Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Roger Viklund
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:03 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Roger Viklund »

On the second issue I have a note made that Rainer Riesner have accepted it. But now I seem to be unable to find his article. It should be on page 176 in Riesner, Rainer (2003). ”Die Emmaus-Erzählung (Lukas 24,13–35). Lukanische Theologie, judenchristliche Tradition und palästinische Theologie”. in Karl–Heinz Fleckenstein et al. Emmaus in Judäa, Geschichte – Exegese – Archäologie. Giessen: Brunnen Verlag. p. 150–208. The only part I can get hold of from Google Books is this: “Erst in jüngster Zeit hat G. J. Goldberg darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass es erstaunliche Berührungen zwischen dem berühmten Jesus-Zeugnis des Flavius Josephus (Ant XVIII 63-64) und dem Weggespräch der Emmaus-Erzählung (Lk 24,18-27) gibt. Die Strukturgleichheit beider Passagen ist wirklich verblüffend. Auch besteht eine äußerst auffallende Wortlautübereinstimmung in der Wendung …“ Here the quotation breaks off, so I can’t say for sure what he says.

Carleton Paget also at least acknowledges the possibility: “The fact that the TF and Luke 24 18-27 share in common a basic structure in their account of Jesus and a similar terseness (for example, there is no reference to why Jesus was put to death in the Lukan passage either), points to the possibility that Josephus may have been dependent upon a Christian passage like Luke 24 18-27 for his TF.” (Carleton Paget, James N. B. (2001), ”Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity”, Journal of Theological Studies 52:2: 539–624, note 230 on pages 593–4).

I’ll see if I can find anyone who agrees with Whealey.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Thanks for the Riesner citation, Roger. It looks like there's a library in my area that has Fleckenstein's book in storage. It may take me a while to get it.

Best,

Ken
Roger Viklund
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:03 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Roger Viklund »

Regarding the first issue, I know none who “accepts Whealey's contention that the agreement between Jerome's Latin and Michael's Syriac versions of the Testimonium in the reading "He was thought to be the Christ" (Credebatur/Mistabra) is original and, with this allowed, the Testimonium is a fully authentic work of Josephus.”

Victor Ulrich argues that Josephus wrote the entire TF, but he never even mentions Whealey. Victor, Ulrich (2010), ”Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus”, Novum Testamentum 52: 72–82.

The only other scholar who argues for an entirely authentic TF, AFAIK, is Étienne Nodet, but neither he seems to be referring to Whealey. So, I don’t know anyone who relies on Whealey to argue that the entire TF is authentic.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Early (not late) Louis H. Feldman seems to come close to at least hypothetically accepting the Testimonium as authentic with the proviso that "he was the Christ" must originally have been "he was believed to be the Christ." He has that famous quotation to the effect that our text "represents substantially" what Josephus wrote, with the exception of some alterations, and the alteration that he focuses most of his attention on is "he was the Christ" versus "he was believed to be the Christ," as here:

Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), page 690: I (2774zd [= Louis H. Feldman, "The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question," Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, pages 288-293.]) have an extensive critical survey of the bibliography, the manuscript tradition, the citations in Church Fathers, the context, the language (especially the phrase "he was the Messiah"), Josephus' sources, his motives for inserting the Testimonium', and the Arabic version. I draw the following conclusions: (1) We must start with the assumption that the Testimonium' is authentic until proven otherwise, inasmuch as the manuscript tradition, late though it be, is unanimous in including it; (2) the fact that Josephus speaks of Jesus in Antiquities 20.200 in his reference to James the brother of "the aforementioned Christ", a passage the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged, indicates that Jesus had been mentioned previously; (3) the fact that so many Church Fathers who knew Josephus' works do not refer to the Testimonium', which would have been a mighty argument in polemics against Jews especially, until Eusebius, and the fact that a century elapses before it is again referred to by Jerome is a strong argument that the passage did not exist in the form in which it presently exists; (4) Origen's statement that Josephus did not admit "Jesus to be Christ" is a strong argument that Origen did have a passage about Jesus but that it was neutral; (5) the fact that there was a passage about Jesus in the "Antiquities' may help to explain the Talmud's silence about Josephus; (6) as Jew, Josephus might well have acknowledged someone to be the Messiah without necessarily being excluded from the Jewish fold; but since the concept of the Messiah at this time had definite political overtones of revolution and independence, Josephus, as a lackey of the Roman royal house, could hardly have recognized Jesus as such; and, indeed, Josephus avoids the use of the term "Messiah' except here and in Antiquities 20. 200 in connection with Jesus; (7) the modified versions of the "Testimonium' by Agapius in Arabic and by Michael in Syriac strengthen the view that the original "Testimonium' was not in the form in which we have it; Jerome's statement that "he was believed to be the Messiah" corroborates this.

But this is not exactly the same as definitively accepting the entire Testimonium with that single exception; and, at any rate, all of this predates Whealey.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Right; I meant specifically scholars who were convinced by Whealey's text-critical argument that credebatur/mistabra show that the original read "He was thought to be the Christ" because Jerome's and Michael's readings could not plausibly be explained any other way. There are several other scholars who argue for full authenticity, like Serge Bardet (Les Testimonium Flavianum, 2002), who I believe was a student or at least a collaborator of Nodet. If I recall correctly, he does not mention Whealey, but argues that Jerome and Michael's readings are independent modalizations of the statement "He was the Christ," changing the direct statement to an indirect statement.

Recently, John Curran has argued for Jerome's "thought to be" as the original reading ('"To be or thought to be," Novum Testamentum 59 (2017) 71-94. He departs from Whealey in thinking the most important witnesses are the early local (i.e., Roman) ones - Jerome and Pseudo-Hegesippus. In disagreement with Levenson and Martin, he thinks the occurrence of Credebatur in a medieval MSS of the Antiquities is original on the basis that no Christian would change a strong statement that Jesus was the Christ to a weaker one that he was thought to be the Christ. Of course, he takes the scholarly route of not asserting this directly but observing that Levenson and Martin have not proven the reverse. The rest of his case is based on claiming that in the Roman context in which Josephus wrote, his ambiguous language would have been understood as uncomplimentary to Jesus. He resembles Whealey and several others in arguing that, since Josephus could not have meant what we find in the Testimonium literally, it must have been intended ironically. Once one goes down the "it's meant ironically not literally" route I don't know why we would need to amend the text at all. We just need to imagine Josephus saying it in a sarcastic voice, or maybe using sarcastic font in the original: "THIS guy was the Christ?" *snort*.

As far as I'm aware, no scholar has published in agreement with Whealey's case on credebatur/mistabra.

Best,

Ken
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Post by andrewcriddle »

CD Elledge in Josephus Tacitus and Suetonius... published in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions -- The Second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007 seems sympathetic to Whealey's argument from the versional evidence.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Thanks, Andrew. I’m familiar with Casey Elledge. He recaps the witnesses of Jerome, Michael, and Agapius and observes:
Such noncommital assessments of Jesus’ messiahship may more likely approximate Josephus’s original language prior to the blatant Christian redaction of the Greek version.
He doesn’t specifically cite Whealey and he seems to take the evidence as suggestive rather than decisive. His position resembles Paget’s. There are a lot of scholars who think that the versional evidence suggests that the original did not read “He was the Christ,’ but something more noncommital. Vermes suggests the TF had “called Christ” like the James passage in Ant. 20.200. But it seems to me this is quite different from Whealey’s claim that Jerome and Michael’s credebatur/mistabra agreement is conclusive proof of their independent translation of a particular Greek word in the original.

These scholars would also differ from Whealey on whether that is the only major difference between the received text of the Testimonium and the ostensible Josephan original. (Whealey herself would allow there may have been two or three other, very minor differences from Niese’s critical text). But, yes, I’m primarily interested in scholarly opinion on the credebatur/mistabra issue, whether or not they agree with her on the authenticity of the remainder of the text.

Best,
Ken
Post Reply