Josephus' TF the source for Tacitus' reference to Jesus?

[Peter Kirby]

Peter,

Thanks for the link concerning Justin Martyr, and I will consider the idea that creedal statements are generally similar across the board.

Though I don't buy the idea that Josephus used Luke or that Luke and Josephus used a common source, it's the idea that Luke used Josephus in other cases that makes me wonder if this could be another one.

Goldberg's idea is, essentially, stupid (let's be honest--we've let our brains go to mush if we think it's likely that Josephus based his account on the Gospel of Luke's resurrection chapter or vice-versa).

To be clear, Goldberg proposed neither of these direct connections. He thought they both used a common source.

Ben.

Yes, well, the whole thing is silly.

Common source between these two with this stuff (Christian through and through), read by Josephus -- silly.
Luke getting a passage on Jesus in his resurrection chapter from Josephus -- silly.
Josephus getting it from Luke -- silly, as apparently everyone sees already.

And, Josephus writing about Jesus -- wrong, rendering much of the rest of the discussion moot.

[Ben C. Smith]

Yes, well, the whole thing is silly.

Yes, your opinion on the matter is clear enough, certainly.

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

I thought the thrust of Goldberg's article and premise was that a later 3rd party edited Luke or the TF, or both, to align with each other ??

Even if that is not Goldberg's thrust, it is a possibility - yes? no?

[John2]

Ben,

You wrote:

"...the passage in Justin Martyr was instrumental in changing my mind about the likelihood of the Testimonium being a forgery in its entirety."

Do you mean (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you think that some form of the TF existed before Eusebius? Just curious.

I wasn't aware of this Justin Martyr passage before and still need to chew on it (and Peter's comment that creedal statements in general tend to be similar). Justin did know Josephus, but it's always seemed odd to me that no one clearly cites the TF (in any form) before Eusebius.

[Peter Kirby]

I thought the thrust of Goldberg's article and premise was that a later 3rd party edited Luke or the TF, or both, to align with each other ??

Even if that is not Goldberg's thrust, it is a possibility - yes? no?

Lots of things are possible. For example, nothing of the sort. Or perhaps someone used the letters of the Latin word COMPATER to write a passage about Christ (C!), teaching (oratio), multitudes (M!), Pilate (P!), high priests (Annas&Caiaphas), testimonium (T!), execution (exsequor), and returning (revenio). That's eight points that line up. Pretty impressive. Pretty impressive.... perhaps this has all been touched up to conform to the word COMPATER.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben,

You wrote:

"...the passage in Justin Martyr was instrumental in changing my mind about the likelihood of the Testimonium being a forgery in its entirety."

Do you mean (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you think that some form of the TF existed before Eusebius? Just curious.

I wasn't aware of this Justin Martyr passage before and still need to chew on it (and Peter's comment that creedal statements in general tend to be similar). Justin did know Josephus, but it's always seemed odd to me that no one clearly cites the TF (in any form) before Eusebius.

I am not committed to the forger being Eusebius (not as committed as Ken Olson is, at any rate), and it would not bother me to learn that it preceded Eusebius, but when Olson challenged me to post both that passage from Justin Martyr and the one from the Demonstration, neither of which explicitly references Josephus, on my page alongside Luke and Tacitus (and I did so), the credal nature of the Testimonium became more evident to me, and I found it harder to accept that I could ever hope to recover what, if anything, Josephus himself had written there before Christian scribal guile either added it or changed it.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Yes, well, the whole thing is silly.

Yes, your opinion on the matter is clear enough, certainly.

Okay well maybe it isn't completely silly. YMMV.

[andrewcriddle]

I am not committed to the forger being Eusebius (not as committed as Ken Olson is, at any rate), and it would not bother me to learn that it preceded Eusebius, but when Olson challenged me to post both that passage from Justin Martyr and the one from the Demonstration, neither of which explicitly references Josephus, on my page alongside Luke and Tacitus (and I did so), the credal nature of the Testimonium became more evident to me, and I found it harder to accept that I could ever hope to recover what, if anything, Josephus himself had written there before Christian scribal guile either added it or changed it.

Ben.

Hi Ben

At first glance, I don't find the resemblances between the Testimonium and Justin as striking as you do. (If anything there seems to be a prima-facie case for Justin being influenced by Tacitus rather than Josephus.) Unless one is specifically arguing that Eusebius composed the Testimonium (which IMO has its own problems) the thematic agreements between Eusebius and the TF mainly show that Eusebius was influenced by Josephus.

If the passage was genuinely creedal I would expect an explicit reference to Jesus' death (compare the passage from Luke 24).

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

If the passage was genuinely creedal I would expect an explicit reference to Jesus' death (compare the passage from Luke 24).

Which of the passages lacks an explicit reference to his death? Not sure which one you mean here.

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

If the passage was genuinely creedal I would expect an explicit reference to Jesus' death (compare the passage from Luke 24).

Which of the passages lacks an explicit reference to his death? Not sure which one you mean here.

Ben.

Eusebius and Luke 24 19-27 explicitly refer to death.

Justin and Josephus do not. Tacitus may be dubious depending on the implications of supplicio adfectus erat,

Andrew Criddle