What's your Opinion on Testimonium Flavianum

[JoeWallack]

For those who don't know Testimonium Flavianum or TF is a brief passage in First century Jewish author Josephus's monumental book "Antiquities of the Jews", for some Christians its allegedly a independent testimony of Jesus's Miracles. While Scholarly opinion on this passage is Varied and only very few consider it to be wholly Authentic, A scholar of Antiquity Louis Feldman who surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

So I created a little Poll to know what the Forum members here think of it, please participate in it and share your views.

And for me personally the Passage's extremely short length, Dense Christian character, Its Narrative similarity with a passage of gLuke, its vocabulary similarity to Eusebius's other writings, Church father Origen's failure to mention any part of it (while he Extensively used the works of Josephus) and Overall flimsy language ('Principled man among us', 'ten thousand other wonderful things') which is in stark contrast with Josephus's writing, So taking everything into account its a total interpolation for me.

Also Keep in mind Poll is only for authenticity of TF not for historicity of Jesus.

JW:
My summary of the evidence that Eusebius was responsible for the TF:

Say It Aint So Joe. Test. Flav. Eusebius Author/Discover

CIRCUMSTANTIAL

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

• 1) General silence - expectation that if the TF existed it would have been used due to its importance to Christianity.
  
  • 1 - Probably most, if not all, Church Fathers would have heard of/been familiar with Josephus as he was the official historian of 1st century Israel where they thought Jesus was from.
    
    2 - For Church Fathers with a minimum of extant writings, most refer to/quote from Josephus and he is actually the most referred to non-Christian author of the early Church.
    
    3 - After Eusebius some major Church authors still don't refer to the TF. Presumably because their copies don't have it.
  2) Specific silence - http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/
  
  • ca.140 CE Justin Martyr
    
    • For the Cave, consider that Justin was a philosopher in
      Rome and his interests were:
      
      1) Jesus
      
      2) 1st century Israel
      
      3) Arguing with Pagan and Jewish philosophers
      
      The related question should be:
      
      Why wouldn't Justin be familiar with Josephus?
      
      I also wonder if the Cave is even willing to concede that
      extant Church Father writings prove the Fathers could
      read and write. Maybe they just dictated, or maybe they
      became blind or maybe they were temporarily sight-
      impared while Josephus was in front of them.
    ca.170 CE Theophilus - uses Josephus
    
    ca.180 CE Irenaeus - uses Josephus
    
    ca.190 CE Clement of Alexandria - uses Josephus
    
    ca.200 CE Tertullian - uses Josephus
    
    ca.200 CE Minucius Felix - uses Josephus
    
    ca.210 CE Hippolytus - uses Josephus
    
    ca.220 CE Sextus Julius Africanus - uses Josephus
    
    ca.230 CE Origen - uses Josephus
    
    ca.240 CE Cyprian
    
    ca.270 CE Anatolius - uses Josephus
    
    ca.290 CE Arnobius
    
    ca.300 CE Methodius - uses Josephus
    
    ca.300 CE Lactantius
    
    Of the 14 Fathers here who show no awareness of the TF 10 show use of Josephus. In addition a decent argument can be made that a few of the 4 who show no clear reference to Josephus do have some decent parallels. Comically, Roger Pearse started this list in order to demonstrate that the Fathers in general would have no interest in Josephus and ends up demonstrating that the conclusion he disputes is correct.
    
    Note that it's not just the quantity of Patristics who show no awareness of the TF up to E (Eusebius) that is remarkable but also the quantity of years, over 200, with no awareness of the TF.

2 - Evidence that the TF was created during the career of Eusebius

2) Familiarity - Parallels to Eusebius' own Adversus Hieroclem.

3) Language - The key phrases are generally Eusebian and not Josephan.

4) Context - The context of the TF is contrary to Josephus and parallels Eusebius' Demonstratio Evangelica.

5) Manuscript - Relative uniformity of the TF post Eusebian.

6) Lack of any coherent argument for originality.

7) Opportunity

• 1 - Eusebius was a manufacturer of texts. He was known to have produced Bibles at a high level and had a Scriptorium at Caesarea.
  
  2 - Around this time there was no wise man named Jesus but there was a Western Emperor who would have protected Eusebius in general and specifically against charges of tampering. As self-anointed expert Brad Watson concludes, there are no coincidences.

8) Motive

• 1 - Eusebius has a general credibility problem regarding sources. We have numerous instances where the problem is somewhere in between creating/editing/hiding the source. See my related Award winning Thread:
  
  Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

9) Authority

Last and least, authority confesses to us that the TF is likely not original.

10) Possible Source

The main criticism of Eusebius is that he uncritically accepts sources that promote Christianity. He is an Advocate for Christianity and not a Judge. My own specific guess as to the Origin of the TF is Eusebius' take on Origen's related commentary, parallels in [Red]:

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book X)

Presentation of quality parallels here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=618&start=40#p13090

Eusebius takes literary license to assume that there is an implication that per Origen Josephus wrote directly about Jesus and that Origen's surrounding information was fair game as to what to include. This also helps explain why Jerome has "thought to be" instead of "was" the Christ. Original Eusebius also had "thought to be" because that was the implication from Origen.

Another possibility is that there were comments in the margin of Origen's copy of Josephus either put there by Origen or someone in between that Eusebius inherited from Origen at Caesarea and Eusebius added them into the text. For those who need points sharply explained, the best literary clue before Eusebius' TF is Origen and physically Origen/Eusebius were at the exact same scene of the crime.

Joseph

The Strange Chapter Of Dr. Jewkyll And Mr. Hymn - Day 2

[Giuseppe]

I have listened someone to say that the TF is partially authentic because Origen said that Josephus was not a Christian. According to this someone, Origen derived that information from the original not-interpolated TF.

I have replied that Origen derived that particular info about Jesus (that he was not a Christian) from the mere fact that he read in his version of Antiquities 20:200 the famous ''called Christ'', by him meant as meaning doubt about the messianic identity of Jesus (''so-called Christ'').

How do you reply shortly to this point? Should I say more things in addition?

Thanks in advance for any disturb to answer.

[neilgodfrey]

Bart Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist? cites (ch. 2, endnote 21) Alice Whealey's chapter, "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum" in Josephus und das Neue Testament (eds Böttrich and Herzer). Whealey responds to Ken Olson's CBQ article (1999) arguing that Eusebius was the author of the TF.

Snippets of Whealey's article are accessible via Google Books. Does anyone know if Olson has published a response anywhere to W's criticisms?

[MrMacSon]

I have listened someone to say that the TF is partially authentic because Origen said that Josephus was not a Christian. According to this someone, Origen derived that information from the original not-interpolated TF.

I have replied that Origen derived that particular info about Jesus (that he was not a Christian) from the mere fact that he read in his version of Antiquities 20:200 the famous ''called Christ'', by him meant as meaning doubt about the messianic identity of Jesus (''so-called Christ'').

How do you reply shortly to this point? Should I say more things in addition?

Thanks in advance for any disturb to answer.

See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 443#p55443

I'd (1) reference Hopper, and cite those quotes; and

(2) reference Olson's "A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum" - https://www.academia.edu/4062154/Olson_ ... ianum_2013 - which I think is a chapter in a book titled "Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations" (Harvard University Press, 2013)

[MrMacSon]

Bart Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist? cites (ch. 2, endnote 21) Alice Whealey's chapter, "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum" in Josephus und das Neue Testament (eds Böttrich and Herzer). Whealey responds to Ken Olson's CBQ article (1999) arguing that Eusebius was the author of the TF.

Snippets of Whealey's article are accessible via Google Books.

Does anyone know if Olson has published a response anywhere to W's criticisms?

footnote 6 here https://www.academia.edu/4062154/Olson_ ... ianum_2013:-

6 The argument presented here, that Eusebius is the true author of the Testimonium, is a substantial reformulation of the thesis I articulated earlier in Olson 1999:305–322. In particular, I no longer think it necessary to suppose that Eusebius may have intentionally adopted Josephan phrases in particular cases in his “second edition” (i.e. the version of the Testimonium found in the Ecclesiastical History) in order to sound more like Josephus. Eusebius’ language does not appear to go beyond what might be expected in an author employing prosōpopoeia or the variations in wording found in any author. I have also brought out the relationship between the contents of the Testimonium and the larger argument Eusebius is making in the Demonstration of the Gospel more clearly. In his recent review article on the Testimonium Flavianum, Louis H. Feldman has also argued for the identification of Eusebius as the author of the received text (2012:13–30)*. The thesis of Eusebian authorship of the Testimonium has been criticized by James Carleton Paget (2003:539–624) and at greater length by Alice Whealey (2007:73–116). While I will give a more detailed response to their criticisms in my forthcoming dissertation, in this chapter I have set out some of the major reasons for my disagreement with their positions.

I'm not sure what dissertation Olson is referring to. Maybe this? - http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot ... s-and.html


* Louis H. Feldman, “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus,” in New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations, edited by Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schechter (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 14-30:-

• “In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.” (p. 28)

.

[Giuseppe]

Could the original Testimonium Flavianum be mythicist evidence?

Something as:

About this time there was a cult that won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. It was the cult of Christ. And when the principal men among us attacked it, those who had first come to follow it did not cease. Christ appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

There is some irony here: Am I using the same freedom in recostructing the original TF as many scholars do ?

[rakovsky]

I find that Josephus is presenting an image of "reasonable Christianity". He wants to his give Roman and Greek readers a rationalised version of the religion. He repeatedly says in the Antiquities that people are free to doubt Biblical miracles, and so his version in the Testimonium is in agreement with the common positive presention that he makes for his rationalistic audience.

In the Testamonium, Josephus doesn't directly talk about the virgin birth, Jesus being God, the empty tomb or the bodily resurrection, even though analysis shows that he closely uses Luke 24 as his direct source for the passage, and even though he wishes to communicate these miraculous elements to his reader using the story of Paulina and Mundus. (See What is the real relationship between the Testamonium and the stories of Paulina and Fulvia? , viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3915)

Josephus must be rationalizing Christianity because he wants the heroes in it (Jesus and his followers) to appear more sympathetic and believable to the Roman audience. This is similar to how, as Fr. John Meier notes in A Marginal Jew, Josephus presents John the Baptist more as a Hellenistic promoter of virtue rather than an apocalyptic "the ax is laid at the tree" firebrand.

Why would the author of the Testimonium (whether a christian forger or Josephus himself) want to tell the reader about the virgin birth, Christ's divinity and the resurrection and yet not do so? It reminds me alot of Mark's gospel, where I believe that Mark's usual avoidance of direct discussion of these extreme miraculous elements is deliberate and is usually only found in Mark's allusions to them.