Talk:Josephus on Jesus

Shlomo Pines

Someone to add the findings and biblography of Shlomo Pines along with his translations of Josephus' testimony. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Please. Tuxzos22 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Two suggestions

• Dunn's reconstruction of the Testimonium is quoted via {{quote box}} (fullwidth, in contrast to the quote-boxes that are right-aligned like pictures), Vermes's version is quoted via <blockquote>. It's odd to have such different formatting only a few paragraphs apart, on the same screen; can we pick a consistent format?
• That most modern scholars accept that the Testimonium is partially authentic and had an authntic kernel is repeated 6+ times, sometimes in adjacent paragraphs: It is broadly agreed that while the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, followed in the next section by most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.[51][9] While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.[52] However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and shortly thereafter While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text and a few sections further down Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel and a few sections after that most modern scholars believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus. Can (should?) this be made any less repetitive?

-sche (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If it can be improved then it should be. Perhaps your real question is whether these thin opinions belong here at all. Since "Some people say" is the most common example of weasel words, I support removing them or at least adding citation-needed to each instance. Cutelyaware (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

ISBN error

The Google search for the ISBN 0-8146-5152-6 leads to a different book (James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth) not The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission.-- İskenderBalas^💬 20:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Academic consensus

@Eggventura: Please obey WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I was manually reverting an edit (i.e. from "Almost all" BACK to "some" as I interpreted that as itself a violation of WP:RS/AC. I was patrolling new edits on WikiLoop Doublecheck and closed the page by accident so went back to do it manually. Shouldn't it be reverted (again!) back to "some"? Eggventura (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Eggventura: Every scholar worth his salt will say that it is impossible that Josephus wrote that piece of Christian propaganda, simply because he wasn't a Christian. Only a Christian would write that Jesus is the Messiah, or that Jesus was resurrected the third day. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

While I doubt that Josephus wrote anything of the sort about Jesus, it is possible that the apocryphal text replaced or embellished one of Josephus' original texts. Some copyist simply altered the text to fit his/her pious bias. Dimadick (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, you're right and we should leave it as "some"-- I'm just hardwired to be put off by hard-and-fast near definitive wording like "almost all" and saw it as a necessary reversion; will be more cautious in the future Eggventura (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Arabic Testimonium

It would be beneficial, I think, to include the translation made by Shlomo Pines of the Arabic version of the Testimonium:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bogus

contains an authentic nucleus referencing the life, execution, and resurrection of Jesus by Pilate is just bogus. First, Josephus did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, we know full well that Josephus wasn't Christian. Second, even if he did, that nucleus could never pass for authentic historical fact among modern historians. Third, the edit by the IP distorted the majority view of mainstream Bible scholars, who do consider that the passage was altered/interpolated by Christians. Perhaps it does not distort it in a blatant way, but it distorts it by implication (suggestion). Fourth, it leaves the words Christian addition utterly unexplained. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well stated 67.4.155.2 (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Modern scholars are divided?

No, modern scholars are not divided. They recognize that since Josephus wasn't a Christian, he did not believe that Jesus was resurrected. So, if the fragment says that Jesus was resurrected, the fragment was at least interpolated by later scribes (Christians). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation relies on common sense. Wikipedia does not rely on common sense, logic, or the truth. It relies on "reliable" sources. Can you support your argument with sources? Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Dimadick, the WP:RS are already inside the article, I was reacting to an IP who claimed he is studying Judaism at the university. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Josephus versus Eusebius

Hi everyone. I've made a comparison table of the texts of Josephus and Eusebius as they have been transmitted in Greek, and translated into English in two editions that are no longer copyrighted:

Whiston (1895) English translation of Josephus	Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (c. 94) Book 18.5.2 + 18.3.3 as transmitted	Eusebius's Church History (c. 313) Book A (p. 14) as transmitted	McGiffert (1890) English translation of Eusebius
...Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death...	...καὶ ὁ μὲν ὑποψίᾳ τῇ Ἡρώδου δέσμιος εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα πεμφθεὶς τὸ προειρημένον φρούριον ταύτῃ κτίννυται...	«...καὶ ὁ μὲν ὑποψίᾳ τῇ Ἡρῴδου δέσμιος εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα πεμφθείς, τὸ προειρημένον φρούριον, ταύτῃ κτίννυται».	"...On account of Herod’s suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machæra, and there slain."
[nothing]	[nothing]	ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ Ἰωάννου διελθὼν, καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ συγγράμματος ἱστορίαν ὧδέ πως μέμνηται·	After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;	Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή:	«γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή.	"And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man.
for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.	ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,	ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,	For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness.
He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.	καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο:	καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο.	And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks.
He was [the] Christ.	ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.	ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν,	He was the Christ.
And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,	καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου	καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,	When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;	οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες:	οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·	those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him.
for he appeared to them alive again the third day;	ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν	ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν	For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day,
as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.	πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.	πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.	divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him.
And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.	εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.	εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον».	Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day."
[nothing]	[nothing]	. ταῦτα τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν Ἑβραίων συγγραφέως ἀνέκαθεν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ γραφῇ περί τε τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν παραδεδωκότος, τίς ἂν ἔτι λείποιτο ἀποφυγὴ τοῦ μὴ ἀναισχύντους ἀπελέγχεσθαι τοὺς τὰ κατ᾿ αὐτῶν πλασαμένους ὑπομνήματα; ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἐχέτω ταύτῃ·	Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.

We might also add a separate table for Origen's Contra Celsum 1.47.

Origen's Contra Celsum (c. 248) Book 1.47	Roberts (1885) English translation of Origen
Ἐβουλόμην δ' ἂν Κέλσῳ, προσωποποιήσαντι τὸν Ἰουδαῖον παραδεξάμενόν πως Ἰωάννην ὡς βαπτιστὴν βαπτίζοντα τὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰπεῖν ὅτι τὸ Ἰωάννην γεγονέναι βαπτιστήν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων βαπτίζοντα, ἀνέγραψέ τις τῶν μετ' οὐ πολὺ τοῦ Ἰωάννου καὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γεγενημένων.	I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus.
Ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἰουδαϊκῆς ἀρχαιολογίας ὁ Ἰώσηπος μαρτυρεῖ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ ὡς βαπτιστῇ γεγενημένῳ καὶ καθάρσιον τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις ἐπαγγελλομένῳ.	For in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.
Ὁ δ' αὐτός, καίτοι γε ἀπιστῶν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὡς Χριστῷ, ζητῶν τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων πτώσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ ναοῦ καθαιρέσεως, δέον αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἡ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐπιβουλὴ τούτων αἰτία γέγονε τῷ λαῷ,	Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people,
ἐπεὶ ἀπέκτειναν τὸν προφητευόμενον Χριστόν·	since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet,
ὁ δὲ καὶ ὥσπερ ἄκων οὐ μακρὰν τῆς ἀληθείας γενόμενός φησι ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κατ' ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς «Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ», ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν.	says nevertheless – being, although against his will, not far from the truth – that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), – the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

• Roberts, A.; Donaldson, J.; Coxe, A.C.; Menzies, A.; Richardson, E.C.; Pick, B. (1885). The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Tertullian, part fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, parts first and second. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Christian Literature Publishing Company. p. 696. Retrieved 29 December 2024.
• Niese, B., ed. (1892). Flavius Josephus. Flavii Iosephi opera (in Latin and English). Berlin: Weidmann / Perseus Digital Library. Retrieved 29 December 2024. With a reprinted English translation by William Whiston (1895).
• Caesariensis, Eusebius (2006). Historia Ecclesiastica [0265-0339] Full Text at Documenta Catholica Omnia (in Latin). p. 180. Retrieved 29 December 2024.
• McGiffert, Arthur (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. Translated with Prolegomena and Notes (PDF). p. 838. Retrieved 29 December 2024.

Could this be valuable to add into the article somewhere? Perhaps with some changes if appropriate? NLeeuw (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

PS: The Alexander Roberts 1885 English translation of Origen's Contra Celsum appears to be the source of all other English translations floating around the Internet (compare this 1867 Alexander Roberts version, this 1918 American Catholic Quarterly Review version, this June 2016 version which credits no specific translator, and this February 2022 forum post which cites an unannotated Greek version and an unsourced English translation). The last bit is most questionable, because ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν just means "because they rejected his righteousness", not "the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice". So it might not be the best translation, but it is not copyrighted. NLeeuw (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)