ApostateAbe

Around 90 CE, there was a historian named Flavius Josephus who wrote a manuscript titled Antiquities of the Jews. The manuscript today, after being copied numerous times by the early Christian church, contains a famous passage dubbed, "Testimonium Flavianum." Here is the English translation:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Modern critical scholarship has concluded that this passage contains Christian interpolation, and this point is not questioned, not even by the Christian apologists. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian, and Josephus professed the Roman emperor Tertullian Vespasian to be the messiah.

The question then becomes--how much of it is interpolation? There is someone on this board who believes that the gospel stories are a fictional invention of Greek or Roman people, Jesus was one of those fictional characters, and the works of Josephus were used as a source on Jewish culture. However, that cannot be possible if Josephus wrote about Jesus. Therefore, this person is required to believe that the character of Jesus did not exist in the original writings of Josephus.

A significant clue is given by Origen's commentary on Josephus. Origen was an early church father who lived in the third century. His documents survive with the following commentary on what Josephus believed about Jesus (source):

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..."

Origen claims that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, even though the modern versions of the Testimonium Flavianum say that Josephus did believe Jesus to be the Christ.

Therefore, it can be reasoned that the works of Josephus contained writings about Jesus saying that he was not the Christ. There would be no good reason for Christians to forge the writings of Josephus having him say that Jesus was not the Christ. It can be therefore reasoned that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus.

This does not prove that Jesus existed as a human. It only proves that Josephus knew about the character of Jesus, and it should not be claimed that Josephus was used as a source for the gospels.

Minimalist

A Byzantine bishop's commentary is the sole reference we have to Justus of Tiberias' history of the same time period. He said something like "this writer did not know Christ."

Do you interpret that to mean that Justus wrote something like "I don't believe in Christ?" It is more likely that he did not mention him at all.


Josephus' work contains references to about 25 different "Jesuses" (it was a very common name.) Suppose he didn't consider any of them "the Christ". Would you expect him to write, "Jesus, son of Ananus....who was not The Christ." Or, "Jesus, son of Damnaeus...he wasn't The Christ, either." Or,
Jesus, son of Gamaliel...nope, he still wasn't The Christ."

If there was some recognizable reference to the Jesus of Nazareth story as it had evolved by Origen's time in the original work, I expect he would have fallen all over himself using it.

GakuseiDon

It's possible, but then Origen may have derived Josephus's belief that Jesus was not the Christ from Josephus's implication that Vespasian was the predicted Christ (though IIRC he didn't use that term), predicted by a star that stood over Jerusalem for a year.

DCHindley

I am surprised to learn that Tertullian was a Roman emperor! Now I understand he had a mighty high opinion of himself, but ...

DCH

Malachi151

I'm damned sure that the entire TF and the "brother of James" passage are both interpolations, and that Origen proves this because his supposed quote of "Josephus" is really a quote of Hegesippus.

ApostateAbe

I am sorry, I got the name wrong. I meant Vespasian.

ApostateAbe

Why do you believe that Origen was merely quoting from Hegesippus?

ApostateAbe

I don't see any good reason for a confusion of Jesuses. Origen was not a dumbass, and Josephus was probably speaking of the Jesus that was important to the Christians of his time. That Jesus, as far as I know, was the only Jesus significantly claimed to be the Christ.

ApostateAbe

That is possible, I suppose. I think what counts the most is what is probable. The argument would require that Origen did a thorough study of Josephus to determine who Josephus believed to be the Christ, and it is simply more likely that Josephus denied Jesus being the Christ explicitly. The phrase of the Testimonium Flavianum, "He was the Christ," seems significant to me, because it would be only a deletion of one word away from "He was not the Christ," which would fit very elegantly with Origen's account. Early Christian copyists knew that it was wrong to misquote the authors they copied, but they also saw it as blasphemous to propagate the belief that Jesus was not the Christ. Minor revisions for that evangelistic end can be forgiven by the church and by God, but large revisions would be pushing it.

mountainman

IMO the TF and the James ref are total fabrications
which were guided at a particularly shameful hour
by a later christian hand.

The owner of that later christian hand was Eusebius.
Eusebius was the second christian.
Constantine was the planet's first christian.


Origen in his his capacity as the collator and commentator
upon the Hebrew texts worked in the lineage of Pythagoras
and the tolerance of the collegiate of Hellenic religious cults.
He prepared the Hexapla.

These guys were ascetics and moved in a collegiate structure
which must have been headed by the authority of the ascetics.
The Therapeutae described by Philo and the therapeutae so
described by Galen, and other authors, related to the temple
structure of Asclepius -- the HEALER -- were the same.


But that's where it ends with Origen.

IMO all the NT related commentary of Origen is really just
Eusebius writing carte-blanche in the fourth century.
Hence the entire phenomenom known as the "Origenist
controversies" of the 4th and 5th centuries.

The classic perversion IMO was of Porphyry.
Constantine ordered EUsebius to forge anti-christian
polemic in the name of Porphyry, and Eusebius duly
complied to do so.

COnstantine then was justifiably enraged by Porphyry
to then so order that the writings of Porphyry be burnt,
and destroyed.

The modus operandi of a malevolent dictator who has
the absolute military supremacist power in the land.
And so, the works and texts of the greatest of the
academics in the Roman EMpire at the beginning of the
fourth century -- including mathematical treatises
that preserved Euclid -- were edicted for the fire.

Eusebius on Jesus,
Eusebius on Josephus.
Eusebius on Origen.
Eusebius on Porphyry.
etc,

The following is a list of all interpolations made
with respect to all authors prior to Nicaea.
(NB: SOme of these interpolations may well
have been AFTER Eusebius)

Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews
Tacitus - Annals 15:44, and directly related to this, also:
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.
Pliny the Younger - Plinius, Ep 10:97; a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript)
Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:
Hegesippus - The "shadowy Hegesippus" according to Momigliano
Celsus: Fourth Century Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings
Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet
The Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter - Probable suspect of forgery ... Eusebius.
Origen - Perhaps he was an expert on the Hebrew Texts (alone).
Porphyry: Fourth Century Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown