Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:27 pm

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:15 pm Early on, Valliant decided not to allow that any part of the Testimonium was interpolated.

Does anyone aside from him hold that view?

Some people are very close to that position, but most of those, like Alice Whealey and Serge Barrdet, allow a word or two here and there may be interpolated or omitted.

Valliant floats the idea that Josephus was a Christian, and there I cannot think of a single Josephan scholar of the last century or more who agree with him. His authority is William Whiston's 18th century translation of Josephus with appendixes.

The interesting thing about that approach to the TF is that it (1) pretty much admits that the TF is a christian text and (2) gives up the only first century non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus, because he turns out to be a Christian after all.

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:47 pm His authority is William Whiston's 18th century translation of Josephus with appendixes.

Ironically, as an Arian Christian, Whiston would be condemned as a non-Christian by those who insist that in order to be a Christian one must accept the Trinity.

I suppose, though, that the diversity of Christian forms means that it is theoretically possible that Josephus could have been some type of Jewish Christian, but as far as I know - and I could be wrong - no Christian from the Roman Empire's time claimed that he was. These were the same people who falsely claimed that Seneca, Philip the Arab, and (in the 5th or 6th century's so-called Book of the Cock) Pontius Pilate. This strongly suggests that he was no Christian to me - unless the apologetic value of having a Jew testify about Jesus was regarded as so valuable that traditions that Josephus was Christian were suppressed. But of course that assumes that he really testified about Jesus.

gryan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:18 am Re: The "James" who put to death according Josephus

Argument: The original "James" who according to Josephus was executed was not "James the Lord's brother."

Yes!

James = Jacimus son of Zamaris AKA Judas of Gamala+Galilee.

Son, Philip, presiding at Gamala at its Roman conquest. Done wrong by Herods.

gryan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:11 am Argument: Josephas does not mention NT Jesus or his brother James.

Supportive argument: Josephas does not mention Hillel, why would he mention NT Jesus?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

Good argument.

Hillel = Annas and Sons of "Ananus" AKA Paul

Shammai = Eleazar Boethus and Boethusians

Ananus and Boethus butted heads during the reign of Agrippa I. Including a Lazarus, brother of Martha, allegedly by NT parable poisoned by the "Rich Man" AKA Annas, where Agrippa is poisoned and dead. Think about it.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:47 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:27 pm

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:15 pm Early on, Valliant decided not to allow that any part of the Testimonium was interpolated.

Does anyone aside from him hold that view?

Some people are very close to that position, but most of those, like Alice Whealey and Serge Barrdet, allow a word or two here and there may be interpolated or omitted.

Valliant floats the idea that Josephus was a Christian, and there I cannot think of a single Josephan scholar of the last century or more who agree with him. His authority is William Whiston's 18th century translation of Josephus with appendixes.

The interesting thing about that approach to the TF is that it (1) pretty much admits that the TF is a christian text and (2) gives up the only first century non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus, because he turns out to be a Christian after all.

If Josephus wrote a version of the TF that would not, necessarily, make him a supporter of some version of the gospel Jesus figure - hence a supporter of the Christian claim for historicity for that gospel figure. The Jesus story - whether the gospel story or the Toledot Yeshu story are
allegories. Stories that contain meaning for the author and relevance for those who read them. Using the TF - and any allegory - in and off itself, as though the allegory is itself a statement of history, is pointless. To do that with the TF is to forever be facing a brick wall in a search for the historical roots of early Christianity. .

The bottom line with the TF is not to run to Eusebius or whoever - it is to deal with Josephus. Letting, so to speak, Josephus off the hook is to eliminate the only possible way forward in investigating the roots of early Christianity.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:23 pm If Josephus wrote a version of the TF ...

It's highly-unlikely to 'almost-certain-he-didn't' ...

... so this —

maryhelena wrote: The bottom line with the TF is not to run to Eusebius or whoever - it is to deal with Josephus. Letting...Josephus off the hook is to eliminate the only possible way forward in investigating the roots of early Christianity.

— is nonsense

I'm going to address some of the questions John T. raised earlier in this thread, such as the question of why I started this thread and (shamelessly) plugged the video in which I debated James Valliant on the History Valley channel on topic of the authenticity of the two references to Jesus found in the works of Josephus and several related questions.

First, the initial reason I posted the link was that the video had received few comments on YouTube (the comments from the live feed were either not posted yet or just not displaying for me) and most of them were about Valliant's behavior. This was less feedback than I had gotten on the first two videos I had done which produced some useful feedback (as well as some disparaging comments of course). Two of these I addressed in the Valliant debate: Why would Origen have said Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ? (I pointed to my blog where I had previously addressed that issue) and how do we know Jews were reading Josephus (from his own claims in his later CA and the Vita, as I said in the Valliant video).

John T, in his characteristically uncharitable manner, suggested I was looking only for praise and confirmation. Well, I like praise as much the next guy, but no, that was hardly my only or even initial reason for posting. I posted it on this forum because I knew the subject was appropriate and of interest here (as opposed to the other two fora in which I am currently active, on the Synoptic Problem and Jonathan Bernier's book on Dating Acts).

Second, the reason I did videos on the MythVision and History Valley YouTube Channels is that the asked me. I'd be happy to be interviewed by John Dickson (or someone else) about my views on the Testimonium, but he hasn't asked me (yet). Actually it took a while for Derek and Jacob to get in touch with me because they tried to friend me on FB and I generally don't accept friend requests from people I'd never heard of before (I used to and it turned out to be a bad idea). Sinouhe contacted me on this list to say Derek from MythVision was trying to get in touch with me (thanks!).

Third, my purpose in doing the interview videos is to promote the spread of my ideas on the Testimonium (Jacob Berman is trying to put together a discussion between me and Rob MacEwen on the Synoptic Problem) and when I say I'm shamelessly plugging it, it's not really all that shameless because it's on topic for this list, but I was acknowledging in a semi-humorous manner, that I was indeed engaging in self-promotion. John T interpreted it in a different sense than was intended or could reasonably be inferred. (I doubt John T. expects us to infer that he is small and eldelry when he calls himself 'little ole me').

Fourth what's the point of doing the videos? Are they going to budge the scholarly needle as John T put it? Probably not much, at least not directly. But I expect my scholarly work might and the videos might get people, including scholars, to read those. There is still a large amount of scholarly work on the Testimonium that does not engage with me at all, and some of it that does considers only my 1999 CBQ paper. Also, perhaps videos from the other side, like the two John T. linked to, will engage with my arguments and maybe even stop repeating fallacious claims that have been circulating for some time now (and that too might encourage scholars to read or take another look at my work).

So what I'm primarily interested in is the reception of my work among scholars. It's not that I don't appreciate having a popular audience, it's that I'm actually trying to overturn a scholarly consensus (partial interpolation) and change what's taught as the standard view in introductory works and classes on the New testament and Early Christianity. And that means producing academic papers such as I published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly and in Johnson and Schott's book on Eusebius (which began as a paper presented in the Eusebius section of the Society for Biblical Literature).

Best,

Ken

PS Youch! That's a lot of text. Thanks to everyone who is staying with me through all that.

All very good reasons for posting here. Better than the usual nonsense that gets circulated around here.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:51 am
I'll attempt a synthetic rationalization of what I think he thinks: He believes that there was a Gentile or Pauline Christianity before 70, but this was very different from the form of Christianity that existed in Judea before 70. I think he believes in an historical Jesus and an historical Hames [sic: I think "James" is intended], but that their form of Judaism was more nationalistic and anti-Roman, perhaps akin to the Sicarii and Zealots or perhaps the Essenes (he's vague or has changed his mind on this). He thinks that the canonical Gospels were a product of the non-Judean, generally pro-Roman, Pauline and Gentile form of Christianity and had little to do with the actual Jesus or James or their Judean followers. Thus far, I don't think he's crazy. This is close to what I think and I may be overinterpreing his ideas through the lens of mine.

Where I part company with him is where he argues that the Gentile form of Christianity in the Gospels were invented by the Flavian emperors and their circle, including especially Josephus, in order to 'domesticate' Messianic or nationalistic Judaism. I think that's a wild speculation and the evidence we have is against it.

Dr. Olson:

Should I think of you as being in the camp of Reza Aslan (Zealot:The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth 2013)?

Or could you suggest another relatively well known book that would better represent your views?

Thanks!

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 8:36 am
Fourth what's the point of doing the videos? Are they going to budge the scholarly needle as John T put it? Probably not much, at least not directly. But I expect my scholarly work might and the videos might get people, including scholars, to read those. There is still a large amount of scholarly work on the Testimonium that does not engage with me at all, and some of it that does considers only my 1999 CBQ paper. Also, perhaps videos from the other side, like the two John T. linked to, will engage with my arguments and maybe even stop repeating fallacious claims that have been circulating for some time now (and that too might encourage scholars to read or take another look at my work).

So what I'm primarily interested in is the reception of my work among scholars. It's not that I don't appreciate having a popular audience, it's that I'm actually trying to overturn a scholarly consensus (partial interpolation) and change what's taught as the standard view in introductory works and classes on the New testament and Early Christianity. And that means producing academic papers such as I published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly and in Johnson and Schott's book on Eusebius (which began as a paper presented in the Eusebius section of the Society for Biblical Literature).

Best,

Ken

PS Youch! That's a lot of text. Thanks to everyone who is staying with me through all that.

I think most people realise you're trying to engage with and achieve a wider reception of your scholarly work. As are other scholars engaging with Jacob, Derek and Neal (and others) who, through their YouTube channel's engagements, are attracting a demographic very interested in delving into what [else] might have been happening behind 'the scenes' beyond what modern orthodoxy, riffing on the orthodoxy of late antiquity, have so far 'staged' for us all.

While the comments and live-chat things, however, are often far less than scholarly than one might hope, I think we can all appreciate that podcasts and vodcasts are an increasingly important media for engagement, even if such engagement is sometimes a little rocky and less than ideal.