Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 10:36 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 10:20 am By your logic, not only could Eusebius not have composed it, he could not have included it in the Ecclesiastical History, the Demonstratio Evangelica, and the the Theophany where we find it in our manuscripts.
Ok, then I correct my implication: probably Julian is an indirect witness of a survived copy of Josephus* where Jesus is never mentioned at all.

* and Tacitus
Perhaps the fact that Julian did not quote Josephus is because the TF, if he did have a copy of Antiquities, did not have the wise named as Jesus. Consequently, Julian would have no reason to reference Josephus.

A Josephan TF without naming the wise man...... is still the TF. Julian an unsuspected witness to an original core TF? Now that would be a turn up for the books....

As for Eusebius.... why would Julian quote a Christian author when it's well know authors of the time of Tiberius or Claudius that he is interested in?

(The Lukan writer had connected the Slavonic Josephus unnamed wonder worker story to Jesus of Nazareth. Eusebius simply used the Lukan writer's identification and updated the Josephan TF by naming the wise man as Jesus.)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:48 pm But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juli ... 1_text.htm[/box]
well done.
My point is that, before that accusation, Cyrill didn't appeal to the Testimonium Flavianum, so proving that he, or Julian, or both, had a copy of Josephus without not even only a bit on Jesus or James or John.

@Chris
Your objection may hold some point on Tacitus as an "obscure" writer, but not on Josephus, since Julian knew probably from Josephus that the Jews were without a temple. He couldn't have derived that info from the gospels only. In addition, if your argument is that Josephus was preserved only by Christians by the time of Julian, then even more so Julian would have read Josephus since he received a complete Christian education and was even baptized. Josephus was important for Christians because he confirmed the fall of the temple.

As to Tacitus, note that he wrote a book titled Germania. Could Julian instruct himself on the ars militaris without consulting a such book? We know that his victory on the Germans in the battle of Argentoratum (Strasbourg) was also the fruit of the his study of the art of war based on writers, too.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:54 am
Julian declared that Jesus was unknown to the illustrious writers of his age (or of the immediately following age).

(Cyrill, Against Julian, book 6)

What is even more serious: Cyril didn't reply by appealing to Tacitus or Josephus.

Julian would have known perfectly Tacitus.
Ken Olsen kindly provided the link to what Julian was claiming on the last page:

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Who were the well-known writers during the reign of Tiberius and Claudius? Tacitus and Josephus didn't write until after Claudius, so I wonder who Julian might have had in mind.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:54 amPOST SCRIPTUM:
Now I expect an apologist Arnoldo's new post that remembers all us that Julian was historicist.
Not Arnoldo, but Julian was a 'historicist'. It's important to note because we shouldn't try to read Julian's writings as though he was involved in the "did Jesus exist" debate. He seems to have thought Jesus existed but that many of the stories in the Gospels were made up.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by maryhelena »

Interesting observation by Dave Allen on the lack of the name Jesus in the Slavonic Josephus.

The Slavonic

Before the thirteenth century, in Constantinople or its environs, a mutant form of the TF found its way into a Greek text of the War of the Jews. (Read on to see that this was an earlier Greek examplar of the manuscripts of the Slavonic we have now).

This is now known as the ‘Slavonic Josephus.’ The material corresponding to the beginning of the Testimonium was inserted between the third and fourth paragraphs of the ninth chapter of Book 2 of War. “… it is certainly a noteworthy fact that Josephus’ silence about Jesus in the Jewish War was felt to be a defect at quite an early period, with the result that attempts were made to remedy this state of affairs by a bold insertion of the Testimonium into the War.” [6]

All scholars recognize that the Slavonic has been destroyed with Christian gloss as explained very well by Van Voorst:

“The Slavonic Josephus reflects the growing Christian tendency to excuse Pontius Pilate for Jesus’ death and to blame the Jews, even to the point of saying that the Jews themselves crucified Jesus. To make this point, the Slavonic version has to ignore Josephus’s original statement that Pilate crucified him….The Slavonic Testimonium uses the New Testament extensively at several points to develop its story.” [7]

But then Van Voorst goes on to say that the Slavonic does “not provide an authentic textual alternative to the main Testimonium Flavianum in the Jewish Antiquities.” [8]

Yet Christians were trying to bolster up the TF, so Van Voorst fails to explain why they dropped his name “Jesus” and title “Christ”. Both De Excidio and the Slavonic do not have Pilate crucifying Jesus (which could be explained by the general trend of taking the blame off of the Romans and placing it onto the Jews. Both recensions also do not name Jesus or call him Christ. Same as in De Excidio, this would not have happened if the Slavonic had come from the textus receptus found in the manuscripts of Antiquities that were post Eusebian tampering. Of course it is easier to explain if the Slavonic came from a Greek exemplar that existed before the editing of Eusebius. It would explain it perfectly if it came from an exemplar that existed before Eusebius added the words ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’. There is evidence it came from an early Greek exemplar as a number of Greek words were taken over literally by the Russian. [9] For example: igemon, metropolja, archierei, skinopigja, katapetasma, aramatji and others just shows that the Slavonic is working off an early Greek exemplar. The Slavonic has the same attributes as the De Excidio, (not naming Jesus or calling him Christ) as if it came from the same textual family of a pre Eusebian Greek examplar. The De Excidio is a paraphrase of a pre-Eusebian TF whereas the Slavonic is an expansion of a pre-Eusebian TF.

The Slavonic is so bloated, it is laughable. The most telling part of Slavonic is the fact that it says so much about Jesus except his name. It refers to him as “there appeared a certain man” (Slavonic War 2.9.3/4). This suggests that this particular line of transmission has preserved the notion that Jesus was not named in the original TF.

Jesus not being named is not unusual for Josephus, cases such as the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.13.5) who led a revolt of thousands and featured in both Antiquities and War yet he could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’. (Ant. 18.5.1).

In the following sentence contained in the Slavonic TF could have come from an original TF, “And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes could free themselves from Roman hands.” The word tribe is also in the last sentence of the TF. That line plus the fact Jesus was not named nor called Christ, are the parts that the Slavonic has preserved from the original TF.

As damaged as the Slavonic is with Christian gloss, it is on a different transmission line than the Arabic and Michael the Syrian recension. Therefore it is valuable as it came from a pre Eusebian Greek exemplar.

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/12/02 ... of-the-tf/

Without the name Jesus in the Josephan TF Julian would have had no reason to quote Josephus. To assume that Julian did not quote the TF/Josephus because there was no TF in his copy of Antiquities is very shortsighted. As I've said a number of times regarding the TF being a whole cloth Eusebius invention - letting Josephus off the hook is not the way to proceed in investigating early christian origins.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:44 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:54 am
Julian declared that Jesus was unknown to the illustrious writers of his age (or of the immediately following age).

(Cyrill, Against Julian, book 6)

What is even more serious: Cyril didn't reply by appealing to Tacitus or Josephus.

Julian would have known perfectly Tacitus.
Ken Olsen kindly provided the link to what Julian was claiming on the last page:

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Who were the well-known writers during the reign of Tiberius and Claudius? Tacitus and Josephus didn't write until after Claudius, so I wonder who Julian might have had in mind.
Philo under Tiberius.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:44 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:54 am
Julian declared that Jesus was unknown to the illustrious writers of his age (or of the immediately following age).

(Cyrill, Against Julian, book 6)

What is even more serious: Cyril didn't reply by appealing to Tacitus or Josephus.

Julian would have known perfectly Tacitus.
Ken Olsen kindly provided the link to what Julian was claiming on the last page:

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Who were the well-known writers during the reign of Tiberius and Claudius? Tacitus and Josephus didn't write until after Claudius, so I wonder who Julian might have had in mind.
come on, GDon, this is not at all a serious objection. Josephus talked about Pilate so he is ipso facto one of the writers "of that time".

I am only assuming here that the quote from Julian is the same meant by Weyll-Raynall, from book 6 of Cyrill's work.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:44 am Not Arnoldo, but Julian was a 'historicist'. It's important to note because we shouldn't try to read Julian's writings as though he was involved in the "did Jesus exist" debate. He seems to have thought Jesus existed but that many of the stories in the Gospels were made up.
I disagree strongly here. Saying that Jesus was unknown, a mr. Nobody, means to be involved at least partially in a "did Jesus exist" debate. At any case, this thread is a debate about the survival of a copy of Josephus without the Testimonium Flavianum.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:48 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:44 am Not Arnoldo, but Julian was a 'historicist'. It's important to note because we shouldn't try to read Julian's writings as though he was involved in the "did Jesus exist" debate. He seems to have thought Jesus existed but that many of the stories in the Gospels were made up.
I disagree strongly here. Saying that Jesus was unknown, a mr. Nobody, means to be involved at least partially in a "did Jesus exist" debate. At any case, this thread is a debate about the survival of a copy of Josephus without the Testimonium Flavianum.
No copy of Antiquities, as far as I'm aware is without the TF. The real question here is the survival - possibly under Julian re your quote - of a copy of Antiquities without the name Jesus in the TF i.e. a copy of the TF without Christian interpolations. That such a TF existed - the Slavonic Josephus - indicates that the name Jesus was not necessarily a part of a core TF. Particularly so as Christian interpolators failed to move their interpolated TF to a time slot more suited to the Lukan narrative. Julian would have had no use of a TF without the wise man being named as Jesus.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by GakuseiDon »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:11 am
Who were the well-known writers during the reign of Tiberius and Claudius? Tacitus and Josephus didn't write until after Claudius, so I wonder who Julian might have had in mind.
Philo under Tiberius.
Yep, certainly a possibility.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Julian denies the authenticity of both Testimonium Flavianum and Taciteum

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:06 amThat such a TF existed - the Slavonic Josephus - indicates that the name Jesus was not necessarily a part of a core TF.
Are you saying that you believe that the Slavonic Testimonium Flavianum is genuine ?
Post Reply