JW:John2 wrote:Joe,
As far as I am concerned, aside from the idea that the TF could have roots in Origen (which I've never thought about before and will need to chew on, but doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility), you are preaching to the choir. So I'm curious what, if anything, you make of Goldberg's observation that there appears to be a connection between the TF and the Emmaus Road appearance in Luke 24.
On the one hand, since I'm already convinced that Luke used Josephus, it isn't hard for me to imagine that he saw some kind of pre-Eusebian TF in addition to the other things he uses from Josephus. But on the other, if there was something there, then it's hard to imagine why no one else would have cited it besides Luke before Eusebius.
So while I'm generally on board with what you are saying, I don't know what to make of it in light of Goldberg's observation, and I'm wondering what you might think. I'd like to think that there is no connection, because it would make everything easy, but I can't deny that there does at least appear to be some kind of connection between the TF and Luke 24. Coupled with the idea that Luke probably did use Josephus in other cases, it seems even more plausible (even if it creates more questions than it answers).
First of all, you ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jersey. Let me back up here. I've only presented a case suspecting Eusebius of guilt in the creation of the TF based on Literary Criticism, not Source Criticism. The evidence I have is a long way from good evidence to prove or even convict based on "probable". So my related conclusion is only that it is possible that Eusebius is guilty. As the conclusion is toned down it requires less evidence to sustain so I do think it likely that Eusebius is a suspect.
Regarding Goldberg, I would first look at his conclusions to weight him as a potential expert:
http://www.josephus.org/home.htm
JW:In this article the Testimonium is shown to be a close rewording of a text that also appears in the Book of Luke. This modification of a source while respecting peculiarities and difficult phrases can be explained as Josephus' standard method of working, but cannot be explained as the normal manner of composing a Jesus story by later Christian writers. The conclusion is that the account in the Antiquities is almost entirely the work of Josephus, based on a Christian proselytizing document that was in circulation circa the year 90.
Perhaps more amazing than the TF being in Josephus is this mystery text being in the conclusion of Goldberg without any External evidence of existence. Goldberg's related writings seem to go in between claiming he has proved the connection to saying it is the most logical explanation. Parallel analysis is normally done between known sources. The difference here is that G-whiz (Goldberg) is comparing the parallels of known sources Josephus and GLuke to an unknown source. He than has no formal criteria for analysis, only proof-texting.
Ben Smith was probably the best Christian scholar to ever Grace FRDB (so I had to help chase him away) and he has Olson's related response here:
http://www.textexcavation.com/olsonmiddleterm.html
Olson thinks G-whiz's conclusion is not supported by his evidence. The other heavyweight here, Dr. Carrier, simply sees the parallels as evidence for Christian interpolation/forgery. The basic question does not change, who is more likely to have written the TF, Josephus or a Christian interpolator/forger? I have to agree here with Olson and Carrier, concluding that because the TF has strong parallels to the best possible source for Christians, a Gospel, that it was authored by Josephus, rather than a Christian, strikes me as strange/bizarre/macabre.
There is no substitute here for formal criteria for parallels. G-whiz concludes that the TF parallels remarkably well with a theoretical source that parallels even better with Luke 24. So use Clark's Criteria for Valid Parallels to evaluate the quality of parallels between the TF and Luke 24 excerpt as a source (since per G-whiz's theory Luke 24 is the best representative of the theoretical document):
But after you do this analysis for the TF than do it for ALL of Josephus. And that is Olson's objection to G-whiz. Finding parallels between the TF and Luke 24 doesn't change the observation that a Christian would be more likely to write favorably of Jesus or at least mention Jesus than Josephus would.1. Similarity in content
Too vague to stand on its own as a criterion of authorial intention for passages to be read in parallel. May complement other similarities.
2. Similarity in language
Lexical repetitions or synonyms. Rare words are more likely to be significant. Consider synonyms, too. Are compound forms forms apparently used as intentional parallels to their original forms?
3. Literary form
May not stand on its own but can complement other similarities. Healings of paralytics by Peter (Acts 3:1-10) and Paul (14:8-10) share a common literary form as both contain information about the place, action of the man, word of healing, gesture of healing, immediate occurrence of healing, demonstration of healing, and effect on the crowd (from Ludemann, Early Christianity ( via: Amazon UK ), 53).
Sometimes better to speak of distinct literary motifs in common: example, the double visions in each of the conversions of Saul (9:1-19) and Peter (10:1-48).
4. Sequence
The more extensive a sequence is the stronger it is as an indicator of intentional parallelism. Sequences may not always be in the same strict order, however.
5. Structure
Larger parallel structures, even though not always perfectly matched, are another strong indication of an intent to create a double pattern. Examples: Talbert's 32 parallels of content and sequence between the Gospel of Luke and Acts; between Acts 1-12 and Acts 13-28. The parallel structures suggest an intention to highlight a theme of continuity between Jesus and his disciples, and between the apostles and Paul.
6. Theme
Another complementary criterion that carries weight when in conjunction with other criteria. Perhaps also an essential criterion.
Also note: Disruption of the text
If the flow of the text is disrupted, or if a pericope is awkward internally, where a parallel appears, this is a strong indicator that the parallel was an important feature in the author's mind.
Joseph
