tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post5473491033531732120..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus (Guest Post) - OlsonAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-42138060910149489432014-11-18T09:41:43.749-08:002014-11-18T09:41:43.749-08:00Has anybody ever paid much attention to the text b...Has anybody ever paid much attention to the text before and after the Testimonium and noticed that it is modeled on a text of Tacitus, Annals 13.43-44? Notice the dynamics of the story in 44 and the mention of the name "Saturninus" just previously in 43. It's like somebody was making stuff up and had Tacitus open before them and were inspired to use that name and particular tale just before the "Oh, the Jews were kicked out of Rome" routine. <br /><br />While I'm at it, has anybody else ever noticed how many events of Josephus' life are like stage-sets for gospel stories? How he ends his auto-bio with the bit about three friends on crosses that were taken down, two died and one lived? <br /><br />Also, Josephus seems to be projecting in his accusations against Justus of Tiberius using rhetorical techniques to take over people's minds; Josephus sure did it. <br /><br />Has anybody ever compared the Greek of the oldest versions of Mark to the Greek of "Antiquities" (which was more "rustic" than "Jewish War")? Josephus was known to use Homeric inspiration and MacDonald's book on the influence of Homer found in the NT is a slam-dunk IMO. Maybe Josephus was involved in that? <br /><br />Finally, if you read Syme's two-volumes on Tacitus, and then compare Dio Cassius and Pliny to Tacitus, you can only conclude that the story of Nero blaming Christians for the fire and initiating a persecution was an interpolation that was "set up" to be supported by Suetonius mention of Jews being kicked out during the reign of Tiberius. <br /><br />Well, that's just my two cents. <br />Laura Knight Jadczykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426976468591487213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-25121090910148960132014-03-26T11:11:20.156-07:002014-03-26T11:11:20.156-07:00A historian, Josephus, includes the Testimonium Fl...A historian, Josephus, includes the Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus who lived in Galilee would have had access to adults who lived in Galilee from 30-33 Common Era when the biblical Jesus is ministering. Josephus' account is important. Second, Josephus would also be aware of the oral tradition about the biblical Jesus after his death.<br /><br />What's more important than Josephus using Luke as a source (Richard Carrier) but Josephus using as sources the actual events as reported by witnesses in Galilee and oral traditions (after he left Galilee) about Jesus' life before, at, and after crucifixion. Now, if Luke didn't write these accounts down until more than 30 years later, Luke is not as important a historical source as the historian who spent time in both Galilee and Jerusalem. Josephus says he was condemned to the cross but appeared to those who loved him. <br /><br />Jesus is known to have been a great healer. The Talmud claims he went to Egypt to learn magical healing. <br /><br />Josephus does not say he appeared to his enemies. Jesus did not present himself to the priests. Is this line of the TF plausible? Yes, it is. The dead are alive and they communicate with us. Yes, there is a book by that name. The dead have been recorded, photographed, reincarnated, and they make birds move so mourners can see hope in a bird. They make us sense them (the departed).<br /><br />I have what I believe is a reasonable doubt that Ken Olson is correct.<br /><br />Peter Schafer in his book, Jesus in the Talmud, says given the references to Jesus in his book. These references do not establish Jesus as a historical person. I have reasonable doubts about that, but going further, when a Schafer leaves out two important references to Jesus, readers' reasonable doubts increase, and the TF seems more legit than without considering one of the two references.<br /><br />Schafer misleads people into thinking he's covered all the references to Jesus in the Talmud, but he fails to mention Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 105a. This should have been added to his coverage of Jesus and Ancient Egyptian magic/sorcery. Ancient Egyptian creation myths are related to Sanhedrin 105a. Here, Balaam is Jesus because after reading Numbers chapters 22-24, it would not be the Balaam of the Torah who was practicing Egyptian sorcery but Jesus.<br /><br />An Egyptological perspective factors into an accurate concept of Jesus. One book that covers this subject is Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus: The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy: The Hebrew and Christian Bibles, The Koran, and The Book of Mormon. This book of personal essays is authored by me. My pen is Steefen.<br /><br />The Talmud also provides:<br /><br />Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said: Woe unto "him who makes himself alive by the name of god."<br />Rabbi Johanan (ben Zakkai) replied: Woe to the nation that attempting to hinder the Holy One when he accomplishes the redemption of his children: who would throw his garment between a lion and a lioness when these are copulating?<br />- Talmud IV Sanhedrin 106a<br /><br />Rabbi Lakish is referring to resurrection when it is written "makes himself alive." <br />Lion is a reference to Judah and the God of Judah. The God of Judah tried to redeem his people via Jesus, the Redeemer. He was rejected. Who is the lioness. We look to the story of the Redeemer in the New Testament; and, that person is Jesus' mother, who was impregnated by God.<br /><br />Rabbi Zakkai was a contemporary of Josephus. Vespasian gave Rabbi Zakkai Yavne University; and, Rabbi Zakkai proclaims the Christian story. Josephus, also a rabbi, is given plains outside of Jerusalem as well; and Josephus gives us the TF.<br /><br />A university founder and president testifies support for the Christian story and so does a historian. We have a set of witnesses. I reasonably doubt one piece of the set can be discredited as unauthentic.<br /><br />Thank you.<br />Stephen Campbell<br />Pen Name: Steefen<br />StephenCampbellhttp://www.waterbearingfish.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-26008277813664952192013-08-26T12:36:51.311-07:002013-08-26T12:36:51.311-07:00Could you address the second reference to Jesus in...Could you address the second reference to Jesus in Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1? Do you also consider that a Eusebian interpolation?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16914985126761335721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-14743221134399361022013-08-17T08:44:53.303-07:002013-08-17T08:44:53.303-07:00You're assuming that we have copies of Josephu...You're assuming that we have copies of Josephus that do not come from Origen's library in Caesarea.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-3985815111277205452013-08-15T06:31:04.148-07:002013-08-15T06:31:04.148-07:00Excellent piece of work, Ken.Excellent piece of work, Ken.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-43126117099867846012013-08-14T15:22:01.783-07:002013-08-14T15:22:01.783-07:00Thank you for your prompt and kind reply! I'v...Thank you for your prompt and kind reply! I've read the article on google books, and your last quote in my opinion refers to previous Feldman's evaluation of the evidence while weighting pros and cons. What it counts its his conclusion, which is a bit unclear . In any case your argument is valid and well presented, although (in my opinion) not conclusive and not (yet) accepted by the majority of scholars, who still seem to prefer Meier's approach. I'd like to see responses to your article, please keep us informed !! Thank you, LorenzoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-6158728231728391562013-08-14T12:38:47.022-07:002013-08-14T12:38:47.022-07:00Good question. The short answer is I'm not cer...Good question. The short answer is I'm not certain, which is why I used the term “extant text.” Feldman may mean that Eusebius interpolated the Testimonium into the Antiquities. On page 27 he writes: “it must have greatly disturbed him [Eusebius] that no one before him, among so many Christian writers, had formulated even a thumbnail sketch of the life and achievements of Jesus. Consequently, he may have been motivated to originate the Testimonium,” which sounds to me at least like he’s talking about complete interpolation, but whether this is what he meant or how strong a possibility or likelihood he wants to make it I can’t say. I tried emailing Dr. Feldman on this point a while back but never got a reply. I don’t know if he ever got my question. I would, of course, encourage those curious about what Dr. Feldman wrote to read the paper themselves.<br /><br />-- Ken Olson (not actually anonymous)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-1736545747878984322013-08-14T11:18:43.936-07:002013-08-14T11:18:43.936-07:00I think I need a clarification. Olson states: &quo...I think I need a clarification. Olson states: "In his 2012 review article on the Testimonium, Feldman comes to the conclusion that Eusebius is likely to be the author of the extant text". <br />Then he quotes Feldman: "Eusebius [..] may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum".<br />It seems to me that "interpolation" is different than "authorship" or "fabrication", cause it presupposes an existing text to manipulate..<br /><br />Thank you, regards.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-16345462359063886442013-08-13T19:24:09.736-07:002013-08-13T19:24:09.736-07:00My mistake on that. =)My mistake on that. =)Tom Verennahttp://tomverenna.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-3558468415249359212013-08-13T17:59:53.899-07:002013-08-13T17:59:53.899-07:00I must correct Tom Verenna (first comment above). ...I must correct Tom Verenna (first comment above). <br /><br />My article (Richard Carrier, "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the <i>Journal of Early Christian Studies</i> 20.4 [Winter 2012]: 489-514) demonstrates that the James passage (in book 20) has suffered an accidental interpolation (it was originally about James the son of Damneus, not James the brother of Christ), not that the TF did (which is in book 18). <br /><br />I do remark in that article some reasons for rejecting the TF as an intentional interpolation, however (including an argument against Whealey's attempt to defend it that complements Olson's). So Olson's findings of late corroborate mine.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-72097872521572392562013-08-13T17:55:17.218-07:002013-08-13T17:55:17.218-07:00I suspect your conclusion is compatible with the f...I suspect your conclusion is compatible with the finding of G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the <i>Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha</i> (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77, which shows the TF was cribbed from Luke's Emmaus narrative (twenty points of similarity, only one of which is out of parallel order). I think that combined with your evidence of Eusebian authorship pretty much does in any attempt to retain authenticity for the TF (even besides all the other reasons to doubt it).Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-9989516181862469772013-08-13T15:42:04.670-07:002013-08-13T15:42:04.670-07:00Just to fill out this discussion, it ought to be s...Just to fill out this discussion, it ought to be said that Meier's reconstruction gets the most play. We might also consider the reconstrution of Graham Stanton:<br /><br />"Jesus was a doer of strange deeds, and a deluder of the simple-minded. He led astray many Jews and Greeks."<br /><br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-5348050544657207482013-08-13T15:24:31.091-07:002013-08-13T15:24:31.091-07:00Ken, this is a terrific post. I sit at your feet.
...Ken, this is a terrific post. I sit at your feet.<br /><br />Let me clarify my criticism of Aslan. I have no problem with Aslan concluding that Josephus did not write the Testimonium Flavianum. As I tried to indicate, this is a respectable opinion (as you've made clear). I don't even object to Aslan stating his opinion without offering up a reasoned defense. Aslan's book covers a lot of ground in a short time, and he could not be expected to pause to defend every opinion he stated.<br /><br />My objection to Aslan is that he states his undefended opinions not just as facts, but as generally accepted facts. There are some reputable scholars out there who think that Josephus wrote part of the Testimonium Flavianum (or am I wrong, and has the scholarly opinion turned against the Testimonium in recent years?). You wouldn't know this from Aslan. When Aslan writes that "scholarly attempts to cull through the passage for some sliver of information have proven futile", readers might think that the scholars who have done the culling had themselves concluded that the effort was futile. Or that the scholarly culling effort has been universally panned. <br /><br />I could paraphrase Aslan's language to describe alchemy: "attempts to turn lead into gold have proven futile." Or: "attempts to generate 'cold' nuclear fusion at room temperature have proven futile." <br /><br />I think when Aslan says "proven futile", he's saying something more than that HE considers these efforts futile. "Proven futile" is a strong statement, and I just can't read an implied "in my humble opinion" into that statement. If I'm overreacting, I think it's a forgivable overreaction, given the amount of hyperbole in Aslan's book.<br /><br />In any event, my reaction prompted your guest post, and I'm happy for that.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-53737259384676844652013-08-13T15:14:39.990-07:002013-08-13T15:14:39.990-07:00Ken, thanks for this interesting post! I confess m...Ken, thanks for this interesting post! I confess my guilt in being one of the people who have simply repeated scholarly consensus in publication! You've given us much to ponder. All that oversight is good for your PhD, though!Chris Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12007521996155910288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-87476790666366271232013-08-13T12:05:53.100-07:002013-08-13T12:05:53.100-07:00I confess that I've taken for granted that it ...I confess that I've taken for granted that it seems to be the consensus that there is an authentic core of this saying that goes back to Josephus himself, but this post has made me question that assumption.Brian LePorthttp://www.nearemmaus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-41293272473483442492013-08-13T11:16:28.535-07:002013-08-13T11:16:28.535-07:00The question is whether a Christian in the 1st or ...The question is whether a Christian in the 1st or 2nd century would have used this language. The fact that Eusebius used similar phrases in the 4th century does not mean he authored them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12850768439272172402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-31886683189537580092013-08-13T10:12:52.750-07:002013-08-13T10:12:52.750-07:00More recently, Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidenta...More recently, Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (Winter 2012): 489-514; Carrier takes the whole TF to task and argues, convincingly in my opinion, that it is an accidental scribal interpolation (not purposeful, as some would argue)--something that commonly occurred in antiquity. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com