NottyImp

I'm not a biblical scholar (at all), but I lurk around these parts occasionally. I'm currently debating on an entirely different board the historicity of Jesus, and a poster presented a quote from Josephus as follows:

My question is, what is the accepted provenance of this quote? Or, at least, what are the debates surrounding it. Please feel free to refer me to the many threads that no doubt already discuss this, or other web resources as appropriate.

Vivisector

This is the existing form of the Testimonium Flavianum, often used by Christians in response to arguments that a historical Jesus never existed. The debates are generally in regard to whether Josephus really wrote this (as opposed to a later Christian editor), whether he wrote something like this, or whether he wrote anything about Jesus at all.

Amaleq13 and I discussed this yesterday in the Where are the records? thread. If you Google "Testimonium Flavianum" some good things will pop up. This is a pretty decent starting point.

Cheers!

Kryten

It ism generally considered that it was the Bishop Eusebius who wrote and inserted that passage. A passage which is completely out of context at that point. Eusebius is the Bishop who said that it was perfectly fine to tell lies about Christianity, provided these lies helped the cause of Christianity. It has been known that the insert is a forgery for over 200 years.

gregor

Bede

oh . . . Bede

[Braces for impact]

(While I'm no apologist for the TF, your statements are more than likely inaccurate, and they have been debated at length in other threads.)

GakuseiDon

Channelling Toto here: here are some II threads on the topic:
Josephus passage
Eusebius the Liar?

I think that the consensus was that it is currently impossible to say that Eusebius was the one who inserted the interpolations, and that there is no evidence that Eusebius included deliberate lies into his histories.

Toto

Hi - I do not have a monopoly on using the search engine. Anyone is free to look up old threads. But watch out about misstating a "consensus" where there was none.


It is quite possible to say it. Ken Olson has said it, and has put together a reasonable case for it. Whether you accept his argument depends on how high the burden of proof is, and your level of resistance to the idea. Eusebius had means, motive, and opportunity, and the interpolations follow his thought patterns.

.

Roger Pearse, who maintains www.tertullian.org , is Eusebius' prime defender against the charge that he approved of lying in the service of Christianity.

We went around and around on the question in the Eusebius the Liar thread. Eusebius seems to have approved of Plato's Royal Lie, but if you can't stand the idea that he endorsed lying, you will interpret his words as saying merely that fables are useful for moral instruction. It will be difficult to show that he deliberately lied, because there are very few alternative sources for the history of the period. When people say that the victors write the history books - Eusebius was on the victorious side when Constantine was the head of the Roman Empire, and he wrote the history books.

Diogenes the Cynic

To give a straightforward answer to the OP, It is all but universally accepted that the TF is at least partially interpolated by Christian forgers. I'm not especially convinced it was Eusebius that did it but somebody tampered with it.

There is a debate as to whether any of it at all is authentic or whether it's entirely fake but I think that a small majority still favor partial authenticity. I will post the passage again. the parts in red are the parts that are generally thought to be the forgeries. Bear in mind that this construction is not univerally accepted. Some people think the whole passage is bogus, but the parts in red are the parts that pretty much everyone thinks are forged.

GakuseiDon

Sure, but I understood that most scholars aren't of that opinion. That is, he may have done it, but it is just unknown whether he did or not. Or is this incorrect? Does Olson represent the majority view nowadays?

True, for that reason it would be hard to determine if he told lies or not, for whatever reason. But AFAIK, there is no evidence that he was actually lying on some particular topic, whether using Plato's Noble Lie or not. The only time this is brought up is with the TF. Again, I may be wrong, but that is my understanding.

sodium

Parts of it cannot be plausibly attributed to Josephus, because they express views that he wouldn't have had, unless he was a Christian, which he wasn't. People who favour a historical Jesus generally feel that only the parts that are obviously forged are in fact forged, and that the existence of the remaining phrases provides evidence that Jesus existed. I think that's a ridiculous way to proceed, but that appears to be the view of mainstream scholarship.

Diogenes the Cynic

There's also the James reference, though. That one's a bit harder to categorically dismiss as a forgery.