Talk:Josephus on Jesus

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 Ancient Greek 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 Ancient Greek). 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)

"ἀπέκτειναν" means "killed", and "δικαιότατον" means "most just" instead of righteous. Some phrases have not changed much in the Greek language over the centuries. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm I stand corrected. Both Google Translate and DeepL let me down on this one. How would you translate those last 5 words? NLeeuw (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Whiston (reprint 1852) translated the passage like this: I would say to Celsus, who personates a Jew, that admitted of John the Baptist, and how he baptised Jesus, that one who lived but a little while after John and Jesus, wrote, how that John was a baptizer unto the remission of sins. For Josephus testifies in the eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities, that John was the Baptist, and that he promised purification to those that were baptized. The same Josephus also, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, when he was inquiring after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the demolition of the temple, and ought to have said, that their machinations against Jesus were teh cause of those miseries coming on to the people, because they had slain that Christ who was foretold by the prophets, he, though as it were unwillingly, and yet as one not remote from the truth, says, "These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, that was called Christ, because they had slain him who was the most righteous person."

It's a very long sentence, in which it is easy to lose Origen's train of thought, especially if we can't follow his grammar (grammatical cases probably help in ancient Greek here). NLeeuw (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Josephus vs Origen vs Eusebius vs Jerome

Eusebius 2006 (p. 30): ἀμέλει γέ τοι ὁ Ἰώσηπος οὐκ ἀπώκνησεν καὶ τοῦτ᾿ ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτύρασθαι δι᾿ ὧν φησιν λέξεων· «ταῦτα δὲ συμβέβηκεν Ἰουδαίοις κατ᾿ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφος Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτον ὄντα οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπέκτειναν».

McGiffert 1980 (p. 200): 20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,⁵¹⁶ “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

McGiffert footnote 516: This passage is not found in our existing mss. of Josephus, but is given by Origen (Contra Celsum, I. 47), which shows at any rate that Eusebius did not invent the words. It is probable therefore, that the copies of Josephus used by Origen and Eusebius contained this interpolation, while the copies from which our existing mss. drew were without it. It is of course possible, especially since he does not mention the reference in Josephus, that Eusebius quoted these words from Origen. But this does not help matters any, as it still remains as difficult to account for the occurrence of the words in Origen (...).

McGiffert is probably correct. It appears to be an interpretation/commentary by Origen on Josephus, not a direct quotation of Josephus's words. Eusebius mixed them up.

Some 80 years later, Jerome also attributes this saying to Josephus rather than Origen.

Hieronymus, De viris illustribus, Caput XIII: (...)Hic in decimo octavo Antiquitatum libro, manifestissime confitetur, propter magnitudinem signorum, Christum a Pharisaeis interfectum, et Joannem Baptistam vere prophetam fuisse, et propter interfectionem Jacobi apostoli, dirutam Hierosolymam. Scripsit autem de Domino in hunc modum:

"Eodem tempore fuit Jesus vir sapiens, si tamen virum oportet eum dicere. Erat enim mirabilium patrator operum, et doctor eorum, qui libenter vera suscipiunt: plurimos quoque tam de Judaeis quam de gentibus sui habuit sectatores, et credebatur esse Christus. Cumque invidia nostrorum Principum, cruci eum Pilatus addixisset, nihilominus qui primum dilexerant, perseveraverunt. Apparuit enim eis tertia die vivens. Multa et haec alia mirabilia carminibus Prophetarum de eo vaticinantibus, et usque hodie Christianorum gens ab hoc sortita vocabulum, non defecit."

Schaff et al. (1885) s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Josephus, son of Matthias: In the eighth [sic; decimo octavo should read "eighteenth"] book of his Antiquities he [Josephus] most openly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of the greatness of his miracles, that John the Baptist was truly a prophet, and that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the murder of James the apostle. He wrote also concerning the Lord after this fashion:

"In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things, both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from Him, exists to the present day." (bold by me, bracketed black text by me).

Just like Eusebius, Jerome mentions the claim that Josephus wrote that Jerusalem fell / was destroyed because of the killing of James the Just / Apostle / brother of Jesus, even though Josephus never wrote such a thing. This is Origen's interpretation of, and commentary on, what Josephus wrote in 18.5.2 and 20.9.1, with no apparent knowledge of 18.3.3.

Off-topic observations

It is remarkable that neither Jerome nor Eusebius can tell us in which book of Josephus the Testimonium Flavianum is to be found, although they did manage to quote it in full pretty much how it has come down to us in high and late medieval manuscripts. According to Eusebius, the Testimonium is to be found after (διελθὼν, lit. "having gone through in detail", see wikt:διέρχομαι) 18.5.2, but 18.3.3 obviously should come before it. I'm not even sure which Greek words are supposed to mean in the same work, but if Eusebius knew them to be in the same book, namely Book 18, why didn't he just say a more specific "in the same book" instead of the more vague in the same work? According to Jerome, we should be able to find the following things in Josephus Book 18: Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of the greatness of his miracles. Well, not quite, Josephus wrote Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, i.e. the Roman governor on the accusation of the [Sadducee] chief priests. Either Jerome didn't read the text properly, or had only access to a distorted copy of it, or distorted it himself. (Mixing up Pharisees and Sadducees has a long tradition in Christianity). John the Baptist was truly a prophet. Well, that may be Jerome's interpretation of what Josephus wrote, but fair enough, we can find that in Book 18.5.2. Jerusalem was destroyed because of the murder of James the apostle. No, not at all. All of Book 18 never mentions "James". At most, this is a highly distorted interpretation of Book 20.9.1., which appears to be dependent on both Origen and Eusebius. (Most likely, Jerome only read Eusebius and didn't check Origen.) Moreover, Jerome goes on to write: He wrote also concerning the Lord after this fashion: and then gives his Latin translation of the Testimonium Flavianum. If we assume Jerome read and commented on Josephus's books from cover to cover, 1st to 20th, why would he jump from 18.3.3 to 18.5.2, then to 20.9.1, and then back to 18.3.3? I don't think he did that at all. He might not even had access to all of Josephus's 20 books, even though he knew there were twenty in total (viginti Antiquitatum libros), or he just couldn't be bothered to read them all, because Jerome was only really interested in what Josephus had to say about Jesus, John the Baptist and James the Apostle. (In fact, Jerome may give the impression that Josephus himself was a Christian if the reader didn't know better). And so, Jerome could rely on extracts already produced by earlier authors such as Eusebius, which saved him a lot of work. This would explain why Jerome mis-located the reference to James in book 20 to book 18, and why he was apparently not aware that the Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of the greatness of his miracles passage was part of the Testimonium Flavianum in 18.3.3, and not found elsewhere (unspecified as He wrote also) in the Antiquitates. The after and in the same work of Eusebius, and the odd jumping of Jerome from 18.3.3 to 18.5.2, then to 20.9.1, and then back to 18.3.3 plus the He wrote also, are all circumstantial evidence that they had no knowledge that the Testimonium Flavianum was supposed to be found in 18.3.3. At this point, it seems that the Testimonium Flavianum was a late 3rd-century forgery, because around 248 Origen didn't know it and lamented Josephus didn't write more about Jesus, but around 313 Eusebius managed to quote it in full; by the 4th century, it was already in wide circulation, and thought to be authentic, but maybe not inserted in any copy of Book 18 yet. If both Eusebius and Jerome would have had full access to the full Book 18 including 18.3.3 and Book 20 as they have come down to us in the high and late medieval manuscripts, and made use of them, they probably would not have failed to locate these passages in their proper places. But they did fail to locate them, even though both Origen and Eusebius (but not Jerome) may have had full access to book 18 without a 18.3.3 in it. Likely, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome only had access to bits and pieces, quotations and interpretations of the Antiquitates, and what might have been early copies of a Testimonium Flavianum that had not been interpolated into book 18 yet. The fact that Jerome has the much-debated et credebatur esse Christus (bolded by me) rather than the Latin equivalent of ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν (e.g. "Christus erat") may suggest that Eusebius and Jerome were working from slightly different copies of the still-separate Testimonium Flavianum. The latter's Ἰουδαίους (accusative, "to the Jews") versus Eusebius's τῶν Ἰουδαίων (genitive, "of the Jews") versus Jerome's de Judaeis (dative/ablative, "to/from/of the Jews") is another textual variant. Jerome's de gentibus "of the Gentiles" (also found in Whiston's 1737/1895 English translation of Josephus) rather than Eusebius's ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ "also of the Greeks", or the Testimonium's τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ "of the Greeks", are all minor textual variants, subtle indications that this text was frequently copied and translated with minor errors/variations. (If the copying error/variation rate of 18.3.3 is significantly higher than any other random section in the Antiquitates, this might indicate that the Testimonium Flavianum circulated separately from the Antiquitates for some time before being inserted into it; I'll leave it to mathematicians and programmers to empirically test that one). This best explains all the facts. I can't say whether Eusebius himself authored the Testimonium Flavianum, as Ken Olson concluded on linguistic and stylistic grounds, which is a real possibility. But on textual criticism grounds (explained above), I think the Testimonium Flavianum is slightly older than the Historia Ecclesiastica of c. 313, but somewhat younger than the Contra Celsum of c. 248. It was forged to satisfy a burning desire amongst early Christians to have Josephus say something substantial about Jesus in the Antiquitates, more than just a brief mention of Jesus as the brother of James in 20.9.1 (which I still hold to be mostly or entirely authentic). This desire is most clearly expressed by Origen in frustration: [Josephus] ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people; and by Eusebius in praise that even the Jewish Josephus acknowledged stuff about John the Baptist and Jesus: 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...? (it seems that this discrepancy between Origen's frustration with Josephus and Eusebius's praise of Josephus so far hasn't been noted by scholars, but they seem to reflect two sides of the same coin: the Christian desire to have Josephus properly acknowledge Jesus). In that sense, the Testimonium Flavianum is very similar to the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, which appeared a bit later in the mid-4th century to satisfy a desire amongst 4th-century Christians to have 1st-century famous Romans acknowledge the importance of Jesus, but is now universally accepted to be a forgery. As Paul Kirby comments, this doesn't mean there was no historical Jesus; it just means that spurious mentions of Jesus in Josephus are not good evidence for the historical Jesus. NLeeuw (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what is the point of all of this discussion. It seems to be WP:FORUMish and definitely WP:OR since you are posting your own theory on the topic (My hypothesis would be that at this point...). Wikieditor translations of texts do not seem usable either as that seems like WP:OR or WP:SYN. Also the view that the Testimonium is a complete forgery is not the consensus view. Most scholars find the nucleus of the Testimonuim to be original to Josephus and they also see the Tesimonuim as useful external source for the historicity of jesus. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You've got a point. My goal with this talk page section was to discuss a possible inclusion of a side-by-side comparison of Josephus and Eusebius in the original Greek and two non-copyrighted scholarly English translations (Whiston and McGiffert), so those aren't Wikieditor translations. Also relevant to those may very well be the texts of Origen and Jerome, and their translations, all of which were made by scholars Roberts, Schaff et al. 1885 and aren't Wikieditor translations either. I admit I went off on a bit of a tangent by thinking out loud after that. But several important points stand, such as that at many places, Whiston and McGiffert differ widely in their English translations, while the Greek texts of Josephus and Eusebius are almost identical. We can only see that by putting them side by side. That's the core goal of this comparison. NLeeuw (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

PS: Collapsed my off-topic observations. NLeeuw (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The side by side comparison of Josephus and Eusebius does not belong in the article since the article is about Josephus. That later authors like Eusebius used Josephus in their own writings is secondary. From what you wrote, it seems you think it is important because of your hypothesis of complete forgery and Eusebius being the source for the Testimonium. But since most scholars do not believe that Eusebius invented the Testimonium, or that the Testimoium was forged at all, it does not make sense to add that. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify: I don't think 20.9.1. contains interpolations, only 18.3.3. Also, I don't think Eusebius did it, but probably someone before him (although I can't prove it, and my opinion is not that relevant). What is relevant, however, is that Eusebius is the earliest and most important textual witness to the Testimonium. Kirby emphasised that point: It is sometimes claimed that manuscripts before Eusebius do not have the passage in question. This is simply not true; there are no extant manuscripts before Eusebius. We can't talk about the Testimonium without talking about Eusebius, and why and how he decided to include it in his Historia Ecclesiastica. We can do that without presuming he made it all up. (In fact, Occam's razor opposes the idea that Eusebius invented the Testimonium all by himself for reasons I could explain if they were relevant, but I guess they're not). NLeeuw (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Some of the stuff you mentioned is already in the article, including about Eusebius being the earliest surviving external witness to it and it being almost identical to how we have the Josephus' text [1]. Since this is the case, I don't think adding Eusebius's quote would be useful as it would be redundant. It is just a secondary point and is not worth quoting in the article. Its similitude is already mentioned multiple times. Other authors before Eusebius commented on Josephus and Jesus (e.g. Origen), verifying that it existed before Eusebius. This is already mentioned in the article too. Kirby seems to entertain mythicists and believes the Testimonuim is fake, so not a good source. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point to check the background of Peter Kirby. I had assumed he was trained as a historian, as I am, because he knows how to write just like a historian and quotes historians very well. But I hadn't checked until now. Quite a lot of Gnostic material is found on, or linked from, this website [earlychristianwritings.com] from Peter Kirby. He's an indefatigable webmaster of sites on early Christianity but his credentials and affiliations aren't clear; his background is computer science and programming. – Professor Alan L. Hayes of Wycliffe College, Toronto. The issue with Kirby's publications is not so much the ideas he "entertains", but that it is an WP:SPS. Pity. His examination of the Testimonium Flavianum is a great introduction to the question, with lots of scholarly quotations, but we cannot establish Kirby himself as a scholar. NLeeuw (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

One tentatively final note I would like to add here is that Eusebius included the Testimonium Flavianum in not just Historica Ecclesiastica 1.11.8, but also Demonstratio Evangelica 3.5.106 and Theophania 5.44. In the latter two, Eusebius correctly locates the TF in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities of the Jews. This refutes the idea that the TF might have been circulating separately at the time; unless Eusebius created his own copy of all Josephus' 20 books and inserted it into Book 18 (highly unlikely), he was working from a copy which already had it in Book 18 by the time he wrote at least the Demonstratio and Theophania. It makes a complete forgery less likely in general, and requires any insertion or interpolation to have happened before Eusebius recorded it in these three early-4th-century works. It still means Jerome worked somewhat sloppily, probably translating and rearranging what Eusebius wrote rather than checking the sources himself, and with some notable changes such as et credebatur esse Christus that are left unexplained.

I'm afraid I cannot add anything relevant to this article at the moment that hasn't already been mentioned. I guess I'll go do something else. NLeeuw (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)