Understanding The Testimonium Flavianum

[MrMacSon]

Can you tell me what difference that makes?

• Because of what you wrote in (b) here: -
  
  If the Testimonium is false, there are two possibilities for Josephus’s writings concerning Jesus:
  
  • a) Josephus did not mention the Jesus of the Gospels
    b) Josephus mentioned the Jesus of the Gospels, but the latter one not ‘being Christ’.

[Charles Wilson]

What if the Gospels had not been written by the time Josephus had died?

Can you tell me what difference that makes?

The important point is that Origen did not only know the Gospel stories depicting Jesus as the Christ (by the time Origen wrote the Gospels surely had been written), but that he also knew the historical war events behind the antedated gospels.

Josephus used Nicholas of Damascus for much of his "later" History and he writes of the events of the last days of Herod and the first days of Archelaus as one who is summarizing what he reads. He has no knowledge of the taking of "Immar-Yah" for the purpose of making a Word Play from a Hebrew term. He has no knowledge of a difference between a Crucifixion on Passover and a Crucifixion on the Preparation Day (See esp. Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities) The Gospels use the "Holy Spirit" with some frequency and the HS is a cipher for Domitian. Thus, the Gospels were written AFTER the death of the Damnatio'd Domitian, at the earliest in 98, more likely around 110.

Origen is Post-Creation of Christian Religion. He knows the written History of the Wars but he is either in on the Fraud or he is an early victim of the Transvaluation that became Christianity.

THAT'S why it makes a difference. Josephus had no Knowledge that his writings - and Nicholas of Damascus' writing - would be taken and Transvalued

Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):

[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...

What is the subject here? If you think Jesus as the Lamb of God, guess again.

John 1: 29 (RSV):

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Ditto.

CW

[neilgodfrey]

TS:Ken Olson (historicaljesusresearchblogspot.com):after Feldman's 2012 article appeared,
said Feldman "sounds to me at least like he's talking about complete interpolation,
but whether this is what he meant or how strong a possibility or likely he wants
to make it I can't say"(Aug. 13, 2013).
*I must express my appreciation for Olson's honesty, and for the balanced account of
Feldman's 2012 views as presented in this post.

I remain curious however why Feldman still (2012), thirty years later("Christological
Perspectives" p.182), believes that the Jew Trypho was claiming that Jesus never
existed.
The text in question ("Dialogue With Trypho" 8) says:
Trypho:
"But Christ-if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere-is unknown, and does not
even know himself, and has no power until Elias come and anoint him, and make him
manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for
yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing".

I read this as Trypho arguing that the Christ has not yet come and that Jesus is not
the Christ, not that Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
Indeed in Chapter 10 Trypho states: "You worship a crucified man"...while in Chapter
108 Justin says to Trypho:"You accuse him (Jesus) of having taught irreverent, riotous,
and wicked things.."

It seems to me that Trypho, like other contemporary anti-Christians, accused Jesus
of many negative things, but did not accuse him of never having existed...


On p.23 of his 2012 work, Feldman refers to Antiquities 20.200, and says that while
"almost all scholars agree (it) is genuinely Josephan", it's reference to "Christos"
"clearly implies that he has been mentioned previously".

Feldman seems to think that the (most likely Eusebian) phrase "still to this day"
"may-I repeat may-give us the key to the whole puzzle"("Perspectives On Jewish-
Christian Relations" pp.26-28).In 1984 Feldman wrote:"the accusing finger seems
to point in the direction of Eusebius as the one responsible for 'adjusting' the text"("Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.701-2).

One might also wonder that if Origen complains that Josephus "disbelieved" that
Jesus was the Christ (Contra Celsus 1.47), if Josephus never mentioned Jesus,
why he would pick on Josephus. For NONE of the Jews believed Jesus was the Christ.

One of the strengths of Feldman's article is that with respect to the authenticity of the TF he does not appear willing to build an argument upon uncertain premises. So yes, the passage in 20.200 "clearly implies that [Christ] has been mentioned previously", but we still have the previously mentioned argument relating to the authenticity of the TF holding ground in their own right.

So we have questions. Feldman does not give the impression here that he has an agenda driving him to find arguments for or against the TF to service that agenda. After all, the debate exists quite independently of the mythicist question. The TF is too often approached in the context of the mythicist debate as a weapon to pummel the opposing side. (I don't believe that either the authenticity or inauthenticity of the TF would be a decisive blow for either side.) Feldman points out that we have a passage "which almost all scholars agree is genuinely Josephan" -- which is a noncommittal way of expressing what most scholars accept, not what "all" scholars believe nor even what he himself believes -- or even if he is committed to a dogmatic opinion either way. But this particular article does not lead me to think Feldman argues dogmatically for anything.

The question of the Book 20 reference to Christ is not the same as the TF and it has its own curiosities and sets of questions. It is naive to take it as an unquestionably authentic passage and I suspect that most scholars who do assume it to be authentic have never stopped to check the arguments related to it. My impression is that they are very often only echoing one another in the context of a discussion about the TF itself.

As for Trypho, he is a literary mouthpiece to be the foil for the arguments the author (whether the "real" Justin or a narrative voice pseudo-Justin) wants to make. As Feldman points out, iirc, the author put statements in the mouth of Trypho that he believed to be relevant to his readers. Presumably some were hearing it said that Christians had indeed invented a Christ for themselves. Justin does not state that Christians had misapplied the Christ label to anyone.

Again, it is refreshing to read open arguments and interpretations that do not come with the heavy boot of dogmatism or question-begging presumption in order to promote some other ideological agenda.

[Bernard Muller]

So yes, the passage in 20.200 "clearly implies that [Christ] has been mentioned previously"

I certainly do not agree with that. Actually, I argued that the passage in 20.200 (& the interpolation mentioned by Origen and then quoted by Eusebius) indicates that Christ was NOT mentioned before, as I wrote earlier:

D) If Josephus had written a neutral TF about Jesus in Antiquities 18, 3, then he would have mentioned he already wrote about "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities 20, 9, 1, two books later; just like he did (three times) for Judas of Galilee: http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html ("find" on 3.10. )
E) Other argument for no TF of any kind in Antiquities 18, 3:
The author of the interpolation mentioned by Origen and quoted by Eusebius was not aware of any TF in Ant. 18, 3: http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html ("find" on 3.9. )

On the same webpage, at 3.6., I also contended than by 93 AD, the educated Romans would know about a so-called Christ who they thought started Christianity. And "Jesus, who was called Christ" is written only to identify a "James" among other "James".

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

So yes, the passage in 20.200 "clearly implies that [Christ] has been mentioned previously"

I certainly do not agree with that. Actually, I argued that the passage in 20.200 (& the interpolation mentioned by Origen and then quoted by Eusebius) indicates that Christ was NOT mentioned before, as I wrote earlier:

D) If Josephus had written a neutral TF about Jesus in Antiquities 18, 3, then he would have mentioned he already wrote about "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities 20, 9, 1, two books later; just like he did (three times) for Judas of Galilee: http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html ("find" on 3.10. )
E) Other argument for no TF of any kind in Antiquities 18, 3:
The author of the interpolation mentioned by Origen and quoted by Eusebius was not aware of any TF in Ant. 18, 3: http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html ("find" on 3.9. )

On the same webpage, at 3.6., I also contended than by 93 AD, the educated Romans would know about a so-called Christ who they thought started Christianity. And "Jesus, who was called Christ" is written only to identify a "James" among other "James".

Cordially, Bernard

To interpret a phrase in a way that suggests readers understand what the word for "Christ" meant and/or understand to whom it referred is NOT the equivalent to arguing for the authenticity of the TF!

It MAY be interpreted as supporting the authenticity of the TF (by some sort of circular reasoning) but there are obviously alternative inferences and conclusions that are possible. Logic.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think Christos is the one word in the TF that is most certainly interpolated. I also think that "called Christ" would apply perfectly well in the normal parlance of a former priest to the High Priest, Yeshua (Iesous) ben Damneus, who Josephus says was made High Priest in response to the execution of this Iakabos character he is talking about. I also think this would be the more normal use of the word in Jewish convention and that there is actual little evidence that it was primarily understood Messianically outside of a far more esoteric context.

[DCHindley]

I think Christos is the one word in the TF that is most certainly interpolated. I also think that "called Christ" would apply perfectly well in the normal parlance of a former priest to the High Priest, Yeshua (Iesous) ben Damneus, who Josephus says was made High Priest in response to the execution of this Iakabos character he is talking about. I also think this would be the more normal use of the word in Jewish convention and that there is actual little evidence that it was primarily understood Messianically outside of a far more esoteric context.

Yes, I think that technically, christos (an anointed one) can refer to the election of a certain person to the High Priesthood, perhaps "next in line for the high priesthood". However, Josephus did not use the word in this or any other way (except to describe the plaster that was daubed on the roof of Solomon's temple), possibly in deference to his claim that Vespasian was a sort of "messiah" much like Cyrus the Great. but an interpolator might have, and then the reference was probably to Jesus son of Damneus, who did indeed succeed Ananus after he was deposed. That interpolation would not appear to have been a Christian one. Perhaps a slip on the part of Josephus (perhaps carried over from a source and missed in final editing)?

DCH

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

To interpret a phrase in a way that suggests readers understand what the word for "Christ" meant and/or understand to whom it referred is NOT the equivalent to arguing for the authenticity of the TF!

It MAY be interpreted as supporting the authenticity of the TF (by some sort of circular reasoning) but there are obviously alternative inferences and conclusions that are possible. Logic.

I do not know what you mean by TF.
Is is only the passage in Josephus' Antiquities book 18
OR
the aforementioned passage with also the one about James, two books latter?
Anyway, I am against any TF in Ant. book 18. I made my position clear long ago in http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html
But I did not see any reason to reject the passage about James, the brother of "Jesus him called Christ".

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

The silence of Josephus about J was embarrassing for Christians insofar another "good man" was remembered by Josephus only in virtue of what his phantasm did after death. And his name was not Jesus but John the Baptist.

The Christians couldn't corrupt Josephus before Origen. Therefore their expedient was to see the news about the living Jesus behind the news about the revenge of the dead JtB on Herod.

[MrMacSon]

... another "good man" was remembered by Josephus only in virtue of what his phantasm did after death. And his name was ... John the Baptist.

There are also issues about the passage in Antiquities 18.116-119 (Whiston’s chapter 18.5.2) about John the Baptist: it is out of synch with passages before and after it.

And the story in Antiq 18 assumes that Antipas' brother Philip had already died (which he did in 34).

eta: Peter Kirby discusses all the options here - http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html