Josephus on Jesus and James

[historia]

All of the extant manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews contain the following references to Jesus of Nazareth. Did Josephus write this text, or are these reference entirely Christian interpolations?

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus . . . he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned . . .

[Goat]

My fourth argument in favor of partial interpolation concerns the vocabulary of the text. Once we remove the obvious Christian interpolations, the remaining text includes many words and phrases that are typical of Josephus.

I won't pretend to expound on this point. I'll simpy quote here again from Meier's article, cited above:

The vocabulary and grammar of the passage (after the clearly Christian material is removed) cohere well with Josephus' style and language; the same cannot be said when the text's vocabulary and grammar are compared with that of the NT. Indeed, many key words and phrases in the Testimonium are either absent from the NT or are used there in an entirely different sense; in contrast, almost every word in the core of the Testimonium is found elsewhere in Josephus -- in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus.

Yet, others, looking at it, say that the style of grammer is much along the lines of Eusibius. See Ken Olsen's ""Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium"

Since there is a strong difference of opinion about that , can you show the this passage existed before the 4th century?

[Goat]

Well, isn't that JUST as much of an assumption on your part?

Well, yeah, that's what a hypothesis is: "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences," as Merriam Webster puts it. The whole point of this thread is to engage in a critical analysis of the text in order to determine which hypothesis best explains the TF.

Can you compare it with other writing from Josephus where he was talking about Gentiles and Jews together, so the language can be compared?

Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this. The "language" of Josephus has no bearing on my point above.

Why, yes yes, it does. If we compare the words, and how the words are used in a similar manner, then, well, we can see either differences or similarities.

You made the claim the grammer is Joesphus. Ken Olsen made the claim right opposite of that. His essay is reproduced here although you have to dig down a bit. It seems Ken Olsen was much more detailed in his analysis.

[Nickman]

Earlier I provided two arguments for a partial interpolation of the TF:

• 1. Removing the obvious Christian interpolations leaves an original text that reads smoothly.
  2. The claim that Jesus had many non-Jewish followers contradicts the New Testament, as so is unlikely to have been written by a Christian.

My third argument in favor of a partial interpolation is that the last line of the TF -- "to this day the tribe of Christians ... has not died out" -- has a rather dismissive, if not a negative, tone. The author seems surprised that this "tribe" of people, who are dedicated to a man who suffered a shameful death, are still at it.

If the TF was invented wholesale by a Christian scribe, would he have written something like this? Again, by contrast, this makes perfect sense if Josephus is the author.

I agree that this is a good point Historia. If it were soley from Christian hands, the negative tone of the last portion would presumably not be there.

[catalyst]

Earlier I provided two arguments for a partial interpolation of the TF:

• 1. Removing the obvious Christian interpolations leaves an original text that reads smoothly.
  2. The claim that Jesus had many non-Jewish followers contradicts the New Testament, as so is unlikely to have been written by a Christian.

My third argument in favor of a partial interpolation is that the last line of the TF -- "to this day the tribe of Christians ... has not died out" -- has a rather dismissive, if not a negative, tone. The author seems surprised that this "tribe" of people, who are dedicated to a man who suffered a shameful death, are still at it.

If the TF was invented wholesale by a Christian scribe, would he have written something like this? Again, by contrast, this makes perfect sense if Josephus is the author.

I agree that this is a good point Historia. If it were soley from Christian hands, the negative tone of the last portion would presumably not be there.

I loathe to get involved in this thread as I have full hands at the moment, but just something.

Yes a christian scribe WOULD have written something like that, so as to determine some "link" between the tribal nuances of the OT...or better, Hebrew Bible.

Odd how no other off-shoot"sect" he referred to in his comparitavely mass writings on other religous groups of the time, mentions the word TRIBE and moreso IF a Jewish writer wanted to show that YES this was the assumed "christ" of prophecy, would he not have mentioned that this off shoot "sect" known as christianity was from, perhaps... the TRIBE of Judah? If nothing else, Josephus tended to like reiteration and cross referencing of his points, hence so many things being mentioned across the board in ALL of his writings and at least if somewhat mentioned in Ant, if it fit the time and relevance was also mentioned in WARS and also Life.

To me at least, it shows a latter christian scribe trying to squeeze the NT christianity into OT/Hebrew Bible understanding.. and failing. IF this "tribe" was of any interest or actually existed during HIS lifetime, it would have been mentioned in at least two of his well known works.

Just my POV.

Catalyst.

[Nickman]

@ Catalyst

Another good point. I would add that the language is completely different from the rest of his writings. The placement of the text is inconsistent with his topic of seditions against the Jews for their dislike of Pilate's stream. The Jews "used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he [Pilate] habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on"

Then we have an off topic story about Jesus.

Lastly is this;
4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs.

The entire context is redirected to a non-jewish story when the TF is inserted. Without it we read a continuous flow that remains on topic.

[historia]

Well, isn't that JUST as much of an assumption on your part?

Well, yeah, that's what a hypothesis is: "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences," as Merriam Webster puts it. The whole point of this thread is to engage in a critical analysis of the text in order to determine which hypothesis best explains the TF.

Can you compare it with other writing from Josephus where he was talking about Gentiles and Jews together, so the language can be compared?

Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this. The "language" of Josephus has no bearing on my point above.

Why, yes yes, it does. If we compare the words, and how the words are used in a similar manner, then, well, we can see either differences or similarities.

Okay, but here you are responding to my second argument -- The claim that Jesus had many non-Jewish followers contradicts the New Testament, as so is unlikely to have been written by a Christian. The "language" of Josephus has no real bearing on that point, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

You made the claim the grammer is Joesphus.

Right, but that was a different argument from the one you are responding to here. I'll address your response there.

[Goat]

Well, isn't that JUST as much of an assumption on your part?

Well, yeah, that's what a hypothesis is: "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences," as Merriam Webster puts it. The whole point of this thread is to engage in a critical analysis of the text in order to determine which hypothesis best explains the TF.

Can you compare it with other writing from Josephus where he was talking about Gentiles and Jews together, so the language can be compared?

Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this. The "language" of Josephus has no bearing on my point above.

Why, yes yes, it does. If we compare the words, and how the words are used in a similar manner, then, well, we can see either differences or similarities.

Okay, but here you are responding to my second argument -- The claim that Jesus had many non-Jewish followers contradicts the New Testament, as so is unlikely to have been written by a Christian. The "language" of Josephus has no real bearing on that point, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

You made the claim the grammer is Joesphus.

Right, but that was a different argument from the one you are responding to here. I'll address your response there.

Yet, that would be exactly what someone who is a non-Jewish follower of Jesus would proclaim. After all, they would be a gentile follower, and that would fit their self image.

[historia]

You made the claim the grammer is Joesphus. Ken Olsen made the claim right opposite of that. His essay is reproduced here although you have to dig down a bit. It seems Ken Olsen was much more detailed in his analysis.

I only quoted a summary statement from Meier's article. His analysis on the language of Josephus takes up three full pages, and is, in fact, longer and more detailed than Olson's. Several other scholars have taken up such an analysis, as well, including van Liempt, Reinach, Thackeray, Martin, Vermes, and all have concluded that the language and the style of (at least portions of) the TF is distinctly Josephan.

Scholars have also reviewed Olson's analysis and found it wanting. Bart Ehrman, in Did Jesus Exist?, pg. 64, summarizes this neatly:

Olson has made an intriguing case in his article, but I'm afraid -- as impressed by him as I am -- that it has not held up under critical scrutiny. The responses to it by such scholars of Josephus and of early Christianity as J. Carleton Paget and Alice Whealey have been compelling. There is in fact little in the Testimonium that is more like Eusebius than Josephus, and a good deal of the passage does indeed read like it was written by Josephus. It is far more likely that the core of the passage actually does go back to Josephus himself.

You also wrote:

Since there is a strong difference of opinion about that , can you show the this passage existed before the 4th century?

You asked this question earlier, and I gave my response above. Since the earliest Greek manuscript of Antiquities dates only to the 11th Century, we have no direct textual evidence one way or the other on this issue. We can only address the question through analysis, which is what I and others here are doing.

[historia]

I would add that the language is completely different from the rest of his writings.

This is simply not true. I'll refer you to the post above where no less than six scholars over the past century have analyzed the text and found that the language of the TF (at least in the non-interpolated portions) is reflected in the rest of Josephus' writings.

Even those scholars who believe the entire TF is an interpolation often admit that the author has done a good job imitating the language and style of Josephus. If it is a forgery, it is a good one.

[historia]

Earlier I provided two arguments for a partial interpolation of the TF:

• 1. Removing the obvious Christian interpolations leaves an original text that reads smoothly.
  2. The claim that Jesus had many non-Jewish followers contradicts the New Testament, as so is unlikely to have been written by a Christian.

My third argument in favor of a partial interpolation is that the last line of the TF -- "to this day the tribe of Christians ... has not died out" -- has a rather dismissive, if not a negative, tone. The author seems surprised that this "tribe" of people, who are dedicated to a man who suffered a shameful death, are still at it.

If the TF was invented wholesale by a Christian scribe, would he have written something like this? Again, by contrast, this makes perfect sense if Josephus is the author.

I agree that this is a good point Historia. If it were soley from Christian hands, the negative tone of the last portion would presumably not be there.

I loathe to get involved in this thread as I have full hands at the moment, but just something. Yes a christian scribe WOULD have written something like that, so as to determine some "link" between the tribal nuances of the OT...or better, Hebrew Bible.

I'll try to circle back to this, and your other points, as my time and interest permits.

I would just point out here that your comment does not address the thrust of my argument above. Had Josephus used a term other than "tribe" when referring to Christians -- say, "group," "sect," or what have you -- it would not change my argument at all.

The dismissive or negative tone comes not from the term "tribe" -- although many scholars do perceive something somewhat negative in that term -- but rather in Josephus' apparent surprise that this group has not (yet) gone extinct.