Whealey's "Josephus on Jesus"

[nili]

Is there a consensus here on Alice Whealey's Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times?

[toejam]

Consensus on the Testimonium Flavianum?? No chance LOL!!

[Roger Pearse]

Is there a consensus here on Alice Whealey's Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times?

Well, I've read it.

The book is not a study of the TF, but rather a study of the historiography: that is, of how the passage has been studied by scholars from late antiquity down to today. It is valuable since it documents the consensus of scholars at various points - we'll all seen people make vague but incredibly certain claims about "scholars say that...xxxxx" - and so can be consulted to verify these kinds of claims.

It's a solid piece of scholarship, as I recall.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Roger,

I remember laughing a lot at all the logical gymnastics that she was employing. I thought it definitely reflected the thinking of a Nun without very much critical thinking ability.
The fact that the Testimonium was not challenged until modern times does not reflect modern historical revisionism, as I recall her suggesting. It simply reflects the fact that there were low educational levels and opportunity in medieval times from about 500 to 1400. This, combined with the fact that the Catholic Church had great political power and could subject anybody who disagreed with it to torture and painful death, and did so to millions of people, did not allow for any real critical examination of Josephus before modern times.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Is there a consensus here on Alice Whealey's Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times?

Well, I've read it.

The book is not a study of the TF, but rather a study of the historiography: that is, of how the passage has been studied by scholars from late antiquity down to today. It is valuable since it documents the consensus of scholars at various points - we'll all seen people make vague but incredibly certain claims about "scholars say that...xxxxx" - and so can be consulted to verify these kinds of claims.

It's a solid piece of scholarship, as I recall.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[neilgodfrey]

Is there an inexpensive version of the book available anywhere?

[Hawthorne]

Hi Roger,

I remember laughing a lot at all the logical gymnastics that she was employing. I thought it definitely reflected the thinking of a Nun without very much critical thinking ability.
The fact that the Testimonium was not challenged until modern times does not reflect modern historical revisionism, as I recall her suggesting. It simply reflects the fact that there were low educational levels and opportunity in medieval times from about 500 to 1400. This, combined with the fact that the Catholic Church had great political power and could subject anybody who disagreed with it to torture and painful death, and did so to millions of people, did not allow for any real critical examination of Josephus before modern times.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Is there a consensus here on Alice Whealey's Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times?

Well, I've read it.

The book is not a study of the TF, but rather a study of the historiography: that is, of how the passage has been studied by scholars from late antiquity down to today. It is valuable since it documents the consensus of scholars at various points - we'll all seen people make vague but incredibly certain claims about "scholars say that...xxxxx" - and so can be consulted to verify these kinds of claims.

It's a solid piece of scholarship, as I recall.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Carrier's discussion of Whealey's paper, not the book, in his recently published scholarly article is worth a read. He points out that Whealey's findings actually weaken arguments for a tampered passage (rather than an entirely interpolated passage) because the witness claimed as an independent source is actually derived from Eusebius.

[Roger Pearse]

The fact that the Testimonium was not challenged until modern times does not reflect modern historical revisionism, as I recall her suggesting. ...

I don't recall this. Rather she states that, as soon as critical examination of texts began, at the renaissance, the TF was considered spurious. And it remained so until the late 20th century.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

Carrier's discussion of Whealey's paper, not the book, in his recently published scholarly article is worth a read. He points out that Whealey's findings actually weaken arguments for a tampered passage (rather than an entirely interpolated passage) because the witness claimed as an independent source is actually derived from Eusebius.

The paper is a different item. Without seeing Carrier's claim, it's impossible to comment.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[beowulf]

Hi Roger,

I remember laughing a lot at all the logical gymnastics that she was employing. I thought it definitely reflected the thinking of a Nun without very much critical thinking ability.
The fact that the Testimonium was not challenged until modern times does not reflect modern historical revisionism, as I recall her suggesting. It simply reflects the fact that there were low educational levels and opportunity in medieval times from about 500 to 1400. This, combined with the fact that the Catholic Church had great political power and could subject anybody who disagreed with it to torture and painful death, and did so to millions of people, did not allow for any real critical examination of Josephus before modern times.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic
ALICE WHEALEY

note 43 The idea that Josephus’ original passage about Jesus was substantially altered by a Christian forger dates back to the seventeenth century (Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 132). The idea that the entire Testimonium is a fabrication that was interpolated into Jewish Antiquities dates back to the late sixteenth century (p. 93)

THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM CONTROVERSY FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE PRESENT
Alice Whealey Berkeley, California

In the sixteenth century the text was for the first time pronounced a forgery by some scholars,
creating an intellectual controversy that has not been resolved even today.

In the High Middle Ages, it was not uncommon for Jewish scholars in Western Europe
to argue that the Testimonium Flavianum was a forgery. However, their charge was not based
on a critical examination of relevant sources but on their a priori assumptions that a Jewish
historian could not have written so favorably about Jesus.

[beowulf]

deleted --- duplicate