Amaleq13

Would Origen have needed something written by Josephus to know that he was not a Christian? He was, after all, famous as a Jewish historian. In addition, it has been suggested that comments Josephus makes about Vespasian indicate he considered him to fulfill certain messianic prophecies.


I think that is a pretty good argument for its existence in Origen's copy but I would question whether we should assume it was genuine to Josephus. Who else does he call a "prophet"? Is that word in the existing TF? I don't recall.

Again, I would be willing to concede that this was in Origen's copy but I would tend to assume it comes from the short reference which I consider to be more likely a scribe's note that became incorporated into the text. I think the only other reference to this apparently lost portion of Josephus also repeats this phrase.

Shinobi

Wow, I remember starting this thread. Thanks for ressurecting it.

Maybe one could be granted that Roman records do not survive well due to fires ect. but what about this aspect of my post:

Why is the biggest event in human history missing from all the records, Roman or otherwise? All we seem to have a some vague refernces to a christ, of which the authenticity is questionable. Rome was in contact with a lot of different countries spread pretty far and wide, someone must have picked it up. Why do we have more records on faith healing scammer kings than someone who can really raise the dead?

My argument is summed up as follows:

A) There should be thousands of records of Jesus (a real demigod) if such a person really existed and did the things ascribed to him in the bible.

B) No records, that can be clearly shown to be authentic and specific are availible.

C) Simplest explanation for this is that such a person did not really exist.

funinspace

The Xians have a way out here to some degree. There are several Gospel verses that talk of things being veiled, presumably by the same god in order to carry out the plan. The liberal xians also can, and do sometimes say that mere humans wrote the Gospels, and they have to be interpreted in the context of the times and tradition. Though I do agree in general, that if all said miraculous events happened, then it should have been better noticed. But then, why would the crowd in Jerusalem pick a crook over a Messiah that had proven himself. And since the Gospels can't even agree on significant details of his birth and death, what is one to expect of the rest? The point is, that the story doesn't really follow logically in the first place.

Or the person was a real human, but not a demigod. And his life was fantasized by him or his followers.

Vivisector

Greetings again, Amaleq. I think Origen and others could have concluded that Josephus remained non-Christian based only on his background and comments regarding Vespasian. But I think it's more likely - and in character for him - that Josephus did write something. More just following.

You're exactly right, of course; even assuming it did appear in Origen's copy, it's not an ironclad certainty that it appeared in the original. Josephus made several references to "prophets," including the traditional prophets of the OT, persons whom he referred to as "false prophets" and those who said they were prophets, and one near-contemporaneous individual (Judas the Essene) whom he seems to have regarded as a true prophet. The word isn't used in the existing TF in regard to Jesus. However, based on all of the foregoing discussion, I wouldn't be at all surprised if - and in fact, it's my guess that - Josephus had originally referred to Jesus as a false prophet or as someone who simply claimed to be a prophet. Either would have been characteristic of Josephus, would have explained Origen's comment on Josephus's disbelief, and would have been unacceptable to ancient Christians.

This might be the point beyond which we can't easily go. Regardless of what was available to Origen, the original text appears to be out of our grasp. On the one hand, that's frustrating to a person like me, but on the other, it makes for some interesting exercises in deductive and inductive reasoning!

Vivisector

Good evening (or morning, as the case may be), Shinobi.

I have trouble accepting your argument, because the conclusion (C) is contingent on both elements of your premise (A) being false. If he existed but didn't do all or any of the amazing things attributed to him, then there wouldn't necessarily have been any appreciable contemporary record of his life.

Count me with funinspace on this one.

JohnHud

Nobody so far has explained what this passage is doing in its peculiar surrounding context. The answer is of enormous significance---and is presented in Joe Atwill's forthcoming book Caesar's Messiah---which demonstrates it is a testimony to a Roman fraud

JH

Amaleq13

Assuming that Origen's copy has "prophet", I don't get any sense from his comments that it was used in a negative way. In addition, I would think a negative comment ever more likely to be mentioned by other Church Fathers castigating the Jews but we have none. In agreement with you, however, I question how likely it is that Josephus would have identified Jesus as a genuine prophet. That leaves a more neutral statement indicating Jesus identified himself as a prophet. From whom would Josephus have obtained such information? What source would tell Josephus that Jesus claimed to be a prophet and was unjustly killed but fail to inform Josephus about messianic claims (which would no doubt have negatively impacted Josephus' view) either by Jesus or his followers?

Also, if he identified him as someone who claimed to be a prophet, why would a subsequent Christian scribe edit such a comment out rather than modify it to be consistent with the existing TF?

I am still left with a strong suspicion that, at best, Origen had before him an early attempt to interpolate a reference to Jesus in Josephus that was subsequently replaced with the current TF.

I perversely enjoy such exercises, myself, despite being pretty well convinced that a definitive conclusion is unattainable.

That the "brother of Jesus called Christ" phrase is associated with the apparently lost passage where Josephus attributes the fall of Jerusalem to James' murder, IMO, makes it very difficult to accept that it can be relied upon as genuine when it is found elsewhere associated with the death of a guy named James but with the crucial context entirely absent.

Vivisector

Hi again, Amaleq. Good to see the wheels are still turning on this issue!

We might be close to agreement on this one. I think it most likely that Josephus would have referred to Jesus in the sense of:

" ... for he [Theudas] told them he was a prophet."

"Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet ..."

Or, more negatively,

"But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also ..."

"A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction ..."

"Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people ..."

Rather than the fairly straightforward:

"... and this ambiguity it was which caused the prophet's disorder. "

I'm with you on what Origen had to go on: Jesus identified as someone who said he was a prophet. I still think the Christians wouldn't have been happy with this characterization because of the company Jesus would have been in with regard to this description. (Josephus seems to have been remarkably practical in how he distinguished between "prophets" and self-proclaimed or "false" prophets!).

I'd have to borrow money to buy a clue on this one, but I really, really like the question, so I'll go way out on a limb here. One possibility is that Josephus didn't have any information that connected Jesus to the Christ. Perhaps all Josephus knew was that Jesus was someone claimed to be a prophet and was put to death, but that a group still existed who carried on in his tradition. As you well know, this depends on the Christ Cult remaining underneath Josephus's radar up to the time he wrote.

I might be misunderstanding your question here, but I think Josephus referred to Jesus as someone who claimed to be a prophet in a passage similar to one of the reconstructed versions of the TF, and this is what was available to Origen. I also think a later Christian scribe edited this wording along the lines of what's available now. To the Christian scribe, no way was Jesus a mere prophet, let alone someone who only claimed (as Theudas and the Egyptian) to be a prophet - he was the Christ!

You might be right, and I might be wrong. I'd just throw into the mix that Origen was an outstanding scholar and critical thinker who disagreed with the accepted location of Jesus's baptism, opting for Bethabara in preference to Bethany. In other words, I think it likely that Origen would have detected and rejected an obvious interpolation.

Me too; keeps the creative juices flowing, though I wonder if it makes me an intellectual masochist :worried:

I gotta say, I'm not sure what I think about this one just yet. I think I need to give this one a little more thought when I can steal more time. But thanks again for keeping it going!

Kryten

The passage in Josephus is well known to have been forged. The author of the forgery is thought by most scholars to have been the bishop Eusebius. The passage is in the style of Eusebius, not that of Josephus, and it is not really relevent to the rest of the passage. These facts were even well known in Voltaire's day. He wrote an essay about it. Only the utterly desperate or ignorant refer to this passage as authentic!

There is a ' Christus' mentioned in Tacitus.

Pliny mentions a 'Christ'. However, 'The Christ' was supposed to deliever freedom to the Jews according to the prophesy. It can be argued that any charlatan could lay claim to that title if he was preparing to deceive people.
It must also be remembered that the friendship between Pliny the younger and Tacitus took place many many years after the supposed death of the mythical figure, Jesus of Nazareth. This friendship is quite possibly the only reason Tacitus even knew of the supposed existence of a 'Christ'. Not to mention the fact that this "Christ" completely and utterly failed to deliever the Jews from oppression. If Jesus was the Christ, and He was a God, why did fail to fulfill the prophesy?
Add to this that no letter has come down to us from Pliny to Tacitus regarding a Jesus of Nazareth, and things are decidedly thin on the side of the Christians. After all, anyone familiar with the letter written by Pliny to Trajan knows it was an official document. I think that if Jesus Christ was as well known to Pliny as many would have us believe, why are there no other references with Pliny's letters. After all he would have more leisure and freedom to go into more details, personal views or not.Whether they be addressed to Attius, or Tacitus?

And should we even touch upon the fact that no Christian writer mentions Jesus until about 80 to 100 years after Jesus was supposed to have been executed? And that the Gospels also began around this time and were not completed until around 150 AD when the NT was finally compiled, from what is thought now to have been thousands of Gospels written during this period.
Add to this the fact that those who wrote the Gospels were, according to Gibbon, "illiterate and uneducated Jews ignorant of the correct use of Greek and Latin within the Empire" [Quote taken from Gibbon's memoirs from my memory. May not be exact, but that is the meaning. I read it long ago.]

Suetonius mentions a Chrestus. This name was also common at that time and in that place.

Basically we have nothing which indisputedly refers to Jesus Christ of Nazareth outside of these Gospels. Gospels known to have been written well after any eyewitnesses had passed on. There was even an article in Time magazine on this very subject around 12 months ago. There is no evidence that can prove conclusively that Jesus ever lived. He was just another myth that resembled the "Apollo" style of entry into and exit from the world. Like many other gods from antiquity. It is interesting to note that when any evidence no matter how thin-such as the recent controversy over the bone box- arrives, the believers hold it up as being indisputible proof of Jesus. I think this willingness to ignore facts and cling to myths and dreams shows quite clearly how desperate believers are to believe in something more in their lives and in the universe.

For those not in the know. Here is the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan.

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

{edited 3 times because of poor typing skills}

Amaleq13

Ah, but are turning wheels getting us anywhere besides mired deeper in the muck?

It would seem to me that the context (bad things Pilate had done to the Jews) requires a positive use of "prophet" but that leaves us baffled as to why a Christian scribe would remove such a reference. Mentioning that an "alleged" prophet was executed hardly seems appropriate to the context and mentioning the execution of a false prophet even less so.

If, on the other hand, we consider it all to have come from the "lost passage", then Origen had a copy of Josephus where, in a passage in which he attributes the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of James the Just, Jesus is identified as both a prophet and "called Christ". This entire passage is subsequently removed, apparently by a Christian scribe, but the phrase "brother of Jesus called Christ" reappears elsewhere in association with the death of a man named James but not in a context where it is identified as the reason for the fall of Jerusalem. In this scenario, of course, there isn't anything directly relevant to the TF except evidence of text-tampering.

Is it reasonable to assume that Josephus would have attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of James the Just? IIRC, Doherty points out that Josephus makes it pretty clear elsewhere that he attributes the fall to the rebellion movement started in 6ce.

Is it reasonable to assume that Josephus would have felt compelled to additionally describe James the Just as the brother of a lesser known and subsequently executed alleged prophet?

Once again, it would appear that the context requires a positive prophet reference and, once again, it makes no sense for a Christian scribe to remove such a statement.

I must admit that I did not come up with it on my own but I don't recall where I read it. It may have been Doherty or it may have been someone here. Either way somebody got my attention by asking about the source of Josephus' "reduced Testimonium".

The problem with this scenario is that both of our other early, non-Christian comments (Pliny and Tacitus) refer to "Christ" or "Christus" but not to "Jesus". They know about Christ and Christians but apparently not about Jesus. From what source would Josephus obtain the exact opposite information?

I agree that he probably would not have accepted the extant TF as genuine.