Say It Aint So Joe. Test. Flav. Eusebius Author/Discoverer?

[andrewcriddle]

Most of the Hopper article is viewable via Google books.

One issue is that it compares the TF stylistically to the other narratives about Pilate and shows important differences.
I'm not clear whether a comparison of the TF to Josephus as a whole would have the same results.

(Analysing all of Josephus in the detailed way Hopper analyses the Pilate passages might be impracticable but it would be interesting to compare say the Paulina digression to the TF using Hopper's analysis.)

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

Most of the Hopper article is viewable via Google books.

One issue is that it compares the TF stylistically to the other narratives about Pilate and shows important differences.
I'm not clear whether a comparison of the TF to Josephus as a whole would have the same results.

(Analysing all of Josephus in the detailed way Hopper analyses the Pilate passages might be impracticable but it would be interesting to compare say the Paulina digression to the TF using Hopper's analysis.)

Andrew Criddle

JW:
Regarding the above I think my fellow Skeptics here are having a problem articulating what the significant observation is here regarding the style of the TF. Analyzing the likelihood, based on style, of Josephus authoring the TF is going to be more objective than analyzing the likelihood of a Christian in a specific time period authoring it.

Focusing than on Josephus' style, in the big picture, we should start by considering the general style of a modern historian. Modern historians try to avoid editorial comments/opinions in their detail. They instead try to provide the comments, opinions, background and motivations of the characters they are reporting about. Than comparing Josephus to modern historians, I think all would agree that relatively, Josephus is more likely to give editorial comments than a modern historian. Than comparing Josephus to other ancient authors, I think again, all would agree that Josephus gives relatively less editorial comments in his details in Antiquities, than other ancient authors.

Analyzing the TF for editorial comment than:

CHAPTER 3. SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME,

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,

[Editorial comment]

if it be lawful to call him a man;

[Editorial comment]

for he was a doer of wonderful works,

[Editorial comment]

a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

[Editorial comment]

He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

[Editorial comment]

He was [the] Christ.

[Editorial comment]

And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,

[Not really an editorial comment but lacks motivation for "principal men" and Pilate]

(9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;

[Combined with what follows it is an editorial comment]

for he appeared to them alive again the third day;

[Editorial comment]

(10) as the divine prophets had foretold

[Editorial comment]

these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

[Editorial comment]

And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

[Editorial comment]

Almost all of the TF than is editorial comment.

A good comparison than for starters as to Josephus' style would be the preceding paragraph since that is all about Pilate:

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem,

[Narrative]

and did it with the sacred money,

[Narrative]

and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs.

[Narrative]

However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water;

[Narrative - Note the motivation provided here by Josephus, who is reporting the opinion of the witnesses and not his own]

and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him,

[Narrative]

and insisted that he should leave off that design.

[Narrative]

Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do.

[Narrative]

So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them.

[Narrative - Note that Josephus has now likewise provided the motivation for Pilate]

So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them,

[Narrative]

and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about,

[Narrative - Note that as opposed to the TF, here Josephus provides details for a chain of events as opposed to broad conclusions without details and motivations]

there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded.

[Narrative]

And thus an end was put to this sedition.

[Narrative - Note here just one conclusion to the story, appropriately at the end, as opposed to multiple conclusions without details and motivations]

The styles than between the TF and the preceding paragraph are completely different. The TF consists mainly of broad editorial conclusions lacking details, connections and motivations while the preceding paragraph has the opposite. This would be enough by itself to suspect the TF as original. Broadening than this type of style comparison to more of Josephus, I think everyone would agree that in general the TF is more editorial than any other part/all of Josephus. Finding one/few digressions in Josephus with similar editorial content (waiting for someone to discover one) is not going to change the fact that the distinct editorial style of the TF is evidence against originality if that style in general is foreign to Antiquities.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[andrewcriddle]

I'm not sure how editorial comment here is being defined

for example

He [Jesus] drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

seems straightforward narrative.

while

Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do.

seems partly editorial comment.

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

...What a nightmare!

Hey Yahweh

JW:
It's generally agreed that the TF is not what Josephus wrote so the question is how to get from whatever Josephus originally
wrote to the TF. The combination of Age and lack of Credibility of Christianity means that in absolute terms no conclusion
can be proven or even demonstrated to be likely. We are reduced to relative conclusions. Which conclusion is most likely
compared to other conclusions. In this situation the "unclear" conclusion is usually a good candidate.

Even though I have never seen anyone else even mention this I think what follows is the best bad explanation (guess):

Eusebius' take on Origen's related commentary, parallels in [Red]:

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book X)

17. The Brethren of Jesus.

And the saying, " Whence has this man this wisdom[1]," Matthew 13:54 indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, "lo, a greater than Solomon is here." Matthew 12:42 And He was wont to do greater miracles[3] than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun.[7] And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19 And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ,[5] he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." Jude 1 With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, "And His sisters are they not all with us," Matthew 13:56 seems to me to signify something of this nature— they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man[2] but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others— the women— as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, "How knows this man letters having never learned?[4]" John 7:15 which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.[6]

Now looking at the TF:

Testimonium Flavianum

• 3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man[1],
  
  if it be lawful to call him a man;[2]
  
  for he was a doer of wonderful works,[3]
  
  a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.[4]
  
  He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.
  
  He was [the] Christ.[5]
  
  And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[6]
  
  as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.[7]
  
  And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Note that most of the basic assertians in the TF have related counterparts in Origen's commentary. One possibility is that due to Origen's invocation of Josephus:

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ,[5] he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James

Eusebius takes literary license to assume that there is an implication that per Origen Josephus wrote directly about Jesus and that Origen's surrounding information was fair game as to what to include. This also helps explain why Jerome has "thought to be" instead of "was" the Christ. Original Eusebius also had "thought to be" because that was the implication from Origen.

Another possibility is that there were comments in the margin of Origen's copy of Josephus either put there by Origen or someone in between that Eusebius inherited from Origen at Caesarea and Eusebius added them into the text. For those who need points sharply explained, the best literary clue before Eusebius' TF is Origen and physically Origen/Eusebius were at the exact same scene of the crime.

Add to this Origen's related comment in Contra Celsus 1.47:

For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, [E1] even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, [B1] since they killed him who was most just. [A] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

JW:
Note the conclusions by Origen:

• 1) Josephus should have said "Jesus" instead of "John the Baptist."
  2) It's more reasonable to have said "Jesus" than "James".

Of course it's always better to look at the original language but there are a few possibilities here based on the above to explain how to get from Josephus to the TF. The range:

• 1) During transmission someone interprets 1) and 2) to possibly mean that the TF is what Josephus originally meant.
  
  Verses (at the other end)
  
  2) Eusebius understands exactly what Origen and Josephus meant but edits it to the TF because Josephus is not Scripture and Eusebius prefers
  having and giving what he thinks Josephus should have written rather than what he thinks Josephus wrote.

Josephus

• Flounder: Do you think that's gonna work?
  
  Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.

The New Porphyry

[GakuseiDon]

Add to this Origen's related comment in Contra Celsus 1.47:

For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, [E1] even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, [B1] since they killed him who was most just. [A] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

JW:
Note the conclusions by Origen:

• 1) Josephus should have said "Jesus" instead of "John the Baptist."
  2) It's more reasonable to have said "Jesus" than "James".

Joe, do you mean "James" rather than "John the Baptist" in (1) above? (I.e. "Josephus should have said "Jesus" instead of "James".) If so, what is the difference between (1) and (2)?