mountainman

WIKI's Josephus on Jesus "discussion" page makes an interesting read.

mountainman

Chronological Summary of the "Testimonium Flavianum" (TF) and its censure.

The following article attempts to summarise in point form
the opinion concerning the authenticity of the primary
Jesus reference in Josephus, at Antiquities 18.3.3.

Section 1 deals with introductions to the subject available
online which appear to have apologetic bias to the study of
sampling of opinion on this question of authenticity.

Section 2 deals with a summary point chronological timeline
for mention of the TF (or lack of mention) until Photius.

Section 3 deals with a summary point chronological timeline
for censure of the TF (as a forgery) from the late 18th century
until 1937, the commencement of Feldman's 1980 survey.

Section 4 deals with a summary point chronological timeline
for censure of the TF (as a forgery) of "Modern Authors"
from 1980 to the presnt.

Finally section 6 briefly summarises the nature of modern
Apologetic "academic and scholarly" reaction to the censure
of the TF forgery, and cites Gordon Stein, at the opening
of this "modern epoch" from 1980 until 2009.

The list forms presented below endeavour and aim to be not
only complete but accurate, but there will perhaps be many
changes to the list of citations. Additional citations are
welcome, Objections to citations are also welcome. I have
presented this in the spirit of research.

As an addendum I have presented the arguments of Lardner
which have formed the core of the censure.

Best wishes to those who see themselves as the students of
life and of our common ancient historical heritage, and
its research ...


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
DRAFT FORMAT: FEBRUARY 2009


Section 1: Contemporary apologetics following the Feldman review

An excellent introductory starting point in the various issues
surrounding the centuries long censure of the TF by scholars and
respected christian academics alike is this site.

The section on the "The Testimonium Question" immediately cites
a survey conducted by Louis H. Feldman on the relevant literature
from 1937 to 1980 in his book "Josephus and Modern Scholarship."
Feldman noted that

4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine,
6 as mostly genuine,
20 accept it with some interpolations,
9 with several interpolations, and
13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.
38 in the sample.

A further two sections are then elaborated outlining the cases:
Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious, and Arguments that
the Testimonium is Authentic. These two sections deal primarily
with modern scholarship, after 1980, and the compiler of the
article (Peter Kirby) admits:

We are not given the names of these books or their method
of selection.

There is one serious negative issue with this review, and one
partially positive issue. The partially positive issue is that
the review does on the surface make the attempt at being an
objective study of the balance sheet of opinion. The serious
negative issue with this review is that, for some strange reason,
it does not look backwards at scholarship before 1980, and thus
strangely dismisses it. The basis for dismissal is given by the
citation of modern authors; however the censure of the old
brigade is omitted from these reviews.

In contrast, other presentations such as that of Christopher Price
which is located here might justifiably be
entitled "A Thoroughly Biased Review of the Testimonium Flavianum".

Not only does this author fail to mention the earlier history of
scholarship which has censured the TF as a gross forgery, it fails
to present a balance sheet of opinion by being entirely dismissive
of the entire sector of scholarly consensus which disagrees with
its nominated scholarly authority. Contemporary apologetics.



Section 2: TF Summary chronological history (the ancients)


0093: Eusebius cites Josephus Flavius - 20 book "Antiquity of the Jews"; Major ref to Jesus in Antiquities 18.3.3; with 20.9.1 (Minor Ref))
0160: Eusebius cites Justin Martyr who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
0160: Eusebius cites Pseudo-Justin who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF. (are these two authors distinct?)
0179: Eusebius cites Melito of Sardis - no mention of the TF
0180: Eusebius cites Theophilus Bishop of Antioch - no mention of the TF.
0190: Eusebius cites Irenaeus, saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.

0200: Eusebius cites Clement of Alexandria, influential Greek theologian, prolific writer, head of the Alexandrian school - nothing about the TF.
0220: Eusebius cites Julius Africanus, a prominent chronographer from Emmaus - is silent about the TF.
0220: Eusebius cites Tertullian, early literary apologist/polemicist against unorthodox heresy - is silent about the TF.
0220: Eusebius cites Hippolytus (170-235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
0230: Eusebius cites Origen (185-254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
0250: Eusebius cites Minucius Felix, lawyer and Christian convert - no mention of the TF.
0270: Eusebius cites Anatolius (230-c. 270/280) - no mention of TF.
0290: Jerome cites Methodius of Olympus - comprehensive philosophical education, important theologian; prolific author - no Ref.
0320: Lactantius, previously an official professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia; Constantine sponsored "tutor" - no mention.

0324: *** Eusebius: cites the TF thrice *** P.E. 3.5, *** HE. 1.11, *** Theophany.

0324: Constantine cites the testimony of Virgil and Cicero as "prophets", but fails to mention Josephus' testimony - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2503.htm
0362: Julian states "the wretched Eusebius claims that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews, since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic."

0407: Chrysostom (347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
05??: The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF. - http://rbedrosian.com/phaint.htm
08??: Methodius, saint of the 9th century - makes no mention of it.
0814: Photius of Constantinople - admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.



Section 3: TF Summary chronological history (the less ancient)


NOTE: In preparing this work I wish to acknowledge the prior research of
others too numerous to name, from Gibbon to Kerry Shirts. My only claim to
novelty with this presentation is the indexation by approximate dates,
so that it might be considered a time-line for the TF and its commentary.


1762: Bishop Warburton of Gloucester -""a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",
1767: Dr. Nathaniel Lardner quotes Bishop Warburtonof Gloucester.
1788: Edward Gibbon - "may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery". D&F V2,Ch16,Pt2,FN [36]

18??: Ittigius (CMU, 47),
18??: Blondel (CMU, 47)
18??: Le Clerc (CMU, 47)
18??: Vandale (CMU, 47)
18??: Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)

1830: Dr. Alexander Campbell
1833: Dr. Thomas Chalmers
1842: Mitchell Logan, Christian Mythology Unveiled (CMU)
1873: Theodor Keim - cited by Acharya S
1874: Cannon Farrar - 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious'
1877: The Rev. Dr. Giles (Church of England) - "Hebrew and Christian records; an historical enquiry" - p. 30
1888: Rev. S. Baring-Gould - "Lost and Hostile Gospels," says: "first quoted by Eusebius - Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii);
1889: Rev. Dr. Hooykaas - "certainly spurious, inserted by a later Christian hand." (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27)
1890: Emil Schürer - A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - REF
1894: Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" - REF
1897: Jakob Burckhardt "Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity"

1900: Harnack - http://www.ccel.org/h/harnack/
1909: John Remsburg; "The Christ" ("We must get rid of that Christ" - Emerson) - REF
1910: NY Times Article on Arthur Drews: "Jesus never lived" - REF
1912: Arthur Drews - The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus - REF
1922: Marshall J. Gauvin - "Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage." - REF
1928: Solomn Zeitlin, [1928]
1939: Charles Guignebert "Jesus" -- "a pure Christian forgery"
19??: Joseph McCabe - translator of Arthur Drews - REF



Section 4: TF Summary chronological history (the moderns)


1937: Feldman survey start
1980: Feldman survey end - 13 more authors say "total interpolation"
================================================== ====

1982: Gordon Stein "anyone who relies on Josephus' Testimonium is "dishonest," "fooled," and "ignorant." - REF
1979: Charles Templeton - "Not so much as a reference by Josephus." - cited by Lee Strobel "The Case for Christ"

1998: George Albert Wells - "The Jesus Myth" - "Eusebius suddenly "found" it "
1999: Freke and Gandy - "Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed " - "The Jesus Mysteries"
1999: Earl Doherty - "Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs - REF
2002: Acharya S - "Josephus Untangled" plus other works
2002: Kenneth Harding - REF
2005: Jay Raskin - "Eusebius the Master Forger" - "Evolution of Christs and Christianities" - REF

200?: Kerry Shirts - "Did Josephus Mention Jesus?" - REF
200?: Ken Olsen: "Eusebius fabricated the TF".
????: David Taylor - "Who on Earth was Jesus Christ"? - "The TF in toto is a forgery" (cited by Acharya S)


To conclude, Louis H. Feldman, who conducted the 1980 survey states
that the context of where the TF fits into the text of Josephus concerns
a series or riots, and asks the obvious question ....


Section 5: The TF as another plain and simple Eusebian forgery


Gordon Stein adequately summarises centuries of scholarship with
the very blunt, but very appropriate advice:

Other moden authors are therefore quite entitled to cite Eusebius
as the shameful author of this fraudulent act, on the basis of
all the above scholarship of yesteryear, and in addition, on the
overall assessment of the integrity of Eusebius
as an "honest historian".


Section 6: Apologetic Reaction to the TF Forgery

The standard reaction to the censure ranges between an outright
omission of its existence and discussion, with the excuse that
these opinions are the opinions of heretical mythicists, and
New Testament scholarship has assured itself of the historical
existence of Jesus. Thus are the issues of the belief in the
authenticity or forgery of the TF conflated with the issues of
the belief in the authenticity (or otherwise) of the existence
of the historical jesus.

The WIKI page on the TF and its corresponding "Discussion page"
provide oustanding evidence of the insistence of apologetically
driven dismissal of the scholarship of yesteryear which I have
outlined in point form above. A refusal to acknowledge a history
of opinion is a serious failure in objective and skeptical enquiry.
Nothing has really changed about the TF since Gibbon declared,
that it "may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery".


Addendum: arguments to inauthenticity (put forth by Dr. Lardner)

"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

Toto

Pete: PLEASE do not cite Gordon Stein on this issue. Stein was an atheist activist and an anti-apologist, but not a Biblical scholar or a specialist on Josephus. In context, he was accusing Josh McDowell of being ignorant or dishonest, but McDowell at the time I think used Josephus as evidence without discussing the problems in the text. His comments should not apply to honest scholars who have considered the problems, but come down on the side of partial interpolation.

The II Modern Library has put a disclamer on his work:

Charles Templeton was an novelist, and that statement is made by a fiction character in his book. What is the purpose of including it?

I am not sure what your purpose is here. You are posting your notes, but they are less than coherent at times, and not always accurate.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

With all due respect, Stein is citing the opinion of earlier erudite Biblical scholars. If we dragged Gibbon in, he would say the same thing, or perhaps far worse. Stein is simply citing Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Tanaquil Faber, Dr. Alexander Campbell, Dr. Thomas Chalmers, Mitchell Logan, Theodor Keim, Cannon Farrar, The Rev. Dr. Giles, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, Emil Schürer, Edwin Johnson, Jakob Burckhardt, Dr Adolph Harnack, John Remsburg, Arthur Drews, Marshall J. Gauvin, Solomn Zeitlin, Charles Guignebert, Joseph McCabe and the 13 more authors who say the TF is a "total interpolation" according to Feldman between 1937 and 1980. IMO it is crystal clear that the comments of the above group of scholars ratify Stein's comment, irrespective of the "partially interpolated" viewpoint subscribed by all modern commentators.

The "partially interpolated" fall-back option is diametrically opposed to the collective assessment of the above erudite set prior to 1980. Are we for one moment to conclude that the above group of older generation scholars did not know what they were saying?

The collection of biblical scholars assembled here who together are in agreement that the entire passage is a later forgery/interpolation would strenuously disagree with such a disclaimer. Some of them might even consider "dishonest," "fooled," or "ignorant" euphemisms for "inept".

There is a story to that. The author flatly says "Josephus makes no mention of Jesus whatsoever" on the basis of the scholarship which I have collected and supplied in this thread. A reader of the book, a christian academic, made the inept response in review of the claim, that the TF was considered to be a "genuine reference". There are always two side to these stories.

My purpose is to remind people that the modern apologetic conjectures on the TF are blatantly --- almost politically --- ignoring the history of erudite censure on the TF as a forgery. How many of these people for example, who argue that the TF is "partially forged", would be out there arguing that the Eusebian Agbar correspondence is genuine?

Another purpose in posting this is to make a note that the WIKI discussions on this subject appear to be representing the modern apologist approach, and making no mention of --- except in their dismissal --- of the history of comment against their position(s) by the very same erudite scholars whom they cite for other purposes when it suits them. Finally, I had always intended to try and gather and present in a chronological listing all the contributors to this censure of the TF.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Pete: It's too bad we no longer have Elsewhere for this sort of discussion.

Do you know the difference between scholarly disagreement, and one person saying that another's position is dishonest or lunacy?

Does "outdated scholarship" mean anything to you?

Do you think that the modern scholars have not already read the 18th century scholars, considered their arguments, and adopted what they found of value while rejecting arguments that have not stood up?

mountainman

Dear Toto,

I cited the two articles written by Kirby and Price. Both of them ignore any mention of the prior scholarship. Both of them start with the survey of Feldman which commenced 1937. Both of them do not mention that fact that we have any statistical survey of opinion prior to this time, which completely alters their claim of a strong majority.


I have already mentioned that Peter Kirby's article does not tell us how his ten out of thirteen books were selected, or who wrote them. Price does not tell us what the 14 out of 15 books which he has read after the survery period end (1980) to be added to the "Feldman Stats" were selected.

This is not scholarship. This is apologetics with a mission. How were these addition new books selected? More importantly, who were the authors? Until this data is presented, the claims in support of their position are vacuous and entirely subjective.

I have listed 10 books written since 1980 which support the censure of the TF as wholesale interpolation, with their authors. Both of these reviewers make the admission that out of their (Kirby = 3/13; Price 1/15) review they could only find one(Price) or three (Kirby) books in which the author argues for the complete fabrication of the TF.

What sort of scholarship is this? Why do both these reviewers fail to cite the books which overwhealmingly support the dominance of the statistics they are using to assert supremacy of their position? It is not unlikely that the list of books cited to have been read by both these reviewers would immediately declare their apologetic bias, and thus the invalidity of their respective claims.


Best wishes,



Pete

Toto

Pete: are you under the impression that there is some meaning in a head count of anyone who has written on the subject? Including an 18th century cleric like Nathaniel_Lardner, a 20th century novelist like Templeton, or a 20th century physiologist like Gordon Stein?

And how on earth did you miss Steve Mason? Do you know what his position is?

Peter Kirby cites all of his sources and discusses them. If you accuse him of any apologetic purpose, you immediately destroy any credibility that you might have theoretically possessed.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

The arguments by Kirby and Price appeal to a summary statistical dominance of the position that they are openly touting -- "partial authenticity of the TF. They clearly are using a head count to buttress their assertions, but they do not specifically provide a detail list of the books and authors by which their summary head counts have been derived.

Both reviewers provide a list of books referenced, as standard bibliographical practice, but nowhere do they detail which books (Kirby 13; Price 15) they discovered this amazing statistical dominance of scholarship in support of their position of the partial authenticity of the TF.

Below I have attempted to determine Peter Kirby's "stats" on the basis of reverse engineering his bibliography below by trying to do an on-the-fly categorisation .... (which may not be entirely accurate).

Time alone. Well these are precisely the details which we require to examine, namely the authors of the books. And issues like, who is ultimately qualified to make a decision based on all the information at hand, and who or how do we determine such a qualification, or to prohibit qualification?

I have spent some time to get all my sources out in the open for discussion. I made no pretence to have completed this review. It was labelled as DRAFT.

I have attempted to split Peter Kirby's list of works cited, after removing all books published before 1980, into those who argue for "partial" and those who argue for "total" interpolation of the TF. The result is the following:

So you see, I find it difficult to calibrate Peter Kirby's summary claim. Although one can reconstruct the claim approximately from the bibliograpy as I have attempted to do above.

Finally, to make it quite clear, the impression that there is some meaning in a head count is clearly infered by Kirby and Price. We can read that the headcount is being presented to demonstrate dominance. Its just your usual numbers racket. I am not justifying it, I am reporting that it appears to be utilised in various reviews of the authenticity of the TF.

Let's leave the question of apologetical stances (or otherwise, particularly wrt Peter Kirby) out of the picture until we obtain the data. All I am doing is critically questioning the basis of the claims made by Kirby and Price, which are clearly being presented as statistical in nature. I am asking to have the detail data which they used to present the summary headcounts, so that we can independently see whether or not there is in fact a statistical dominance, or whether the sample methodology (which is always going to be to some degree subjective) reveals a bias.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Toto,

The following is from here

What is Mason's position? The above suggests that he does not think that the TF was completely interpolated. (I have not read Mason directly). Can you point at a summary position by Mason himself?

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Pete - the Testimonium was a hot topic here a few years ago.

I give a brief summary of Mason's view here. You can read Mason's Josephus and the New Testament, and he goes on for pages considering different aspects of the question, and finally decides that there probably was something there, but it is unrecoverable.

There is some discussion of Olson here.

Not dominance, but consensus. If you are after dominance, you want one authority who hands down the correct answer.