TedM

The implication being ... what? That his version would have survived over others? You might need to walk me through this.

Ok..


Isn't that what people want to know? That Josephus really did write the Slavonic stuff? If he did, it would give credibility to a number of very interesting things..

maryhelena

The implication being? - Josephus is a latecomer to the wonder-doer story. And, obviously, once that story got taken up in the JC gospel story - there was no need for Josephus to repeat that wonder-doer story in Antiquities.
I really don't see a big deal here - so, lets say that Josephus wrote the wonder-doer story that is now preserved in Slavonic Josephus, a story that Eusebius cherry-picks and makes an interpolation in Antiquities - and then? Does that make the gospel JC historical?? Let's not equate storytelling and history.....

Doing what the gospel JC historicists are doing - a Josephan core to the TF - accomplishes nothing as far as searching for early christian history. The TF is not historical proof that the gospel JC is historical. It is proof that the wonder-doer story existed and that Josephus knows this story - as did Eusebius.

PhilosopherJay

Hi TEDM.,

Besides its disruption of the argument, there is another excellent reason to see this passage in Origen's "Against Celsus" (where we read that Josephus tells of John the Baptist and James the Just) is a Eusebean forgery.

This leads us directly to the idea that Eusebius forged not only the James the brother of the lord line and the TF, but also the John the Baptist material in Josephus. This "John the Baptist" material also interrupts the narrative and argument of Josephus and has nothing to do with the story that Josephus is telling In a similar fashion to the way Origen's "Against Celsus" get interrupted by another argument.

Note the lines just before and after the John the Baptist material (18:5.2) at 18:5.1 and 18:5.3:

Antiquities 18:5

1. ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, (15) who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So Antipus, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; but when he had done there the business he went about, and was returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing; now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army; and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. But as he was marching very busily, and leading his army through Judea, the principal men met him, and desired that he would not thus march through their land; for that the laws of their country would not permit them to overlook those images which were brought into it, of which there were a great many in their ensigns; so he was persuaded by what they said, and changed that resolution of his which he had before taken in this matter. Whereupon he ordered the army to march along

1. Herod's army is defeated by Aretas and writes to Vitellius for help.
2. People blamed the defeat on John the Baptist - one paragraph description of John the Baptist based on material in New Testament.
3. In response to the letter, Vitellius rushes to the aid of Herod.

Event 3 follows event 1 one precisely as two stones fitted to each other. Number 2 has nothing to do with what follows or comes before.

The beginning phrase in the interrupting paragraph "2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John" should come after the clause about the defeat of Herod's army. In other words, it should be here:

The logic is that Herod blamed his defeat on Phillip's men (and perhaps Phillip), while the people blamed Herod for killing John.

However the tight structure of Josephus' narrative at this point shows that he did not originally have a comment on John there.

Herod is reacting directly to the defeat of his army through Phillip's (or Phillip's men's) treachery. It is this that causes him to write to Vitellius the President of Syria urging him to avenge Herod's defeat by Aretas. [Since Tiberius dies before Vitellius avenges Herod's defeat, this must have happened in 36 CE (Tiberius died on March 16, 37)].

Note that the interrupting material doesn't further the story in any. Josephus doesn't say for example that Herod wrote to Tiberius to prove the Jews or "some of the Jews" wrong. Nor thus he continue the story with any kind of divine justice being executed on Herod, for example that Vitellius' army killed Herod to prove the people right. In fact, Vitellius coming to his aid with his army is a positive result.

Actually, there is divine justice motif in the story. But the divine justice element has nothing to do with Herod or John the Baptist, it has to do with Aretas (18.5.3)-

It was Aretas' diviners who had predicted the death of Tiberius. That is the punchline to the story.

The John the Baptist material in Josephus is clearly just another Eusebean forgery.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Doug Shaver

Yes, they have arguments. And yes, they believe they are decent arguments. What I'm suggesting is that the arguments would not look so decent absent a presupposition of Jesus' historicity. They thus become, in effect, an unsupported claim that whatever is not provably forged must be presumed authentic.

I've read it, but it was a long time ago. I'll have another look and see which parts of it merit some comment here.

driver8

Not sure how critical this is to you, but your math is wrong. 37 + 19 = 56. Philo would be dead by your account.

maryhelena

Thanks for that correction - rather a silly mistake - :blush:

[T2]Correction:

He says he studied the Jewish philosophies from his 16th year until his 19th year, having been, at age 14 renowned for his learning. He gives his birth date at around 37 c.e. Plus 19 years and it’s 56 c.e. Philo died around 50 c.e. - hence Josephus would have been a young boy of around 13 years when Philo died. Philo, a Jewish philosopher who has (Rachel Elior) placed a non-historical people in the land of Palestine, ie a philosophical ideal made pseudo-historical.[/T2]

So, pushing back the age of Josephus when Philo died (re my inability to notice my mathematical error) means that, taking Josephus at his word, that his learning at a young age was renowned - he would still be on course to have considered the writing of this renowned Jewish philosopher during the life time of Philo.

Thanks again for bringing this mistake to my attention. Sometimes a proof reader would come in handy before one clicks the submit button.

TedM

It does make the gospel JC more credible with respect to the items that agree, since Josephus is considered to have written more reliable history than the authors of the gospels. It would be a very big deal. You seem to be of the opinion that Josephus was a very untrustworthy historian, yes?

But, Josephus was in a much better position than Eusebius to check into the reliability of the story. I just don't see how you could conclude that if Josephus wrote the rather amazing account of Jesus which you quoted from the Slavonic Josephus that would accomplish 'nothing as far as searching for early christian history'. I'm totally baffled by that remark..unless again you think Josephus should be given no credibility as a historian. Please shed light..

maryhelena

Because there is nothing within the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story that is evidence for the wonder-doer being historical. Nothing. Consequently, if Josephus used this story, ie re-told it by writing it in his own words (from another source) he is repeating a story not historical fact.

Why would Josephus report a story without checking his sources for accuracy? Here, of course, we get into the Josephus ‘problem’. How do we understand Josephus? Is Josephus an impartial historian, or like us all, has his biases one way or the other. He claims Hasmonean family connections. He is writing under Roman ‘protection’.

I have previously quoted from two books dealing with Josephus as a prophetic prophet. I will re-quote them here. Viewing Josephus as a prophetic historian does present a whole different perspective on what he writes. Indeed, he does write history - but he also writes his own prophetic insights into that history – which means that some of his ‘history’ is prophetic history, i.e. interpretations of history. History alongside pseudo-history. One cannot, therefore, take any statement of Josephus and claim *history* without further outside support for whatever Josephus is saying.

Yes, I do believe that ‘Josephus’ was involved with whatever was going on in his day re the developments that led to early Christianity. No, that does not make him a Christian (in how we understand that term today). A Jewish-Christian perhaps, yes - with all that such a designation would entail. An interest in, and an understanding and acceptance of how Jewish history, specifically Hasmonean history, contributed to what we now know as Christianity.

Thus, questions regarding why Josephus would use the wonder-doer story in an earlier edition of War - and leave it out of Antiquities - are questions that can only be answered once we start understanding the prophetic role that Josephus has claimed for himself.

Doug Shaver

Here are some of my reasons for finding Price's arguments unpersuasive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price modern scholarship has rightly recognized that one of them is completely authentic and the other, though embellished by Christian scribes, provides an authentic core of material confirming much about Jesus. [Emphasis added]

This tells me right up front that what follows will not be an impartial examination of the evidence. I can make up my own mind whether the scholarly consensus is well founded. Price's personal endorsement of that consensus is a total irrelevancy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees.

This is begging the question. The extant copies of Josephus's writings discuss those people. The question being debated is whether all those discussions were included in what Josephus himself actually wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

I certainly have no problem with limiting discussion in a single essay to a single issue, but this blatant appeal to consensus does nothing to make me expect anything better to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price Although Josephus' reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars . . . .

Nor does any suggestion that anyone who questions that reference is something other than a critical scholar enhance my confidence in the argument to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price Below I break down the TF phrase by phrase to examine its linguistic characteristics and style:

I find nothing in the subsequent discussion defending any supposition that the "linguistic characteristics and style" could not have been mimicked by a forger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price This statement probably could not have been written by a Christian because it so obviously contradicts the portrait of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels. Indeed, it directly contradicts several assertions made by the Gospel about Jesus and Gentiles.

I have yet to find a defender of the TF's partial authenticity who can explain why it was impossible for a Christian to depart from his characteristic ways of talking about Jesus when he was pretending to be a non-Christian. Is this perhaps an admission that conversion to Christianity turns people into robots who can't say anything but what they're programmed to say? Are we to believe that Christians are incapable of any utterances that don't parrot whatever they're told to utter when speaking of Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price The validity of Josephus' reference to James' Martyrdom increases the likelihood that the TF is also valid.

Then the validity of that reference needs to be defended, not just assumed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price Josephus fails to make any connection between John the Baptist -- who he discusses at length -- and Jesus. In the minds of early and later Christians, this would have been inconceivable.

This assumes the conclusion. If there was no historical Jesus, then there would have been no connection for early Christians to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price There is persuasive evidence that earlier Antiquities manuscripts lacked the phrases "he was the Christ" and "if indeed it is right to call him a man."

This proves at most that the forgery was not done by a single copyist on a single occasion. We know that Christians revised some of their own documents several times. There is no reason to assume they would not have treated Josephus the same way they treated their own writers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price Here is Mason's complete argument:

Some things do happen only once, even if they're not intrinsically improbable. Besides, the fact that we don't know of other instances doesn't mean it never happened. It just means that if it happened, those documents did not survive long enough to enter the historical record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Price While I agree that evidence of some tampering mitigates the usual strong presumption that the text found in all the manuscripts is original, to presume it is unauthentic as a result takes us beyond the evidence and should therefore be rejected.

I agree that we're not justified in presuming that some forgery implies total forgery. My argument is just that the case for partial authenticity is weaker than its advocates think it is.

The surrounding text flows well and makes perfect sense without any of the Testimonium.

I am not familiar with any arguments against authenticity that depend on the interpolator's being "brilliant," whatever that is supposed to mean. Price apparently thinks it refers a talent for stylistic mimicry that we should not expect any early Christian to have possessed. I am aware of no case to be made for thinking that the forger had to have such a rare ability.

He obviously was not trying to deceive any 21st-century skeptics. The only people he would have been trying to deceive -- if anyone -- was whoever he expected to read the document he was producing. There is probably no way we can be sure who he had in mind as his prospective readership, but it is not improbable that he thought he was writing for the benefit of fellow Christians. In that case, it is at least plausible that he was convinced that he was not engaging in any deceit at all.

All of them? How in the world could we possibly know that?

In every case? Same question.

This assumes a far more detailed knowledge of the forger's intentions than the evidence warrants.

Obviously, there was at least one stupid Christian involved in the forgery. We have no reason to assume that no other Christian with a lot more intelligence could have had a hand in it.

They count against there being only one interpolator.

The passage is used by Christians in modern times as a defense of Jesus' historicity. It does not follow that it could never have had any other purpose in ancient times. The existence of other purposes is proven by the fact that Eusebius and others did quote it in contexts where Jesus' existence was not at issue.

TedM

I"m not sure what you define to be evidence then:
This is clearly a historical claim. The writer isn't saying this is a fable that he is sharing with his readers. He is reporting it as history.

Thanks for the information. I don't see how his self-image of being able to interpret dreams/events in a prophetic manner allows him to pass off a fable about an amazing wonder-doer as history. They are two different things.

In any case, I think you have answered my question: You personally see no reason to find history in the Slavonic Josephus accounts of Jesus, IF they were penned by Josephus, because you don't trust Josephus to be a reliable historian under any circumstances without external corroboration. If I got that wrong, please correct.

I think you would agree, however, that IF it could be shown that the Slavonic references to Jesus were in fact written by Josephus, it would be a HUGE development for early Christian understandings in the minds of many historians, both Christian and non-Christian, even if for you personally it would be fairly irrelevant information. Am I stating that correctly?

To recap my original point: For many, though not you, a textual analysis of Slavonic Josephus to see if the passages in question bear strong markers of Josephus, would be a highly relevant issue, as it could potentially cast a very bright and interesting light on the historical Jesus.