Dave Allen: an analysis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »

Roger Pearse wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:18 am I am deeply dubious that any text of the TF survives that has *not* been influenced by the Eusebian version (with the obvious exception of Jerome's Latin version). All very flaky.
Why do you make an exception of Jerome's Latin version of the Testimonium in De Viris Illustribus 13?

Jerome acknowledges his dependence on the ten books of Eusebius Pamphilus Ecclesiastical History in the incipit of the DVI and many of the contents of the work are taken from the HE. HE 3.9 is the only known source from which Jerome could have gotten his claim that Josephus' works were placed in a library and he was found worth of a statue in Rome in DVI 13, before his version of the Testimonium. Further, Jerome's recapitulation of the accounts of the death of James from Hegesippus, Josephus, and Clement, in DVI2 would appear to have been taken from the HE as well (with possibly some influence from Origen as well, IIRC).

The inference that Jerome was taking his version of the Testimonium from the HE is pretty strong. Are you claiming it is independent, or have I misunderstood you?

Best,

Ken

PS Yes, Malalas has an abbreviated version of the TF, also dependent on Eusebius HE.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:39 am. . . In his mammoth study of the Slavonic Josephus, N.A. Meschersky's argued . . .

PS The link to Roger's own page on the Slavonic Josephus:

https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/jose ... avonic.htm
The webpage mentions an English translation of Meshchersky's study. What is the English title of this work? Translator? I have been unable to locate it by keyword searching in worldcat.org

Fwiw, Etienne Nodet has a different take on the TF and its history with respect to Slavonic Josephus:
  • Nodet, Etienne. “The Emphasis on Jesus’ Humanity in the Kerygma.” In : James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Reseearch : New Mehodologies and Perceptions (Princeton-Prague Symposium 2007), Eerdmans, 2014, pp. 753–68, https://www.academia.edu/6864927/The_Em ... he_Kerygma.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:58 am The same invention of the Slavonic Testimonium would be really evidence going against the presence of a previous Testimonium about Jesus.

The interpolator of the Slavonic Testimonium introduced the first time what he considered necessary but not still found there: a reference to Jesus.

If the interpolator of the Slavonic Testimonium had found a previous Eusebian Testimonium in Josephus, he wouldn't have invented one entirely new in replacement of it.
Anyone writing a wonder-worker/wise man crucifixion story with gLuke in front of them is not going to create a crucifixion story set prior to the 15th year of Tiberius. A story that gLuke could not write until Josephus dated Pilate to 26 c.e. That the Slavonic Josephus story deals with an earlier birth narrative, and thus an earlier crucifixion under Pilate, indicates that it's story precedes gLuke's story and hence precedes Antiquities. An earlier date for Pilate is now accepted by a number of scholars. The Antiquities TF dating to 19 c.e., as I posted in another thread, works very well with the Slavonic Josephus dating structure - and thus should not be sidelined, shunned, in seeking to understanding the development of the Antiquities TF.

Surprising List of Scholars Who Date Pilate to 18 CE
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=797
Roger Pearse
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Roger Pearse »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:15 am
Roger Pearse wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:18 am I am deeply dubious that any text of the TF survives that has *not* been influenced by the Eusebian version (with the obvious exception of Jerome's Latin version). All very flaky.
Why do you make an exception of Jerome's Latin version of the Testimonium in De Viris Illustribus 13?
Late Greek versions of the TF are likely taken from the text as Eusebius has it. This is a powerful text - very common, known to all, and other versions are therefore liable to be harmonised to it, or derived from it. Indeed the Greek translation of Jerome's On famous men shows the TF in the Eusebian version. There's no real reason to suppose any independent source by that date.

But Jerome is early, and not Greek, and perceptibly different. So it's what Jerome wrote, not a harmonised version. So I don't feel it can be treated in the same way as the later Greek versions. It could be independent.

Jerome certainly knew, and translated extensively, the works of Eusebius.

Best wishes,

Roger Pearse
Last edited by Roger Pearse on Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Roger Pearse
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Roger Pearse »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:23 am
The webpage mentions an English translation of Meshchersky's study. What is the English title of this work? Translator? I have been unable to locate it by keyword searching in worldcat.org
H. Leeming &c "Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison": 46 (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchri), 2002.

Best wishes,

Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:50 pm Perhaps more importantly, we find “a certain Jesus” in Acts 25.19 on the lips of Festus and in the Gospel of Nicodemus 20.1 on the lips of Satan. To be sure, those references might well be dismissive or even disparaging on the lips of those characters. But the point is that in both cases “a certain Jesus” is placed on the lips of outsiders by Christian writers. It’s how Christians thought outsiders might refer to him.
good point Ken, but isn't this an argument supporting the original negative TF, rather ? You are assuming that Acts were an early Christian text, but if you concede (and probably: easily) that Acts is very late, then the fact that “a certain Jesus” is placed on the lips of outsiders by Christian writers would find its very easy explanation in Pagans already calling Jesus, at least by the time Acts was written (i.e. after Marcion, as after 150 CE, probably), as "a certain Jesus". In short, my point is that a late (post-Marcion) dating of Acts supports very probably a real Pagan origin of Jesus being called "a certain (tis) Jesus".
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Giuseppe »

Paraphrasing Ken, I can well say:

“a certain Jesus” is placed on the lips of outsiders by Christian writers. It’s not how Christians thought outsiders might refer to him, it is how really the outsiders called Jesus by the time when Acts was written (i.e , after Marcion), since by then (=after Marcion) the name of Jesus and of Christians had be rather known among outsiders.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:08 pm Paraphrasing Ken, I can well say:

“a certain Jesus” is placed on the lips of outsiders by Christian writers. It’s not how Christians thought outsiders might refer to him, it is how really the outsiders called Jesus by the time when Acts was written (i.e , after Marcion), since by then (=after Marcion) the name of Jesus and of Christians had be rather known among outsiders.
Giuseppe,

How do you know this? I think both of the cases I cited are fictional - the case of Festus probably, the case of Satan nearly certainly.

Can you give an example of a non-Christian work referring to the Christian Jesus as "a certain Jesus"?

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »

PART 2

Back to my criticism of Dave Allen's paper, points 7, 14 and 15:

(7) Doubts Eusebius would have used "surprising feats" to describe Jesus' miracles

Allen: Whealey [14] explains that this is not a preferred description Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF. In Eusebius’ Commentaria in Psalmos (PG23 1033d-1036a) he comments on Psalm 85:8-10LXX. He “characterises many of the prophets as παραδόξωνἔργων ποιητής”, ([those who]wrought surprising feats). He “thereby indicates that παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής was not a term that adequately conveyed the full stature of Jesus, since for Eusebius Jesus was God’s pre-existent logos and not just παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής like all the prophets before him.”[15] An original TF has influenced Eusebius to use this phrase. Olson’s argument that it was made up by Eusebius is refuted by Whealey’s investigation of how Eusebius used this description elsewhere.

Kirby: This isn't convincing to me. I feel like something might be missing in the restatement of Whealey's argument, but it's far from obvious why Eusebius could not use the same terms to refer to the miracles of Jesus and the prophets before him.
Not only is it far from obvious why Eusebius could not use the same terms to to refer to the miracles of Jesus as he used to describe the prophets, it’s not at all obvious that there is any language that could adequately convey the full stature of Jesus. Eusebius says that no account could ever convey the full stature of Jesus (HE 1.2.22), and Whealey does not tell us what sort of language might be able to do so. She’s simply invented a standard of judgment in order to disqualify the theory that Eusebius wrote the Testimonium. It’s also a self-contradictory claim, as she notes that Eusebius uses the same term to describe God. In attempt to rationalize her claim, she posits a hypothetical development in the thought of Eusebius that it was originally inadequate to describe Jesus and only later became adequate to describe God. But why would Eusebius borrow a term from Josephus that he thought was inadequate to describe Jesus? This is a desperate attempt to rationalize the rejection of a piece of evidence that strongly favors Eusebian authorship.

I discussed this earlier here:

viewtopic.php?p=125760#p125760

(14) Argues that the "tribe of Christians" reference contains a mix of Josephus' language (tribe) and later, Christian language


Allen: In a survey of Eusebius’ use of the term φῦλον (“tribe/group”) we find he usually used it for groups of people he disliked such as the examples Whealey [25] provides: Contra Hieroclem 22; praeteritio XIII 15.5; d.e. IV 9.12; Eusebius’ disparaging use of this term makes it likely the term τὸ φῦλον came from the hand of Josephus. Eusebius used his own phrase for “still to this day,” εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν, when interpolating the word “Christians.” It was Louis Feldman who noticed this and saw this as evidence of Eusebius’ tampering. [26] It’s unlikely Josephus used the word “Christians,” as Feldman also noted, “The passage refers to ‘the tribe of the Christians,’ but it is unlikely that Josephus referred to the Christians as a new nation, distinct from Jews and gentiles. The word “Christians” is found nowhere else in the works of Josephus.”

This is another of Whealey’s ad hoc attempts to rationalize her conclusion. If I say ‘band or robbers’ and ‘band of villains’, does this mean the word ‘band’ has a negative connotation and I would not also say ‘band of brothers’ or ‘band of heroes’?

Whealey seems to think so. She argues that that φῦλον is used for groups Eusebius disliked or even hated. Her first example is the “female tribe”(Contra Hieroclem, 22), then she adds that his other uses were for groups he hated even more, notably demons (Allen’s examples Praeperatio 13.5.5, DE 4.9.12). Whealey’s implication that Eusebius disliked or even hated women when he referred to the female φῦλον is unjustified. The Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon lists ‘sex’ (as in gender) as one of the definitions of φῦλον. She also does not does not discuss Praeperatio 7.15.12, where Eusebius does not seem to be denigrating stars when he refers to their “tribes and families.” So there seem to be cases where Eusebius uses the word for φῦλον of groups he did not (demonstrably) hate or wish to denigrate.

Still, what about the tribes of demons? Would Eusebius really have used the same term for a group of Christians as he had for a group of demons. The answer to that question is yes. Whealey notes: “In contrast to his avoidance of phylon for Christians, Eusebius readily refers to Christians as a laos (d. e. I I ,8), a genos (d. e. III 6,7), and an ethnos (h. e. I 4,2; IV 7, I).”(p. 100 n. 70). The problem for Whealey’s argument is that while Eusebius does refer to the Christians as a genos one time in the DE, he also refers to the group of demons as a genos in PE 4.5.7, 13.15.1; and Vita Constantini 3.26.1. The fact that he repeatedly refers to the group of demons as a genos does not mean the word genos has a negative connotation for him and that he would not use the group of Chrisitans. Whealey was making an invalid inference about phylon based on limited examples.

It is worth noting that while Allen and others have doubted that Josephus would have referred to the Christians as a new nation, distinct from the Jews and Gentiles, this is entirely congenial to Eusebius, though he does not quite say that they are new, as they follow the ways of the ancient Hebrew, as distinct from their descendants the Jews, in worshipping the one true God but eschewing the unprofitable practices of the Mosaic law (see his discussion of this in the second chapter of Book I of the Demonstratio).

(15) A variant phrase that matches Josephus' vocabulary suggests multiple versions of the TF, with a Josephan original

But Josephus as caught in another manuscript had used his own phrase for “still to this day,” εἰς νῦν, as Whealey has detected and so reconstructed the original Josephan phrase for “until now” as the phrase εἰ τε νῦν was found in Oecumenius’ Commentarianin Apocalypsium that quotes the final sentence of the TF. Whealey thinks the sigma from εἰ was dropped as two of the oldest MSS have the phrase εἰς τε νῦν (W and A).[28] It’s a minor change but does show tampering. Eusebius used the phrase “still to this day” when Josephus used “until now.”

If we grant Whealey her conjectural emendation of the Oecumenius, then we have three witnesses to the reading εἰς τε νῦν. This is never found in Josephus, who, she points out, has εἰς νῦν twice, without the intervening τε . I can see how the fact that there are textual variants might qualify confidence in the Eusebian reading εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν, but how do they prove her case? Where does the τε come from? Is she asserting Josephus wrote something he never wrote elsewhere and that this is more likely than that ἔτι was omitted in three witnesses during the process of transcription? Or that Josephus wrote εἰς νῦν and the τε was added at some point during transcription? It’s a very incomplete argument.

Best wishes,

Ken
Post Reply