write for a Roman audience, but with Jews in mind as well.

Assuming what needs to be shown.

No, he doesn't. He avoids dealing with messianism. He omits the term κυριος from his source. Devout Jews of the time would not condemn messianism, but would condemn false messiahs, which Josephus does indirectly a number of times. And a dead messiah like Jesus is a false messiah, so claiming that Jesus was the messiah is an indication that Josephus didn't write the expression.

You can't tar the interpolation by its context. If you want to argue that the TF is veracious, you cannot assume the fact first. It's circular reasoning.


spin

yalla

I have just bought a second hand copy of Whiston's "Josephus" for $15 Aust.. I'm rather pleased with that.

Anyway I note that the first line of the TF [JA 18.6.3] is:
"Now there was about this time ....'
and the first line after the TF [JA 18.6.4] is:
"About the same time also ....." and Josephus goes on to describe " a sad calamity which put the Jews into disorder.."

Which may suggest the interpolator simply borrowed the introduction to 4 and used it to introduce 3, the TF, thus providing the same bridge Josephus used from his previous topic of Pilate's attack on the Jews which could not have been a happy event for the Jews to another sad calamity.
With the TF constituting something unrelated in between.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Camio: Is your interest in the Testimonium Flavium part of a larger interest in promoting the historical Jesus?

Toto

TF on French wikipeida

avi

merci pour le lien

avi

Toto

Why has this not been translated? One would expect some Christian to pick it up if it were that persuasive. Or are the sort of apologists who would be interested all too parochial?

Why does this prove that Josephus knew the TF, as opposed to Origen knowing that he was Jewish and therefore did not believe that Jesus was the Christ?

Except that we have no independent evidence of Christianity having any "momentum" at this time.

Or maybe there were a lot of interpolations?

Jews of a slightly later period referred to Jesus as a mamzer or other derogatory terms. I don't see how this was the only term known by Romans that was available.

How does this make the passage valid?

Argument from personal incredulity? Christian and non-Christian literature of the time is full of interpolations.

That assumes that the mere existence of Jesus was an issue that anyone cared about, ever.

What was the motive for the letters between Jesus and Agbar? For the Paulinen Pastorals?

Our earliest manuscript is from the 10th century - we don't know if there were textual variations or not.

This seems highly improbable.

The earliest christology, and the only one dated to the first century, is a very high Christology, contrary to the idea that the oldest Christology was the most human and least supernatural. The picture of Jesus in Josephus could be drawn from the gospels.

How do we know that Josephus knew any Christians or would have been opposed to them? If he had, would he not have written against the anti-Jewish passages of the gospels?

I don't think you need to find someone who would have gained. There are lots of forgeries in early Christianity, some of which just seem to be filling in the gaps of creating a history for Christians where there was none.

Kapyong

Gday,

Some Christians denied Jesus ever came in the flesh.

Athenagoras, Theophilus, to Diognetus describe Christianity in detail WITHOUT mentioning Jesus.

The docetics thought Jesus was a phantom.

Plenty of early Christians did NOt think Jesus existed a normal human.


K.

aa5874

If the TF was authentic and was written since the late 1st century then why did not Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian use it against the so-called heretics like Marcion, and Valentinius?

Now, if Josephus actually wrote Jesus was the Christ, then this Jesus would have been a Jewish Messiah, but being supposedly raised from the dead, walking on water, transfiguring and ascending through clouds are not known to be the criteria for a Jewish Messiah.

Based on "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4, written some years before "Antiquities of the Jews" by the very Josephus, the Jews expected a Jewish Messiah, a Jewish Messianic Ruler, sometime around 70 CE and Josephus declared in his writing that Vespasian was the Messianic Ruler and that the Jews were mistaken in their interpretations.

Now, once Josephus had declared THROUGH a prophecy from God that Vespasian was the Messianic Ruler as and not a Jew then it is hardly likely that Josephus would write that Jesus a Jew was the Christ.


This is Josephus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 written years before "Antiquities of the Jews" And this is Josephus with his affirmation or prediction of God to Vespasian with his son Titus present in "Wars of the Jews" 3.8.9.
It would appear that the "TF" was a forgery. Jesus called Christ did not do anything in the writings of Josephus to be called Christ or a Jewish Messiah and further more it does not even appear that Josephus believed a person could have bodily resurrected. Josephus, in his own words, claimed that bodies of men are corruptible only the soul is immortal.

It is hardly likely that Josephus would have written that Jesus was raised from the dead.

This is Josephus in "Wars of the Jews" 3.8.5 The "TF" is a forgery it does not appear to have been written by Josephus.

See http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...phus/war-3.htm

mountainman

Eusebius has been called the most dishonest historian in antiquity for a good reason. Eusebius lied for his boss Constantine and was handsomely rewarded in gold solidi. What's really new in the world? People have forged material every day for thousands of years and continue to do so.


Has it ever crossed anyones' mind that the Church Fathers themselves are an interpolation into history?

The motive was to fabricate an authentic sounding historical citations to support the historical existence of a non Greek deity who could then justify Constantine's Christians in the destruction and the plunder of the Greek temples and the disbandenment and redundancy of the Greek priesthood at the time the forgery was enacted - that is around the council of Nicaea c.325 CE.

One of the reasons that the library of Alexandria was burnt down. The christians simply destroyed all evidence by which the inauthentic nature of the new and strange Constantinian Christians could be demonstrated.



Utter rubbish. Do some ancient history. Forgers were highly paid and in demand by rulers of many countries since the invention of writing.

Eusebian integrity: Assessment on the integrity of his character

The Testimonium Flavianum: A chronological summary of Censure

Eusebius Forged the TF: An article by Ken Olsen

Making Fruit Salad of the Testimonium Flavianum: "Is the TF the genuine apple?" [PDF]

"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",

--- Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, 1762