Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

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: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Maciej wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:01 am It's interesting that some phrases are characteristic of books 17-20 of the Antiquities. 2 of 5 instances of "about this time" are found in the context of the TF (one shortly before and one after). I think this is the case where Eusebius (if he indeed composed the TF) is not simply writing like Eusebius but adopting the "style" of Josephus. Whealey notes that Eusebius has "about this time" 3 times (2 in HE book VI and one in Comm Ps). Tho it's possible that he came up with this phrase fourth time, i think's it's improbable that he would do this in a context where Josephus used this phrase 2 out of 5 times. This would be a strange coincidence. Mason in the video admits that a phrase like this could be easily imitated by a forger.
Maciej,

Thanks for posting this. I think the only examples here that, strictly speaking, are attested in Josephus but (as far as I currently know) not in Eusebius are: "receive x with pleasure", "condemned" in the strictly legal sense, and "principal men" (not the full 'principal men among us', which is otherwise unattested in both Josephus and Eusebius) in the sense of 'leading men", but even these are a bit sketchy. I think Eusebius has "receive + true (thing)" while Josephus does not, and he has 'condemned' in the sense of physical punishment, but not as a result of a formal legal trial, and he has the single word "firsts" without "men" in the sense of leaders, but I think in the few examples where he has "first" + "men" it has the sense of "earliest men" rather than "leading men."

In my CBQ paper from 1999 I argued that Eusebius originally wrote the Testimonium for the Demonstratio and later updated it for the Ecclesiastical History, which is the version that was copied into our manuscripts of the Antiquities. That's still what I think, but I also argued that Eusebius added "receive + pleasure" and "principal men" in deliberate imitation of Josephus. By the time I wrote my 2013 "Eusebian Reading" paper I had abandoned that hypothesis because both of those are fairly minor departures from the way he writes elsewhere. there was no good reason to suggest deliberate imitation of Josephus.

I want to pose a question about your example of 'about this time'. Mason has suggested that Eusebius changed what was in Josephus' Testimonium. With the exception of εἴγε, "if indeed", where I think Mason made an error and there is no difference between our manuscripts of Josephus and Eusebius, what I think Mason means when he says that Eusebius "changed" the text is that the Demonstratio contains a different reading. He is presupposing his theory that Josephus wrote the Testimonium and Eusebius changed it in the Demonstratio but copied it more closely in the Ecclesiastical History. The same data could be explained equally well on my theory that Eusebius first wrote the Demonstratio and then rewrote it, perhaps from memory, in the Ecclesiastical History, which is the version that was copied into our texts of the Antiquities.

You argue that with regard to κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον, 'about this time', that while Eusebius does use the phrase three times, it would be a strange coincidence for him to have used it in a context where Josephus has used it nearby (2 out of his total 5 instances). Well, maybe. It's not implausible.

But as a thought experiment, let's reverse my theory where the version of the Testimonium that was copied into the Antiquities from the Ecclesiastical History and suppose that the version from the Demonstratio was the one that got copied instead, and the wording was κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον, which also means 'about this time', instead. This is found in Ant. 3.192 and 7.117. Wouldn't defenders of authenticity then argue: what is the likelihood that a Christian interpolator happened on this rare Josephan usage that's found elsewhere only in his recounting of the biblical history, which wasn't even one of the texts of Josephus with which they were much concerned, preferring the Jewish War, Contra Apionem, and the later books of the Antiquities, 18-20, which were about the time of John the Baptist, Jesus, and James. As you can see, Eusebius did not like it and changed it to κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον in the HE

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by maryhelena »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:44 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:56 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:44 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:14 am It would be good to have a transcript of the second half of the video where Steve Mason discusses the TF.
Has Steve Mason gone into such TF detail in anything he has published?
I accidentally posted my response to this question here: viewtopic.php?p=128229#p128229
Neil.... check the time stamp. Your comment - the one I responded. - is 12.28 am (UK time). My post on this thread. - which you say is what you were responding to - is 5.14 pm (UK time)..... think your still mixing things up..... 🤔
Hoo boy. Maybe I did. Maybe when I saw X I was reminded of Y and posted there (at X) thinking I was posting at Y instead. Thank you for your thorough checking up, Mary. We really must get this sorted out, mustn't we. Sorry for causing you more confusion by my misguided explanation. If only I thought it important enough to take more time to recall the details. Now where were we.... was Pilate made guv in 19 or 26....??
......and there is me trying to be helpful to you - re your mistake in attributing, mistakenly, a response of yours to me - and what do I get for offering my helping hand - the above - not nice Neil, not nice at all.....
User avatar
Maciej
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:41 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Maciej »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:59 pm But as a thought experiment, let's reverse my theory where the version of the Testimonium that was copied into the Antiquities from the Ecclesiastical History and suppose that the version from the Demonstratio was the one that got copied instead, and the wording was κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον, which also means 'about this time', instead. This is found in Ant. 3.192 and 7.117. Wouldn't defenders of authenticity then argue: what is the likelihood that a Christian interpolator happened on this rare Josephan usage that's found elsewhere only in his recounting of the biblical history, which wasn't even one of the texts of Josephus with which they were much concerned, preferring the Jewish War, Contra Apionem, and the later books of the Antiquities, 18-20, which were about the time of John the Baptist, Jesus, and James. As you can see, Eusebius did not like it and changed it to κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον in the HE
That's probably what would they argue in such a case. A lot of scholars approached other problematic phrases this way.

These kind of arguments can be very flexible. I find that even though most scholars subscribe to the "authentic core" theory, they don't really agree with each other on what line is authentic. And If they do, they often don't agree why. There is a chaos of different (and often contradictory) opinions. No one really cares about applying any methodology to try to solve the problem.

BTW. Are you familiar with Paul Hopper's "A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63" ?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Maciej wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:25 am BTW. Are you familiar with Paul Hopper's "A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63" ?
I've read it before, and have it on my tablet, but I wouldn't say I'm familiar with it in the sense that I could recap his strongest and weakest points from memory.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Maciej,

I've been meaning to get back to you about some of the other words and phrases Mason identifies as characteristically Josephan.
Maciej wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:01 am
if indeed
Josephus has it 4 times, and all 3 of those in Antiquities are in books 17-20
εἴγε
I think Mason made an error here in saying Eusebius had a different reading. Our Greek editions of Josephus, which are all based on B. Niese's critical edition, have εἴγε as one word, while our Greek editions of Eusebius generally have it as two words εἴ γε. But Greek manuscripts are written in lectio continua with no spaces between the words. As far as I am aware, the spaces are provided by the modern editors of the text, not the manuscripts.
the true [things, stuff]
"Not a simple noun for "truth," but contraction of plural article and adjective [true things]; Used only by only a few authors (Demosthenes, Plato, Aristotle), but extensively by them; avouded by most (including historians); Josephus has it 8 other times, 6 in Antiquities-life. It is characteristic of Josephus
τἀληθῆ
The crasis (contracted) form of the neuter plural is not quite so uncommon as Mason seems to suggest. Eusebius has it 15 times (i.e., 13 besides his two quotations of the TF).
those who had loved him at first
"Josephus has it 49 times, 38 in Antiquities, and 12 (a quarter of total) in Antiquities 17-20. This verb for "love" is also common in his works, occuring 75 times (49 in Antiquities).
ἀγαπήσαντες
In that exact form, Eusebius has it 6 times (4 outside the TF). I believe it is used to describe Christians in all cases.
the divine prophets
Josephus has it one time when he speaks of issiah
τῶν θείων προφητῶν
In that exact form, Eusebius has it 5 times (3 outside the TF)

One of the problems with Mason's argument is that he's arguing that, as an experienced Josephan scholar (which he undoubtedly is) he knows Josephus used language like that of the TF, and he calls it characteristically Josephan. But he's not an experienced Eusebius scholar and does not appear to be checking the TF against Eusebius. I suspect he's relying on Wealey for at least most of his arguments against Eusebius based on language.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Maciej
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:41 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Maciej »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:33 am
Maciej wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:25 am BTW. Are you familiar with Paul Hopper's "A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63" ?
I've read it before, and have it on my tablet, but I wouldn't say I'm familiar with it in the sense that I could recap his strongest and weakest points from memory.
He argues that "The temporality of the Testimonium derives from its presumed familiarity to its audience, which in turn is more compatible with a third century or later Christian setting than a first century Roman one."

And this got me wondering something. When Josephus wrote in the first century, were christians already wildly known as "Christians" in Rome? Tacitus already know about Christians (although theres some debate whether he said christians or chrestians, because of the ultraviolet image?), and Piliny. Although Pliny is interesting because he seems to have no idea who those Christians are. He had to interrogate them to find out.

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:01 pm One of the problems with Mason's argument is that he's arguing that, as an experienced Josephan scholar (which he undoubtedly is) he knows Josephus used language like that of the TF, and he calls it characteristically Josephan. But he's not an experienced Eusebius scholar and does not appear to be checking the TF against Eusebius. I suspect he's relying on Wealey for at least most of his arguments against Eusebius based on language.
He does think that "at least two phrases (‘doer of deeds’ and ‘even to now still’) are strange to Josephus—and yet conspicuously at home in Eusebius. This strongly suggests, at least, that Eusebius’ diction influenced the textual transmission of Josephus to some extent. The same thing may have happened with other phrases, leading one scholar to argue that Eusebius himself wrote the passage (OLSON). But open-minded research in the same vein, not in the service of any particular hypothesis, turns up many phrases that are not only characteristic of Josephus, but are particularly common in Antiquities 17–19, the stylistically distinctive section in which the Jesus passage falls. These phrases do not appear or take a different form in Eusebius. Examples are: ‘now comes’, ‘about this time’, ‘wise man’, ‘if indeed’, ‘remarkable deeds’, ‘receiving X with pleasure’ [usually in a sarcastic vein, 8 times in Ant. 17–19], ‘the true [things]’, ‘the Greek element’, ‘on indictment’, ‘the principal men’, ‘among us’, ‘condemn’, ‘having the Xth day’, ‘divine prophets’, and ‘breed’ [unflattering]. It is easier to believe that Josephus himself wrote much of this, and that it was adjusted from the fourth century onward, than that a (Eusebian?) forger was diligent enough to search out Josephus’ style and apply the traits of Ant. 17–19, in particular, to this passage—while carelessly leaving a couple of tell-tale Eusebianisms in the passage."
https://www.academia.edu/42998302/Sourc ... -Followers"
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:01 pmτῶν θείων προφητῶν
In that exact form, Eusebius has it 5 times (3 outside the TF)
Where does he use it? I'm curious about the context.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Maciej wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:46 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:01 pmτῶν θείων προφητῶν
In that exact form, Eusebius has it 5 times (3 outside the TF)
Where does he use it? I'm curious about the context.
Praeperatio 12.20.3.6
Demonstratio 1.1.13.3
Commentary on Psalms PG23 516 29

and twice in HE and DE when quoting the TF.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Maciej wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:46 pm He [Steve Mason} does think that "at least two phrases (‘doer of deeds’ and ‘even to now still’) are strange to Josephus—and yet conspicuously at home in Eusebius. This strongly suggests, at least, that Eusebius’ diction influenced the textual transmission of Josephus to some extent. The same thing may have happened with other phrases, leading one scholar to argue that Eusebius himself wrote the passage (OLSON). But open-minded research in the same vein, not in the service of any particular hypothesis, turns up many phrases that are not only characteristic of Josephus, but are particularly common in Antiquities 17–19, the stylistically distinctive section in which the Jesus passage falls. These phrases do not appear or take a different form in Eusebius. Examples are: ‘now comes’, ‘about this time’, ‘wise man’, ‘if indeed’, ‘remarkable deeds’, ‘receiving X with pleasure’ [usually in a sarcastic vein, 8 times in Ant. 17–19], ‘the true [things]’, ‘the Greek element’, ‘on indictment’, ‘the principal men’, ‘among us’, ‘condemn’, ‘having the Xth day’, ‘divine prophets’, and ‘breed’ [unflattering]. It is easier to believe that Josephus himself wrote much of this, and that it was adjusted from the fourth century onward, than that a (Eusebian?) forger was diligent enough to search out Josephus’ style and apply the traits of Ant. 17–19, in particular, to this passage—while carelessly leaving a couple of tell-tale Eusebianisms in the passage."
https://www.academia.edu/42998302/Sourc ... -Followers"
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:01 pmτῶν θείων προφητῶν
In that exact form, Eusebius has it 5 times (3 outside the TF)
Where does he use it? I'm curious about the context.
I think Mason has a first-hand familiarity with Josephan language but is relying on Whealey's (2007) analysis when he lists phrases that either do not appear or take a different form in Eusebius. This is, unfortunately, very common in the field - very few scholars have made an independent assessment of the issue but have relied on Whealey's analysis of the issue (and mine, to a limited extent). They usually - but not always - just take Whealey's word on what's not attested or not in the same form in Eusebius.

When Mason claims "open-minded research in the same vein, not in the service of any particular hypothesis," I think he means Whealey's analysis, but that analysis, far from being open-minded, is thoroughly in the service of her particular hypothesis of the near complete authenticity of the Testimonium. I find her methodology entirely ad hoc. She begins with her thesis that the Testimonium is Josephan, not Eusebian, and reverse-engineers her method to show that.

I discussed three examples here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8516&p=128108&=whea ... oc#p128108

Curiously, Mason agrees with me rather than Whealey in two of those cases (he accepts her argument that 'tribe', φῦλον, in Eusebius must be negative), but doesn't see a problem with Whealey's argumentation in general.

My overall difficulty with Whealey's analysis (I have a multitude of more specific difficulties) is that she's not even-handed in applying any method. She's looking for ways in which the language of the Testimonium resembles that of Josephus rather than Eusebius, and if any points the other way she'll either make an ad hoc argument against it (if I had pointed it out previously) or ignore it (if i had not). She *never* finds that any of the language is more Eusebian than Josephan.

Let's look at two examples on Mason's list that he identifies as characteristically Josephan but claims is not attested or in a different form in Eusebius. The first is the crasis (contracted) form of "the truth', τἀληθῆ, which I've pointed out Eusebius has 13 times not including his two quotations of the TF. But what I'd like to point out that Mason's argument (wrong though it is) is based not on the claim that Eusebius does not have the word truth, but on not having it in that specific form.

The second is 'the divine prophets' τῶν θείων προφητῶν. I've pointed out that Eusebius has that exact form of the word (the genitive plural) and I would add that Eusebius uses it to refer to the OT prophets collectively.

Praeperatio 12.20.6, "With good reason then among us also the children are trained to practice the songs made by the divine prophets and hymns addressed to God' (Ferrar, 2.643).

Demonstratio 1.1.13.3, describing the aim of the book; 'it will assuredly rebut the empty lies and and blasphemy of godless heretics against the holy prophets (τῶν θείων προφητῶν) by its exposition of the new with the old"(Ferrar, 6) [Eusebius is going to show how Jesus as described in the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament prophecies].

Commentary on Psalms PG 23 col 516 line 29 'clearly according to these words the divine prophets are called clouds,' (Eusebius is interpreting Isaiah 6.5, where God says he will command the clouds not to rain upon Israel).

The thing is that the one example that Mason points out (Ant. 10.35.1) does not have the words in identical form:

ὢν δ᾽ οὗτος ὁ προφήτης θεῖος ὁμολογουμένως καὶ θαυμάσιος τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 'As for the prophet, he was acknowledged to be a man of God and marvelously possessed of truth" Ant.10.35.1 (LCL translation).

To be fair, the Loeb translation is a bit free - the word 'man' does not literally occur in the text and the word prophet divine are in direct sequence in the text. Nonetheless, the words divine and prophet are not in identical form (not plural, not genitive, in reverse order) and are used to refer to Isaiah individually as a prophet of God, not to refer to the divine prophets collectively. This may seem like a nitpick, but it's the same kind of nitpick that Mason and Whealey are using to exclude Eusebian parallels to the language of the Testimonium when they say that the parallels in Eusebius do not occur in the same form. Whealey is constantly raising the car for possible parlallels between the Testimonium and Eusebius and lowering it for possible parallels between the Testimonium and Josephus.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Maciej
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:41 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Maciej »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 7:39 am When Mason claims "open-minded research in the same vein, not in the service of any particular hypothesis," I think he means Whealey's analysis, but that analysis, far from being open-minded, is thoroughly in the service of her particular hypothesis of the near complete authenticity of the Testimonium. I find her methodology entirely ad hoc. She begins with her thesis that the Testimonium is Josephan, not Eusebian, and reverse-engineers her method to show that.
I think the reason why Mason is looking at it this way, is that you lay your theory on the table while Whealey is is painting herself as an objective researcher. Mason doesn't seem to be much interested in the Testimonium. He focuses on other aspects of Josephus' work.
Ken Olson wrote:Curiously, Mason agrees with me rather than Whealey in two of those cases (he accepts her argument that 'tribe', φῦλον, in Eusebius must be negative), but doesn't see a problem with Whealey's argumentation in general.
Doesn't φῦλον also mean "nation" and "race"? If it can be understood as "nation of Christians", it's hardly a negative term. Would it qualify as an ethnic term? You recently wrote about Eusebiu's use of genos and ethnos. Hazel Johannessen in "The Genos of Demons and ‘Ethnic’ Identity in Eusebius' ‘Praeparatio Evangelica’" writes:
"Eusebius of Caesarea’s fifteen-book apology, the Praeparatio evangelica, has come in recent years to benefit from a surge in scholarly interest. In line with broader recognition of the complex role played by ‘apologetic’ literature in shaping early Christian identity,the way in which the Praeparatio sought to articulate a new identity for Christians, distinct from both paganism and Judaism, has particularly been emphasised (...) Recent scholarship by Aaron Johnson and Eduard Iricinschi has highlighted in particular the importance of ‘ethnic’ language and ideas in the presentation of Christian identity in Eusebius’ apologetic works. Rather than seeing the Praeparatio as primarily concerned with distinguishing between alternative religious positions, Johnson suggests that Eusebius sought to define Christianity in ethnic terms in opposition to other alternative ethnic or national identities, such as the Greeks, Phoenicians, Egyptians and Jews.(...) In using the language of ethnicity in his apologetics, Eusebius was far from alone. Denise Kimber Buell has shown that it was quite common for early Christian apologists to express their identity in ethnic terms, describing themselves as part of a new Christian ethnos or genos."
Ken Olson wrote: The second is 'the divine prophets' τῶν θείων προφητῶν. I've pointed out that Eusebius has that exact form of the word (the genitive plural) and I would add that Eusebius uses it to refer to the OT prophets collectively.

Praeperatio 12.20.6, "With good reason then among us also the children are trained to practice the songs made by the divine prophets and hymns addressed to God' (Ferrar, 2.643).
Demonstratio 1.1.13.3, describing the aim of the book; 'it will assuredly rebut the empty lies and and blasphemy of godless heretics against the holy prophets (τῶν θείων προφητῶν) by its exposition of the new with the old"(Ferrar, 6) [Eusebius is going to show how Jesus as described in the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament prophecies].
Commentary on Psalms PG 23 col 516 line 29 'clearly according to these words the divine prophets are called clouds,' (Eusebius is interpreting Isaiah 6.5, where God says he will command the clouds not to rain upon Israel).

The thing is that the one example that Mason points out (Ant. 10.35.1) does not have the words in identical form:

ὢν δ᾽ οὗτος ὁ προφήτης θεῖος ὁμολογουμένως καὶ θαυμάσιος τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 'As for the prophet, he was acknowledged to be a man of God and marvelously possessed of truth" (LCL). To be fair, the Loeb translation is a bit free - the word 'man' does not literally occur in the text and the word prophet divine are in direct sequence in the text. Nonetheless, the words divine and prophet are not in identical form (not plural, not genitive, in reverse order) and are used to refer to Isaiah individually as a prophet of God, not to refer to the divine prophets collectively. This may seem like a nitpick, but it's the same kind of nitpick that Mason and Whealey are using to exclude Eusebian parallels to the language of the Testimonium when they say that the parallels in Eusebius do not occur in the same form. Whealey is constantly raising the car for possible parlallels between the Testimonium and Eusebius and lowering it for possible parallels between the Testimonium and Josephus.
Do you perhaps know how common this phrase is in LXX and maybe Philo and other authors? I wonder if this phrase is more popular in christian literature compared to other writers.

Also, have you already responded to Whealey's criticism of your argument regarding "wise man"? You noted that Eusebius identified Jesus as a sophos anēr in PG 22, 1129 but she counters that it is under influence of a source and later when discussing the passage, he drops anēr from sophos. The argument that Eusebius wanted to put on the lips of Josephus that Jesus is a wise man, but he is more then a man, is compelling, but since Porphry admitted that Jesus was sophos and Eusebius always uses sophos, Whealey asks why would he write sophos anēr in the TF

In Preparatio, Eusebius writes "Thus speaks Philo. And Aristobulus also, another wise man of the Hebrews, who flourished under the rule of the Ptolemies, confirms the doctrine as inherited from his fathers, addressing to Ptolemy himself the Interpretation of the sacred laws, in which he speaks as follows."
Whealey points out that only in one "unique" manuscript has "sophos anēr" while three manuscripts read "sophos". I don't know if I understand her correctly. How many maniscripts of Preparatio (that include this paragraph) do we have? Just 4? I don't know if one manuscript out of 4 qualify to be something "unique"... And I wonder which is the earliest. Here is her full argument
wh1.PNG
wh1.PNG (193.61 KiB) Viewed 1561 times
2h2.PNG
2h2.PNG (168.93 KiB) Viewed 1561 times

I'm now about to dig into John Curran's '"To be or not to be": The Testimonium Flavianum (again)', Novum Testamentum 59 (2017), 71-94.
J.C. Paget suggested me to read this. I wrote him an email asking how does he view TF this days. He still holds to the authenticity of the TF, but thinks that Josephus wrote something more negative about Jesus, then he used to think before.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Steve Mason on the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Maciej wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:09 pm Mason doesn't seem to be much interested in the Testimonium. He focuses on other aspects of Josephus' work.
This is a fairly common among Josephus scholars.
Doesn't φῦλον also mean "nation" and "race"? If it can be understood as "nation of Christians", it's hardly a negative term. Would it qualify as an ethnic term? You recently wrote about Eusebiu's use of genos and ethnos. Hazel Johannessen in "The Genos of Demons and ‘Ethnic’ Identity in Eusebius' ‘Praeparatio Evangelica’" writes:
"Eusebius of Caesarea’s fifteen-book apology, the Praeparatio evangelica, has come in recent years to benefit from a surge in scholarly interest. In line with broader recognition of the complex role played by ‘apologetic’ literature in shaping early Christian identity,the way in which the Praeparatio sought to articulate a new identity for Christians, distinct from both paganism and Judaism, has particularly been emphasised (...) Recent scholarship by Aaron Johnson and Eduard Iricinschi has highlighted in particular the importance of ‘ethnic’ language and ideas in the presentation of Christian identity in Eusebius’ apologetic works. Rather than seeing the Praeparatio as primarily concerned with distinguishing between alternative religious positions, Johnson suggests that Eusebius sought to define Christianity in ethnic terms in opposition to other alternative ethnic or national identities, such as the Greeks, Phoenicians, Egyptians and Jews.(...) In using the language of ethnicity in his apologetics, Eusebius was far from alone. Denise Kimber Buell has shown that it was quite common for early Christian apologists to express their identity in ethnic terms, describing themselves as part of a new Christian ethnos or genos."
Yes, there's a pretty strong argument to be made for the final line about the φῦλον of Christians as a nation distinct from the Jews and Hellenes being Eusebius' work or at least extremely congenial to him and in full agreement with what he says in the Demonstratio and HE. But that will have to wait for another post.
Do you perhaps know how common this phrase [τῶν θείων προφητῶν] is in LXX and maybe Philo and other authors? I wonder if this phrase is more popular in christian literature compared to other writers.
Couldn't find it in the LXX, there are two inexact parallels in Philo that might be considered:

Life of Moses 2.188: τοϋ θείου προφήτου, 'prophet of God', both words in the singular

Embassy to Gaius 99: τον έρμηνέα και προφήτην τών θείω, 'the interpreter and prophet of divine things', prophet in the singular and divine in the plural

Neither is a precise parallel to τῶν θείων προφητῶν, 'the divine prophets', in the TF and Eusebius with both words in the plural and fereering to the prophets of Israel collectively.
Also, have you already responded to Whealey's criticism of your argument regarding "wise man"? You noted that Eusebius identified Jesus as a sophos anēr in PG 22, 1129 but she counters that it is under influence of a source and later when discussing the passage, he drops anēr from sophos. The argument that Eusebius wanted to put on the lips of Josephus that Jesus is a wise man, but he is more then a man, is compelling, but since Porphry admitted that Jesus was sophos and Eusebius always uses sophos, Whealey asks why would he write sophos anēr in the TF

In Preparatio, Eusebius writes "Thus speaks Philo. And Aristobulus also, another wise man of the Hebrews, who flourished under the rule of the Ptolemies, confirms the doctrine as inherited from his fathers, addressing to Ptolemy himself the Interpretation of the sacred laws, in which he speaks as follows."
Whealey points out that only in one "unique" manuscript has "sophos anēr" while three manuscripts read "sophos". I don't know if I understand her correctly. How many maniscripts of Preparatio (that include this paragraph) do we have? Just 4? I don't know if one manuscript out of 4 qualify to be something "unique"... And I wonder which is the earliest. Here is her full argument
wh1.PNG2h2.PNG
I haven't responded to the question of whether Eusebius uses σοφὸς ἀνήρ elsewhere, because I don't think it's particularly important. Whealey's argument that he does not is a bit forced. In the Prophetic Eclogues, where Eusebius refers to Jesus as a σοφὸς ἀνήρ, he is not writing a commentary on the text of Ecclesiastes that requires him to use the words σοφὸς ἀνήρ. Instead, he is going to the text of Ecclesiastes 9.15 to show that Jesus is the particular σοφὸς ἀνήρ the text is talking about. Ecclesiastes 9.15 has καὶ ἄνδρα πένητα σοφόν 'the wise and poor man' which Eusebius takes as referring to the σοφὸς ἀνήρ Jesus. But the question about whether Eusebius uses σοφὸς ἀνήρ elsewhere is much less important than the the question of why he would use it in the Testimonium.

The argument I made in the Eusebian Reading paper is that Porphyry had said that Jesus was one of the wise men of the Hebrews that the Christians had mistakenly taken to be divine. In the Testimonium, the author initially labels Jesus as wise man, but immediately qualifies the category with: 'if one should call him a man', and immediately offers three facts about Jesus in support of the conclusion. 'He was the Christ." Whealey's argument is that Eusebius would have regarded σοφὸς ἀνήρ as an inadequate term to describe Jesus, but that's the point the Testimonium is making: Jesus was not merely a 'wise man', as Porpyhry had said, but the Christ foretold in prophecy. (Yes, I realize for first century Jews 'christ' is not necessarily a term denoting divinity, but for Eusebius and his intended audience it definitely is). The context requires σοφὸς ἀνήρ rather than just σοφὸς, because 'if one ought to call him wise' would have been nonsensical and failed to carry the point about Jesus superhuman nature that Eusebius was making.
I'm now about to dig into John Curran's '"To be or not to be": The Testimonium Flavianum (again)', Novum Testamentum 59 (2017), 71-94.
I've read Curran and think his argument is a step back from Whealey. Her argument that agreement between Jerome's Latin credebatur and Michael's Syriac mistabra in qualifying the statement "This one was the Christ" requires a common Greek ancestor, which she takes to be Eusebius HE, which was later modified by omitting the qualifier. (Mason states her argument a bit wrong in the video). I think her argument is inconclusive. Contra Whealey, I do not think it is not incredible that two Chrisitan translators might think 'this one was the Christ' was not what the Jew Josephus meant and turned the direct claim into an indirect one. Serge Bardet, who argues for the complete or near-complete authenticity of the Testimonium thinks this as well. Whealey is also ignoring the fact that these are not the only two times the christological claim gets modified in the course of tradition. Also, she hasn't explained by what mechanism all of our texts of Josephus Antiquities and Eusebius HE (in Greek and Syriac), Demonstratio (Greek) and Theophany (Syriac) were edited to remove the qualifier while, curiously, no one felt the necessity to edit of the qualifier in our texts of Jerome.

Curran's argument based on Jerome's reading seemed to me to be similar to, but weaker than Whealey's. If you detetc some virtue in Curran's argument that I missed, please post a recap.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply