Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

This post is adapted from one I made on the Historical Jesus Facebook group on September 9, 2023:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530 ... /525953597

Sorry, this is a long one -- It appears that Dave Allen has, at least for the moment, departed the FB group and deleted the page “Testimonium Flavianum useless?’ from his blog. Chris M E Hansen and I had severely criticized some of the arguments he made there, especially his argument that the word τις, found in the quotation of the Testimonium in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, necessarily has a negative connotation and could not have been inserted by a Christian (see the thread from September 9, 2023).

I am now going to criticize another page from Allen’s blog, or, rather, his published paper ‘A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus Would Have Realistically Written About Jesus’, which contained a serious problem for Dave’s thesis which the blog post is intended to fix.

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2023/03/18 ... j-OmyL3IA_

Allen argues in the paper that there are three witnesses to a pre-Eusebian version of the Testimonium (Origen, De Excidio Hierosolymitano (‘On the Destruction of Jerusalem’) of Pseudo-Hegesippus, and the Slavonic Josephus) and this proves Eusebius could not have been the original author. The problem with Allen’s argument is that Origen does not quote the Testimonium, so his knowledge of it is not established, and the Excidio and the Slavonic Josephus are later than Eusebius so the independence of their versions of the Testimonium is not established.

http://jgrchj.net/volume18/JGRChJ-18_Allen.pdf

I have previously addressed Origen and the Slavonic Josephus on my blog (and on this forum):

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... as-christ/

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

So now I will point out the problem with Allen’s treatment of the Excidio in his ‘Model Reconstruction’ paper from the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism which his blog post is intended to correct.

Allen argues that the Excidio is independent of Eusebius (p.124) and then goes on to reconstruct a hypothetical Josephan original text of the Testimonium (128-142), which he hypothesizes looks like this:


The problem with Allen’s argument is that a good deal of the content of the version of the Testimonium known to the author of the Excidio is found in the version of the Testimonium Flavianum known to us from our manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities and Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (i.e., the Eusebian version or textus receptus), but not in Allen’s hypothetical reconstruction, at least some of which (such as the word Greeks or Gentiles) Allen attributes to Eusebian redaction. This would mean that the author of the Excidio does know the Eusebian version of the Testimonium.

Here is a translation of the section of the Excidio in which the author of the discusses the Testimonium, with the agreements between the textus receptus against Allen’s Model Reconstruction in bold:


Allen’s blog post cited above is meant to fix this problem. Allen retracts what he argued in the published paper about Eusebian redaction and hypothesizes a pre-Eusebian Christain redactor who rewrote the Model Reconstruction and was then used by Eusebius and the author of the Excidio. The existence of this Christian redactor must, by Allen's logic, be deduced from the impossibility of the author of the Excidio knowing the Eusebian version of the passage.

I think it more likely that the author of the Excidio did know the Eusebian version of the passage, but arguing that will take a post as long as this one. But the point I want to make is here is that the argument Allen makes against Eusebian authorship of the Testimonium in the published ‘Model Reconstruction’ paper cannot be judged a success.

He cannot show that the τις in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History must carry a hostile sense (and therefore be non-Christian).

He cannot show that Origen must have known a version of the Testimonium.

The author of the Slavonic Josephus knew the Eusebian version of the Testimonium through George Hamartolos.

Allen has to retract some of the claims he made in the paper about some of the content of the Testimonium being Eusebian redaction because they show up in the Excidio, and that would show the Excidio’s dependence on the Eusebian version of the Testimonium.

This does not necessarily mean that Allen’s position that there was an originally hostile form of the Testimonium before Eusebius is wrong. A position may be correct despite bad arguments having been made for it. It does mean that Allen’s argument that there was a pre-Eusebian version of the Testimonium in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism fails to show his position to be correct.

We have an alternative:
1. TF was written by Eusebius or someone else around the 4th century CE and inserted into Ant Josephus. Luke's signature language was used.
2. The TF is authentic and it was Luke who used the TF when creating the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.

Recently, biblical scholars have moved the date of Acts to the years 100-150 CE because, as they claim, Luke knew and used the texts of Josephus.
Therefore, Josephus is the original source of information about Jesus the Messiah for Luke. He simply added information about Jesus, known to him from Josephus.
Josephus was, above all, a writer who embellished his text and wanted to spice it up in an exciting way. The recipient (reader or listener) was supposed to be fascinated by the story.
Writing about another prophet, a rebel as the Messiah preached by a group of disciples served the purpose of receiving this text.
Sometime around 95 CE, the text was liked and some of Ant's listeners decided to preach the message about the Messiah from 65 years ago. The Messiah's past was missing - and Luke added it in the gospel.
And then he connected both groups of believers - the one described by Josephus with the one who listened to Ant Josephus. Connection through the Acts. Nice invented tradition
Simple and effective. Not bad at all
I don't think I messed anything up...

Funnily enough, Paul's information about the historical Jesus does not go beyond the information known from Josephus. Apparently, the author of Paul and his letters did not come up with the idea to add a "backwards" narrative to Jesus (from resurrection to birth). He preferred to write the narrative after the resurrection. The revelation of a new hero and the first congregations. Not bad too...

Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 4:25 pm As far as Pseudo-Hegesippus' De Excidio is concerned, I have a paper in submission on that topic. Allen basically just relies on Whealey and Paget (who relies on Whealey) for arguing independence and none of the arguments really make that much sense. On the converse, I think there are some really good reasons to suspect that the De Excidio testimonium is relying on Eusebius:

(1) Eusebius is the only previous author to show knowledge of both the John the Baptist passage and the Testimonium and to put them in juxtaposition.

(2) Eusebius and De Excidio overlap in the JtB passages: Eusebius refers to JtB as righteous (δικαιότατον) and De Excidio refers to him as "holy" (sanctus). The latter probably derives from the former, because Antiquities refers to JtB as a "good man" (ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα) which has less force than either.

(3) With few exceptions, De Excidio shows no knowledge of routinely using Antiquities. Even in the one noteworthy passage of Paulina and Mundus, it is noteworthy that this occurs out of order from the way it does in Antiquities (it comes before the TF in De Excidio, but in Antiquities it comes immediately after the TF and prior to JtB). This undermines Whealey's argument based on the order of the passages as it is clear De Excidio doesn't care about the order precisely. Likewise, De Excidio's account of Paulina is so loose and missing so many details from Antiquities, it arguably seems more like a skim or brief reading of it than that Pseudo-Hegesippus was closely paying attention to the text.

(4) There are other places which show probable reliance on Eusebius. For instance, both Eusebius and De Excidio frame their histories using Genesis 49:10. Eusebius is the first Christian historiographer to distinguish Hebrew and Jew for apologetical purposes, which De Excidio also does. Like Eusebius, De Excidio starts his origins of Christian chronology with Abraham, as Eusebius does in the Chronicle. Eusebius and De Excidio make similar remarks about the Maccabeans, with De Excidio clearly echoing Eusebius here. In both cases, they do so with reference to Josephus as well.

In total Carson Bay identifies the following places in De Excidio as probably relying on Eusebius:

De Excidio, Prol. 3, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.6.1
De Excidio 2.1.2, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.6
De Excidio 2.12, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.11
De Excidio 3.1, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.25.5
De Excidio 3.2, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.25.1-5
De Excidio 5.44, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.8.11

A really peculiar one is specifically De Excidio 3.2 which interjects about the deaths of Peter and Paul. It is really odd to take place here, but it is similar to Josephus. As Carson remarks (171n18): "Eusebius also interjects the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul into a section of his Church History that is effectively a Jewish history."

Lastly, (5) all the contentions Whealey and Allen raise are just really bad. Like the "Jesus" isn't named, even though he is named in 2.12 twice by my count. Or that Pilate isn't named (he is) or that Pilate isn't blamed for the death of Jesus (it literally says he is not absolved of his responsibility in Jesus' death), or that De Excidio removes the Christ reference, meaning something else must have been there (even though it calls him Christ directly in the passage and isn't even quoting the TF directly).

So as far as I can see, there is no good reason to consider Pseudo-Hegesippus as independent from Eusebius.

On one specific point Philo of Alexandria... by Jennifer Otto would argue that Eusebius' distinction between Hebrew and Jew has earlier roots.

One general issue is the prima-facie plausibility of Pseudo-Hegesippus knowing Eusebius. This depends on the date of De Excidio but if you accept a date of before 378 CE, as I would, then it is prima-facie implausible that a Latin writer at that time would have known Eusebius. If you date De Excidio in the very early 5th century then knowledge of Eusebius is very much more likely but I regard such a late dating as improbable.

Andrew Criddle

Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 6:14 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 1:15 am One general issue is the prima-facie plausibility of Pseudo-Hegesippus knowing Eusebius. This depends on the date of De Excidio but if you accept a date of before 378 CE, as I would, then it is prima-facie implausible that a Latin writer at that time would have known Eusebius. If you date De Excidio in the very early 5th century then knowledge of Eusebius is very much more likely but I regard such a late dating as improbable.

Andrew Criddle

How is this unlikely? Eusebius wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica prior to 326 CE, so roughly 50+ years prior to 378 CE. We know this because it internally happens prior to the death of Crispus, and is dedicated to a living figure (Paulinus) who died in 325 CE. Additionally, there is no solid terminus ad quem until the Letter to Faustus, which is the first source to quote De Excidio, ca. 430 CE. I find it difficult to believe that a fluent Greek reading author like Pseudo-Hegesippus could not have known Eusebius after 50-100 years of Eusebius' immensely popular text was in circulation. I could note in the same span of 50 years, we can show Latin authors using Greek authors all the time. And Eusebius was a well-known figure, and his work greatly widespread (cf. John Chrysostom, d. 407 CE).

And just as a case to disprove this, Jerome was directly contemporary with De Excidio, overlapping exactly with De Excidio's same timeframe (b. 340s, d. 420 CE). In fact, Jerome has an even tighter terminus ad quem than De Excidio. And Jerome not only knew of Eusebius, but derived his Testimonium Flavianum from him. In his De Viris Illustribus, all in Latin, he cites Eusebius as providing a huge amount of his information which clearly derives from Historia Ecclesiastica. Making this date even better is it is dedicated to a very specific figure who lived under the reign Theodosius I. Which basically means prior to fifth century, Latin authors were aware and did use Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica and well within the same timeframe that De Excidio was writing.

So not only does that show that between the 370s and 420s that Latin authors knew Eusebius, but that they were reading and quoting him for the TF. Why De Excidio is any different is beyond me, especially when Eusebius was immensely popular and directly pertinent for De Excidio's subject material.

The idea that Latin authors are unlikely to have known De Excidio by the late 370s seems to be an unjustified assertion based on the available evidence of Latin authors clearly knowing Eusebius prior to 407 CE. And as Carson Bay notes in his recent monograph on De Excidio that it is impossible to date De Excidio with any security. It is mostly a game of conjecture based on what people presume De Excidio to be responding to, not based on any clear evidence of date (Bay, Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity, 23). So anyone insisting that De Excidio could not have known Eusebius because it dates to X time exactly is, imo, going beyond the confines of the evidence. Also, given there is fairly good evidence to suggest that De Excidio did use Eusebius, then at best that means the dating is wrong and De Excidio must be written later, assuming such a supposition as "Latin authors couldn't have known Historia Ecclesiastica this early" was justified (which I don't think it is).

IF the date of before 378 CE is correct then IIUC Pseudo-Hegesippus would be the earliest Latin writer with serious knowledge of the works of Eusebius. (Jerome De Viris Illustribus is normally dated to 392-393 CE.) I'm using 378 as a terminus ante quem because the triumphalist position about the Roman Empire is problematic after Adrianople (See hegesippus ) I agree that this argument is not conclusive on its own and may try a fuller defense of the dating later.

(After looking through the use of Hebrew and Jew by pseudo-Hegesippus I'm uncertain that there is a clear distinction of usage they almost appear to be used as synonyms.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 2:16 am (After looking through the use of Hebrew and Jew by pseudo-Hegesippus I'm uncertain that there is a clear distinction of usage they almost appear to be used as synonyms.)

Andrew Criddle

Also:

On one specific point Philo of Alexandria... by Jennifer Otto would argue that Eusebius' distinction between Hebrew and Jew has earlier roots.

Andrew,

Have you compared what Jennifer Otto says in Chapter 4 '"Of the Hebrew Race" Eusebius's Philo' in Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings (2018) with 136-195 with what Carson Bay writes in Chapter 3 'Hebrew versus Jew: Identity and differentiation in De Excidio' in Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity (2023) 70-97?

My guess is you have not. I think it would be very hard to explain the similarities between Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus on the basis direct or indirect independence of both on Philo. I'll try to put together a post on this.

In any event, I think the tide of scholarly opinion has shifted against Dave Allen on the question of whether the author of the Excidio knew Eusebius' works. I'm not aware of anyone before Whealey who flatly denied it (which is not to say they affirmed it). Allen does not really investigate the issue but appeals to the authority of Whealy and Paget (who basically repeats Whealey). More recent scholarship - Carson Bay, David Devore, an Richard M. Pollard, all lean toward (or outright affirm) Pseudo-Hegesippus' use of Eusebius.

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 5:07 am More recent scholarship - Carson Bay, David Devore, an Richard M. Pollard, all lean toward (or outright affirm) Pseudo-Hegesippus' use of Eusebius.

[Allen] insists Pseudo-Hegesippus “follows Antiquities directly” (p. 128) and therefore its version predates the version of Eusebius. But since the material in Pseudo-Hegesippus is demonstrably a paraphrase of Eusebius, Allen’s entire thesis is here contradicted by the evidence.

And yet Allen goes on to completely fabricate a new version of the Testimonium for which no evidence exists and which violates Josephan discourse style in every possible way, and is therefore even more impossible by his hand than the existing Testimonium (pp. 128–42). Allen’s reconstruction is based entirely on heaps of epicyclic speculation, following no discernibly legitimate methodology.

---

--Carrier (10 May 2024). "Allen's New and Illogical Theory of the Testimonium Flavianum". Richard Carrier Blogs.

Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 4:25 pm .............................................
In total Carson Bay identifies the following places in De Excidio as probably relying on Eusebius:

De Excidio, Prol. 3, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.6.1
De Excidio 2.1.2, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.6
De Excidio 2.12, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.11
De Excidio 3.1, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.25.5
De Excidio 3.2, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.25.1-5
De Excidio 5.44, cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.8.11

A really peculiar one is specifically De Excidio 3.2 which interjects about the deaths of Peter and Paul. It is really odd to take place here, but it is similar to Josephus. As Carson remarks (171n18): "Eusebius also interjects the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul into a section of his Church History that is effectively a Jewish history."

Although I can see an arguable case that the deaths of Peter and Paul in De Excidio are influenced by Eusebius the main source here is the Acts of Peter. FWIW De Excidio and the Acts of Peter put the conflict between Peter and Simon Magus in the reign of Nero while Eusebius places it in the reign of Claudius.

Andrew Criddle

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 7:09 pm

Allen argues in the paper that there are three witnesses to a pre-Eusebian version of the Testimonium (Origen, De Excidio Hierosolymitano (‘On the Destruction of Jerusalem’) of Pseudo-Hegesippus, and the Slavonic Josephus) and this proves Eusebius could not have been the original author. The problem with Allen’s argument is that Origen does not quote the Testimonium, so his knowledge of it is not established, and the Excidio and the Slavonic Josephus are later than Eusebius so the independence of their versions of the Testimonium is not established.

While a definitive solution to the Slavonic Josephus text is most likely elusive - that does not mean that this text should be sidelined in gospel research or ruled out of contention. As Kate Leeming suggests - ''a certain humility'' is required in regard to this text.

(pdf is 42 dollars/£33.)

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.