Author Seeking Input on Article: Josephus' Account

[Meh_Gerbil]

Greetings:

Rameus, a dear and intimate friend of mine, has managed to piece together a very fine rebuttle to the Testimonium Flavianum. I asked his permission to post it here because he's had a devil of a time getting good analysis of his arguments elsewhere. Rameus is an atheist thinker who loves his work in archeology and the study of ancient peoples. His self professed goal in life is to bring about an end to the Christian faith through any non-violent means necessary.

********************************************************

-A. Rameus on the Testimonium Flavianum-

The brief account of Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is at best a highly interpolated account, and at worst an absolute forgery. Many scholars today, Christian and otherwise formally support the veracity of this assertion. Indeed for many centuries, this was the prevailing view among the academic community. It was not until the discovery of a 10th century Arabic Christian version of the Josephus account that the fires of debate were rekindled, so to speak.

To many of us in the academic community, the Arabic manuscript does little to further the thesis that there was an original, authentic reference to the crucifixion of Christ made by Josephus. Should it be any surprise that the European Christian manuscripts use more distinctively Christian language than the Arabic version that is now extant? Christian apologists believe this difference in tone implies that the Arabic copy is much closer to the original work penned by Josephus in the 1st century. By theorizing that the Arabic version is the more original, they are able to shed many of the problems in the Josephus account like so many layers of snake skin. Not least of which is the tone of the Arabic account, which doesn’t contain the extreme Christian language of the Greek and Latin copies. Why would a pious Jew, a Pharisee even, refer to Jesus as the Christ and his movement as the truth? He wouldn’t, which is one of the main reasons why the academic majority has long considered the Josephus account to be a forgery. But with the discovery of the Arabic manuscript, the fundamentalists have decided to jam their toe back in the door, and reopen the discussion. They now propose that the Arabic account is the least mangled of all the copies, and that they all draw from a common, authentic source. This cute little thesis of theirs does little more than appeal to their favorite line of final defense: “It’s possible, and you can’t prove otherwise!” However as I intend to show, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Arabic, Greek, and Latin copies of this text didn’t all come from the same forged manuscript(s) that Bishop Eusebius used (or produced) in the 4th century.

Josephus wrote Antiquities circa 90 C.E., approximately 50-60 years after the (alleged) death of Jesus Christ.

His (alleged) account reads:

QUOTE "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”
[Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter III:63-64]

As I have already stated, the original manuscripts of Josephus do not exist. More importantly, we do not have a single extant copy that was not written by Christian scribes many centuries later. The importance of this point should not be underestimated. If the history of Christian Europe shows us anything it is that the Christian church was willing to do just about anything to promote the prosperity and growth of their religion. People were murdered, books were burned, temples were sacked, and manuscripts were forged. These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable. What does this mean? First, it means that the Christians had ample opportunity to commit the forgery; all of the existing copies of Josephus were written by Christian scribes. Second, it means that the Christian church had a very clear motive to commit such forgery; the movement lacked a solid foundation in the historical record that could be used to rebut arguments presented against it by the many detractors of the day. Forging an account and attributing it to Josephus, the major Jewish historian for that time period, would lend enough credibility to the historicity of Jesus Christ to transform Christianity from a movement into a full blown religious phenomenon. Last and perhaps most important, the historical record shows us that the Christians were engaged in forgery and the suppression of rival literature during this time period. So it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that they might very well have utilized these same tactics to create the now famous Testimonium Flavianum. Motive, opportunity, and a prior record; now all we need is to find Christian fingerprints on the Testimonium Flavianum.

A cursory analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum is now in order. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin. But after reading the Testimonium Flavianum, one can hardly imagine Josephus to have been a Jew. He quite unequivocally refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense. The language is entirely Christian; the most fitting explanation is that the account was written or interpolated by a Christian.

Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it. Josephus was dealing with problems regarding the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the catastrophes that had befallen the Jews because of it. From a Jewish perspective the death of Christ was not a catastrophe, indeed if you believe the gospel accounts they saw him as a blasphemer of the lord and as such justly put to death according to the laws set forth by God in the Torah. However, if you are a Christian trying to insert this forged passage into Josephus' work many centuries later you would probably consider the death of Christ a Jewish catastrophe. In this context the passage again appears to be written not by a Jew but by a Christian.

The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime. He wrote the book Contra Celsum circa 225 C.E. and multiple apologies, quoting very heavily from the works of Josephus, including a very short passage in Book XX of the Antiquities:


QUOTE “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…”
[Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200]

Why would Origin, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum? What’s even more compelling is that Origin expressly stated that Josephus never accepted Jesus as the Christ. But very clearly in the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus (allegedly) proclaims Jesus to be the Christ. It doesn’t take a PhD in astrophysics to deduce that Origin (and all of the other Christian apologists) had never seen this Testimonium Flavianum that was allegedly written by Josephus. But Origin was extremely familiar with the works of Josephus, quoting from several books of the Antiquities. How could Origin and the other early Christian apologists be entirely ignorant of the most important historical reference to Jesus Christ ever recorded, especially when they were quite familiar with the author and the very work that it was supposedly recorded in?

The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of "pious fraud". The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said:


QUOTE "This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."


It is extremely important to recall that the original manuscripts of the Josephus account do not exist. This is a critical point to consider because there was rampant forgery perpetrated by some of the original church fathers and later by the Catholic Church during the period. The Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits this today; they refer to it as "pious fraud".

To demonstrate this I will provide an example with a quote from the early Church father, Bishop of Corinth Dionysius (as recorded by Eusebius in the 4th century):


QUOTE "When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others...Small wonder that some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts."


Let us conclude with a brief summary of my analysis:

1. Opportunity: We have determined that the Christians had ample opportunity to forge the Testimonium Flavianum. All of the surviving copies were written by Christian scribes, and more importantly the first person to produce the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop Eusebius 300 years after it was [allegedly] written by Josephus.

2. Motive: We have demonstrated that the early Christians had a very clear motive for perpetrating this forgery. Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ was one of the critical elements they needed to expand their small cult into a widespread religion; and historical evidence was the one element they lacked. The writings of the early Christian apologists and even those of the New Testament clearly demonstrate this dilemma that confronted the early Christian church. These texts borderline on an obsession that worshippers should believe that Jesus Christ existed, that he was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins on the cross under Pontius Pilate. The Testimonium Flavianum addresses all three of these concerns.

3. Prior Record: There is a serious paradigm of forgery and suppression of rival literature perpetrated by the Christian church. In a more thorough study I would exhaustively demonstrate this paradigm; but in this limited discussion I have chosen to do little more than touch upon it. Readers should feel free to engage in further research for themselves.

4. Fingerprints: As has been demonstrated, the language, context, and style of the Testimonium Flavianum are entirely Christian. It is highly unlikely that a Jewish Pharisee like Josephus, would use such language when describing Jesus.

5. Circumstantial Evidence: The Testimonium Flavianum apparently fell out of the sky and into Bishop Eusebius’ lap in the 4th century, as no previous author, Christian or otherwise made any reference to it. Strangely enough, the Testimonium Flavianum was widely quoted after Eusebius made reference to it. Interesting how the Christians chose to ignore it before we have proof that it existed, but then quoted it frequently immediately after the evidence suggests that it might have been forged.

Taken individually, none of these points prove that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery. However, when taken together they do paint a compelling case for such a forgery to have taken place. Ask yourself this question:

If the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, why is there so much evidence suggesting that the passage was forged entirely, or at least heavily interpolated?

A. Rameus

[Meh_Gerbil]

My apologies to the author; the name should have shown as Rameus A.

[technomage]

Hi, MG,

Is Rameus A looking for general "nuts and bolts" grading (grammar, rhetoric, etc) or a full-blown logic critique. At first blush the logic looks good ... but of course the full treatment would take a few hours, at least. I think it's a bit weak rhetorically, but that may just be differences in style.

However, what gets me is that all but the most desperate of apologists have all but abandoned the "strong" defense of the TF. Most hold the "weak" position (that there is a genuine core but it's been interpolated), as Rameus A notes, but even some of those say "It's contaminated, and therefore is inconclusive."

Justin

[GakuseiDon]

-A. Rameus on the Testimonium Flavianum-

First, it means that the Christians had ample opportunity to commit the forgery; all of the existing copies of Josephus were written by Christian scribes.

Granted

Second, it means that the Christian church had a very clear motive to commit such forgery; the movement lacked a solid foundation in the historical record that could be used to rebut arguments presented against it by the many detractors of the day. Forging an account and attributing it to Josephus, the major Jewish historian for that time period, would lend enough credibility to the historicity of Jesus Christ to transform Christianity from a movement into a full blown religious phenomenon.

That's a ridiculous statement. Is Rameus saying that the TF was able to transform Christianity like that, at such a late date? So, how did Christianity survive the previous 300 years, I wonder, without the TF to back it up? Starting to go into snoze mode...

Last and perhaps most important, the historical record shows us that the Christians were engaged in forgery and the suppression of rival literature during this time period. So it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that they might very well have utilized these same tactics to create the now famous Testimonium Flavianum.

Kind of covered in his first point, I'd have thought.

A cursory analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum is now in order. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin.

3rd century. And didn't Rameus start by saying the passage could only have been interpolated in part anyway?

But after reading the Testimonium Flavianum, one can hardly imagine Josephus to have been a Jew. He quite unequivocally refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense.

Partial interpolation... zzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it.

Old complaint, dealt with by Lowder:

Even if the passage were out of context, that would still not make it likely that the passage is an interpolation. It was common for ancient writers to insert extraneous texts or passages which seemingly interrupt the flow of the narrative (whereas today the material would be placed in a footnote

The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime.

Why? Where is the origen of that statement?

Why would Origin, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum?

Origen was desperate to do WHAT??? Partial interpolation... zzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

How could Origin and the other early Christian apologists be entirely ignorant of the most important historical reference to Jesus Christ ever recorded, especially when they were quite familiar with the author and the very work that it was supposedly recorded in?

Maybe they didn't realise that Jesus's historicity wasn't going to be questioned 1600 years later? Partial interpolation... zzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of "pious fraud".

Only some academics? So, the majority don't think this?

Taken individually, none of these points prove that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery. However, when taken together they do paint a compelling case for such a forgery to have taken place. Ask yourself this question:

If the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, why is there so much evidence suggesting that the passage was forged entirely, or at least heavily interpolated?

Maybe only parts of the TF are genuine... which is where Rameus came in. Even if it is a highly interpolated account, it still probably contains a reference to a historical Jesus. I don't see who showing a partially interpolated passage helps him, and he certainly hasn't shown it to be a complete forgery. His heart is in the right place, but gee, there are some outrageous unsubstantiated statements there.

[Jayrok]

I enjoyed the article and I've read all the material refuting the genuineness of Josephus' paragraph.

I do have one question for skeptics, especially the mythicists (John Powell, et al):

What are your comments about the discovery of Shlomo Pines? He discovered script that was written in the 10th century.. a translation of Josephus' Test Flav that he claims was not interpolated by the early church.

Here's one article discussing this:

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

[shunyadragon]

I enjoyed the article and I've read all the material refuting the genuineness of Josephus' paragraph.

I do have one question for skeptics, especially the mythicists (John Powell, et al):

What are your comments about the discovery of Shlomo Pines? He discovered script that was written in the 10th century.. a translation of Josephus' Test Flav that he claims was not interpolated by the early church.

Here's one article discussing this:

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

The tenth century is a little late to be relavent to any evidence demonstrating any validity to Test Flav.

[technomage]

Ehh ... not necessarily. It depends on how old the source document cited in the Arabic document was. Unfortunately, the source doc has not survived. I personally am not convinced by Pine's arguments, but it does make for some interesting conjecture, and he does bring up some very good questions.

Justin

[jpholding]

Ho boy. I've seen this egomaniac on ex-Christian.net playing footsie games. I can't resist...

Many scholars today, Christian and otherwise formally support the veracity of this assertion.

Baloney. NO scholars today with credentials in the field, and no Josephan scholars at all, say it is "highly interpolated". Partial yes, as GDon has noted repeatedly. (I'll try not to repeat his comments.) He's reading outdated material from the 1800s.

It was not until the discovery of a 10th century Arabic Christian version of the Josephus account that the fires of debate were rekindled, so to speak.

False. The debate has never stopped since it was first proposed.

To many of us in the academic community, the Arabic manuscript does little to further the thesis that there was an original, authentic reference to the crucifixion of Christ made by Josephus.

"Us"? Who is "us"? He's not a Josephan scholar and not a textual scholar. I know from his postings on Ex-C.net that he's not in a relevant field to comment.

Christian apologists believe this difference in tone implies that the Arabic copy is much closer to the original work penned by Josephus in the 1st century.

Had no idea Schlomo Pines had converted!

This cute little thesis of theirs does little more than appeal to their favorite line of final defense: “It’s possible, and you can’t prove otherwise!”

This cute little retort does little more than prove that Rammy is a frustrated apostate who can't deal with hard evidence. Fair is fair, if he wants to mouth off like this on cheap psychology trips.

As I have already stated, the original manuscripts of Josephus do not exist. More importantly, we do not have a single extant copy that was not written by Christian scribes many centuries later. The importance of this point should not be underestimated.

We don't have original mss. for ANY ancient historical work. Christian scribes also preserved most if not all of these works. So what now? Is paranoia the gauge for textual criticism? Why no Testimonium Philonum, then? And is Annals 15.44 also a forgery for the same reasons? Pliny's tenth letter? How desperate does he want to get -- all the way back to the freethinking lunacies of the 18th-19th centuries?

If the history of Christian Europe shows us anything it is that the Christian church was willing to do just about anything to promote the prosperity and growth of their religion.

Vague la la la ranting. Paranoia again is not an argument. If he has specifics to rap about, that's why I responded to the Crimeline project. But here's what Steve Mason, a leading Josephan scholar today, says about paranoia:

They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus’ voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo’s text. To be sure, many of the “pseudepigrapha” that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity.

Good grief, the man can't even spell "Origen" correctly! What degree is he running for and what gumball machine did he plan to insert a coin into to get it out of???

GDon has taken care of several points past this enough. I'll comment on some of the rest...

The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime.

ORIGEN, Zeusblammit!!!

Chris Price answers this on Bede's site:

There simply is no reason to believe that the early Christians would have found the TF much use to their writings. Moreover, Roger Pearse has helpfully compiled all of the references to Josephus by the early Church fathers (Pearse, Josephus and Anti-Nicene Fathers, 2001). There are surprisingly few -- only around a dozen prior to Eusebius -- , showing that Josephus was not well known or often used by the early Church fathers.

Meier offers this further argument:

One possible explanation of this silence would jibe well with my reconstruction of the Testimonium and my isolation of the Christian interpolations. If until shortly before the time of Eusebius the Testimonium lacked the three Christian interpolations I have bracketed, the Church Fathers would not have been overly eager to cite it; for it hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead. This would explain why Origen in the 3d century affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief ‑‑ not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians.

(Meier, op. cit., page 79).

Earl Doherty has responded:

Meier's argument is that the Christian Fathers would have recognized that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, or believe that he had risen from the dead. The Testimonium witnessed to Josephus' unbelief and was therefore avoided. But should the apologists have found this disconcerting in a non‑Christian? They dealt with unbelief every day, faced it head on, tried to counter and even win over the opponent. Justin's major work, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, did just that. Origen, in his own confrontation with Celsus, did not shy away from criticizing Josephus for attributing the fall of Jerusalem to God's punishment on the Jews for the death of James, rather than for the death of Jesus (see below). In fact, Origen refers to the very point which Meier suggests Christian commentators shied away from, that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. It hardly seems that the silence on Antiquities 18.3.3 by all the apologists prior to Eusebius can be explained in this way.

(Doherty, op. cit., page 209-10).

It appears that Doherty misses the central point. Meier does not pretend that Josephus unbelief was frightening or "disconcerting." Rather, Josephus' unbelief meant that the TF would have been of little use for their arguments. The only question is whether they would have turned to the TF -- unredacted -- to promote their apologies. Because Josephus denied Jesus was the Messiah, the apologetic value for that time was not very great (if it existed at all).

Doherty also argues that Christians at least would have turned to the TF to prove that Jesus did miracles. But this too is unpersuasive. Opponents of Christianity apparently accepted that Jesus performed wondrous feats, but tended to write them off as magic. This is exactly what Trypho the Jew did. He argued that Jesus' miracles were a result of magic learned while he was in Egypt. Given this situation, Josephus' neutral reference about Jesus' wonderful deeds would avail them little. Indeed, as discussed above, because "parodoxa" can carry with it a negative connotation -- "controversial deeds" -- use of the original TF may very well have undercut the Christian's argument.

Jeffery Lowder's comment is on point:

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. Since we have no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first centuries, we should not be surprised that the passage was never quoted until the fourth century.


Blah blah blah repetition, pass...

To demonstrate this I will provide an example with a quote from the early Church father, Bishop of Corinth Dionysius (as recorded by Eusebius in the 4th century):

! Yes, the Crimeline project comes in handy. As the ccel site notes in its copy, the quote from D. is a "probable, though not exclusive, reference to Marcion, for he was by no means the only one of that age that interpolated and mutilated the works of the apostles to fit his theories. Apostolic works true and false-circulated in great numbers, and were made the basis for the speculations and moral requirements of many of the heretical schools of the second century." So he's not accusing Church leaders of forging his own letters, or even the gospels, but rather (possibly) Marcion's editing of them.

Get this guy over here so I can take him for a ride. (I know he won't do it. I saw how he hemmed and hawed for months not replying to someone over there, "Christ is Lord" -- your ID, Gerbil? -- on this same topic.)

[zorathruster]

The best counter I have read concentrates on the fact of Josphus' strict jewish heritage. For a jew to acknowledge or even elude credibility to someone claiming to be the Messiah borders on heracy. It would be like a Christian theologian giving credence to a returning "Christ", once you say it you are committed.

[jpholding]

The best counter I have read concentrates on the fact of Josphus' strict jewish heritage. For a jew to acknowledge or even elude credibility to someone claiming to be the Messiah borders on heracy. It would be like a Christian theologian giving credence to a returning "Christ", once you say it you are committed.

I guess you're right. Josephus was such a loyal Jew that he would NEVER have intimated, for example, that Vespasian was the fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies...

Though the partial interpolation thesis doesn't have such a problem, of course...

Questions:

1) How does one "elude" credibility to someone else, please?

2) And what is "heracy"? Is it a feminist deviation of some sort?

[technomage]

Hi, JP,

What do you think of the conjecture that Eusebius might have been the guilty party in the interpolations in the TF? (I know there's no direct evidence, I'm looking for your best impression.)

Justin

[John Powell]

Jayrock:
I enjoyed the article and I've read all the material refuting the genuineness of Josephus' paragraph.

I do have one question for skeptics, especially the mythicists (John Powell, et al):

What are your comments about the discovery of Shlomo Pines? He discovered script that was written in the 10th century.. a translation of Josephus' Test Flav that he claims was not interpolated by the early church.

Here's one article discussing this:

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

POWELL:
I'm thinking about it.

Some of what is in the Arabic version is marked by the author of that citation to be interpolation in the other versions.

It's clear to me that at least a large part of the Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation. The remaining question is whether any of the rest of the passage authentically points to a historical Jesus. For all we know Josephus mentioned an unrelated Jesus and one or more Christians (probably including Eusebius) added to it. On the other hand, maybe Josephus did hear of a Jesus executed by Pilate for causing a religious uprising who could be reasonably tied to the Biblical Jesus.

I find it odd that justifying belief in the historical existence of the Son of the Creator of the universe depends significantly on how much of Josephus is interpolated and how much is authentic. If I were God then such things wouldn't be so uncertain.

John Powell

[jpholding]

Howdy Justin (W),

What do you think of the conjecture that Eusebius might have been the guilty party in the interpolations in the TF? (I know there's no direct evidence, I'm looking for your best impression.)

Based on the partial interpolation theory, I think it happened before Eusebius when someone, an unknown Christian copyist, incorporated margin notes into the text. Kind of like someone who writes in books to "argue" with the author getting their comments incorporated into the next printing.

If Eusy were responsible, or any intentional forger, they'd have done something like what was found in Slavonic Josephus. That's what (among much else) ruins arguments of the TF as an intentional, conspiratorial forgery: It doesn't accomplish what it it is argued it was meant to do, and then the theory is modified: "Well, it must have been a CLEVER forger," etc. -- and the dog chases its tail into the yard.

JP

[Meh_Gerbil]

I post occasionally on exchristian.net under the name Mad_Gerbil.
I dunno why I do it, I like challenges to my faith at time.

[Jayrok]

POWELL:
I'm thinking about it.

Some of what is in the Arabic version is marked by the author of that citation to be interpolation in the other versions.

It's clear to me that at least a large part of the Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation. The remaining question is whether any of the rest of the passage authentically points to a historical Jesus. For all we know Josephus mentioned an unrelated Jesus and one or more Christians (probably including Eusebius) added to it. On the other hand, maybe Josephus did hear of a Jesus executed by Pilate for causing a religious uprising who could be reasonably tied to the Biblical Jesus.

I find it odd that justifying belief in the historical existence of the Son of the Creator of the universe depends significantly on how much of Josephus is interpolated and how much is authentic. If I were God then such things wouldn't be so uncertain.

John Powell

I agree that it's odd that God hasn't made the existence of his son crystal clear to all humans. As a christian will quickly point out, even if everyone knew Jesus was real and was the son of God, some of them would still not believe in him.

so why the mystery? people would still have to choose to follow him.