Eusebius as a forger.

[Secret Alias]

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=99101

[Ken Olson]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Ken: I didn't really grasp Inowlocki's argument against me. She thinks that where she finds a variant, and can explain it in terms of Eusebius' theological interests, she can attribute it to Eusebius. I think I've more than met the bar she sets for herself when it comes to the Testimonium.
Ben: I think that, in her mind, her arguments against Eusebius having fabricated the entire passage precede any questions about variants. Once she has satisfied herself that Eusebius did not invent the entire thing, now the variants have to be explained.

Yes, I think you may be right about her thinking. But I’ll restate the problem in my response below.

Ken: She seems to think that attributing Eusebius with producing small changes to Josephus' text when quoting him shows he would not have made large changes, and I think that's a non-sequitur.
Ben: I do not see that as her argument. (Do you have a page number for it?) She argues on page 207 that Eusebius' usual practice is to make small adjustments, not to fabricate entire passages. (That is, when Eusebius says that an author wrote something, and he quotes it, when we turn to that author's actual work, if it is still extant, we can find the passage there. I know there is at least one exception: the passage cribbed for Origen, but we can see that even there Eusebius did not invent it wholesale. And I also know that there are many instances we cannot check, since the work is no longer extant.) This is not an argument that small changes imply that no big changes were made; it is, rather, an argument that small changes are in keeping with Eusebius' habits elsewhere and big changes are not.

Right, I was giving an admittedly unsympathetic statement of her position. I think you give a fair statement of what she probably intended (though it’s not clearly stated): she considers that small changes are attested in elsewhere in Eusebius’ works, but large changes are not. But how does she demonstrate that small changes were made by Eusebius, as opposed to, e.g., Eusebius using a different manuscript of the source or some copyist changing what Eusebius wrote? What is the bar she sets herself for identifying Eusebius’ changes to his source text?

This is a general problem in the field. I imagine that most on this forum have seen the argument that where the accuracy of the bible (or a particular biblical writer) can be checked, it is accurate. What this usually means is “where the bible account fits other evidence, I accept the other evidence, where it does not fit other evidence, I reject the other evidence.” And it isn’t just conservatives that reason this way. I frequently see arguments of a similar sort in questions of dependence on sources (examples available on request). I’ve seen arguments for the independence of John from Mark or Luke from Matthew that point out cases of Markan or Lukan redaction that are not found in John or Luke. The question is whether the person making these arguments is applying the same standard for what counts as redaction to both the examples that are found in the other document as those that are not.

Ben: She also argues on page 209 that Eusebius, had he composed the passage, would have attached it to the Wars, not to the Antiquities. (Still thinking about this one.) And she points out on page 210 that Josephus saying that "he was the Christ" directly contradicts Origen, so she doubts that Eusebius would have composed that part. (This one feels like something to be responded to, at the very least.)

(1) On the first point, I think Inowlocki is simply confused about what the argument to be made is. She cites this argument to Nodet and Bardet, but what they actually say is that Eusebius cites the Jewish War rather than the Antiquities because he claims that the misfortunes of the Jews under Pilate *began* with the crucifixion of Jesus, whereas in the Antiquities, some are narrated before the crucifixion of Jesus. So Nodet (and Bardet, explicitly following him) argue that Eusebius cites the War, which doesn’t mention Jesus at all and therefore causes no problems for his chronology. There is an argument that, if Eusebius could insert the Testimonium into the Antiquities, he would have re-arranged the narrative of Pilate’s administration so that the crucifixion came before the stories about Pilate bringing the Roman standards into Jerusalem and using the temple funds to build an aqueduct, which has already been discussed on this forum (I could come up with the a link if necessary). But I think there really isn’t an argument to be made for which work the Testimonium would have been inserted into; it’s about where it would have been inserted into the account of Pilate’s governorship (in either work).

(2) I question Inowlocki’s interpretation of the evidence on the issue. The question is what sort of use Eusebius might have made of Origen. To say Eusebius was heavily influenced by Origen is an understatement, and many of his arguments were developments of ones found in Origen. In DE 3.5, prior to citing the Testimonium, Eusebius uses an early form of what might now be called the criterion of embarrassment, posing the rhetorical question of whether we should not trust the disciples when they bear witness against themselves. Some of his examples are taken from Origen, others are his own original work.

Zvi Baras has argued that Eusebius’ claim in the HE that Josephus supports the Christian interpretation of history that the troubles of the Jews leading to the destruction of the temple began with the time of Pilate and the crimes against Christ was actually suggested to Eusebius by Origen’s claim that Josephus ought to have said that Jesus’ death, rather than James’, was the cause of the destruction of the temple. What Origen thought Josephus should have said became for Eusebius what Josephus did say.

The Testimonium may be similar. Inowlocki sees the theory that Eusebius composed the Testimonium as Eusebius contradicting Origen, but I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the idea of using Josephus as a Jewish witness to the truth of Christianity was suggested by Origen. Eusebius introduces Josephus as a Hebrew (which is different from a Jew for Eusebius, but discussing that would need it own thread) as a witness from outside Christianity, and the comments of our earliest witnesses to the TF seem to bear this out.

Inowlocki’s comment on the issue is baffling:

It is unlikely that Eusebius would have been eager to ascribe to Josephus words that suit a Christian so well. In fact, Josephus was important to Eusebius because he was not a Christian. Therefore, he did not need to turn him into Christian by forging the Testimonium.

The whole point of the Testimonium as I take it is to provide and allegedly outside witness to the truth of Christianity. An outside witness who did not support Christian claims would have been useless. Nor did Christian writers before the Reformation take the contents of the Testimonium to imply its author was a Christian. (Eusebius’s inclusion of Josephus in the category of Hebrews and Jerome’s inclusion of Josephus with Philo and Seneca as Illustrious Men might need some discussion). Ancient and medieval Christians thought Jews were double minded – in their hearts they knew that Jesus was the Messiah and Christianity was true, they just refused to follow through on it. This is most clearly stated by Pseudo-Hegisippus:

If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.

The recognition that Jews genuinely don’t accept the things Christians hold to be true is one of things, probably the most important one, that led to the Testimonium’s being rejected as inauthentic in the Reformation. More generally, the recognition that people in other times and places held different beliefs than we do is the basis of the historical-critical method that makes modern scholarship possible. I don’t mean to suggest that no ancient or medieval author ever recognized this in any case, but it was not foundational in the way it is in modern scholarship.

This is a longwinded way of saying that I think Inowlocki commits an anachronism when she sees the Testimonium as contradicting Origen or making Josephus into a Christian. That the Testimonium, in the form we have it, is the work of a Christian is obvious to her – and to me, and, I imagine, to you. But it would not have been at all obvious to an ancient Christian, though parts of it might have given them pause. Actually, it’s not obvious to all modern Christians – you can find apologetic defenses of the Testimonium online that argue Josephus was simply a Jew who told the truth about Jesus without becoming a Christian. You just don’t find that view in modern (perhaps I should say recent) scholarship, which recognizes that the things that Christians hold to be true and that Jews hold to be true are different. Also, I’m not including in that group scholars like Whealey and Bardet who think Josephus could have written the Testimonium, provided we don’t read it the way everyone before the Reformation did, and instead read it some sort of non-literal or ironic way that is not making Christological claims but is instead at least mildly critical of Jesus (maybe that topic needs another post too).

Ben: If a scribe made good on Eusebius' testimony that Josephus wrote such a paragraph, then I can see how he had to place the Testimonium somewhere in the midst of the Pilate material. But, if Eusebius himself inserted (or was responsible for inserting) the passage, why would he claim that the John the baptist passage (in Marcellus' section, not Pilate's) came before the Testimonium? Surely he would have taken some care in placing the Testimonium, and in those circumstances for him to forget seems less likely to me than that he forgot the proper order (of two passages he had no hand in fabricating) simply because John the baptist precedes Jesus in the Christian gospels. This would seem to imply either (A) that Eusebius did not fabricate the Testimonium or (B) that he fabricated it but was not responsible for its current location in the text of Josephus. If he fabricated it, though, and did not insert it, then apparently he was still thinking of a location after the John the baptist passage; but why, when John the baptist is not discussed until Pilate is off the scene and Marcellus is governing in his stead? Eusebius was obviously concerned about the chronology related to Pilate, judging from his reaction to the Acts of Pilate locating the passion too early; so where, if he composed the passage itself, did he imagine it to be properly located in Josephus' text?

I know there are a lot of moving parts in that series of questions. But I would be interested in knowing how you connect those dots. And is the result easier to handle than (or at least as easy to handle as) the supposition that Eusebius forgot the order of the passages simply because of how the gospels treat John and Jesus? In other words, if he himself composed the passage, does it not seem at least somewhat less likely that he would have forgotten where it should be located?

I do not have a firm position on this one at the moment. In the CBQ paper, I argued that Eusebius got the order wrong because it was not yet inserted in the text. I am now unsure of that. I am still thinking about whether he might not be referring to narrative order in his introduction to the Baptist passage in the HE, as discussed by Peter Kirby with reference to Richard Carrier over in the Pseudo-Hegesippus thread. I’m still looking at your examples of Eusebius using similar language elsewhere in the HE to describe the narrative order of the Antiquities.

I’m not really following your argument about the difference between Eusebius getting the order wrong because he had the gospel order in his mind being less likely if he had composed the passage himself. Why would his following the gospel order be less likely if he had composed the Testimonium himself?

The matter is further complicated by the fact that I date Eusebius Demonstratio before the HE. That’s the majority opinion among scholars, though many have dated hypothetical earlier editions of the HE before the Demonstratio. The wording of the Testimonium in the manuscripts of the Antiquities is much closer to that of the HE, so I suppose the question is really whether the placement of the Testimonium in the Antiquities precedes or follows the publication of the HE. I suspect he didn’t have chronological details in mind when he composed it.

Ben: Finally, what is happening here? I have not been very interested in the Testimonium for a long time now. (Even this thread, though obviously relevant to the Testimonium, was not actually about it; it was, rather, about figuring out what kind of weight to give to Eusebius' quotations where he cannot be checked.) Yet suddenly I find myself getting back into it. My free time is somewhat straitened right now, but I will try to evaluate your points as I can.

I appreciate you’re engaging with me on this issue, and I always consider your input valuable. I fully understand that people’s time commitments conflict with their ability to post responses on the forum. Mine certainly do. You certainly aren’t required to respond and I have no ability to compel you to do so. But when you title the thread Eusebius as a forger and mention me and the Testimonium in the OP it can hardly be considered off topic. I may have unfairly put you in the position of having to defend Sabrina Inowlocki, but what I’m really interested in is which, if any, of her arguments you consider strong – you’ve already indicated that you (rightly, I think) reject her argument that Eusebius would not have forged because he condemns the practice of forgery.

If what you’re interested in is how accurate Eusebius’ quotations are where he can’t be checked, then I think you gave the thread the wrong title, since you do not consider misquotations or misattributed quotations to be forgeries unless they are also inserted into the text of the source document. You’re interested in Eusebius as a misattributer ☺

If what you’re interested in is how much we can trust Eusebius quotations, on Papias, for example, based on his track record, then the attribution of the quotation about James which Eusebius took second hand from Origen is certainly relevant. You might also take a look at Inowlocki’s analysis of Eusebius’ rendering of Josephus and Philo’s accounts of Pilate’s bringing the Roman standards into Jerusalem. He not only adds details of his own but imports some details from Josephus into Philo. Of course, Inowlocki doesn’t consider those quotations per se but paraphrases.

Then there’s her paper defending the theory that Origen’s manuscript of the Antiquities really did contain a story about the temple being destroyed because of James, but that’s another matter.

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

This is a general problem in the field. I imagine that most on this forum have seen the argument that where the accuracy of the bible (or a particular biblical writer) can be checked, it is accurate. What this usually means is “where the bible account fits other evidence, I accept the other evidence, where it does not fit other evidence, I reject the other evidence.” And it isn’t just conservatives that reason this way. I frequently see arguments of a similar sort in questions of dependence on sources (examples available on request). I’ve seen arguments for the independence of John from Mark or Luke from Matthew that point out cases of Markan or Lukan redaction that are not found in John or Luke. The question is whether the person making these arguments is applying the same standard for what counts as redaction to both the examples that are found in the other document as those that are not.

I do not think the first parallel is as apt as it could be. The strength of referring to Eusebius' standard practice is that Eusebius is an individual person with individual habits and quirks (obviously this falls apart if Eusebius is actually the conglomeration of multiple authorial, editorial, and/or scribal hands). This is not the case with the Bible as a whole, which is literally the conglomeration of multiple authorial, editorial, and scribal hands. As for the second parallel, maybe it is just this head cold that I am currently fighting off, but I am not sure I see the similarity to evaluating what Eusebius is likely or not likely to do.

On the first point, I think Inowlocki is simply confused about what the argument to be made is. She cites this argument to Nodet and Bardet, but what they actually say is that Eusebius cites the Jewish War rather than the Antiquities because he claims that the misfortunes of the Jews under Pilate *began* with the crucifixion of Jesus, whereas in the Antiquities, some are narrated before the crucifixion of Jesus. So Nodet (and Bardet, explicitly following him) argue that Eusebius cites the War, which doesn’t mention Jesus at all and therefore causes no problems for his chronology. There is an argument that, if Eusebius could insert the Testimonium into the Antiquities, he would have re-arranged the narrative of Pilate’s administration so that the crucifixion came before the stories about Pilate bringing the Roman standards into Jerusalem and using the temple funds to build an aqueduct, which has already been discussed on this forum (I could come up with the a link if necessary). But I think there really isn’t an argument to be made for which work the Testimonium would have been inserted into; it’s about where it would have been inserted into the account of Pilate’s governorship (in either work).

I agree with this critique; it is not a matter of which work, but of where in that work the Testimonium ought to go. As to that issue, I can tell you that, if I myself had wished to insert the Testimonium into the Antiquities and simultaneously to preserve the idea that Jesus' execution was the cause of the woes under Pilate, I would have chosen a spot after Antiquities 18.2.2 §35, in which Gratus is ushered off the scene and Pilate brought in as his successor, but before 18.3.1 §55, which is where the troubles under Pilate begin, with the standards incident. The death of Phraates is narrated in 18.2.4 §39 as having occurred "at this time" (κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον), the same phrase used in the Testimonium to introduce Jesus' execution. So somewhere in the vicinity of Phraates' death would seem ideal, would it not? That section is a grab bag of historical events; the Testimonium would fit right in, unless I am missing something.

I question Inowlocki’s interpretation of the evidence on the issue. The question is what sort of use Eusebius might have made of Origen. To say Eusebius was heavily influenced by Origen is an understatement, and many of his arguments were developments of ones found in Origen. In DE 3.5, prior to citing the Testimonium, Eusebius uses an early form of what might now be called the criterion of embarrassment, posing the rhetorical question of whether we should not trust the disciples when they bear witness against themselves. Some of his examples are taken from Origen, others are his own original work.

Zvi Baras has argued that Eusebius’ claim in the HE that Josephus supports the Christian interpretation of history that the troubles of the Jews leading to the destruction of the temple began with the time of Pilate and the crimes against Christ was actually suggested to Eusebius by Origen’s claim that Josephus ought to have said that Jesus’ death, rather than James’, was the cause of the destruction of the temple. What Origen thought Josephus should have said became for Eusebius what Josephus did say.

The Testimonium may be similar. Inowlocki sees the theory that Eusebius composed the Testimonium as Eusebius contradicting Origen, but I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the idea of using Josephus as a Jewish witness to the truth of Christianity was suggested by Origen. Eusebius introduces Josephus as a Hebrew (which is different from a Jew for Eusebius, but discussing that would need it own thread) as a witness from outside Christianity, and the comments of our earliest witnesses to the TF seem to bear this out.

Inowlocki’s comment on the issue is baffling:

It is unlikely that Eusebius would have been eager to ascribe to Josephus words that suit a Christian so well. In fact, Josephus was important to Eusebius because he was not a Christian. Therefore, he did not need to turn him into Christian by forging the Testimonium.

The whole point of the Testimonium as I take it is to provide and allegedly outside witness to the truth of Christianity. An outside witness who did not support Christian claims would have been useless. Nor did Christian writers before the Reformation take the contents of the Testimonium to imply its author was a Christian. (Eusebius’s inclusion of Josephus in the category of Hebrews and Jerome’s inclusion of Josephus with Philo and Seneca as Illustrious Men might need some discussion). Ancient and medieval Christians thought Jews were double minded – in their hearts they knew that Jesus was the Messiah and Christianity was true, they just refused to follow through on it. This is most clearly stated by Pseudo-Hegisippus:

If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.

The recognition that Jews genuinely don’t accept the things Christians hold to be true is one of things, probably the most important one, that led to the Testimonium’s being rejected as inauthentic in the Reformation. More generally, the recognition that people in other times and places held different beliefs than we do is the basis of the historical-critical method that makes modern scholarship possible. I don’t mean to suggest that no ancient or medieval author ever recognized this in any case, but it was not foundational in the way it is in modern scholarship.

This is a longwinded way of saying that I think Inowlocki commits an anachronism when she sees the Testimonium as contradicting Origen or making Josephus into a Christian. That the Testimonium, in the form we have it, is the work of a Christian is obvious to her – and to me, and, I imagine, to you. But it would not have been at all obvious to an ancient Christian, though parts of it might have given them pause. Actually, it’s not obvious to all modern Christians – you can find apologetic defenses of the Testimonium online that argue Josephus was simply a Jew who told the truth about Jesus without becoming a Christian. You just don’t find that view in modern (perhaps I should say recent) scholarship, which recognizes that the things that Christians hold to be true and that Jews hold to be true are different. Also, I’m not including in that group scholars like Whealey and Bardet who think Josephus could have written the Testimonium, provided we don’t read it the way everyone before the Reformation did, and instead read it some sort of non-literal or ironic way that is not making Christological claims but is instead at least mildly critical of Jesus (maybe that topic needs another post too).

You make some excellent points here. Two questions:

1. Does pseudo-Hegesippus testify in any meaningful way to the line in question ("he was the Christ")? It has been a while, but I remember thinking at some point that perhaps pseudo-Hegesippus actually knew the more diplomatic variant ("he was thought to be the Christ" or "he was perhaps the Christ") and deliberately eschewed it so as not to weaken his point about Josephus telling the truth.
2. Can not what I just called the more diplomatic variant, if it is not original, be read as exactly what you are arguing against here? That is, it may be Christian authors saying to themselves, "Josephus did not write it that baldly. He must have been more tentative or less direct."

I’m not really following your argument about the difference between Eusebius getting the order wrong because he had the gospel order in his mind being less likely if he had composed the passage himself. Why would his following the gospel order be less likely if he had composed the Testimonium himself?

Because when I wrote that it seemed less likely to me that he forgot where he himself put the Testimonium relative to the pericope about John the baptist than that he forgot where Josephus put it. Upon further reflection, however, it seems possible that he could be very aware of where he himself put the Testimonium but still forget where Josephus had put the passage about John. (I myself have more than once gone looking in book 18 for the passage about John, without looking up the reference, and found myself instinctively searching the sections prior to the Testimonium before remembering the correct sequence.) I withdraw the argument.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that I date Eusebius Demonstratio before the HE. That’s the majority opinion among scholars, though many have dated hypothetical earlier editions of the HE before the Demonstratio. The wording of the Testimonium in the manuscripts of the Antiquities is much closer to that of the HE, so I suppose the question is really whether the placement of the Testimonium in the Antiquities precedes or follows the publication of the HE. I suspect he didn’t have chronological details in mind when he composed it.

I knew this about your thinking, but I am still not sure whether it affects my approach.

I appreciate you’re engaging with me on this issue, and I always consider your input valuable. I fully understand that people’s time commitments conflict with their ability to post responses on the forum. Mine certainly do. You certainly aren’t required to respond and I have no ability to compel you to do so. But when you title the thread Eusebius as a forger and mention me and the Testimonium in the OP it can hardly be considered off topic.

No, no: not off topic at all! I appreciate you pitching in. My rhetorical question...:

Finally, what is happening here?

...was intended as a compliment. I find myself interested in this topic for the first time in years. That is a credit to your insights.

I may have unfairly put you in the position of having to defend Sabrina Inowlocki, but what I’m really interested in is which, if any, of her arguments you consider strong – you’ve already indicated that you (rightly, I think) reject her argument that Eusebius would not have forged because he condemns the practice of forgery.

I feel no obligation to defend Inowlocki, so no problem. The only two arguments I am considering at the moment are (A) the argument from Eusebius' usual practices and (B) the argument concerning whether Eusebius would contradict Origen.

If what you’re interested in is how accurate Eusebius’ quotations are where he can’t be checked, then I think you gave the thread the wrong title, since you do not consider misquotations or misattributed quotations to be forgeries unless they are also inserted into the text of the source document. You’re interested in Eusebius as a misattributer ☺

Fair enough, but, to be candid, I had not even noticed that you avoid the term "forgery" in your articles on the topic until you pointed it out. Your name comes up so very often in the context of Eusebius being a forger that I simply went with the flow. But yes: what I am really interested in is Eusebius' capacity to create materials from scratch and then attribute them to other people.

[andrewcriddle]

I question Inowlocki’s interpretation of the evidence on the issue. The question is what sort of use Eusebius might have made of Origen. To say Eusebius was heavily influenced by Origen is an understatement, and many of his arguments were developments of ones found in Origen. In DE 3.5, prior to citing the Testimonium, Eusebius uses an early form of what might now be called the criterion of embarrassment, posing the rhetorical question of whether we should not trust the disciples when they bear witness against themselves. Some of his examples are taken from Origen, others are his own original work.

Zvi Baras has argued that Eusebius’ claim in the HE that Josephus supports the Christian interpretation of history that the troubles of the Jews leading to the destruction of the temple began with the time of Pilate and the crimes against Christ was actually suggested to Eusebius by Origen’s claim that Josephus ought to have said that Jesus’ death, rather than James’, was the cause of the destruction of the temple. What Origen thought Josephus should have said became for Eusebius what Josephus did say.

The Testimonium may be similar. Inowlocki sees the theory that Eusebius composed the Testimonium as Eusebius contradicting Origen, but I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the idea of using Josephus as a Jewish witness to the truth of Christianity was suggested by Origen. Eusebius introduces Josephus as a Hebrew (which is different from a Jew for Eusebius, but discussing that would need it own thread) as a witness from outside Christianity, and the comments of our earliest witnesses to the TF seem to bear this out.

Inowlocki’s comment on the issue is baffling:

It is unlikely that Eusebius would have been eager to ascribe to Josephus words that suit a Christian so well. In fact, Josephus was important to Eusebius because he was not a Christian. Therefore, he did not need to turn him into Christian by forging the Testimonium.

The whole point of the Testimonium as I take it is to provide and allegedly outside witness to the truth of Christianity. An outside witness who did not support Christian claims would have been useless. Nor did Christian writers before the Reformation take the contents of the Testimonium to imply its author was a Christian. (Eusebius’s inclusion of Josephus in the category of Hebrews and Jerome’s inclusion of Josephus with Philo and Seneca as Illustrious Men might need some discussion). Ancient and medieval Christians thought Jews were double minded – in their hearts they knew that Jesus was the Messiah and Christianity was true, they just refused to follow through on it. This is most clearly stated by Pseudo-Hegisippus:

If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.

The recognition that Jews genuinely don’t accept the things Christians hold to be true is one of things, probably the most important one, that led to the Testimonium’s being rejected as inauthentic in the Reformation. More generally, the recognition that people in other times and places held different beliefs than we do is the basis of the historical-critical method that makes modern scholarship possible. I don’t mean to suggest that no ancient or medieval author ever recognized this in any case, but it was not foundational in the way it is in modern scholarship.

This is a longwinded way of saying that I think Inowlocki commits an anachronism when she sees the Testimonium as contradicting Origen or making Josephus into a Christian. That the Testimonium, in the form we have it, is the work of a Christian is obvious to her – and to me, and, I imagine, to you. But it would not have been at all obvious to an ancient Christian, though parts of it might have given them pause. Actually, it’s not obvious to all modern Christians – you can find apologetic defenses of the Testimonium online that argue Josephus was simply a Jew who told the truth about Jesus without becoming a Christian. You just don’t find that view in modern (perhaps I should say recent) scholarship, which recognizes that the things that Christians hold to be true and that Jews hold to be true are different. Also, I’m not including in that group scholars like Whealey and Bardet who think Josephus could have written the Testimonium, provided we don’t read it the way everyone before the Reformation did, and instead read it some sort of non-literal or ironic way that is not making Christological claims but is instead at least mildly critical of Jesus (maybe that topic needs another post too).

You make some excellent points here. Two questions:

1. Does pseudo-Hegesippus testify in any meaningful way to the line in question ("he was the Christ")? It has been a while, but I remember thinking at some point that perhaps pseudo-Hegesippus actually knew the more diplomatic variant ("he was thought to be the Christ" or "he was perhaps the Christ") and deliberately eschewed it so as not to weaken his point about Josephus telling the truth.
2. Can not what I just called the more diplomatic variant, if it is not original, be read as exactly what you are arguing against here? That is, it may be Christian authors saying to themselves, "Josephus did not write it that baldly. He must have been more tentative or less direct."

The passage from pseudo-hegesippus reads

They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. But the damage of the temple did not move them, but because they were chastized by him in scandal and sacrilege, from this their wrath flared up that they should kill him, whom no ages had held. For while others had earned by praying to do what they did, he had it in his power that he could order all things what he wished to be done. John the Baptist a holy man, who never placed the truth of salvation in second place, had been killed before the death of Jesus. Finally to all things which he taught to be full of righteousness, with which he invited the Jews to the worship of god, he had instituted baptism for the sake of purification of mind and body. For whom freedom was the cause of his death, because he was unable, the law having violated of the right of fraternal marriage, to endure the wife abducted from a brother by Herod. For when this same Herod was travelling to Rome, having entered the house of his brother for the purpose of lodging, the wife to whom was Herodias the daughter of Aristobolus, [p. 165] the sister of king Agrippa, unmindful of nature he dared to solicit her, that the brother having been left behind she should marry him, when he had returned from the city of Rome, with the consent of the woman an agreement of lewdness having been entered into information of which thing came to the daughter of king Areta still remaining in marriage of Herod. She indignant at her rival insinuated to her returning husband that he should go to the town Macherunta which was in the boundaries of king Petreus and Herod. He who suspected nothing, at the same time because he had impaired the whole state around the same, by which he could more easily keep the faith of the agreement to Herodias if he should get rid of his wife, agreed to her diversion. But she when he came near to her father's kingdom revealed the things learned to her father Areta, who by an ambush attacked and completely destroyed in a battle the entire force of Herod, the betrayal having been made through those, who from the people of Philippus the tetrarch had associated themselves to Herod. Whence Herod took the quarrel to Caesar, but the vengeance ordered by Caesar the anger of god took away, for in the very preparation of war the death of Caesar was announced. And we discover this assessed by the Jews and believed, the author Joseph a suitable witness against himself, that not by the treachery of men but by the arousing of god Herod lost his army and indeed rightly on account of the vengeance of John the Baptist a just man who had said to him: it is not permitted you to have that wife.

At face value pseudo-Hegesippus' text of Josephus has Jesus referred to as more than human but not explicitly as the Christ.

One should also note that pseudo-Hegesippus mentions John the Baptist after Jesus (as in our texts of Josephus but not in Eusebius) and that there is no mention of the death of James (mentioned in passing in our texts of Josephus but which Eusebius claims was regarded by Josephus as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem).

This may support the idea that the testimony of pseudo-Hegesippus about Jesus is not dependent on the church history of Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle

[Ken Olson]

Andrew Criddle wrote:

At face value pseudo-Hegesippus' text of Josephus has Jesus referred to as more than human but not explicitly as the Christ.

One should also note that pseudo-Hegesippus mentions John the Baptist after Jesus (as in our texts of Josephus but not in Eusebius) and that there is no mention of the death of James (mentioned in passing in our texts of Josephus but which Eusebius claims was regarded by Josephus as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem).

This may support the idea that the testimony of pseudo-Hegesippus about Jesus is not dependent on the church history of Eusebius

And then again, it may not. I've discussed two of these three points on this forum before. The new point is the argument from silence about James. How much importance should we attach to arguments of silence (i.e., a writer not citing something from his source)? I doubt you take the fact that Eusebius does not refer to Josephus having written about James when he refers to James' death in DE 3.5, though he does quote Josephus on Jesus (The Testimonium, also in DE 3.5) and John (DE 9.5), as evidence that the passage about James, the brother of Jesus found in our manuscripts of Antiquities 20 had not yet been inserted into the text. Nor have I ever seen anyone argue that Pseudo-Hegesippus' failure to refer of the Massacre of the Infants in his account of Herod is evidence he did not know the Gospel of Matthew.

You've made the point about the sequence of having the passage about John the Baptist following the one about Jesus in Excidio 2.12 correlating with the sequence of the Antiquities and not Eusebius at least twice before. I'll reproduce what I wrote in the Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF thread back in 2016:

The argument about the order of Pseudo-Hegesippus' use of the passages about Jesus and John the Baptist relies on a highly selective use of the evidence. You discuss only the Ecclesiastical History, where the John passage comes almost immediately before the Testimonium, and not the Demonstratio which has the Testimonium in book three and the John the Baptist passage in nine, long after the Testimonium. You also ignore the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus first gives the John passage in 2.5, before the Testimonium and a second use of the John passage in 2.12. You really have to want it to find the data on order supporting Antiquities against the HE. (Not that I necessarily discard the idea that Pseudo-Hegesippus had a manuscript of the Antiquities with the Testimonium already interpolated into it). It's basically a coin flip. Eusebius gives the John passage as often before as after the Testimonium in his works and so does Pseudo-Hegesippus. It just depends on the writers' own preferences at the time they're writing. Indeed, since Antiquities has the Testimonium and the John passage in widely separated contexts, one could argue that it was the influence of the HE that suggested to Ps-H. to cite them together in Excidio 2.12 (not a conclusive argument, but IMO at least as compelling as your argument from order) ... The Excidio actually refers to the John the Baptist twice, once before and once after the Testimonium

.

Similarly, we've discussed whether Pseudo-Hegesippus refers to the statement "He was the Christ" before, so I'll just give a link to my earlier response here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2273&p=50644&hilit= ... ine#p50574 and readers can look at the larger discussion if they wish.

Best,

Ken

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew Criddle wrote:

At face value pseudo-Hegesippus' text of Josephus has Jesus referred to as more than human but not explicitly as the Christ.

One should also note that pseudo-Hegesippus mentions John the Baptist after Jesus (as in our texts of Josephus but not in Eusebius) and that there is no mention of the death of James (mentioned in passing in our texts of Josephus but which Eusebius claims was regarded by Josephus as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem).

This may support the idea that the testimony of pseudo-Hegesippus about Jesus is not dependent on the church history of Eusebius

And then again, it may not. I've discussed two of these three points on this forum before. The new point is the argument from silence about James. How much importance should we attach to arguments of silence (i.e., a writer not citing something from his source)? I doubt you take the fact that Eusebius does not refer to Josephus having written about James when he refers to James' death in DE 3.5, though he does quote Josephus on Jesus (The Testimonium, also in DE 3.5) and John (DE 9.5), as evidence that the passage about James, the brother of Jesus found in our manuscripts of Antiquities 20 had not yet been inserted into the text. Nor have I ever seen anyone argue that Pseudo-Hegesippus' failure to refer of the Massacre of the Infants in his account of Herod is evidence he did not know the Gospel of Matthew.

You've made the point about the sequence of having the passage about John the Baptist following the one about Jesus in Excidio 2.12 correlating with the sequence of the Antiquities and not Eusebius at least twice before. I'll reproduce what I wrote in the Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF thread back in 2016:

The argument about the order of Pseudo-Hegesippus' use of the passages about Jesus and John the Baptist relies on a highly selective use of the evidence. You discuss only the Ecclesiastical History, where the John passage comes almost immediately before the Testimonium, and not the Demonstratio which has the Testimonium in book three and the John the Baptist passage in nine, long after the Testimonium. You also ignore the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus first gives the John passage in 2.5, before the Testimonium and a second use of the John passage in 2.12. You really have to want it to find the data on order supporting Antiquities against the HE. (Not that I necessarily discard the idea that Pseudo-Hegesippus had a manuscript of the Antiquities with the Testimonium already interpolated into it). It's basically a coin flip. Eusebius gives the John passage as often before as after the Testimonium in his works and so does Pseudo-Hegesippus. It just depends on the writers' own preferences at the time they're writing. Indeed, since Antiquities has the Testimonium and the John passage in widely separated contexts, one could argue that it was the influence of the HE that suggested to Ps-H. to cite them together in Excidio 2.12 (not a conclusive argument, but IMO at least as compelling as your argument from order) ... The Excidio actually refers to the John the Baptist twice, once before and once after the Testimonium

.

Similarly, we've discussed whether Pseudo-Hegesippus refers to the statement "He was the Christ" before, so I'll just give a link to my earlier response here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2273&p=50644&hilit= ... ine#p50574 and readers can look at the larger discussion if they wish.

Best,

Ken

On the order of John and Jesus in pseudo-Hegesippus I noticed on rereading Hegesippus that although there are 2 mentions of the death of John in 2.5 and 2.12 there are also mentions of the death of Jesus again in 2.5 and 2.12 and in both cases Jesus comes before John.

2.5

This wantonness therefore which occurred with Tiberius reigning I thought ought not to be passed over, so that from it the impropriety of the emperor might be assessed. For indeed the life of uprightness of a good leader is a certain rule and pattern of living for all, so the filth of an emperor is a law for scoundrels. Pilatus was sent by him into Judaea, a wicked man and putting falsehoods in unimportant matters, he encircled the Samaritans as they were going to the mountain which has the name Gadir--for it was sacred to them--for the reason that he wished to learn their mysteries. And going up he outstripped the people with cavalry and infantry, he spread abroad with a contrived charge, that they had prepared to withdraw from the Romans and were seeking a place of assembly for themselves. What indeed did he not dare, who had put even Christ the lord on the cross, coming for the salvation of the human race, pouring forth upon men with many and divine works the grace of his mercy and teaching nothing other, unless that he should make peoples obedient first to god, and then to emperors? A raving man who was the servant of the madness of sacrilege, and who killed the author of salvation. And so through him the the state of the Jews as destroyed, through him there was ruin for the nation and a hastened destruction for the temple. For if Herodes, who handed over Johannes to be killed, paid the price for his treachery and cruelty (by being) thrown out from the royal power and given into exile, by how much more headlong fury is the action to be understood given (against) him who killed Christ? What was the cause of death for Johannes I shall set forth briefly. Philippus and Herodes [p. 140] who was previously called Antipas we showed above to have been brothers; the wife of Philippus (had been) Herodias whom Herodes unlawfully and wickedly associated to himself by right of marriage. Johannes did not tolerate this and said to him: "it is not lawful for you to have the wife of your brother." Then the former provoked threw Johannes into prison. And not much later he killed the just man and immovable executor of divine law. For not only as a preacher of the gospel had he blamed the incest of the brother's marriage bed, but even as an executor of the law he censured the transgressor of the law who had taken by force the wife of a living brother, especially having seed of him. Aroused by this the hatred and retribution of almost all Jews was hastened against Herodes. The supporter of whom Herodias, seeing Agrippa to have had much influence with Caesar, drove him to go to Rome, where he should win over the favor of the emperor to himself, putting before him the affront of idleness, because shunning work, while he stayed at home, he allowed indignities to be brought forward against himself. For since from being a private citizen Agrippa had been made a king, how much more therefore should Caesar not hesitate that he should confer a kingdom upon him who had already long been a tetrarch. And so by no means sustaining the reproaches of his wife, he proceeded to Rome, while he was seeking the friendship of Gaius, impugned by Agrippa he lost even the tetrarchy, which he had received from Julius Augustus, and going into exile in Spain together with his wife Herodias he died from grief of mind. Tiberius having died also Gaius succeeded, who, [p. 141] wishing himself as the ruler both to be seen as and to be called a god, gave causes to the Jews of a very serious rebellion, and lest he should destroy the empire with a quick end, made a quicker end of the nation of the Jews. For not only did he not call his men back from illegal acts, but he even threatened those sent into Judaea with the ultimate punishment, unless they accomplished with their arms everything against justice and the dictates of religion. Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.

2.12

They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. [p. 164] from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. But the damage of the temple did not move them, but because they were chastized by him in scandal and sacrilege, from this their wrath flared up that they should kill him, whom no ages had held. For while others had earned by praying to do what they did, he had it in his power that he could order all things what he wished to be done. John the Baptist a holy man, who never placed the truth of salvation in second place, had been killed before the death of Jesus. Finally to all things which he taught to be full of righteousness, with which he invited the Jews to the worship of god, he had instituted baptism for the sake of purification of mind and body. For whom freedom was the cause of his death, because he was unable, the law having violated of the right of fraternal marriage, to endure the wife abducted from a brother by Herod. For when this same Herod was travelling to Rome, having entered the house of his brother for the purpose of lodging, the wife to whom was Herodias the daughter of Aristobolus, [p. 165] the sister of king Agrippa, unmindful of nature he dared to solicit her, that the brother having been left behind she should marry him, when he had returned from the city of Rome, with the consent of the woman an agreement of lewdness having been entered into information of which thing came to the daughter of king Areta still remaining in marriage of Herod. She indignant at her rival insinuated to her returning husband that he should go to the town Macherunta which was in the boundaries of king Petreus and Herod. He who suspected nothing, at the same time because he had impaired the whole state around the same, by which he could more easily keep the faith of the agreement to Herodias if he should get rid of his wife, agreed to her diversion. But she when he came near to her father's kingdom revealed the things learned to her father Areta, who by an ambush attacked and completely destroyed in a battle the entire force of Herod, the betrayal having been made through those, who from the people of Philippus the tetrarch had associated themselves to Herod. Whence Herod took the quarrel to Caesar, but the vengeance ordered by Caesar the anger of god took away, for in the very preparation of war the death of Caesar was announced. And we discover this assessed by the Jews and believed, the author Joseph a suitable witness against himself, that not by the treachery of men but by the arousing of god Herod lost his army and indeed rightly on account of the vengeance of John the Baptist a just man who had said to him: it is not permitted you to have that wife. But we construe this thusly as if in their own people the Jews preserved their lawful rights, among whom the power of the high priest had perished and the avarice of those killed and the arrogance of the powerful, who thought the right to do what they wished was permitted to them. For from the beginning Aaron [p. 166] was the chief priest, who transmitted to his sons by the will of god and a lawful anointing the prerogative of the priesthood, by whom by the order of succession are constituted those exercising the chief command of the priesthood. Whence by the custom of our fathers it became valid for no one to become the foremost of the priests, unless he was from the blood of Aaron, to whom the first law of this method of the priesthood was entrusted. It is not permitted to succeed to a man of another descent even if a king. Finally Ozias, because he seized the office of the priesthood, overspread with leprosy ejected from the temple, he spent the rest of his life without authority. And without doubt he was a good king, but it was not permitted to him to usurp the office of religion.

Andrew Criddle

[Ken Olson]

I wrote:

The argument about the order of Pseudo-Hegesippus' use of the passages about Jesus and John the Baptist relies on a highly selective use of the evidence. You discuss only the Ecclesiastical History, where the John passage comes almost immediately before the Testimonium, and not the Demonstratio which has the Testimonium in book three and the John the Baptist passage in nine, long after the Testimonium. You also ignore the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus first gives the John passage in 2.5, before the Testimonium and a second use of the John passage in 2.12. You really have to want it to find the data on order supporting Antiquities against the HE. (Not that I necessarily discard the idea that Pseudo-Hegesippus had a manuscript of the Antiquities with the Testimonium already interpolated into it). It's basically a coin flip. Eusebius gives the John passage as often before as after the Testimonium in his works[/b] and so does Pseudo-Hegesippus. It just depends on the writers' own preferences at the time they're writing. Indeed, since Antiquities has the Testimonium and the John passage in widely separated contexts, one could argue that it was the influence of the HE that suggested to Ps-H. to cite them together in Excidio 2.12 (not a conclusive argument, but IMO at least as compelling as your argument from order) ... The Excidio actually refers to the John the Baptist twice, once before and once after the Testimonium

.

And Andrew Criddle responded:

On the order of John and Jesus in pseudo-Hegesippus I noticed on rereading Hegesippus that although there are 2 mentions of the death of John in 2.5 and 2.12 there are also mentions of the death of Jesus again in 2.5 and 2.12 and in both cases Jesus comes before John.

I'm inclined to stand by what I wrote, emphasizing the points in bold. You really have to want this argument to make it and you have to use the evidence very selectively. Actually, the more I look at it the less sure I am of exactly what the argument you're making is.

The reference to Jesus' death in Excidio 2.5 is not obviously based on the Testimonium, as the reference in 2.12 is. But let's let that go for the moment and just look at the phenomenon of order.

JOSEPHUS
The Testimonium is in Ant. 18.63-64
It is followed by the Paulina passage in Ant.18.65-80
The Paulina passage is followed by the Fulvia passage (which has no parallel in the Excidio) in 18.81-84
The Fulvia passage is followed by the passage about Pilate's massacre of the Samaritans is in Ant. 18.85-86 (with a parallel in )
The John the Baptist passage is found many sections later in Ant. 116-118

PSEUDO-HEGESIPPUS
The Paulina passage, which immediately follows the Testimonium in Antiquities, is in Excidio 2.4
Pilate's massacre of the Samaritans is narrated before the mention of the death of Jesus which is before the death of John in Excidio 2.5.
The Testimonium is followed by another John passage in Excidio 3.12

Pseudo-Hegesippus has mentioned John the Baptist, who is mentioned by Josephus 53 sections after the Testimonium, directly after references to Pilate's putting Jesus to death twice, once in 2.5 and once in 2.12. But material that directly follows the Testimonium (the Paulina story) is found in 2.4, before 2.5 and 2.12, and the Samaritans passage is found in 3.5 before the mention of Jesus and John the Baptist.

It seems that Pseudo-Hegesippus has re-arranged the order of Josephus text to suit himself. It doesn't seem like there's an obvious reason based on Josephus' text to group the mentions of Jesus and John together, rather than separated as they are in Josephus, though Ps-H could have had his own reasons for doing so. He doesn't appear to have been bound by the order of Josephus, because two passages that occurs between the mentions of Jesus and John in Josephus are located earlier in the Excidio.

Excidio 2.5: This wantonness therefore which occurred with Tiberius reigning I thought ought not to be passed over, so that from it the impropriety of the emperor might be assessed. For indeed the life of uprightness of a good leader is a certain rule and pattern of living for all, so the filth of an emperor is a law for scoundrels. Pilatus was sent by him into Judaea, a wicked man and putting falsehoods in unimportant matters, he encircled the Samaritans as they were going to the mountain which has the name Gadir--for it was sacred to them--for the reason that he wished to learn their mysteries. And going up he outstripped the people with cavalry and infantry, he spread abroad with a contrived charge, that they had prepared to withdraw from the Romans and were seeking a place of assembly for themselves. What indeed did he not dare, who had put even Christ the lord on the cross, coming for the salvation of the human race, pouring forth upon men with many and divine works the grace of his mercy and teaching nothing other, unless that he should make peoples obedient first to god, and then to emperors? A raving man who was the servant of the madness of sacrilege, and who killed the author of salvation. And so through him the the state of the Jews as destroyed, through him there was ruin for the nation and a hastened destruction for the temple. For if Herodes, who handed over Johannes to be killed, paid the price for his treachery and cruelty (by being) thrown out from the royal power and given into exile, by how much more headlong fury is the action to be understood given (against) him who killed Christ? What was the cause of death for Johannes I shall set forth briefly. Philippus and Herodes [p. 140] who was previously called Antipas we showed above to have been brothers; the wife of Philippus (had been) Herodias whom Herodes unlawfully and wickedly associated to himself by right of marriage. Johannes did not tolerate this and said to him: "it is not lawful for you to have the wife of your brother." Then the former provoked threw Johannes into prison. And not much later he killed the just man and immovable executor of divine law. For not only as a preacher of the gospel had he blamed the incest of the brother's marriage bed, but even as an executor of the law he censured the transgressor of the law who had taken by force the wife of a living brother, especially having seed of him. Aroused by this the hatred and retribution of almost all Jews was hastened against Herodes. The supporter of whom Herodias, seeing Agrippa to have had much influence with Caesar, drove him to go to Rome, where he should win over the favor of the emperor to himself, putting before him the affront of idleness, because shunning work, while he stayed at home, he allowed indignities to be brought forward against himself. For since from being a private citizen Agrippa had been made a king, how much more therefore should Caesar not hesitate that he should confer a kingdom upon him who had already long been a tetrarch. And so by no means sustaining the reproaches of his wife, he proceeded to Rome, while he was seeking the friendship of Gaius, impugned by Agrippa he lost even the tetrarchy, which he had received from Julius Augustus, and going into exile in Spain together with his wife Herodias he died from grief of mind. Tiberius having died also Gaius succeeded, who, [p. 141] wishing himself as the ruler both to be seen as and to be called a god, gave causes to the Jews of a very serious rebellion, and lest he should destroy the empire with a quick end, made a quicker end of the nation of the Jews. For not only did he not call his men back from illegal acts, but he even threatened those sent into Judaea with the ultimate punishment, unless they accomplished with their arms everything against justice and the dictates of religion. Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.

And I'm still planning to get back to Ben on his last post in this thread.

[Ken Olson]

For anyone who isn't clear on what's at stake in the issue of the order of the Testimonium and John the Baptist passages in Pseudo-Hegesippus's De Excidio 3.12, I'm going to recapitulate it here. Andrew can correct me if he thinks I've misrepresented it.

I have argued that Eusebius composed the Testimonium for use in his own works (The Demonstratio, Historia Ecclesiastica, and Theophany), but have not taken a position on whether Eusebius himself, or some scribe dependent of Eusebius, is responsible for inserting it into the text of Josephus Antiquities.

Andrew has argued that Pseudo-Hegesippus is a witness to the Testimonium Flavianum in Excidio 2.12 (which I, of course, accept) and probably independent of Eusebius (which I do not). If he is correct, this would falsify my theory.

Pseudo-Hegesippus could have known the text of the Testimonium either from direct knowledge of Eusebius works (presumably the HE, but he may have known other works as well), or because he was using a manuscript of the Antiquities that had had the Testimonium inserted into it.

Andrew has argued that both of these possibilities are unlikely, because Pseudo-Hegesippus wrote the Excidio c. 370 CE in Italy (which I accept), and Eusebius Ecclesiastical History is not documented to have been known in Italy until Rufinus and Jerome some time later (exact dates unknown, but certainly by the first decade of the fifth century, so by c.400 CE).

I reject both of these criticisms because I do not believe Andrew can establish that it is unlikely that (1) Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, which was completed in 325 CE in Caesarea, could have made it to Italy sometime in the following 40 years, nor that (2) the Testimonium could have been inserted into manuscripts of the Testimonium and made it to Italy in the same period of time.

Andrew's argument about the order of the Testimonium and the John the Baptist passages is meant to refute the possibility that Pseudo-Hegesippus used (1) a copy of the Antiquities in which the Testimonium had not been inserted and (2) a copy of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, because it would show that Pseudo-Hegesippus knew the order of the passages in the Antiquities. I do not think the evidence demonstrates this (though I think it is entirely possible that Ps-H had a copy of the Antiquities with the Testimonium in it).

The argument is that, since Ps-H. gives the Testimonium and the John the Baptist passages in that order in 3.12, and this is not the order they are found in the the HE, but is the order they are found in the Antiquities, this makes it unlikely that Ps-H knew the Testimonium only from the HE. He must have known the Josephan order.

I have suggested this argument is based on a selective use of the evidence because it is not obvious why Pseudo-Hegesippus would have placed the John the Bapist passage almost directly after the Testimonium in 3.12 if he were following the text of Josephus, especially when they were separated by some 50 sections in the text of the Antiquities, and he places some material (the Paulina passage in 2.4 and the Samariatns passage in 2.5) that occurs after the Testimonium and before the John the Baptist passage in the text of the Antiquities before the Testimonium in his own text. The argument seems to be ad hoc in suggesting there is some special reason that the order of the Testimonium and Baptist passages in the Excidio must have been due to the influence of the order of the Antiquities when Ps-H. has not retained the order of passages that occur in between them.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

Just a small observation. Why do we have to pretend that Pseudo-Hegesippus was hermetically sealed as a text in 370 CE? Yes there is a passage which suggests it was written then but why couldn't additions or changes have come even later than that? Doesn't the Yosippon show that changes were always being made to Pseudo-Hegesippus? As such we could have a 5th century edition of a text originally written in 370 CE where subsequent changes were made - much like Rufinus's translations of Origen. The ancients had less faithfulness to the integrity of copied manuscripts

[Ken Olson]

Just a small observation. Why do we have to pretend that Pseudo-Hegesippus was hermetically sealed as a text in 370 CE? Yes there is a passage which suggests it was written then but why couldn't additions or changes have come even later than that? Doesn't the Yosippon show that changes were always being made to Pseudo-Hegesippus? As such we could have a 5th century edition of a text originally written in 370 CE where subsequent changes were made - much like Rufinus's translations of Origen. The ancients had less faithfulness to the integrity of copied manuscripts

The short answer is that we have fairly early manuscripts of the Excidio from the sixth and seventh centuries and they are fairly stable. The manuscripts of Yosippon are less stable, but Yosippon is a different work from the Excidio, which is one of its major sources, just as the Excidio is a different work from Josephus's Jewish War, which is its major source.

The longer answer is that we have good methodological reasons to treat manuscripts as reliable until proven otherwise. Anyone who wants to claim what's in the manuscript is not original (or, really, makes any other claim) takes on a burden of proof to demonstrate the likelihood that that is, in fact, the case. I've tried to do this with the Testimonium. I'm conjecturally emending the text by suggesting the reading found in all of our manuscripts is not original, and I've provided what I take to be evidence for my theory. It helps that the vast majority of scholars, such as John Meier, are also conjecturally emending the text, and it's generally agreed (with a few notable exceptions) that what's in our manuscripts is not the original written by Josephus.

I certainly could have responded to Andrew by suggesting that the section of the Excidio dealing with the Testimonium is a later interpolation, and he might have justifiably asked me to provide evidence for that assertion. It's possible, but i don't have evidence that it is true. Anyone who asserts that their own theory is possible and must be accepted until disproven (and there are a lot of these online) is a charlatan, or maybe someone that just doesn't understand how epistemology works. We couldn't possibly accept all non-disproven assertions without violating the principle of non-contradiction that is basic to logical reasoning.

Neither I nor anyone else has the time to consider and disprove every possibility. What we're interested in is what possibility is best supported by the evidence we have.

Best,

Ken