Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

[Metacrock]

Hi Nili,

Could you offer two or three examples of Whealey's mental gymnastics, PJ?

Sure.

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text’s authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

from Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, Peter Lang Publishing (2003). How the TF has been seen down the centuries.

She mentions the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars" and "Jews outside the church" who "uniformly denounced the text's authenticity." Apparently she believes the Protestant Pope was orchestrating some kind of challenge to the Catholic Pope and he tricked the "Jews outside the church" into going along. In fact, it was just about every scholar outside the Catholic Church who found the text wanting. I read the subtext here as saying that there was some kind of conspiracy of Protestants and Jews against the Catholic Church. One could just as easily say that in early modern times the Catholic Church held to its dogmatic position that the Good Catholic Eusebius was not an historical forger, while everybody else who was somewhat disinterested and impartial saw the clear evidence that TF was a forgery.

wow you can read in a paranoid subtext that's not there. that tells us more about you than about her.

In the Twentieth Century, the change was that even Catholics admitted the document contained some important changes that Josephus could not have written. Instead of saying that the Catholic scholars, 300 years late, finally joined other scholars in questioning the document, (just as they were 300 years late in admitting that the Earth went around the Sun) she changes things around and blames secularism for the defection of catholic scholars to the "Academic world."

It seems like what you are saying is that because it disagrees with you it's mental gymnastics.

She then imagines that post-modernism is a rejection of modernism (instead of its triumph) and imagines that some kind of new consensus somehow supports her belief that "a first century Jew" wrote "a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum." These a few of her logical gymnastics.

that may be some new dogma the A and H crowd has come up with since I was in that end of things. when I was in it back in the 90s that was the word. post modernism sure as hell was the counter to modernism. Sorry to disillusion you but that is the truth.

Her new consensus is quite imaginary as nobody agrees with what was originally in the original text of Josephus. We actually now have five positions about the original text: 1) something favorable, 2) something neutral, 3) something derogatory, 4) something having nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, and 5) nothing.

Over the last 15 years, I have gone from believing the Testimonium through all the positions and am now at position #5. It is entirely a cheap forgery by Bishop Eusebius and his brethren.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

what is your evidence that she's wrong? she the one studying the schoalrs. where's your work? You went from understating to losing your grip show does that prove that the real scholars also dont' accept it?


I've long held the view that atheists can't read. your understanding of her statement is just absurd. she says nothing of the things you charge her with. Essentially what she says is that the modern era saw Jewish on both sides for the first time and that all the scholars of all stripes came together more than ever before around the idea that the passage is valid. Where are the so called gymnastics?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Metacrock,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sPVEBAtwmg

Hi Nili,

Could you offer two or three examples of Whealey's mental gymnastics, PJ?

Sure.

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text’s authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

from Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, Peter Lang Publishing (2003). How the TF has been seen down the centuries.

She mentions the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars" and "Jews outside the church" who "uniformly denounced the text's authenticity." Apparently she believes the Protestant Pope was orchestrating some kind of challenge to the Catholic Pope and he tricked the "Jews outside the church" into going along. In fact, it was just about every scholar outside the Catholic Church who found the text wanting. I read the subtext here as saying that there was some kind of conspiracy of Protestants and Jews against the Catholic Church. One could just as easily say that in early modern times the Catholic Church held to its dogmatic position that the Good Catholic Eusebius was not an historical forger, while everybody else who was somewhat disinterested and impartial saw the clear evidence that TF was a forgery.

wow you can read in a paranoid subtext that's not there. that tells us more about you than about her.

In the Twentieth Century, the change was that even Catholics admitted the document contained some important changes that Josephus could not have written. Instead of saying that the Catholic scholars, 300 years late, finally joined other scholars in questioning the document, (just as they were 300 years late in admitting that the Earth went around the Sun) she changes things around and blames secularism for the defection of catholic scholars to the "Academic world."

It seems like what you are saying is that because it disagrees with you it's mental gymnastics.

She then imagines that post-modernism is a rejection of modernism (instead of its triumph) and imagines that some kind of new consensus somehow supports her belief that "a first century Jew" wrote "a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum." These a few of her logical gymnastics.

that may be some new dogma the A and H crowd has come up with since I was in that end of things. when I was in it back in the 90s that was the word. post modernism sure as hell was the counter to modernism. Sorry to disillusion you but that is the truth.

Her new consensus is quite imaginary as nobody agrees with what was originally in the original text of Josephus. We actually now have five positions about the original text: 1) something favorable, 2) something neutral, 3) something derogatory, 4) something having nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, and 5) nothing.

Over the last 15 years, I have gone from believing the Testimonium through all the positions and am now at position #5. It is entirely a cheap forgery by Bishop Eusebius and his brethren.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

what is your evidence that she's wrong? she the one studying the schoalrs. where's your work? You went from understating to losing your grip show does that prove that the real scholars also dont' accept it?


I've long held the view that atheists can't read. your understanding of her statement is just absurd. she says nothing of the things you charge her with. Essentially what she says is that the modern era saw Jewish on both sides for the first time and that all the scholars of all stripes came together more than ever before around the idea that the passage is valid. Where are the so called gymnastics?

[andrewcriddle]

Here is a short excerpt from Carrier's paper:

"...Whealey has argued that the original Eusebian TF quotation read 'he was believed to be the Christ,' rather than 'he was the Christ,' and that somehow all subsequent manuscripts of the AJ, as well as all Eusebius manuscripts that contain the quotation, were emended to agree with the corruption. That all AJ manuscripts would so perfectly agree with a later corruption that somehow simultaneously ocurred in all the texts of Eusebius (a corruption that, by Whealey's argument, must have occurred after the 4th century) is rather improbable."

Carrier, R. (2012). Origen, Eusebius, and the accidental interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200. Journal of Early Christian Studies. pp. 493-494.

Important to note, there is no witness that is independent of Eusebius to attest to the alternate reading of TF favored by Whealey and other TF salvagers. Whealey makes the point that the all sources used to support that argument are derived from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica:

"...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 later literally."

Whealey, A. (2008). The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic. New Testament Studies. p. 581.

The source of the witnesses to the so-called original TF are derived from Eusebius.

I don't think the dependence on Eusebius invalidates Whealey's argument.

It is IMO quite a good argument that the earliest ascertainable form of the TF did not have "he was the Christ". So far as this particular argument goes, the earliest ascertainable form of the TF could have been invented by Eusebius, but this is a separate issue.

Andrew Criddle

[Hawthorne]

Here is a short excerpt from Carrier's paper:

"...Whealey has argued that the original Eusebian TF quotation read 'he was believed to be the Christ,' rather than 'he was the Christ,' and that somehow all subsequent manuscripts of the AJ, as well as all Eusebius manuscripts that contain the quotation, were emended to agree with the corruption. That all AJ manuscripts would so perfectly agree with a later corruption that somehow simultaneously ocurred in all the texts of Eusebius (a corruption that, by Whealey's argument, must have occurred after the 4th century) is rather improbable."

Carrier, R. (2012). Origen, Eusebius, and the accidental interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200. Journal of Early Christian Studies. pp. 493-494.

Important to note, there is no witness that is independent of Eusebius to attest to the alternate reading of TF favored by Whealey and other TF salvagers. Whealey makes the point that the all sources used to support that argument are derived from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica:

"...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 later literally."

Whealey, A. (2008). The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic. New Testament Studies. p. 581.

The source of the witnesses to the so-called original TF are derived from Eusebius.

I don't think the dependence on Eusebius invalidates Whealey's argument.

It is IMO quite a good argument that the earliest ascertainable form of the TF did not have "he was the Christ". So far as this particular argument goes, the earliest ascertainable form of the TF could have been invented by Eusebius, but this is a separate issue.

Andrew Criddle

Your assertion, though, doesn't address Carrier's argument against the view that the original Eusebian quotation did not contain he was the Christ.

[Metacrock]

Your assertion, though, doesn't address Carrier's argument against the view that the original Eusebian quotation did not contain he was the Christ.

Hawthorne

that doesn't keep it from documenting the historical existence of the man. In calling it a Eusebian quotation there is a false implication that''s the earlier, it's not. we have readings earlier.

[andrewcriddle]

Your assertion, though, doesn't address Carrier's argument against the view that the original Eusebian quotation did not contain he was the Christ.

From your quotation Carrier appears to regard the Syriac versions as the only evidence for a version of the TF without he was the Christ.

There is Latin evidence as well, which is what IMO makes Whealey's argument reasonably convincing.

(Carrier may deal with the Latin evidence somewhere else in his article, I don't know,)

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

Jeez, dunno how many times I gotta tear Whealey's thingy apart? Not again! Hell, it's shallow and makes too many assumptions, cannot see that Michael the Syrian and Agapius used the same source. She's rubbish.

[Bernard Muller]

From your quotation Carrier appears to regard the Syriac versions as the only evidence for a version of the TF without he was the Christ.

There is Latin evidence as well, which is what IMO makes Whealey's argument reasonably convincing.

(Carrier may deal with the Latin evidence somewhere else in his article, I don't know,)

The absence of "he was the Christ" can be explained by the writers dealing with a text, supposedly written by Josephus, a Jew, which was too much "Christian" to be believed as genuine. Some TF, in the 4th century, removed "he was the Christ":

a) About 360: Ambrose, or Hegesippus de Excid. Urb. Hierosolym, lib. ii. cap. 12
The quotation of the (greatly modified) TF is introduced and narrated as:
"The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus:
"That there was at the time a wise man, if it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death, alive again, according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him: from whom began the congregation of Christians, and has penetrated among all sort of men; nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world which continues strangers to his religion."
Then the author commented:
"If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believed their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man ... he spoke, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought he was not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious intention. However it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer; but this adds more weight to his testimony, ..."
Before the TF quotation, our author said about Josephus:
"an author not to be rejected, when he writes against himself"

b) About 400: Hieronym. (Jerome) de Vir. Illustr. in Josepho.
Jerome's introduction of the Testimonium is as follows:
"Josephus in the eighteenth Book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees, on account of the greatness of his miracles; ...
[NOT in the TF! This is a speculation based on biased interpretations (and the gospels, especially John's)!]"
His TF (in Latin) shows noticeable differences with the one of Eusebius:
"At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles:-he was believed to be Christ. And then by the envy of our principal men ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Hawthorne]

From your quotation Carrier appears to regard the Syriac versions as the only evidence for a version of the TF without he was the Christ.

There is Latin evidence as well, which is what IMO makes Whealey's argument reasonably convincing.

(Carrier may deal with the Latin evidence somewhere else in his article, I don't know,)

The absence of "he was the Christ" can be explained by the writers dealing with a text, supposedly written by Josephus, a Jew, which was too much "Christian" to be believed as genuine. Some TF, in the 4th century, removed "he was the Christ":

a) About 360: Ambrose, or Hegesippus de Excid. Urb. Hierosolym, lib. ii. cap. 12
The quotation of the (greatly modified) TF is introduced and narrated as:
"The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus:
"That there was at the time a wise man, if it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death, alive again, according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him: from whom began the congregation of Christians, and has penetrated among all sort of men; nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world which continues strangers to his religion."
Then the author commented:
"If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believed their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man ... he spoke, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought he was not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious intention. However it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer; but this adds more weight to his testimony, ..."
Before the TF quotation, our author said about Josephus:
"an author not to be rejected, when he writes against himself"

b) About 400: Hieronym. (Jerome) de Vir. Illustr. in Josepho.
Jerome's introduction of the Testimonium is as follows:
"Josephus in the eighteenth Book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees, on account of the greatness of his miracles; ...
[NOT in the TF! This is a speculation based on biased interpretations (and the gospels, especially John's)!]"
His TF (in Latin) shows noticeable differences with the one of Eusebius:
"At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles:-he was believed to be Christ. And then by the envy of our principal men ..."

Cordially, Bernard

Wouldn't it be a good idea, though, to treat this evidence carefully considering in the first case, the source is Eusebius, and, in the second, it is a translation? Especially, when, as you point out, the author misquotes Josephus already, even claiming he "expressly says" something that is definitely not there. How then can we trust that his Latin translation of the TF is an accurate reflection of what was actually there?

[Bernard Muller]

Wouldn't it be a good idea, though, to treat this evidence carefully considering in the first case, the source is Eusebius, and, in the second, it is a translation? Especially, when, as you point out, the author misquotes Josephus already, even claiming he "expressly says" something that is definitely not there. How then can we trust that his Latin translation of the TF is an accurate reflection of what was actually there?

My first case is not from Eusebius' works, but from Ambrose.
My second case is from Jerome in Latin. Jerome wrote in Latin. However when the TF of Jerome was translated in Greek, "he was Christ" came back.
Here is a very interesting website about the different renditions of the TF in ancient times:
http://www.textexcavation.com/testimoniuminterface.html
I noticed a major difference between Eusebius second and (only known in Syriac) third version. That proves that ancient translators would use the opportunity to modify the content of the source material.

Cordially, Bernard