jgoodguy

A bit overstated. In the present millennium, the TF cannot be used to determine the nature of the HJ under the best of circumstances.

judge

Who would want to do that though?

Has anyone ever tried to do that, to use the TF to determine the "nature" an an HJ?

jgoodguy

What is the use of a HJ that just exists and has no influence on orthodox Christianity.

judge

I imagine some people, historians included, are interested in trying to understand history, and that some people, historians included, are interested in a man on whom a massive religion is supposedly based.

jgoodguy

That may be true, but the question I asked is:

That HJ is just a footnote. Yea he existed, but so what if orthodox Christianity has a mythology that is separate from his existence. The HJers have already speculated on many different HJs because there simply is no evidence(at best) except that he existed.

The TF provides no information(at best) except he existed.

maryhelena

Did Eusebuis use the wonder-worker story found in Slavonic Josephus and simply add the Christian element - and then, if it was originally missing from Antiquities, insert it in the context of Pilate’s early rule - a context that can be read as relating to 19 ce.?

Eusebuis knows about the ‘forgery’ re the 7th year of Tiberius and a JC crucifixion story being set in 21 ce. He would know gJohn and it’s JC being not yet 50 years. The two stories put the ‘birth’ of JC prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great - which is the storyline in Slavonic Josephus.

Obviously, once gLuke was written with it’s 15th year of Tiberius date stamp - previous JC material would have to be abandoned. So, Eusebuis does not like the 7th year of Tiberius story. So that specific story gets ditched. But, unfortunately, Josephus no longer sees fit to include the Slavonic Josephus storyline re the wonder-worker in his updated War and later Antiquities - so perhaps Eusebuis does it for him in Antiquities. Adding the Christian elements - adding it in the same place as it is in Slavonic Josephus, Pilate’s early rule. And, interestingly, adding that telling little note - “ if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed”. Ie. Josephus being ambiguous re dating the start of Pilate’s rule.

I can’t see a Christian copying the TF, as it now stands, and writing it into Slavonic Josephus, ie that story does not have the Christian elements - and, interestingly, the Slavonic Josephus has two separate stories. Two stories that are combined in Eusebius and the TF. And Jews, copying the TF, minus it’s Christian elements, into Slavonic Josephus? It really is only the historicists position on JC, with all that that position requires, that can’t make sense out of Slavonic Josephus. The ahistoricists/mythicists, not being so hamstrung, should be considering the Slavonic Josephus material...

Slavonic Josephus	Eusebuis	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.

judge

Who cares whether jesus is useful to orthodox christianity. Do you care? If so why?

What "use" is any person from history?
Why are you so concerned about the use of jesus to orthodox christianity?
Let christians make of it what they will....

mountainman

That's a neat analysis maryhelena. The real action of "Christian Origins" is being enacted in 4th century scriptoria.

jgoodguy

If you do not care, I certainly do not.

Roger Pearse

Some interesting statements in this thread, which I have only just discovered. There are a number of claims about what scholars believe. Myself I prefer to discuss evidence and primary sources, but I'm not sure that all the views stated as being the consensus (etc) are correct. Without doing an extensive literature search, I have gone to Carleton Paget's 2001 review of the arguments on all sides, and had a look to see what he says, and to Feldman's earlier review. Here is my own understanding, which may of course be flawed. (I do have something of a dislike for any medieval-style balancing of authorities, I admit.)

Now I notice references to Ken Olson's article. But it is important for us to be aware that Olson is advancing positions which almost no-one else holds. He accuses Eusebius of forging the TF, repeating the view advanced by Zeitlin back in the 1950's; but I am not aware that any other scholars agree. He asserts that the short passage in Ant. 20 is a fake; but again, it is not a view generally held. Since this is almost the only scholar being named in the thread, we should be aware that this is likely to tip the discussion in one direction.

Prior to 1900, the majority of scholars considered that the long passage in Ant. 18 was a later interpolation -- not the same as a forgery, necessarily, note -- into "Antiquities". This view arose at the beginning of modern times, in 1559.

At the same time, the short passage in Ant. 20.200 has not shared this fate. Scholars have not generally doubted that it is authentic.[1] Emil Schurer was pretty much alone back in 1900 in so thinking. Feldman lists no authors who query its authenticity.[2]

During the 20th century, views shifted. Part of this was the reaction to the extreme debunking prevalent in the 19th century. But it also arose from a return to the sources, and the discovery of further versions of the text in other languages. Feldman instances the influence of Eisler's treatment.[3]

There are a number of different views, all with defenders, ranging from complete authenticity through differing degrees of interpolation down to complete forgery.[4] It is not always recognised that some scholars do defend the whole TF as genuine.[5]

But currently, I understand, most scholars consider that it is genuine, but with some degree of interpolation or corruption.[6] However the problem probably cannot be resolved. [7]

With regard to the "Slavonic Josephus", I would recommend that people obtain the English version of this printed recently and read through it. It is not, in fact, a version of Josephus at all. It is a medieval Russian book, entitled "The three captures of Jerusalem". For the third section, a translation of the Jewish War was used, probably from the family interpolated with the TF, supplemented with material from the bible, John Malalas, and other sources. The old thesis that it was derived from an Aramaic first edition is not possible, and was only advanced in ignorance of the true nature of the text. Mescherskii's publication of the text in the 50's made this clear, but since he wrote in Russian few scholars noticed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[1] J. Carleton Paget, Some observations on Josephus and Christianity, JTS 52, 2001, p539-624. P. 546. "In general, scholars have not doubted the authenticity of this passage."

[2] Louis Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-80), pp.673-679. There is no statement explicitly on the subject, however, but he summarises Thackeray as "The best proof that the passage is genuine is that Origen, who explicitly states that Josephus did not beheve in Jesus as the Christ and hence did not have the "Testimonium Flavianum', at least as it stands in all our manuscripts, does cite this passage about John. Moreover, if the passage were interpolated by a Christian, it is hard to believe that he would not have associated John with Jesus and that he would not have connected the death of John with John's rebuke to Herod Antipas about his wife Herodias as in the Gospels."

[3] Feldman, p.684: "Though his work appeared before the period under review, we should mention the stir created by EISLER'S (2725) extraordinarily detailed and extremely learned, though erratic, attempt to show that our text represents the result of tampering by Christian censors who inserted their own interpolations. Despite his erudition, EISLER had an abihty of tearing passages out of their context and of twisting the meanings of words to suit his theory. EISLER'S work, however, won the support of only one really important student of Josephus, THACKERAY , who had originally believed the whole to be a Christian interpolation but who, under EISLER'S influence, came to regard it as partly interpolated. We may comment that, while EISLER'S attempted restoration of the original text of the Testimonium' appears arbitrary, his notion that the text as we have it has a substratum of authentic material seems increasingly confirmed by stylistic studies of it."

[4] Paget, p. 583: "In the face of these difficulties, scholars have approached the TF in three different ways. Some have wanted to keep the passage as it stands in our received text. Others have wanted to accept its authenticity, but in a minimally, or more extensively revised form which turns the original into either the first known Jewish denunciation of Christianity, or a passage which, while being less positive than the received text, demonstrates a perhaps neutral or ambivalent attitude to Jesus. Another body of scholars has simply rejected the passage in toto."

[5] Paget, p.583, starting his review of the thesis as genuine: "Some may be surprised to note how many scholars have sought to defend the authenticity of the received text."

[6] Paget, p.599, while discussing the suggestion of forgery: "From the point of view of content, the major strength of the forgery thesis lies in the fact that most scholars concede some degree of interpolation."

[7] Paget, p.545: "No one solution to the problem seems straightforwardly: better than a number of other solutions offered and many of the discussions of the component parts which make up the 'problem' will seem unduly tentative, in particular as these relate to the TF ..."