Eusebius as a forger.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Secret Alias »

Good answer. Thanks
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson »

I'm never going to complete a comprehensive response to Ben's last post in this thread, so I'm just going to try to respond to two points here - and one in a follow up.
Ben: 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."
On the fist point, I gave the link to where I discussed this earlier (and you responded) in my reply to Andrew. Basically I think the fact that we don't find the Christological statement "He was the Christ" in the Excidio but do find the Christological claim that even the leaders of the synagogue who dragged Jesus to his death acknowledged him to be divine suggest that the latter is a tendentious rendering of the former.

On the second point: (1) Yes, I think the diplomatic variants found in some translations, which qualify the direct Christological claim found in the Greek Testimonium, meaning Pseud-Hegesippus's Excidio, Jerome's Latin De Viris Illustribus and Michael the Great's Syriac Chronicle are probably to be explained that way. Parenthetically, Michael's translation is probably from a Syriac chronicle that was his source, and the author of that text was probably aware there were some text-critical problems with the text he received and was making his best effort to render what he thought was probably original. Also, George Cedrenus Greek version is likely due to a combination of faulty transmission and attempted reconstruction.

(2) No, I don't this is *exactly* against what I was arguing against. In what I wrote previously I noted that Eusebius counting Josephus among the Hebrews and Jerome counting him among the Illustrious men might need further discussion, that "I don’t mean to suggest that no ancient or medieval author ever recognized this in any case," and that "parts of it [The Testimonium] might have given them pause" because I was aware of examples like this. Individuals vary. Not all Christians were equally anti-Jewish, and anti-Judaism certainly did not manifest itself in the same way all the time. If we imagine a spectrum, Pseudo-Hegesippus further toward one end and Eusebius and Jerome (who think some Jews kind of got the truth) further toward the other, and Sozomen who says Josephus took a middle course between them. Though, actually, I suspect the range of early Christian attitudes toward Jews can not tracked in so linear a fashion. The fact that Eusebius and Jerome had to invent a special category for Jews that sort of got it it itself very anti-Jewish.

There is a range already in our earliest gospels. I think Matthew suggests that the Jews, or at least their leaders, were at least partly aware of what they were doing in putting Jesus to death. This is more explicit in the Gospel of Peter. Luke-Acts, on the other hand, denies that the Jews actually understood what they were doing.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:15 am I'm never going to complete a comprehensive response to Ben's last post in this thread, so I'm just going to try to respond to two points here - and one in a follow up.
Ben: 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."
On the first point, I gave the link to where I discussed this earlier (and you responded) in my reply to Andrew. Basically I think the fact that we don't find the Christological statement "He was the Christ" in the Excidio but do find the Christological claim that even the leaders of the synagogue who dragged Jesus to his death acknowledged him to be divine suggest that the latter is a tendentious rendering of the former.
That line falls outside the bounds of the explicit Josephan material in this section, and I have tended to view it differently than you apparently do:

Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Downfall of Jerusalem 2.12: 12 .... 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. ....

Matthew 26.63-64: 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus says to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Matthew 24.1-2: 24 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

The intended relationship between Josephus' own testimony and these explanatory details is not entirely clear to me, but I am not sure we are supposed to interpret these additions as part of Josephus' testimony. They seem rather like explanations for Josephus having written so frankly: if the synagogue leaders themselves confessed (according to Jesus himself) Jesus to be the Christ, the son of God (= God for pseudo-Hegesippus), then it ought not to occasion surprise that Josephus, a mere historian, should do so. The additions read to me like tendentious interpretations, not of Josephus, but of the gospels. Is there something in this passage that ought to persuade me to suppose otherwise?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben,

I'm still working on a response on the order of the Testimonium within the account of Pilate's governorship, but I'll reply to this first.
Ben: The intended relationship between Josephus' own testimony and these explanatory details is not entirely clear to me, but I am not sure we are supposed to interpret these additions as part of Josephus' testimony. They seem rather like explanations for Josephus having written so frankly: if the synagogue leaders themselves confessed (according to Jesus himself) Jesus to be the Christ, the son of God (= God for pseudo-Hegesippus), then it ought not to occasion surprise that Josephus, a mere historian, should do so. The additions read to me like tendentious interpretations, not of Josephus, but of the gospels. Is there something in this passage that ought to persuade me to suppose otherwise?
There might be something about the passage that could persuade you otherwise. But first let me go over what I think you've been arguing.
Ben: 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.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.
This is an argument from silence, right? You are inferring from the lack of the statement "He was the Christ," that Ps-H's source text could not have contained that reading because he would have used it if he had it. And then you suggest it contained a different reading, which you think Ps-H might have had but had reason not to use. How much confidence can you have in such an argument, particularly if you allow that Ps-H. is a tendentious writer (as I believe you do)? It would seem you have to have a high level of confidence that (1) my suggestion is implausible and (2) Ps-H could not think of a way to make "He was believed to be the Christ" work for him. I don't see how you can be sure enough of those to make an argument from silence work with confidence. Actually, it would seem like "He was thought to be the Christ" would fit well with Ps-H's statement that "he did not believe on account of his hardness of heart and his perfidious intention"? So why doesn't he have the statement?

The other thing is I'd like to ask what other parts of the Testimonium you think are missing from Excidio 2.12? Whealey has suggested that Pilate's putting Jesus to death is missing, but I don't see how she can know that when Pilate's putting Jesus to death is found in the text in between two sections she acknowledges to be from the Testimonium. The only thing I can think of that's missing the fact that Christians are named after Christ.
Excidio 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. 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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm Ben,

I'm still working on a response on the order of the Testimonium within the account of Pilate's governorship, but I'll reply to this first.
Ben: The intended relationship between Josephus' own testimony and these explanatory details is not entirely clear to me, but I am not sure we are supposed to interpret these additions as part of Josephus' testimony. They seem rather like explanations for Josephus having written so frankly: if the synagogue leaders themselves confessed (according to Jesus himself) Jesus to be the Christ, the son of God (= God for pseudo-Hegesippus), then it ought not to occasion surprise that Josephus, a mere historian, should do so. The additions read to me like tendentious interpretations, not of Josephus, but of the gospels. Is there something in this passage that ought to persuade me to suppose otherwise?
There might be something about the passage that could persuade you otherwise. But first let me go over what I think you've been arguing.
The part you are referring to was less an argument than a half remembered fragment of a thought from several years ago, but sure, let us see if we can turn it into an argument. :)
Ben: 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.
This is an argument from silence, right?
No, because pseudo-Hegesippus is silent on that line to the extent that we cannot tell just by reading which variant, given that there are two in play, pseudo-Hegesippus knew. Was it that he was the Christ, or was it that he was thought to be the Christ? An argument from silence would be that the author is silent about the Christ line; therefore the author does not know about the Christ line. But that is not my approach. Rather, I am assuming that one or the other variant was present in the exemplar, and I am wondering which one. (Now, maybe that assumption is mistaken, and the line really was not there at all; or maybe in its place there stood something completely different than what we know from the other instances of the Testimonium. Those options would be exciting, right? But I cannot justify leaping to such a conclusion; so I take the more boring approach and assume that pseudo-Hegesippus was reacting to one of our two variants, which is the exact opposite of an argument from silence.)
You are inferring from the lack of the statement "He was the Christ," that Ps-H's source text could not have contained that reading because he would have used it if he had it.
Rather, I am asking which variant seems to be most likely, given the text of pseudo-Hegesippus. If suspecting that one variant was present in his examplar is an argument from silence, then so, by necessity, is suspecting that it was the other.
And then you suggest it contained a different reading....
No, not a "different" reading, but rather one of the two options in play. You seem to be starting with the assumption that "he was the Christ" is what pseudo-Hegesippus read in the text before him, and thus regard "he was thought to be the Christ" as a "different" reading, one that has to be defended in some special way. But why would "he was the Christ" be the default? Is there some argument somewhere to the effect that Jerome had to be the inventor of the more tentative version?
How much confidence can you have in such an argument, particularly if you allow that Ps-H. is a tendentious writer (as I believe you do)?
Not much! But I am not sure how I would be any more confident of the other option. I mean, the line itself is missing, so we are having to guess to some extent.
It would seem you have to have a high level of confidence that (1) my suggestion is implausible and (2) Ps-H could not think of a way to make "He was believed to be the Christ" work for him.
As of this particular moment, I think that your suggestion for which line may be answering to "he was the Christ" is less plausible than the possibility that pseudo-Hegesippus had the gospels in mind for that line. But I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
Actually, it would seem like "He was thought to be the Christ" would fit well with Ps-H's statement that "he did not believe on account of his hardness of heart and his perfidious intention"? So why doesn't he have the statement?
And it would seem like "he was the Christ" would fit well with his statement that Josephus "spoke the truth" but "did not believe his own words." So why does he not have the statement?
The other thing is I'd like to ask what other parts of the Testimonium you think are missing from Excidio 2.12? Whealey has suggested that Pilate's putting Jesus to death is missing, but I don't see how she can know that when Pilate's putting Jesus to death is found in the text in between two sections she acknowledges to be from the Testimonium. The only thing I can think of that's missing the fact that Christians are named after Christ.
Well, "a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure" is not immediately obvious, but I think it is probably reflected in pseudo-Hegesippus' statement that Jews and gentiles "were attracted by his moral precepts." As you point out, "named from this man" does seem to be absent. And the only other one I notice as missing is "he was (thought to be) the Christ." If we accept the Jews and gentiles being attracted to Jesus' moral precepts as reflecting "a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure," and if we accept "named from this man" as perhaps something so obvious to a Christian that it did not bear repeating, then the one thing that really stands out is that missing Christ line.

ETA: I tire of having to look this passage up separately, so here is the Latin of 2.12 and the online English rendering by Wade Blocker (which is not always perfect, but the Latin should be consulted regardless):

Pseudo-Hegesippus, De Excidio Urbis Hierosolymitanae (On the Downfall of Jerusalem) 2.12.1-3: 1 Luebant enim scelerum suorum supplicia, qui postquam Iesum crucifixerant divinorum arbitrum, postea etiam discipulos eius persequebantur. Plerique tamen Iudaeorum, gentilium plurimi crediderunt in eum, cum praeceptis moralibus, operibus ultra humanam possibilitatem profluentibus invitarentur. Quibus ne mors quidem eius vel fidei vel gratiae finem inposuit, immo etiam cumulavit devotionem. Intulerunt itaque parricidales manus atque auctorem vitae interficiendum ad Pilatum deduxere, reluctantem coeperunt perurguere iudicem. In quo tamen non excusatur Pilatus sed Iudaeorum amentia coacervatur, quia nec ille adiudicare debuit, quem reum minime deprehenderat, nec isti sacrilegium parricidio geminare, ut ab his qui ad redimendos et sanandos eos sese optulerat, obtruncaretur. De quo ipsi Iudaei quoque testantur dicente Iosepho historiarum scriptore, quod fuerat illo in tempore vir sapiens, si tamen oportet, inquit, virum dici mirabilium creatorem operum, qui apparuerit discipulis suis post triduum mortis suae vivens secundum prophetarum scripta, qui et haec et alia innumerabilia de eo plena miraculi prophetaverunt. Ex quo coepit congregatio Christianorum et in omne hominum penetravit genus, nec ulla natio Romani orbis remansit, quae cultus eius expers relinqueretur. Si nobis non credunt Iudaei, vel suis credant. Hoc dixit Iosephus, quem ipsi maximum putant, et tamen ita in eo ipso quod verum locutus est mente devius fuit, ut nec sermonibus suis crederet. Sed locutus est propter historiae fidem, quia fallere nefas putabat, non credidit propter duritiam cordis et perfidiae intentionem. Non tamen veritati praeiudicat, quia non credidit sed plus addidit testimonio, quia nec incredulus et invitus negavit. In quo Christi Iesu claruit aeterna potentia, quod eum etiam principes synagogae quem ad mortem conprehenderant deum fatebantur. Et vere quasi deus sine exceptione personarum aut ulla mortis formidine locutus excidium quoque templi futurum adnuntiavit. Sed non eos templi iniuria commovit, sed quia flagitiis ab eo et sacrilegiis corripiebantur, hinc ira exarsit ut interficerent eum, quem nulla habuissent tempora. Nam cum alii precando meruerint facere quae fecerunt, hic in potestate habebat ut omnia quae fieri vellet imperaret. 2 Occisus erat ante mortem Iesu Baptista Iohannes vir sanctus, qui numquam in secundis salutis veritatem posuerit. Denique ad omnia, quae plena iustitiae docebat, quibus ad cultum dei invitabat Iudaeos, etiam baptismum propter purificationem animae et corporis instituerat. Cui causa necis libertas, quod perpeti nequivit ab Herode fraterni violata conubii iura germanoque abductam coniugem. Nam cum idem Herodes Romam pergeret, hospitii causa fratris ingressus domum, cui erat uxor Herodias Aristoboli filia, regis Agrippae soror, ausus est eam naturae immemor sollicitare, ut relicto fratre sibi nuberet, cum de urbe Roma revertisset, et consensu mulieris inita incesti pactio cuius indicium rei pervenit ad Aretae regis filiam in coniugio adhuc Herodis manentem. Ea rivalem indignata redeunti marito insinuavit ut ad Macherunta oppidum dirigeretur, quod erat in confino Petrei regis et Herodis. Ille qui nihil suspicaretur, simul quia omnem iam circa eandem inminuerat affectum, quo facilius Herodiadi pactionis fidem praestaret si ablegaret coniugem, adquievit eius secessioni. At illa ubi patrio regno adpropinquauit, cognita patri Aretae prodidit, qui per insidias omnem exercitum Herodis bello lacessitum delevit proditione facta per eos, qui ex Philippi tetrarchae populo Herodi se adsociaverant. Unde Herodes querellam Caesari detulit, sed vindictam imperatam a Caesare indignatio dei sustulit. Nam in ipso apparatu belli Caesaris mors nuntiata. Idque Iudaeis aestimatum conperimus et creditum, auctore Iosepho adversum se idoneo, quod non fraude hominum sed dei commotione Herodes exercitum amiserit et iuste quidem propter vindictam Iohannis Baptistae viri iusti qui dixerat ei: non tibi licet illam uxorem habere. 3 Sed ita haec conteximus quasi vel in suis Iudaei legitima custodierint, apud quos interierat summi ius sacerdotii aut avaritia interemtum aut potiorum insolentia, qui licere quod vellent ius putabant. Namque a principio Aaron summus sacerdos fuit, qui ad filios suos ex voluntate dei unctione legitima transmisit sacerdotii praerogatiuam, a quibus per ordinem successionis constituti sunt sacerdotii principatum gerentes. Unde patrio more convaluit neminem fieri principem sacerdotum, nisi qui esset ex sanguine Aaron, cui primum ius istius modi delatum est sacerdotii, alterius autem generis viro ne regi quidem licere succedere. Denique Ozias, quia usurpavit sacerdotii munus, perfusus lepra temploque eiectus reliquam aetatem sine imperio exegit. Et certe rex optimus fuit, sed usurpare ei non licuit officium religionis. / 1 They were suffering the punishments for their crimes, those who, after having crucified Jesus, the arbiter of divine affairs, then were also persecuting his disciples. For many Jews and even more Gentiles believed in him and were attracted by his teaching of morals and performance of works beyond human capability. Not even his death put an end to their faith and love, but rather it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilate to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilate 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. Of this the Jews themselves give the testimony, Josephus the writer saying in his history that there was at that time a wise man, if it be appropriate, he says, to call man the creator of miraculous works, who appeared alive to his disciples three days after his death according to writings of the prophets, who prophesied both these and innumerable other things full of wonders about him. From him began the congregation of Christians, even infiltrating every race of humans, nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world that is without his religion. If the Jews do not believe us, they might believe one of their own. Thus spoke Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, and nevertheless so devious in mind was he who spoke the truth about him, that he did not believe even his own words. Although he spoke for the sake of fidelity to history because he thought it wrong to deceive, he did not believe because of his hardness of heart and faithless intention. Nevertheless it does not prejudice truth because he did not believe, rather it adds to the testimony because, unbelieving and unwilling he did not deny it. In this the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone forth, that even the leading men of the synagogue who delivered him up to death acknowledged him to be God. 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. 2 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, 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. 3 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 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.

Note: the English follows Marian Hillar where available, Wade Blocker (slightly modified) where not.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:09 am, edited 4 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben: As of this particular moment, I think that your suggestion for which line may be answering to "he was the Christ" is less plausible than the possibility that pseudo-Hegesippus had the gospels in mind for that line. But I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
Glad to hear it.
Ken: Actually, it would seem like "He was thought to be the Christ" would fit well with Ps-H's statement that "he did not believe on account of his hardness of heart and his perfidious intention"? So why doesn't he have the statement?

Ben: And it would seem like "he was the Christ" would fit well with his statement that Josephus "spoke the truth" but "did not believe his own words." So why does he not have the statement?
I was under the impression that you were arguing that Ps-H's silence on this was evidence that weighed heavily in favor of your theory that his source read "He was thought to be the Christ." But your response seems to suggest it's a wash between the two theories.
Ben: Well, "a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure" is not immediately obvious, but I think it is probably reflected in pseudo-Hegesippus' statement that Jews and gentiles "were attracted by his moral precepts." As you point out, "named from this man" does seem to be absent. And the only other one I notice as missing is "he was (thought to be) the Christ." If we accept the Jews and gentiles being attracted to Jesus' moral precepts as reflecting "a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure," and if we accept "named from this man" as perhaps something so obvious to a Christian that it did not bear repeating, then the one thing that really stands out is that missing Christ line.
I agree that "were attracted by his moral precepts" is Ps-H's rather free rendering of "a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure," not just because of its content, having to do with Jesus' teaching, but also because of its context between the great part of Jews and Gentiles and the works beyond human capability, which are more obvious parallels to the Testimonium, though in reverse order. So then there's the "named for him part," which you suggest may have been so obvious it did not need repeating. That's a possibility, but what weight do you attach to the fact that two of our three post-Josephus and pre-Ps-H witnesses, Eusebius' Demonstratio and Theophany, are also missing this?

So, as you say, the thing that stands out is the missing Christ line. Why is this line, the only line in the Testimonium, which is the only line in the Testimonium which contains a statement that Jesus was the Christ, whether directly on the part of the author or indirectly by others, missing (unless as I've suggested, it's not actually missing, but rendered freely and out of order)? It would seem to be very important whether it read "He was the Christ" or "He was believed to be the Christ".

Of course, even if my speculation about the line "confessed him to be divine" is correct, I still wouldn't be able to show that Ps-H's text did not read "He was believed to be the Christ."

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:52 pm
Ben: As of this particular moment, I think that your suggestion for which line may be answering to "he was the Christ" is less plausible than the possibility that pseudo-Hegesippus had the gospels in mind for that line. But I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
Glad to hear it.
Ken: Actually, it would seem like "He was thought to be the Christ" would fit well with Ps-H's statement that "he did not believe on account of his hardness of heart and his perfidious intention"? So why doesn't he have the statement?

Ben: And it would seem like "he was the Christ" would fit well with his statement that Josephus "spoke the truth" but "did not believe his own words." So why does he not have the statement?
I was under the impression that you were arguing that Ps-H's silence on this was evidence that weighed heavily in favor of your theory that his source read "He was thought to be the Christ." But your response seems to suggest it's a wash between the two theories.
My words were:
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.
I am not sure how "perhaps" grew into "weighed heavily in favor" (though I am explicitly exploring whether I might be able to lay claim to it weighing slightly in favor) but yes, it is hard to decide between the two hypotheses. At first blush, they are indeed a wash, since one is missing just as much as the other is missing. It does feel to me, however, like "he was thought to be the Christ" might be easier for an author like Hegesippus to omit than "he was the Christ" (hence my thoughts along these lines in the first place), but this is hardly a knockdown argument; it is, at best, a slight advantage for one option over the other. Do you think that omitting "he was the Christ" is easier to imagine? Or do you think as I do? Or do you think that they are, as you say, a wash?
I agree that "were attracted by his moral precepts" is Ps-H's rather free rendering of "a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure," not just because of its content, having to do with Jesus' teaching, but also because of its context between the great part of Jews and Gentiles and the works beyond human capability, which are more obvious parallels to the Testimonium, though in reverse order. So then there's the "named for him part," which you suggest may have been so obvious it did not need repeating. That's a possibility, but what weight do you attach to the fact that two of our three post-Josephus and pre-Ps-H witnesses, Eusebius' Demonstratio and Theophany, are also missing this?
Great point. I had not considered that.

Could ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων be an example of one of Eusebius' little explanatory glosses (like the Maccabean one, whether he be imagined as glossing Josephus or as glossing his own work)?
So, as you say, the thing that stands out is the missing Christ line. Why is this line, the only line in the Testimonium, which is the only line in the Testimonium which contains a statement that Jesus was the Christ, whether directly on the part of the author or indirectly by others, missing (unless as I've suggested, it's not actually missing, but rendered freely and out of order)?
Even if your suggestion is correct, why is this line the one for which pseudo-Hegesippus is the most oblique? Everything else can be identified fairly easily; this one, though, takes a lot of imagination; even the one about Jesus' moral precepts is straightforward by comparison.

This is where, once again, I start to suspect that perhaps pseudo-Hegesippus had the less straightforward version of the Christ line before him. If he had the more straightforward version, then he is being supremely indirect at a point where Josephus is being very direct. If, however, the line in question was "he was thought to be the Christ," pseudo-Hegesippus might have taken issue with the very indirectness of the statement, it being at variance with his point that Josephus told the truth despite himself. All of the other quoted statements are direct: he was a wise man, he was the creator of marvelous works, he appeared alive to his disciples after three days, and so on; perhaps the less direct variant explains the silence at this point. Call this an argument from silence if you must (though I am not sure how it would be, since both sides of the argument are trying to coax something out of the silence rather than read something into it), but it is a thought that nags at me now every time I read this passage in pseudo-Hegesippus. What do you think would make the alternative(s) equally or more likely?
Of course, even if my speculation about the line "confessed him to be divine" is correct, I still wouldn't be able to show that Ps-H's text did not read "He was believed to be the Christ."
And I cannot with any real degree of certainty demonstrate that pseudo-Hegesippus' text had the less direct variant. But what leads you to connect this bit to "he was the Christ" in the first place? On the one hand, Josephus himself would be saying that "he was (thought to be) the Christ." On the other, it is the synagogue leaders saying that Jesus is divine, and this in a context in which the author is bending over backwards to explain what Josephus himself wrote and believed. Tendentiousness is one thing; this, though, seems like quite a leap.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:54 am
Ken Olson wrote: I'm never going to complete a comprehensive response to Ben's last post in this thread, so I'm just going to try to respond to two points here - and one in a follow up.
Ben: 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."
On the first point, I gave the link to where I discussed this earlier (and you responded) in my reply to Andrew. Basically I think the fact that we don't find the Christological statement "He was the Christ" in the Excidio but do find the Christological claim that even the leaders of the synagogue who dragged Jesus to his death acknowledged him to be divine suggest that the latter is a tendentious rendering of the former.
That line falls outside the bounds of the explicit Josephan material in this section, and I have tended to view it differently than you apparently do:

Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Downfall of Jerusalem 2.12: 12 .... 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. ....

Matthew 26.63-64: 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus says to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Matthew 24.1-2: 24 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

The intended relationship between Josephus' own testimony and these explanatory details is not entirely clear to me, but I am not sure we are supposed to interpret these additions as part of Josephus' testimony. They seem rather like explanations for Josephus having written so frankly: if the synagogue leaders themselves confessed (according to Jesus himself) Jesus to be the Christ, the son of God (= God for pseudo-Hegesippus), then it ought not to occasion surprise that Josephus, a mere historian, should do so. The additions read to me like tendentious interpretations, not of Josephus, but of the gospels. Is there something in this passage that ought to persuade me to suppose otherwise?
I believe I now understand the relationship between Josephus' own testimony (= this version of the Testimonium) and these "explanatory details" (= the leaders of the synagogue confessing Jesus to be god and his announcing of the future destruction of the temple). Here is the Latin of the relevant sentence:

Non tamen veritati praeiudicat quia non credidit, sed plus addidit testimonio, quia nec et invitus negavit, in quo Christi Iesu claruit aeterna potentia, quod eum etiam principes synagogae quem ad mortem comprehenderant deum fatebantur.

I think the sense is this: it does not negatively affect the truth that Josephus did not believe, but rather adds more to the testimony (in general) about Jesus, simply because Josephus himself did not deny it despite his own unbelief and unwillingness. In this testimony (in quo) the eternal power of Christ Jesus shone forth, since even the princes of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had apprehended for death.

"The testimony" itself is not Josephus' testimony; according to pseudo-Hegesippus, Josephus is adding to a store of testimony about Jesus which is already in place (plus addidit testimonio); this is similar to what has been observed about Josephus essentially becoming a sort of fifth gospel in some quarters of the church. So now, at this point of the paragraph, pseudo-Hegesippus is free to focus on this broader testimony which his paraphrase of Josephus has already added to, and that broader testimony includes interpretations of the gospel passion narratives, as outlined above. Neither the leaders of the synagogue confessing Jesus to be god nor Jesus' own announcement of the future destruction of the temple derives in any way from Josephus: these details derive from the already existing testimony (of the gospels) to which Josephus was viewed as having unwillingly added his own information.

I submit that this interpretation also makes more sense of the flow of pseudo-Hegesippus' treatment of Josephus:

They were suffering the punishments for their crimes, those who, after having crucified Jesus, the arbiter of divine affairs, then were also persecuting his disciples. For many Jews and even more Gentiles believed in him and were attracted by his teaching of morals and performance of works beyond human capability. Not even his death put an end to their faith and love, but rather it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilate to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilate 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; concerning this [de quo] the Jews themselves give the testimony, Josephus the writer saying in his history that there was at that time a wise man, if it be appropriate, he says, to call man the creator of miraculous works, who appeared alive to his disciples three days after his death according to writings of the prophets, who prophesied both these and innumerable other things full of wonders about him. From him began the congregation of Christians, even infiltrating every race of humans, nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world that is without his religion. If the Jews do not believe us, they might believe one of their own. Thus spoke Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, and nevertheless so devious in mind was he who spoke the truth about him, that he did not believe even his own words. Although he spoke for the sake of fidelity to history because he thought it wrong to deceive, he did not believe because of his hardness of heart and faithless intention. Nevertheless it does not prejudice truth because he did not believe, rather it adds to the testimony because, unbelieving and unwilling he did not deny it. In this the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone forth, that even the leading men of the synagogue who delivered him up to death acknowledged him to be God. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple.

It is true that pseudo-Hegesippus starts paraphrasing the Testimonium Flavianum (in boldface above) before he introduces Josephus as having written about Jesus, but the phrase de quo signals this for us: one of the Jews, Josephus, gave testimony concerning this (= that which has just been written); so it makes sense that "this" which has just been written should reflect something that Josephus wrote (as well as mixing in a few details from popular interpretations of the gospels, so as to make Josephus a cosignatory of sorts). Now the Testimonium is fleshed out the rest of the way, almost in its entirety according to the textus receptus (lacking only "he was [thought to be] the Christ" and "named after him"), right up to the "thus spoke Josephus" part, which signals the end of Josephus' treatment of Jesus, with nothing in the text to cast it forward from this point. From this point forward the details are either pseudo-Hegesippus' own or drawn from the gospels.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

When I search pseudo-Hegesippus for anything corresponding to "he was the Christ," I come up empty. With "he was believed to be the Christ" in mind, however, things may look different:

Pseudo-Hegesippus: plerique tamen Iudaeorum, gentilium plurimi crediderunt in eum....

Jerome: plurimos quoque tam de Iudaeis quam de gentilibus habuit sectatores, et credebatur esse Christus.

Michael: Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah.

What if what pseudo-Hegesippus drew from the Christ line was the matter of him having been believed to be something rather than the matter of him actually being the Christ? But this would imply that pseudo-Hegesippus had the less direct version of this line, since the overlap is in crediderunt and not in Christus. Pretty sure I read about this somewhere at some point back when I was really looking into the Testimonium.

ETA: Here it is:

Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic," NTS 54, page 581: In addition, Pseudo-Hegesippus’ sentence plerique tamen Judaeorum, gentilium plurimi crediderunt in eum (De excidio 2.12), looks very much like a positive paraphrase of the text that Jerome translated more literally as plurimos quoque tamen de Judais quam de gentilibus sui habuit sectores et credebatur esse Christus.

I was just channeling Whealey here.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
"The testimony" itself is not Josephus' testimony; according to pseudo-Hegesippus, Josephus is adding to a store of testimony about Jesus which is already in place (plus addidit testimonio); this is similar to what has been observed about Josephus essentially becoming a sort of fifth gospel in some quarters of the church. So now, at this point of the paragraph, pseudo-Hegesippus is free to focus on this broader testimony which his paraphrase of Josephus has already added to, and that broader testimony includes interpretations of the gospel passion narratives, as outlined above. Neither the leaders of the synagogue confessing Jesus to be god nor Jesus' own announcement of the future destruction of the temple derives in any way from Josephus: these details derive from the already existing testimony (of the gospels) to which Josephus was viewed as having unwillingly added his own information.

I'm new to factoring Ps.-Hegesippus into the TF issue, but for what it's worth, as I was reading Ben's citation from the Excidio (and before seeing his conclusion here) I came away with the same impression. And I'm becoming more intrigued with the "believed to be/thought to be" TF variants and if/how Ps.-Hegesippus pertains to them.

And while Michael appears to be favored over Agapius (since the former directly cites Josephus and the latter doesn't), the way Agapius puts it is still nagging at me. But here is how Carrier puts the situation:
… 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 (or some other Syriac Chronicle closely akin), 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.

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

At this point I'm not sure what to make of the "believed to be/thought to be" variants, but I'm thinking (as Whealey puts it) that they "would readily explain Origen's statements that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ." And where did Jerome get his variant? If Ben is right that there was a variant copy or copies of Josephus, the only question then would be if it more accurately reflects an original TF. But however things may be, I want to take another look at Agapius.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply