Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by Peter Kirby »

I was inspired by Neil's comment here that "nothing new is learned about Jesus" from the TF to look into it. After thinking about it, it's almost entirely correct. There is only one new thing learned here. But that one thing is very curious. As usual, Ken Olson is one of the only people that have really investigated this particular point.

That is the assertion that Jesus gathered "many of the Jews and many of the Greeks." When most take notice of this, they manage to do no more than apologize for the ignorance of Josephus. They believe he was misguided and, essentially, making it up, speculating from contemporary circumstances.

https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-th ... za-vermes/
The reference to Jesus attracting to himself “many Greeks” is without Gospel support. Nevertheless, if Josephus knew of a mixed Jewish-Gentile church in Rome, he may have believed that a similar structure existed at the time of Jesus.
https://pmrb.net/huumanist-skeptic/chri ... -nazareth/
The mention of the fact that he attracted both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. Greeks) is consistent with the situation of the first century, especially Rome, which had both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity.
This line is a key to the mystery of the TF. It's the only thing that isn't in the Gospels. It's also unexplained why it's mentioned at all, in its current context. The rest of the TF reads like the adaptation of a credal summary.

In case it's not clear what I mean (note the absence of much extra detail in the TF beyond the creed - basically, teaching, miracles, and Jewish involvement in his death):
TF:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderous works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. ... He was [the] Christ.
Nicene Creed:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
TF:
And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,
Nicene Creed:
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
TF:
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him: for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold those and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.
Nicene Creed:
He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
TF:
And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Nicene Creed:
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The detection of what is different is key to understanding the motive of the author, as it is only that which is different which will justify and motivate the creation of the text. Consider for example the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife." Only one small detail is different: "Jesus' wife." The rest is a pastiche. That detail was indeed key to understanding the author's motivations. Without it, the creation has no real significance. It changes nothing about what people believe without that extra detail.

So this line is a key to the mystery of the TF. And Ken Olson has seen this already. Note how Eusebius quotes Josephus:

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/euse ... _book3.htm
And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus 76 as |143 well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words:

"And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate (c) condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed." 77

If, then, even the historian's evidence shews that He attracted to Himself not only the twelve Apostles, nor the seventy disciples, but had in addition many Jews and Greeks, He must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of other men. For how otherwise could (d) He have attracted many Jews and Greeks, except by wonderful miracles and unheard-of teaching?
Ken Olson writes:

https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/5-a-eus ... ken-olson/
Eusebius introduces the Testimonium in the course of his defense of the witness of the disciples as given in the gospels. Following his citation of the Testimonium and brief mentions of Acts and the Jewish bishops of Jerusalem, he says:
Thus the whole slander against his disciples is destroyed, when by their evidence, and also apart from their evidence, it has to be confessed that many myriads of Jews and Gentiles were brought under His yoke by Jesus the Christ of God through the miracles that he performed.
Demonstration 3.5.109 (emphasis mine) [33]

Eusebius not only accepts the Testimonium’s claim that Jesus won over many Gentiles, but exaggerates the number—“many myriads”—and claims that this is the testimony of the evangelists as well. Nor is this the only context in which Eusebius claims that Jesus attracted Gentiles during his ministry. In Demonstration IV, 10, Eusebius lists among other deeds of Jesus during his incarnation: “He set all that came to Him free from age-long superstition and the fears of polytheistic error” (4.10.14). [34] He is presumably not referring to Jews. In Demonstration 8.2, Eusebius claims that “by teaching and miracles He revealed the powers of His Godhead to all equally whether Greeks or Jews” (8.2.109). [35] In the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius introduces the story of the conversion of King Abgar and the city of Edessa by saying: “The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ became famous among all men because of his wonder-working power, and led to him myriads even of those who in foreign lands were far remote from Judea, in the hope of healing from diseases and from all kinds of suffering” (1.13.1). [36] In Book VII, he also tells of a statue of Jesus in Caesarea Philippi erected to honor Jesus’ healing of the woman with a flow of blood. Eusebius comments: “And it is not at at all surprising that those Gentiles, who long ago received benefits from our Savior, should have made these things” (7.18.4). Whatever we may suppose as to whether Jesus attracted Gentiles during his ministry, we should allow that Eusebius thought he did. Further, Eusebius devotes the entirety of Book II of the Demonstration to answering the charge that the Christ was promised to the Jews. Eusebius argues, to the contrary, that the hope of the Christ was promised equally to the Jews and Gentiles and that the Christian church contains both Gentiles and the remnant of the Jews.

The fact that Jesus taught the true religion not only among Jews, but among Gentiles as well, is what allows the conclusion that follows in the Testimonium: “This one was the Christ”. In the second chapter of Book III of the Demonstration, three chapters before he introduces the Testimonium, Eusebius presents a lengthy argument that Jesus is the prophet like Moses whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18. Both Moses and Jesus had worked miracles. Both Moses and Jesus had taught the truth about the One God. But while Moses had taught this truth only among Jews, Jesus was the first to have taught the true religion of the One God not only among Jews, but to human beings of all nations. It is the fulfillment of prophecies about the Christ that allows the Testimonium to conclude at this point in the text that, in fact, this one was the Christ.
The proposed reading for the first half of the Testimonium, therefore, is that it puts in question whether it is adequate to call Jesus a man and concludes that he was not only a man, but the Christ. The justification for this conclusion is that he was a maker of miraculous works, taught human beings the truth about the one God, and brought over not only Jews but Gentiles as well—that is, all people regardless of nationality or prior religious affiliation. These are things which Eusebius claims elsewhere were foretold about the Christ in prophecy. [37]

With this interesting footnote:

Whealey objects to the use of Eusebius’ introduction to the story of King Abgar and the conversion of Edessa quoted here as an example of Jesus attracting a multitude of Gentiles during his ministry on two grounds. First, while Eusebius allows that Abgar petitioned Jesus, Jesus did not immediately grant Abgar’s request, but after his resurrection the disciple Thomas sent Thaddeus to Edessa, so the mission to Gentiles still began only after Jesus’ death. Second, the Syriac-speaking Edessenes are barbarians and not the “Greeks” (τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ) of the Testimonium, because, according to Whealey, Eusebius constantly differentiates between Greeks and barbarians throughout his works (Whealey 2007:87). Neither objection is sustainable. First, in the Abgar story Eusebius says that Abgar was one among the myriads that were led to (ἐπήγετο) Jesus in search of healing, which is enough to establish that Eusebius thought many Gentiles were led to Jesus during his ministry. That Abgar’s actual healing and the disciples’ mission to the Gentiles came about only later is irrelevant to the case. One cannot dismiss a relevant parallel on the basis of an irrelevant distinction. Second, while Eusebius does often differentiate between Greeks and barbarians on the basis of language in his works, in the Demonstration he also distinguishes between Greeks and Jews on the basis of religion. In this context, “Greek” has the more general sense of pagan or polytheist. See especially Demonstration 1.2.2: “Hellenism you might summarily describe as the worship of many gods according to the ancestral religions of all nations” and the discussion that follows it. Further, all of our ancient Latin and Syriac translators of the Testimonium understood τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ in the sense of “Gentiles” or “idolaters,” rather than “Greeks.” Nor is there warrant for Whealey’s implicit assumption that the myriads from outside Judea mentioned in Ecclesiastical History 1.13.1 were composed solely of Aramaic-speakers, nor for believing that Eusebius might have accepted the idea of Jesus attracting Aramaic-speaking Gentiles but not Greek-speaking Gentiles, nor for the assumption that Eusebius and other early Christians considered only those characters specifically identified as Gentiles in the gospels to be such (the story of the woman with the flow of blood, cited above, contradicts this assumption).

As quoted, Eusebius argues:

“by teaching and miracles He revealed the powers of His Godhead to all equally whether Greeks or Jews” (8.2.109)

The TF argues:

“Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. And he won over many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ.“

Jerome gives some clues about the nature of some of Porphyry's criticism.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porp ... gments.htm
(The apostles) sifted whatever was useful to those who heard them, and did not rebuff those present, (whom) they reinforced with testimonies of other times, so that they did not abuse the simplicity and inexperience of those listening, as the impious Porphyry misrepresents.
Porphyry and the emperor Julian argue in this place that (this shows) either the inexperience of the lying historians or the stupidity of those who immediately followed the saviour, as if they had followed irrationally any man calling.
This passage that impious man Porphyry, who wrote against us and vomited out his madness in many books, discusses in his 14th book and says: 'The evangelists were such unskilled men, not only in worldly matters, but also in the divine scriptures, that they attributed the testimony, which had been written elsewhere, to the wrong prophet.' This he jeers at.
It is also plain that Peter is condemned of many falls, from the statement in that passage where Jesus said to him, "I say not unto thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven shalt thou forgive the sin of him that does wrong." But though he received this commandment and injunction, he cut off the ear of the high-priest's servant who had done no wrong, and did him harm although he had not sinned at all. For how did he sin, if he went at the command of his master to the attack which was then made on Christ?
We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying. And it is beside the point for him to say : "I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not" (Rom. ix. 1). For the man who has just now conformed to the law, and to-day to the Gospel, is rightly regarded as knavish and hollow both in private and in public life.
That he dissembles the Gospel for the sake of vainglory, and the law for the sake of covetousness, is plain from his words, "Who ever goeth to war at his own charges? Who shepherdeth the flock and doth not eat of the milk of the flock?" (1 Cor. ix. 7).
Porphyry attacked the apostles as lacking credibility. He also viewed Greeks as superior, as seen from his criticism of Origen:
"As an example of this absurdity take a man whom I met when I was young, and who was then greatly celebrated and still is, on account of the writings which he has left. I refer to Origen, who is highly honored by the teachers of these doctrines. For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius, who had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway conformed to the life required by the laws. But Origen, having been educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian recklessness. And carrying over the learning which he had obtained, he hawked it about, in his life conducting himself as a Christian and contrary to the laws, but in his opinions of material things and of the Deity being like a Greek, and mingling Grecian teachings with foreign fables. For he was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with the writings of Numenius and Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, and Nicomachus, and those famous among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chaeremon the Stoic, and of Cornutus. Becoming acquainted through them with the figurative interpretation of the Grecian mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures."
And Porphyry believed that Greeks were less likely to believe the kinds of stories in the Gospels:
But even supposing any one of the Greeks were so light-minded as to think that the gods dwell within the statues, his idea would be a much purer one than that of the man who believes that the Divine entered into the womb of the Virgin Mary, and became her unborn child, before being born and swaddled in due course, for it is a place full of blood and gall, and things more unseemly still.
And one of the chief criticisms from Porphyry is that Jesus did not speak wisdom to the high priest or the governor and that he did not appear to them after his resurrection. For Porphyry, these would have been more credible witnesses and would have been a more effective way to share Jesus' message.
63. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 1:

Why did not Christ utter anything worthy of one who was wise and divine, when brought either before the high-priest or before the governor? He might have given instruction to His judge and those who stood by and made them better men. But He endured to be smitten with a reed and spat on and crowned with thorns, unlike Apollonius, who, after speaking boldly to the Emperor Domitian, disappeared from the royal court, and after not many hours was plainly seen in the city then called Dicaearchia, but now Puteoli. But even if Christ had to suffer according to God's commands, and was obliged to endure punishment, yet at least He should have endured His Passion with some boldness, and uttered words of force and wisdom to Pilate His judge, instead of being mocked like any gutter-snipe.
64. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 14:

There is also another argument whereby this corrupt opinion can be refuted. I mean the argument about that Resurrection of His which is such common talk everywhere, as to why Jesus, after His suffering and rising again (according to your story), did not appear to Pilate who punished Him and said He had done nothing worthy of death, or to Herod King of the Jews, or to the High-priest of the Jewish race, or to many men at the same time and to such as were worthy of credit, and more particularly among Romans both in the Senate and among the people. The purpose would be that, by their wonder at "the things concerning Him, they might not pass a vote of death against Him by common consent, which implied the impiety of those who were obedient to Him. But He appeared to Mary Magdalene, a coarse woman who came from some wretched little village, and had once been possessed by seven demons, and with her another utterly obscure Mary, who was herself a peasant woman, and a few other people who were not at all well known. And that, although He said: "Henceforth shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds." For if He had shown Himself to men of note, all would believe through them,and no judge would punish them as fabricating monstrous stories. For surely it is neither pleasing to God nor to anysensible man that many should be subjected on His account to punishments of the gravest kind.
Eusebius was clearly in dialogue with Porphyry and wanted to counter his influential criticism of Christianity. The Preparation of the Gospel, which was designed to precede the Demonstration, quotes Porphyry extensively in several books to establish the views of the Greek author. As Eusebius puts it: "With good reason therefore, in setting myself down to this treatise on the Demonstration of the Gospel, I think that I ought, as a preparation for the whole subject, to give brief explanations beforehand concerning the questions which may reasonably be put to us both by Greeks and by those of the Circumcision, and by every one who searches with exact inquiry into the opinions held among us."

The text of the TF, read with this key to its interpretation in mind, fits perfectly into the plan Eusebius had for his work (Preparation of the Gospel, book 1):

It is then this good and saving friendship of men with God that the Word of God sent down from above, like a ray of infinite light, from the God of all goodness proclaims as good tidings to all men; and urges them to come not from this or that place but from every part out of all nations to the God of the universe, and to hasten and accept the gift with all eagerness of soul, Greeks and Barbarians together, men, women, and children, both rich and poor, wise and simple, not deeming even slaves unworthy of His call.

For indeed their Father, having constituted them all of one essence and nature, rightly admitted them all to share in His one equal bounty, bestowing the knowledge of Himself and friendship with Him upon all who were willing to hearken, and who readily welcomed His grace.

This friendship with His Father Christ's word came to preach to the whole world: for, as the divine oracles teach,

'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,' and 'He came,' they say, 'and preached peace to them that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh.'

These things the sons of the Hebrews were long ago inspired to prophesy to the whole world, one crying,

'All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him: for the kingdom is the LORD'S, and He is the ruler over the nations'; and again, 'Tell it out among the heathen that the LORD is king, for He hath also stablished the world, which shall not be moved'; and another saith, 'The LORD will appear among them, and will utterly destroy all the gods of the nations of the earth, and men shall worship Him, every one from his place.'

This detail is central to Eusebius' understanding of the ministry of Jesus, which explains its presence here among the other creed-like elements of the TF, despite being difficult to derive from the Gospels themselves and despite the detail having little explanation when placed in the context of the Antiquities of Josephus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by Giuseppe »

Corollary to your discourse is that the only negative "TF" ever existed was on the mouth of anti-Christian critics as Porphyry.

If Eusebius insisted on Jesus being winner of Greeks, at the contrary Porphyry et alia insisted that Jesus was how much more anti-Gentile and anti-Greek he could be.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by Charles Wilson »

Mark 5: 18 - 20 (RSV):

[18] And as he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him.
[19] But he refused, and said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you."
[20] And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decap'olis how much Jesus had done for him; and all men marveled.

This ain't exactly a "Hooray for Greeks!" Passage, despite all the doctorin' up around the edges.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:50 am This detail is central to Eusebius' understanding of the ministry of Jesus, which explains its presence here among the other creed-like elements of the TF, despite being difficult to derive from the Gospels themselves and despite the detail having little explanation when placed in the context of the Antiquities of Josephus.
Peter,

I'll have more to say anon (I hope), but I'm a bit busy for the next two days. In the meantime, however, I'm immensely gratified to see that someone has taken up the challenge implied in the title of "A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum" (and made explicit on pp. 100-101) to try to read the text with the meaning it would have in the context of Eusebius's works rather than Josephus's. Your discussion encompasses both the point that Eusebius' christology (or incarnational theology to be more specific) emphasizes Christ as the bringer of the truth about the One God to human beings, formerly only to the Hebrews and Jews, but with his incarnation as the man Jesus to the Gentiles (Greeks) as well, and that Eusebius is responding to pagan critics, most notably Porphyry, who allowed that the Christ was a wise man of the Hebrews whom the Christians, who are mired in error, mistakenly took to be divine. Most of the responses I've seen or heard to the paper, both online and from people who have heard me deliver it, seemed to think it's main point was that the style (a word I don't actually use) of the Greek is more Eusebian than Josephan and allowed that this might be true in places.

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by John2 »

I think the question should be more about "many" than "Greeks," since offhand I can think of Gentiles who liked Jesus in the gospels, like the Centurion in Mt. 8:5-13 ("Then Jesus said to the centurion, 'Go! As you have believed, so will it be done for you.' And his servant was healed at that very hour") and the Canaanite woman in Mt. 15:21-28 (“'O woman, Jesus answered, 'your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour"). Matthew even presents Gentile magicians as travelling to Judea to honor Jesus' birth.

So to me the question is more about "many" (though could the five I mentioned count as "many"?), and my thinking is that I don't suppose the gospels say or intend to say everything that happened to Jesus, nor am I aware if anyone in antiquity thought that they do, so I figure it's not out of the realm of possibility that more Gentiles liked Jesus than the gospels say.

But if the gospels don't mention "many" Gentiles, why would Josephus say this? I suppose that would depend on his source, and in my view this could be his patron Epaphroditus, who I suspect was the Gentile Christian of the same name mentioned by Paul in Php. 2:25-30 and 4:18. I figure someone like that could have (over?) emphasized the Greek aspect of Christianity, particularly after 70 CE.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by neilgodfrey »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:50 am I was inspired by Neil's comment here that "nothing new is learned about Jesus" from the TF to look into it. After thinking about it, it's almost entirely correct. There is only one new thing learned here. But that one thing is very curious. As usual, Ken Olson is one of the only people that have really investigated this particular point.

That is the assertion that Jesus gathered "many of the Jews and many of the Greeks." When most take notice of this, they manage to do no more than apologize for the ignorance of Josephus. They believe he was misguided and, essentially, making it up, speculating from contemporary circumstances.

. . . . .

This detail is central to Eusebius' understanding of the ministry of Jesus, which explains its presence here among the other creed-like elements of the TF, despite being difficult to derive from the Gospels themselves and despite the detail having little explanation when placed in the context of the Antiquities of Josephus.
Peter's comment ties in remarkably well with a book that [urlhttps://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=127280#p127280]Steven Goranson referred us all to[/url] and that I have just completed reading (thanks, Steven):
  • Secord, Jared. Christian Intellectuals and the Roman Empire: From Justin Martyr to Origen. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, 2020.
Secord explores the ethnic tensions in the second and third centuries where an "old school" saw "Greeks and Greek" as something of an original and ideal standard and everything "barbarian" as scarcely worthy of attention except, perhaps, as an idle or entertaining curiosity. One can imagine how this affected non-Greek aspiring intellectuals: they tended to ape all things Greek and kick under the bed any reminders of their "barbarian" roots.

By the time of Porphyry and for reasons Secord explains we find some of these "barbarians" kicking back and declaring that their Asiatic roots are actually more original than those of Attic Greece and that in fact the Greeks borrowed from the Asiatics. Porphyry was one of those who fought back against the notion of Greek cultural and historical superiority.

So when Porphyry spoke of Greek intellectual superiority over the Jewish apostles and followers of Jesus he was really digging it in with a very nasty kick as well.

The war over Greek and barbarian place in the culture of the time was not a calm intellectual debate: it was charged with deep emotion involving people's self-perceptions and place in the world. It was therefore very important for Eusebius, as Peter points out, to refute Porphyry's insult. It could not be ignored.

That said, I would like to return to a hobby horse of mine, "historical methods", and what would make a critical analysis of even an "authentic core TF" by Josephus valid.

Let's suppose Josephus wrote our favourite TF (whether the TF as we have it or a hypothetical substitute) and it included the "Jews and Greeks" line. Following the methods discussed by various reputable historians (including the famous classicist and ancient historian Moses I. Finley), we would expect a critical reader to ask: How did Josephus know that? Where did that information come from?

The question takes on special significance when the reader notices Josephus is talking about a person from before he, Josephus, was born. The critical reader will search in vain for any hint at all to help answer the question of Josephus's source for that information. By the standards of the day -- and because of his emulation of the historian Thucydides we do know that Josephus did want to be thought of as meeting the highest standards of the day -- we would expect to find some place in the work an explanation of how he came by such a piece of information. We do know, however, also by the standards of the day, that even "big name" historians were quite capable of fabricating information or repeating baseless rumours. The critical reader or historical researcher is never justified in simply taking an account even by a Thucydides at face value.

So we return to the question: How did Josephus know what he wrote about Jesus? Who told him? When? Did he read it somewhere? Where?

If we cannot answer questions like these then how can we justify using the information for a historical reconstruction of early Christianity?

If we consider the epistles of Paul to be useful historical sources then we will be more likely to think that a source closer to Jesus relegated Jesus to the Jews and Paul himself as the one responsible for calling Greeks.

The information about "many Jews and many Greeks" in Josephus thus becomes impossible to justify as having any historical value, I think. Is there a contrary argument?

But there is a positive way to react to such a TF that still follows the methods of Finley and some of the notable critical biblical scholars and Peter has done this in his post: that positive step is to look for external, independent sources and context that can shed light on what we are reading by Josephus.

Peter and Ken have identified the context in which the details of the TF have relevance. The same method is used by some biblical critics when they identify certain instructions in "Paul's" letters (e.g. prohibitions against celibacy) as having no impact through one period but suddenly finding a place a little later, leading to the conclusion that such passages were written very late and are not original to Paul.

Normally the sort of external testimony that we want is more direct than that (e.g. an explicit reference to the point made by Josephus or Paul) but sometimes implicit testimony (e.g. finding a late context for the TF or a writing by Paul) can be strongly suggestive, too.

The two key steps of critical reading of any historian from ancient times:
  • what is the source?
  • what do independent witnesses say?
Hence even if Josephus did write the TF it becomes effectively useless for a reconstruction of anything about Jesus; but at the same time, independent witness invites second thoughts about the origins of the passage.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by maryhelena »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:50 am I was inspired by Neil's comment here that "nothing new is learned about Jesus" from the TF to look into it. After thinking about it, it's almost entirely correct. There is only one new thing learned here. But that one thing is very curious. As usual, Ken Olson is one of the only people that have really investigated this particular point.

That is the assertion that Jesus gathered "many of the Jews and many of the Greeks." When most take notice of this, they manage to do no more than apologize for the ignorance of Josephus. They believe he was misguided and, essentially, making it up, speculating from contemporary circumstances.

https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-th ... za-vermes/
The reference to Jesus attracting to himself “many Greeks” is without Gospel support. Nevertheless, if Josephus knew of a mixed Jewish-Gentile church in Rome, he may have believed that a similar structure existed at the time of Jesus.
https://pmrb.net/huumanist-skeptic/chri ... -nazareth/
The mention of the fact that he attracted both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. Greeks) is consistent with the situation of the first century, especially Rome, which had both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity.
This line is a key to the mystery of the TF. It's the only thing that isn't in the Gospels. It's also unexplained why it's mentioned at all, in its current context. The rest of the TF reads like the adaptation of a credal summary.

<->
This detail is central to Eusebius' understanding of the ministry of Jesus, which explains its presence here among the other creed-like elements of the TF, despite being difficult to derive from the Gospels themselves and despite the detail having little explanation when placed in the context of the Antiquities of Josephus.
For what its worth I'm going to throw out this idea.......Years prior to Eusebius someone had a motive in linking Greeks/Gentiles to the ministry of the gospel Jesus - Marcion.

Such, then, is to be the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question. Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these he interposes the separation of a great and absolute difference--as great as lies between what is just and what is good; as great as lies between the law and the gospel; as great, (in short,) as is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Hence will arise also our rule, by which we determine that there ought to be nothing in common between the Christ of the rival god and the Creator; but that (Christ) must be pronounced to belong to the Creator, if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted His laws, given reality to His promises, revived His mighty power, remoulded His determinations expressed His attributes, His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request the reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate whether Christ be Marcion's or the Creator's.

<snip>
It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be, he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.

Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition.

Thus, for Marcion, from the beginning of Christ coming down to Capernaum - he was the non-Jewish Christ - the Christ of everyman. Yep, Pauline theology - but Marcion backdates the everyman's Christ to the very beginning of the decent to Capernaum.

(Basically, of course, indicating two Christ figures - the Jewish Messiah/Christ figure - plus the 'heavenly' Christ figure for everyman. The NT has a story to tell - first the Jewish messiah figure followed by the Pauline everyman Christ figure.......but human reality links body and spirit - which perhaps is what Marcion is attempting to articulate - and the church fathers were not having it....)

Anyway, what this idea regarding Marcion does do is suggest that a core TF could have been interpolated by Marcion - motive and opportunity - seemingly he went to Rome - were there. (along of course with the charge that he ''seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.'' Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition. )
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by MrMacSon »

My take -
maryhelena wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:10 am
.
... Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ, ...revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition.

Thus, for Marcion, from the beginning...he was the non-Jewish Christ - the Christ of everyman ... Marcion backdates the everyman's Christ to [the days of Tiberius, with] decent to Capernaum.

I think this is a pretty good take -
maryhelena wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:10 am (Basically, of course, indicating two Christ figures - the Jewish Messiah/Christ figure - plus the 'heavenly' Christ figure for everyman. The NT has a story to tell - first the Jewish messiah figure followed by the Pauline everyman-Christ figure.......but human reality links body and spirit - which perhaps is what Marcion is attempting to articulate - and the church fathers were not having it....)
- but I don't think Marcion's Jesus Christ was as Jewish as the Church Father's wanted, hence the greyed out text.

Sure, they wanted their cake and to eat it too. So they re-Judaized Marcion's Christ eg.

It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations ... since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them ...
Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition.

and previously, Tertullian sets the scene -

(Christ) must be pronounced to belong to the Creator, if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted His laws, given reality to His promises, revived His mighty power, remoulded His determinations expressed His attributes, His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request the reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate whether Christ be Marcion's or the Creator's.
Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition.

but whether Marcion had a hand in the TF :confusedsmiley:
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:33 am My take -
maryhelena wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:10 am
.
... Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ, ...revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition.

Thus, for Marcion, from the beginning...he was the non-Jewish Christ - the Christ of everyman ... Marcion backdates the everyman's Christ to [the days of Tiberius, with] decent to Capernaum.

I think this is a pretty good take -
maryhelena wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:10 am (Basically, of course, indicating two Christ figures - the Jewish Messiah/Christ figure - plus the 'heavenly' Christ figure for everyman. The NT has a story to tell - first the Jewish messiah figure followed by the Pauline everyman-Christ figure.......but human reality links body and spirit - which perhaps is what Marcion is attempting to articulate - and the church fathers were not having it....)
- but I don't think Marcion's Jesus Christ was as Jewish as the Church Father's wanted, hence the greyed out text.

Sure, they wanted their cake and to eat it too. So they re-Judaized Marcion's Christ eg.

It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations ... since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them ...
Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition.

and previously, Tertullian sets the scene -

(Christ) must be pronounced to belong to the Creator, if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted His laws, given reality to His promises, revived His mighty power, remoulded His determinations expressed His attributes, His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request the reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate whether Christ be Marcion's or the Creator's.
Tertullian. Against Marcion . Kindle Edition.

but whether Marcion had a hand in the TF :confusedsmiley:
Well - Marcion had motive long before Eusebius was on the scene.......methinks it might be a mistake to write him off...
Lucifer Satanel
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:13 pm

Re: Many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

Post by Lucifer Satanel »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:50 am I was inspired by Neil's comment here that "nothing new is learned about Jesus" from the TF to look into it. After thinking about it, it's almost entirely correct. There is only one new thing learned here. But that one thing is very curious. As usual, Ken Olson is one of the only people that have really investigated this particular point.

That is the assertion that Jesus gathered "many of the Jews and many of the Greeks." When most take notice of this, they manage to do no more than apologize for the ignorance of Josephus. They believe he was misguided and, essentially, making it up, speculating from contemporary circumstances.

I think you're ignoring something very important. Josephus was obviously redacted and any redaction would have Jesus converting both the Jews and Greek goyim. The real Jesus had nothing to do with the goyim - especially the Greek ones. Paul was not his apostle and was always the enemy of the real apostles and disciples of Jesus. The Christianity that sprang from Paul entirely had to problems: to explain how Paul was an apostle and why there was no Jewish Christianity. They very much needed Jesus to be both for Jews and Gentiles and so should Jesus for both of them right from the start. They created works of fiction like the Acts of the Apostles to white wash Paul and give him both a connection with the real Jesus and apostles. They also created fictional gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews to should a Jewish group of his followers who believed he was divine and born of a virgin -both of which are very Pagan and no Jew would have ever accepted.
Post Reply