A detail about the Testimonium Flavianum

[Sinouhe]

I just thought about a detail in the testimonium flavianum.

“And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians has still to this day not disappeared”.

Theologians say that the TF is partially interpolated and that this phrase is not in the text:

“He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him”


Ok.

But how is it possible in this case that Josephus, writing in 93-94, does not mention the supposed resurrection of Jesus ?

This is already a problem in the text since Josephus in this case does not explain why the movement continues after the death of its leader.

But most importantly, Josephus, as we know, did not appreciate the aspiring Messiahs.
If he had heard about Jesus and Christianity, he would have known about his supposed resurrection and would have commented on it with scorn or irony.

However, in the TF reconstructed by the theologians, Josephus does not write a word about his resurrection.

How is it possible that Josephus ignored the resurrection but knew about Pilate's role in his death or Jesus' role as a miracle worker, which are details compared to his resurrection ?

The resurrection of Jesus is the very foundation of Christianity, the main doctrine of the movement. It goes far beyond the miracles or teachings of Jesus.
Besides, Paul does not say a word about Jesus' miracles or his memorable speeches, but mentions his resurrection constantly in his letters.

So in my opinion :

- Either Josephus did not know about the resurrection of Jesus. Which seems unlikely given the central role it has in Christianity and in the story of Jesus. Moreover, he knows less important details which implies that he had basic knowledge about the religion.

- Either the reference to the resurrection of Jesus in the TF, which theologians imagine to be an interpolation, is in fact not an interpolation:
"He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him".
And in this case, it can’t be a text of Josephus since he was a Pharisee.

- Or Josephus deliberately did not mention the supposed resurrection of Jesus. If it was because he was a Pharisee and did not want to promote Christianity, then it would have been easier to simply not mention Jesus in his text since he was not required to do so.

The second proposition seems to be the most likely.

Any opinions on this?

[ABuddhist]

Why do you not propose that Josephus originally referred to Jesus's resurrection using a more skeptical or hostile tone, maybe along the lines of "And certain foolish people allege that he was restored to life, for which reason his followers continued to venerate him after his death"?

[Paul the Uncertain]

I just thought about a detail in the testimonium flavianum.

“And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians has still to this day not disappeared”.

Theologians say that the TF is partially interpolated and that this phrase is not in the text:

“He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him”


Ok.

But how is it possible in this case that Josephus, writing in 93-94, does not mention the supposed resurrection of Jesus ?

This is already a problem in the text since Josephus in this case does not explain why the movement continues after the death of its leader.

But most importantly, Josephus, as we know, did not appreciate the aspiring Messiahs.
If he had heard about Jesus and Christianity, he would have known about his supposed resurrection and would have commented on it with scorn or irony.

However, in the TF reconstructed by the theologians, Josephus does not write a word about his resurrection.

How is it possible that Josephus ignored the resurrection but knew about Pilate's role in his death or Jesus' role as a miracle worker, which are details compared to his resurrection ?

The resurrection of Jesus is the very foundation of Christianity, the main doctrine of the movement. It goes far beyond the miracles or teachings of Jesus.
Besides, Paul does not say a word about Jesus' miracles or his memorable speeches, but mentions his resurrection constantly in his letters.

So in my opinion :

- Either Josephus did not know about the resurrection of Jesus. Which seems unlikely given the central role it has in Christianity and in the story of Jesus. Moreover, he knows less important details which implies that he had basic knowledge about the religion.

- Either the reference to the resurrection of Jesus in the TF, which theologians imagine to be an interpolation, is in fact not an interpolation:
"He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him".
And in this case, it can’t be a text of Josephus since he was a Pharisee.

- Or Josephus deliberately did not mention the supposed resurrection of Jesus. If it was because he was a Pharisee and did not want to promote Christianity, then it would have been easier to simply not mention Jesus in his text since he was not required to do so.

The second proposition seems to be the most likely.

Any opinions on this?

I've recently written on Eusebius's version of the TF as a mixture of quote and commentary (mis)interpreted as a block quote which becomes the only version we have in our sources.

In working through the resulting labeling task (what words should be labeled "This is Eusebius's opinion" versus "This is what Eusebius is commenting upon") as a constraint satisfaction problem, I estimated that the Eusebian claim about the source for the etymological portion (from "This was the Christ" through "Christians, so named for him") would be punctuated in modern usage somewhat like (highlight for material claimed as Josephan):

“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 divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. “The tribe of the ‘Christians,’ so named after this man, survive to the present day.”

Note the passive construction for the resurrection event, as reflects Eusebius's witness to the Greek. Jerome (Illustrious Men 13) translates this phrase as active voice (Jesus appeared to them). Conclude: Jerome was a Christian believer, but the claimed Greek original would be uninformative about the believer status of its author.

While that is not necessarily Eusebius's intended testimony, and even if it were, then it wouldn't necessarily be what Josephus wrote on the topic (if anything), the proposed labeling solution does satisfy your ("soft") constraint that the etymological note should explain why the movement wasn't stopped by the death of its reputed founder by mention of the resurrection event.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... y-summary/

[schillingklaus]

FJ had absolutely no clue whatsoever of Christianity and resurrection as it was a later ideology.

[ABuddhist]

I just thought about a detail in the testimonium flavianum.

“And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians has still to this day not disappeared”.

Theologians say that the TF is partially interpolated and that this phrase is not in the text:

“He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him”


Ok.

But how is it possible in this case that Josephus, writing in 93-94, does not mention the supposed resurrection of Jesus ?

This is already a problem in the text since Josephus in this case does not explain why the movement continues after the death of its leader.

But most importantly, Josephus, as we know, did not appreciate the aspiring Messiahs.
If he had heard about Jesus and Christianity, he would have known about his supposed resurrection and would have commented on it with scorn or irony.

However, in the TF reconstructed by the theologians, Josephus does not write a word about his resurrection.

How is it possible that Josephus ignored the resurrection but knew about Pilate's role in his death or Jesus' role as a miracle worker, which are details compared to his resurrection ?

The resurrection of Jesus is the very foundation of Christianity, the main doctrine of the movement. It goes far beyond the miracles or teachings of Jesus.
Besides, Paul does not say a word about Jesus' miracles or his memorable speeches, but mentions his resurrection constantly in his letters.

So in my opinion :

- Either Josephus did not know about the resurrection of Jesus. Which seems unlikely given the central role it has in Christianity and in the story of Jesus. Moreover, he knows less important details which implies that he had basic knowledge about the religion.

- Either the reference to the resurrection of Jesus in the TF, which theologians imagine to be an interpolation, is in fact not an interpolation:
"He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him".
And in this case, it can’t be a text of Josephus since he was a Pharisee.

- Or Josephus deliberately did not mention the supposed resurrection of Jesus. If it was because he was a Pharisee and did not want to promote Christianity, then it would have been easier to simply not mention Jesus in his text since he was not required to do so.

The second proposition seems to be the most likely.

Any opinions on this?

I've recently written on Eusebius's version of the TF as a mixture of quote and commentary (mis)interpreted as a block quote which becomes the only version we have in our sources.

In working through the resulting labeling task (what words should be labeled "This is Eusebius's opinion" versus "This is what Eusebius is commenting upon") as a constraint satisfaction problem, I estimated that the Eusebian claim about the source for the etymological portion (from "This was the Christ" through "Christians, so named for him") would be punctuated in modern usage somewhat like (highlight for material claimed as Josephan):

“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 divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. “The tribe of the ‘Christians,’ so named after this man, survive to the present day.”

Note the passive construction for the resurrection event, as reflects Eusebius's witness to the Greek. Jerome (Illustrious Men 13) translates this phrase as active voice (Jesus appeared to them). Conclude: Jerome was a Christian believer, but the claimed Greek original would be uninformative about the believer status of its author.

While that is not necessarily Eusebius's intended testimony, and even if it were, then it wouldn't necessarily be what Josephus wrote on the topic (if anything), the proposed labeling solution does satisfy your ("soft") constraint that the etymological note should explain why the movement wasn't stopped by the death of its reputed founder by mention of the resurrection event.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... y-summary/

Why would Josephus, a non-Christian with a contempt for recent Jewish sectarians alleging miracles (if I understand him correctly), say without at least some skepticism that Jesus was seen alive by them on the third day?

[Sinouhe]

Why do you not propose that Josephus originally referred to Jesus's resurrection using a more skeptical or hostile tone

Indeed, the transformation of the text is a possibility. In this case, the text would have been transformed + interpolated.

But since no christian mentioned this polemic, this would imply that no one had read, noted or cared about the polemic before the fourth century, when it was transformed and interpolated.

It would be surprising….

@Paultheuncertain

I am not convinced by this theory since i really don't feel like I'm reading a personal commentary mixed with Josephus when i read Eusebius’ passages.
I tried to read these passages from this perspective but it is not the impression the texts give.

[Ken Olson]

“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 divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. “The tribe of the ‘Christians,’ so named after this man, survive to the present day.”

Note the passive construction for the resurrection event, as reflects Eusebius's witness to the Greek. Jerome (Illustrious Men 13) translates this phrase as active voice (Jesus appeared to them). Conclude: Jerome was a Christian believer, but the claimed Greek original would be uninformative about the believer status of its author.

Translating ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς as 'for he was seen by them' is possible. Indeed, Alice Whealey has argued the phrase has 'a subjective cast' ('Josephus', 95). But we should not lose sight of the fact that Christians used ἐφάνη of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, as in the longer ending of Mark at 16.9, in which the risen Jesus 'appeared first to Mary Magdalene' :

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-9.htm

Eusebius uses ἐφάνη of Jesus post-resurrection appearances once (Comm. Psalms PG 23.696c) prompting Alice Whealey to comment that 'ἐφάνη is rare in Eusebius' works for Jesus post-resurrection appearances' and that he presumably used it under the influence of Mark 16.9 ('Josephus', 96), by which I take it she means that it is foreign to Eusebius' normal usage. There is no mention of Mark 16.9 in the relevant context of the Comm Psalms and the observation is irrelevant anyway as, of course, many words Eusebius uses are taken from the New Testament. To suggest that they are therefore un-Eusebian is to propose a false dichotomy. Moreover, Whealey's wording is rather carefully chosen to exclude Eusebius' use of the word ἐφάνη to describe Jesus' 'appearance' among human beings in the incarnation, where it might legitimately be translated 'was made manifest' (e.g., DE 8.1.70.2), and the use in the Testimonium could be translated that way as well.


Best,

Ken

References:

Alice Whealey, 'Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum' in Christfried Böttrich and Jens Herzer, eds., Josephus und das Neue Testament (2007) 73-116.

[Paul the Uncertain]

@Ken

Translating ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς as 'for he was seen by them' is possible. Indeed, Alice Whealey has argued the phrase has 'a subjective cast' ('Josephus', 95). But we should not lose sight of the fact that Christians used ἐφάνη of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, as in the longer ending of Mark at 16.8, in which the risen Jesus 'appeared first to Mary Magdalene' :

Yes, I don't think that Jerome was a sloppy translator, but rather that there was only an uninteresting difference to him between "he was seen by them" and "he appeared to them." That may well be widely true of Christians generally.

Ultimately, however, the question before us is whether there would have been a difference to Josephus. Yes, I think there would have been a difference to him.

Your reference to Mark 16:9 is a subject near to my heart, but pursuing it would take us far from Josephus as seen by Eusebius. I personally think that Mark or pseudo-Mark intended the passive construction in conscious preference to the active form, but that doesn't bear on the attitude of Josephus had he faced a similar compositional decision.

As I've said before, I do not profess to know what Josephus wrote. My concern is to estimate what Eusebius claimed he wrote. You and I could both be right up to the point that I look at the plausibility of what I estimate to have been claimed. That's a second and separate question.

@Sinouhe

I am not convinced by this theory since i really don't feel like I'm reading a personal commentary mixed with Josephus when i read Eusebius’ passages. I tried to read these passages from this perspective but it is not the impression the texts give.

Oh, well. No worries. Thank you for your answer.

@ABuddhist

Why would Josephus, a non-Christian with a contempt for recent Jewish sectarians alleging miracles (if I understand him correctly), say without at least some skepticism that Jesus was seen alive by them on the third day?

The issue of miracles came up in Eusebius's report before the etymolgical passage. I estimate that Eusebius did not claim that Josephus discussed miracles. That is mainly because Eusebius argues that we can infer that Jesus performed miracles because Josephus said that Jesus attracted both Jewish and Greek admirers. That's an odd argument to make, and all the more odd if Josephus had referred to miracles directly.

As to why Josephus did not comment on the Jewish and Greek mixed group's reported sighting of a revenant, perhaps he felt the matter spoke for itself, or that his views on the merits were irrelevant to his immediate topic, why Christians called themselves that.

[ABuddhist]

@ABuddhist

Why would Josephus, a non-Christian with a contempt for recent Jewish sectarians alleging miracles (if I understand him correctly), say without at least some skepticism that Jesus was seen alive by them on the third day?

The issue of miracles came up in Eusebius's report before the etymolgical passage. I estimate that Eusebius did not claim that Josephus discussed miracles. That is mainly because Eusebius argues that we can infer that Jesus performed miracles because Josephus said that Jesus attracted both Jewish and Greek admirers. That's an odd argument to make, and all the more odd if Josephus had referred to miracles directly.

As to why Josephus did not comment on the Jewish and Greek mixed group's reported sighting of a revenant, perhaps he felt the matter spoke for itself, or that his views on the merits were irrelevant to his immediate topic, why Christians called themselves that.

With all due respect, maybe you are losing sight of the fact that for a dead person to return to life is often regarded as a miracle today - to say nothing of when Josephus was writing. I would have thought that Josephus would have treated such an alleged miracle with skepticism, although your explanation has merit to me.