Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If so, who and when?

Do you mean: people who think that the Josephian figure X is the Jesus later adored by the Christians?

There is a vein of scholarship of suggesting an original reference to Jesus in Josephus, but also possibly disregarding the book 20 reference and regarding the 18th book passage as being a significant rewrite. Sometimes this involves a relocation hypothesis (passage not there at first), usually not.

The investigation of the "negative" tone of Josephus (see Bermejo Rubio), the variants such as the Slavonic Josephus (see Eisler), and/or the parallels in other passages in Josephus (Clyde Pharr, Bammel, Albert Bell) tend to be jumping off points.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:00 am There is a vein of scholarship of suggesting an original reference to Jesus in Josephus, but also possibly disregarding the book 20 reference and regarding the 18th book passage as being a significant rewrite. Sometimes this involves a relocation hypothesis (passage not there at first), usually not.

The investigation of the "negative" tone of Josephus (see Bermejo Rubio), the variants such as the Slavonic Josephus (see Eisler), and/or the parallels in other passages in Josephus (Clyde Pharr, Bammel, Albert Bell) tend to be jumping off points.

This what I was referring to.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 9:44 pm Do you mean: people who think that the Josephian figure X is the Jesus later adored by the Christians?

Although this, despite not being what I was inquiring about, is consistent with my question.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 5:20 pm If so, who and when?

Graham H. Twelftree, 'Jesus in Jewish Traditions', in Gospel Perspectives, Volume 5, The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, edited by David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 289-41.

Twelftree discusses the phrase 'James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" from Ant. 20.200 on pp. 297-301, and concludes that it did not originate with Josephus. He discusses the Testimonium on pp. 001-310, including brief discussions of the Slavonic and Arabic versions, and considers it to be partially authentic with interpolations. Twelftree is still active and has other works discussing Jesus as a miracle worker. Some of them mention the Testimonium, but do not discuss it in as much detail as he does here.

Dave Allen, an inactive member of this forum but an active member, and moderator, of the Historical Jesus, higher criticism, and Second Temple Judaism group on Facebook has a blog about the historical Jesus in which he discusses his reconstruction of the supposedly original Testimonium here:

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12 ... cal-jesus/

He rejects the authenticity of the mention of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ in Ant. 20.200:

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/07/17 ... s-passage/

He has a very recent paper proposing a model reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum published in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism online here:

http://jgrchj.net/

Best,

Ken

Thanks Ken! Always nice to see your posts.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:00 am The investigation of the "negative" tone of Josephus (see Bermejo Rubio), the variants such as the Slavonic Josephus (see Eisler), and/or the parallels in other passages in Josephus (Clyde Pharr, Bammel, Albert Bell) tend to be jumping off points.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the kind wors (in your other post on this thread). I’m still checking the forum occasionally to see if there’s anything interesting on the Testimonium or the Synoptic Problem.

Eisler’s theory from 1931, based on Alexander Berendts' edition/translation, that the Slavonic Josephus was based on an an earlier Aramaic version of Josephus Jewish War rather than on the known Greek text and that its version of the Testimonium is derived from that is at least unnecessary if not demonstrably wrong. I have a blog post here, based on Henry Leeming’s English translation of Meschersky’s edition of the Slavonic text, arguing that the Chronicler (i.e., the author of the Slavonic Chronicle from which the Slavonic Jewish War was excerpted) almost certainly knew the Eusebian version of the Testimonium through the Chronicle of the Byzantine historian George Hamartolos, which was one of his sources.

Https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... flavianum/

Best,

Ken

I see that a relatively high number of amateurs think that portions of Josephus were transposed and confused to eclipse the mention, under Pilate, of Theudas, or Judas the Galilean or Eleazar. They include:

• Patrick Boistier

• Georges Ory

• Laura Knight-Jadczyk

• Martin Turner

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:25 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:00 am The investigation of the "negative" tone of Josephus (see Bermejo Rubio), the variants such as the Slavonic Josephus (see Eisler), and/or the parallels in other passages in Josephus (Clyde Pharr, Bammel, Albert Bell) tend to be jumping off points.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the kind wors (in your other post on this thread). I’m still checking the forum occasionally to see if there’s anything interesting on the Testimonium or the Synoptic Problem.

Eisler’s theory from 1931, based on Alexander Berendts' edition/translation, that the Slavonic Josephus was based on an an earlier Aramaic version of Josephus Jewish War rather than on the known Greek text and that its version of the Testimonium is derived from that is at least unnecessary if not demonstrably wrong. I have a blog post here, based on Henry Leeming’s English translation of Meschersky’s edition of the Slavonic text, arguing that the Chronicler (i.e., the author of the Slavonic Chronicle from which the Slavonic Jewish War was excerpted) almost certainly knew the Eusebian version of the Testimonium through the Chronicle of the Byzantine historian George Hamartolos, which was one of his sources.

Https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... flavianum/

Best,

Ken

So - knowing Eusebius does not rule out the possibility, that the Chronographer of the Slavonic Josephus version of the TF, also had other sources for his wonder-doer story dated under Pilate and Tiberius.

Ken, methinks, sooner or later, you may have to deal with a core Josephan TF. A full cloth Eusebius interpolation, forgery, is never going to provide answers to questions related to the early development of what became Christianity. And, no, a Josephan core TF does not support some sort of a historical gospel Jesus figure. It simply supports the gospel Jesus story - a story which, on it's own merits, is not a historical account of early christian origins.