TedM

Christopher Price wrote an interesting article on Bedes site http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm that provides a number of evidences for the partial interpolation theory for the TF, which by implication can also be seen as against complete silence. Doug took the time to review this article and provide his thoughts. I never got around to responding to his post on page 3 of this thread http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304161&page=3 until today:

modern scholarship opinion
Unless we know how Price came to that conclusion we cannot say that he is being impartial. He may well have studied the methodology of the scholars and determined it is for the most part sound. If that is the case, then their-and his conclusions are extremely valuable. I do not know that this is the case.

Appropriateness of context
As a sentence providing a context for which Josphus might also mention Jesus, I have no problem with this comment by Price--esp since the overwhelming majority of historians would not question its accuracy. In addition, the placement of the TF is the perfect context for an account of Jesus in all of Josephus' writings, as it is in a discussion about disturbances between Pilate/Romans and the Jews, mostly having to do with the desecration of the temple (which led to Jesus' arrest in the gospels).

The James reference and modern scholarship opinion
I would again say that if the methodology of critical scholars is mostly sound, their conclusions are valuable. I don't think it is wise to dismiss those conclusions.


Linguistic evidence
In my mind, the more clever the forgerer would have to have been, the less likely that there was one. While it may be true that a forgerer could have mimicked Josephus, the argument implies that a single forgerer would have to have been very good at producing the 'partial passage' and very lousy at mimicking Josephus in the other parts. It clearly argues against a 'scribal gloss', and it argues against a 'dumb forgerer'. This is a strong argument against a 'whole cloth' TF.


The statement in question was "He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles." An interpolator would have had to be quite clever to have said this since it doesn't match the gospel accounts. However, what would it gain a Christian to have cleverly written something that was pro-Jesus yet anti-Christian tradition? The level of 'cleverness' here is completely unnecessary, and strikingly opposite those who saw no need to try and be clever--those who put in obvious Christian (not-Josephean) references to Jesus, such as 'he was the Christ'.

The James reference and modern scholarship opinion
He did defend it when he wrote this:
Absence of reference to John the Baptist
This seems to miss the point being made. If a later Christian interpolator who believed in a historical Jesus made up the TF whole-cloth, it would have been unlikely for him to not refer to the JTB passage in Josephus, due to the strong connections between JTB and Jesus in the gospels. All four gospels start out with this connection. JTB, who was the fulfillment of OT prophecy as the 'one who will prepare the way', testified that Jesus was the Christ (implied in the synoptics, and explicit in Gjohn). The silence is more easily explained by a pre-existing text, to which an interpolator added a few choice phrases, than one created whole-cloth.


Evidence of an earlier passage
It would also prove that at most the interpolation was done to something that pre-existed, as opposed to whole cloth. We are back to the 'clever pro-Josephus interpolator' followed by the 'stupid pro-Christian interpolator'. The evidence points to the earliest TF being more Josephean than Christian.

We must also keep in mind that this was not a Christian document. I would think also that the logistics of two interpolations would be more difficult than one for this reason, and in general, for acceptance. It requires more conspiracy action.

Evidence regarding Christian invention in Josephus and Philo
Sure, some things happen only once, but that doesn't address the evidence presented against that being the case here.The evidence elsewhere in Josephus and Philo does not support blatant Christian scribal tampering. There is no reason to believe that if such tampering occurred it would not be preserved along with the TF. Yet we see nothing in the JTB account, or any other places that suggests massive invention. James, Peter, Paul, the day of Pentecost, Jesus' prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, and the persecution of Christians--all of these Christian titans and stories could have been added in. NONE of this was added into the text. Conclusion: Christian interpolators were not in the habit of butchering Josephus to serve their theological purposes. The evidence favors a lessor offense (partial embellishment--possibly even scribal notations), over a graver offense--whole cloth invention. This same argument would also favor one interpolation over multiple interpolations.


Justification for rejecting the passage altogether
I'm not sure what you have in mind here. What makes it weaker than they think it is, in your opinion?


Flow without interpolation(s)
Agree. The argument Price makes here only supports the idea of the superiority of the partial interpolation over an authentic whole TF. No TF is just as persuasive.


The clever interpolator again
Agree that the ability to be 'clever' need not imply rare brilliance.

How else would adding in Josephean phrases for the benefit of fellow Christians be perceived? Especially if he was so devious as to add in a statement that was in direct contradiction to the gospels (the Gentiles statement)?

Good question. I have no idea.


Surely not every case. We are working with likelihoods and common sense. We need to ask how likely it is that a clever interpolator would first interpolate something to mimic Josephus, and then a pious, stupid interpolator would put in the clearly anti-Josephean and pro-Christian language without trying to correct the anti-gospel and unorthodox wording?



Agree. We can't know what a clever interpolator's intentions are exactly.







Agree. That's why we need to look at likelihoods. How much more likely is it that a Christian interpolator in seeing there was no reference to Jesus in Josephus, would invent a very clever one using terms Josephus would use and not Christian terms--even portraying Jesus in a way contrary to the gospels (mentioning a Gentile following), and without mentioning a tie to the JTB passage--than it is for Josephus to have written the same thing?

Agree. see above.


He is not referring to the final TF here. I don't find this argument very compelling. Someone could have just felt there was a need to have something about Jesus that sounded historical. The question is whether that person would have written the passage that contains the Josephean phrases, or something else.


Concluding thoughts: The evidence presented by Price is quite convincing against the 'whole cloth' TF theory. It appears that Doug would agree that the TF was not interpolated whole cloth by the same person due to a number of the evidences presented (please correct me if wrong). This leaves us with primarily one of two options:

1. A clever interpolator first put in language that matches Josephus, and a much less clever interpolator later put in phrases that were more 'Christian'.
2. Josephus wrote the more neutral, still positive, account of Jesus, and a much less clever interpolator later put in phrases that were more 'Christian'.

I lean toward #2 because it I don't have great faith in the 'clever interpolator' hypothesis. It seems unlikely that a Christian interpolator would be more interested in faking Josephus and being able to do so very effectively, than in trumping up a report that provides specifics found in the gospels--mentioning 12 disciples, JTB, Peter, betrayal by Judas, etc.. I also think think it explains the 'called Christ' reference later in the James passage better than if it were absent.

Ted

GakuseiDon

I think #2 would be the option left after applying Occam's razor.

Interestingly, the TF describes Jesus as a 'wise man'. I see this pattern in other pagan writers, sometimes while complaining that the Christians themselves as part of a superstitious cult.

Lucian writes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/lucian.html

It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership. So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them.

Pliny the Younger:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so....

Accordingly I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

Tacitus has nothing good to say about Christ, but he highlights the superstitious nature of the Christians.

If Tacitus is correct that Christianity was seen as a superstitious cult by 60 CE, then it seems odd to me that Josephus, writing in Rome and to a Roman audience, has nothing bad to say about the Christians of his time.

aa5874

All the speculations about what a Christian interpolator would write and not write is really futile.

The Church and its writers claimed "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic and that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost.

Examine the words of "Origen" in "Commentary on Matthew" X.17 The very Origen who implied that "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic also stated Jesus was BORN of the Holy Ghost as found in gLuke.

The authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" has ZERO relevance to the nature of Jesus as shown by Church writers that simultaneously claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and that Josephus did write "Antiquities of the Jews".

PhilosopherJay

Eusebius speaks extensively of the death of James the Just/brother of the load and never mentions the passage in Josephus. He quotes both Clement and Hegessipus on the death of James, and they too do not mention the quote in Josephus. Origin also mentions the death of James and adds a bizarre remark about Josephus claiming it was responsible for the war, but does not quote this passage. (It seems probable that Origin's claim was a later interpolation in Origin.)

This seems to be fantastically strong evidence that the addition of "brother of Christ" was a post-Eusebean interpolation in Josephus.

Did anyone in antiquity notice this passage? Who was the first to discover this passage?

It seems to me amazing that out of hundreds of early Christian writers, nobody noticed or commented on this passage. There are only three passages in our current edition of Josephus that refer to Christian characters in the New Testament (one on John, one on Jesus and one on James). It is hard to imagine that this passage could have been in Josephus, the only well known Jewish historian of the First Century, and no ancient Christian found the passage of sufficient interest to quote it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena

Just to keep things in perspective here re the TF - I'll repost my chart from the earlier thread. Putting the account that is now preserved in Slavonic Josephus alongside Eusebius - it does indicate that it is this text that has been used by Eusebius: The SJ wonder-doer storyline, with the Eusebius addition of the 'christ' element, is what has been interpolated into Ant.

Slavonic Josephus	Eusebius	Antiquities
At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man.	And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man.	Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;.
His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel...And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings.	For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness.... And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.	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.
The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.	When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross.... Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.	And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.... And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Second Mention of the Wonder-doer	-	-
Again Claudius sent his authorities to those states—Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander.................many had been discovered as servants of the previously described wonder-doer; and as they spake to the people about their teacher,—that he is living, although he is dead, and that he will free you from your servitude,—many from the folk gave ear to the above-named and took upon themselves their precept...	...those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him......For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him.	...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.

footnote: edited the chart to colour the "Jesus" addition in Eusebius and Ant.

andrewcriddle

See Eusebius Church History Book 2 Andrew Criddle

maryhelena

3. Josephus originally wrote the words preserved in Slavonic Josephus (or reworked/quoted them from elsewhere). Josephus used this story in an early edition of War - and chose not to reuse the story in Ant. Later - Eusebius comes along and decides that this earlier wonder-doer story would make a nice historical 'proof' for the gospel JC story. Thus, original Josephan words (from an early edition of War) have been used - alongside words of Eusebius, in the interpolated TF text of Antiquities.

The real issue here is not about some christian additions to the TF - it is about the TF minus those christian words - and why Josephus chose not to reuse this earlier story in Antiquities.

aa5874

Well, in "Church History" attributed to Eusebius, the author did REFER to the 20th book of Antiquities.

["Church History" Again, OVER 1600 years ago the Church was claiming that Josephus' writing of "Antiquities of the Jews" was AUTHENTIC and that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

Authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" is IRRELEVANT to the claim by the Church that Jesus Christ was the Child of a Holy Ghost and God Incarnate.

mountainman

Christopher Price is defending the historicity of Jesus by identifying partial forgeries instead of complete forgeries. It's not going to save Jesus.

DCHindley

The article on Bede's site is actually very well organized and every point he makes (for or against) is supported by references to secondary literature.

Still, what irritates me no end, is the complete lack of any mention to Josephus' War book 4.5.2 (Gr. 315-319):

4:315 and for the other multitude, they [the Idumeans] esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and generally went with the greatest zeal against them;

4:316 and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall.

4:317 ...

4:318 I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.

4:319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honour of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of equality; even with regard to the lowest of the people;

Earlier in book 4, Ananus had been persuading the bulk of the residents not to get too radical (ch 3 section 11 = 162-193), and Jesus, another member of the high priestly caste, gave a very moving speech on the wall of the temple advising caution (ch 4 section 3 = 238-270)

There you have every element to explain the current text of Ant 20.9.1 (gr. 200-203) about the death of James the brother of Jesus at the hands of Ananus.

If the text was simply

20.200 When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, [who was called Christ,] whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

201 But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;

202 nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent.

203 Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

then a reader or scribe familiar with War 4:315-320 would likely realize the negative portrayal of Ananus in Ant 20 was in stark contrast to the positive one given in War 4:318, prompting a simple marginal note on a copy of Josephus Ant 20, saying something like:

Is this one [Ananus] the same one on whose account Jerusalem was destroyed? If anything, it should have been on account of the murder of Jesus, on account of the [Jesus'] speech on the wall!

This, misconstrued by Christian readers, ends up being the seed that accounts for every single reference to James the Just in Christian literature for centuries to come.

This is not an overstatement! Christian readers could easily misinterpret the passage to refer to James the brother of Jesus, not Ananus. As there was no punctuation in the original text, a rhetorical question of this type can be lost on a reader who was not thinking of War book 4, and interpreted as a direct assertion. Assuming this James the brother of Jesus was the brother of the Lord in Acts, the phrase "called Christ" was added to the text of Josephus. It is more likely that this James was brother of Jesus son of Damneus, who was appointed as the successor to Ananus as recompense for the loss of his brother at the hands of Ananus.

Now, Christians might read it as follows:

This one [James] is the same one on whose account Jerusalem was destroyed! If anything, it should have been on account of the murder of Jesus [Christ], on account of the [James'] speech on the wall!

The reference to "the speech on the wall," originally meant to refer to that of the chief priest Jesus, was interpreted as a speech of James, which Hegesippus manages to weave into the grand story of James giving a speech in the wall of the temple attesting to Jesus as Christ the story recounted in Eusebius' History of the Church 2.23.3-18. It is very long, but essentially says that James was elected head of the Church by the remaining Apostles, was "alone" allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the temple (i.e., was high priest], was super Just, prayed for the people, was called the bulwark (i.e., a protective wall) of the people, was told to testify against Jesus from the wall of the temple, but instead testified he was the Christ. As a result, he was flung headlong from the wall, and then clubbed to death at the bottom.

Thus we have Origen, in Against Celsus 1:47, saying:

d) If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account of Jesus Christ?

Then again in Against Celsus 2:13, he says:

Titus destroyed Jerusalem on account, as Josephus says, of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth makes dear, really on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

Also, in Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13:55, he says:

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

This is picked up by Clement of Alexandria, Origen's successor, in his Hypotyposeis (lost, unless you believe Stephen Carlson has channeled it to his blog of that name), where he says (according to Eusebius, History of the Church 2.1.3-6):

4) And the same [Clement] in the seventh book of the same work says also these things concerning him: The Lord after the resurrection delivered knowledge to James the just and to John and to Peter, and they delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.

5) But there were two Jameses, one being the just one, who was cast down from the pinnacle and was beaten unto death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.

6) Paul indeed makes mention of the same just one, writing: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord

Verse 5 is clearly Eusebius' commentary, based on Hegessippus (James the Just) and Acts (James who was beheaded).

Jerome, in On Famous Men 2, says:

c) Josephus also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the seventh of his Outlines, mention that, on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor. Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned.

d) Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said: Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do. Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller, such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with, he died.

e) This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of such great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians: No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord, and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter.

This is clearly a repeat of Origen, but now Josephus' bare account is solidly welded with the story of Hegesippus.

DCH