Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

[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.

[steve43]

Simply read Josephus s a book and you see how the "He was the Christ" sentence in the TF is completely out of character for how Josephus writes.

[neilgodfrey]

The following is my own reconstruction of what Josephus originally wrote. It is based upon what we know of Jesus from the gospels and what we know of Josephus's attitude towards anyone thought to be a would-be messiah.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a mad man, who pretended to perform wonderful works, to persuade the base sort of men who follow their own lusts to despise the customs of their fathers, and teach against Moses and the Temple. For he taught men to disregard the sabbath, and even ransacked a quarter of the Temple to prevent the daily sacrifice. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, resisting the principal men amongst us, refused at first to condemn him to the cross, released, out of spite, a murderer to cause further suffering among the Jews. Though Pilate was eventually persuaded to crucify him, those who thought him to be something at the first did not forsake him, but pretended he had been raised from the dead, and even blasphemously declared this wicked man to be a God and one to be worshipped. And this was the most blasphemous of the mad distempers that arose in our midst, and added to our miseries. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, for they also called him the Christ, infest the earth to this day.

Tongue in cheek, of course. But far more realistic than other proposals, yes?

[maryhelena]

The following is my own reconstruction of what Josephus originally wrote. It is based upon what we know of Jesus from the gospels and what we know of Josephus's attitude towards anyone thought to be a would-be messiah.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a mad man, who pretended to perform wonderful works, to persuade the base sort of men who follow their own lusts to despise the customs of their fathers, and teach against Moses and the Temple. For he taught men to disregard the sabbath, and even ransacked a quarter of the Temple to prevent the daily sacrifice. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, resisting the principal men amongst us, refused at first to condemn him to the cross, released, out of spite, a murderer to cause further suffering among the Jews. Though Pilate was eventually persuaded to crucify him, those who thought him to be something at the first did not forsake him, but pretended he had been raised from the dead, and even blasphemously declared this wicked man to be a God and one to be worshipped. And this was the most blasphemous of the mad distempers that arose in our midst, and added to our miseries. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, for they also called him the Christ, infest the earth to this day.

Tongue in cheek, of course. But far more realistic than other proposals, yes?

Don't think so - why go the negative route? Indeed, strike out the Christian interpolations to the TF - but one still has to deal with the core story of the TF. A man was crucified under Roman rule in Judea and despite his crucifixion many people continued to love him......The TF dating its crucifixion story to prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome i.e. prior to 19 c.e.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He 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.

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3

[ficino]

The following is my own reconstruction of what Josephus originally wrote. It is based upon what we know of Jesus from the gospels and what we know of Josephus's attitude towards anyone thought to be a would-be messiah.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a mad man, who pretended to perform wonderful works, to persuade the base sort of men who follow their own lusts to despise the customs of their fathers, and teach against Moses and the Temple. For he taught men to disregard the sabbath, and even ransacked a quarter of the Temple to prevent the daily sacrifice. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, resisting the principal men amongst us, refused at first to condemn him to the cross, released, out of spite, a murderer to cause further suffering among the Jews. Though Pilate was eventually persuaded to crucify him, those who thought him to be something at the first did not forsake him, but pretended he had been raised from the dead, and even blasphemously declared this wicked man to be a God and one to be worshipped. And this was the most blasphemous of the mad distempers that arose in our midst, and added to our miseries. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, for they also called him the Christ, infest the earth to this day.

Tongue in cheek, of course. But far more realistic than other proposals, yes?

Love it! Now if you can only score some blank ancient papyrus on e-Bay and mix ink acc. to an ancient formula...

[nili]

Thank you, folks. I bought and read the book quite some time ago and very much appreciated it. I was just wondering how others viewed the work.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Beowulf,

Thanks for this. It is interesting the way she portrays this. It is an "intellectual controversy" that started when "in the sixteenth century the text was for the first time pronounced a forgery by some scholars."

I would say that the issue started when Eusebius, circa 315 CE suddenly found a passage in Josephus' "Antiquities" about Jesus that nobody had quoted or referred to for the previous 220 years.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Roger,

I remember laughing a lot at all the logical gymnastics that she was employing. I thought it definitely reflected the thinking of a Nun without very much critical thinking ability.
The fact that the Testimonium was not challenged until modern times does not reflect modern historical revisionism, as I recall her suggesting. It simply reflects the fact that there were low educational levels and opportunity in medieval times from about 500 to 1400. This, combined with the fact that the Catholic Church had great political power and could subject anybody who disagreed with it to torture and painful death, and did so to millions of people, did not allow for any real critical examination of Josephus before modern times.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic
ALICE WHEALEY

note 43 The idea that Josephus’ original passage about Jesus was substantially altered by a Christian forger dates back to the seventeenth century (Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 132). The idea that the entire Testimonium is a fabrication that was interpolated into Jewish Antiquities dates back to the late sixteenth century (p. 93)

THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM CONTROVERSY FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE PRESENT
Alice Whealey Berkeley, California

In the sixteenth century the text was for the first time pronounced a forgery by some scholars,
creating an intellectual controversy that has not been resolved even today.

In the High Middle Ages, it was not uncommon for Jewish scholars in Western Europe
to argue that the Testimonium Flavianum was a forgery. However, their charge was not based
on a critical examination of relevant sources but on their a priori assumptions that a Jewish
historian could not have written so favorably about Jesus.

[Metacrock]

Hi Roger,

I remember laughing a lot at all the logical gymnastics that she was employing. I thought it definitely reflected the thinking of a Nun without very much critical thinking ability.
The fact that the Testimonium was not challenged until modern times does not reflect modern historical revisionism, as I recall her suggesting. It simply reflects the fact that there were low educational levels and opportunity in medieval times from about 500 to 1400. This, combined with the fact that the Catholic Church had great political power and could subject anybody who disagreed with it to torture and painful death, and did so to millions of people, did not allow for any real critical examination of Josephus before modern times.

In other words if she spouts modern atheist ideology she's brilliant. if she questions it she's stupid.

[beowulf]

Hi Beowulf,

Thanks for this. It is interesting the way she portrays this. It is an "intellectual controversy" that started when "in the sixteenth century the text was for the first time pronounced a forgery by some scholars."

I would say that the issue started when Eusebius, circa 315 CE suddenly found a passage in Josephus' "Antiquities" about Jesus that nobody had quoted or referred to for the previous 220 years.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Humanity should be grateful to Eusebius for preserving our past.

[nili]

By the way, forgive me for posing the question in the wrong forum. It was a newbie mistake.