Carrier presented on Josephus at SBL MidWest Feb 2017

[MrMacSon]

.
Richard Carrier will be delivering a paper at the Society of Biblical Literature Midwest Region meeting at Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame (near South Bend, Indiana) this February 11 (Saturday), between 3 and 4pm (probably in the latter half of that hour), in the Apocrypha and Cognate Literature section.


His paper will be:

“Jesus among the Historians: How the Manuscripts of Josephus Changed Over Time and What They Originally Said: A Survey of Recent Scholarship”

Abstract: "Manuscripts of the Antiquities of Josephus at the Christian library of Caesarea were changed over time, between 220 and 320 A.D., saying different things about Jesus under their first custodian, Origen, than under their last custodian, Eusebius. Recent publications by Richard Carrier, Louis Feldman, G.J. Goldberg, Paul Hopper, Ken Olson, and Alice Whealey shed new light on what happened and what we should conclude about what Josephus originally wrote, illustrating another difference time has made: past opinions were based on errors or misinformation, which these authors have corrected, making awareness of their work now essential to the subject.

"In the allotted twenty minutes I will cite and summarize the salient findings of three journal articles, and five chapters from academic monographs, published by six scholars over the last five to ten years, that together revise common assumptions made or relied upon in scholarship and scholarly opinion elsewhere regarding the two passages in Josephus that currently reference Christ (the Testimonium Flavianum, in book 18 of the Antiquities, and the James reference, in book 20). This content is essential to any scholar who wishes to be brought up to date on the latest findings on this topic. And the subject material covers two differences made by time: the difference made to the text of Josephus in the course of a single century; and the difference made to modern expert conclusions about that text in the course of the last decade."

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11958

---

Carrier also says he’ll "be accessible to chat, and will have books to sell and sign for any who are interested (as well as handouts for my talk that will include the URL for the paper I presented), at the Bistro 933 bar in the Hilton Garden Inn (South Bend, IN), from 5 to 7pm that same Saturday (February 11)."

[Ken Olson]

Carrier has posted on the topic on his blog (with a link to a handout):

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071

[Bernard Muller]

About the second & short TF, I covered that also against Carrier arguments for interpolation:
http://historical-jesus.info/104.html
http://historical-jesus.info/67.html
http://historical-jesus.info/33.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Carrier has posted on the topic on his blog (with a link to a handout):

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071

He also posted a blog-commentary titled The End of the Arabic Testimonium -

Often when expert opinions are cited in favor of some form of the Testimonium having been written by Josephus (even if Christians later fixed it up), they are opinions based on the Arabic fragment and the ensuing argument of Shlomo Pines*. But that theory was decisively refuted by Alice Whealey in 2008 (see my following article for bibliography). Therefore, all opinions that were based on the Pines thesis, are now null and void. They are not only uninformed, they were misinformed.

Here’s what happened. In an Arabic Chronicle by Agapius, written in the 10th century, the Testimonium gets quoted, yet in such a way that looks much less credulous, maybe more like what a Jew might have written. Pines argued that this must be an Arabic translation of an earlier manuscript tradition of the Antiquities than the one known to Eusebius (the first author ever to notice the passage existed in Josephus), and thus must reflect what Josephus really wrote, as it bypassed the meddling hand of Eusebius or whoever preceded him at the Library of Caesarea (where the manuscript of Josephus was produced that Eusebius used).

However, Alice Whealey proved, quite conclusively, that in fact Agapius was translating the Syriac edition not of Josephus, but of Eusebius. And it therefore certainly did not come from any earlier manuscript tradition untouched by Eusebius, but the very same one, in fact from Eusebius himself! Moreover, Agapius was translating this passage from the Syriac Chronicle of Theophilus, written in the 8th century, the exact same text copied by Michael the Syrian in the 12th century in his own Syriac Chronicle. And though we don’t have Theophilus, we can tell from Michael that Theophilus’s text was essentially identical to the known Greek text of Eusebius’s quotation of the Testimonium in his copy of Josephus (but for one key difference I’ll get to in a moment). Agapius was therefore taking liberties, and altering the text in some way that suited him. His translation was thus not reliable, but more like a crude and speculative interpretation. His Arabic can no longer be used to argue for anything authentic appearing in the Antiquities.

Any opinion not aware of this finding, is uninformed and unciteable. It has no value. Unfortunately, that means most of the opinions anyone ever cites.

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

* In 1971 Pines discovered a 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus due to Agapius of Hierapolis.[1][2] Pines also discovered a 12th-century Syriac version of Josephus by Michael the Syrian.[2]

1. Pines, Shlomo (1971). An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
2. Louis Feldman (2006). Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered ISBN 90-04-14906-6 pp. 329-330

.

Richard goes on to comment 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.

[andrewcriddle]

Carrier has posted on the topic on his blog (with a link to a handout):

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071

He also posted a blog-commentary titled The End of the Arabic Testimonium -

Often when expert opinions are cited in favor of some form of the Testimonium having been written by Josephus (even if Christians later fixed it up), they are opinions based on the Arabic fragment and the ensuing argument of Shlomo Pines*. But that theory was decisively refuted by Alice Whealey in 2008 (see my following article for bibliography). Therefore, all opinions that were based on the Pines thesis, are now null and void. They are not only uninformed, they were misinformed.

Here’s what happened. In an Arabic Chronicle by Agapius, written in the 10th century, the Testimonium gets quoted, yet in such a way that looks much less credulous, maybe more like what a Jew might have written. Pines argued that this must be an Arabic translation of an earlier manuscript tradition of the Antiquities than the one known to Eusebius (the first author ever to notice the passage existed in Josephus), and thus must reflect what Josephus really wrote, as it bypassed the meddling hand of Eusebius or whoever preceded him at the Library of Caesarea (where the manuscript of Josephus was produced that Eusebius used).

However, Alice Whealey proved, quite conclusively, that in fact Agapius was translating the Syriac edition not of Josephus, but of Eusebius. And it therefore certainly did not come from any earlier manuscript tradition untouched by Eusebius, but the very same one, in fact from Eusebius himself! Moreover, Agapius was translating this passage from the Syriac Chronicle of Theophilus, written in the 8th century, the exact same text copied by Michael the Syrian in the 12th century in his own Syriac Chronicle. And though we don’t have Theophilus, we can tell from Michael that Theophilus’s text was essentially identical to the known Greek text of Eusebius’s quotation of the Testimonium in his copy of Josephus (but for one key difference I’ll get to in a moment). Agapius was therefore taking liberties, and altering the text in some way that suited him. His translation was thus not reliable, but more like a crude and speculative interpretation. His Arabic can no longer be used to argue for anything authentic appearing in the Antiquities.

Any opinion not aware of this finding, is uninformed and unciteable. It has no value. Unfortunately, that means most of the opinions anyone ever cites.

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

* In 1971 Pines discovered a 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus due to Agapius of Hierapolis.[1][2] Pines also discovered a 12th-century Syriac version of Josephus by Michael the Syrian.[2]

1. Pines, Shlomo (1971). An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
2. Louis Feldman (2006). Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered ISBN 90-04-14906-6 pp. 329-330

.

Richard goes on to comment 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.

I think this argument has to be wrong.

IF the Latin and the Syriac both witness to a reading in early Greek manuscripts of the church history of Eusebius “he was believed to be the Christ” then this reading is probably the original reading of Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle

[MrMacSon]

I think this argument has to be wrong.

IF the Latin and the Syriac both witness to a reading in early Greek manuscripts of the church history of Eusebius “he was believed to be the Christ” then this reading is probably the original reading of Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle

Aren't Carrier's and Whealey's arguments the same? viz. -

" .. Alice Whealey proved, quite conclusively, that in fact Agapius was translating the Syriac edition not of Josephus, but of Eusebius. And it therefore certainly did not come from any earlier manuscript tradition untouched by Eusebius, but the very same one, in fact from Eusebius himself! .."

[italics mine]

[andrewcriddle]

I think this argument has to be wrong.

IF the Latin and the Syriac both witness to a reading in early Greek manuscripts of the church history of Eusebius “he was believed to be the Christ” then this reading is probably the original reading of Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle

Aren't Carrier's and Whealey's arguments the same? viz. -

" .. Alice Whealey proved, quite conclusively, that in fact Agapius was translating the Syriac edition not of Josephus, but of Eusebius. And it therefore certainly did not come from any earlier manuscript tradition untouched by Eusebius, but the very same one, in fact from Eusebius himself! .."

[italics mine]

Whealey and Carrier both agree that Agapius is dependent on Eusebius and does not provide evidence of a radically different TF.

Whealey holds (and Carrier IIUC disagrees ) that the Syriac and Latin traditions provide evidence of the original Eusebian form of the TF which instead of saying he was the Christ said he was believed to be the Christ or something similar.

Andrew Criddle

[John2]

I'm intrigued by Goldberg's observation that the TF resembles Luke 24. There at least appears to be some kind relationship between the two. Carrier cites him in the link Ken Olsen gave above:

If not due to a common source, these coincidences can have only two other explanations. Either they are due to chance; or the Testimonium is not, in fact, authentic, that it is the composition of a later Christian writer, and that this writer was in part influenced, directly or indirectly, by the excerpt from Luke.

Another option is that there was something like the TF in Josephus and Luke used it like the other elements from Josephus it appears to borrow (like the Roman census, Theudas, etc.). It seems too coincidental to me that, out of all the gospels, this similarity exists in the one that appears to use Josephus in other cases, or that Luke happened to be the gospel that was used to create the TF. In any event, I think Goldberg has made an interesting observation.

http://josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

[John2]

The option I propose above brings up the old question if there was some sort of TF then why doesn't anyone mention it before Eusebius. But Goldberg notes that there is no match for "he was the Christ" in Luke 24, which indicates that that part may not have been in the TF (assuming there was one), and this supports Origen's comment that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, and might explain why no one (else?) mentions the TF before Eusebius (and before the addition of "he was the Christ").

And there would be no reason to think that the reference to Jesus in the James passage is also an interpolation if Josephus did say something about Jesus earlier (like "so-called Christ"), and we wouldn't have to think that Jesus ben Damneus was "so-called Christ."

[John2]

Christopher Price reviews the TF issue (and notes authors that Carrier cites) and says regarding "he was the Christ":

Some scholars have argued that this phrase originally was "he was thought to be the Christ," but that the interpolator changed it because he could not let such a statement stand. "And if ... Josephus had written 'he was the so-called Christ' (ho legomenos Christos), it would have been natural for a Christian reviser to leave out legomenos." (France, op. cit., page 30). Although Meier disagrees, such a tentative phrase would actually make sense after explaining the nature of Jesus' ministry. And it would especially make sense as an explanation that Jesus had "gained a following both among Jews and among many of Greek origin." So, while "he was the Christ" is obviously not original to the text and is out of place, it is possible -- perhaps likely -- that the TF originally stated that "he was thought to be the Christ." Indeed, based on the manuscript evidence, this reconstruction is likely.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

In that case it would be a simple matter of someone dropping the "legomenos" instead of adding "ho Christos" to the TF.