Alice Whealey And The Testimonium Flavianum

[Tod Stites]

*Irony of ironies, we have arrived at a situation where those inimical
to Christianity have taken to refuting and rejecting the reliability of
ancient documents which disparage and demonize the Christian faith,
while those more favorably disposed toward Christianity find themselves
in the role of defenders of the authenticity of writings which express
contempt for Jesus and those who believe in him.
*But as the "Islamic State"("Isis") today seeks to eradicate all traces of
pre-Islamic culture from areas under it's control, so the ancient and
medieval Church, and it's secular patrons, once exercised and perpetuated
a centuries-long campaign to erase all traces of anti-Christian literature.
*Under the laws of Constantine, Theodosius and Valentinian, anyone
found in possession of written works which referred to Jesus as a
"magician", or an "agitator", or a "demagogue", could find themselves
exposed to severe, and possibly capitol, punishment (1), while under
Justinian the possession of such literature called for the death penalty
(2).
*The Nag Hammadi Codices, hastily buried perhaps to escape the
Church's campaign, were not the only apparent targets of official
suppression, and only occasionally do we get glimpses of what either the
"heretical" or anti-Christian literature had to say.
*The disappearance of the work of Antonius Julianus, Roman governor
of Judea and eyewitness to the Judean War of 66, may be attributed
to later Church efforts to destroy anti-Christian writings (3), since the
report of the general Titus' hope that by destroying the Jerusalem Temple
(70 C.E.) he would extinguish both the Jewish and Christian
religions may have been wrenched from the pages of Tacitus and may
have originated with Julianus, just as the silence of the first century
chronicler Justus of Tiberias regarding Jesus may also be due to the
later Christian censorship program (4).
*Though the anti-Christian writing of Celsus was produced before the
Church acquired widespread power, it's content is still largely preserved only
because of it's written refutation by the Christian father Origen, while it is
only by chance that we know of such things as the claim of Lucian of Samosata
(second century) that Jesus had been a "fomenter of rebellion"(5). And it is the
Christian Lactantius who tells us of the claim of the Roman governor Sossianus
Hierocles (late third century) that Jesus had headed a band of 900 "latrocini",
a word that can mean either "robbers" or "rebels"(6).
*But the anti-Christian sentiments of Eunapius in the later fourth
century and preserved by the Patriarch Photius in the ninth, had their most
violent anti-Christian words removed according to the testimony
of Photius himself, while it is only by chance that the third century
report of Cassius Dio on the great fire at Rome and the consequent
persecution of Christians (64 C.E.) has been preserved in a few fragmentary
Byzantine extracts (7).
*Yes the pagans had plenty of negative things to say about Jesus and
the Christians. But of all the pejorative accusations hurled by opponents,
there is no claim among them that Jesus never existed (8).
Tacitus, "the experienced magistrate, to whom the archives of the
State were easily accessible, does not even hint that that 'Christos'
never existed", while the report of Pliny the Younger that the Christians
(c.111 C.E.) pray to Christ "as if to a god", certainly indicates
that Pliny understood Jesus to have been a man (9).
*Now when it comes to the controversial "Testimonium Flavianum",
the "TF", found in all the manuscripts of the "Judean Antiquities" of
the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, it is often noted
that many Christian writers of ancient times who knew the works of
Josephus, never cite the TF, with it's apparent declaration that Jesus
"was the Christ", as it appears in our existing manuscripts. It is also
important to note however that the division of the "Antiquities" into
two halves apparently dates to ancient times, and that this division
may be one factor in the general ignorance of the latter half of the
"Antiquities"(where the TF is found) which prevailed before the time
of Origen (10).
*Indeed it seems the third century saw the polarization of the
"Antiquities" into two textual traditions, attributed to different choices
of alternate readings as transmitted by the Church fathers (11), so that
we may be able to understand why so many early Church fathers made
no use of the TF, and why it seems that the "Textus Receptus"(TR), the
three extant manuscripts of "Judean Antiquities" which contain the TF,
may not always be relied on to give us the original wording of Josephus.
*In fact, even as late as the seventeenth century, Thomas Gale of
Cambridge had large fragments of Josephus which are not in the TR
(12), and indeed there are many other examples of such passages.
The Christian fathers Origen, Eusebius and Jerome for example all
declare that Josephus blamed the destruction of Jerusalem (70 C.E.)
on the Jewish Sanhedrin's judicial murder of James, the brother of
Jesus, but this statement is nowhere to be found in the TR of Josephus'
works (13).
*In addition, Jerome's manuscript of Josephus told him that Caiaphas
paid an annual bribe to Herod Antipas in order to retain for himself the
high priesthood (18-36 C.E.). But this statement is not found in our TR
of the Josephan corpus (14).Origen also claims that in the "Judean War"
Josephus says that "the hills did not preserve those fleeing", but this
too is not found in our standard text of "Judean War", the TR of Josephus (15).
*Now if our TR cannot be relied on to give us a full and accurate
record of what Josephus originally wrote, then we cannot assume that
every version of the TF circulating in ancient times declared of Jesus:
"He was the Christ". And in fact Alice Whealey thinks that "most
theologians' indifference to the Testimonium probably stemmed from
the fact that it's portrait of Jesus was inadequate or irrelevant to the
dogmatic aims of late antique and medieval orthodox Christology"(16).
*Whealey also points out that when Eusebius attempts to refute pagan
claims that Jesus had performed no miracles, Eusebius refers to the
TF of Josephus, but invokes only the passage that says Jesus "drew
after him many of the Jews and many of the Greeks", but not the
alleged declaration that Jesus "was the Christ" (as found in our TR),
suggesting that Eusebius' copy of the TF contained no such declaration
(17).
*But if so, it was not only Eusebius' text which lacked this declaration.
For the pseudo-Hegesippus, an anonymous Latin adaptation of Josephus'
works dated c.370, paraphrases and exaggerates the positive
connotations of evey aspect of the TF except the statement "he was
the Christ"(18), suggesting that this writer too knew a version of the
TF which contained no such declaration.
*The sixth century pseudo-Anastasios Sinaites, a text which drew on
neither the "Antiquities" directly, nor on any Eusebius quotation of the
TF, but on a "preexisting religious apology set in the Sassanid (Persian)
court", also renders a version of the TF which has no declaration that
Jesus "was the Christ"(19).
*Now if all these readings of the TF lacked the statement that Jesus
"was the Christ", then we can more fully understand the reasoning
behind the supposition of Whealey that when the version of the TF known
to Michael the Syrian (12th century), and to St. Jerome (392 C.E.), both say
that Jesus "was believed to be the Christ", it is because the ultimate source
for both these authors was a Greek text that said the same thing (20).
*And so leading specialists in the field like Alice Whealey can feel
"almost certain" that the original TF read something like: " He was
believed to be the Christ"(21).And in fact Whealey points out that
"Eusebius himself never draws attention to the Testimonium's statement
about Jesus' Messianic status or uses it in any way in his works"(21).
*Thus the "en"("was") of the standard text (TR) of the Testimonium
(TF) probably reflects an alteration of an original Greek verb in past
tense like "enomizeto", for a past tense form of "believe" or "suppose",
independently attested by Jerome, Michael the Syrian, and the pseudo-
Hegesippus (22).
*The change from "thought to be" to "was" must have been made in
some texts of Eusebius' works by the beginning of the fifth century,
though not earlier than Jerome's "Vir Illustribus"(392 C.E.). For both
the Syriac of Eusebius' "Theophania", whose manuscript dates 411, as
well as Rufinus' Latin translation of Eusebius' "Historia Ecclasiastica",
c.403 C.E., independently read "He was the Christ"(23).
*That Josephus could speak of a Christian leader in a neutral or
sympathetic manner has been suggested as already demonstrated by
the James passage in the "Antiquities"(24).But in a Syriac version of
the TF known to Michael the Syrian (12th century), the Syriac word
"mistavra" has an unusually skeptical connotation for use by a Christian
bishop making reference to Jesus' Messianic status (25).But the Syriac
New Testament uses the word in translating the Greek "enomizeto" at
Luke 3:23, where Joseph, "as was thought"("enomizeto"), was the
father of Jesus, while Syriac "mistavra" is also used to translate the
Greek "dokei"(Heb 12:11), "to seem"(Strong "Greek Dictionary Of The
New Testament" p.71), so that the original sense of the TF may have
recorded that Jesus "seemed (to some) to be the Christ"(25).
*Such a skeptical sense in words like "dokei", or "enomizeto" could very
well be the reason Origen had complained that Josephus "did not
believe" Jesus was the Christ (26).And Eusebius would be unlikely to
have forged a passage using "nomizo"("enomizeto") in reference to the
Messianic status of Jesus, for Eusebius uses the aorist of "nomizo" in
reference to those who had supposed Simon Magus to be the Christ (27).
*The skeptical, even cynical, sense of the TF may however not be limited
to the report "he was believed/supposed to be the Christ".
For in his use of the aorist "ephane"("to appear"), Josephus speaks of
reputedly divine appearances where he questions the validity of the
appearance (28). And indeed we would expect Josephus, or any non-
Christian Jew, to employ skeptical language when alluding to the
resurrection of Jesus.
*The Greek "phylon" found in the TF is usually translated "tribe", but
it's use in early Christian literature is rare, especially as a self-reference
in ante-Nicene Christian writings. However, in classical Greek literature,
"phylon" is sometimes used as a collective for animals, i.e. "flock" or "swarm".
Thus Josephus uses "phylon" for a swarm of locusts ("Judean Antiquities" 2.14.4.306),
suggesting perhaps his disdain for the Christian sect, while Eusebius' use of "phylon"
is aimed at groups he dislikes, such as demons and heretics, except when he is
quoting or paraphrasing a written source (29). Thus it is unlikely
Eusebius forged the TF reference to the "phylon" of the Christians.
*Now when it comes to the integrity of the TF, it has been argued as
being of such a nature as to make it unlikely to have been subject to
major deletions or insertions: " The sentences are well-formed, the
use of particles..is appropriate, the Greek constructions are correct
and complete..the passage is linguistically and conceptually integrated,
and the assumption of an originally longer text that has been substantially shortened
or of a shorter text that has been lengthened does not appear to be warranted on
purely internal linguistic grounds (30).
*Such assessments, from scholars who think that the entire TF is most
likely a later Christian interpolation, may in fact hold common ground
with those who see such integrity as a sign that the only alteration to
the original passage was the changing of: "He was thought to be the
Christ" to "He was the Christ"(31).
*But it is also observed that "the uses of the Greek verb forms such as
aorists and participles are distinct in the Jesus passage from those in
the other Pilate episodes, and that these differences amount to a
difference in genre (30). But "since Josephus in the Testimonium is
dealing with peculiar material, drawn perhaps from a special source,
we need not be surprised if his usage differs slightly at a few points"
(32).
*In fact the special source Josephus may have used may have included
an early Christian confession to which he happened to have access and
recorded some of it's passages, thus conveying material Jesus' followers
claimed in his behalf (33).This was the thinking of scholars like Andre
Pelletier as early as the mid-1960s, as well as of Howard Clark Kee
(1970):(33).
*"The fulfillment of the prophets' predictions (in the TF) sounds as if
Josephus is quoting believers, or it may be partly interpolated"(34),
and when cast..as a report, not an assertion","key questions fall away",
since Josephus may simply have done "little but rewrite a concise
narrative that had..crossed his desk"(35).
*And so some scholars insist that "the burden of proof rests on those
who declare (the TF) a forgery"(36).And there seems to be good reason
for such insistence, at least when it comes to advancing the notion that
the entire passage was forged by Eusebius. For it has been rightly pointed out
that Eusebius says that the ministry of Jesus was directed to Israel, and that
only after his resurrection was there a mission to the gentiles (37).Eusebius
quotes passages where Jesus declares that he has been sent only to the "lost
sheep" of Israel,that his missionaries should direct their preaching only at those
lost sheep, and go nowhere among non-Jews (37). And so while it might still be
possible, we must reasonably ask how likely it really is that Eusebius forged a
passage describing how Jesus had drawn "after him..many of the Greeks", as
the TF states.
*That "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" is supported by phrases
like "edone..dechomenon"("receive with pleasure"), which occasionally
has negative overtones in Josephus, but which in Eusebius has the
negative meaning of "lust", or other reprehensible pleasure (38), so that he would
very probably not have used such a phrase in describing how people responded to
the teachings of Jesus, as the TF does.
*Also found in the TF is the term "leading men", a very common phrase
in Josephus, but used by Eusebius only once, but to refer to chronologically "earliest
men" rather than "principal men". In addition,Eusebius almost never uses "agapesantes"
in reference to the love felt for Jesus by his followers, as the TF does, unless prompted
by a specific biblical text (39).
*And when it comes to the supposed Eusebian "fingerprint" found in the
phrase "eis eti te nun"("still to this day"), it seems that the two oldest
manuscripts of "Antiquities" read "eis te nun" rather than "eis eti te nun", and that at
least four independent witnesses indicate that the original TF lacked "eti". And there is
evidence that many of the extant manuscripts of "Antiquities" that do read "eis eti te nun"
rather than "eis te nun" have been contaminated by the reading of the TF taken from
Eusebius' "Historia Ecclesiastica".At this stage it appears that the TF versions that include
"eti" are more typical of versions transmitted through Eusebius' works, while those lacking
"eti" are more often found in those relatively few early commentators known to have used
the "Antiquities" directly (40).
*In closing, it seems that "the discovery that a literal Syriac translation
of the text" of the TF containing a phrase parallel to Jerome's "he was
believed to be the Christ" reveals that there must have once been a
Greek Testimonium with such a reading, and this has played a role in
shifting the view that the text is at least partly authentic toward what
seems to be a current (2016) scholarly consensus, with those scholars
maintaining the thesis of complete fabrication becoming a minority,
if still a significant one. After four hundred years the controversy over
the Testimonium Flavianum is still alive"(41).

Notes:
1.Eisler "The Messiah Jesus And John The Baptist" p.12.
2.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.697.
3.Antonius Julianus had written a now lost history relevant to the Jews
according to Minucius Felix in the late second century ("Octavius" 33.4).
4.The report is preserved and attributed to Tacitus by Sulpicius
Severus (fifth century), and purports to derive from Antonius Julianus;
cf.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.58.Mason "Josephus And
The New Testament" p.82.Rajak ("Josephus: The Historian And His
Society" p.207-10,however supports the veracity of Josephus' claim
that Titus wanted to save the Temple.
5.Lucian "De Peregrini Morte" 12.Eisler "The Messiah Jesus And John
The Baptist" p.9-10.
6.Lactantius "Divine Institutes" 5.3,4.Eisler "The Messiah Jesus And
John The Baptist" p.10.
7.Eisler "The Messiah Jesus And John The Baptist" p.12.
8.Whealey in "A Companion To Josephus" eds.Chapman and Rodgers
p.350:"No extant literature indicates that the ancient critics..ever
charged that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; the claim that Jesus
never existed is not known to have been made before the Enlightenment".
Despite Feldman in "Christological Perspectives" eds.
Berkey and Edwards p.181-2,the charge "you invent a Christ",
attributed to the Jew "Trypho" in Justin's "Dialogue With Trypho"(8),
does not require being interpreted as a Jewish claim that Jesus of
Nazareth never existed.Setzer "Jewish Responses To Early Christians"
p.137-8,discusses the three main arguments between Jews and
Christians as reflected in Justin's "Dialogue With Trypho":his birth, his
death and his resurrection, nothing about his never having existed.
9.Eisler "The Messiah Jesus And John The Baptist" p.9.
10.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" eds. Bottrich,
Herzer and Reiprich p.75n6.
11.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" pp.23,837.
12.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.685.
13.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.22.
14.Eisler "Messiah Jesus And John The Baptist" p.18-9.
15.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.75n9.
16.Whealey in "Companion To Josephus" p.346.
17.Whealey in "Companion To Josephus" p.345-6.
18.Whealey in New Testament Studies v.54,p.581.
Whealey in "Companion To Josephus" p.347.
19.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.90n50.
Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.694.
20.Whealey in "Companion To Josephus" pp.347,354.
21.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.89.
22.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.89n41.
Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.702.
23.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.115-6.
24.Setzer "Jewish Responses To Early Christians" p.108-9.
25.Whealey in "Companion To Josephus" p.351-2.
Whealey in New Testament Studies vol.54,p.581.
Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.89n41.
26.Origen "Contra Celsus" 1.47.
Origen "Commentary On Matthew" 10.17.
Whealey in New Testament Studies v.54,p.581.
Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.90.
27.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.90n45.
28."Contra Apion" 1.289.
Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.96.
29.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.97/n62.
30.Hopper: http://www.academia.edu/9494231
31.Whealey in New Testament Studies v.54,p.588.
32.Meier "A Marginal Jew" v.1,p.83n42.
33.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.686-8.
34.Setzer "Jewish Responses To Early Christians" p.107.
35.Goldberg in "Journal For The Study Of The Pseudepigrapha"
v.13,p.15-6.
36.Setzer "Jewish Responses To Early Christians" p.106.
37.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.86-7.
38.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.84-5.
39.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" p.92,94.
40.Whealey in "Josephus und das Neue Testament" pp.101-5.
41.Whealey in "Companion To Josephus" p.354.

[MrMacSon]

.
Richard Carrier recently posted a blog-commentary titled The End of the Arabic Testimonium where he comments about Whealey still being fanatically dedicated to the Testimonium’s authenticity [edited slightly] -

Now, Whealey may have destroyed the favorite prop experts once grasped to try and vindicate Josephus having mentioned Jesus. But she herself is fanatically dedicated to the Testimonium’s authenticity. So she tacked onto her findings regarding the Arabic, which were based on well-evidenced and sound argument, a new argument based in no evidence nor sound reasoning.

Whealey’s new defense of the Testimonium is an argument from improbability. But it’s not logically valid.

• < . . snip . . >

Summary

In 2008 Alice Whealey refuted the thesis that the Arabic fragment of the Testimonium supports its authenticity... Because, unlike what experts thought, the Arabic fragment does not come from Josephus at all. It comes from Eusebius, through the intermediary of a well-known Syriac translation of Eusebius.

Meanwhile, Whealey’s alternative proposal, that a massive conspiracy of altering five separate books, by two different authors in two different languages, exactly the same way, is so astronomically improbable it has no plausible chance of even being possible.

It’s vastly more likely the reason Jerome’s Latin and Michael’s (or Theophilus’s) copy of the Syriac translation of the Church History of Eusebius both say “he was believed to be the Christ” is that two smart scholars, out of the hundreds dealing with this text over the course of nearly a thousand years, both independently had the same notion that 'surely Josephus meant that', and so they “interpreted” the text that way when they translated it (just as modern Bible translations in English “interpret” all kinds of things in ways not exactly matching the literal text).

It’s even vastly more likely (if not as much) ... Jerome and Michael (or Theophilus) were referencing a corrupted Greek text of the Church History, caused by a single scribal emendation or mistake in a single manuscript of Eusebius in the mid-4th century.

It’s even vastly more likely (if not nearly as much) ... that Jerome and the 5th century Syriac translator (whose edition was used by Theophilus, and thus Michael) were translating from a corrupted Greek text of the Church History, caused by a single scribal emendation or mistake in a single manuscript of Eusebius in the mid-4th century (and someone then “corrected” later copies of that Syriac translation to match the more widely extant Greek that read “he was”).

All three hypotheses are vastly more likely than Whealey’s. And all of them establish that Eusebius did not write “he was believed to be the Christ,” nor ever read such words in any manuscript of Josephus known to him. Whealey would notice this if she had learned the logic of probability, and understood that “x is improbable, therefore x is false” is invalid—the same fallacy as asserting “Joe winning the lottery is improbable, therefore Joe didn’t win the lottery.” What matters is not whether the explanation is improbable, but what it’s probability is relative to all possible alternative explanations of the evidence.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12085

[MrMacSon]

.
Carrier also wrote another blog-post titled Jospehus on Jesus? ..., based upon a presentation he gave recently (at a Society of Biblical Literature regional meeting in Notre Dame), and in which he addresses and summarizes the key publications to date: -

The Josephus Case

... so much new research has been published on the subject in the last ten years, that opinions published earlier were uninformed (the latest important findings were published in 2013 and 2014, but crucial new results have come out from 2008 on; and one from way back in 1995 that has been ignored until now).

He links to a 3 page document here - http://www.richardcarrier.info/testimonium.pdf?x23333

I have taken page 2 of that document and re-ordered the references chronologically: -

Carrier's "New Essential Bibliography" re-ordered chronologically

G.J. Goldberg. 1995. “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13: 59–77.

Ken Olson. 1999. “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61:305–22.

Alice Whealey. 2008. “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic.” New TestamentStudies 54.4: 573–90.

Louis Feldman. 2012. “On the Authenticity of the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ Attributed to Josephus.”

• in New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations, eds. E Carlebach & J Schacter (Brill), pp. 13–30.

Richard Carrier. 2012. “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4: 489–514

• [Reproduced in 'Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier' 1995-2013 (Philosophy Press, 2014), pp. 337–68.]

Ken Olson. 2013. “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum.” in Eusebius of Caesarea:Tradition and Innovations, eds. A Johnson & J Schott (Harvard University Press), pp. 97–114.

• link in post by Ken Olson here http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... 784#p64784

Ken Olson. 2013. “The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus.” The Jesus Blog (August 13):

• http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot ... s-and.html

Paul Hopper. 2014. “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63.”

• in Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers, eds. M Fludernik & D Jacob (de Gruyter), pp. 147–169.

Richard Carrier. 2014. “Josephus and the Testimonia Flaviana.” in On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield-Phoenix), pp. 332–342.


Alice Whealey. 2016. “The Testimonium Flavianum.” A Companion to Josephus in His World, eds. HHChapman Z Rodgers (John Wiley & Sons), pp. 345–55.

• [Which fails to take into account any of the [above] (except Whealey 2008 and Olson 1999), which is reflective of the problem that needs correcting.]

[neilgodfrey]

I don't think Tod engages with discussion on his posts. I think he is using the forum as another venue to publish extracts from his books.

[outhouse]

Tod just trolls his rhetoric

[Stuart]

Mr. Sites is violating the terms of the forum. He is not here for discussion but monetary promotion. I think this is a pretty clear cut case for banning, or at least a time out.

Where are the mods?

[Peter Kirby]

Consider this an advisory to Tod that it's good form to be prepared for a discussion.

[Tod Stites]

The Arabic version of the TF is not the lynchpin of Whealey's thesis.
It is the Syriac version, which purports to trace back to a Greek
version known also to Jerome.

[MrMacSon]

The Arabic version of the TF is not the lynchpin of Whealey's thesis.
It is the Syriac version, which purports to trace back to a Greek version known also to Jerome.

Carrier has addressed the Syriac version: -

Summary

In 2008 Alice Whealey refuted the thesis that the Arabic fragment of the Testimonium supports its authenticity. It doesn’t. Because unlike what experts thought, the Arabic fragment does not come from Josephus at all. It comes from Eusebius, through the intermediary of a well-known Syriac translation of Eusebius.

Meanwhile, Whealey’s alternative proposal, that a massive conspiracy of altering five separate books, by two different authors in two different languages, exactly the same way, is so astronomically improbable it has no plausible chance of even being possible.

It’s vastly more likely the reason Jerome’s Latin and Michael’s (or Theophilus’s) copy of the Syriac translation of the Church History of Eusebius both say “he was believed to be the Christ” is that two smart scholars out of the hundreds dealing with this text over the course of nearly a thousand years both independently had the same notion that surely Josephus meant that, and so they “interpreted” the text that way when they translated it (just as modern Bible translations in English “interpret” all kinds of things in ways not exactly matching the literal text).

It’s even vastly more likely (if not as much) that the reason is that Jerome and Michael (or Theophilus) were referencing a corrupted Greek text of the Church History, caused by a single scribal emendation or mistake in a single manuscript of Eusebius in the mid-4th century.

It’s even vastly more likely (if not nearly as much) that the reason is that Jerome, and the 5th century Syriac translator whose edition was used by Theophilus (and thus Michael), were translating from a corrupted Greek text of the Church History, caused by a single scribal emendation or mistake in a single manuscript of Eusebius in the mid-4th century (and someone then “corrected” later copies of that Syriac translation to match the more widely extant Greek that read “he was”).

All three hypotheses are vastly more likely than Whealey’s. And all of them establish that Eusebius did not write “he was believed to be the Christ,” nor ever read such words in any manuscript of Josephus known to him. Whealey would notice this if she had learned the logic of probability, and understood that “x is improbable, therefore x is false” is invalid —the same fallacy as asserting “Joe winning the lottery is improbable, therefore Joe didn’t win the lottery.” What matters is not whether the explanation is improbable. But what it’s probability is relative to all possible alternative explanations of the evidence.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12085

Carrier on the TF 1.PNG (49.5 KiB) Viewed 8185 times

Carrier on the TF 2.PNG (74.57 KiB) Viewed 8185 times

[neilgodfrey]

The Arabic version of the TF is not the lynchpin of Whealey's thesis.
It is the Syriac version, which purports to trace back to a Greek
version known also to Jerome.

Asserting an abstract of your OP without engaging the arguments responding to the OP is not discussion.