The great josephus interpolation

[goodwithoutgod]

Flavius Josephus

Christian apologetic fans most popular non-Christian writer that mentions Jesus is Flavius Josephus. Although he was born in 37 CE and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable secondhand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100 and his two major tomes were The antiquities of the Jews and the wars of the Jews. Antiquities was written sometime after the year 90 CE. In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:

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, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are at least seven solid reasons for this:

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origens second century version of Josephus, in Origen Contra Celsum, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible medicine for historians to create fictions " prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.

The fact that Josephus " Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history " at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity " makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus the Christ or the truth. Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was not believing in Jesus as the Christ.

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be listed out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows. Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase to this day shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no tribe of Christians during Josephus' time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the divine prophets foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus wouldve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him This sounds more like sectarian propaganda " in other words, more like the new testament " then objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. If we remove the forged paragraph, as we should, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historians pen.

So gentle readers, anyone wish to debate this little gem?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 19 by goodwithoutgod]
Your time is limited, so I assume you read only my one post and not my Thesis elsewhere presented of seven written eyewitness records of Jesus. If you do you will find as I stated that my analysis is unlike any you have seen. I await your attempt at refutation.

Your current post presents a rather standard view. Notice that it does not exclude my Thesis that the SOURCES were written by eyewitnesses. I don't state that the final redactors of any of the four gospels were eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, the original writers or editors of any of the four could have been eyewitnesses Matthew (or whomever), Mark (or whomever), the writer of Proto-Luke (my candidate is Simon the son of Cleopas), or John (or whomever). The eyewitness writers of the underlying sources include Matthew, Peter, Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, Simon, and John. But let's not discuss that here in this thread. I have already given you links to better threads for this purpose.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 20 by Korah]

I agree, my post is a standard view, supported by the vast majority of biblical scholars. Those posits were arrive at by long careful consideration of all evidence. We can sit around all day and make up stuff, but it is what is proven or logical which truly counts right? I truly don't have time to play chase the thread. Post your 4 or 7 or 500 witnesses perspective and I will take a serious look at it. I don't claim to know everything biblical related, far from it, I do have a degree in religious studies, and have dug into mythology now for over 30 years, but a mind only works if it is open, and I am always open to new information. So post it here, I know, paste is a very bothersome tool, but I would appreciate it.

R/
X-Xtian

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 19 by goodwithoutgod]
Your time is limited, so I assume you read only my one post and not my Thesis elsewhere presented of seven written eyewitness records of Jesus. If you do you will find as I stated that my analysis is unlike any you have seen. I await your attempt at refutation.

Your current post presents a rather standard view. Notice that it does not exclude my Thesis that the SOURCES were written by eyewitnesses. I don't state that the final redactors of any of the four gospels were eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, the original writers or editors of any of the four could have been eyewitnesses Matthew (or whomever), Mark (or whomever), the writer of Proto-Luke (my candidate is Simon the son of Cleopas), or John (or whomever). The eyewitness writers of the underlying sources include Matthew, Peter, Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, Simon, and John. But let's not discuss that here in this thread. I have already given you links to better threads for this purpose.

Moderator Comment

Korah, you have alluded to your thesis many times. Please provide a link to it when you mention it, and please attempt to make it appropriate to the thread when you do. Doing so too often, in too many threads, borders on spam like activity.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 22 by dianaiad]
I had just provided two choices for links at Post #18, this current thread.
Shortly before I gave two choices at my Post #118
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=110
"Why are all the scholars changing their minds..."

My Thesis of seven written gospel eyewitnesses to Jesus is a response to New Atheist claims that no one who knew Jesus wrote about him. This is a myth from the heyday of the Form Criticism that has now largely been discarded. Yet these kinds of statements keep popping up, and I protest against it.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 23 by Korah]

"My Thesis of seven written gospel eyewitnesses to Jesus is a response to New Atheist claims that no one who knew Jesus wrote about him. This is a myth from the heyday of the Form Criticism that has now largely been discarded."

I concur! The seven written witnesses IS a myth.

Once again, and it has been proven for many many years, and you may have found some fringe philosopher who thinks otherwise, but when the VAST majority of scholars have concluded that there is no contemporary evidence for a witness who wrote down ANYTHING about jesus, that out weighs whatever reaching perspective oyu are trying to present. The only thing that has been widely discarded is your opinion so far it would seem. Perhaps you could present it here in this thread and try to refute my posit that NO ONE who wrote of jesus knew him or saw him physically...NO ONE.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 23 by Korah]

sigh, my responses in bold.

"You take for granted that NOTHING was written about Jesus until DECADES after his death. You are right that I take that for granted because an exhaustive amount of study has come to that conclusion, not my opinion, substantiated fact; Gospels were written: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283)


That's merely a COMPROMISE. and you are demonstrating the very definition of christian apologetic...you can tap dance and wave smoke all you want, the facts show different.

Even the non-believer Peter Kirby in his website EarlyChristianWritings.com gives 30-60 as the date for the Passion Narrative, which allows for the possibility that the last few chapters of each of the four gospels was basically written right then.

Inconsequential. If you base your knowledge on a website then you may need to conduct some more study in this field. I can find you a website that says we all have inner aliens called thetans, and we get sick from the radiation poisoning from their souls....doesn't make it true. I can show you answersingenesis website in which ken ham spins young earth creationism, intelligent design and pseudo science to tell everyone that dinosaurs and man romped the earth together 6,000 years ago....doesnt make it true, in fact, it is an outright lie, misinformation at its best.



In my own thesis that there are seven written eyewitness records of Jesus.

Good to hear you have a thesis, they are like opinions, everyone can write one, doesn't make them factual.

I propose that the teen-aged John Mark wrote this underlying source as his personal diary of the week he knew Jesus before Jesus died.

Great theory, I propose the author of Mark was an unknown author, and guess what? So do most modern scholars. Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative...this is called pseudepigrapha.

I argue that the Discourses in the Gospel of John were written even earlier as Nicodemus's job to gather evidence against Jesus. That Nicodemus's viewpoint changes radically during the course of three years is evidence that this was originally written as on-the-scene notes.

Reaching, and reaching hard. No I argue that the VAST majority of biblical scholars who have studied this their entire professional lives are correct and the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

I do not contend that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel bearing that name, but that he wrote notes during Jesus's lifetime is quite reasonable, resulting in what was soon called the Logia (indicating not just sayings, as Schliermacher mistakenly thought, but what we would call a gospel), perhaps modern scholarship's Q or more likely the Twelve-Source. Perhaps this was so early that it was only in Aramaic, say six to ten chapters, but the later portions originating in Greek could have been his own additions. As "Q" or whatever it was, it was itself known and used in the Gospel of Mark as the better scholars now acknowledge. Thus Mark 2:14-15 should be regarded as his own personal testimony that was later copied into Matthew 9:9.

Intriguing. In regards to Matthew, the anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...

also define "better scholars".

Acts 12:12 records that Peter went to John Mark's house (apparently in 44 A.D when Herod Agrippa I died, Acts 12:21-23).

AH yes, this is after a "angel of the lord" appeared and smote the chains off of him and rescued him from his cell

..If this was not when Peter and John Mark completed the Gospel of Mark (and even non-believer scholars James Crossley and Maurice Casey date Mark very early, based on Mark 13 being a response to the Caligula Decree of 41 A. D.), it would have been when much of the first 13 chapters of Mark (preceding the already written Passion Narrative) would have been written.

seems like a lot of conjecture there...."this may have been when they wrote this" and how exactly did you ascertain that?

All the gospels were completed by 70 A. D., as demonstrated by the liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson.

Wrong, there may be a handful of people who believe that, but then again, people can believe in the most amazing things...like walking on water, or bigfoot, UFOs, doesnt give it credence. When, again, the VAST majority of religious and non religious biblical scholars have dug into this for many many years trying to prove or disprove the bible, and both groups come to the conclusion that based on evidence, the dates I provided above stand, that has a bit of validity to it now doesn't it?

.That they include seven written eyewitness records I have shown in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses at Christian Forums:

Again, I can point you to answersingenesis website where Ken Ham purports to prove the world is literally 6,000 years old......I won't even bother dismantling his ridiculous views as they have been debunked by hard physical empirical evidence over and over and over.

Work Cited:

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 25 by goodwithoutgod]
Thank you, GwoG,
for a thoughtful reply. (It's about time someone did after six months.)
Obviously you processed your reply in Word or such, and I'm thinking that you then mistakenly posted it on this, your own thread about the Josephus Interpolation. The Moderators and I are trying to avoid hi-jacking your thread. Your reply here is actually quoting from my #60 and #118 in "Why are all the scholars changing their minds". I can reply here if you insist. (My reposting of #60 as #118 was my affirmation that no one had countered my #60, least of all the member to whom I had replied.)

The other more applicable thread is "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true", in which I present posts on each of my claimed eyewitness written accounts. On this current thread I tried to direct you there, but your #9 avoided it, as I reminded you in my #15 and you ignored in your #16. Yes, I had directed you to a bunch of my posts supporting each of my proposed seven written eyewitnesses accounts about Jesus, and you didn't want to spend the time jumping around. Yet your analysis here is of my one first salvo months earlier, a post that was supposed to stimulate interest in my thesis, not display its reasoning. I can understand that you preferred to deal with my half-page teaser rather than the full argument. (It had been intended to refute someone else, not prove my case.)

So which way do you prefer to go? Relocate to a more appropriate (even NEW) thread? Just go ahead with my reply to your retort to my quickie?

Again, I remind you that my Thesis does not conflict with what you have written above--I detail the SOURCES that underlie the four gospels, though I do not necessarily deny that even the basic gospels (before redaction) were written by eyewitnesses.

[historia]

So gentle readers, anyone wish to debate this little gem?

It seems to me that very few people today actually believe that the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) in its entirety was written by Josephus, so debating that hypothesis has little practical value.

Rather, a majority of scholars today hold that the text is only partially interpolated -- that is, a later Christian scribe expanded an original reference to Jesus here in the text with additional material, rather than inventing the paragraph out of whole cloth -- and I imagine that any modern Christian apologetic concerning the TF would hold to that same view.

It would seem more fruitful, then, to debate this more widely held hypothesis. To that end, it seems to me that four of your seven points relate solely to the TF being entirely genuine, and so have no force against this partial interpolation theory.

Let me offer some comments on the remaining three points:

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origens second century version of Josephus, in Origen Contra Celsum, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but the way you've phrased this is confusing; if not, in fact, reflecting some confusion on your part.

To be clear, there are three extant Greek manuscripts of Book 18 of Antiquities, which date from the 11th-15th centuries, and all of which include the TF in its current form. It is therefore inaccurate to say that the TF is absent from "early copies of the works of Josephus" or a "second century version of Josephus," as no such manuscripts exist today.

It is true that a handful of Christian authors in the second and third centuries quote from some portions of Josephus' works, including Antiquities. They don't quote from every part -- in fact, they mostly concentrate on Josephus' earlier books concerning the Old Testament -- and so we cannot tell from these quotations alone the full extent of the text as it existed in the second or third centuries.

But your main point here is really this:

Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

Like some of your other points, this argument is directed against the hypothesis that the TF as it exists today was entirely genuine. The partial interpolation hypothesis, on the other hand, holds that Josephus did originally make a neutral (or perhaps even slightly pejorative) reference to Jesus in Antiquities 18, which was subsequently expanded by a later Christian scribe. If that is true, then the original reference would not have provided much rhetorical firepower for Origen against the criticisms of Celsus, which may be why he never quotes it.

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be listed out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows. Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

This argument has always struck me as strained. Antiquities is a massive 20-volume text covering topics large and small. Josephus employed two assistants to help complete the work. He often digresses from his major points, relating accounts of certain ancillary people and events before returning to his main narrative. These too can be "listed (sic) out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows," but no one concludes, on those grounds alone, that they are interpolations.

4) The phrase to this day shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no tribe of Christians during Josephus' time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Christianity "got off the ground" in the middle of the first century, at about the time Josephus was born. So there's no reason to believe he could not have known about Christians.

[historia]

These are minor quibbles, not germane to your main points, so I've put them in a separate post. But I think they detract from your overall argument nonetheless, and are worth correcting.

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origens second century version of Josephus, in Origen Contra Celsum, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus.

Origen actually wrote in the third, not second, century. And Celsus was a pagan critic of Christianity rather than a (Christian) heretic.

Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus.

I'm not sure Eusebius, who was accused of Arian leanings, and was at one point provisionally excommunicated, can really be described as "instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox." He was an important early Christian historian, though.

The fact that Josephus " Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history " at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity " makes the passage quite dubious.

This seems like a gross, and ultimately unsupported, generalization. "Interpolations and revisions were quite common" in practically all times and places in the ancient world. I see no reason to single out the fourth century in this regard.

Likewise, I see no reason to believe that "the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity," as the greatest theological concern at that time was the Arian controversy, which was an intra-orthodox argument. Gnosticism had been confronted more forcefully in earlier centuries, and deemed heretical by the orthodox churches. I literally have no idea what you mean by "literalistic Christianity" or why any of this would cast doubt on the TF.

Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

If by "many" you mean a handful, then sure.

Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historians pen.

If you're going to incorporate a text like this verbatim into your post, you really ought to put quotes around it and cite it so as to give proper credit to the original author, in this case John Remsburg.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 28 by historia]

On the run today and have a ton of homework tonight, so not sure when I can get back to you. On the last comment, That was a cut from Dan Barker's Godless book, and I thought it was a great closing statement, and upon revisiting it, you are correct he was quoting Remsburg. I had written this research document a while ago and didnt have it all cited like I usually do. My apologies.