Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

[Ben C. Smith]

Since the website says you were using Lee's translation, I was surprised that the translation actually there was not Lee's, but someone else's.

Not finding it. Where does it say that?

[DCHindley]

Since the website says you were using Lee's translation, I was surprised that the translation actually there was not Lee's, but someone else's.

Not finding it. Where does it say that?

Now that I look, it is gone ... <piff!>

Hmmm .... might have been thinking of Roger's site, where he does offer the text to the Theophanies.

I just thought that they were in some sort of file I constructed by copying & pasting online posts with tables, then sorting and sectioning, which I thought you had posted somewhere, maybe in one of the many TF threads.

DCH

PS: All I can say is that I will be glad when I get to have my right shoulder "surgerized" for ANOTHER, this time fully, torn rotator cuff. Now that the thing has torn completely free from the cuff, it doesn't hurt so much as aches, and that takes its mental toll. Jan 5th is the blessed day. Then I am taking 5 weeks off on disability. Maybe I can do something then, as I should be able to type. I'm a little like fricasseed chicken, the flesh just pulls right off of the bone ...

[Ben C. Smith]

Since the website says you were using Lee's translation, I was surprised that the translation actually there was not Lee's, but someone else's.

Not finding it. Where does it say that?

Now that I look, it is gone ... <piff!>

No problem. And I promise I deleted nothing.

[DCHindley]

Since the website says you were using Lee's translation, I was surprised that the translation actually there was not Lee's, but someone else's.

Not finding it. Where does it say that?

Now that I look, it is gone ... <piff!>

No problem. And I promise I deleted nothing.

No no no no, that is not what I was implying!

I was referring to my own vanishing mental clarity.

It seems that I had read something in the Preterist.com web site (or something like that) that considered Samuel Lee extremely highly (almost a prophet of God) and then confused it with something I read on your site, which doesn't even identify sources all the time, at least not in this case (Theophania 5.44, edition is not stated, and as you say, maybe forgotten).

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

Since the website says you were using Lee's translation, I was surprised that the translation actually there was not Lee's, but someone else's.

Not finding it. Where does it say that?

Now that I look, it is gone ... <piff!>

No problem. And I promise I deleted nothing.

No no no no, that is not what I was implying!

No worries. I knew what you meant.

It seems that I had read something in the Preterist.com web site (or something like that) that considered Samuel Lee extremely highly (almost a prophet of God) and then confused it with something I read on your site, which doesn't even identify sources all the time, at least not in this case (Theophania 5.44, edition is not stated, and as you say, maybe forgotten).

I should definitely have been better about listing my sources in some spots; the website grew out of my own scattered notes (precisely as a way to organize them, originally), and that passage would have been I collected very, very early on.

[DCHindley]

FWIW,

On account of the text being really tiny, I deleted the uploaded PDF and replaced it with a better formatted one. I have also added the Excel spreadsheet itself, saved in the MS Excel 97/2003 format, which virtually all spreadsheet and even most word processing programs can read. See the original post, here:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =10#p62927

DCH

[JoeWallack]

So the question I want to put to the forum is: is there really a core text to the Testimonium that can be established by manuscript attestation, or is this always a matter of what witnesses the scholar hypothesizing a core text prefers to use?

JW:
When you say "core text" do you mean what Josephus wrote?


Joseph

Review of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts

[Ken Olson]

Joe Wallack wrote:

When you say "core text" do you mean wh ... hus wrote?

Joe,

Exactly what "core text" might mean is part of the question I'm asking. I do not believe that Josephus wrote any of the Testimonium, but as it is forbiddingly difficult to prove a negative I've made the epistemologically more modest claim that Eusebius either wrote the entire text or rewrote it so thoroughly that any Josephan original is no longer recoverable and its existence is not demonstrable.

I avoided putting "core text" in scare quotes because, first, I'm trying to cut down on my use of scare quotes in general, and, second, I wanted to leave open the question of whether there is a core text and what that might mean. My starting hypothesis is that the Eusebius wrote the received text and all later witnesses are descended from what he wrote. During the course of transmission it can get longer or shorter, material gets added or omitted, toned down or amplified and we can't really speak of a core text based on manuscript attestation that is different from the received text from Josephus's Antiquities and Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History.

Individual scholars, such as John Meier, might speak of a core text, but this is based on the scholar's own hypothetical reconstruction of the original based on internal evidence. There is, as far as I can tell, no core text discernible in the manuscript attestation. Most scholars, including Meier, are perfectly aware of the point, but you can find writers online (usually amateur Christian apologists) who talk as though "core text" is something actually discernible in the manuscripts (there are one or two actual scholars, including Craig Keener and Paul Maier, who sometimes speak this way as well). You can, of course, compare any two versions of the Testimonium and simply assert that what they have in common is core text and what they differ on are emendations, but this hardly has value as evidence because you could do it with *any* two versions. In particular, you occasionally find the claim that Agapius's version of the text proves earlier reconstructions like Paul Winter's or John Meier's to be correct. In fact, Agapius's text does not closely resemble any previous reconstruction (Meier himself is perfectly aware of this and does not claim that the Agapian text supports his reconstruction).

So the short answer is some people use the term "core text" and they probably mean the text that Josephus wrote, but I don't believe there is a demonstrable core text.

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

In particular, you occasionally find the claim that Agapius's version of the text proves earlier reconstructions like Paul Winter's or John Meier's to be correct. In fact, Agapius's text does not closely resemble any previous reconstruction (Meier himself is perfectly aware of this and does not claim that the Agapian text supports his reconstruction).

As one who has always been critical of Meier's reconstruction, on the grounds that it simply carved away what "could not" have been written by Josephus and left whatever remained intact, I can say that my attention to Agapius' text was paid because (A) it, of all the available variants, seemed to remove or alter whatever might be considered objectionable to a modern scholar and (B) it broadly lined up with what one can find in Tacitus and in Luke 24, as you may remember from previous conversations. Reason A still impresses me a little bit; but, with so many compilers digging into the Testimonium and making changes, I can pretty easily see it as a coincidence that was bound to happen somewhere, especially with some of Agapius' editorial traits (as you have pointed out before). Reason B I think you answered sufficiently several years ago, with your bringing of similar traits to my attention from the Demonstration and from Justin Martyr. My point is that Agapius can be attractive for reasons other than backing up somebody's scholarly reconstruction.

ETA: About this:

I avoided putting "core text" in scare quotes because, first, I'm trying to cut down on my use of scare quotes in general, and, second, I wanted to leave open the question of whether there is a core text and what that might mean. My starting hypothesis is that the Eusebius wrote the received text and all later witnesses are descended from what he wrote.

While I am inclined to think the Testimonium is a forgery, I am still very hesitant to ascribe it to Eusebius, almost solely because, for text after quoted text, where we are able to check, we tend to find him either quoting accurately or making his mistakes based simply on taking previous Christian authors at their word (or perhaps misunderstanding what they wrote). I know you have a possible example of him inventing a quote outright, as I mentioned here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2273&p=59273#p59273. But that text seems to be in exactly the same position as the Testimonium itself: nothing external stands in the way of it being an Eusebian invention, but there is no smoking gun for its invention, either (IIUC). On that thread I just linked you to, Peter makes the point that maybe Eusebius invented a passage only once, and yes, that is certainly possible, but I have to admit, it still impresses me that, when we find him quoting (say) Irenaeus, and we can turn to the texts, lo, there it is, time after time. Any comments you might have on this topic would be most welcome.

[MrMacSon]

On that thread I just linked you to [viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2273&p=59273#p59273], Peter makes the point that maybe Eusebius invented a passage only once, and yes, that is certainly possible, but I have to admit, it still impresses me that, when we find him quoting (say) Irenaeus, and we can turn to the texts, lo, there it is, time after time. Any comments you might have on this topic would be most welcome.

Might I ask what point you're making there, Ben? ..That Eusebius generally quotes texts accurately? ..or, That Eusebius doctored texts attributed to previous writers (such as Irenaeus) so that when Eusebius is seen to be 'quoting' one of those previous writers, he is seen to be quoting them accurately?