PhilosopherJay

Hi ynquirer,

You are correct that the fourth paragraph does not balance the second. That is because the fifth paragraph originally was meant to balance the second. If we take out paragraph three, we immediately see that the strong underlying structural relationship is 1:2 as 4:5 and 1:4 as 2:5.

It seems that Josephus wanted to relate the idea that the Romans persecuted the Jews in Jerusalem and the Jews in Rome at about the same time in the year 19. However, he does wants to show that the Jews did not deserve such harsh persecution (although he doesn't want to attack or offend the Romans). Paragraph one, in which Jews in Caesura are forgiven for their behavior by Pilate is meant to balance paragraph two where Jews in Jerusalem are punished for their similar behavior. In paragraph four, Paulina gets raped with the cooperation of the bribed Priests of the Temple of Isis and followers of the Egyptian religion are expelled from Rome. In paragraph five, Fulvia gets robbed by four renegades from the Jewish religion and all the Jews get expelled from Rome. This is meant to show that the Jews were unfairly treated as they were in paragraph two.

Paragraph one fits perfectly with paragraph two and paragraph four fits perfectly with paragraph five. Tragic events in Israel are balanced by tragic events to Jews in Rome.

1) Jews in Caesarea ask for their religious rights and are given them.
2) Jews in Jerusalem ask for their religious rights and are slaughtered
4) Priests of Isis commit rape and the followers of Isis are expelled from Rome.
5) Some Ex-Jews commit robbery and the Jews are expelled from Rome.

Anybody who reads this would think, "poor Jews, an unfairly persecuted people. They should have been given their religious rights in Jerusalem as they were in Caesarea, and they should not have been treated like the Egyptians in Rome for something that was not their fault."

Paragraph three, the odd man out, is meant to get the reader to say, "Hallelujah, Josephus says that Jesus was the Christ that he rose after three days and the Christians are still going strong even today."

In short, paragraph three has nothing to do with the style or argument of the two paragraphs before and after. It is simply a Christian commercial interrupting Josephus' defense of Judaism.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PapaverDeum

I have always found it intriguing that there are a few incidental claims that are seldom mentioned in discussions of the Testimonium Flavium.

One is that the TF has been found, in some copies, in alternate places in the AJ(autre 18.3.3), and that the TF also appeared in "War of the Jews". In Whistons "The Works of Josephus (or via: amazon.co.uk)"(14th edition), in WJ chapter 9(pg 608 in the 14th ed, March 1999) there is a footnote at the end of 1(167);

"We have here in that greek MS which was once Alexander Petavius's but is now in the Library of Leyden, two remarkable additions...upon the mention of Tiberius's coming to the empire inserts first the famous testimony of Jesus Christ as it is verbatim in 18.3.3..."

In this same edition of Whiston, in Whiston's Dissertation 1 ,at the paragraph starting with Roman numeral 9(IX) (pg 821 in same edition) (note that the paragraph numbering is strange, at least in my copy, some paragraphs are numbered with Roman numerals and others with standard Arabic numerals) ;

"There are two remarkable passages in Suidas and Theophylact, already set down as citing Josephus ,the former that Jesus officiated with the priests in the temple and the latter that the destruction of the temple and the miseries of the Jews were owing to the putting Jesus to death which appear in none of our present copies..."

In this same dissertation at paragraph with Roman numeral X(ibid pg 821) he speaks of Photius, that in Photius's copy there was no Testimonium Flavium in AJ or WJ. He further notes that Photius had read a copy of a "history of "Justus of Tiberius" (who writes at the same period as Josephus, and that he was one of Joesphus's rival) makes no mention at all of Jesus or any of his miracles. Whiston rationalizes this as Jewish prejudices..

And from what I understand, there are more such discrepencies, but I do not have the time nor inclination to look them up and manually post them here. These referneced ones should suffice to call attention to the fact that apparently there were many such discrepencies in copies of Josephus, including claims of things written about Jesus in Josephus's works that are not in the copies that have come down to us. (though, I wonder if that copy is today at the Museum of Leyden as Whiston claims ?)

It becomes apparent that there must have been at least some tampering with with Josephus's works.

While some might call this a case of "poisoning the well", surely we ought to give consideration to discrepencies such as these claims from Whiston, as I seldom see them mentioned in discussions of the TF.

ynquirer

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Perhaps, the role of the third paragraph is not to sing “Hallelujah!” but rather to suggest that the Jews were not as innocent as you have Josephus say. Those “principal men amongst us,” who are charged with instigating Christ’s crucifixion, are the same men that will mislead the Jewish people during the revolt. Hardly would the man have implied “poor Jews, an unfairly persecuted people” who wrote War of the Jews.

Camio

Thanks everyone for your inputs!

Is the link provided by mountainman (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_008.htm) what you were thinking of?

Precisely, Bardet's thesis is that Josephus could have used this word "Christ" without thinking that "Jesus was the messiah". Would such a suggestion appear "utter rubbish" to you? (I concede that the details of Bardet's argumentation would prove useful to make this assessment)

Not at all. I'm interested in this subject, reading books and boards on both sides of the Atlantic, and when I see something interesting in Europe / USA not mentionned abroad, I try to pass on the information. Most frequently, the info goes English => French.

Well, good question. Even if Roger is correct when he states that everything worth a read is not automatically translated into English on this planet, my impression is that it should be the case in academic research for works presented as "the ultimate reference" on a subject. I'll try to investigate this on my side, writing to the man himself for instance.

I don't have it in my possession, and Toto provided you with Amazon links. Anyway, I do have a book containing a talk he gave on the subject, and which summarizes the main points of his "case". I'll translate them here with more details than the 8 Wikipedia points of the OP ASAP.

spin

No. Try here as a starter.

That "[p]recisely" requires a logical continuation. The text is clear when it says "he was the christ". There is no equivocation here. There is no undercutting of the significance. This is bald acceptance of the fact that he was the christ, a totally different issue from this:
It's called the Testimonium Flavianum for a clear reason: it reads like a testimony. You need to be Blind Freddy not to take that into consideration, ie that a devout Jew would make such a statement about a dead messianic claimant.

Yup.


spin

Roger Pearse

The Latin word "testimonium" does not here mean "religious testimony" (meaning person standing up and saying how they became a Christian), tho, as this supposes. Indeed I don't know if it ever has that meaning.

It is routinely used for "passage quoting or bearing witness to something" (in this case, Jesus). Collections of testimonia appear routinely in editions of classical texts. These indicate people quoting the text or saying something about it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Don't mind read, Roger. You show you aren't good at it.

Yup. That wasn't hard, was it?


spin

Roger Pearse

Evidently my correction of your mistake was more courteous than you deserved. If you must post ignorantly, I suggest you learn to cope with polite correction in a civilised way. Or not, of course, if you feel that adorns your religion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

The "TF" is probably the best example of a forgery.

Four books are attributed to Josephus and he wrote about the "War of the Jews" in which he described events when the Jewish Temple fell.

But, it is most interesting to note that Josephus completely FORGOT to mention that Jesus called Christ did predict that the Temple would fall.


Matthew 24:1-2 - Mark 13:1-2 - Luke 21:5-6 - The supposed disciples should have been telling the Jews of this awesome prediction that the TEMPLE is coming down before their generation pass away.

Mt 24:34 - Now, Josephus in "Wars of the Jews" 6.5 would write about the signs and predictions that the Temple would fall and instead of mentioning Jesus called Christ or his disciples who should have preached for about 30 years warning the Jews continuously of the calamity, Josephus remembered Jesus the son of Ananus, a loner, not Jesus called Christ.

This blatant omission by Josephus indicates that he was not aware of any prediction by Jesus called Christ. Josephus appears not to be aware of any disciples of Jesus called Christ who should have warned the Jews in Galilee or Jerusalem that in their generation the Temple would fall.

And, the prediction from Jesus called Christ would have been far more specific that the son of Ananus who basically said "Woe unto Jerusalem", Jesus called Christ claimed, and his supposed disciples should have preached, that the "Temple would fall and not one stone would be left standing within their generation."

The Temple fell according to Josephus and nothing can be found in "Wars of the Jews" or any writings of Josephus about this so-called Jesus the Christ, and his disciples with their signs and predictions of the most awesome event of the 1st century in Jerusalem, in their generation.

The "TF" is a forgery. Josephus knew nothing about Jesus called Christ, his disciples or their signs and predictions in his generation.

spin

This is typical, Roger. You make a blunder, then, when called on it, you turn it into a hind-covering exit strategy. Why not admit that you made an error trying to reinterpret my use of language? That would be the decent thing.

The forum has seen these insults of yours for a long time, so don't you think it is ironic that you talk about courtesy and politeness? You need to practise what you preach. Most people can see the difference here between appearance and reality.

I especially like your amusing attempts to use terms appropriate for religionists such as yourself for non-religionists. All very reactionary. All very entertaining.


spin