rakovsky wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:36 pm
My thesis is that the passages surrounding the Testamonium are related chiastically and allude cryptically to the N.T. narrative. Other writers over the centuries have noted such allusions, with the story of the Egyptian cult alluding to the virgin birth, the name Paulina as a reference to Paul, and Josephus' story of raising money for Jerusalem alluding to Paul's raising money for the Church in Jerusalem.
One conclusion from seeing the passages as an integrated structure is that the Testamonium is shown to be original, integral, and authentic to the Antiquities and not just a much later Christian interpolation.
I think you have too many arguments going on here. I'll lay out your arguments here and you can correct me if I've misstated them.
1) The Testimonium at 18.3.3 is at the center of a chiastic structure in the form CBABC, with 18.3.1 paralleled by 18.3.5 and 18.3.2 paralleled by 18.3.4. So that's 18.3.1 = C, 18.3.2 = B, 18.3.3 = A, 18.3.4 = B, 18.3.5 = C. This parallel structure requires the Testimonium at A to work.
2) The passage about Paulina and Mundus is highly unusual in Josephus' work, or at least the Antiquities, because it does not deal with Jewish affairs, or high level historical events that affect Jews, like a change in emperors. Therefore it requires a special explanation for its inclusion. This is to be found in its many parallels to the Christian tradition. The story is meant to be an antithetic parallel to the Testimonium which precedes it in the text.
3) Josephus' story of raising money for Jerusalem (i.e., the Fulvia story in 18.3.5) alludes to Paul's raising money for the church in Jerusalem. This adds weight to the thesis by showing more parallels to the New Testament and the Christian tradition.
Leaving aside the question of the strength or quality of the purported parallels for the moment, there are some problems with structure of the argument.
First, if the Fulvia story were alluding to Paul's raising money for the church in Jerusalem (which I would not accept), yet there is no story about Paul in the text, haven't you just shown that allusions to Christian stories don't imply the presence of those Christian stories in the text? You're claiming Josephus alludes to Christian stories not found in the text of the Antiquities, so why would allusions to Christian stories require the Testimonium? Or was there originally a story about Paul in Antiquities 18 that's missing from the extant texts?
Second, you're suggesting two different structures for the text. You're claiming that the Paulina story in Ant. 18.3.4 was constructed in parallel to Ant. 18.3.2 to frame the Testimonium (B-A-B), but you're also claiming that Ant. 18.3.4 was constructed in antithetic parallel to the Testimonium. How does this work with the chiastic structure you're claiming to have found? Is it C-A-A-A-C? Does 18.3.2 also parallel the Testimonium? It would seem it would have to. If 18.3.2 parallels 18.3.4 and 18.3.4 parallels 18..33, then 18.3.2 ought to parallel 18.3.3 as well. Can you point me to some ancient literature, preferably discussed somewhere in the scholarly literature, where the central element of a chiasm is paralleled by the element following it? I think you're seeing too many parallels.
Third, you claim that since the inclusion of a story that is not about Jews is unusual in Josephus, there must be a special reason, and that is to be found in it serving as an antithetic parallel to the Testimonium. Can you show that constructing stories in antithetic parallelism to the stories that precede them is common is Josephus, or have you postulated a further unusual case?
While I'm primarily evaluating the strength of your case here, I'd like to suggest an alternative case for why Josephus included the Paulina story even though it includes no Jews: first, Josephus found it in the same source as the Fulvia story that follows it (argument for this available on request) and second, he considered it a really interesting story that would entertain his readers (as I think most readers will appreciate and numerous commentators have observed).
Best,
Ken