cienfuegos wrote:
That's the key right there: all of these versions, as Whealey demonstrates, are dependent on Eusebius.
Whealey wrote:However, it is much more probable that these distinctive common elements simply reflect the nature of the literal translation of the Testimonium that was taken from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica by the common source that both Agapius and Michael followed, the former loosely and the latter literally.
Whealey, A. (2008). The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic. New Testament Studies, 54(04), 573-590.
OK, cool, we're in agreement in our understanding of Whealey's and Carrier's views.
And, again, it does not seem likely that Josephus would use the term "messiah" at all without an explanation of what the term meant to Jews. When he does refer to the idea of messiah, he describes it like this:
josephus wrote:What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.
Why wouldn't Josephus just use the term "messiah" here?
Yes, excellent question. A search of the TLG reveals only one instance of the form χριστ- in Josephus outside the TF and AJ 20.200. That other instance is at AJ 8.137, of the interior wall of Solomon's palace, where Whiston translates χριστόν as "plastered over." The TLG reveals no instance of forms of μεσσία- in Josephus.
cienfuegos wrote:
That's the key right there: all of these versions, as Whealey demonstrates, are dependent on Eusebius.
Whealey wrote:However, it is much more probable that these distinctive common elements simply reflect the nature of the literal translation of the Testimonium that was taken from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica by the common source that both Agapius and Michael followed, the former loosely and the latter literally.
Whealey, A. (2008). The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic. New Testament Studies, 54(04), 573-590.
OK, cool, we're in agreement in our understanding of Whealey's and Carrier's views.
And, again, it does not seem likely that Josephus would use the term "messiah" at all without an explanation of what the term meant to Jews. When he does refer to the idea of messiah, he describes it like this:
josephus wrote:What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.
Why wouldn't Josephus just use the term "messiah" here?
Yes, excellent question. A search of the TLG reveals only one instance of the form χριστ- in Josephus outside the TF and AJ 20.200. That other instance is at AJ 8.137, of the interior wall of Solomon's palace, where Whiston translates χριστόν as "plastered over." The TLG reveals no instance of forms of μεσσία- in Josephus.
To be clear, DCH tipped me on this, I had not thought of it. Seeing it now, and in the context of the Vespasian passage, it seems to me that for Josephus to use the term in either Book 18 or 20 he would need to explain what it meant, as he does here without using the term itself, he just describes it. I just don't think it is plausible that he would use the term without defining it for his audience in either location. Adding to that, it is often stated that 18 is disputed, but 20 is more widely accepted. I think 20 cannot stand alone. If 18 is not authentic, there is no place for 20 as an authentic reference to Jesus (our Jesus) written by Josephus.
