Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 6:54 am Dr. James H. Charlesworth, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature Emeritus Princeton at Theological Seminary, appears on a brief (6 minutes) new episode of Jacob Berman's History Valley YouTube channel today to state his position on the Testimonium Flavianum, which he enumerates as 7 main points and 4 minor points.

Fascinating interview in which Ken Olson speaks about why the Testimonium Flavanium is definitely a forgery and reveals not only skepticism about the James passage in Josephus but also skepticism about whether Galatians 1:19 (‘James the brother of the Lord’) means “James the biological sibling.” Though Olson describes as a historicist, I can’t help but wonder if he is teetering towards mythicism (maybe one day he’ll look back and see himself now that way). After all, if three important pieces of evidence for a historical Jesus fall apart, it would certainly make me wonder about mythicism if I were in Olson’s epistemically shoes. “Hmmm… How many of these other arguments for a historical Jesus are as good as they look?” I’d be wondering.

---

Covington, Nicholas (2 November 2022). "Ken Olson on Josephus and James". Hume's Apprentice.

• "The Puzzle of Decius Mundus - Joseph Atwill". YouTube. History Valley. 13 November 2022. @time:00:46:26.

The Testimonium Flavianum and the Decius Mundus puzzle

Atwill argues (contrary to many scholars) that the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.3) is genuine because he sees it as the introduction to a literary triptych. Immediately following the Testimonium Flavianum is the story of Decius Mundus, who pretends to be the god Anubis, to trick a woman named Paulina into having sex. Atwill sees Decius's name as a pun on Publius Decius Mus, a sacrificial hero of the Roman Republic. As the story continues, Paulina's husband Saturninus agrees that it would be no sin for Paulina to have sex with a god. So Paulina and Decius Mundus sleep together, but Mundus returns on the third day to boast that he is not a god. Atwill argues that Mundus's return is a parody of Jesus's resurrection, and that his worshippers Paulina and Saturninus have obviously been swindled.[40]

Albert Bell, in his paper "Josephus the Satirist?",[41] speculated that the satirical nature of the Decius Mundus story was understood in the 4th century. According to Bell, the author of pseudo-Hegesippus may have elaborated on the joke by making Paulina become possibly pregnant by Anubis, thus making her parody of the Virgin Mary.

The authors and purpose of the Gospels

As stated above, Atwill states that the authors of the Gospels were mainly Flavius Josephus, the Herodian princess Berenice, and the military general Tiberius Julius Alexander, with contributions from (the Gentile) Pliny the Elder. However, the book ends without Atwill offering any timeline or scenario in which these individuals collaborated for a years-long project. Nor does he explain how the work was disseminated, or why it was adopted by (purportedly) messianic Jews around the Mediterranean, or how this provenance segues into the known history of second-century Christianity. As for the theological and narrative differences among the Gospels, they were deliberate. Atwill explains, "The New Testament is designed as a sort of intelligence test, whose true meaning can be understood only by those possessing sufficient memory, logic, and irreverent humor."[42] Price writes, "Atwill implicitly congratulates himself as the only one in history who has ever passed it...It is Atwill himself whose creation demonstrates the limitless possibilities of perverse and gratuitous interpretations of the text."[32]

---

"Caesar's Messiah". Wikipedia. Retrieved 15 November 2022.