Toto

Hi Haran -

There are many atheists who believe that Jesus existed. There is even a group called Atheists for Jesus.

Durant was a populizer, not a professional historial, and he wrote at a time when the idea that Jesus was mythical was not popular. I do not think that he has any more technical expertise on the question of the existence of the historical Jesus than Earl Doherty. The passage that you quote sounds quite dated. Certainly there has been more progress in the the search for the historical Jesus since Albert Schweitzer wrote in 1906.

In particular I challenge the idea that the character of Jesus could not have been invented in one generation. Legends can develop quickly, and the character of Jesus fits the profile of the hero.

Edited to add: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis Macdonald contains an interesting thesis on the origin of Mark, which is that Mark based the character of Jesus on that of Odysseus. Even if you do not accept his entire thesis, it is clear that the ideal character of a suffering noble was well known and venerated in the first century when Mark was presumably writing. The legendary development of Jesus' remarkable personality was right there, and did not require any time at all to develop.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Toto

Hi Vinnie - I seem to have provoked a fit of anger there!

Why do you call him "Joshy"?

I went back and read what Lowder wrote. I decided he probably is supporting the historians who think that there was a reference to a historical Jesus, although he is not very definitive about it. But I still think you took the quote out of context - the context being that there are lots of difficulties with the text that McDowell inexcusably ignores. When you quote that one sentence, you are overstating your case.

Haran

This is certainly unfair. Have you read his erudite works and paid attention to the scholarly footnotes? Did you read the website devoted to him above? I have read both and he was definitely not a "popularizer".

From the website I linked to above:

"But in 1929 he turned his back on Mammon and resolved that he would devote the remainder of his life to The Story of Civilization. He used the word "story" to suggest his belief that the narrative would be intelligible to any high school graduate, but the word has misled many into thinking of this monumental production as popularization. Those who wade into the volumes are surprised to find them marked by painstaking scholarship, by profuse detail, and by the philosophical perspective that recalls Spengler's wish that only philosophers would write history."

I believe this to be quite unfair as well. Durant had a doctorate in Philosophy (which is more than one can say for Doherty as far as anyone seems to know), and he spent the better part of his life devoted to studying history and writing his "Story of Civilization". He seems to have had much more time to learn and understand things than has Earl Doherty. Durant went directly to the source texts and to the best scholars. I think he was much more qualified than Doherty, even if I don't agree with all his conclusions.

Schweitzer is still mentioned in scholarly works today. Durant's work on Caesar and Christ is mid-20th-century, but still very useful, especially to those just beginning their "search". Fifty years is not necessarily old in terms of scholarly research. For instance, scholars of textual criticism regularly refer to books of the 19th century (and before) in their research (e.g. Tichendorf and VonSoden).

I, like many others, doubt that something this complex could have developed so quickly. As a matter of fact, it must have grown quite fast indeed (as Durant notes) if it drew notice in an early official decree!

I don't know of many good scholars that take MacDonald's work seriously. The idea that Jews, who had such a hard time putting aside their biases against the Gentiles, would use Homer to create a mythical hero for themselves is ludicrous to me (after all, the Jews felt that the Greeks had borrowed much from their own civilization and writings). Had the Jews "created" any such story, which I find highly doubtful anyway, it would have been rooted in Jewish works.

P.S. - Thanks for the link to the Atheists for Jesus website. I found it interesting and strangely semi-pleasing.

Haran

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Clutch

The paucity of non-Christian documentation of Jesus' existence is a real problem, which Alexis hopes to gloss. BUT... that's no excuse for not actually reading the sources before twitting Alexis' view of them.

Eusebius does not write that Jesus sent a letter from heaven, if that's what you're suggesting. He relates a story -- and relates it *as* a story, holding it clearly if slightly at arm's length -- according to which a king sent a letter to Jesus during his lifetime, asking to be healed. For reasons left obscure, Jesus did not simply heal the guy long-distance; and then events took over and Jesus got killed. Then, in one of his post-crucifixion appearances, he charged Thomas with travelling to see the king and healing him. And Thomas did, and everyone converted to Christianity and lived happily ever after. Now, you might say that Eusebius' judging this worthy of serious reflection indicates his credulity and superstition. I think so. But Eusebius is an early Christian; he believes in miracles; he is credulous. Nothing in the story as written in Eusebius indicates dishonesty.

It might be more relevant to point out Eusebius' complicity in publicizing Helena's risible "discoveries" of holy sites and relics, but even this smacks more of the holy fool than the master deceiver.

In any case, am I missing something about the disputed passages in Josephus? I thought that the most warranted idea is that the original contained some mention of Jesus and/or Christians, but with a neutral or perhaps even insulting spin. So, doesn't that count as modest but non-trivial evidence in favour of a historical Jesus?

Toto

That is the thin straw that many grasp to show that there was a historical Jesus. The reference to "James the brother of Christ Jesus" is usually considered a more reliable reference to Jesus, because there is no evidence of that passage having been blatantly tampered. The only argument against this is the idea that James was the head of a brotherhood, and was known as the "Brother of the Lord" - but this is speculative, if plausible.

The idea that the Testimonium reference might have been derogatory is explored here. This is how Robert Eisler thinks the passage might have read:

If such a text existed, there would have been a clear motive for a Christian copying to rewrite it. But it is pure speculation.

However - if this or something similar had been the passage, why would you identify this person with the Jesus who was the basis of Christianity? Jesus (or Joshua) was actually a common name, especially among rebel leaders. This passage may have originally been about the crucifixion of a totally unrelated Jesus, that was later altered by a copyist to be about the Christian idea of Jesus.

If you think there is other evidence that positively indicates that there was no Jesus in the 1st century who started Christianity, you can argue against both of these passages. If you think that the existence of Christianity means that there probably was some sort of person named Jesus who started it, these passages probably look like confirmation.

Given the problems with the evidence, the safest position is to remain agnostic about the actual existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Haran

Toto! You just got on to me because you thought I was using a source that was "quite dated" and you turn around and quote a book from 1929!

How about a more recent rendering of the Josephus passage from John P. Meier's 1991 A Marginal Jew:

In his footnotes, he goes into an interesting study of the Greek words found in the Testimonium and comes to the conclusion that what remains upon removing the obvious interpolations is likely by Josephus: The upshot of all this is that, apart from Christianon, not one word of what I identify as the original text of the Testimonium fails to occur elsewhere in Josephus, usually with the same meaning and/or construction."

Meier also provides some interesting things to think about for someone who wants to deny some authenticity:

Of course, Meier writes much more on the subject. His persuasive scholarship is hard to ignore...

Haran

Toto

Well, if you want a more recent authority, you must turn to Steve Mason's Josephus and the New Testament, p.174:

"Once it is granted that the standard text is corrupt, a wide variety of hypothetical reconstructions must remain equally plausible.

What then is the value of the testimonium flavianum for the reader of the NT? Limited. Paradoxically, the intense effort to reconstruct the 'original' reading, in order to make it historically useful, itself diminishes the value of the passage, for each new reading has to share plausibility, so to speak, with all other proposals on the table. . . It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activities, or the circumstances of his trial."

Peter Kirby

Just a few comments as I wander through... okay, lots of comments.

My "Early Christian Writings" web site is back up. I got fed up with the downtime and found a new hosting service. The tech at the new company claims over 99% uptime. Hopefully I won't have to switch servers again... but if I have to, I will!

Here is the web site:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Here is my page on Josephus with links to dozens of treatments of the Testimonium:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

Here is my page on the supposed references to Jesus:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

RyanS2 writes: "I haven't been able to get Kirby's site in a while either. I wanted to compare his arguments for it versus Doherty's arguments against it."

Now that my site is back up, you can see for yourself that I don't present just arguments for the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. I present arguments for the Testimonium, arguments against the Testimonium, argument for the 20.9.1 reference, and arguments against the 20.9.1 reference. I even present some arguments against the authenticity of these passages that Earl does not (the latest revision of my "Testimonium" essay was written after Earl's article and after Earl's book). My aim has been to collect all these arguments to present the reader with all the information available to make a decision or decide that it is unresolved. And, if you like, you can check out the "Works Cited," perhaps on interlibrary loan from your city or college library.

Now, let me turn to the original questions of Brian63. I don't think that they have been answered fully, as people have rushed into the usual discussions of the authenticity of the Testimonium and even the historicity of Jesus.

Brian63 writes: "Somewhere I read (probably in the II library) that it is precisely because it shows up in the texts used by Eusebius (and no earlier texts) that its authenticity is in doubt, because he had started a 'lying for Christ' campaign among 4th century Christians."

I hope that we can agree that it is a bit of a stretch to take any words from Eusebius as indicative of instigating a widespread campaign encouraging others in his century to 'lie for Christ'. At best, we might reach the conclusion of one of these two commentators on Eusebius:

"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion." Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, chapter 16.

"How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived." Title of the Thirty-second Chapter of the Twelfth Book of the Evangelical Preparation, translator unknown to me.

However, not everyone agrees that these interpretations of Eusebius are correct. They are not the direct quotes that some have wrongly assumed them to be.

Although not necessarily endorsing his conclusions, some data can be found at this site, which has been noticed but bears repeating:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/index.htm

Since there has already been some discussion on the actual texts of Eusebius involved, I will move on to your question.

Brian63 writes: "Do you know when it was discovered that Eusebius admittedly would lie for Christianity (i.e. was it centuries ago or merely in the last couple decades)?"

If there was an actual discovery, it took place in the 18th century or earlier, as Gibbon died in 1794, and the title of the passage in question was quoted by Gibbon.

"Is the debate pretty much settled among scholars that the passage was a later addition by Christians, or is it still going back and forth today? If it is settled already, was it settled before the 1970's?"

In brief, the history of the reception of this passage is as follows:

In the 4th century through medeival times and early modernity, the passage was celebrated as the "testimony" from one of the Jews that Jesus had in fact been the Christ. It's a good question why they didn't realize that a Jew would not have said Jesus was the Christ. Perhaps something along the lines that the demons believe as well?

In the 19th century and early 20th century, it was very widely accepted by critical scholars that the Testimonium Flavianum was a later addition (in its entirety). An example of this school of thought can be found in the work of Nathaniel Lardner, who wrote in 1838. But there were pietists who defended its authenticity, some on the premise that Josephus converted to a form of Christianity (such as our Internet translator William Whiston), others with the idea that Josephus meant his statements ironically.

In the mid 20th century, R. Eisler made the suggestion that a Christian scribe worked over an original text that was hostile to Jesus. An outline of Eisler's suggestion can be found here:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topi.../josephus.html

Eisler was also the one to suggest that portions of the Slavonic Josephus were authentic. Surprisingly, Lynn Winters makes the same suggestion without reference to Eisler and mentioning only R. Joseph Hoffman.

In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on an Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum in Agapius' Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning until 941/942 A.D. While some such as Charlesworth have made much of this discovery, others such as Meier have mostly left it alone in their reconstruction of an authentic Testimonium.

Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in _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.

In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. The same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. All of these books can be found in the "Works Cited" of my online essay for you to read.

Now for the question that may interest you -- does McDowell in ETDAV show himself to be cognizant of the state of scholarship on the Testimonium? The answer is no, and the reason is that a fair treatment of the Testimonium would not fit the hit-and-run quotation method of apologetics in ETDAV (and, of course, maybe that McDowell doesn't know how to do the scholarship thing very well). A relatively better treatment of the testimonium can be found in _He Walked Among Us_, co-authored (ghost writed?) with Bill Wilson. A critique of McDowell in both ETDAV and HWAU can be found in Lowder's essay here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#josephus

This is part of the _The Jury is In_ project that you will want to read, if you are bothering to read McDowell.

As an aside, Kosh wrote: "Of course, since the earliest example we have of it is from the 4th century, and Rome adopted Christianity in the early 4th century, then there was plenty of time for the text to have been inserted when it would NOT have displeased the Romans." Although it's not a very good argument, McDowell's quote from Green is misunderstood. Green is not arguing for the authenticity of the passage here. Green is assuming the authenticity of the entire passage (a bad assumption) and arguing that Josephus would not have written it if Josephus hadn't known it to be true (not necessarily a great argument, but misunderstood nonetheless).

askeptic wrote: "Eusebius may have had the text in the 4th century, but in the oldest text by Josephus they have, that passage doesn't match the handwriting of the rest of his works, or so I've read in the past." The oldest texts of Josephus that are available date from the 9th century. A supposed difference in handwriting would mean more if it came before the quotations by Eusebius and Jerome. But I do not believe there is any difference in handwriting in the medeival manuscripts, or else it would be mentioned by some scholarly study that I have read. I think that this is a variation on the myth that we possess an early copy of Josephus without the Testimonium. In fact, all our Greek manuscripts of Josephus are late, and they all contain the Testimonium.

spin wrote: "Date the texts please." Anybody that's anybody knows that nobody goes out with those NEW Testament texts. Ewww.

ilgwamh wrote, referring to Lowder's mention of an argument that the presence of interpolations puts a heavy burden of proof on proponents of a reconstructed Testimonium: "That does not substantiate what you wrote. It does not state Lowder is open on whether the TF is independent confirmation. Letting the reader decide does not mean Lowder has not decided for himself. After this quote comes his conclusion. After surveying the material and evidence Lowder presents a conclusion."

A little history concerning Lowder's article might be helpful. Lowder wrote the conclusion during an early draft of the article. Lowder mentioned this particular objection only in the most recent draft of the article. This means that Lowder's level of confidence in the Testimonium may have decreased after considering this objection. Of course, the best way to settle this dispute is to e-mail jlowder@infidels.org.

For those of us who do not have easy access to Mason's book, here is the rest of the quotation (_Josephus and the New Testament_, pp. 174-175):

"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healings and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Jospehus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings."

Note that I am not citing Mason as an authority but just completing the quote.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Excellent and fair survery, Peter. Thanks.

Haran

Toto

Thanks Peter, and thanks for getting your website back up.

Mason seems to just accept that there probably was a Jesus, just because it's the easiest way to explain how Christianity started. He doesn't seem to have addressed the arguments that Doherty or Robert Price make that cast doubt on the idea.