Debate: Josephus and the Historicity of Jesus Christ

[evangelicalhumanist]

A challenge has been issued by Travis ClementSmith, accepted by Harvey1, to debate the following:

Resolved -- that the 'Testimonium Flavium' and other references in Josephus, offer probable evidence of Jesus of Nazareth's historical existence?

Defending: Harvey1
Opposing: Travis ClementSmith

Debate format:

The debate will occur in 5 rounds, each round consisting of one post by each debater, taken in alternating turns. (See below for who starting order). The size of each post is limited only by board restrictions (currently 30,000 characters).

A maximum of 5 days will be allowed between posts. One “hardship” delay for each debater will be allowed by the Moderator.

When both debaters signal (by PM to the moderator EvangelicalHumanist) they are ready to begin, the Moderator will flip a coin. To be fair, and to ensure trust in the process, the Moderator will PM the result of the Toss to Travis ClementSmith BEFORE Harvey1 has the first chance (as the participant who was challenged) to "call" it in a PM to the Moderator. The call should be either Heads or Tails, and the position (starting, responding) that Harvey1 wishes to take should he win the toss. (This double-blind technique should hopefully guarantee a fair toss!)

The specific quotations that will be addressed are as follows:

Antiquities 18.3.3.

"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 to this day."

In Greek:

Ginetai de kata touton ton chronon Iêsous sophos anêr, eige andra auton legein chrê: ên gar paradoxôn ergôn poiêtês, didaskalos anthrôpôn tôn hêdonêi talêthê dechomenôn, kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Hellênikou epêgageto: ho christos houtos ên. kai auton endeixei tôn prôtôn andrôn par' hêmin staurôi epitetimêkotos Pilatou ouk epausanto hoi to prôton agapêsantes: ephanê gar autois tritên echôn hêmeran palin zôn tôn theiôn prophêtôn tauta te kai alla muria peri autou thaumasia eirêkotôn. eis eti te nun tôn Christianôn apo toude ônomasmenon ouk epelipe to phulon.

(Bold phrases are the ones most generally favoured by current "partial interpolation" theories)

Antiquities 20.9.1.

"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. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so 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; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of ****eus, high priest."

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had John called the baptist urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.

And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.

Please note, the moderator will be watching for adherence to the rules above, as well as to the general rules of the forum (treating each other with respect) and in particular for the following non-restrictive list of generally unacceptable debating tactics.

argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)

argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty)

argumentum ad hominem (personal attack)

argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force)

argumentum ad miserocordiam (appeal to pity)

argumentum ad populum (appeal to popular emotions)

ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)

If either participant has a question or complaint with regard to the stated rules, please PM the Moderator.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Both Harvey1 and Travis ClementSmith are now ready to begin this debate. Harvey1 won the coin toss, and opted for Travis ClementSmith to have the first turn, to which he will respond.

The debate will occur over 5 rounds (5 posts each by Travis ClementSmith and Harvey1), alternately, with a maximum delay of 5 days between each post. Thus, TC posts, and within 5 days, Harvey1 must post, and within 5 days after that TC again, and so on. (If required, one "hardship" delay will be granted to each debater).

Comments by anyone other than the debaters should be kept to the Bleachers thread for this debate. The Bleachers thread may also be used by the debaters to post references, sources and citations, where posting them internally would take up valuable debating space.

Gentlemen, best of luck to both of you, and the members of Interfaith Forums look forward to your efforts.

Travis ClementSmith, please start anytime within 5 days of this post.

[Travis Clementsmith]

I’d like to thank EH for moderating this debate, my worthy opponent Harvey1 for participating, and LK for this fine site she has hosted.

Few methods are as objective as the scientific method, and for the field of history, that is the historical method. Few subjects are as subjective as religious belief, so when we bring an objective study to a subjective field, it is not surprising when the result is very contentious. The field of science has exhibited this over and over through many debates in the fields of cosmology and biology. It is no surprise such surfaces again when we try and apply the objective methodology of historical analysis to the field of religion.

Determining historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth exemplifies this conflict. One of the texts held up as such evidence are certain passages from Josephus’ work, Antiquities of the Jews. Let’s put this claim to the test.

As difficult as it may be for some to fathom, we have to resist the urge to assume the premise to which this debate is but a part, that the Jesus of the Gospels is an actual historical person rather than a literary invention formed from common mythological motifs and mystical archetypes. If this is true, then the letters and narrations that make up the “New Testament” cannot be considered impartial sources. So we look towards other sources that might be considered neutral or even hostile to said accounts. Even negative accounts can be considered corroborative.

Unfortunately, we find precious little to do so. Despite the presence of Jewish historians of the era and region in which these marvelous things were said to have taken place (Justus, whose works are now lost and Philo, who’s partial works we have), they make no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. This brings us to Joesphus’ work, Antiquities of the Jews, published almost six decades after the alleged events. It is important to keep in mind that the writings and people we would expect to be contemporary of Josephus (namely Paul and his letters) are not mentioned or referred to as sources or source material. The one possible exception being James, but even in that, Josephus does not quote his letter, nor does the letter itself provide us any historical corroboration. The Gospels, as far as we know, are not even written yet since no one names them or even really alludes to them until much later.

This means we have nothing that is really impartial until we come to Josephus. Does Josephus give us this probable impartial evidence? Let’s examine the passages in question.

Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries (A Guide to Historical Method, 168):

(a) When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
(b) Where was it produced (localization)?
(c) By whom was it produced (authorship)?
(d) From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
(e) In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
(f) What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

(a) William Whiston, a 1737 translator, dates the work at 93 CE. [1] Most sources I have seen also place the time period in the early 90’s CE.
(b) Antiquities of the Jews, is produced in Rome.
(c) By Josephus
(d) Josephus uses various sources in his full accounting, but such sources for the disputed passages are not evident.
(e) Assumed to have been originally penned in Aramaic and then assisted into Greek translation. For a long period, the original Greek was lost with only a Latin translation available, until Whiston translates back to the Greek. Unfortunately, we do not have any extant copies dating past the 10th century, and all of those are from Christian sources.
(f) If we accept the disputed passages as authentic, this still does not give us any eyewitness testimony regarding Jesus. Josephus is born after the time of Jesus and John the Baptist. At best, he is only relating stories, without citation, that he has heard. It is possible he was an eyewitness to James, though this is not clear from the text. If we are attempting to use Josephus to establish the Biblical/Christian account of these people, we must keep the Biblical/Christian chronology in mind: death of John the Baptist, death of Jesus, death of James. Josephus, however, has a different chronology: death of Jesus, death of John the Baptist, death of James. I will examine them in the order of pertinence towards establishing possible history for Jesus (directly, indirectly, textual cross-reference).

Directly

The reference to Jesus is known as the Testimonium Flavianum, or TF, for short. Arguments against its authenticity are, taken from Dr. Lardner (1684-1768) [2]:

1. It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 CE

For approximately 200 years after publication, the TF is not referenced by anyone. This includes Origen (more later), who while searching through the works of Josephus in defending the Christian religion against the attacks of Celsus does not cite the TF. Moreover, he states that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ. This is the strongest evidence against the TF being original to Josephus. In fact, several authorities, many Christian, also admit this to one degree or another.

The Catholic Encyclopedia[3], hedging its bets, admits:

The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations.

Bishop Warburton [4], in the mid 1700’s called it:

A rank forgery, and a very stupid one too.

Even Christian apologist, Maurice Goguel [5], a professor of the New Testament in Paris, was skeptical of the TF, declaring in 1926:

The testimony of Josephus is a known forgery.

The author of, Christian Mythology Unveiled, quotes English theologian Dr. Nathaniel Lardner[6] thus:

That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittiius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.

The list of Christian authorities that also considered it to be a forgery, in total, includes Theodore Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, and Dr. Alexander Campbell. It is not until the mid 20th century that the argument for authenticity comes in vogue again. Despite some very fancy excuses, nothing contradicts the fact nobody references this passage until Eusebius, who is suspected of being the author of the forgery.

2. 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.

We’ll discuss this passage later.

3. 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.

Not only this, but Origen proclaims Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ, prior to Eusebius.

4. 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.

Unless, Josephus is simply relating common mythological motifs, this goes without saying. And if he is simply relating such motifs, it cannot be considered a biography of an historical person.

5. The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.

The passage falls in a place discussing Pilate and the calamities that have befallen the Jews. Would Jews consider the death of Jesus a calamity for themselves? Certainly Christians might have that viewpoint, but it would take some severe stretches to argue the Jews considered it as such. In any event, if the passage is removed, the narrative flows more naturally.

6. It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.

We know no one quotes the passage prior to Eusebius, but what about afterwards? Very few, if any, Church authorities quote the TF, although they do refer to Josephus. One notable exception is St. Jerome[7]:

In the 5th century, Church father Jerome (c. 347-c.419) cited the TF once, with obvious disinterest, as if he knew it was fraudulent. In addition to his reference to the TF, in his Letter XXII. to Eustochium, Jerome made the following audacious claim:

"Josephus, himself a Jewish writer, asserts that at the Lord's crucifixion there broke from the temple voices of heavenly powers, saying: 'Let us depart hence.'"

It seems Jerome has a very unique copy of the TF himself!

7. 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.

Further, in the 10th or 11th century, a version of the TF was found in an Old Russian copy of Josephus, although it differed quite a bit in places from the standard version. What’s more, it was found in Josephus’ other great work, History of the Jewish War. [8] Apparently, this passage has the ability to migrate from one work to another!

8. 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 defense of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.

9. Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.

As we alluded to earlier, Origen states Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ. This information is important as we head into the passage concerning James. In his essay on The Christ [9], Remsburg notes the following:

For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines....

As my opponent is fond of stating, history is about probability. So I ask the reader, “Is it more probable that this passage is authentic, but continually missed throughout history, save some very special individuals; that the passage has the ability to mutate into different forms and different texts. Or, is it more probable that this passage is a fake, an insertion. That it is only an attempt to sneak a few lines into the limited space of the margins to authenticate a common belief? That, once the Church had censorship authority, it attempted to “rewrite” history to make up for its otherwise complete lack of notice in history? That, in its attempts to rework all known copies of Josephus, it gave poor instruction to their Slavonic counterparts to place in their copy of Josephus?” This passage is a fake, through and through; it is not historical verification of anything other than early attempts to make up history.

Indirectly

With the TF dismissed we turn our attention to the next two passages. First up is the passage concerning James. Here we are concerned with one phrase:

the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ [ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou]

What does this sentence look like without the phrase? If we assume Josephus did not know anything special about this James, Doherty notes [10]:

If Josephus did know nothing more, then he would have been forced to introduce James with no identifying enlargement. He would have used some equivalent to “a certain James” or “someone named James.” Now, what in fact do we find in the Greek? The actual words referring directly to James are: Iakobos onoma autoi. Translations render this “James by name” or “whose name was James” or “a man named James” (the last by Crossan). But such a phrase, or something close to it, could have stood perfectly well on its own (with a slight change in form), and had the reference to a brother Jesus added to it by a Christian interpolator. Let’s try such an original on for size:

Ananus, therefore . . . called together the Sanhedrin and brought before them one whose name was James, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law and condemned them to be stoned.

This would make much more sense since James is not expounded upon anywhere else. But, Doherty goes on to note some critics have allowed the phrase “brother of Jesus” to stand, omitting “the one called Christ”. This could also work in the framework of the text, because the text does not indicate “Jesus” is dead. Another “Jesus” is part of the story, which would still allow the passage to stand as now written.

If we read chapter 9 of Antiquities, we find the following summarization of events unfolding. Ananus takes away the priesthood from Josephus by order of Agrippa, who, in an attempt to show his power has James and some of his associates arrested on trumped up charges. Ananus is taking advantage of time before the new procurator, Albinus is on his way to Judea. James and his friends are stoned, prompting concerned citizens to seek both Agrippa and Albinus who is enroute. The citizens feel James was just and did not deserve to be condemned. Agrippa removed Ananus from the High Priesthood and replaced him with Jesus, son of Dam-neus. [11]

If we allow the whole phrase to be original to Josephus, it can still work within the context of the story. The phrase does not indicate Jesus is dead, so “brother of Jesus” may refer to the son of Dam-neus, in a high stakes political game. Since Jesus is to become the High Priest, he could have acquired the moniker of “Christos” since he has to be anointed to the position.

Still, I favor this being an interpolation. The insertion still seems clumsy. If we consider the above scenario, it actually favors Jesus, son of Dam-neus as the referent. This is because if Josephus had written the now discredited TF, it would have been much easier for him to identify Jesus a “the one crucified by Pilate”.

But, just to make sure we got all the bases covered, can we really equate this James in Josephus with the James the Just of Church tradition? According to Josephus, James dies in 62 CE. John Remsburg, in his essay on, The Christ [12], notes:

Those who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James mentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus mentioned by him, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus Christ. Now some of the most prominent Jews living at this time were named Jesus. Jesus, the son of Dam-neus, succeeded Ananus as high priest that very year; and Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, a little later succeeded to the same office.

To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church, which declares that James the Just died in 69 CE, seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.

Whiston himself, the translator of Josephus referring to the event narrated by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the brother of Jesus Christ, "did not die till long afterward.

It cannot be said with certainty that Origen is quoting Josephus word for word when he discusses the James passage. He has already stated that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ, so it is possible Origen is reading more into Josephus about James than is there. In any case, this appears to be an early Christian interpolation. If Josephus is writing for a Roman audience, the phrase could be translated as, “James, brother of Jesus, called the wetted"! This, because, it cannot be said with any certainty the audience is familiar with the Jewish practice of anointing kings and priests with oil. Since there is nearly a century between Josephus and Origen, there is ample opportunity for Christians familiar with the title to insert it, an opportunity apparently seized.

Textual cross-reference

This leaves us with the reference to John the Baptist. There is nothing about the passage itself that testifies to Jesus Christ. It is simply brought up in an attempt to cross-reference the Bible story. Josephus precedes any known account of the canonical Gospels, which are not alluded to until Justin Martyr (who claims he quotes from the Memoirs of the Apostles, now lost). Not until late in the second century do we see the Gospels referred to by their current names.

Josephus’ account of John the Baptist is, therefore, first, if it is original. This means the story of Jesus’ encounter with John the Baptist could simply be an adaptation from the tale in Josephus, and not a very careful adaptation at that. Josephus reports that John the Baptist is executed approximately 36 CE, six years after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion. Some apologists attempt to come up with a very convoluted scheme to get the date closer to 30 CE by claiming Josephus is confused about and combines two separate trips that historians use to date the event, but even this excuse still suffers from flaws.

Despite all this, I theorize that it wasn’t Christians who inserted this passage if it is an interpolation. A group of Gnostic-Jews known as the Mandaeans, or Sabean-baptists, was known to revere John the Baptist, and stringently denied that John and Jesus had met, much less relate that John transfers his status to Jesus. If it is an interpolation, I suspect this group is to blame.

Conclusion

To recap, Josephus is writing a history of the Jews at the pleasure of the Roman court, who is his intended audience. He has already written an earlier book, which does not mention any of the Gospel characters, though admittedly, they wouldn’t be central to such a work. In his Antiquities, he means to discourage any further insurrections by the Jews against Rome. As such, he would not include allusions that the calamities that befall the Jews are the result of a Jewish God who uses the Romans as unwitting pawns to punish “His people”. Rome did not give credit to foreign gods for the power of their might.

That leaves us with the following possible scenario:

Sometime after publication, but prior to the time of Justin Martyr, Sabean-baptists insert the passage about John the Baptist, which is followed by insertions from early Christians about James. Not until almost 200 years later, after the Christians have established their story, does the TF passage appear, “discovered” by Eusebius. With the power of Rome behind them, the Church sets out on a mass rewriting of Antiquities so that the only copies that survive the purge of ancient documents are the Christian copies.

Even if one accepts that all these passages are original to Josephus, it still does not constitute evidence of Jesus, only evidence that stories about Jesus existed. Josephus never lets us know who to ascribe this to, simply noting generic “scribes and priests”. Stories are not history and these stories are no different.





Sources:

[1] The Works of Flavius Josephus

[2] Christian Mythology Unveiled (c. 1842), Anonymous

[3] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Flavius Josephus

[4] Wheless, op cit. Mangasarian (M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?)

[5] Goguel, 26

[6] Ibid.

[7] Acharya S, Suns of God, 384

[8] Zeitlin, S., "The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus'" JQR 39 (1948)

[9] The Christ by John E. Remsberg (Front Matter)

[10] Josephus Unbound

[11] Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.

[12] Ibid.

[Harvey1]

I reviewed Travis Clementsmith's proposal (I'll use Travis to identify him here instead of TC to avoid the constant risk of confusing TC with Josephus's TF clause), and to start off I'd like to begin with two areas of agreement (without mentioning the appreciation that we both share to the webmaster and super moderators).

Originally Posted by Travis

[1]Few methods are as objective as the scientific method, and for the field of history, that is the historical method. . . [2] history is about probability

This agreement we share should be a key feature as to what should guide our understanding of history as well as what is the best account of history as it pertains to "Josephus on Jesus" research.

Prior to getting into Travis's hypothesis of Josephus on Jesus, I think it is important to set up the theme that I'd like to come back to repeatedly. That theme is that Travis has succumbed to conspiracism, i.e., the thought pattern that convinces conspiracy theorists that there is a conspiracy despite the evidence to the contrary.

Patrick Leman, a researcher into conspiracy theories, wrote an article in the New Scientist in July 2007:

A study I carried out in 2002 explored a way of thinking sometimes called 'major event - major cause' reasoning. Essentially, people often assume that an event with substantial, significant or wide-ranging consequences is likely to have been caused by something substantial, significant or wide-ranging. . . if some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.

Leman in the same article provides a template for conspiracy models. One point is especially worth quoting:

If someone highlights a gap or inconsistency in your evidence, don't be afraid to tweak your story, but keep the core conspiracy in place. You can allow the finer details of the theory to mutate, but always keep in mind the maxim--'they did it, I just have to find the proof that they did it it.'

It is my contention throughout my "informal" debates with Travis that the whole "Jesus did not exist" is, at the end of the day, just another drab conspiracy theory that we hear over and over in so many forms (e.g., 9-11 terrorists did not cause the Twin Towers to collapse--this was caused by the government planting explosions in the buildings; Princess Di was murdered; JFK wasn't killed by a Lee Harvey Oswald's "magic bullet"; evolution didn't happen--all the evidence for creation has been carefully kept away from the public's attention, etc., etc.). I believe using these examples in comparison to Travis's arguments will help to show the fallacy in his thought processes, and for that reason my theme will return to many of the pitfalls we see in other conspiracy thought processes. Without further ado, let's look at Travis's hypothesis on "Josephus on Jesus."

To summarize Travis's hypothesis, let me just state the core of his argument on how Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews happens to have possible references to Jesus, James the Just, and John the Baptist:

a) John the Baptist interpolated text: Between c.93 CE and c. 250 CE [until Origen] Mandaeans probably inserted John text into Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119.
b) James the Just interpolated text: Between c.93 CE and c. 250 CE [until Origen] probably Christians inserted James text into Antiquities 20.9.1.
c) TF interpolated text: Between c.250 CE [from Origen] and c.316 CE [until Eusebius] Christians inserted the TF into Antiquities 18.3.3.

[a] is based on a probable occurrence where Travis says:"I theorize that it wasn’t Christians who inserted this passage if it is an interpolation. A group of Gnostic-Jews known as the Mandaeans. . . I suspect this group is to blame."

[b] is based on a probable occurrence where Travis says: "it is possible Origen is reading more into Josephus about James than is there. In any case, this appears to be an early Christian interpolation."

[c] is based on "the TF is not referenced by anyone. This includes Origen. . ." and "[w]e know no one quotes the passage prior to Eusebius. . ."

In addition, with Travis's permission I'd like to add a [d] assuming I understand his position correctly:

[d] TF interpolated text: After c.886 CE [from Photius] Christians inserted the TF into Antiquities 18.3.3.

[d] is based on "[i]t 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." The obvious problem with [d] is that Christians, according to Travis, had already conspired to insert the TF prior to/or concurrent with Eusebius in c. 316 CE. Therefore, there's an apparent discrepancy in that the TF text is inserted prior to c. 316 CE and then for some reason Christians were required to re-insert the TF clause after c. 886 CE. I'd like to hear from Travis why he hypothesizes that this was necessary since the TF clause had already been inserted prior to/or concurrent with Eusebius.

I want to insert my theme again by re-quoting comments from Levan's article quoted above:

Essentially, people often assume that an event with substantial, significant or wide-ranging consequences is likely to have been caused by something substantial, significant or wide-ranging.

What I'd like to point out in Travis's [a]-[c] is the tendency to find a major cause for the major event of Josephus identifying Jesus, James the Just, and John the Baptist in a section of the Antiquities. The major cause mentioned by him absolutely must be in his repertoire of arguments otherwise his entire conspiracy theory of "Jesus as myth" falls apart. What I hope to show is how fast in his counter arguments Travis quickly succumb's to the point made by Levan:

if some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.

Let me start by poking holes in [b] since scholars are universally united on this "James the Just" section as being wholly authenic. I realize that Travis is not denying authenticity of the majority of this text, but it is helpful to know the reasons for authenticity. John P. Meier, a historical Jesus scholar has given 5 major reasons why scholars are united on this section of Antiquities 20.9.1 being authentic (cf. John P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal", Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Jan. 1990, Vol. 52, Iss. 1):

A1) There are no notable variations in the extant texts.

A2) This passage is "only a passing, almost blase reference to someone called James, whom Josephus obviously considers a minor character." [In other words, a Christian interpolator is not likely to have accepted for James to receive such a minor role if they were modifying the text for their conspiratory reasons.]

A3) A Christian source is not likely to have identified James as the "brother of Jesus" because that does not show the reverence as we read of other references to James as being "brother of the Lord" (e.g., Paul, Hegesippus, and even Eusebius who all refer to him as the "Lord's brother"), and to quote Meier, "so does not likely come from the hand of a Christian interpolator."

A4) As Travis pointed out, Josephus has it that James died earlier in the 60's CE, and differently than as recorded by Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria. It would be unlikely that a Christian would insert dates and events that contradicted the tradition of James's death.

A5) James is not given any recognition that recognizes his martyrdom as of any significance. His only reason for mention by Josephus is due to Ananus acting unlawfully. There's little praise for James, and as Meier states, "Praise of James is notably lacking; he is one victim among several, not a glorious martyr dying alone in the spotlight. Also telling is the swipe at the 'heartless' or 'ruthless' Sadducees by the pro-Pharisaic Josephus; indeed, Josephus' more negative view of the Sadducees is one of the notable shifts from The Jewish War that characterize The Antiquities. In short, it is not surprising that the great Josephus scholar Louis L. Feldman notes: '...few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James'"

However, for Travis, he has three arguments against Jesus of Nazareth being referred to in this text:

B1) "'[Quoting Doherty]The actual words referring directly to James are: Iakobos onoma autoi. Translations render this 'James by name' or 'whose name was James' or 'a man named James' (the last by Crossan). But such a phrase, or something close to it, could have stood perfectly well on its own (with a slight change in form), and had the reference to a brother Jesus added to it by a Christian interpolator'. . . Still, I favor this being an interpolation. The insertion still seems clumsy."

B2) "But, Doherty goes on to note some critics have allowed the phrase “brother of Jesus” to stand, omitting 'the one called Christ.'"

B3) "If we allow the whole phrase to be original to Josephus, it can still work within the context of the story. The phrase does not indicate Jesus is dead, so 'brother of Jesus' may refer to the son of D(a)mneus, in a high stakes political game. Since Jesus is to become the High Priest, he could have acquired the moniker of 'Christos' since he has to be anointed to the position."

[B1] is ruled out by the fact that James (i.e., Jacob) is a very common name in Palestine. Josephus mentions five different people having this name in his various works (according to Abraham Schalit whom Meier refers to in his footnotes). The custom was to provide an identifying attribute (e.g., a location where they are from, or who is their father, etc.), especially for people with common names.

In response to [B2], I think Meier's argument in [A1] thru [A5] is sufficient to argue against this point. There are no other extant versions that show this clause missing, and, most importantly, any Christian interpolator who felt it necessary to modify the text would not refer to Jesus without so much a mention of who he is. This last point is very important because according to Travis's account, there was no TF when this "James the Just" text was probably interpolated. Hence, the argument by Travis for interpolation holds no water. That is, unless you have a very strong desire to maintain belief in conspiracy theories.

[B3] is without basis since "Christos" meant Messiah or Christ. Besides, it is used as a means to identify who James is, any other interpretation wouldn't make sense in this context. If someone was "anointed," then that would not identify who this Jesus in Ant. 20.9.1 was. The reader is not introduced to Jesus of D(a)mneus until the next paragraph, and the fact that he is introduced with a different designator (i.e., "Jesus of D(a)mneus" versus "Jesus the so-called Christ") makes this argument, I think, very unlikely.

So, we see a critical blow to Travis's argument without ever having to consider other Josephus passages in chapter 18. However, let's give Travis the benefit of the doubt for argument's sake, and say that it is very likely that B1-B3 fully account for "Jesus the so-called Messiah" reference, is Travis willing to make the same concession on the other side? That is, is Travis willing to concede that it is very likely, for argument's sake, that Josephus was referring to Jesus the Christ as a historical person?

I would be very surprised if he were willing to make that concession because we aren't dealing with a scholarly issue of contention here. We are dealing with a conspiracy theory that would be near unattainable if Travis alloted such an important concession, since out the window goes this particular conspiracy theory!

This reminds me of those creationist conspiracists who attack the dating of a fossil and look for any dating discrepancy they can find. If a paleontologist were willing to concede for argument's sake that there is evidence that humans and dinosaurs at one point in history walked side by side (as foolhardy as that sounds), the conspiracy theorists of the creationist movement could hardly concede for argument's sake that dinosaurs existed over 65 million years ago! The reason, as we know, is that such a concession blows out the conspiracy theory. For their own personal reasons people hold very dear to these conspiracy theories and will not let them go. An accummulation of the evidence does not mean much to the conspiracy theorist since, as Levan suggested, the conspiracy theorist uses the notion of a conspiracy as the major cause for the major event. When in trouble they revert back to the conspiracy (i.e., interpolations, interpretations of every bizarre flavor, etc.) to reinforce their conspiracy theory as a major cause.

In this post I opted not to get into the TF yet. The reason is that I think there are bigger fish to fry in the context of this discussion. A fish that I do intend to fry. However, since the TF is part of this debate, I intend to go into it in my next post.

[evangelicalhumanist]

A considerable portion of Harvey1's opening remarks have the potential to lead to a form of "Argumentum Ad Hominem. I am certain that this was not the intent, and just wanted to raise the flag about the use of "loaded" words like "succumbed" and "conspiracism."

It is the Moderator's view that Travis ClementSmith has provided evidence for his thesis. It may or may not be the case that the evidence is biased. It may or may not be the case that there is contradictory evidence that he has omitted, either deliberately or through ignorance of its existence.

However, in the interests of keeping the debate respectful of both participants, it is hoped that for the remainder of the debate, the following simple rules will be adhered to:

• Each participant should present such evidence as he believes will support his case.
• Each participant should be free to present his own interpretation of the evidence presented.
• Each participant is free to refute the evidence provided by his opponent, either with contradictory evidence, or with logical analysis and interpretation of the evidence, not of the motives or thinking processes of the opponent, which may be inferred but which cannot be known.

I have decided not to interfere with the first two posts, as written, except to issue this warning. Your opponent's arguments are perfectly fair game. Your opponent, and your opponent's motives, are not.

Therefore, I repeat -- if the evidence does not support the conclusion, please demonstrate how this is so. If there is additional evidence which refutes the conclusion, please introduce it. But do not impugn the motives of your opponent with emotionally loaded phrases such as "conspiracy theory." IFF debaters are not conspirators.

[Travis Clementsmith]

Harvey1 wishes to build an argument I did not make, [d], that he can then take apart, but at least he asked for my permission to do so:

[d] is based on "[i]t 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." The obvious problem with [d] is that Christians, according to Travis, had already conspired to insert the TF prior to/or concurrent with Eusebius in c. 316 CE. Therefore, there's an apparent discrepancy in that the TF text is inserted prior to c. 316 CE and then for some reason Christians were required to re-insert the TF clause after c. 886 CE. I'd like to hear from Travis why he hypothesizes that this was necessary since the TF clause had already been inserted prior to/or concurrent with Eusebius.

My opponent most certainly does not have my permission. If he wishes to build a strawman, I’m afraid he’ll have to retain ownership of it. If, however, there is simply an erroneous assumption from my presentation, I will expound upon that. The printing press does not make its appearance until 1440 CE. Further, we do not have things such as manufacturer recalls. So, when rewrites, or interpolations, are deemed necessary, old copies simply die out (become lost or destroyed). When new copies arrive, they arrive as the new official Church interpretation.

Thus, there will be a period following an interpolation where some copies of the original and some copies of the revised are both in use. Further, there is no “mass communication” in this time period, so instantaneous revision of all Josephus manuscripts is not possible. All this demonstrates is that both versions were in existence as late as the 7th century, or, that certain figures considered the interpolation to be a forgery and therefore did not mention it.

It is interesting to note there is an ancient table of contents dated to the 5th century for Antiquities that does not include the TF.

The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice...[1]

I think it would be pertinent for Harvey1, to relate exactly what version of the TF he considers authentic, or at least, most authentic. Is his position that the TF is original as the one Eusebius cites, or, does he favor the late 20th century “partial interpolation” theory. This is important, for I do not wish to waste time arguing passages we both consider likely interpolations. Since I consider the whole thing a forgery, all Harvey1 needs to do is note the passages he also believes falls into said category.

Until we have clarification in this matter, I will assume he is arguing for the entire passage as authentic. Since he chooses to proceed to the James passage, I will follow his inquiries there.

A1) There are no notable variations in the extant texts.

Yes, but as we have noted, we have nothing earlier than 10th century, all Christian sources.

A2) This passage is "only a passing, almost blase reference to someone called James, whom Josephus obviously considers a minor character." [In other words, a Christian interpolator is not likely to have accepted for James to receive such a minor role if they were modifying the text for their conspiratory reasons.]

My theory proposes the James interpolation as fairly early, possibly prior to Origen, and as such, may have been nothing more than a note in the margin, which the scribe simply copies into the new version, which would play into the next objections.