Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

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

Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

HYPOTHESIS: Josephus talked negatively about a Jesus crucified by Pilate.

Thinking about the implications:
  • The authors of the Pauline epistles ignored this rebel Jesus crucified by Pilate.
  • Attention was derived about this Josephus's rebel Jesus: why?
  • The author of the Earliest Gospel fabricated a new life for the Jesus of the epistles, by merging the details with the Josephus's rebel Jesus.
  • Pagan polemists denigrated the Josephus's rebel Jesus, believing (wrongly) he was the Founder.
  • Embarrassment moved the Christians to correct Josephus.
Why was the Josephus's rebel Jesus chosen as stand-in for the Christian Jesus?

Was he chosen because he preceded of some time John the Baptist?

If John the Baptist was interpolated in Josephus as effect of a recent legend about him (whoever he was), then the Christian Jesus would have been placed shortly before the same Baptist. Originally the Gospel Jesus started as a rival of the Baptist....
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:17 pm
  • The authors of the Pauline epistles ignored this rebel Jesus crucified by Pilate.
Why "rebel"? Why not sorceror?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by John2 »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:17 pm HYPOTHESIS: Josephus talked negatively about a Jesus crucified by Pilate.

Thinking about the implications:
  • The authors of the Pauline epistles ignored this rebel Jesus crucified by Pilate.

But Paul cautions Christians against rebellion in Rom. 13 (as does Peter in 1 Peter 2:13-15), which indicates that some of Jesus' followers were rebels or rebellion-minded. And Jesus walked and talked like a Fourth Philosopher and died in a way that Fourth Philosophers did.

  • Attention was derived about this Josephus's rebel Jesus: why?
  • The author of the Earliest Gospel fabricated a new life for the Jesus of the epistles, by merging the details with the Josephus's rebel Jesus.

I'm not sure if Mark knew Josephus, since in my view Mark was published around the same time as the Jewish War (c. 75 CE). I think whatever resemblances that exist between Mark and Josephus are due to both of them writing about Fourth Philosophic Judaism.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Dave Allen has found the occurrence of τις in both:
  • the Testimonium Flavianum
  • the Slavonic Testimonium
  • the Josephus's description of various rebel (named or not) figures
...hence giving new arguments supporting the concrete possibility that the Oldest Gospel used Josephus as source material to invent Jesus. In particular, the first anonymous evangelist used various Josephian figures (even one slain by Pilate?) to derive his invented Jesus.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:00 am Dave Allen has found the occurrence of τις in both:
  • the Testimonium Flavianum
  • the Slavonic Testimonium
  • the Josephus's description of various rebel (named or not) figures
...hence giving new arguments supporting the concrete possibility that the Oldest Gospel used Josephus as source material to invent Jesus. In particular, the first anonymous evangelist used various Josephian figures (even one slain by Pilate?) to derive his invented Jesus.
Josephus was not needed as a source for the crucified gospel Jesus. All a writer needed was awareness, knowledge of, Hasmonean history of 37 b.c. Eusebius wasted his time and effort if he thought the Josephan TF would support his historicists interpretation of the gospel Jesus story.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by Ulan »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:17 pm Why was the Josephus's rebel Jesus chosen as stand-in for the Christian Jesus?

Was he chosen because he preceded of some time John the Baptist?

If John the Baptist was interpolated in Josephus as effect of a recent legend about him (whoever he was), then the Christian Jesus would have been placed shortly before the same Baptist. Originally the Gospel Jesus started as a rival of the Baptist....
If we go with the standard dating of gMark by the CBS (70 CE), then gMark had been written for that exact occasion that is at the core of Josephus' "Jewish War". These were the "times of tribulation", the signs were there, the prophesied kingdom of God started right now! The executed Josephan rebel was the messenger of God (the separatist christology makes Jesus the carrier of God to his temple, where the recipients of the message duly fail to understand said message). All this with allusions to OT passages that precede the destruction of the temple at Shilo, where the messenger of God walks to the temple, etc. Josephus wrote basically very similar messages: people ignored Jesus ben Ananias and similar voices. They had been warned, but didn't listen.

There's a reason why this gospel is usually dated to 70, sometimes 68-70, and not 60-80 or some other more lenient time frame, because the message of this gospel had a very limited shelf life.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Ulan wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:11 amThe executed Josephan rebel was the messenger of God (the separatist christology makes Jesus the carrier of God to his temple, where the recipients of the message duly fail to understand said message)
interesting. If I am understanding your view correctly, then you are thinking that the separationism in Mark is designed to introduce a human recipient (derived artificially, and randomly, from Josephus's original passage now replaced by the TF) of the divine spirit ('the spiritual Christ'), to vehicle the idea that, via the man Jesus, YHWH has abandoned his old physical temple and now he is going to find a new temple among gentiles, after the death of the human recipient on the cross.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:17 pm HYPOTHESIS: Josephus talked negatively about a Jesus crucified by Pilate.

... Josephus's rebel Jesus...
If we look at the first part of the Testimonium:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.

... and we give it a negative spin, then we'd get something like this (changed words are highlighted):

About this time there lived Jesus, a worker of magic (or juggler). For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as are fooled easily. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.

This is consistent with a lot of early texts. For example, the Talmud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

On the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry.

Even if this wasn't a story about Jesus Christ, it shows that the death sentence was applied for sorcery. There are passages in the Gospels where he is apparently accused of sorcery:

Mar 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

Accusations/references to use of magic weave their way throughout early Christianity, starting with Jesus, going through the apostles and onto the first heretics, Tacitus. I don't think we have the same with the idea of Jesus being a rebel.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

The "evidence" (sic) we would (double sic) have seems to allude more probably to an unnamed rebel as the figure described in the passage where now there is the Testimonium Flavianum. So Dave (my bold):

Evidence of the linguistics of the earlier form of the TF also favour the sign prophet hypotheses. There are words preserved in the variants that suggest Jesus was described in a similar way to other sign prophets. Words such as τις (Codex A of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7 quoting the TF) τις after Ίησούς referring to “a certain Jesus.” This is the same reading as the Slavonic. “The Slavonic Josephus offers a trace of the same pronoun: the phrase muzi nekij retroverted into Greek would correspond to ἀνήρ τις” (certain man). This derogatory expression argues against the TF being made up of whole cloth. This phrase ‘τις’ was also used for Judas the Galilean, (War 2.118), Theudas (Ant. 20.97) and the unnamed prophet under Festus (Ant. 20.188). It also makes the original TF very similar to the way Josephus described these other sign prophet types. Another word man ἀνήρ (Slavonic) instead of Jesus. Of course Jesus not being named is not unusual for Josephus: cases such as the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261– 263; Ant. 20.169–172) who led a revolt of thousands and he was featured in both Antiquities and War yet Josephus could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’ who was also not named and was described as “A man who made light of mendacity”. In that passage his mob “appeared in arms”! (Ant. 18.85–87). The Gospel of Ebionites has “that <a certain> man, John <by name>”. Compare this to the Slavonic passage on the Baptist:
And at that time a certain man was going about Judaea, (dressed) in strange garments.
The Slavonic preserves John is not named in the Baptist passage in Josephus, was referred to as a “certain man”. The same happened with an earlier form of TF, Jesus is not named and referred to as a “certain man”. This is in line with how Josephus described the sign prophets. The gospel of the ebionites could preserve an earlier phrase of the gospel of Matthew which in turn could have been copying Josephus.

In addition, it doesn't seem that Josephus was enemy a priori against the magicians. If I remember well, he doesn't attack the figure of "Simon called Atomos", i.e. the guy identified by Detering with Simon Magus (more magician than him! :lol: )
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 1:16 amIn addition, it doesn't seem that Josephus was enemy a priori against the magicians. If I remember well, he doesn't attack the figure of "Simon called Atomos", i.e. the guy identified by Detering with Simon Magus (more magician than him! :lol: )
Josephus's Simon was a Jew, not a Samaritan. So they may not have been the same person. Even so, Josephus wrote that Simon was someone who "pretended" to be a magician and tried to split a wife from her husband:

While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty; and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon (13) one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician, and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him

What about actual rebels like the Egyptian and Theudas? They were magicians and self-proclaimed prophets and miracle workers. First the Egyptian:

These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them.

Moreover, there came out of Egypt (20) about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet [the Egyptian], and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down.

Then Theudas:

Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words.

That's the backdrop for life in those times for prophets and magicians. If the TF had started with a negative spin, I'd suggest that it would have presented Jesus as a similar kind of figure.
Post Reply