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.
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: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:09 am Cyril would hardly have felt the need to play by Julian's rules, let alone infer what those rules are and then play by them.
ok but the question remains all: how could Julian have said that all the writers "of the time" didn't mention Jesus and the followers of Jesus, when the same Julian:
  • 1) knew surely very probably Josephus;
  • 2) would have known the Testimonium Flavianum found in Josephus by his time;
I can only make sense of this conundrum by removing the point 2 of above, and concluding: Julian didn't find a Testimonium Flavianum in his own copy of Josephus.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

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

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

There are some interesting points here. That Julian would point to the lack of mentions from non-Christian writers from the times of Tiberius and Claudius (the lifetimes of canonical Jesus and his first apostles) may reflect the same concern about the received TF (even after cleaning) and Tacitus that many moderns have.

That is, any mention of Jesus or his first apostles after their lifetimes would be contemporary with or later than the Christian gospels. It would be as impossible in the 4th Century as it is today to eliminate dependence of any such "late" mentions on Christian sources.

There's nothing in Julian which survives that makes him a 'mythicist,' although enough is lost and what survives may be subject to interpretation to leave open the question of how confident he was that Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

From a rhetorical point of view, a "nobody" Jesus who died a shameful criminal's death and whose remains were lost might well be more useful to disparage Christian beliefs than a Jesus who never lived at all. As Celsus's Jewish character put it, he could rebut Christians using only their own writings; nothing more was needed.

Conversely, any personal doubts Julian might have had about the historical situation would not rise to the level of an argument unless he could prove some rational foundation for such thorough doubt. That would be difficult in the absence of mentions of the Christian story, including adverse mentions, contemporary with the first apostles.

Although I have no competence to enter a tactile conversation about the Slavonic Josephus, I think Maryhelena raises a good point about the possibility of a TF that doesn't mention Jesus. Received Tacitus doesn't; maybe Josephus didn't either.

As some readers may know already, my own view of both Josephus and Tacitus is that they are offering an etymological note about why Christians call themselves that. As Steve Mason sometimes points out, people may well have wondered why anybody would be called "the oily one(s)." Reason enough, then, for a writer in the know to tell his readers the derivation.

For that purpose, it is relevant that a man whom the Christians admire supposedly used the handle Christ. It is irrelevant what that man's real name was, and received Tacitus omits that factoid.

Maybe Josephus did, too. If we look at a fairly typical (but etymologically oriented) estimate of a hypothetical genuine TF, the omission of the name Jesus makes little difference.
Jesus There lived about this time, a wise man. He drew to himself many Jews, and also many Greeks.

He was the ‘Christ.’ When Pilate, prompted by our leading men, condemned him to the cross, those who loved him from the beginning did not forsake him, For he was seen by them alive again on the third day. The tribe of the ‘Christians,’ so named after this man, survive to the present day.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2902
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 4:18 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:09 am Cyril would hardly have felt the need to play by Julian's rules, let alone infer what those rules are and then play by them.
ok but the question remains all: how could Julian have said that all the writers "of the time" didn't mention Jesus and the followers of Jesus, when the same Julian:
  • 1) knew surely very probably Josephus;
  • 2) would have known the Testimonium Flavianum found in Josephus by his time;
I can only make sense of this conundrum by removing the point 2 of above, and concluding: Julian didn't find a Testimonium Flavianum in his own copy of Josephus.

The far more likely argument is that Julian found a TF in Antiquities but the wise man was not named. Thus of no use to him when searching for non Christian sources for the Galilean Jesus of the gospels.

That the wonder worker/wise man story eventually became Christianized does not mean that that was its primary reference or value.
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 »

I have sent the same question in a facebook group, and this has been the interesting Dave Allen's answers (until now):



Dave Allen
yet Julian is after Eusebius

Josen Rael
precisely. So he could find the Testimonium Flavianum in Eusebius, only he didn't find it in Josephus, so proving that at least his own copy of Josephus was without the TF.

Dave Allen
Julian as emperor was well aware of the TF, cos we know it existed already. it doesn’t even prove that at all. He could have had an earlier version of the TF, but he didn’t want to mention that, why cos he wanted to discredit the Christians.

Josen Rael
really? Julian says expressly (see the quote) that he is not speaking falsely on that point. He is putting in play his entire reputation of himself in the claim that Jesus was ignored by all the writers of the time.

Dave Allen
where does he mention Josephus? Cos you got nothing so far.
His reputation? What are you on about, he was the emperor.


Josen Rael
we can assume easily that Julian means also Josephus among the 'writers of that time', since Julian received a Christian education and therefore he read Josephus (the not-Christian who confirmed indirectly that Jesus was a true prophet by reporting the destruction of the temple).


Dave Allen
yeah but the TF was well known among emperors - so your argument does not hold up.


Josen Rael
then you think that Julian was a liar in the quote reported above. Right?

Dave Allen
yeah, why do think he is not?

Josen Rael
it would be unexpected, that Julian was a liar just when he declared expressly that he is not lying.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:00 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:53 am I suggest he would have put the same amount of weight on it as he did with the apostles' claim that Jesus was "Christ".
obviously no. We are talking about Julian, who was educated as a Christian, ergo he knew very probably the Christian apologetical use of a not-Christian (= Josephus) as independent witness of the truth of the Christ's prophecy about the destruction of the Temple.
Why would Julian have thought that Josephus was a non-Christian? You've read the TF.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle »

The passage attributed to Julian
The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. 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.
with its references to Cornelius and Sergius, from the book of Acts, almost sound as if Julian is talking about the early preaching of Christianity rather than the life of Christ. Is Julian saying that no secular historian even noticed the preaching of the Apostles and the early spread of Christianity ?

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:56 pm The passage attributed to Julian
The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. 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.
with its references to Cornelius and Sergius, from the book of Acts, almost sound as if Julian is talking about the early preaching of Christianity rather than the life of Christ. Is Julian saying that no secular historian even noticed the preaching of the Apostles and the early spread of Christianity ?

Andrew Criddle
Right. I think Julian is saying Jesus and Paul preached to people of no consequence who were easy to delude - maidservants and slaves (some of them women) and men like Cornelius and Sergius. They did not attempt to or expect to convert people of consequence and aren’t mentioned by the well-known writers of the time. The time was the reigns of Tiberius (Jesus) and Claudius (Paul).
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2902
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:56 pm The passage attributed to Julian
The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. 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.
with its references to Cornelius and Sergius, from the book of Acts, almost sound as if Julian is talking about the early preaching of Christianity rather than the life of Christ. Is Julian saying that no secular historian even noticed the preaching of the Apostles and the early spread of Christianity ?

Andrew Criddle
If Julian is questioning the historicity of the book of Acts then he is questioningly its Christian origin story. An origin story centered around a Jesus figure. Can't have one without the other....
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2902
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:23 pm
andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:56 pm The passage attributed to Julian
The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. 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.
with its references to Cornelius and Sergius, from the book of Acts, almost sound as if Julian is talking about the early preaching of Christianity rather than the life of Christ. Is Julian saying that no secular historian even noticed the preaching of the Apostles and the early spread of Christianity ?

Andrew Criddle
Right. I think Julian is saying Jesus and Paul preached to people of no consequence who were easy to delude - maidservants and slaves (some of them women) and men like Cornelius and Sergius. They did not attempt to or expect to convert people of consequence and aren’t mentioned by the well-known writers of the time. The time was the reigns of Tiberius (Jesus) and Claudius (Paul).
Are you saying that men like Cornelius and Sergius, a centurion and a proconsul, were of no consequence and we're easy to delude ?

Surely the point Julian is making in referencing these two figures is that they were of some consequence. They had become Christians. Julian wants evidence that such men of consequence were written about by non Christian sources during the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

If Jesus and Paul could only attract the less educated to their teaching then their teaching
had nothing to offer the better or highly educated.

Why then should Julian find any value in the teaching of the Galileans.....or their claims about their origin ? Basically, seems to me, Julian is weighing the Acts story and finding it comes up short.

Is Christianity fit only for the easily deluded? Does it have intellectual value and relevance? Or is it just a story for the easily deluded ?
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 11:53 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:00 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:53 am I suggest he would have put the same amount of weight on it as he did with the apostles' claim that Jesus was "Christ".
obviously no. We are talking about Julian, who was educated as a Christian, ergo he knew very probably the Christian apologetical use of a not-Christian (= Josephus) as independent witness of the truth of the Christ's prophecy about the destruction of the Temple.
Why would Julian have thought that Josephus was a non-Christian? You've read the TF.
Josephus was a Pharisee, ergo (for who has read the gospels, and Julian did) a not-Christian.
Post Reply