Huon

Josephus Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3 :

“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 at this day” (Book XVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).


If you have trouble with something in Josephus (or another author older than 324 CE), you can cut out the unpleasant phrase. It is an addition to the "true" version (which is V25.4 as everybody should know ...).

spin

As usual sotto voce is too busy with his presuppositions to understand what the issue is, preferring to explain away rather than to explain.

And while Steven Carr is accurate in defining sotto voce's problem, he hasn't been transparent enough for sotto voce to understand the issue.

Quite right. It is strange. But that is the point. Someone needs to give sotto voce a nudge in the hope that there can be progress.

In the politically correct (pc) version of the Testimonium Flavianum we find someone called Jesus being introduced. Towards the end of the passage we find mention of "the tribe of Christians, named after him". However, the pc version has no mention of christ because the pc christian scholars in their wisdom have removed "he was the christ", so there is no hook for "christians" to be attached to. It has been rendered nonsensical, because the "christians" weren't named after Jesus. There is no longer any reference to christ in the pc version.

And so we return to Steven Carr's citation comment about some characters "going to call their new son 'Rodney - after Dave.'" Hopefully sotto voce can see that just as there is no stated connect between Rodney who is named after Dave, there is also no connection between christians named after Jesus. The eisegetical approach of sotto voce doesn't deal with the text but adds to it. The reading audience can make no connection between Jesus and the christians named after him.

spin

This passage gives us so much fun. But I'd like to briefly look at a few other passage about people Josephus seemed to respect as holy.

First, Onias (Honi) the Circle Drawer in AJ 14.22-25 (14.2.1-2):

After Hyrcanus made these promises to Aretas [the King of Arabia]…Aretas made an assault upon the Temple with his entire army and besieged Aristobulus within. The people joined Hyrcanus and assisted him in the siege, while none but the priests continued to support Aristobulus. So Aretas united the forces of the Arabs and the Jews and pressed the siege vigorously. As this happened at the time when the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which we call Passover, was celebrated, the most reputable men among the Jews left the country and fled into Egypt. Now there was one named Onias, a righteous man and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had once prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and God had heard his prayer and sent rain. Now seeing that this civil war would last a great while, he had hidden himself, but they took him to the Jewish camp and desired that just as by his prayers he had once put an end to the drought, so he might in like manner call curses down on Aristobulus and his supporters. And when, having refused and made excuses, he was nonetheless compelled by the mob to supplicate, he said, "O God, king of the whole world! Since those that stand now with me are your people, and those that are besieged are also your priests, I beseech you, that you will neither hear the prayers of those others against these men, nor to bring about what is asked by these men against those others." Whereupon the wicked among the Jews that stood about him, as soon as he had made this prayer, stoned him to death.

But God punished them immediately for their barbarity, and took vengeance on them for the murder of Onias...

Honi is introduced into a particular context, a civil war between the Hasmoneans contenders Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. We hear specific things that Honi did, what happened to him and the outcome in the writer's eyes, ie godly punishment.

Another better known passage regards John the baptist in AJ 18

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 be united in baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly uplifted 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.

Again John is introduced into a particular context, the scandalous actions of Antipas and Herodias. We hear specific things that John did, what happened to him and the outcome in the writer's eyes, ie godly punishment.

This brings us to the Testimonium Flavianum. First the context. The previous passage deals with the events arrising from Pilate's building of an acqueduct which ended in the massacre of a large number of Jews. Following the TF is the story of events among Jews in Rome concerning Paulina, which was introduced thus (AJ 18.65 - 18.3.4):

About this same time another [=a second] outrage threw the Jews into an uproar...

The TF is certainly not shown as throwing the Jews into an uproar, though the previous passage concerning Pilate's massacre certainly did. The Paulina story seems to have been hooked onto the end of the Pilate massacre, leaving indications that the TF did not belong in its present context.

Unlike the stories of Honi and John, the TF has no use in the greater narrative. It has no context; it provides Josephus with nothing similar to what he derives from the other two stories. The upshot is that there are christians who are still around today. In short, the passage is self-contained and does not reflect the way Josephus marshals his materials. Whether it is the sanitized version of the TF or the one found in the manuscripts, it doesn't fit where it is found, nor does it reflect the way Josephus uses his data. It lacks the specifics of the other examples. Consider:

He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure.

There is not an example of what he did or what he said to justify the generalities. When the evil Pilate had his way with the goodly Jesus there was no divine intervention signaled, unlike with Honi or John.

It doesn't really matter if academics sanitize the TF or not. It doesn't really reflect the way Josephus worked.

sotto voce

Quite. For one thing, it reveals total misunderstanding (hopefully that) of either Josephus or the explanation given of his statement. And in centuries, Josephus can never have been compared to Trigger, or his like.

But then, the internet continues to surprise.

spin

Now you're just being willful. Talking rot about misunderstanding when you are the one misunderstanding the discussion is a typical problem of yours. You still haven't dealt with the actual issue. Agreeing with yourself that it is strange is only in line with Steven Carr's comment. As it is strange to name a Rodney after a Dave, it is strange to name christians after Jesus.

That is followed by one of those internal monologues of yours which states some apparently clever point to you and displays a lack of desire to communicate. Trigger? Is that in regard to Roy Rogers? Or perhaps the ethno-archaeologist? Maybe the rock band? Come back when you feel you are ready to try to communicate, please.

Steven Carr

'Trigger' is the nickname of the character in Only Fools and Horses who said a child was going to be named Rodney, after Dave.

Gorit Maqueda

It still surprises me that an "overwhelming majority of scholars" (kata Wikipedia) claims that there is a true kernel in the TF, and an even more "overwhelming majority of scholars" (kata Wikipedia again) affirms that the James passage is wholly from Josephus.

But don't trust me, I'm citing Wikipedia from memory, and perhaps I read it somewhere else :-)

spin

Thanks. That was a piece of shared culture unavailable to me.

aa5874

The phrase "an overwhelming majority of scholars" is most likely a product of Chinese Whispers.

Scholars merely repeat the phrase without verifying whether or not the statement is true.

There is NO historical value to the phrase when it is based on Presumptions.

hjalti

I'm currently reading DJE? and I'm now reading over his discussion of the TF.

Like Carr points out, it makes little sense to say that Christians were named after Jesus, so the version of the TF Ehrman has produced (the one that simply erases, but doesn't modify "He was the Christ") can't work.

But later in that discussion, he mentions an argument from Doherty: Josephus would not speak in a neutral (or a positive!) tone about a seditious messianic pretender like Jesus!

How does Ehrman answer:
That's because you deleted it Bart!