have been reading Bart Ehrman’s book(Did Jesus Exist – The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth).
It’s an amazing book.
Though, I got 2 questions.
Bart mentions the following: `What I did not stress earlier but need to point out now is that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the pagan Tacitus or the Jewish Josephus acquired their information about Jesus by reading the Gospels`.
Question: Why would nothing suggest it ? At the time Josephus and Tacitus wrote their books that contained information about Jesus, at that time, Gospels had already been produced. Just wanted to Emphasise this and ask why Bart thinks otherwise.
—
Bart mentions the following: Even though there are allusions to traditions that made it into the Gospels, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Ignatius is basing his views on the books that later became part of the New Testament.
Question: I get that why Ignatius could have said what he said about Jesus without reading the gospels, but he could also have read the gospels. Who knows. So we come down to faith element here?
The first question, or something like it, is something I’ve wondered about myself. Even if they didn’t know of Jesus from reading the gospels themselves they still might very well know the outlines of Jesus’ life from the Christian claims about Jesus’ life, in fact they may even have known the Christian claims about Jesus’ life 2nd or 3rd hand (a Christian tells his neighbor about Jesus, that neighbor tells someone what the Christians believe, who tells Tacitus what the Christians say, Tacitus writes it down simply to report about the sect.)
I think there are a number of reasons not to be a mythicists, but simply pointing to the mentions of Jesus by non-Christians that we happen to have doesn’t seem a conclusive argument.
Now that said, in the quotation, BDE doesn’t actually deny that they got their information from the Gospels, he only says that there is no indication that they did get it from the Gospels. I think that is right, but conversely, I don’t think there is anything that confirms that these authors got their knowledge of Jesus from an impartial source or that they independently checked the facts that were commonly reported.
Josephus is already problematic because it is so likely that the passage was falsified by Christians, so from our vantage, it is largely a guess what he actually wrote and what was a Christian addition, so it can’t really be used to establish very much of anything with certainty.
Tacitus relates the story of Jesus as obiter dicta, so I’m not really sure how much weight we should put in it as an independent witness of historical fact. Imagine the Christians openly claimed to worship a Jesus crucified under Pilate, and this claim was common knowledge; would anyone have bothered to check the records (Would there have been any such records? Would they have been accessible?) to see if Pilate had condemned a Jesus to crucifixion? Given that Jesus was a common name in Palestine, assuming Pilate did at some point condemn a Jesus to crucifixion, would anyone have done the legwork to make sure it was the same guy the Christians were worshiping?
Amazing TF…
TF is the subject of Dave Allen’s research, to whom I always tell him that I support it wholeheartedly. I always told him that his research would prove that Josephus’s writings were the source material for the gospel. Of course, he took it as a joke.
Until one day… As Dave started to recreate the original TF text, verse by verse looking at all the traditions including Slavonic, Arabic, etc… he came up with…
[ ]Here is the first line of the TF:
And there was about this time Jesus, a wise man
And here is the proposed change: And there was about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. (Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἀνήρ τις ταραχτικός τε σοφιστής)
He described it here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
“A certain man” is a common mannerism of Josephus when describing various kinds of prophets and rebels.
After some time, Dave writes to me”
“in section 13,6-8, Epiphanius quotes from the beginning of Ebionites (some commentators include the words ):
Gospel of Ebionites
that man, John ,
Slavonic
And at that time a certain man was going about Judaea, (dressed) in strange
garments.
Slavonic preserves John is not named in the Baptist passage in Josephus, was referred to as a “certain man”. The same happened with an earlier form of TF, Jesus is not named and referred to as a “certain man”. This is in line with how Josephus described the sign prophets. The gospel of the ebionites could preserve an earlier phrase of the gospel of Matthew copying Josephus.
But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, , that man, John , came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.”
And he didn’t want to believe me…
I think, I’m making my mind now finally on Tacitus and Josephus.
First, Josephus.
==================
a. Since we know Origen was tasked by Celsus with finding anything in Josephus that corroborated anything in the Gospels. All Origen could find was a reference to John the Baptist, and a reference to James (which he then confused with the account in Hegesippus). If there had been any reference to Jesus, Origen would have quoted it or cited it. Since Oregon didn’t cite anything, then higher chance Josephus never mentioned it.
b. As Bart says, some scholars believe that Josephus still mentioned pared-down version, which looks like this.
“`
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
“`
Since Josephus was a privileged guest in the court of the Roman emperor, how likely it is that he would call Jesus a `wise man` and at the same time, mention that he was crucified by Romans ? Highly unlikely.
c. It’s not only about Oregon, as we all know, till 4th century, nobody quotes Josephus on that matter.
Well, (a), (b), (c) should be enough to say that Josephus never mentioned Jesus and Eusebius forges and adds his own thoughts. Could you provide any reason why some people still believe in (b) that there’s a pared-down version still acceptable by some scholars ?
==================
As for Tacitus, I kind of believe he mentioned Jesus. I like what it says here – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Whats the argument that this is forged as well ?
Since Josephus was a privileged guest in the court of the Roman emperor, how likely it is that he would call Jesus a `wise man` and at the same time, mention that he was crucified by Romans ?
I haven’t done any sort of word study, but I wonder if expression like “wise man” and “wonder worker” are actual endorsements rather than a description of his profession? For example, I might call someone a faith-healer not because I actually believe he heals by faith but just because I’m trying to describe him, and that is the social role that he plays; it’s how he presents himself and how he is received by his followers. Similarly I might call someone a philosopher though I don’t think he is either very wise or possessed of any exceptional love of wisdom. I can also imagine calling someone (say, Apollonius of Tyana) a wonder worker for similar reasons. Or again, I might call someone a clairvoyant or medium though I don’t actually believe in either, and it seems perfectly natural for a skeptic to refer to someone as an exorcist even though the skeptic doesn’t believe there are any demons to exorcise. I wonder if we could read that line from Josephus like that, so it would just mean, Jesus presented himself publicly as a wonder worker and wise teacher–he travelled around saying things that sounded wise (whether they were or not) and claiming to do miracles, and those were the things that made him famous.
As for Tacitus, I kind of believe he mentioned Jesus. . . . Whats the argument that this is forged as well ?
It seems really unlikely that the passage was forged. What Christian is going to describe Christianity as a “pernicious superstition,” a “disease,” and among the class of “all things horrible or shameful in the world” which collect in Rome?
I guess you can get into 6-D chess theories, but we’d usually presume that if a Christian were forging a pagan reference to Jesus and Christians, he’d make it somehow reflect well on them or, at least, not describe them as “loathed for their vices.”
I think one could wonder whether, though the passage is authentic, it could still be possible that, although Tacitus knows about the Christians, he doesn’t actually know anything reliable about Jesus other than what Christians say.
Well, Let’s go one by one.
1. It’s 100% true that Josephus wouldn’t say what Eusebius quotes on behalf of him, because of the following reasons.
a. If Josephus said: `He was the christ`, Origen wouldn’t say Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus.
b. It’s believed Josephus wasn’t Christian, (most jews were not). So he wouldn’t say it.
c. Many people kind of mimic the passage to Eusebius handwriting’s or Luke’s Gospel.
d. Josephus wouldn’t mention that Jesus was the Messiah, because he was writing his book at the Roman Empire. and most likely, Romans wouldn’t allow him to write something like that.
e. None of the 2th/3rd century christian historians quoted Josephus about the passage, so if he really had said that Jesus was the messiah, historians would quote him definately.
So it’s either a forgery or interpolation.
2. Origen doesn’t quote that passage in his book, but we know that Origen said, Josephus didn’t believe in Christ. (Note that Origen doesn’t say that Josephus said, he didn’t believe, it’s just Origen just says Josephus didn’t believe). From this, we start to think why Oregon would have said something like this about Josephus. We could bring 2 theories about this why Oregon said this.
a. As Richard Carrier says: `Josephus was a Jew. “Though not being a Christian” is a description of every Jew known to Origen.`.
b. Or There actually might have been something in the Testimonium which we will never know.
3. If one chooses/believes in (a), then there’s no need to continue trying to prove anything else. We conclude that Josephus didn’t say anything about Jesus. (well, he might have still said it, but probability decreases and one has to hold to pure faith that Josephus really did mention Jesus). But if one chooses to believe (b), Then, As you point out Robert, we could look into what Feldman says, which I’m copying/citing here.
“The version of the Testimonium in the Antiquities, if it was known to Origen [d. 253], apparently must have included something about Jesus, since otherwise Origen would have had no reason to claim that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. This would imply that Origen had a text similar to that of Jerome and Michael the Syrian affirming that Jesus was thought to be the Messiah.”
Now, if we start to believe what the quotation says, it affirms presumably that Josephus mentioned the following: `Jesus was thought to be The Messiah`. Okay, if we assume that’s what Josephus have said, this could really be true. All the debate about Eusebius forging it, really don’t intersect with this essence, because Eusebius comes later, but for sure, When Eusebius quotes from Josephus: `He was the Messiah`, that’s definately a forgery, but we’re talking about a couple of years before Eusebius. So at that point of time, `Feldman` could be true in his belief.
But the backbone of the whole thing is, Now, we know Eusebius forged it, there’s no chance we could truly reconstruct the original saying of Josephus. Some people believe that Eusebius took it from Luke the Gospel.
My Final Assumptions: There’s some truth in 2.a (What Richard Believes), but Origen to be honest then would have made his belief that Josephus didn’t believe in Christ just by what the jew population believed in 1st century. Origen could have thought to himself: `why is it not possible that even though 99.99% jews didn’t believe in Christ, maybe Josephus did, therefore, I can’t really deliberately, without proof, say that Josephus didn’t believe in Christ`. This seems to me very logical to me, even more because Origen was christian. If I’m a christian and I know the 99.99% population of `x` country is not a christian, I won’t assume that the person `y` is not a christian, because if I believe the Jesus is the messiah, then the percentages of who are christian and who are not really don’t go well with probability(remember, in the word of Messiah). If there’s a Messiah, 99.99% doesn’t mean that the person `y` doesn’t believe in it either. I talked a lot, but this makes me believe that 2.a loses its perspective.
I know just because Origen said Josephus didn’t believe in Christ, really don’t bring the discussion to the final truth, but I can add one more supporting argument to it. Well, I really believe Tacitus said what he said, and In my previous reply, I mentioned the link that explains why it couldn’t be a forgery. So in mathematical terms, we know there’s a person `x`(tacitus) that mentioned Jesus and we know there’s a person `y`(Josephus) that mentioned Jesus or not. if we believe that there’s 50% chance that `y` might have mentioned Jesus, then I prefer to lean forward, use Tacitus as an increasing argument and say that Josephus really mentioned Jesus. NOTE that I don’t believe in pared-down version of the mention either. I still think Josephus wouldn’t use `a wise man`. The original version could be anything, but as long as it’s mentioning Jesus, we stop the discussion now. Oh, I forgot, that Most scholars believe the second mention by Josephus to be authentic, which even increases the belief.
Question : Am I talking truly absurd or you also follow the same notion as me ?
—
The above was what I kind of believe. Below, I summarize Richard Carierr’s ideas why the whole passage is put by christians and even interpolation/alteration didn’t happen.
1. Richard says that since Origen didn’t cite anything from the book, he was unaware of any passage about Jesus from the Josephus’s book. This could be true, interestingly. Since origen was tasked to find things on Josephus’s book, if there was a mention about Jesus, he would mention it in the latter to Celsus. Origen was a christian, so even if the passage was negative in Josephus’s book, he would still mention it. Wouldn’t he ? if not, why not ?
2. Josephus’s style seems to be that he discusses everything in a lot of detail, but why does he discuss(in Testimonium), so much little about Jesus ? Richard argues that Josephus always gives readers lots of information, but with Testimonium, he doesn’t even explain what the christians do, what they want, what deeds Christ did and e.t.c.
3. It also, notably, doesn’t mention James or any family of Jesus. The Testimonium therefore has no knowledge of the James passage — it does not prepare the reader for it, or even seem aware it’s coming; and the James passage has no knowledge of the Testimonium — it doesn’t refer to it at all. Unlike the way Josephus refers to his previous discussion of Sadducees to explain the actions of Ananus, he doesn’t think to refer to any discussion of Christians to explain the fate of James.
He explains all this here – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
—-
My final ask for you, folks, would be what you think about The first part of where I bring my logic/assumptions and what you also think of Richard’s way of thinking.
And there was about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. A teacher of men who worship him with pleasure. [He claimed the Temple would be destroyed and that not one stone would be standing on another and that it would be restored in three days.] Many of the Judaeans, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself in a tumult; he was believed to be a King: [For he opposed paying the tax to Caesar.] Many were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe could free themselves from Roman hands. And, on the accusation of the first men among us, Pilate condemned him to be crucified. Many of his followers, the Galileans and Judaeans, were slain and thus repressed for the moment. The movement again broke out with great abundance when it was believed he appeared to them alive. Those that followed him at first did not cease to worship him, their leader in sedition and this tribe has until now not disappeared.
-Proposed model reconstruction of Ant.18.63-64 by D. Allen
Robert, Hi.
Did feldman know about this ? – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Also, note that here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **, if you search for `In 2012, Josephus scholar`, you will find the following:
“In 2012, Josephus scholar Louis Feldman reversed his prior support for the partial authenticity of the Testimonium, proposing that the passage was interpolated in its entirety by Eusebius. In support of this view, Feldman points out, following Olson, that the Testimonium features three phrases (‘one who wrought surprising feats,’ ‘the tribe of the Christians,’ and ‘still to this day’) which are used nowhere else in the whole of Greek literature except Eusebius”.
So not really sure what he is saying in the book, you mentioned. The book is also from 2012. Does he say in the book that it’s completely Eusebian or why does he leave the possibility that Josephus might have written something – on what grounds ?
Not sure if it’s worth buying the chapter for 30Euro, when it’s just 20 pages.
What’s your opinion on the subject ? do you believe there was a partial interpolation or the entire thing was added by Eusebius ?
To be honest, the fact that Origen said Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus might be because of the following reasons.
– Josephus was a Jew. “Though not being a Christian” is a description of every Jew known to Origen.
– In Bart’s book, “Did Jesus Exist”, Bart says the following(his words, not quotation or anything):
“The problems with this passage should be obvious to anyone with even a casual knowledge of Josephus. We know a good deal about him, both from the autobiography that he produced and from other self-references in his writings. He was thoroughly and ineluctably Jewish and certainly never converted to be a follower of Jesus. But this passage contains comments that only a Christian would make: that Jesus was more than a man, that he was the messiah, and that he arose from the dead in fulfillment of the scriptures. In the judgment of most scholars, there is simply no way Josephus the Jew would or could have written such things. So how did these comments get into his writings? “.
The main part I want to emphasize is: “We know a good deal about him, both from the autobiography that he produced and from other self-references in his writings. He was thoroughly and ineluctably Jewish and certainly never converted to be a follower of Jesus”.
This means that Bart also believes that Josephus was not a christian(bases his thoughts on the fact that we know a lot from the autobiography that he produced and from other self-references in his writings.).
Then, I say, that Origen doesn’t play a role here at all. or do you believe that Bart said the above because of Origen argument as well ? if Bart didn’t say it because of Origen, then it seems like in the autobiography of Josephus, there might be other chapters where we can assume he wasn’t a christian(but which chapters ?). Just being a jew doesn’t prove to me that he wouldn’t be a christian.
Thank you very much.
Well, Then, why would origen say Josephus didn’t believe ?
Someone asked this question to Richard and his answer is the following:
It is simply a way to say in Greek “Josephus was not a Christian,” hence a paraphrasis for “Josephus was a Pharisaic Jew” (as his autobiography says so, and it was written after the Antiquities), as you infer.
As for the arabic and syriac, I like Richard’s logic that it’s true both traditions have: `believed to be the messiah`, but saying that because of this, Eusebiu’s book would say the same is not quite right. here is the proof – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
—-
Question 1: Does a Pharisaic Jew mean that one wouldn’t be a christian ? I researched and nothing says it, but I also have a hard time understanding what `Pharisaic` means. (Separated from what ?) ? was there the case where one could be Pharisaic as well as Christian in the first century ?
Question 2: In the autobiograpy, since Josephus didn’t mention anything being a christian, Origen could have concluded that he didn’t believe. Otherwise, Origen would think why Josephus wouldn’t write anything about being a christian. This to me is a very strong argument. If I believe Jesus being the messiah is a huge thing and it’s true and then I read someone’s autobiograpy and see no word about it, then I can assume very well that man wouldn’t be a christian, hence how Origen detected what he said. Which means Origen could have said what he said without even having TF at all. Why not ? Thoughts ?
Question 3: Is there any chance that Origen in his heart might have become a christian in the last years, but couldn’t write it in his book, because he would be afraid, Romans would read and kill him ? (since he was working at roman desk)
“But the issue is not whether or not Josephus was a Christian, but whether or not he might have reported that some believed Jesus to have been the Messiah.” – Well, I get your point, but what I meant is that Feldman logic is not good. We shouldn’t depend our beliefs(that Josephus mentioned Jesus) on Origen’s saying because Origen could have said it without even having/reading the TF at all because from the autiobiography, he would definately get an impression that Josephus was not a christian(which means he wouldn’t believe in Jesus).
Well, Even if we prove that in Eusebius’s copy, it’s read: `Jesus was thought to be the Messiah.`, That still doesn’t prove that Josephus would write that. The reason is, Josephus would not write: `if one indeed should call him a man`. So It’s definately interpolation and as I said, proving `Jesus was thought to be the Messiah.` to exist in Eusebius’s copy doesn’t prove anything.
Feldman says: “Origen would have had no reason to claim that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. “. Well that’s wrong. He had a reason as he knew Josephus never became a christian. Not sure why this doesn’t count as a reason. so Feldman saying `no reason` is plain wrong.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)