Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 6:52 am The Greek text of the Jewish War mentions Mannaeus, the son of Lazarus (i.e., a Hellenized form of the fairly common Hebrew name Eleazar). In the Slavonic, he is identified as Mannaeus, the nephew of Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the grave [already] decayed. This presupposes the story of the raising of Lazarus from John 11.1-44.

Thank you, that's a very good example of an obviously Christian passage. The redactor must have been very fatigued to miss it but I don't have a better explanation than that it was indeed the Editorial Fatigue proposed by Chrissy Hansen.

Regarding the identity of the redactor, I noticed a talk by Leeming & Leeming about certain Judaising heresy (Novgodorian heresy) in the 15th century Russia:

Leeming & Leeming are very critical of this hypothesis but I don't see a conclusive counter-argument against it. Is it impossible that some (fatigued) Novgodorian Judaizer separated the History from the Chronograph and removed some overtly Christian elements from it? I think it's possible even though I'm not trying to reach any conclusion about it.

Concerning the TF, I have no hardened position. Naturally, I will read the new Chrissy Hansen NTS article when available, if I am able. I do suppose that Josephus, by the time of writing Antiquities, whether or not he mentioned them, likely had heard about Christians.

What would be the purpose of an interpolation inserted in the 4th century into a work from the end of the 1st century?
No one questioned the historicity of Jesus. Neither pagans nor Jews. There was no need to argue for the historicity of Jesus either in the 2nd or 3rd century. Why in the 4th century?
How to control copies of writings from 200 years ago to effectively erase the traces of interpolation? Why risk doing so without a legitimate need?
Eusebius wrote at a time when the Christian religion achieved imperial elevation, the decisions of bishops gained legal force at the local level thanks to the constitution of Constantine from 318 CE.

Comparing one writer to other writers is amusing enough to require no comment.

Flavius ​​is a digressive writer who adapts to the perception and tastes of the mass audience. This is how he presents biblical stories, historical stories, rumors and anecdotes, bandits and self-proclaimed prophets, or even himself. He's not the first and he won't be the last. The practice of creating historical policy in a way accessible to the masses is like Lenin - eternally alive (a small joke from the times of communism).
[...]
Josephus (…) may make up, exaggerate, distort, omit, simplify or – occasionally – tell the truth. It is often impossible to tell when one of these practices gives way to the other. (I don't remember who wrote it)
[...]

JarekS wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 8:45 pm What would be the purpose of an interpolation inserted in the 4th century into a work from the end of the 1st century?
No one questioned the historicity of Jesus. Neither pagans nor Jews. There was no need to argue for the historicity of Jesus either in the 2nd or 3rd century. Why in the 4th century?

Have you read my paper A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium (2013)? Because I deal with the question of the purpose of the Testimonium, and I argue it wasn't written for insertion into the Antiquities, but that its insertion into the Antiquities is secondary to its use in Eusebius' own work, and its purpose was not to prove the historicity of Jesus.

https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/5-a-eus ... ken-olson/

How to control copies of writings from 200 years ago to effectively erase the traces of interpolation? Why risk doing so without a legitimate need?

Are you arguing that the author of the Testimonium must have been intentionally setting out to destroy all previously existing copies of Antiquities 18? On what basis?

Eusebius wrote at a time when the Christian religion achieved imperial elevation, the decisions of bishops gained legal force at the local level thanks to the constitution of Constantine from 318 CE.

So what? Eusebius could not have written the Testimonium because bishops decisions had legal force thanks to the edict of Constantine of 318? Could you explain this? (I do not think Constantine's ruling would have been in force in the eastern half of the empire which was still ruled by Licinius in 318, but I'm willing to be corrected on that; I just don't see the causal relationship you imply between bishops legal authority and Eusebius not writing the Testimonium.

Comparing one writer to other writers is amusing enough to require no comment.

That's pretty much the way I've felt about your posts on the topic of the Testimonium and why I haven't commented on them before. You just sort of declare your opinions as facts.

Best,

Ken

It is one thing to draw an argument from existing evidence and another thing to create evidence to draw an argument. Did he write +60 years before Constantine? How old was Eusebius when he wrote if he was born in 264 and died in 340. Constantine became Augustus and Caesar of the western provinces in 307. Eusebius and Constantine are men of the same generation.
But that doesn't matter. The alleged motivation is still too weak for me to credibly justify the interpolation theory.
A small digression
I started to like TF for one reason. All of Paul's knowledge of the historical Jesus does not extend beyond the information from the TF.
TF seems to be a testimony of generic information about the historical Jesus proclaimed Messiah by devotees locating him in time and space. From this information, the development of content went in two directions - revelations and myths (gospels). The authors of both groups competed with each other until the leaders selected the literary works.

The Josephan TF, as Wikipedia, notes: is probably the most discussed passage in Josephus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

That being so many have tried their hand at explanation. And that is where the debate is to this very day - attempts at explanation.

Consequently, no need for anyone here to get on their high horse in debates over the TF. It is what it is - a source of controversy. Many are the choices available attempting some final, definitative, explanation. Take ones pick - intellectual freedom is still a high standard to aim for.

So - to the Josephan TF - and to all those intrigued by it's very existence - and to all those who want to keep rolling the dice of fortune attempting to hit the jackpot -

For myself - methinks Josephus is far far away from squabbling over Greek words and interpolations - history was his master - history to be written as did the prophets of old.

JarekS wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 10:11 pm It is one thing to draw an argument from existing evidence and another thing to create evidence to draw an argument.

Are you saying I created evidence? If so, could you say specifically where?

Did he write +60 years before Constantine? How old was Eusebius when he wrote if he was born in 264 and died in 340. Constantine became Augustus and Caesar of the western provinces in 307. Eusebius and Constantine are men of the same generation.
But that doesn't matter.

No, it doesn't matter. You frequently bring up stuff that does not matter and has no discernible logical connection to the claims you make.

The alleged motivation is still too weak for me to credibly justify the interpolation theory.

I do not hold your opinion as the gold standard and I suspect no one else on this forum (or probably elsewhere) does either. Your dismissal of my case without discussion or argument makes me think I should probably not waste time trying to engage with you.

A small digression
I started to like TF for one reason. All of Paul's knowledge of the historical Jesus does not extend beyond the information from the TF.
TF seems to be a testimony of generic information about the historical Jesus proclaimed Messiah by devotees locating him in time and space. From this information, the development of content went in two directions - revelations and myths (gospels). The authors of both groups competed with each other until the leaders selected the literary works.

This is again just an assertion of an opinion. The knowledge Paul claims to have of Jesus extends well beyond the TF. Jesus was descended from David (Rom 1.7) and he forbade divorce (1 Cor 7.10). Now one could argue that those are not referring to Jesus as an historical person who lived on earth, so aren't about the *historical* Jesus, but that is true of everything Paul says about Jesus.

Is it your goal in participating on this forum to present arguments that are credible to other people? Or just to make claims as to what you think is the case?

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 4:01 am Or are you suggesting that Meshchersky's source theory is mistaken and the Slavonic version of Josephus' Jewish War (which Meshchersky calls the Separated Edition) is older than the Chronograph...

I think I've changed my mind and now I think that the Separated Edition was earlier than the Chronograph indeed. Now I think it was first done by a Russian Christian (so not by a Jew) and later on, it was added to the Chronograph together with some other Christian additions, maybe as a reaction to Novgorodian Judaizers.

My reasons:

1. It seems much more sensible to make a translation of the History of the Jewish War first (as a single work) than to translate it right into the Chronograph.

2. Almost all variant readings of the Volokolam manuscript are closer to the Greek manuscript of the Jewish War than the readings of the Chronograph manuscripts. How is that possible? I haven't seen this addressed by Leeming & Leeming. Either the Volokam manuscript is more authentic than the Chronograph manuscripts or the author of the Volokam manuscript had the Greek manuscript of the Jewish War and repaired the errors in the Chronograph manuscript. But if he was repairing why did he leave all the non-Josephian additions?

3. If the Separated Edition was done earlier and then it deteriorated that would also explain the big omissions in the Separated Edition. The author of the Chronograph probably had some version of the Separated Edition already in bad shape and therefore he also used Hamartolos to fill these omissions (eg. in Book 1).

In conclusion, I don't think the extra Christian elements were removed, I think they were added. However, I don't think there is anything authentically Josephian in the extra material of the Slavonic Testimonium flavianum.

Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 4:18 pm
(1) If Josephus was going to write about Jesus for a gentilic audience, he would do so according to their standards: negatively which is the exact opposite of what we get . . .

(2) We have plenty of authors who read and knew of Josephus: Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Clement of Alexandria, Minucius Felix, Origen, Theophilus, Anatolius of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus ALL cite various works of Josephus . . .

(3) We know for a fact Josephus cared about his religion. He was a bloody priest . . .

(4) "It was of passing interest" no the James passage was not of passing interest . . .

(5) If you think this is typical of a Jewish author to describe Jesus and call him directly the Messiah, and such, then the onus is on you to show this was typical.

Thanks – and I do appreciate your engaging in the discussion. It's both interesting to me and a learning experience. To your individual points:

1. The gentile response towards Christianity could not have been completely negative, after all, many of them eventually became Christians. If you will excuse a brief reliance on Eusebius, his Church history relates that Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial against the Christians, and that Domitian knew about them, initially persecuted them, but later issued a decree to stop the persecution. In other words, I don't think there was uniform hatred against the Christians, nor do I think Josephus would necessarily have had a negative view of Christianity. After all, he did say: “every one ought to worship God according to his own inclinations . . . “ (Life – 23).

I admit – I have no direct evidence of how an average pagan reader reacted to the TF in 93 CE. I suspect it would have been a shrug of the shoulders and an “oh . . . so that's what started this whole Christ thing people are talking about.”

2. I agree that the lack of citation of the TF by early Christian authors is strange. However, there is an at least rational counterargument (made before). We have, what, roughly 13-14 total citations to Josephus from the authors you list over the course of 230 years? Many of those citations relate to matters where the TF would not have been relevant – e.g., discussion of the antiquity of the Old Testament scriptures. The TF itself, for a Christian writer, does not contain much that is useful from an explanatory standpoint in discussing Christianity that is not already found in the New Testament, so why cite to it? Even the apologetic writings, as far as I can tell, were not responding to demands for extra-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, so, again, why cite to the TF? The Origen citation, though, admittedly seems like a natural place for the TF to come up. Still, we have a lot of writing that is known to be lost – maybe more than has survived. The lack of citation to the TF is a fair argument against authenticity, but not conclusive.

3. Yes, Josephus was a priest, and he was also a soldier, a traitor, and, eventually, a Roman citizen living in Rome on a pension provided by the imperial family that destroyed the temple and paraded its treasures through the streets of the city. Being a priest and being “priestly” – or even religious – do not always go together. (A Borgia was Pope, after all.) I don't think being a priest disqualifies Josephus from writing the TF anymore than being a bishop disqualifies Eusebius as a potential forger.

4. With regard to the lack of inclusion of the James passage in Wars: in Wars, Josephus takes one book out of seven to go from the death of Herod to the appearance of Vespasian on the scene. In Antiquities, he uses roughly three books to cover the same period in more detail. I just don't see why his choice to include the passage in Antiquities long after writing Wars means much either way.

5. I don't think Josephus' uses of the word Christ (Christos) was typical. Josephus was not a typical Jewish writer. Certainly, he would have been familiar with the word as the Greek translation used for messiah. I think it is completely plausible that Josephus would also have been familiar with the growing use of the word Christ in the late 1st century city of Rome as a specific reference to Jesus. I think it is plausible that he – given his unique career – was capable of using it in that capacity for his audience without feeling like he was calling Jesus the Jewish messiah. He was writing in Greek, not Hebrew. (And do all of the existing manuscripts contain the word Christos? I thought I read somewhere on this forum that a nomen sacrum was inserted in the copies, but I confess I am out of my depth there. If accurate, that could cut either way, of course.)

The burden of proof comment wasn't meant as a challenge. Just a comment on different ways to approach the problem. The problem with the TF is that it is there – in every manuscript. One explanation is that our manuscripts derive from a single forged or interpolated source. Not an unreasonable theory. However, another theory is that the single source for what we have in Josephus is actually Josephus. My point in all of this, is to say that I don't think it is outrageous to think that Josephus could have written the TF in the way it has come down to us.

Would there likely have been a copy of Antiquities (or even more than one) before the time of Eusebius in the city of Rome?