Eusebius as a forger.

[Ken Olson]

Ben,

Still intending to get back to you on the narrative order of the Antiquities, but less me address this first:

Ben: 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.

This is a possible reading, but I am not convinced it is the best available reading. When you say "nothing in the text to cast it forward from this point" are you saying there's not positive indication that the succeeding sentence is a continuation of the the discussion of Josephus, or that there's a positive indication that what follows is part of the discussion of Josephus? We seem to be disagreeing about whether that one sentence belongs with what precedes it or what follows it.

I still think the fact that Ps-H's Testimonium is missing it's central Christological claim in the earlier discussion, but has a Christological claim in the sentence under discussion should rouse our suspicions. And besides the missing Christological claim, the accusation brought by the principal men is also missing.

I have one further argument involving a textual variant in the Testimonium. Why does Ps-H say leading men of the synagogue (principes synagogae). It seems like ad odd choice of words, and not one which would have been suggested by Matt 26.63-64. In the Vulgate, principes synagogae is used to translate archisynagogos or, in one case (Luke 8.41) archon of the synagogue (please pardon my not using Greek here). This makes me think that the source Ps-H had in mind may have had the word archons in it, which is what the version of the Testimonium in the DE has.

Best,

Ken

P.S. Sorry if this posts twice. I tried ending it once already.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben,

Still intending to get back to you on the narrative order of the Antiquities, but less me address this first:

Ben: 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.

This is a possible reading, but I am not convinced it is the best available reading. When you say "nothing in the text to cast it forward from this point" are you saying there's not positive indication that the succeeding sentence is a continuation of the the discussion of Josephus, or that there's a positive indication that what follows is part of the discussion of Josephus?

The former, if I understand you aright. There is nothing to suggest that Josephus' material does not end with "thus spoke Josephus," nor to suggest that what follows derives (or is intended to be thought to derive) from Josephus.

We seem to be disagreeing about whether that one sentence belongs with what precedes it or what follows it.

I am arguing that the sentence about the leaders of the synagogue goes with what follows, and not with anything in the Testimonium. I struggled with the Latin for a while before fully grasping that the testimony in question is not what Josephus wrote but rather what Josephus added to, which means that in quo (the most natural antecedent of which is testimonio) points to a more general testimony about Jesus, which is exactly what we find.

I still think the fact that Ps-H's Testimonium is missing it's central Christological claim in the earlier discussion, but has a Christological claim in the sentence under discussion should rouse our suspicions.

Well, a divine claim, at any rate. If the text had something directly responding to "he was the Christ," we would not be having this conversation. And the claim is hardly a coincidence, at any rate. In my reading, it is precisely because of what Josephus admits in the Testimonium that pseudo-Hegesippus feels emboldened to cite what Jews before Josephus (that is, the principes synagogae responsible for Jesus' death) had admitted.

(It is also not entirely clear to my why "he was the Christ" should be a more obvious back reference for the leaders admitting Jesus to be god than "if it is proper to call him a man," the idea being that, if he is not a man, then he must be a god.)

I have one further argument involving a textual variant in the Testimonium. Why does Ps-H say leading men of the synagogue (principes synagogae). It seems like ad odd choice of words, and not one which would have been suggested by Matt 26.63-64. In the Vulgate, principes synagogae is used to translate archisynagogos or, in one case (Luke 4.41) archon of the synagogue (please pardon my not using Greek here). This makes me think that the source Ps-H had in mind may have had the word archons in it, which is what the version of the Testimonium in the DE has.

This hypothesis would explain the principes, but it would still not explain the synagogae, since Luke 8.41 is no more evidence that the principes synagogae had anything to do with Christ's arrest than, say, all of those many passion verses which blame Jesus' death on the principes sacerdotum (in the Vulgate). The reference to the synagogue remains unaccounted for, it seems. I might suggest (without direct evidence) that our author assumed that the principes sacerdotum in charge of Jesus' death were also principes synagogae; but you might suggest (also without direct evidence) that our author assumed that the principes/ἄρχοντες from Eusebius' Demonstration were principes synagogae. I am not sure why one of these should be seen as more likely than the other on this score alone.

Where my hypothesis gains a clear advantage, to my eye, is in the directness, applicability, and concentration of the parallels:

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. It does not, however, prejudge the truth that he did not believe, but rather he added more to the testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse it, in which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue [principes synagogae] 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 26.59-64: 59 Now the chief priests [Vulgate: principes autem sacerdotum] and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 The high priest stood up and said to Him, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest [Vulgate: princeps sacerdotum] 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.”

My hypothesis has principes where it matters: in the passion narratives (rather than in some random corner of Luke), since the context in pseudo-Hegesippus is the death/execution of Jesus. My hypothesis has Jesus himself pointing out to the high priest that he has admitted Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; the Testimonium lacks this element of the accusers admitting such a thing. My hypothesis also posits the same source (the gospels) for the next detail, that of the temple's predicted demise, which is mentioned in exactly the same context: the trial of Jesus before the principes.

I freely admit that the mention of synagogues is a loose end for my hypothesis; it is also a loose end for yours (at least so far).

[Ben C. Smith]

I wonder whether "the synagogue" might not mean simply the Jewish polity or people as a whole:

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 17a: 17a But since the Apostle understands the words, "And they two shall be one flesh," of Christ and the church, we must say that Christ keeping the saying, "What God has joined together let not man put asunder," did not put away His former wife, so to speak — the former synagogue [τὴν προτέραν συναγωγήν] — for any other cause than that that wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one, and along with him plotted against her husband and slew Him, saying, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify Him, crucify Him."

Origen displays this usage several more times in this same book, still using "the synagogue" as a synecdoche for Israel. What if pseudo-Hegesippus was thinking along the same lines, and "the leaders of the synagogue" are simply "the leaders of the Jewish people" as a whole?

[John2]

Viklund cites Agapius here:

Maybe the most cited and controversial version of the Testimonium is found in an Arabic chronicle from the tenth century. It is a text written by the Arabic Christian historian Agapius who was bishop of the Syrian city of Hierapolis Bambyce. He is perhaps best known for his chronicle Kitâb al-‛unwân (Book of headings or Book of History) that he was working on until his death in 941 or 942 CE. In this he gives a shorter version of the Testimonium, however, hardly in the form of a quotation, but more by paraphrasing it, and then of course in Arabic and thus in translation. The part therein corresponding to the Testimonium says:

”Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews: ‘At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.’” (Agapius, Kitâb al-‛unwân 2:15–16)

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011 ... apius-and/

And for my perusal this book compares the Greek Josephus with the Syriac Eusebius and Michael and the Arabic Agapius:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHo2D ... us&f=false


Even if Agapius is only paraphrasing, it still kind of ... feels right to me (at least in terms of the "essence" of an original TF). but I gather that all extant copies of the Syriac Eusebius it is supposedly based on say "he was Christ" and not "he was perhaps (or "called" or "believed" or 'thought to be") Christ," just like for the Greek, and that's a problem I can't explain (other than to suppose that if there were TF variants along the lines of "he was thought to be" then they have otherwise disappeared, which, even if it's not implausible, seems kind of fishy).

It looks like the TF boils down to one question. Why don't any Christians cite the TF before Eusebius? Is it because it said something neutral or negative, or is it because it wasn't there?

And what if we throw in Goldberg's idea regarding Luke 24:19-27 (which still intrigues me)? Doesn't it have a similar "ring" as the Agapius version with respect to the part about messianic prophecies (and which also appears at the end of the passage, like in Agapius)?

“This man was a prophet, powerful in speech and action before God and all the people. Our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to the sentence of death, and they crucified him. But we were hoping he was the One who would redeem Israel. And besides all this, it is the third day since these things took place" ...

Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about himself.

Agapius:

They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

[Ken Olson]

Ben,

I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying about the testimony.

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 OR he added 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.

I'm not really clear on what you understand the testimony to be. Does the second use of the word testimony refer to the same thing as the first does? It seems like you're arguing that second use of testimony refers to the testimony of the gospels, which Josephus adds to or corroborates, and this is different from the testimony from the Jews themselves, which is Josephus's testimony. ( I seriously doubt Ps-H means to include Jesus and the apostles and evangelists as Jews). Have I misunderstood you?

I suppose one could take the final sentence quoted above as separate testimony from the Jews themselves in addition to Josephus's testimony, but I think Josephus still has to be part of the Jewish testimony.

I was understanding that the testimony in both cases was the testimony given by Josephus as the spokesman for the Jews, and I still am, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I took Ps-H to be saying that it doesn't subtract from Josephus testimony that he was unbelieving, rather it adds to the credibility of what he says (i.e., he's an outside witness to the truth of Christian claims).

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben,

I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying about the testimony.

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 OR he added 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.

I'm not really clear on what you understand the testimony to be. Does the second use of the word testimony refer to the same thing as the first does?

There is only the one use of the word testimonium here. The "first instance" above is just a longwinded rendering of the verb testantur.

It seems like you're arguing that second use of testimony refers to the testimony of the gospels, which Josephus adds to or corroborates, and this is different from the testimony from the Jews themselves, which is Josephus's testimony. ( I seriously doubt Ps-H means to include Jesus and the apostles and evangelists as Jews). Have I misunderstood you?

I am arguing that the testimony to which Josephus added is, not his own testimony, but rather the general testimony about Jesus. Yes, this would (probably) be mainly from the gospels, but that is not the emphasis involved; for one thing, once Josephus has added to it, it will now include whatever Josephus added. If it were Josephus' own testimony to which he were adding, one would have to ask which parts count as the original testimony and which parts count as the additions; and the passage simply is not designed to answer that question, because it is the wrong question.

I suppose one could take the final sentence quoted above as separate testimony from the Jews themselves in addition to Josephus's testimony, but I think Josephus still has to be part of the Jewish testimony.

The first sentence is simply the Jews testifying, Josephus being their representative. This has no bearing on what "adding to testimony" might mean later on, since adding to testimony would itself have to entail testifying, as would simply giving testimony in the first place. Josephus presumably could have testified against Jesus, but this would not have "added to the testimony" of which pseudo-Hegesippus is speaking. Or, to put it another way, first our author says that the Jews, through Josephus as their spokesman (to use your word for him), testified (testantur) on behalf of Jesus, and then our author argues that what they/he said has actually added to the fund of credible testimony about Jesus. What follows, then, is another example from that general fund of credible testimony (specifically, from the gospels) in which the Jews (like Josephus) admitted something against their will. The more examples of Jews admitting positive things about Jesus, the better, according to pseudo-Hegesippus.

I was understanding that the testimony in both cases was the testimony given by Josephus as the spokesman for the Jews, and I still am, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I took Ps-H to be saying that it doesn't subtract from Josephus testimony that he was unbelieving, rather it adds to the credibility of what he says (i.e., he's an outside witness to the truth of Christian claims).

The text itself says "added to (the) testimony."

[Ben C. Smith]

I have already pointed out several parallels between this passage and Matthew 26.59-64, and here, only 4 verses before that Matthean passage, is another possible one:

Pseudo-Hegesippus: 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.

Matthew 26.55: 55 At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest [Vulgate: conprehendere] Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me."

[John2]

This part of Ps.-Hegesippus seems key to me about the "testimony" of Jesus including the NT and that what Josephus says about Jesus "adds to" it:

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.

I don't get the impression that this means that Josephus' unbelief "adds to" his own testimony about Jesus but rather that it "adds to" the overall testimony of Jesus that includes the NT, like Ben has said.

And how could Ps.-Hegesippus have gotten the idea that Josephus "did not believe" in Jesus if the TF he saw said "he was the Christ"? And if it did, why doesn't he cite it (and why doesn't any pre-Eusebian Christian cite it for that matter)? A variant TF would explain both of these things (along with Jerome, Agapius and Michael's TF's).

Could Ps.-Hegesippus have been aware of Origen' remark about Josephus not believing in Jesus? Or does Eusebius say somewhere that Josephus did not believe in Jesus? I don't recall offhand, but I'm not seeing anything in EH 1 (where Eusebius cites the TF) that gives me the impression that Josephus did not believe in Jesus, only that he is a well regarded historian and that what he says is in agreement with the NT, e.g.:

1.5.3: "Flavius Josephus, the most celebrated of Hebrew historians …"

1.5.4: "The above-mentioned author, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in agreement with these words [in Acts] adds the following …"

1.9.3: "For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

1.11.1: "Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as is stated in the Gospels. Josephus also records the same fact …"

1.11.2-3: "Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod's entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John.

The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels."

1.11.7-9: "After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.

Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them?"

2.10.2: "We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the divine Scriptures …"

While Eusebius was familiar with Origen (who does say that Josephus did not believe in Jesus), I don't recall offhand if Eusebius himself ever says that Josephus did not believe in Jesus or cites anyone else to that effect. Does he? And if not, then what else could have given Ps.-Hegesippus the idea that Josephus did not believe in Jesus besides a variant TF along the lines of "thought to be"? But if Eusebius does mention it somewhere then perhaps it overshadowed (for Ps.-H) Josephus' "he was the Christ" remark (though in any event it seems fittingly frustrating that Ps.-H doesn't cite that part of the TF).

[Ken Olson]

Ben Smith wrote:

The text itself says "added to (the) testimony.

Right.

Non tamen veritati praeiudicat, quia non credidit sed plus addidit testimonio, quia nec incredulus et invitus negavit

Why "but he added to (the) testimony"? Why "he" and (the) instead of "it" and "his"? And does added to the testimony necessarily mean adding more testimony to an existing body of testimony rather than adding credibility to the testimony?

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben Smith wrote:

The text itself says "added to (the) testimony."

Right.

Non tamen veritati praeiudicat, quia non credidit sed plus addidit testimonio, quia nec incredulus et invitus negavit

Why "but he added to (the) testimony"? Why "he" and (the) instead of "it" and "his"? And does added to the testimony necessarily mean adding more testimony to an existing body of testimony rather than adding credibility to the testimony?

Either interpretation is grammatically and semantically possible. I am opting for the one that seems to cohere with what the paragraph as a whole is doing. The in quo seems to relate back to the testimonium (unless you have a better antecedent or idea); so my question is: in which (in quo) testimony (testimonio) do we find those extra details? My best answer is that they are found in the gospels, not in Testimonium Flavianum. That, I think, is the real debate here: the derivation of those details.