Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Quagmire]

I'm not sure about that. I agree that there isn't anything like a confession from Eusebius saying "it was me; I put in all that stuff", but it seems that the Testimonium Flavianum wasn't there when Origen got ahold of Antiquities... or at least not in a form that was exciting enough that Origen would think to mention it, which to me seems odd, since he wrote at length about the other reference to Jesus. Then, by the time Eusebius has it, it's somehow gained the Testimonium.

I think the most logical position is that somebody after Origen altered or added the Testimonium and Eusebius is on the short list of people who might have done it.

This certainly isn't conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.

You could make a case that the fact that the interpolations in the TF are so obvious lets Eusebuis off the hook;

1. The version he quotes is such a hackjob it's obviouslly a mutilated version of an earlier passage. If Eusubius (or any single author) were to create something whole cloth what would be the point of making it look like something that had been tampered with?

2. Whatever else he was Eusubis was an intelligent, highly educated man and a historian so no doubt he was familair with Josephus. For him to insert a claim that Josephus considered Jesus the Christ doesn't make any sense.

3. It's certain that Eusubius would have recognized the interpolations for what they were. The fact that he presents the TF with the interpolations intact, rather than taking it upon himself to edit them out or clean them up to make the overall passage seem more authentic, suggests (one possibility)that the passage as he presented it was fairly well known to his contemporaries.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You could make a case that the fact that the interpolations in the TF are so obvious lets Eusebuis off the hook;

1. The version he quotes is such a hackjob it's obviouslly a mutilated version of an earlier passage. If Eusubius (or any single author) were to create something whole cloth what would be the point of making it look like something that had been tampered with?

2. Whatever else he was Eusubis was an intelligent, highly educated man and a historian so no doubt he was familair with Josephus. For him to insert a claim that Josephus considered Jesus the Christ doesn't make any sense.

3. It's certain that Eusubius would have recognized the interpolations for what they were. The fact that he presents the TF with the interpolations intact, rather than taking it upon himself to edit them out or clean them up to make the overall passage seem more authentic, suggests (one possibility)that the passage as he presented it was fairly well known to his contemporaries.

Furthermore, an apologist willing and able to do such a hatchet job on the TF would have certainly taken great pains to change the James reference from what we now have.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I've indicated before, if you're really interested in the TF controversy, you really should take the time to carefully read Alice Whealey.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is embarrassingly inaccurate.

Are you seriously trying to insinuate that there is a 100% consensus that Antiquities 20,9,1 is a passage that is uncontested and has gone uncontested by scholars? See this is what I was getting at. It is completely accurate that there are scholars who don't agree with the passage and see (both) of them as being tampered with. Is it true? I don't know...I can only post what I've read out there. Would you agree with those scholars? Probably not. The fact is...There are scholars who don't rush to Josephus' side to prove the biblical Jesus as a historical figure.

Of course not. Please don't do yourself the disservice of burdening your ignorance of Josephus with your ignorance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Well, if you truly had anything intelligent to offer other than sarcastic comments we'd all lend an ear but if you're going to be ignorant and flipped then don't reply to me please. This is not needed. I believe up to now I have been respectful of your opinion as well as others here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you seriously trying to insinuate that there is a 100% consensus that Antiquities 20,9,1 is a passage that is uncontested and has gone uncontested by scholars?

No, and it is dishonest or dimwitted to suggest that I have. Are you seriously trying to insinuate that the attitude toward the James' reference is substantially the same (i.e., "in the same boat") as that toward the TF?

Well, if you truly had anything intelligent to offer other than sarcastic comments we'd all lend an ear ...

Your inability and/or unwillingness to understand a point does not render it unintelligent, and whether you "lend an ear" is of little concern to me.

 

[logician]

2. Whatever else he was Eusubis was an intelligent, highly educated man and a historian so no doubt he was familair with Josephus. For him to insert a claim that Josephus considered Jesus the Christ doesn't make any sense.

.

It makes a lot of sense, if it was to be one of the very few supposed "historical" references to Jesus, that would add weight to the claim of his historicity.

If he didn't do it, somebody else certainly did.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It makes a lot of sense, ...

It makes zero sense.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Your inability and/or unwillingness to understand a point does not render it unintelligent, a whether you "lend an ear" is of little concern to me.

Noted....

Just because I don't agree does not mean I don't understand.....

As always and with your and Oberon's advice I shall go and read some more as well as the "primary" sources........

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just because I don't agree does not mean I don't understand.....

I completely agree.

Please give some thought to reading Whealey. You might well come to appreciate her scholarship and insights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You could make a case that the fact that the interpolations in the TF are so obvious lets Eusebuis off the hook;

1. The version he quotes is such a hackjob it's obviouslly a mutilated version of an earlier passage. If Eusubius (or any single author) were to create something whole cloth what would be the point of making it look like something that had been tampered with?

I don't know, but this argument works against not only Eusebius changing the Testimonium Flavianum; it also works against him using it at all. If he considered it to be an "obviously a mutilated version" and the "hackjob" was committed by someone before, then why would he cite it?

2. Whatever else he was Eusubis was an intelligent, highly educated man and a historian so no doubt he was familair with Josephus. For him to insert a claim that Josephus considered Jesus the Christ doesn't make any sense.

As has been alluded to by Oberon in this thread, ancient historians had a very different idea of what constituted "history" than we do. The idea that Eusebius might have added the references to Jesus being Christ and wielding miracles could plausibly mesh with the idea of a Eusebius who believed what he was writing to be based in truth and was more concerned about being faithful to that truth than to his source material.

3. It's certain that Eusubius would have recognized the interpolations for what they were. The fact that he presents the TF with the interpolations intact, rather than taking it upon himself to edit them out or clean them up to make the overall passage seem more authentic, suggests (one possibility)that the passage as he presented it was fairly well known to his contemporaries.

Wait... so you're suggesting that he recognized that the passage was changed, but he knowingly left the false material in rather than stir up trouble?

It seems like you're arguing both sides: on the one hand, the Testimonium Flavianum is so poor a forgery it could be recognized by anyone, but on the other, it was apparently good enough a forgery that it was generally accepted.

Furthermore, an apologist willing and able to do such a hatchet job on the TF would have certainly taken great pains to change the James reference from what we now have.

Why's that? If they left it alone, they could use all of Origen's writings to support it. If they changed it to something else (for example, by portraying the destruction of Jerusalem as the result of Jesus' death, not James'), then they'd lose all that... and those writings would point toward the change being a forgery.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, where is the mythicist argument among the anti-Christian polemics of Celsus, Porphyry, and others?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why's that? If they left it alone, they could use all of Origen's writings to support it.

Since Origen paraphrased 20:9, he could have easily excised the theologically cumbersome "brother" reference to advantage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since Origen paraphrased 20:9, he could have easily excised the theologically cumbersome "brother" reference to advantage.

Why's that theologically cumbersome? Origen already provided a response along with his paraphrase of Josephus (Contra Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47):

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.

 

[logician]

“THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN

How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? ​

by Robert M. Price “​

Notes about this book:

“In a discussion of the virgin birth development, we get one of those observations which clearly show that the later evangelists are editing Mark in conformity with their own interests. Price notes that Mark mentions nothing about a virgin birth, and indeed he militates against it. In the episode of 3:20f, the fact that Jesus’ family fears he is insane would have to rule out any angelic annunciation to his parents at Jesus’ conception, such as Matthew and Luke present, since there could then have been no such later reaction by his mother and brothers as Mark portrays. Since Matthew and Luke have included an annunciation, they had to do something about this incompatible Markan element. Accordingly, Mark’s reference to the insanity fear was cut from their renditions of the incident, and Luke has deliberately softened Mark’s stark division between Jesus’ family and Jesus’ followers. The wording of redacted passages like this makes the editorial thought-processes of the writer quite transparent—at least, when one’s attention is called to it. In this book, nothing seems to escape Price’s keen eye.”

 

[logician]

“THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN

How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? ​

by Robert M. Price “​

More notes about this book:
“ Price goes on to appeal to another motif found in plenty throughout the book: the dependence of the scene, as with so many others, on an Old Testament precedent, created through a process of midrash, the Jewish practice of drawing on scriptural themes and passages to create new stories and homilies. Mark’s scene of Jesus’ family is derived from his rewriting of the story of Moses, Zipporah, and Jethro in Exodus 18, and Price takes us through a point by point comparison of the two. While the extensive role of midrash in the construction of Mark’s passion story has been very evident to scholars for over two decades, Price has shown us, even before this book, the extent to which so many elements of the Galilean ministry are similarly derived from a midrashic plumbing of the Hebrew bible. The events of the ministry are no more reliable as passed-down memory than the features of the trial and crucifixion.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know, Bob Price may be a fairly entertaining speaker, but even I know that his more extreme opinions aren't generally held in high regard by other Bible scholars.

Edit: I suppose that wouldn't stop you from presenting his arguments and supporting them on their own merits, but you won't get any credibility points for citing Bob Price as your source.

Edit 2: However, he probably fits the bill for what Oberon asked for earlier: he's got a PhD in "systematic theology", is a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and apparently doesn't believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.

 

[logician]

“THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN
How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?

by Robert M. Price “​

More notes from this book:

“In a fascinating chapter on John the Baptist, Price casts further light on some behind-the-scenes aspects to the Gospel account of the ministry. The key is the perception that a sect following John the Baptist was a force on the Palestinian first and second century scene, and rivaled the early Christian community. The Clementine Recognitions of the third century gives us much information about it, even if the narrative itself is apocryphal. This picture shows that John the Baptist was not a herald of Jesus (certainly his sect would not have continued if he had so declared himself), and that much can be understood in the Gospels by realizing that certain elements are there to counter the influence and standing of the group tracing its allegiance to John. Traditions that John had declared himself the Messiah—or at least that his followers claimed so—are in evidence, as are the evangelists’ (or their communities&#8217 attempts to discredit John’s stature and co-opt him for the Christian camp as a herald of Jesus. Again, little touches show the work and concerns of successive evangelists. Mark simply implies that John is Jesus’ herald by quoting—or rather, misquoting—Isaiah. (The Isaianic reference to a herald was originally referring to God, while John’s ‘proclamation’ in Mark of the arrival of someone mightier than himself was probably, in the previous Q mind, a reference to God or the apocalyptic Son of Man figure derived from Daniel 7.) Luke and John, however, go further and have the Baptist deny that he is himself the Christ. John even has him deny he is Elijah (as does Luke more subtly), the expected forerunner of the Messiah, in order to further reduce his stature. To that end, both evangelists cut Mark’s reference to John’s hair-shirt attire, since this was a traditional mark of Elijah. These later evangelists had to downplay predictions of an imminent apocalypse, since too much time had elapsed and the End-time had not arrived; Elijah’s arrival, if embodied in John, would have been for them out of place. The fourth evangelist has even inserted into the Logos hymn which now opens the Gospel a rather intrusive and insistent put-down of the Baptist (1:6-8), stating that “he was not himself the light, but came to bear witness to the light,” indicating that others were out there making the former claim. Once more we see that the Gospel writers are creating and amending in accordance with their own needs, not history or tradition.”

 

[logician]

You know, Bob Price may be a fairly entertaining speaker, but even I know that his more extreme opinions aren't generally held in high regard by other Bible scholars.

Edit: I suppose that wouldn't stop you from presenting his arguments and supporting them on their own merits, but you won't get any credibility points for citing Bob Price as your source.

Edit 2: However, he probably fits the bill for what Oberon asked for earlier: he's got a PhD in "systematic theology", is a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and apparently doesn't believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.

I would prefer you comment on the substance of the posts, instead of other's (mostly heavily biased Christian writer's) opinions of the man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would prefer you comment on the substance of the posts, instead of other's (mostly heavily biased Christian writer's) opinions of the man.

If I saw comment from you on the substance of the posts rather than just copy-pasted material from some other site, I might be more inclined to respond in kind.

Put forward an argument and I'll respond to it if I have anything useful to say about it.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't know, but this argument works against not only Eusebius changing the Testimonium Flavianum; it also works against him using it at all. If he considered it to be an "obviously a mutilated version" and the "hackjob" was committed by someone before, then why would he cite it?

Because it's all he had to work with. Put it this way; if someone painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa, and there were no way to remove it without damaging the painting itself, don't you think they'd leave it hanging in the Louvre anyway?

Same thing with the TF; to anyone who had any familiarity with Josephus the interpolations would be obvious, but where exactly the original text ends and the interpolations start would be up for speculation.

As has been alluded to by Oberon in this thread, ancient historians had a very different idea of what constituted "history" than we do. The idea that Eusebius might have added the references to Jesus being Christ and wielding miracles could plausibly mesh with the idea of a Eusebius who believed what he was writing to be based in truth and was more concerned about being faithful to that truth than to his source material.

Even if Eusebius considered everything written in the Gospels and everything attributed to Jesus by tradition to be the truth, it would still have been a knowingly dishonest act for him to alter Josephus writings to conform to or support these views.

Wait... so you're suggesting that he recognized that the passage was changed, but he knowingly left the false material in rather than stir up trouble?

In a way, yes, but not exactly; if the TF in the form Eusebius presented it was what was currently to found in a standard copy of Antiquities, it would have been unforgivably presumptuous of him to take it upon himself to edit it.

It seems like you're arguing both sides: on the one hand, the Testimonium Flavianum is so poor a forgery it could be recognized by anyone, but on the other, it was apparently good enough a forgery that it was generally accepted.

I never said it was a forgery. I'm saying that the lack of symmetry and consistency argues against it being a forgery.

Again; if someone were going to make something up out of thin air and attribute it to Josephus, especially someone like Eusebius, it would have been seamless and much more credible.

As it stands it's pretty obvious that someone altered the original passage (and clumbsily), which means of course that there had to have been an original passage.

At the very least there had to have been some copy of the TF that predates Eusebius, probably by a considerable amount of time if it had come to be accepted, as-is, by scholars in his own time.

Also consider that if someone somewhere along the line intended to alter Josephus with a radical Christian slant;

---they most likely would have chosen to attach their interpolations to something already considered legitimate.

---it would have had to have been at a fairly early date (not too long after Josephus' own time) in order to get away with it.