The Testimonium Flavianum

[WJL]

A lot of atheists and skeptics claim that the Testimonium Flavianum (Flavius Josephus’ reference to Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews) is a complete interpolation from a Christian scribe ergo, it is not evidence of the historical existence of Jesus. One such skeptic claims that Eusebius of Caesarea, himself, forged the Testimonium Flavianum (see here). This claim is used most commonly by those who deny that Jesus Christ was a real, historical person.

I’m curious as to the thoughts of others on this issue. Also, could anyone recommend ant sites which offer rebuttals of this claim?

Thanks.

 

[WJL]

Anyone?

 

[e61iuser]

They make the claim, they provide the evidence to back it up. Simple rules of evidence.

A lot of accusations do not a fact make.

 

[utunumsint]

Its hard to pin it on Eusebius. I did this word comparison myself.

Now there was about this time Jesus,

The phrase “About this time” is used 45 times by Josephus, and 24 times by Eusebius.

a wise man,

The words “Wise man” is used 12 times by Josephus, and 8 times by Eusebius.

if it be lawful to call him a man;

The word groupings “to call him” occurs in Josephus 11 times, and in Eusebius, only 3 times and only when referencing Josephus’ own words.

for he was a doer of wonderful works,

The words “wonderful works” occurs 3 times in Josephus (three different contexts), and 10 times in Eusebius.

a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

“received the truth” 1 Josephus, 1 Eusebius quoting Josephus, “with pleasure” 3 Eusebius, 14 Josephus

He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

“Many of the Jews” 17 times in Josephus, only 2 for Eusebius, “many of the gentiles” 2 Josephus, 1 for Eusebius

He was Christ.

Josephus once in the testamoneum, and once in his work on Hades “6. For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ.”

Eusebius too many to count.

And when Pilate,

Pilote is mentioned 31 times in Josephus.

at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,

“principal men” is used 75 times in Josephus, and only 2 times with Eusebius, once when quoting the testamonium, and once in a different context.

had condemned him to the cross,

“condemned him to the cross” only i time for Josephus, only 1 for Eusebius, and only when quoting Josephus.

those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;

“those that loved him” 2 times for Josephus, (one for testamonium, and one in a different context), 1 time for Eusebius, only when quoting Josephus.

“forsake” 23 times for Josephus, and 3 times for “forsake him” 9 times, and never “forsake him” for Eusebius

for he appeared to them alive again the third day;

“he appeared to them” 1 time for both, and Eusebius was quoting Josephus.

“he appeared” 16 times for Josephus, and 14 times for Eusebius.

“third day” 26 times for Josephus, and 8 times for Eusebius

as the divine prophets had foretold

“divine prophet” 1 time for Josephus, and 2 times for Eusebius

these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

“ten thousand other” 2 times for josephus, never for Eusebius

“ten thousand” 146 times for Josephus, and only 3 times for Eusebius

(Josephus often used this phrase in metaphors and exagerations)

And the tribe of Christians,

“tribe of” 154 times for Josephus, 3 times for Eusebius

so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

“to this day” 19 times for Josephus, 6 times for Eusebius

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

The other argument I find convincing is that Agrippa II contributed Josephus as an editor and a supplier of historical information. He reviewed Josephus’ drafts several times.

Agrippa II also personally heard Paul’s preaching, and scripture states in Acts that he was well aquainted with the sect of the Christians. This Flavian passage could have come from him…

You have to remember that Josephus was interested in entertaining as well as providing history. The Christians had become known to the Roman world at the time Josephus wrote his books. Nero had already blamed them for burning Rome. Pliny had written about them. Tacitus had also mentioned disturbances involving them in Rome.

In short, I would have found it strange if Josephus didn’t mention the Christians.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Here are some other parts of the puzzle.

Origen against Celsus

CHAP. XLVII.
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting
somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John
the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who
lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of
his Antiquities[2] of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having
been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the
rite.

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in
seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the
temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was
the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death
Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless–being, although against his
will, not far from the truth–that these disasters happened to the Jews as
a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus
(called Christ),–the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man
most distinguished for his justice.

[3] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus,
says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on
account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up
together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.[4] If, then, he says that
it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to
overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to
say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose
divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been
convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the
Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

Here it is evident that Josephus must have said something about Christ, because Origen is referring to it. So it is impossible for Eusebius to have forged the entire Flavian passage. But on the other hand, what Origen is saying here doesn’t seem to jive exactly with what our current version of the passage gives us. Therefore you have a probable argument for Christian interpolation. The passages on John the Baptist and James, however, are beyond doubt.

Origen’s commentary on Matthew

And to so great a reputation
among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus,
who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit
the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was
razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with
the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against
James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing
is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that
the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought
that they had suffered these things because of James.

God bless,
Ut

 

[WJL]

Thanks for the responses.

What are your thoughts on this guy’s arguments: “The brother of Jesus called Christ”: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus?

Also, could anyone suggest some good resources regarding this issue?

Thanks again.

 

[WJL]

bump

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for the responses.

What are your thoughts on this guy’s arguments: “The brother of Jesus called Christ”: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus?

Also, could anyone suggest some good resources regarding this issue?

Thanks again.

Hi WJL,

I usually take the weekend off of the forum, and I’ve been very busy at work, so I’ve only had a chance to skim through the article. I’ll give it some more thought later on.

Just a brief point though. The author of the article quickly dismisses speculative argument from those whose opinion he rejects, while trying to prop up his own interpretation as the more reasonable one. The problem with this is that he is also speculating. And given the plethora of sources that Josephus could have drawn on to get information on the Christianity, I find it hugely unreasonable to question wether he wrote about Jesus at all.

Anyway, I’ll write more if I have time.

As for sources, I’m not sure who I’d recommend. There is the Lee Strobel book the Case of Christ that is good. Although he does not specifically go into the Josephus debate, I’m sure that some of the Scholars he interviewed did go into the issue. I tend to read the primary sources and make up my own mind. The fact is that there is a lack of evidence either way. If we could find an orginal copy of Josephus that predated Eusebius, I still believe that people who try to attack it as a primary source. There is just too much money in the Questioning Jesus’ historical reality industry for people to just give it up.

God bless,
Ut

 

[KyivAndrew]

Hi. Have a look at this lengthy article written by a Jewish scholar and expert on Christianity and Judaism, Geza Vermes, recently published in the English journal Standpoint. At the end he shows what he believes the Testimonium probably read. At least one can say it’s a neutral source, and by an internationally-recognized scholar.

It’s called “Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus”.

standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes

 

[utunumsint]

Great article Andrew.

Here are some of my reflections on WJL’s article’s first points.

Point 1-

Those who think that Josephus made at least some sort of reference to Jesus Christ in Book 18 often turn to Book 20 where there is another reference to Jesus Christ, and conclude that the latter reference supports at least partial authenticity of the former.

Makes sense. This is exactly what the author of Andrew’s article says.

Question 1. The original Book 18 passage did not (originally) say Jesus was the Christ, so it would be pointless in Book 20 to try to identify Jesus as the one called Christ. Josephus at no point had described any of his many Jesus’s this way before. (Some would argue that Josephus wrote something else in Book 18, such as a hostile remark indicating he was opposed to those who called Jesus the “Christ”. This is mere speculation, however. It should be noted, further, that Josephus never in any other instance of would-be Christs (e.g. those who promised to part the Jordan River, or bring down the walls of Jerusalem) dares to offend Rome or his own conservative views by declaring that anyone referred to them as would-be Christs or Messiahs, even though it seems obvious to us that this is how others must have seen them. If Josephus really referred to Jesus in either Book 20 or 18, then it would mean that of the many who claimed to be, or were known as, Christs, Josephus made an exception for Jesus by informing readers he was known as such.

My rebuttle to this is as follows:

He is assuming we accept his claim that the Flavian passage contained no reference to Christ. If you don’t accept this argument, then his argument falls appart. Even if the Flavian passage was neutral or even negative, the reference still works.

His next point builds on the idea that Josephus always talked about imposter Christs in a negative way. But as Andrew’s article clarifies, the purpose of this passage from Josephus was to show the injustice of Pilot. Also, Jesus was not a revolutionary in a military sense. No Christian had ever taken up arms against the Empire up until that point. So Josephus could feel comfortable identifying him as a Christ. So I don’t see how this point works.

I’ll post some more on his other points as I have time.

God bless,
Ut

 

[KyivAndrew]

Great article Andrew.

Thanks Ut!

God Bless!

Andrew

 

[utunumsint]

The next point he makes (based on the idea that Jesus and James were very common names) is to propose that James, the borther of Jesus" was actually the Jesus mentioned a few pages later, here:

on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him [Ananus], when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

My argument against this idea is this: why wouldn’t Josephus have mentioned the link between James, the son of Damneus, and Jesus the son of Damneus? Unless he did, but Eusebius or some other unscrupulous scribe also modified this? How much interpolation does this guy need?

My instincts go against this idea, since that much manipulation requires an almost all out con. Its one thing to say glosses were included into the original text, and maybe a few words modified here and there, but to change the entire meaning of the text seems a little far fetched.

And now he brings in Origen in on the con to support his claims. So it seems that every single Christian author who cam in contact with the books of Josephus have somehow added forgeries to it. Its too bad that Tertullian didn’t quote from the book, but only mentioned it in passing. Then we could have a veritable cabal!!

In the effort to remove all traces of Christianity from the text, the author of this theory must make several, interlocking links, resorting to a massive conspiracy theory. It requires all non modified manuscripts to be destroyed, involving no one else by Emperor Constantine himself. This sounds like a Dan Brown novel.

God bless,
Ut