This is really long because I have (for anyone trying to follow, and I know some people are) I needed in some places to include first my claim and then Mad?s objection to it, and then my response. Doesn?t make sense otherwise. So sorry for the length. (My first claim is italics, Mad is bold, my response is normal).
I think there are a very few who say it's entirely genuine (not me). But most, not some, believe in its partial authenticity, and have given a good case for the parts which can be traced back to Josephus and the interpolations, which are obvious to even the most inexperienced eye
I?m not playing the kind of name games certain less informed participants on this thread think I should. I can name scholars who think it?s partial, and others who think it?s entirely forged. The issue is divisive. But even if we accept that it?s only a partial forgery (and I, personally don?t because I think the evidence is clear) it STILL doesn?t offer any evidence for Jesus. As I said, taken in its entirety, Josephus is a good witness for Jesus never having existed at all (although that?s not the case I?m making here).
But Josephus has been shown to be a digressive writer He goes off on tangents, his work is a patchwork, and it would not be unusual for him to go off on a digression, especially for a short passage like this
Well, not really. If the TF is genuine (even partially) then it is not a digression - it?s part of the text. He hasn?t gone completely off topic - he?s talking about upheavals generally, and the ?follies? of Jewish troublemakers and rebels and the ?outrages? perpetrated against them. It would indeed be a good place to talk about Pilate putting to death a ?wise Jewish man?.
BUT - this thought is not followed through in the next paragraph, the TF. There?s not the slightest suggestion that he regards Jesus as a ?Jewish rebel? and there?s no condemnation at all of Pilate. So he?s not going, ?Talking about outrages against Jews, guess what happened to this man Jesus??.? If he was going to introduce a brand new character that he hasn?t mentioned before, because he?s reminded of him by what he?s talking about, then the idea of Jesus the rebel and/or Pilate the nasty oppressor of Jews (both subjects he IS talking about) would be clearer.
And the paragraph immediately following the TF begins by saying something like ?And another outrage is??.? except he hasn?t been listing outrages, or even mentioned one in the TF - but he has been in the paragraph directly before it.
The two paragraphs that straddle the TF make sense when the TF isn?t there - they don?t when it is. They fit together perfectly, and the last line of the first paragraph flows neatly into the first of the last. No lines fit with anything in the TF. I don?t think this is a coincidence.
And even digressions, by the way, form part of the narrative once they?ve been made. There?s no sensible reason why Josephus would have carried on as if he hadn?t written it at all if he had, digression or otherwise. Even his other digressions flow into something else that?s vaguely relevant, even if it hadn?t been initially. This one does not.
The fact that it mentions Pontius Pilate is enough to secure its place where it is
Exactly. So, is it a digression or is it not? You cannot claim that it is and then say it?s secured it?s place by dint of it?s subject - because it wouldn?t be a digression if it had. It either belongs there or it does not. If it does not, it is a fraud, if it does then it is not actually a digression and should form part of the narrative in a discernible way. The problem is, it doesn?t. At all.
The style of the language used is very un-Josephus & not seen anywhere else in his voluminous works
Simply not true
Ah, but it is, I?m afraid.
For a start, we have to compare his treatment of Jesus with that of the other Jewish Messiah claimants or popular leaders that were put to death by the Romans (and there were lots that he talks about). He does not like them at all and shows marked hostility, blaming the entire movement for the war, destruction of the temple and general upheavals. He considers them the bane of the century. And yet, Jesus is special? He?s supportive of him & says nice things? Why? He never converts to Christianity and, by agreeing that the passage is partly forged BECAUSE Josephus remains a Jew and would never claim Jesus the Messiah, then you need to come up with a reason why he?s giving him special treatment at all! He has no reason to, so this is very, very un-Josephus in tone.
And going by the gospels themselves, the early Christian movement was still highly apocalyptic and believed the end times were nigh. This would have appalled Josephus, other people who made claims like this did & he was not backward in saying so - but he?s willing to put all that aside just for Jesus? Again - for what earthly reason?
If he?s being deliberately neutral, as is the usual Christian explanation for this, then he has no reason to be. The Christians were of no more threat to him than the other groups of agitators who had had their leaders put to death, and there?s no neutrality in his dealings with them.
The TF - interpolations or outright forgery both - have Josephus showing a respect for Jesus & a failure to condemn him that jars with every other attitude he displays. This is remarkable and totally unexplainable.
The term ?wise man? is one J has used before - always about men he considers very great. It?s a huge compliment from him, not a throwaway platitude. Other men he called this were Solomon and various prophets. Why use it for someone he deals with so briefly in a few lines? It?s like me calling someone an absolute genius, and then never mentioning them again ever.
Various words used in the TF are used with a different meaning by J elsewhere in his works. ?Tribe? of Christians is odd - he uses the word tribe frequently, but always either about other species altogether (locusts) or a distinct racial group (the Jews were a tribe, for example). Why would he consider Christians racially distinct when he has already acknowledged Jesus as a Jew put to death by other Jews? Worth noting that ?Tribe? of Christians became common, however, around the time of, ahem?Eusebius. But it certainly wasn?t during J?s time.
He uses the word poietes (Greek) many times to mean poet (that?s where we get the word). But in the TF he (apparently) uses it?s previous incarnation as ?worker? (in the phrase ?worker/doer of great deeds?. It was no longer generally in use in that way by the time Josephus was writing, and he never uses it elsewhere to mean that. When he does use it, he means poet (like Homer, for example). This would be an easy mistake that someone, a long time after the event, might make if they were trying to sound like Josephus.
The entire tone of the TF, never mind the odd words used, is completely un-Josephus when you understand his attitude to other men like Jesus. And if you argue that, well, he saw Jesus as a bit special - why a) didn?t he become a Christian or at least b) feel inclined to tell us why he thought Jesus was special. Because being even neutral about a man causing upheaval like Jesus supposedly was not at all like Josephus.
Very early copies of Antiquities includes a table of contents, put together by Christians summarising the contents. This passage is not mentioned in it! BY CHRISTIANS!
No. The table of contents was most likely, according to the majority of scholars, created by Josephus or most likely one of his aides. It was written in Greek before the sixth century, thus not a Christian creation
You?ve missed my point. Somewhere around the 5th century, Christians started copying Josephus too - and THEY don?t mention the passage in the contents. They do mention the John the Baptist stuff, however. I can think of no reason why Christians would leave out the only mention of them in this massive work.
The very briefness of the passage is extraordinary if Josephus really believed these things. He spends a lot of time talking about people far, far, far less interesting than a man "who was the Messiah"! If he believed ANY of this, we'd surely hear much more about it, wouldn't we
Surely then by this very logic, if the TF were a complete fabrication, it would be much longer in order to support what the interpolator were trying to say? If this person believed Jesus to be the most important person ever, they would have a lot to say. But Josephus, as a Jew, would not really have much to say. Josephus' account was a neutral account and included the facts as he knew them. He had no need, and probably no desire, to say more. Why would he?
Again, compare and contrast what he?s saying about the many, many other men like Jesus that he talks about. That he?s remaining neutral at all is remarkable enough - he certainly didn?t about the others. And yes, he had a lot to say about Jewish rabble rousers - he hated them. And if he's fabricated any part of the text (even just a few lines) then he didn't have the space to make a bigger thing of it, even if he wanted to.
How could anyone dismiss something so amazing as a man rising from the grave three days after his death in a 127 word paragraph? Remember, Josephus is not merely telling us what Christians believed here - he is (apparently) attesting to the fact that it happened. This is so unlikely a thing, it's laughable
Not really. Josephus was a Jew?..
Well, yes really. You?ve already said you think the reference to rising from the dead is one of the interpolations so why are you disagreeing with me? It?s either an interpolation or it?s J passing on what he?s heard - which is it? You can?t opt for both. Sorry!
This is ALL Josephus mentions whatsoever about Christians or Christianity in his massive works. If if was genuine, he'd have to have talked about it elsewhere, but he doesn't
But Josephus' other work, Jewish Wars , was an account of just that, Jewish Wars. It would have been strange if any account about Jesus was included in such a work. The great majority of this work concentrated on the period between AD66 - 73. So no, there would be nowhere else Josephus would have the need to refer to it
Who do you think J blamed for the Jewish War, the Destruction of the Temple and so on. It was people just like Jesus - Jewish agitators winding everyone up and causing upheaval. The various adherents of religions & cults who?d had their leaders put to death and so on. Jesus (if he?d existed and J had been aware) & Christians were exactly the kind of people J hated and blamed everything on. He was right in the middle of a diatribe about all of this when he (supposedly) mentioned Jesus at all! So there MUST have been some connection in his mind, interpolation or fully genuine. He rants at great length about many others of Jesus?s ilk in all his works - why not Christians?
NOT ONE OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS MENTIONS THIS PASSAGE AT ALL
But there would be no reason to What?????????? Honestly?
You refer to Origen as stating that Josephus did not believe Christ was the Messiah (as indeed he did not, as we have seen) - and this gives a wide support to the main argument against this contention: Early church scholars would not have used the TF (before it was fiddled with) as an apologetic document - it would have been of no use whatsoever in backing up their own arguments?
Really? Origen used it to prove the authenticity of John the Baptist, do you realise that? But it?s useless when it comes to proving the same thing about Jesus? Oh, come on!
Early church scholars were very much involved in the hunt for historical proof for Jesus. Origen?s discourse with Celsus was partly about that - and even though Celsus himself acknowledged the historicity of the Baptist, Origen still used J to prove it. Celsus had a bigger problem accepting Jesus - but the bit about him in J is never mentioned? This defies all rationality.
Even without the interpolations, Origen could have used Josephus?s lack of hostility about Jesus in comparison with other people who were being called ?Messiah? - that in itself has far more significance than you realise.
Also, Justin Martyr (much later) produced a work Dialogue with the Jew Trypho which deals exclusively with his attempt to prove Jesus to Trypho. He cites many references - but the TF is mentioned not a single time.
Among other points, Eusebius;
1. Used Josephus heavily as an influence in all his work, so it is unsurprising that words and phrases can be found in both?. or having spent so long studying J, Eusebius would have had a very good idea of how J wrote & tried to copy it (making a few mistakes)
2. Was a bit of a patchwork writer himself - took material from different sources and tended to keep the phraseology in the originals, thus stringing together in a way that meant other styles could be found in his work Also known as plagiarism/fraud. I agree - Eusebius is famous for it - and freely admitted lying for Jesus.
There is also the existence of early manuscripts independent of Eusebius
That mention the TF? Earlier that Eusebius? No, there aren?t. If there are, please name them.