Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 04-24-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

.....

These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.

From time to time Josephus mentions troublesome would-be prophets too. He gives lengthy discourse on them.

So Gak - I do find it additionally suspicious that the Christians are not mentioned save for the TF. It does look like Josephus concerned himself with major and minor figures or movements in Judaism over the period, and there was no shortage of them.

So I conclude this is just more evidence for having made the "pedigree" for Christianity up after the fact.

That's interesting, rlogan, thanks. That sounds like something that could apply to Christians as well, esp as early Christian history has the apostles active with preaching the Kingdom of God. As you say, perhaps evidence for that early Christian history being made up afterwards.

Amaleq13 · 04-25-2004, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

quoting Jeffrey Lowder
Assuming that contemporary reconstructions of the passage are accurate, it is difficult to imagine why the early church fathers would have cited such a passage. The original text probably did nothing more than establish the historical Jesus.

I don't know which reconstruction Mr. Lowder had in mind but I see plenty in the one offered by Crossan (The Birth of Christianity, p12) that does more than "establish the historical Jesus" as well as providing ample motivation for early citation:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of many people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

I cannot account for Mr. Lowder's views of this passage nor can I understand how Crossan can consider this a "studiously neutral" reference. Both men's opinions seem to me to be entirely independent of the actual text. The earliest references to Josephus by Church Fathers is not to establish the historicity of Jesus but to assert that a famous Jewish historian would offer an opinion of Christ. There is no reason to think this would not have been true of earlier Christian leaders. The reduced Testimonium still portrays Jesus positively and still implies that he was wrongly accused and executed. If he had referred to Jesus as a "wise man", that alone would have been sufficient to warrant citing Josephus.

However, these are clearly Christian views that make no sense attributed to Josephus. The reduced TF, as Crossan notes, has "characteristically Josephan" language but he seems to me to shoot himself in the foot when he goes on to discuss the specifics. The phrase "wise man" is Josephan because he uses it in reference to David and Solomon. Is it credible to suggest that Josephus considered Jesus' wisdom to be in the league of these Jewish heroes? The phrase "suprising feats" is Josephan because he uses it in reference to the miracles performed by Elisha. Is it credible to suggest that Josephus would equate the two men in this way?

Asha'man · 04-26-2004, 05:51 PM

I thought I’d add a little more material from Frank Zindler’s The Jesus the Jews Never Knew. While I’m not an expert on this stuff, I do tend to recall what I’ve read.

(2.4 Loud Arguments from Silence Concenring the Testimonium, pp44-45)

Quote:

In the present case, it is noteworthy that none of the early Church Fathers – who collected all the evidence they could find pertaining to the imagined founder of their religion – seems to know about the Testimonium. John E. Remsburg sums up the situation well in his The Christ:

Quote:

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it [the Testimonium]. Justin Martyr [c100-165 CE], Tertullian [c160-c225 CE], Clement of Alexandria [c150-c215 CE] and Origen [c185-254 CE] all would have quoted this passage if it had existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during the second and third centuries. [The Testimonium was also unknown to Irenaeus (late second century), Cyprian (mid-third century), and Arnobius (late third century).]

As the passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to him. In his “Evangelical Demonstration,�? written early in the fourth century, after citing all of the know evidences of Christianity, he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness�? (Book 3, p.124)

Zindler covers quite a bit more, but I think his point here is clear.

rlogan · 04-27-2004, 03:08 AM

The various discussions on this issue motivated me to read the first three books of "proof of the Gospel". I think Esusebius and Josh McDowell are the same person.

In Book 1, ch 1 Eusebius provides motive for the fabrication of the Christ story and the TF:

Quote:

It should convince them of the inspired and certain nature of the truth we hold: it should silence the tongues of false accusers by a more logical method of proof, which slanderers contend that we never offer, who in their daily arguments with us keep pounding away with all their might with the implication forsooth that we are unable to give a logical demonstration of our case, but require those who come to us to rest on faith alone

In Ch 2 he argues that Christianity is an ideal "in-between" religion (In between Hellenism and Judaism). I take it that this is a political truth. There are many quotes from the HB justifying application of judaic prophesy to the gentiles.

There is a paradox in the dependence upon the HB to establish that Jesus is the Christ, but at the same time rejecting Judaic culture and law. So we have the obligatory citations to the new covenant.

In Chapter three we have the basic superstructure of the proof:

Quote:

Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the (b) presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies

Throughout we have all of the gospel tidbits about being born in Bethlehem, healing lepers, correspondence between important numbers - 70 for Moses and 70 for Jesus. Moses parted the waters. Jesus walked on them. Heavy citations from Isaiah. A Third century "Evidence that Demands a Verdict".

It is not surprising to me then why the TF would occur exactly here in this document for the first time in history. It was to silence the critics with a masterpiece of proof. What the previous church fathers had offered wasn't enough.

So we see several things coming together here. First, all the requisite mining of the HB for the Jesus story had been accomplished in the gospels. But now the arrangement in proof form, along with the "notarized" historicity provided by the TF and James passages.

We have at the same time provided a pedigree for the new religion along with the ability to mold it the way they want because of the new covenant. I do see the genius in the fabricatin of the Jesus myth.

I would also add for the pleasure of Vinnie that Eusebius utilizes the embarrassment criteria. Just before the TF in Ch5 of Book 3, Eusebius offers:

Quote:

And surely they who have set no false stamp 75 on anything that is true in the incidents of shame and gloom, ought to be regarded as above suspicion in other accounts wherein they have attributed miracles to Him

There is a subtle difference between the way Vinnie is using this and the way our trusty Eusebius is using it. In th Eusebius version, we have to believe the miracle stories about Jesus because of the presence of the embarrassing material. In Vinnie's version, the more embarassing something is, the more likely it is to be true.

The trouble with the Eusebius version is that he is at the same time using the Isaiah prophesies that demand Christ meet an ignominious end. So it is a hollow assertion.

Johann_Kaspar · 04-27-2004, 12:53 PM

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/eisler.htm

Quote:

As a matter of fact, not a single Greek, Latin, Slavonic, or other Josephus text has come down to us which has not passed through the hands of Christian scribes and Christian owners.

Quote:

The genuineness of the 'precious jewel' has been admitted only in circles wholly dominated by the Church.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.