Two new articles by our pal Tim O'Neill

[hjalti]

A good friend of some of the members of earlywritings.com has written a two-part article on the historicity of Jesus: Part 1 and Part 2

Probably nothing new in there for those who have followed this debate, but it's a nice concise summary of the arguments against mythicism and arguments for historicism.

I found a couple of rather baffling claims in the second article:

1. His use of the "Embarassment of Nazareth"-argument. I've seen Tim debate this issue for literally hundreds of forum pages and it's clear that there is a good alternative explanation for how Nazareth was introduced to the gospel tradition.

2. His discussion of the TF. He claims that "several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephan in their style and phrasing.". But I'm pretty sure that our fellow board-member Ken Olson has shown that most of the elements he quotes are found in the writings of Eusebius (I'm 100% certain that the "tribe of Christians" is one of those).
Here's a reference to the article I've have in mind: Olson, K. A. "Eusebius and theTestimonium Flavium." Catholic biblical quarterly 61/2 (1999): 305 - 322

[hjalti]

And while I was writing this Ken Olson himself has commented on the second part and explains in detail my point #2:

(1). The Greek found in the Testimonium , κατὰ τοῦτον … τὸν χρόνον (“Around this time”): This is found times four times elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 14.56, 17.19, 18.39, 18.80) and three times elsewhere in Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 6.19.15, 6.32.1; Commentary on Psalms PG 23 col. 784b). If you are talking about any Greek expression that could be translated “About this time,” rather than the actual Greek wording found in the Testimonium, then there are a huge number of parallels in both Eusebius and Josephus.

(2). σοφὸς ἀνήρ (“wise man”): Eusebius identifies Christ as a σοφὸς ἀνήρ in the Prophetic Eclogues (PG 22 col. 119a). Eusebius, it is true, does not say Jesus was “merely” a wise man – but neither does the Testimonium.

(3). παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής (“maker of miraculous works”): The
three words found together in the Testimonium are never found together elsewhere in Josephus’ works, but occur repeatedly in Eusebius to describe Christ or God (e.g., Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23, Demonstratio 3.5.59, 3.7.4, Vita Constantini 1.18.2). It doesn’t seem likely that Eusebius intended the term skeptically when he applied it to Christ or God. Can you give any examples from ancient or medieval Greek literature where παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής is intended to imply skepticism?

(4). τῶν Χριστιανῶν … τὸ φῦλον (“tribe of Christians”): This term is found elsewhere in Eusebius, at Ecclesiastical History 3.23.2.

Here's what Tim said:

To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephan in their style and phrasing. "Now (there was) about this time ..." is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work. There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as "a wise man", but this is a term used by Josephus several times, e.g., about Solomon and Daniel. Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus' miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral term παραδόξων ἔργων - "paradoxa erga" or "paradoxical deeds". Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean "deeds that are difficult to interpret" and even has overtones of cautious skepticism. Finally, the use of the word φῦλον ("phylon" - "race, tribe") is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about nations or other distinct groups. Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν ("Christianon" - "Christians") every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus' writings.

The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity. Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts.

[Bertie]

I admit that I find Tim O'Neill on the second Jesus passage in Josephus — the Antiquities 20 one — to be compelling, perhaps the strongest single point of evidence against mythicism (I think his case is most completely developed here). Both Doherty and Carrier rely heavily on the fact that Origin has Josephus saying that the execution of James caused the fall of Jerusalem in order to undermine Origin's witness to Antiquities 20; however, O'Neill cites scholarship finding Origin making similar exegetical distortions in other parts of Josephus (see the references to Mizugaki in the above link). Is there a good mythicist counter-argument to the argument O'Neill draws from Josephus and Origin, perhaps one outside of Doherty and Carrier that I haven't found yet?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bertie,

Anybody who thinks about what is written and understands that Josephus is not writing for a Christian audience understands that the passage is a forgery.

1. The use of the term "Christ" (the anointed one) would be meaningless to the readers of Josephus' text. Josephus does not use the term anywhere else. It would be like saying that James was the brother of Jesus, the Proud or Jesus, the Tall. It does not explain in the least who James was. The audience could not have known who Jesus the Christ was. One could argue that they know the name because the TF is true. Once we recognize the TF as a Eusebean forgery, this passage has to be considered as a forgery as well. Just as with the TF, there is no indication that any writer before Eusebius knew the passage. One would expect that some Christian writer in 225 years would have noticed that Jesus' brother was stoned according to Josephus and mentioned it.
2. Even if we assume the TF is authentic, the passage gives no reason for Ananus Ananus calling an extra legal council and stoning James. Because he was the brother of Jesus, why should Ananus Ananus want him to die? The TF says, "He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him." Because James was Jesus' brother would be no reason to kill him. Was James now calling himself the Christ? Was James performing magic? Was James the leader of a revolutionary group? Josephus would have to still explain what Ananus had against him for the passage to make sense.
3.In books 18-20, Josephus is talking about rival families for the high priesthood, the Ananus family and the Phabi, Boethius, and Cantherus familes.
The Talmud says this about the families:

What a plague is the family of Simon Boethus; cursed be their lances! What a plague is the family of Ananus; cursed be their hissing of vipers! What a plague is the family of Cantharus; cursed be their pens! What a plague is thefamily of Ismael ben Phabi; cursed be their fists! They are high priests themselves, their sons are treasurers, their sons-in-law are commanders [captains], and their servants strike people with staves [Talmud, Pesahim 57a].

The High Priest who Ananus Ananus replaced was Joseph Cabi, son of Simon Boethius Canthera. In other words he was from the rival family from Ananus. The passage would make sense if James was 1) the previous High Priest Joseph, 2) the brother of Joseph the High Priest or 3) the son of Joseph, the High Priest. With James being any of these individuals no explanation would be needed, as it would be obvious that Ananus would be killing a rival for the office of high priest.
The end of the passage also only makes sense if Jesus Damneus is the son or brother of James who was stoned. His appointment would be added punishment to Ananus. Removing Ananus from office for stoning a man to death would hardly seem like punishment enough for the crime.

i would say that a likely scenario for the forgery would be that Josephus had originally said that Ananus stoned Joseph Cabi, the high priest before him and that his brother Jesus Cabi was appointed high priest after Ananus was removed. The first Christian forger saw the name Joseph and wrote "Joseph, father of Jesus called Christ." A later Christian realized that this was wrong because this was at least 30 years after Jesus' death, and changed Joseph to "James, the brother of Jesus called Christ." He also changed Jesus Cabi to Jesus Damneus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I admit that I find Tim O'Neill on the second Jesus passage in Josephus — the Antiquities 20 one — to be compelling, perhaps the strongest single point of evidence against mythicism (I think his case is most completely developed here). Both Doherty and Carrier rely heavily on the fact that Origin has Josephus saying that the execution of James caused the fall of Jerusalem in order to undermine Origin's witness to Antiquities 20; however, O'Neill cites scholarship finding Origin making similar exegetical distortions in other parts of Josephus (see the references to Mizugaki in the above link). Is there a good mythicist counter-argument to the argument O'Neill draws from Josephus and Origin, perhaps one outside of Doherty and Carrier that I haven't found yet?

[neilgodfrey]

Ha. The very title, "An Atheist Historian . . .", says much. That has clearly been one of Tim's major beefs over this issue. He has written that he is embarrassed as an atheist that other atheists hold to mythicism. (I don't really understand that embarrassment since I don't see why atheism should be aligned with any other belief system or political view or social value. Maybe it's more an American thing but Tim is supposed to be an Australian.) He is fighting atheists who embarrass him personally, he says.

That makes his arguments (and I have not read the latest ones yet) as much ideological as any we would expect from a piece entitled "A Christian Historian argues Jesus was real".

Besides, isn't Tim inflating himself a little by calling himself a 'historian'? An amateur yes, as he says on his blog, but aren't we all?

(Presumably one is embarrassed over the views of others if those views are so patently inexcusable. If so, then it is ironic that Tim must "labor mightily" to get into some of the most complex of arguments to prove they are wrong. But he normally attempts to hide the irony of that fact by resort to insult.)

[spin]

You bastard, hjalti! Why did you post this nonsense? You nasty, nasty person, you! You forced me to respond. Hrumpphhh.

[hjalti]

Seeing you and Tim argue is one of my guilty pleasures.

[spin]

Seeing you and Tim argue is one of my guilty pleasures.

It's never really an argument in any rational sense. That would require more than O'Neill can offer.

Nasty, nasty boy.

[hjalti]

Seeing you and Tim argue is one of my guilty pleasures.

It's never really an argument in any rational sense. That would require more than O'Neill can offer.

His response to your comment seems to support your claim. Nothing substantive there.

[spin]

Seeing you and Tim argue is one of my guilty pleasures.

It's never really an argument in any rational sense. That would require more than O'Neill can offer.

His response to your comment seems to support your claim. Nothing substantive there.

There comes a time when you give up hope for signs of rational discourse. That time was some years ago for me.