Josephus continued his thoughts on Jesus after the Testimonium passage. He speaks of Jesus as dying for the world but as an impostor. He alleges Paul reallocated political power and funds from Temple Judaism to Gentile Christianity. Jesus closes the age of Temple Judaism in a way not obvious in the New Testament or in The Koran. Many references have been made from the statements of Jesus to scriptures in the Hebrew Bible. When this is done for interpreting Jesus’ death as atonement and for the Last Supper, we discover how agonizing it was for first century Jews (Josephus included) to rethink God and Salvation. The question to New Testament critics is: Did Jesus, circa 33 C.E. really instruct remembrance of him via bread and wine metaphor?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen – first, let me admit that I only watched the first part of your presentation. I’m one who does not think the “Testimonium” was written by Josephus. Part of my reason – writing style. The “testimonium” entry is quite TERSE; whereas Josephus is a very wordy, and descriptive writer. The story of the woman (Isis worshiper) who was fooled into sleeping with the dude that lusted after her was very lengthy, and used names of other characters. I just can not think Josephus was using the Isis story as any sort of analogy for Jesus.
I’ve not read (thoroughly) War of the Jews, limiting myself to the Antiquities; but, I’ve never seen what I think was any reference to Apostle Paul in Antiquities.
One amazing thing I ran onto when reading Antiquities is the discovery that at the time of the writing of the gospel of John, “only begotten son” did not mean the child referred to was the ONLY son – but, indicated a favored son. I’m speaking of:
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18
Incidentally in the Codex Vaticanus, that verse reads “only begotten God”.
cheriq
Steefen – first, let me admit that I only watched the first part of your presentation.
Steefen
Cheriq, where did you stop? Maybe I can explain what happens after that point in more detail than what is explained in the introduction (first 2-3 minutes of the video).
Cheriq
I’m one who does not think the “Testimonium” was written by Josephus. Part of my reason – writing style. The “testimonium” entry is quite TERSE; whereas Josephus is a very wordy, and descriptive writer.
Steefen
We cannot take away Josephus’ freedom to use analogy. Josephus is handcuffed when writing about Jesus, “if you can call him a man.”
Josephus is also handcuffed when writing about Paul, but, in the Jewish Affairs passage, the opening paragraph is none other than Paul.
Cheriq
The story of the woman (Isis worshiper) who was fooled into sleeping with the dude that lusted after her was very lengthy, and used names of other characters. I just cannot think Josephus was using the Isis story as any sort of analogy for Jesus.
Steefen
Interesting the way you put it. So, if the analogy holds, Decius Mundus (One Who Sacrificed His Life for the World, therefore a Jesus analogy) lusted for the woman of dignity and of great ancestry Paulina. Paulina can be a metaphor for Judaism. Jesus wanted Judaism in a bad way, like a mother hen, he wanted to gather the Jews to him. He was such a purist, he believed he earned the right to embody the Son of Man prophecies and on another plank of his platform, he was also the Son of God who explained to Judaism the God notion of God being a loving Father. Jesus wanted Judaism in a bad way and even claimed the god of Judaism in the way an emperor or a pharaoh identified himself as being the son of a deity. Was it Julius Caesar who was the son of Venus? Amen-ophis IV was the son of Amen/Amun.
I know there is such a tradition of not knowing Decius Mundus functionally means “One Who Sacrificed His Life for the World.” Now, the scholarship has to inform the scholarly community, students, and the general public.
Ah, I know you must have stopped watching the video before Josephus’ use of the name Decius Mus was explained.
Cheriq
I’ve not read (thoroughly) War of the Jews, limiting myself to the Antiquities; but, I’ve never seen what I think was any reference to Apostle Paul in Antiquities.
Steefen
Yes, that does come later in the video. Here it is:
“There was a man who was a Jew but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws.” To those familiar with the life of Paul, this is a reference to Acts 15: 1-2, 5. Judaism required circumcision. A contemporary of the biblical Jesus and the biblical Paul, the proselyte King Izates converted to Judaism and was circumcised. (Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 2, Section 4.) However, Paul taught circumcision was not necessary. Paul taught this in Antioch and it appears in the authentic Letter of Paul to the Galatians 5: 2. An accusation was laid against Paul for transgressing Jewish law by none other than James, leader of Jesus’ disciples (Acts 21: 21).
Build Slide
“He was fearful of punishment.” At Acts 21: 27-32, an accusing crowd was trying to kill Paul. To get away from this situation, Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to Rome (Acts 25: 7-12).
Build Slide
“Living at Rome, he instructed men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses.” This part of the passage is also mirrored by Paul at Acts 28: 16-17 and 23. Paul arrived at Rome. He called together the leaders of the Jews. They arranged a day with him. From early morning until evening, he expounded his position to them. He tried to convince them about Jesus from the prophets and, as Josephus described, from the laws of Moses.
Build Slide
The Jewish Affairs passage has sufficiently established the identity of Paul directly in its opening paragraph.
Cheriq
One amazing thing I ran onto when reading Antiquities is the discovery that at the time of the writing of the gospel of John, “only begotten son” did not mean the child referred to was the ONLY son – but, indicated a favored son. I’m speaking of:
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18
Steefen
If you have the source on that, I can use it for the second edition of my book. Josephus speaks of Izates as being the only begotten son of a royal sibling incest pair, King Monobazus and Queen Helena. We know Izates was a younger sibling. He had a brother named Monobaz. People wonder why Josephus would explain Izates as being only begotten when there was an older brother.
Cheriq
Incidentally in the Codex Vaticanus, that verse reads “only begotten God”.
Steefen
At John 3: 16? For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten God?
INTERESTING.
I hope the doctor, Professor Ehrman addresses that. He must have that in one of his New Testament textbooks, wouldn’t you think?
hello Steefan
Unless you wish to force your point, then it’s really not possible to accept this TF as a genuine marker to the existence of jesus at all in the first place, you need much more than those two paragraphs in order to make up a religion.
Your insinuations such as saying: “Josephus was handcuffed” and other assumptions are very rich imaginations indeed, but no more than that.
You are giving the christian apologetic attempts a new dimension altogether by claiming that even Paul was mentioned by Josephus, whereas christian apologetics are trying their hardest to actually prove jesus even existed. I guess you’d better concentrate on that first because even though I respect and admire Dr Ehrman, yet I am not convinced jesus existed based on this kind of weak argument.
walid said
hello SteefanUnless you wish to force your point, then it’s really not possible to accept this TF as a genuine marker to the existence of jesus at all in the first place, you need much more than those two paragraphs in order to make up a religion.
Your insinuations such as saying: “Josephus was handcuffed” and other assumptions are very rich imaginations indeed, but no more than that.
You are giving the christian apologetic attempts a new dimension altogether by claiming that even Paul was mentioned by Josephus, whereas christian apologetics are trying their hardest to actually prove jesus even existed. I guess you’d better concentrate on that first because even though I respect and admire Dr Ehrman, yet I am not convinced jesus existed based on this kind of weak argument.
There is no force. The third passage is about none other than Paul.
As for the second passage, where’s the force? Once one knows who Decius is, one knows who Decius Mundus is.
As for the first passage, Josephus was aware of what was in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Josephus was a prime resource for informing Rome about religious activities related to Israel. Jesus was a Jewish purist; any religion about him would have gotten to Josephus’ ears first.
You’re not convinced Jesus existed but you won’t allow Josephus not to be convinced Jesus existed as presented in Mark, Matthew, and Luke? Josephus calls Jesus of the gospels a calamity. Jesus of the gospels is a calamity: he becomes human sacrifice atonement and not only is he the one on the altar but his blood is metaphorically (and for some not metaphorically) consumed. The calamity is that this turns the God of Israel’s face away and one is separated from that God’s people.
Why would Josephus not be aware of Paul? They both got shipwrecked on the way to see Nero.
Second, how would Josephus miss Paul and not miss the scriptures and the religion Paul was instrumental in creating?
Steefen said
There is no force. The third passage is about none other than Paul.
If that’s not by force, then what is?
You see, that’s why christianity has won for a short (relatively) time, here’s the scenario
X: all the OT is about jesus, …
The world: yes but there’s no jesus
X: O yes there is, we inserted him in whatever books we could do.
Jews: no but not in our books.
X: look again now, here he is.
Jews: yes but he didn’t fulfill the scriptures, where’s the temple, where’s peace
X: coming soon to a theater near you …
Moto; {don’t believe it? .. then die and all your books are confiscated ..}
Walid:
If that’s not by force, then what is?
Steefen:
Josephus was alive when the gospels were being written. He was a historian for the ruling Empire which oversaw new gods and new religions within their empire. Josephus probably even met Paul because both were shipwrecked on the way to Rome. For Josephus to reference the illustrious Paul in his writings is not force but an obligation.
Walid:
there’s no jesus
Steefen:
Jesus is a composite character including people who did exist. A writer chooses to incorporate more than one person into one person in order broaden the mouthpiece.
Some of the people that are the biblical Jesus-Son of Man are: King Izates, the Woe-speaking Jesus of Josephus, Vespasian, Titus, Jesus Saphat (anti-Roman rebel leader of mariners), and one of the three men who survived crucifixion in Josephus’ autobiography.
Walid:
Jews: no but not in our books.
Steefen:
You are in error. Jesus does appear in the Babylonian Talmud. Read the book, Jesus in the Talmud by Shafer. I did an amazon.com review of the book.
Walid:
Jews: yes but he didn’t fulfill the scriptures, where’s the temple, where’s peace
Steefen:
That’s correct. Read the Parable of the Wicked Tenants.
Where’s the Temple? Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed.
Where’s the Peace? Vespasian and Titus brought the peace when they put down the Jewish Revolt and the Civil War and anarchy.
In conclusion, when Jesus came from Galilee to Jerusalem, he was basically uninvited because while there were pro-Roman Temple authorities during the Jewish Revolt, there were even more pro-status quo (pro-Roman) temple authorities in the 30s.
Dr. Henry Abramson, a Jewish historian, provides an interesting lecture on Josephus….I’m not sure of the total accuracy of the presentation but informative none the less. He discusses the “Testimonium” at the 46:50 mark in the video and indicates that it is a complete interpolation.
Barfo
He discusses the “Testimonium” at the 46:50 mark in the video and indicates that it is a complete interpolation.
Steefen
He does not discuss it well. He reads the passage and says it is an atomic bomb in the middle of the work. Perhaps you should read this thread and see what he did not address.
Josephus mentions the death of James the Just, brother of Jesus. This is separate from the Testimonium, no credible scholar thinks anyone other than Josephus wrote it, and it can be found in all early manuscripts. So even if the Testiminonium was entirely invalidated, which it isn’t, Josephus would still stand as evidence that Jesus was a real person, and that he and his followers remained controversial in Jerusalem, long after his death.
I absolutely believe the Testimonium was rewritten by Christian scribes to be more respectful, but if they were going to go randomly inserting references to Jesus into non-Christian works, there’d be a lot more of them. Josephus mentioned Jesus, because Jesus was a figure of some interest in the period he was writing about. He had no idea how significant people would later find Jesus to be, so yeah, he’s terse. He’s equally terse about many other seemingly marginal figures who he mentions only in passing. And this is because Josephus was not, nor ever claimed to be, a prophet. He didn’t think Jesus rated any more ink than that.
And in this, he definitely differs from everyone on this thread, who will spend their entire lives writing about somone they don’t think existed. And a thousand years after all of you are dead, the verdict of history will continue to be that yes, he did. 😉
In the spirit of interesting material around the Testimonium Flavianum, Ken Olson has at times mounted an interesting (and multi-level) argument that TF may be, in part or in whole, a Eusebian invention. Not sure if it’s, in the end, a knock-down argument, but it is one that is fun to grapple with.
Here’s a no-paywall version of the arguments, in case of interest to anyone:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Enjoy!
Maybe someday an earlier manuscript will be discovered which could shed more light. About a dozen Church leaders scoured over the Josephus material without any mention of the Jesus subject. Regardless, Jesus did exist and an acknowledgement of that by Josephus does not really change much except word had spread to Rome by Paul of Tarsus.
It’s fun to make these arguments, just like it’s fun to argue Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. It gets you attention, and it excites discussion, and it’s been going on for centuries, and the status quo never changes, because the arguments are a shaky structure of conjecture. The evidence isn’t there. And the motives are too obvious.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert