Two New Articles on Testimonium Flavianum

[spin]

The syntax is not wrong per se. I had to deal with the genitive qualifiers in a slightly different context (regarding Paul's use of "brother") and applied the issue to Josephus to see how he dealt with it in the context of familial relations. That's how I know it isn't reflective.

You may be on to something with the syntax, but I'd have to see a full treatment of the material in order to draw any conclusions.

You can do the math yourself. The basic structure as evinced in English is [relation] of [name], eg "the mother of Mary" or "the king of Siam". These will be in the vast preponderance in Greek syntax, "the of-Mary mother" and "the of-Siam king". (One notable exception is "son of Bill", as the Greek rarely uses "son", using just the genitive, so "Phil the son of Bill" becomes "Phil of-Bill", though irregularly some now is inserted with irregular results.) Pick a book of AJ and see how long it takes to find an exception.

One cannot wave their hands and say that we must assume that plaintiff is innocent until proven guilty here. We have many examples of christian scribes interfering with texts: everyone agrees that christian hands have been on the TF for example. When dealing with christian preserved non-christian sources, the preservers are an interested party, so we have to hold any reference to christianity as suspect.

A quick look at that unanimous tradition: Codex Regius Parisinus c14, Codex Oxoniensis c15, Codex Marcianus c13, Codex V'indobonensis II c12, Codex Parisinus c11, Codex Laurentianus c14. Cassiodotus had a translation made in 5th/6th c. Excerpts in sources no earlier than c10. Unanimity from this stuff is unhelpful.

To say that because we have examples of forgery that every single bit of Christian writing or reference to Jesus is lie after lie sounds like those who believe conspiracy theories about the U.S. government due to its history of dishonesty. We should have a healthy skepticism, but take things case by case. In the case of this mundane reference, there is nothing that raises a red flag except to those already leaning towards mythicism.

This was not a forgery, but a case of creeping marginalia. I get pissed off when people reduce the options to the good vs bad taxonomy. Don't be so simplistic. You are not in a trench and this isn't WWI, so get rid of your mythicist refrain. Much of the scribal variation we see is due to error, copying error and misunderstanding. Creeping marginalia is when a scribe assumes a marginal note is an omission and reinserts it. My comment involves the effects of the preservers being interested parties. That can measure out in intention to manipulate, but it needn't.

Yet Origen cites nothing from AJ, so you have to take him on trust, despite the fact he doesn't know what's in AJ 20.200. The best people can do is claim that he must be citing "James the brother of Jesus called christ", but AJ 20.200 doesn't say that: it says "the brother of Jesus called christ whose name (was) James".

Eusebius is important as he shows how people understood the source texts within 50 years of Origen and that understanding being near contemporary does have the possibility of reflecting Origen.

I'm still not clear on what it is that can be gained from Eusebius. Are you saying that he didn't believe Origen had Josephus as a source? Could you provide the passage for reference?

I'm saying that Eusebius (EH 2.23.20) unlike today's pundits saw no direct relationship between what Origen "cited" from Josephus and AJ 20.200, which Eusebius cited immediately after the Origen passage. And Eusebius cited Origen as Josephus! For him they were separate texts.

This is an interesting scoping trick. As mentioned above Origen talks of "James the brother of Jesus called christ" (and later "James the Just the brother of Jesus called christ"), but AJ 20.200 uses "the brother of Jesus called christ whose name (was) James", significantly different, but if you arbitrarily trim away the bits you don't like, you get to something more visually appealing.

Origen first wrote about James the brother of Jesus called christ in his commentary on Matthew, the gospel which features the phrase "Jesus called christ". That Origen used it for the person he assumed was the brother of Jesus—as explained by Hegesippus—in the commentary seems quite a natural turn of phrase in the context.

Are we really going to split hairs over the wording in Josephus vs. Origen? It is obvious that Origen is reciting from memory or hearsay once we recognize his mistake concerning James being the trigger for Jerusalem's fall.

No, we are splitting hairs over the scholarly fine tuning of what they believe Origen used from AJ 20.200. Yes, it is obvious that Origen was working from memory. The difference here is that I argue that he confused his source in doing so, ie confused Hegesippus and Josephus, names which were confused in antiquity, as can be seen in the case where a Latin paraphrase of BJ was attributed to Hegesippus, not Iosippus, and eventually Pseudo-Hegesippus.

On the other hand, if the suggestion is that the passage in Josephus came as a later interpolation based on Origen's mistake, why then, would the Josephan phrase not exactly match the parallel in Origen? Why not also add in the detail about James' death leading to the temple's destruction? Surely if we can suggest the TF is wholly interpolated...

As explained above this was a case of creeping marginalia. One scribe noted in the margin that the particular James was "the brother of Jesus called christ" as found in Comm.Mt. A later scribe took it as an omissis and put it into the text, hence the different syntax.

The TF is a different type of intervention. It was obviously intentional. Just consider the discourse marker in AJ 18.65: "another (=second) outrage threw the Jews into an uproar". The text clearly indicates that there was a first and that was the narrative outlining Pilate's acts that stirred up the Jews (18.55-62). The whole TF was inserted here because the previous section mentioned Pilate, but nothing in it indicates that the Jews were thrown into an uproar. The TF has nothing directly to do with the discourse Josephus created regarding Jewish uproars. AJ 18.65 naturally follows on from AJ 18.55-62 and does not feature the Greek particle δε indicating change of topic, but 18.63 does. We have obvious signs that the TF was stuck into its present context and not by Josephus.

Oh, rubbish. If you want to trust people's opinions, then there is no point in you discussing the matter. We should wait until those people join the conversation.

What other way can we judge success? That it has convinced you or myself? That it has convinced mythicists (many with an ax to grind, though I don't have the audacity to speak for everyone)? If other scholars don't feel obliged to join the discussion, that might say something about the validity of the presented arguments. It is not like the TF hasn't been debated by these same scholars ad nauseam.

We work on evidence, not opinions. If you can convince yourself that you can trust AJ 20.200's mention of Jesus, then I'm happy for you. There are some nice passages in Ps 22 for you as well. I'm not interested in your or someone else's untinged opinions. The law has a three strike rule because it works on the assumption that you can establish a pattern. We can only establish a partial habit, but the habit is clearly related to passages favorable to christian subjects. You've done nothing to change the fact that AJ 20.200 has no probative value. You've merely crapped on about opinions and mythicists, which is as helpful as a pocket in a pair of underpants.

[neilgodfrey]

Hi Neil, at first I found your argument powerful, but I am having second thoughts. Aren't there many stories in Josephus that do not particularly emphasize the theme of God's working in the world through and upon the Jews? For example, all the stories about Caligula in AJ 19. Can you really run them through the "piety of his own race and peers" sieve without bringing in question-begging assumptions? It seems there is a good deal in AJ that does not in an obvious way fulfill the requirements of authenticity that you suggest. I am left thinking that of your arguments against the authenticity of the TF, one is strong, one is weak. Strong: the passage in AJ 18.63-64 does not fit its immediate context. Weak: that passage does not promote the Judaeo-centric theme of the AJ. Weak because many passages do not noticeably do that. And if you add too many nuances to that theme -- allow too much digression into stories of groups that are not Jews -- the hypothesis based on assuming Judaeo-centrism as a controlling factor ceases to do any useful work.

Am I missing something?

You have forced me to go back and have a closer look at my argument I made a few years ago now and I can see I would now word it somewhat differently or at least include a more thorough outline of Josephus as a historian.

Josephus's detailed account of Caligula explicitly conforms to his theological and moral purpose of his Antiquities. Ant. 19.1.2, 19.1.10 and especially 19.6.1 spell out the theological message; the nature of his account matches the same treatment he gives other "bad" characters: Antiochus, Herod, Crassus, Pilate, John.

Barrett in Caligula: The Corruption of Power, xxi, writes:

Josephus provides the most detailed account of any phase of Caligula’s reign — the events surrounding his assassination. He wrote at some length on the event because it served an important moral purpose, bringing happiness to the world and saving the Jews from destruction.

Mader in Josephus and the Politics of Historiography argues Josephus regularly constructs extreme polar identities, the ideal and the wicked, in order to demonstrate that the wicked are not truly part of the larger group they identify with. The "touchstone in Josephus' assessment of Jews and Romans" is their treatment of the Temple.

Josephus is strongly influenced by the historian Polybius: neither historian holds back from condemning cruelty and wickedness among Roman leaders, and again this is part of the larger theological message (in both historians -- the theological message in ancient historical works goes back to Herodotus) that God will eventually replace the reigning power of the day. No power has proved worthy to last forever. (Gruen, "Polybius and Josephus on Rome" in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, ed by Pastor, Stern and Mor)

So I would argue in that the Caligula details set out by Josephus do conform to his larger historiographical purposes: Caligula is a prime target for his (attempted) treatment of the Jews and their Temple and serves as a foil to demonstrated the nobility of Jewish passive resistance in the face of such outrage; his wickedness is accordingly elaborated upon to further demonstrate the workings of God in raising the wicked only to destroy them; and this further advances his own argument for the Jewish privilege of having the far greater knowledge of God than any other peoples (Josephus, recall, viewed himself as a prophet).

If this waters down my original argument then so be it. I would say in its defence that Josephus is not a mere chronicler, listing "one damn thing after another" according to whatever came to mind, but is writing like other ancient historians with clear didactic purposes. That didactic aim centres around the Jews, Moses and the Temple and God. (They have surpassed Plato and co in wisdom, etc.)

I don't know how we could fit the TF into any of Josephus's didactic aims. I suspect it would be hard to find any other passage in Josephus that cannot be explained in terms of his stated purposes.

[maryhelena]

II. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64,” JSJ 45.3 (2014) 326-65.

B.-R. argues, against the current mainstream view, that the TF -- reading something like ἐνομίζετο, "was believed" -- exhibits an unsympathetic, not a neutral, attitude toward Jesus. Although Josephus was not baldly hostile and need not have displayed the anti-Jesus sentiments of Jews of later times, B.-R. finds colorations in the TF of disapproval of Jesus as a politically subversive messianic pretender. He does a good job of showing the weakness of arguments that the attitude of the TF is neutral (against Meier, Van Voorst et al.). I particularly like his making the structure of arguments explicit and pinpointing fallacies. Some of the phrases that B.-R. finds negative, based on their usage in other places in Josephus, are:
1. the opening Γίνεται δὲ , which often introduces narratives of tumults in Josephus
2. διδάσκαλος , "teacher," often has negative connotations in Jos.
3. ditto for ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι , "receive with pleasure," which tends to describe tumultuous behavior of crowds
4. ἀγαπήσαντες can mean "be content with" or actively "love". Eisler recognized both meanings in Jos and adduced BJ 1.171 of Aristobulus initiating troubles, where he thinks that verb refers to partisanship toward Aristobulus: τοὺς μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦντας μεταβολῆς, τοὺς δ’ἀγαπῶντάς αὐτὸν πάλαι – a close parallel to the TF.
etc

B.-R. speculates that Christian scribes removed some even more pointed references to Jesus as a perceived political threat, since the whole TF is shorter than the other calamity narratives that surround it in context, and as we have it, it does not narrate tumults or riots as the other narratives do in AJ 18.55-89.

The last point raises the issue, is the TF wholly interpolated, since it does stand out as anomalous in context for NOT narrating disturbances. The other calamities that Pilate visited upon the Jews are results somehow of disturbances or fears of same. I was disappointed that B.-R. did not give more argument for the mainstream view, which he accepts, that our TF is a modified form of Josephus' original. The only arguments for authenticity that he does sketch are:
1. vocab and style consistent with Jos.
2. some parts are not what we'd expect a Christian interpolator to say
3. variation in the textual tradition not easily explained as author's variants
4. Origen says Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ, a statement unmotivated if Jos never mentioned Jesus
5. internal tensions show at least two hands at work in redaction, which argues that our TF is not wholly genuine and not wholly forged.

B.-R. ends by assailing mainstream scholars who are, he says, uncomfortable with the view that Jesus was connected to anti-Roman resistance ideology. Therefore these scholars don't want to allow that the TF was altered by Christians who themselves were uncomfortable with that insinuation or who thought it simply erroneous.

Very interesting the argument re "politically subversive messianic pretender". What with Reza Aslan's book, Zealot, and Dale Martin's article, Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous," the zealot Jesus looks to be making a comeback!
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/37/1/3?etoc

As of now, when NT scholars seems to want to downplay the zealot component to the gospel Jesus figure - so, likewise, perhaps, the Josephan writer, in the TF, had similar ideas....(or whoever would have had motive to downplay the zealot component to the Jesus story...)

Below is a long quote from Slavonic Josephus. While this does show that the Jesus figure did not want to engage in zealot activity........his followers did hope for that. The Jewish leaders taking fright at the possibility of rebellion against Rome, and it's consequences, and reporting this to Pilate....Note the followers of Jesus in the gospel of Luke: "But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel".

Of interest is where the wonder-doer story is placed in Slavonic Josephus - right in the middle of the two disturbances that involved Pilate.

Slavonic Josephus

And then
a governor was sent by Tiberius to Judaea.
who brought into Jerusalem secretly by night
the image of Caesar
called 'semaia'.
And he set it up In the city.
And when morning came, the Jews seeing it.
created a great tumult
being horrified
at the sight of their Law
being [thus] trampled on.
For it does not allow any image
in the city.

And the people from round about
all came running in haste,
when they heard what had happened.
And they hastened to Caesarea
imploring Pilate
to remove the semaia from Jerusalem.
And he allowed them to maintain
their ancestral customs.
When Pilate rebuffed their pleas.
they fell prostrate
and endured 5 days and 5 nights
motionless.
And then
Pilate mounted the throne
in the great hippodrome
and summoned the people.
as if wishing to give answer to them and
he ordered
his troops, with their weapons,
suddenly to surround the Jews.
And they.
seeing the unexpected sight,
three regiments surrounding them,
trembled greatly.

and Pilate threatened them and said.
"•Having cut you all down,
if you do not accept the image of Caesar."
And he ordered his men
to draw their swords.
Wisely the Jews |

fell [to the ground).
And stretching out their necks,
they cried,
•••We are ready like sheep for slaughter,*
rather than transgress the Law."
Pilate was amazed
at their fear of God and their purity.
And he ordered the semaia
to be removed from Jerusalem.
At that time there appeared a man, |
if it is proper to call him a man,
whose nature and form were human
but whose appearance was more than human
and whose deeds were divine.
And he worked wonderful and powerful miracles.
Therefore it is impossible for me
to call him a man.
Then again, in view of his common nature,
they shall not call him an angel (either).
And everything, whatever he did, he did by |
some unseen power, by word and command.
Some said of him.
"Our first lawgiver has risen from the dead and
has been demonstrating many cures and skills."
Others thought that he was sent from God.
But he was in much opposed to the Law and
did not observe the Sabbath according to
the ancestral custom yet did nothing
dirty. unclean. nor with use of hands
but worked everything by word only
And many of the people followed
and listened to his teachings.
And many souls were aroused.
thinking that by him the Jewish tribes would
free themselves from the hands of the Romans.
But it was his habit rather to remain in front
of the city on the Mount of Olives:
and there he also (freely) gave cures to people.
And there 150 servants
and a multitude of people joined him.
seeing his power (and)
how by word he did everything he wished.
They bade him enter the city,
kill the Roman troops and Pilate
and reign over these.
But he did not care [to do so).
Later, when news of this came |
to the Jewish leaders.
they assembled to the chief priests and said,
•'We are powerless and (too) weak
to oppose the Romans, like a "slackened bow.
Let us go inform Pilate what we have heard:
and we shall be free of anxiety:
if at some time he shall hear [of this] from others,
we shall be deprived of [our] property,
ourselves slaughtered and (our) children exiled."
And they went and informed Pilate.
And he sent and killed many of the people
and brought in that wonder-worker.
"After inquiring about him Pilate understood
that he was a doer of good, not of evil,
(and] not a rebel nor one desirous of kingship :
and he released him.
For he had cured his wife who was dying.
And he went to the usual -places- and |
performed his usual deeds.
And [once] again,
as more people gathered around him.
he became renowned for his works
more than all (others).
Again the lawyers were struck with envy
against him.
And they gave 30 talents to Pilate
that they should kill him.
And he took (it) and gave them liberty
to carry out their wishes themselves.
And they sought out a suitable time to kill him."
For they had given Pilate 30 talents earlier,
that he should give Jesus up to them"
•And they crucified him
against [the] ancestral law;
and they greatly reviled him.
And then
the Jews raised a second disturbance.
For Pilate had taken
the holy treasure called the Corban [and]
spent it on the building of water pipes,
wishing to bring Jordan (water)
from 400 stades (away).

And when the people
were shouting [out] against him
he sent
[his men)

and beat them with cudgels

And 3000 were trampled
as they ran (away)

and the rest fell silent.

footnote:
$ 174e-' further in Vil and A an addition: If Josephus the Jew called him wonder-worker and the works be performed divine and super-human, we. orthodox and Christian people, firmly informed by the holy prophets and the divine apostles and the most worthy historians, call him Jesus Christ, our true Lord, just as the great and God-speaking evangelists say, eye-witnesses of the true word, which truly was. Further. Luke 23:1-I5.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison
H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor)

Interesting - looks like the Slavonic translators added the 'Jesus' name to the wonder-doer story. gLuke already having done so in the Emmanus narrative.

Regarding the Emmanus narrative and the TF:

http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

[maryhelena]

Bermejo-Rubio does not hold that the TF was written by Josephus about someone else and redacted into a reference to the Jesus of the Christians. AJ 18.63-64 appears in a rundown of calamities suffered by the Jews during the time of Pilate. I don't see any reason to suppose that Josephus was talking about Antigonus or Jesus ben Ananias here, for neither died during the governorship of Pilate. I can't see how there are any viable hypotheses other than: 1. the whole TF was forged; 2. the TF was substantially what we have but a. had somewhat more or b. had somewhat less.

Perhaps your relying too much on the gospel story itself. i.e. Pilate had Jesus crucified. A better approach would be to follow Thomas Brodie that the NT is a literary construct. As such its a story about early christian origins. A story placed within a specific historical time frame. A time frame that can be interpreted, re Daniel, as a prophetic time-frame. That the actual early history of christian origins revolved around Pilate can be disputed from the gospel story itself. gLuke and it's reference to Lysanias of Abilene put his starting line as far back as 40 b.c.e. (Thus able to take on board the Roman execution of Antigonus). That the gospel writers use Pilate as the time-slot for the crucifixion can be nothing more than that Pilate fits their prophetic time-frame for their christian origin story. An origin story that is able to condense actual historical events, of interest to the gospel writers, into the narrow time frame of Pilate in Judea. Don't let Pilate short-circuit research into early christian origins.....

[ficino]

Don't disagree that the gospels are literary constructs. But our MSS. of Josephus and Eusebius locate the death of Jesus, from whom the Christianoi got their start, during the governorship of Pilate.

And I'd "tread softly" ( ) where Slavonic Josephus is concerned.

[ficino]

^^^ Neil: I like your nuances above. Good points about how Caligula can be fit into Josephus' moral purpose. I have read a good deal of Josephus but haven't "worked on" him so I am not in a position to challenge. I just say that I am off the top of my head nervous that what I'll call your "macro" criterion of authenticity - viz. does a given passage promote Josephus' theological and moral purpose in the AJ? - will in practice be too ill-defined to do the work of excluding a given passage. That's because, if one accepts God's sovereignty over history, ANYTHING that occurs must be attributed to God's will, at least as first cause. And if the Jews are central to God's working out his will in history, ANYTHING can be found to have some relevance to Jewish history (e.g. so-and-so of nation such-and-such is a foil to the Jews, and his story shows by contrast how good is the Torah, or whatever). So an interpreter can explain why the TF recounts events that carry out God's purposes, involving good, evil and perhaps morally ambiguous characters, and then we're left arguing over whether the interpreter's explanation convinces. Lots of other assumptions will then come into play.

I think the "micro" argument from immediate context is more effective. But perhaps the macro argument can be put on firmer footing in the direction that you speak of above. What are the views of Barrett and Gruen on the TF? Maybe you'll want to expand your Vridar articles into a full-length study.

[maryhelena]

Don't disagree that the gospels are literary constructs. But our MSS. of Josephus and Eusebius locate the death of Jesus, from whom the Christianoi got their start, during the governorship of Pilate.

And I'd "tread softly" ( ) where Slavonic Josephus is concerned.

So... Josephus and Eusebius were aware of the gospel story......or Slavonic Josephus...

Slavonic Josephus? For the ahistoricists the Slavonic Josephus is a 'gift horse' - I'm not about to say 'no' to it....

For the Jesus historicists, the Slavonic Josephus is a nail in their coffin. No wonder they will seek to discredit it.

[neilgodfrey]

^^^ Neil: I like your nuances above. Good points about how Caligula can be fit into Josephus' moral purpose. I have read a good deal of Josephus but haven't "worked on" him so I am not in a position to challenge. I just say that I am off the top of my head nervous that what I'll call your "macro" criterion of authenticity - viz. does a given passage promote Josephus' theological and moral purpose in the AJ? - will in practice be too ill-defined to do the work of excluding the TF. That's because, if one accepts God's sovereignty over history, ANYTHING that occurs must be attributed to God's will, at least as first cause. And if the Jews are central to God's working out his will in history, ANYTHING can be found to have some relevance to Jewish history (e.g. so-and-so of nation such-and-such is a foil to the Jews, and his story shows by contrast how good is the Torah, or whatever). So an interpreter can explain why the TF recounts events that carry out God's purposes, involving good, evil and perhaps mixed characters, and then we're left arguing over whether the interpreter's explanation convinces. Lots of other assumptions will then come into play.

I think the "micro" argument from immediate context is more effective. But perhaps the macro argument can be put on firmer footing in the direction that you speak of above. What are the views of Barrett and Gruen on the TF? Maybe you'll want to expand your Vridar articles into a full-length study.

I think my "macro" point was a bit more than a simple "God rules" message, and I don't think Josephus had any intention of writing anything "of some relevance to Jewish history" -- far from it. I think I drew several threads from the Caligula passage to the purpose of Josephus's Antiquities. If comparable threads can be found to link the TF to the purposes of Josephus then I'll concede my argument is without substance. The TF stands out as a sore boil against everything Josephus is interested in expressing. Even if we assume a hostile core original we have a passage that depicts success to a movement that stands contrary to wisdom of the Jewish elders (who had him condemned), the Temple and Moses. Knowing what we know of Josephus's purposes and how other passages such as the Caligula accounts accord with those then how can we explain the TF being found in any book or chapter of Antiquities?

But I take your point that it might help if I take the time to set it out in full rather than try to express it in brief points. Maybe the effort will leave me stranded and I'll find it's an argument that seemed better at the time than it really was. Only the written effort and dialogue will tell.

Thanks for raising the challenge.

(By the way, I doubt that even a genuine core TF, favorable, neutral or negative, could ever be decisive for the question of mythicism. But that's another question more to do with historical methods and how we use documents.)

P.S. added later....

As for Barrett and Gruen, they look sound enough to me. I would like to take time to examine a raft of Josephan narratives in Antiquities against his historiographical purpose and redo a post on the TF from that perspective.

[ficino]

I would like to take time to examine a raft of Josephan narratives in Antiquities against his historiographical purpose and redo a post on the TF from that perspective.

I'd be very interested in where such examination takes you, Neil, if you get the chance to embark on it.

[MattMorales]

Spin:

It appears I am wasting my time in attempting a respectful discourse with you. As it seems you are parroting Carrier's argument regarding the creeping marginalia, there is in fact nothing to say that has not already been put more eloquently by more learned scholars than myself. I do not like slapping labels on people, but I am unaware of anyone rejecting the Antiquities XX reference who does not subscribe to a mythical Jesus. I have nothing against mythicism per se, but I do have a problem with zealots who, in subjects as hazy as this, are arrogant enough to not acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposition.