Jesus in the writings of Josephus Flavius - Dr. James H. Charlesworth

[Ken Olson]

Dr. James H. Charlesworth, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature Emeritus Princeton at Theological Seminary, appears on a brief (6 minutes) new episode of Jacob Berman's History Valley YouTube channel today to state his position on the Testimonium Flavianum, which he enumerates as 7 main points and 4 minor points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvcRPnQ0NNk

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

Is it just me marveling at what's happening?

Why are so many scholars, even so old, giving interviews so freely on these only-for-young channels?

Some explanation?

I don't see old experts in other fields waste their time with this hobby.

[MrMacSon]

The transcript:

Actually, if there is a consensus today, it's either that scholars don't want to debate it or they assume that it's, ah, not by Josephus but by Josephus through the hand of a Christian.

Let's make the first point: that Josephus was born in 38, Jesus died around 30 so they never could have met.

0:31
Now, we have only two possibilities regarding the Testimonium Flavianum: that is Josephus’ reference to Jesus. One is a Christian added it completely; or a Christian re-edited it and made some alterations. That is what I think most scholars think. And that is my position.

I wish to make seven points very briefly.

0:57
The earliest manuscript, point one. The earliest manuscript of Josephus Antiquities is a tenth century. So we have ten centuries for Christians who are copying this and passing it on. It was passed on in the original language, Greek, by Greek scribes.

1:16
As you evaluate that, we need to point out that there's no fragments of any book in the New Testament from the first century: we work with third, fourth, fifth century. And, if you talk about alterations, there were over 30 000 copies of the Greek New Testament in manuscript form: not one is identical to another. So you can see alterations as they're being copied. Sometimes they're intentional. Sometimes they're a mistake.

1:45
Point two: in its present form Josephus reference to Jesus is shaped by Christian scribes: we/there can be no doubt to that.

Point three: earliest manuscripts of Josephus: they're about a thousand [AD/CE]: that's ten centuries [pause] scribes are copying it in Greek and that's our major text.

2:07
Point four: we have Christian interpolations in many early Jewish works, especially the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. And we know that when we compare ‘em with the Hebrew fragments found among Qumran.

2:20
Point five: minor additions to Josephus Antiquities 18 are easily removed: they’re from a different hand, a different time; and this, and the text reads much more smoothly. It's not so interrupted.

2.35
Point six: what Jesus wrote could not have been composed by a Christian. Let me make that for, make that clear: in Josephus Antiquities in the Greek of the tenth century, he refers to Jesus as a wise man.

This is most unlikely for any Greek scholar: they considered Jesus a God. And today, when you're in Greece, they say Jesus and God are both God: they are one.

3:02
The next thing that you find in Josephus [in Antiquities 20.200/9.1] is, ‘the so-called Christ’: 'o legomenou Christos'. No Christian scribe would ever say, “is the so-called Christ.” They would say he's the proclaimed Christ.

3:16
Then, the next thing that Josephus says about Jesus, ‘the tribe of Christians have not yet become extinct’, as if he wants them to become extinct.

3:26
Point seven: for Josephus references Jesus are reports of riots and afflictions among the Jews so he's putting Jesus in a very bad frame: looks like that's what Josephus did. No scribe who was a Christian would put it there.

3:44
What is our conclusion? Josephus referred to Jesus. The Christian/s altered the text to make Josephus a witness to Jesus as the Christ. Christian interpolations are grammatically free from the text an, and are easily removed.

And, at that point the text makes much better sense.

Then I have four little points together.
I do like [that] Josephus may have honored Jesus and considered him to be a wise man and a good man.

4:12
Let us not forget that many authorities in Jerusalem, like Josephus, ah, sorry like, ah, Joseph Arimathea and Nicodemus, some of the priests, were very much moved by Jesus and they didn't want to condemn him.

4:27
Two: in Antiquities 20 Josephus refers to James as Jesus’ brother. Hence, he must have referred to Jesus, because you're not going to end a book refer to a person who was unknown by a person that is unknown. You always refer back: referred to Jesus, that was his brother is James.

4:48
Point 3: as the Jewish scholar Pines has stated Josephus is not mental about Jesus. Pines found something: I'll tell you about it in a moment.

4:59
Fourth: Josephus could have admired Jesus: both were Palestinian Jews and Jesus was falsely accused. Why no early Christians would [have(?)] cited. The rest in Josephus was common knowledge and, um, Jesus comes off very poorly when you take out the Christian addictions that occurred over ten centuries.

5:24
What is the proof? We now have an Arabic manuscript is by Agapius and it says, it says in his book of the title it's tenth century. And, um, I have studied it and published it.

5:40
All of the Christian words are noticeably absent. In an Arabic papyist(?) book, wuch, which quotes the Testimonium Flavianum we have no Christian addition, as I pointed out.

5:56
hello viewers thanks for watching this video from the History Valley YouTube Channel ...

[MrMacSon]

The trasncript:

3:02
the next thing that you find in Josephus [in Antiquities 20.200/9.1] is, ‘the so-called Christ’: 'o legomenou Christos'. No Christian scribe would ever say, “is the so-called Christ.” They would say he's the proclaimed Christ.

'o legomenou Christos' - τὸν/ὁ λεγόμενον/ς Χριστόν/ς - is generally interpreted and translated as, 'who is called Christ' (?), rather than as, 'the so-called Christ' (?)

τὸν/ὁ λεγόμενον/ς Χριστόν/ς is also in

1. Matthew 1:16,
2. Matthew 27:12,
3. Matthew 27:22, and
4. John 4:25,

As well as in

• Justin Martyr's 1 Apol 30,

• Origen's
  1. Commentary on Matthew 10.17,
  2. Contra Celsus 1.47, and
  3. Contra Celsus 2.13

And by

• Eusebius' Church History where he's 'quoting' Antiquities 20 : ie. in Eccl. hist. II,23.s20 and s22.
  
  • Eccl. hist. II,23.s20
    λέξεων ‘ταῦτα δὲ συμβέβηκεν Ἰουδαίοις κατ̓ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ
    These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called [the] Christ
  • Eccl. hist. II,23.s22
    τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ λεγομένου, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ
    the brother of Jesus, the Christ [so]-called , James by name
  Esuebius also uses λεγόμενον in:
  
  • Eccl. hist. II,1.s2
    Τότε δῆτα καὶ Ἰάκωβον, τὸν τοῦ κυρίου λεγόμενον ἀδελφόν
    This James was called brother of the Lord [because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ]
  and
  • Eccl. hist.[/i] II,23.s25 (twice)
    ἐμνημόνευσαν, ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς λεγομένης Ἰούδα, μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν
    epistle bears the name called Jude, which is also one of the seven [so]-called catholic epistles

[Paul the Uncertain]

Thanks to MrMacSon for the transcription.

@Ken

All 11 points are familiar features of discussions of the controversy.

While I agree that Christians altered the source text in the course of transmitting it, I see no compelling reason to infer intentional deception by any Christian pen-jockey in this matter (including Origen and Eusebius).

I am skeptical about arguments based upon conjectures about what a Christian forger "would" write about Jesus while presumably wishing to be mistaken for a cashiered Jewish priest, or where in Antiquities the Christian forger would place the mention of Jesus's crucifixion if not among Josephus's tales of Pilate behaving badly.

If improving "flow" is such a problem, then removing the farcical Paulina and Mundus would have a much greater effect than removing or abbreviating the TF, which at least has some Jewish characters.

Just my opinion, briefly put given that I'm unsure of your intentions for this thread.

[maryhelena]

Thanks to MrMacSon for the transcription.

@Ken

All 11 points are familiar features of discussions of the controversy.

While I agree that Christians altered the source text in the course of transmitting it, I see no compelling reason to infer intentional deception by any Christian pen-jockey in this matter (including Origen and Eusebius).

I am skeptical about arguments based upon conjectures about what a Christian forger "would" write about Jesus while presumably wishing to be mistaken for a cashiered Jewish priest, or where in Antiquities the Christian forger would place the mention of Jesus's crucifixion if not among Josephus's tales of Pilate behaving badly.

If improving "flow" is such a problem, then removing the farcical Paulina and Mundus would have a much greater effect than removing or abbreviating the TF, which at least has some Jewish characters.

Just my opinion, briefly put given that I'm unsure of your intentions for this thread.

I'm curious as to why Ken shared the link. - - to an argument that I thought would be opposite to the one he proposes on the TF. Great of course to be up to scratch as to what opposing arguments consist of. - - but unless I've missed something - - nothing stands out as offering a new insight. Or is Ken rethinking his own position?

For myself, I don't think a whole cloth Eusebius created TF offers any forward movement for NT research.... Eusebius did it.. end of debate.... Josephus is left off the hook. A core Josephan TF puts Josephus in the Dock. Thereby opening up questions as to why he recorded the Jesus crucified under Pilate story. Its easy to assume he recorded a historical event.... .Antiquities was written around 94 ce.... but any witnesses to historical events during the middle 30s....would be advanced in age with resultant fading memories. Hardly trustworthy in a court of law.

Neither a Eusebius created interpolation or a Josephus recorded hearsay story offer compelling arguments for the TF. So.... If Josephus was not, could not, be offering eyewitnesses for the Jesus crucified under Pilate story.....the question presents itself.... either Josephus was mistaken re the historicity of the hearsay story.... or he had his own interests in writing/recording the Jesus crucified under Pilate story. In other words - - what was the connection between Josephus and the gospel story?

Methinks it's in this area that research needs to focus.