Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 6:14 am If the other version of Josephus Jewish War intended above is the earlier one he composed in either Hebrew or Aramaic, that the Slavonic text is a translation of that seems unlikely.

The signal example Kate Leeming gives in the quotation above is that the Slavonic has versions of the Testimonium Flavianum and the passage about John the Baptist which are not found in the Greek version of the Jewish War. The implication is that, since these passages are not found in the known Greek text of the Jewish War, but we know the author of the Chronicle did not invent them, they must have come from another source, possibly the lost Aramaic Jewish War. (Etienne Nodet finds no evidence for a Semitic original behind the Slavonic and hypothesizes a lost Greek version of the Jewish War).

I have shown that the both passages Leeming mentions, the Testimonium and the John the Baptist passage, are found in one of Slavonic Chronicler's sources, George Hamartolos AKA George Monachus.

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... flavianum/

In that blog post I concluded:

There is thus a clear line of transmission from Eusebius to George Hamartolos to the Chronographer. This does not exclude the possibility that the Chronographer also had other sources for his Jesus material, but he had at least Hamartolos, which depends on Eusebius.

In philosophical terms we might describe my caveat as showing epistemic humility or subscribing to fallibilism - there is a good case to support the theory that the author of the Slavonic adapted his versions of the Testimonium and the John the Baptist from George Hamartolos, whose work he knew.

MaryHelena encourages epistemic humility in others (i.e., me), but does not practice it herself. Her arguments generally partake of the fallacy known as the argument from ignorance - since her assertions have not shown to be impossible, they must be accepted as true.

I have very little interest in engaging with her further on this point. I do not think she can be convinced of the inadequacy of her assertions (which are not really arguments), while I do not think anyone else needs to convinced. So it would seem to be a waste of my time.

If I'm wrong about that and someone else sees merit in MaryHelena's argument, please restate the argument in your own language and I will try to respond to it.

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 6:50 am
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... flavianum/

In that blog post I concluded:

There is thus a clear line of transmission from Eusebius to George Hamartolos to the Chronographer. This does not exclude the possibility that the Chronographer also had other sources for his Jesus material, but he had at least Hamartolos, which depends on Eusebius.

(my formatting)

That quote is why I posted material from Kate Leeming's article. Dating manuscripts - in this case the Slavonic Josephus, does not date the stories they relate. That Hamartolos knew Eusebius is neither here nor there. The issue is the Slavonic stories themselves and how these stories relate to the gospel stories.

I appreciate that you have a theory to defend. I don't find it at all convincing that Eusebius, in attempting to discredit the Acts of Pilate dating re the 7th year of Tiberius - interpolated his TF into a contexts of 19 c.e. A context in which modern Josephan scholarship places Pilate's arrival in Judaea. (thus negating Eusebius's attempt to discredit the Acts of Pilate dating structure.) Modern Josephus scholarship aside, interpolation of a TF to a context of 19 c.e. -- after stating Pilate was only in Judaea in the 12th year of Tiberius -- negates his own argument.

Ken, that's all - I've no interested in debating with you - I reject your Eusebius TF theory - hence will continue to look elsewhere for arguments regarding the Slavonic Josephus stories and the Antiquities TF.

It may be the case, maryhelena--regardless of what you make of Ken's writings--that to present views on Slavonic Josephus seriously (that is, to be taken seriously), you might need to deal with Sefer Yosippon (Steven Bowman translated Flusser's edition) and the work of Azariah dei Rossi, Me'or Enayim (Joanna Weinberg for ET and scholarship), to see when some Jewish scholars, after long ignoring Josephus, began showing some interest.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 9:53 am It may be the case, maryhelena--regardless of what you make of Ken's writings--that to present views on Slavonic Josephus seriously (that is, to be taken seriously), you might need to deal with Sefer Yosippon (Steven Bowman translated Flusser's edition) and the work of Azariah dei Rossi, Me'or Enayim (Joanna Weinberg for ET and scholarship), to see when some Jewish scholars, after long ignoring Josephus, began showing some interest.

Thanks. Joanna Weinberg has articles on academia edu.... I'll have a look around.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 7:09 pm the word τις, found in the quotation of the Testimonium in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History

That's interesting. I didn't know about this. Is it possible that this was the original text of the Ecclesiastical History?

It might be hard to show, but can the idea be taken seriously, or is there a problem with it?

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 5:50 pm

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 7:09 pm the word τις, found in the quotation of the Testimonium in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History

That's interesting. I didn't know about this. Is it possible that this was the original text of the Ecclesiastical History?

It might be hard to show, but can the idea be taken seriously, or is there a problem with it?

There are certainly those (besides Dave Allen) who have argued that the reading τις from MSS A (Codex Parisinus Graecus 1430) of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History is original.

https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manu ... istory.htm

Notably, D. S. Wallace-Hadrill in "Eusebius of Caesarea and the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus Antiquities XVIII 63 f.)" Journal of Ecclesiastical History 25.4 (1974) 353-362, argued:


Wallace-Hadrill's argument requires that Chistian copyists perceived the τις in the Testimonium to be derisive so that they omitted it from all the other manuscripts of the Ecclesiastical History, as well as the ancestors of the Greek manuscript of the Demonstratio Evangelica. This would have to have occurred at a very early date as the τις is not represented in the fifth century Syriac manuscripts of the Ecclesiastical History and Theophany nor in Rufinus' fifth century translation of the Ecclesiastical History.

It would be extraordinarily difficult to prove that τις necessarily has a hostile (or 'derisive') sense if one does not assume it in the first place. Wallice-Hadrill, like many others, argues that the Testimonium was originally hostile to Jesus (and therefore τις must have had a hostile sense). He is so persuaded of his hypothesis that he seeks to account for Eusebius (presumably non-hostile) use of τις with Christ (a certain Christ) in Prae. Evang., 1. 2.6 as possibly having been influenced by Josephus' hostile τις in the Testimonium. But his argument is circular. Josephus does not use τις in a consistently hostile way (examples available upon request) and it is used both by Eusebius and other Christians of Jesus, though often as a way that outsiders referred to Jesus. I suspect that the lone τις in manuscript A of the Ecclesiastical History is a scribal addition, possibly made under the influence of the 'certain Jesus' in Acts 25.19.

Best,

Ken

τις is the third word, or second full word, in the third line.