Growing as a Christian Apologist for so many years, this has been a topic that I have turmoiled over for some time. I have heard so many thoughts about this passage called the Testimonium Flavianum by so many. Obviously Skeptics have wanted to say this is an entire interpolation based off of the fact that many want Yeshua to be a mythical character. For more on this topic, one should read "Shattering the Christ Myth" by James Patrick Holding, a most excellent book which demonstrates that most of the so-called "scholarship" in this area of study is nonexistent. You will find it humorous that one of the major supporters of this thesis is a lady by the name of Acharya S who published a book by the same publishing company that publishes books on fictional events, such as the reality of the location of Atlantis. Anyways, long story short, Holding does a good job busting up skeptics in this book. There are also mostly Christian references, and many non-observant of Jewish ideology and understanding scholars who agree with a partial interpolation theory. This theory, as Holding rightfully gives credit to, actually was written about by Chris Price from Christian Cadres in Holding's book ironically enough, and is what I want to touch base on and shoot down.
First of all, lets take a look at the passage in question. "
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 at this day." What does this sound like? It sounds like a more hellenized understanding of what Messianics would believe back in the time period. Paul makes references that sound very similar. I believe in all probability, what the passage would most likely look like is "He was the Messiah." And the next part "And the tribe of Messianic (jews) so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Why don't Christians want to accept this passage as authentic? I can name a few places that we can see based off of the tradition we're taught in church. First of all, what are we taught in church specifically? Over the years, we have been taught that EVERYBODY rejected the Messiah. Josephus shoots down this ideology when he declares "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him." Based off of a Jewish understanding that I have now of scripture, I believe many followers of the Messiah knew what was coming based off of their readings in synagogue, and based off of what John the Baptist was questioning regarding the Messiah's role. Many realized without Yeshua having to tell them that he was the Messiah, the descendant of David. It doesn't make sense to follow the "just-so" story that Christians have made up over the years about everybody rejecting the Messiah. If he had been rejected by everyone, then there would not have been a crowd of Jewish people following him and mourning!
Thats a minor reason as to why. Most Christians have a problem with the language, that "an Orthodox Jew wouldn't have said such things." Of course, this is true. But a Messianic Jew would say such things. I believe this is just another way of trying to live in denial of the passage. I was even told by a hellenized influence, a doctorate in Philosophy, holding also a Masters in Religious studies when I questioned him about the passage that to paraphrase, "Thats what Josephus said right? I don't see a need to question this any further."
One could ask, "is this what Josephus said?" But to this question, comes something that muddies the waters a bit. Basically, the primary reason that most scholars and Christians believe in a partial interpolation of this passage is because they are trying to apply Hellenized concepts to a Jewish passage. Let me demonstrate what I mean. Here are the two things that are mentioned regarding the passage. First of all, The Antiquities of the Jews, though not passage 18.3, is not recognized by Origen, but what Origen does take from the passage is the passage about Jesus being a historical person who was the brother of John the Baptist. Of course Origen would take an interest in this passage. It would have had historical value to him. We have already seen Ignatius's viewpoints on what Graeco-Romanized viewpoints thought about Jews and Christians. A passage to his letters to the Magnesians states "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity." Basically, according to Ignatius, you're either a Jew or a Christian, which stems from anti-semitism as we have also formulated in a previous article. Basically, since this argument is senseless, and not reflective of the majority of the church within the 1st 300 years of its existence, and I believe that there was also tampering of the text by the Romans, which seems to be indicated by the fact that he is called "bishop of Antioch." Problem is, the word bishop didn't exist for another 300-400 years after the fact that this was allegedly written (i.e. Ignatius was later than we put him at, or his writings were tampered with, one or the other). Wikipedia states on this subject "By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time." Furthermore "A detailed but spurious account of Ignatius' arrest and his travails and martyrdom is the material of the Martyrium Ignatii which is presented as being an eyewitness account for the church of Antioch, and as if written by Ignatius' companions, Philo of Cilicia, deacon at Tarsus, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian. Though James Ussher regarded it as genuine, if there is any genuine nucleus of the Martyrium, it has been so greatly expanded with interpolations that no part of it is without questions. Its most reliable manuscript is the 10th century Codex Colbertinus (Paris), in which the Martyrium closes the collection. The Martyrium presents the confrontation of the bishop Ignatius with Trajan at Antioch, a familiar trope of Acta of the martyrs, and many details of the long, partly overland voyage to Rome. Synaxarium of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria says that he was thrown to the wild beasts that devoured him and rendered him into pieces [3].
After Ignatius' martyrdom in the Flavian Amphitheatre, his remains were honorably carried back to Antioch by his companions, and were first interred outside the city gates, then removed by the Emperor Theodosius II to the Tychaeum, or Temple of Tyche which was converted into a church dedicated to Ignatius. In 637 the relics were translated to the Church of St Clement in Rome." This is enough information to demonstrate a tampering of the epistles of Ignatius.
So Ignatius was either reflective of a later belief of the Romans, or was just completely hellenized to begin with. This we can be uncertain of exactly, but it seems that most of what we know about Ignatius was in fact forged. But at least we get the idea of what the early hellenized church believed.
Back to Origen. He was the one who stated in his writings that Josephus did not accept Yeshua as his Messiah. To keep this fair, we need to look at what Origen believed about Jews to begin with to see what he would have a problem with in regards to this passage. Origen believed, ""On account of their unbelief and other insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will not only suffer more than others in the judgment which is believed to impend over the world, but have even already endured such sufferings. For what nation is in exile from their own metropolis, and from the place sacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And the calamities they have suffered because they were a most wicked nation, which although guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished severely for none as for those that were committed against our Jesus." So basically, what Origen declares here is that Jews were responsible for killing Yeshua. He also calls Yeshua "our Jesus" basically beginning a lot of the concepts of a hellenized viewpoint of the Messiah. Problematic if we haven't seen it already, Origen obviously did not like the Jews. His statements also run against the Bible, which basically declares that some of the leaders of the synagogues and the Sanhedrin, coupled with Pilate's apathy allowed Yeshua to receive his punishment. He further writes " We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election." This runs directly opposite to the writings of Paul's writings in Romans 11:29. Not to mention, it was the Gentiles who chose to go through with the execution. Its not a surprise then, that he would be the very same person to declare that Josephus, a Jew, did not accept the Messiah. This would have presented a problem within the strategy of what hellenists were attempting to do; move the focus away from Israel, and onto themselves. Primarily also because he believed in other parts of his letters that Jews were the ones responsible for killing Yeshua. He was also a chief proponent of Replacement theology, and was declared heretical by the early church twice, and even once by the Roman Catholic church. He also never quoted the passage from Antiquities, even though its accepted by all Josephan scholars to be at least partially authentic. That brings Origen's character into question. Yet this seems to be the source that scholars want to utilize when questioning the full authenticity of the passage. I disagree. Lets continue.
The other source, which I believe makes it even more convincing that this is fully authentic, is where the source is alleged to have come from (though I believe its merely a Greek translation of the text, perhaps preserved through Eusebius). Eusebius is the other person whom skeptics look at when looking at the interpolation hypothesis. Whats wrong with utilizing him? Eusebius did not like Jews anymore than Origen did. In his "Demonstration of the Gospels" Eusebius writes " "but by races of other stock, while they [the Jews] would be dispersed among the Gentiles throughout the whole world with never a hope of any cessation of evil or breathing space from trouble. Furthermore, he claimed that Jews in every community crucified a Christian at their Purim festival as a rejection of Jesus. He also made a distinction between Hebrews [who he saw as "good men of the Old Testament"] and Jews [who he characterized as "evil."]" Again, another person who did not like Jews. Yet most scholars identify the Josephus writings "The Antiquities of the Jews" as coming from Eusebius. What really would have been written by Josephus though from a source so antagonistic of the Jewish belief system? He himself identified Jews as evil. Josephus was a Jew. If this text had been interpolated in any way, shape or form, in all likelihood, it would have been distorted in the direction that Josephus would declare that the Jews were responsible for killing Yeshua, or that Jews were to be punished for their actions against Yeshua for all eternity (closer to that). Something that would have been antagonistic towards the Jews, to make the Jews want to leave their Jewish ways. After all, Josephus was a Pharisee of all people. What do you think that would have looked like to Jewish people? It would have been seen, obviously in like fashion as was being presented by Origen and Eusebius, as an evangelistic tool to present Josephus in a negative light.
My beliefs though, after studying all of the information, and background of the sources if in fact Josephus's writings were preserved directly from hellenized Christian sources, as scholars indicate, its amazing that we don't have negative interpolations of Jews within the accounts. We see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THIS SORT. What then shall we think of Josephus?
Basically, I believe Josephus was a Messianic Jew. Scholars are making this particular passage way too difficult. It is interesting that there is so much debate over this passage. I personally think it is completely genuine, and the reason that people believe it is a partial interpolation is because it was preserved by Christian resources who wanted to make themselves look good, which we have seen runs against their thesis. There is speculation that Eusebius preserved the text. But both Eusebius and Origen hated Jews. So if it had been interpolated, they would have done exactly what Origen actually did. Origen declared Josephus did not believe in the Messiah. This guy, declared twice in the original church to be a heretic, once for his replacement theology (the church has replaced Israel), is what scholars want to utilize when interpreting Josephus. The anti-semitic flavor of Greek writings on Jews should be taken with a grain of salt, instead of relied upon as reliable evidence. Nobody takes the writings of the Nazi regime seriously, for similar reasons that I don't take the writings of the early church fathers seriously. That and the commentary relies upon cherry picking of the Tanakh and the Brit Hadashah. The interpolation would have gone in the opposite direction that Christians want it to go in. Josephus's writings would have been preserved in the flavor of him being a "Christ-killer" in all probability. The wording of this particular passage is very Jewish in nature and is therefore a reflection that the early church was composed primarily of Messianic believers, who followed the Torah and accepted Yeshua.
No comments:
Post a Comment