What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Slowvehicle]

First hand report. He encountered a person, James, whom he identifies as Jesus' brother. And indeed the Gospls assign to Jesus a brother of that name.

No. Paul is reported to have reported having met a man reported to be the "Brother" of someone reported to be the 'son' of a 'god' " (a personage Paul brags about having met only in a vision or a hallucination). Paul's accounts of "the Lord" are three times removed from any purported human.

You do not have evidence that the words are, in fact, Paul's.
You do not have evidence that "James" was, in fact, the biological brother of the human at issue.
You do not have evidence that the personage Paul bragged of meeting in a hallucination or a vision, the " 'son' of a 'god' ", was, in fact, an actual human.

At best, Paul's descriptions of "the Lord" are as historical as accounts of a storm big enough to sink boats on a body of water small enough to walk across; or as the accounts of zombies stalking Jerusalem for several days around an out-of-season (and impossibly protracted) solar eclipse; or as the wildly conflicting godspiel "birth accounts".

 

[Belz...]

If all that is just coincidence, instead of a clear indication that modern scholars do know what they're doing and have correctly smoked out what isn't from Josephus, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Trying to sell a bridge to someone you believe is overly skeptical of your claims is bound to end badly for your business.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

I think you are no longer making any constructive case in the above, and you are not referencing anything to support your belief that we should accept at face value anonymous eye-witness claims reported by an anonymous author of g-John, ...

That would most likely be because I have never urged that anyone accept anything in the Gospel of John, whether at face value or salted to taste. The root issue, as you recall, was whether another poster, now in 2013 and here at JREF, had orginated the idea that some Gospel writers relied on eyewitnesses. John is a dead-mouse-on-the-kitchen-floor counterexample to your hypothesis.

Whether or not John actually relied on the eyewitness he mentioned, and if so, whether this eyewitness ought to be believed are different issues, and peripheral to our basic discussion. The author of a Gospel says he relied on an eyewitness, and so the hypothesis that a Gospel writer relied on an eyewitness predates the writings of any poster here.

In the course of our discussion, some of the peripheral matters have been developed, because they cannot fail to be of some interest to anyone who is interested at all in the topic of the thread. For example, did other Gospels also say they relied on eyewtnesses? Only Luke mentions witness-informants among the synoptics. That's interesting.

Are the eyewitness reports self-denying? Depends. For all your attention to whether yanking a spear from a corpse might suck out some gore, the other eyewitness report in John was about eating a breakfast cooked by a dead man. There's no arguing about tastes, but that's where I would have focused my rebuttal, if impeaching the witness was somehow important.

I understand that you are very interested in the dates when existing physical copies of documents were made. However, I have made no argument about that. Obviously, there are copies of John which are older than any poster here. Regardless of whether the idea that a Gospel writer relied on a witness first appeared in 1890, 890 or 90, that idea appeared before any poster posted here at JREF.

If you need something else about the manuscript heritage "cleared up," then you should direct your query to somebody who's actually said something about that.

 

[Stone]

That's not a "coincidence"

I don't think you understand the coincidence I'm referencing: Before the Agapios version even surfaced, a number of modern scholars had already singled out key phrases in the TF that seemed UN-Josephean. Again, they singled out these phrases before the Agapios cite -- in whatever version -- even surfaced. Their suspicions and attempted reconstructions of an original were SUBSEQUENTLY vindicated when the Agapios cite SUBSEQUENTLY surfaced. In fact, whichever version of the Agapios cite one reads, the uniform absence in it of exactly the same phrases that modern scholars had already singled out as suspicious becomes striking. How possible is it really that this absence -- of precisely the same phrases scholars had already previously queried! -- is simply a coincidence?! In fact, this discovery of the Agapios cite was a ringing confirmation of scholars' suspicions all along. It also confirms the acuity of the modern scholars -- even in the absence of this newer evidence -- in spotting which bits were not from Josephus and which bits were.

This is, in fact, an elegant example of modern researchers who first evolved a serious theory on authenticity and inauthenticity based on strict modern philological analysis -- and then had it confirmed by subsequent discoveries. This Agapios discovery neatly confirms the main contention of modern scholarship up to then: There were both Josephean and non-Josephean traits in the TF, and their guesses as to which were which subsequently proved to be spot-on. How come such an uncanny one-to-one correspondence between the initial and independent guesses of modern scholars as to which phrases were inauthentic and their subsequent absence in more than one version of the subsequently discovered Agapios cite? If we take this as all a coincidence, it's certainly a very forced and unlikely one!

Stone

 

[A'isha]

I don't think you understand the coincidence I'm referencing: Before the Agapios version even surfaced, a number of modern scholars had already singled out key phrases in the TF that seemed UN-Josephean. Again, they singled out these phrases before the Agapios cite -- in whatever version -- even surfaced.

Not unless they had access to time machines, they didn't. The text of the Agapios manuscript (with a French translation) was published in Patrologia Orientalis between 1910 and 1915, as well as in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (along with quotes of it taken from the Al-Makin manuscript) in 1912. In January 1917, the American Journal of Theology published an article about Galen's writings on the Christians, in which both of the above publications were mentioned (Agapios also quotes Galen, in addition to quoting Josephus). So no, this is not a shocking new discovery for "modern scholars".

And incidentally, Kitab al-'Unwan exists in two parts. There are a number of manuscripts for the first part, but only one unique copy of the second part (which is the part containing the Testimonium): a damaged and incomplete manuscript kept at the Library of Florence (which is why Pines supplemented the text he was using with the version quoted in the 14th Century Al-Makin manuscript).

Their suspicions and attempted reconstructions of an original were SUBSEQUENTLY vindicated when the Agapios cite SUBSEQUENTLY surfaced. In fact, whichever version of the Agapios cite one reads, the uniform absence in it of exactly the same phrases that modern scholars had already singled out as suspicious becomes striking. How possible is it really that this absence -- of precisely the same phrases scholars had already previously queried! -- is simply a coincidence?! In fact, this discovery of the Agapios cite was a ringing confirmation of scholars' suspicions all along. It also confirms the acuity of the modern scholars -- even in the absence of this newer evidence -- in spotting which bits were not from Josephus and which bits were.

This is, in fact, an elegant example of modern researchers who first evolved a serious theory on authenticity and inauthenticity based on strict modern philological analysis -- and then had it confirmed by subsequent discoveries. This Agapios discovery neatly confirms the main contention of modern scholarship up to then: There were both Josephean and non-Josephean traits in the TF, and their guesses as to which were which subsequently proved to be spot-on. How come such an uncanny one-to-one correspondence between the initial and independent guesses of modern scholars as to which phrases were inauthentic and their subsequent absence in more than one version of the subsequently discovered Agapios cite? If we take this as all a coincidence, it's certainly a very forced and unlikely one!

Stone

This appears to be based on your strawman of the actual textual criticism of the Testimonium Flavianum (it certainly bears no relation to the actual differences and similarities between Agapios' version and the other versions that Pines wrote about). Indeed, he even recognized that the differences contained in Agapios' version were not anywhere near as dramatic as you're claiming, and in fact was rather tentative about his hypothesis, admitting that there were a number of explanations for the difference other than his own hypothesis that Agapios was citing a version of Josephus' text that was closer to the original than the Greek version, and that there was no way to really determine with any kind of certainly which was correct.

 

[Craig B]

No. Paul is reported to have reported having met a man reported to be the "Brother" of someone reported to be the 'son' of a 'god' " (a personage Paul brags about having met only in a vision or a hallucination). Paul's accounts of "the Lord" are three times removed from any purported human.

You do not have evidence that the words are, in fact, Paul's.
You do not have evidence that "James" was, in fact, the biological brother of the human at issue.
You do not have evidence that the personage Paul bragged of meeting in a hallucination or a vision, the " 'son' of a 'god' ", was, in fact, an actual human.

Nor indeed any assurance that the whole bloody thing wasn't invented by the last scribe who copied the text. So it's four removed isn't it? And this applies to anything ever written no doubt.

 

[IanS]

IanS


That would most likely be because I have never urged that anyone accept anything in the Gospel of John, whether at face value or salted to taste. The root issue, as you recall, was whether another poster, now in 2013 and here at JREF, had orginated the idea that some Gospel writers relied on eyewitnesses. John is a dead-mouse-on-the-kitchen-floor counterexample to your hypothesis.

.

No. You are going back to your original assertion of "falsehoods". But iirc, what Craig actually said, was that he thought it reasonable to believe that the gospel authors in general had got the name of Pilate as the executioner from eye witness accounts.

What I have explained above, is why that belief is not justified.

The gospel of John may claim an eye-witness to the crucifixion, but as I explained above, there are numerous reasons why that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Not least the fact that the passage does not come from an eye-witness at the time of the execution, but from much earlier writing in the OT and as reference to the OT belief in the sacred Passover where the Paschel lambs are slaughtered as sacrifice.

And that's apart from the inescapable fact (since you mention the dates) that any passage about any eye-witness to the execution, presumably comes from a copyist writing several centuries after the supposed eye-witness could ever have lived. So we don't have it from any author contemporary with any claimed eye-witness at all.

And that too is apart from the fact that, afaik, g-John is not generally regarded as a factual account anyway, but is instead regarded as outside the three synoptics on account of it’s overtly theological rather than historical form.

Anyway, enough of the repetition (seemingly just to get the last word in) - everyone here can see what each of us have written on this issue of an eye-witnesses in the gospels, and they can decide for themselves what they think is credible vs. what is not.

 

[IanS]

No. Paul is reported to have reported having met a man reported to be the "Brother" of someone reported to be the 'son' of a 'god' " (a personage Paul brags about having met only in a vision or a hallucination). Paul's accounts of "the Lord" are three times removed from any purported human.

You do not have evidence that the words are, in fact, Paul's.
You do not have evidence that "James" was, in fact, the biological brother of the human at issue.
You do not have evidence that the personage Paul bragged of meeting in a hallucination or a vision, the " 'son' of a 'god' ", was, in fact, an actual human.

At best, Paul's descriptions of "the Lord" are as historical as accounts of a storm big enough to sink boats on a body of water small enough to walk across; or as the accounts of zombies stalking Jerusalem for several days around an out-of-season (and impossibly protracted) solar eclipse; or as the wildly conflicting godspiel "birth accounts".

Nor indeed any assurance that the whole bloody thing wasn't invented by the last scribe who copied the text. So it's four removed isn't it? And this applies to anything ever written no doubt.

No, it most certainly does not apply to anything else ever written. But it definitely does apply to the extant copies of what was supposed to have been written by the person known as “Paul” (and the gospel writers).

Even if you leave all the other negative evidence out of consideration entirely, the mere fact that we do not have anything at all actually written by Paul or by any of the named gospel-disciples, from anywhere near any date claimed to be contemporary with the lifetime of Jesus, would in any other subject be more than enough to render the whole discussion suspect in the extreme, not to say 100% worthless.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

What I have explained above, is why that belief is not justified.

In your opinion. And in any case, you expressed this judgment in the form that the idea of eyewitnesses was original with the other poster.

Now, justification is a matter about which reasonable people might differ. Originality? Mmm, no. I found an antecedent.

Anyway, enough of the repetition (seemingly just to get the last word in) - everyone here can see what each of us have written on this issue of an eye-witnesses in the gospels, and they can decide for themselves what they think is credible vs. what is not.

In which case (and I'm not betting on this), that last word will be Amen.



Stone

There were both Josephean and non-Josephean traits in the TF, ...

Yes, that's a fine restatement of the problem: parts were written by a Jewish author, and other parts were written by one or more Gentile Christians.

and their guesses as to which were which subsequently proved to be spot-on.

No more so than that the Koran's guess about what a well-informed Jew would have reported about Jesus subsequently proved to be spot-on. I sense that that isn't your point, though.

Here's mine. There are several editing objectives which, beginning with the received TF, yield more-or-less the same edited text. This is not especially surprising.

The "coincidence" doesn't show that any surviving edited translation began with any source other than the familiar received TF. It also doesn't show that everything which various editors agreed should be left in was written by the actual original author.

"Salavage as much of the passage as possible, subject to the the constraint that you must maintain a straight face while you say that it was written by a sober Jewish historian," when applied to the received TF, also produces more or less the same result.

 

[A'isha]

This, found at the link pakeha posted above about the Agapios version of the Testimonium, pretty much dismantles Stones' overhyped arguments about it.

EDIT: For comparison, here's the version of the Testimonium as recorded in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, referenced at the above link, as translated by Pines (page 26 of "An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications"):

The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it is fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvellous things [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till [this] day.

 

[IanS]

IanS


In your opinion. And in any case, you expressed this judgment in the form that the idea of eyewitnesses was original with the other poster.

Now, justification is a matter about which reasonable people might differ. Originality? Mmm, no. I found an antecedent.


In which case (and I'm not betting on this), that last word will be Amen.


.

Well you can bet it on it. Lets just leave others to think about what each of us have written.

 

[pakeha]

This, found at the link pakeha posted above about the Agapios version of the Testimonium, pretty much dismantles Stones' overhyped arguments about it.

EDIT: For comparison, here's the version of the Testimonium as recorded in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, referenced at the above link, as translated by Pines (page 26 of "An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications"):

Sometimes 20 seconds of Google can turn up more than you'd think possible.

 

[A'isha]

In her 2003 book Josephus on Jesus (which is referenced in the Ken Olson post that I found at pakeha's post and which is linked above), Alice Whealey notes:

Given the evident fact that both Michael and Agapius took their Testimonia from the same earlier Syriac source, another important question that neither Pines nor most of his reviewers considered when judging the authenticity of Agapius' Testimonium is whether Agapius or Michael transmitted this source more faithfully. In fact, the most probable answer to this is Michael the Syrian. First of all, he was transmitting a Syriac source in Syriac rather than translating into Arabic as Agapius was. Moreover, the entire nature of their two chronicles reveals that Michael is certain to have transmitted his Syriac source with its version of the Testimonium more faithfully than Agapius. Agapius' chronicle is clearly a paraphrase and abbreviation of a much longer source; in contrast, Michael often quotes entire sources literally as, for example, when he transcribes the preface to Dionysius of Tel Mahre's own chronicle (Michael, Chron. 1 0 .20[3 78]).

In the light of the above, look again at Pines' translation of Michael of Syria's version of the Testimonium as compared to Agapios'. In a 2008 paper, she described how the particular text of this Syriac original and the fact that Agapios paraphrased while Michael quoted directly resulted in the verbiage that Stone thinks is so "coincidental" and that he apparently harps on so much.

If anyone likes, I'd be happy to outline Whealey's argument.

 

[maximara]

Don't use Josephus as a source of information either.

Non sequitur. The arguments regarding Josephus being useless for Jesus are based on several factors which have been stated before. As well as the 16th century version of Josephus that had NO reference to Jesus in it.

 

[pakeha]

In her 2003 book Josephus on Jesus (which is referenced in the Ken Olson post that I found at pakeha's post and which is linked above), Alice Whealey notes:



In the light of the above, look again at Pines' translation of Michael of Syria's version of the Testimonium as compared to Agapios'. In a 2008 paper, she described how the particular text of this Syriac original and the fact that Agapios paraphrased while Michael quoted directly resulted in the verbiage that Stone thinks is so "coincidental" and that he apparently harps on so much.

If anyone likes, I'd be happy to outline Whealey's argument.

Yes, please.
The Testimonium comes up repeatedly in these discussions and it's well worth understanding the nature of the sources for it.

 

[davefoc]

Yes, please.
The Testimonium comes up repeatedly in these discussions and it's well worth understanding the nature of the sources for it.

This is a fairly detailed article about the TF that argues that the whole paragraph is an interpolation:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

This is a list from the article of early Christian authors that would have been expected to quote the TF if it had existed:

• Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
• Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.
• Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.
• Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
• Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
• The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.
• Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.
• Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.
• Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
• Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.
• Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.

This is a list from the article of arguments against the authenticity of the TF:

• "It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
• "Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
• "Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
• "The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
• "The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
• "It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
• "It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
• "Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
• "Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
• "This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

These arguments are similar to other arguments that have been made against TF authenticity in this thread, my apologies if I am just repeating a list from this article that appeared in a previous post.

This is an article on The Early Christian Writings site that lists arguments for and against authenticity:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

This is a review of a peer reviewed paper by Richard Carrier (that is behind a pay wall on the web) that makes the argument that the TF is an interpolation:
http://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/tag/testimonium-flavianum/

Carrier's paper:

Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 published in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012,
pp. 489–-514).

 

[Belz...]

Deleted.

 

[pakeha]

This is a fairly detailed article about the TF that argues that the whole paragraph is an interpolation...

Thanks for such a comprehensive list, davefoc!
Bookmarked.

 

[IanS]

Don't use Josephus as a source of information either.

Josephus and similar non-biblical writing may be OK as one of the best remaining evidential sources for things other than Jesus. But it's of little use in the case of Jesus, for all the reasons explained here many times before (eg, the authors not even born at the time - their writing can only be hearsay - it’s only known from 11th century copies arising from 1000 years of Christian copying).

And as I just said above to Eight-Bits - the legal comparison most certainly is relevant here, and the reason we should follow legal practice in rejecting hearsay evidence is because it’s completely unreliable.

Unfortunately, if anything, the gospels are even more suspect and unreliable than either Paul or Josephus/Tacitus. That’s why we've had 100 pages here without any real evidence … ie because all the written sources so fundamentally flawed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for space>

Keepin' the E in JREF. Thank you very much.