Refining Eusebius's claims about the Flavian Testimony
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:10 pm
The version of the Flavian Testimony which Eusebius seems to block-quote has ended up in all our source manuscripts for the Antiquities. Conversation about that version often focuses on whether Eusebius made the whole thing up or instead embellished some more modest notice of Jesus written by Josephus.
Another avenue of attack on the problem is based on the hypothesis that Eusebius didn't intend a block quote, but rather a mixture of quoted matter interspersed with his own commentary. This is easy for a writer to accomplish with modern punctuation, but that hadn't been invented in Eusebius's time. He may have been relying on his first readers to read his mixture in light of the well-known and rhetorically useful Jewishness of Josephus along with the apologetic context of the mixture, especially as it was used in Proof of the Gospels.
Josephus, too, labored without modern punctuation. He may have been making an etymological explanation of how Christians got their name. Although Eusebius is typically shown quoting Josephus as saying of Jesus that "He was the Christ," Josephus's actual intention might be better represented as "He was the 'Christ.'" That is, a mention of the loaded term to explain where the group's name "Christian" comes from, not a use of the term to convey some notion of Jesus's religious stature.
Combining the two ideas, perhaps the proper punctuation of Church History I.11.7-8 is something like (with a dash of color to highight Josephus's possible voice):
More details appear in the two posts on the Uncertaintist blog:
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... followers/
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... he-christ/
or the All England Summarized Proust version
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... y-summary/
Another avenue of attack on the problem is based on the hypothesis that Eusebius didn't intend a block quote, but rather a mixture of quoted matter interspersed with his own commentary. This is easy for a writer to accomplish with modern punctuation, but that hadn't been invented in Eusebius's time. He may have been relying on his first readers to read his mixture in light of the well-known and rhetorically useful Jewishness of Josephus along with the apologetic context of the mixture, especially as it was used in Proof of the Gospels.
Josephus, too, labored without modern punctuation. He may have been making an etymological explanation of how Christians got their name. Although Eusebius is typically shown quoting Josephus as saying of Jesus that "He was the Christ," Josephus's actual intention might be better represented as "He was the 'Christ.'" That is, a mention of the loaded term to explain where the group's name "Christian" comes from, not a use of the term to convey some notion of Jesus's religious stature.
Combining the two ideas, perhaps the proper punctuation of Church History I.11.7-8 is something like (with a dash of color to highight Josephus's possible voice):
-After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Savior in the same work, in the following words: "Jesus lived about this time, 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: "He drew to himself many Jews, and also many Greeks.
"He was the 'Christ.' When Pilate, prompted by our leading men, condemned him to the cross, those who loved him from the beginning did not forsake him, for he was seen by them alive again on the third day," the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. "The tribe of the 'Christians,' so named after this man, survive to the present day."
More details appear in the two posts on the Uncertaintist blog:
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... followers/
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... he-christ/
or the All England Summarized Proust version
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... y-summary/