If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
Again, the provenance of a deity from a historical country was rather common in the ancient world. For example, Celsus talks en passant about a deity from the Tracians.
No, Celsus was not said to indicate a deity was generated ("born") from the Thracians. The text just says the Thracians were adept of their own mysteries about gods (or a god):
Origen. Contra Celsus, Book VI, Chapter XXII "For the mysteries of Mithras do not appear to be more famous among the Greeks than those of Eleusis, or than those in AEgina, where individuals are initiated in the rites of Hecate. But if he must introduce barbarian mysteries with their explanation, why not rather those of the Egyptians, which are highly regarded by many, or those of the Cappadocians regarding the Comanian Diana, or those of the Thracians, or even those of the Romans themselves, who initiate the noblest members of their senate?" BTW, this is the only occurrence of "Thracians" in all the books of Origen about Celsus.

Ro 9 3b-5a YLT "... for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises,
whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, ..."

(words in italics not in the Greek text)
Paul is an Israelite, according to the flesh, the same goes for Christ, according to the flesh.
And Christ is not said from a country, but of people of a whole nation. There is a difference. And the Greek text does not say "comes".
When John says that ''the salvation comes from the Jews'' in the Samaritane woman episode, he doesn't mean a historical person.
Of course. Sure, "salvation" is not a historical person. So what?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:24 pm to Giuseppe,

Of course. Sure, "salvation" is not a historical person. So what?
the provenance from a people is not evidence of historical existence.

Other examples: the Sybilla Cumana comes from Cuma. Did she exist?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:14 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:24 pm to Giuseppe,

Of course. Sure, "salvation" is not a historical person. So what?
the provenance from a people is not evidence of historical existence.

Other examples: the Sybilla Cumana comes from Cuma. Did she exist?
The provenance from a people is not evidence of the historical non-existence. And in Ro 9:3-5, the provenance of Paul (Israelites) is the same as for Christ, both "according to the flesh".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:19 am to Giuseppe,
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:14 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:24 pm to Giuseppe,

Of course. Sure, "salvation" is not a historical person. So what?
the provenance from a people is not evidence of historical existence.

Other examples: the Sybilla Cumana comes from Cuma. Did she exist?
The provenance from a people is not evidence of the historical non-existence. And in Ro 9:3-5, the provenance of Paul (Israelites) is the same as for Christ, both "according to the flesh".

There is at least a sense by which Jesus could came ''according to flesh'' from Israelites: concretely, he (as mythical figure) was preached by Israelites to Gentiles. In this interpretation, the first Church - the “body” of Christ - was composed by Jews.

Romans 9:3-5
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

While that is probably the interpretation of the passage, I am not sure that the passage was genuine. As you know, I raise suspects about passages that sound too much “judaizing”, i.e. meant to emphasize too much what had to be obvious, if true (the essential Jewishness of Jesus).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply