Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 03-07-2009, 08:21 AM

JW:
The Testimonium Flavium:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

Quote:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Regarding the originality of this, previous Threads here have concentrated mainly on the issues of:

1) The language of the TF.

2) Opinion of authority.

Skeptical super sleuth, Neal Godfree, is in the process of laying out the argument from silence:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/

Quote:

The Jesus reference in Josephus: its ad hoc doctoring and various manuscript lines
By neilgodfrey

Updated 7th March, 2009, with additions of authors before Eusebius who demonstrate their knowledge (generally with citations) of Josephus, but who do not show knowledge of the TF.

The following time line of the evidence for Josephus’s mention of Jesus (The Testimonium Flavianum) was prompted as part of my preparation to address the discussion by Eddy and Boyd in The Jesus Legend. I will save my comments on how this timeline reflects on their evaluation of the evidence of Josephus till I next address their work.

Meanwhile, the following chronological overview of the extant references, variations and omissions may tell their own story for those interested in exploring this topic.

I have taken portions of the dateline from The Flavius Josephus Home Page. But since that only referred to a few of the relevant citations, most of the remainder is from my distillation of Earl Doherty’s comprehensive 2008 discussion of the manuscript and textual evidence, Josephus On the Rocks. (But since my revision on 7th March I have added quite a few more notes to highlight knowledge of Josephus among Church Fathers prior to Eusebius, but without any apparent knowledge of the Testimonium.)

As Scarface used to say, "That don't look too good" (for Eusebius). I think even the average Skeptic will be sore amazed at just how good the argument from silence is here. Note especially that it's not just the silence to Eusebius. It's the gradual recognition of the TF after Eusebius. Eusebius was not SaveOneFair, so if he was the cause it started locally and gradually spread.

The other front against the TF is the general credibility of Eusebius. My own opinion of Eusebius is that he was a lying, cheatin, no-good, low-down, double-dealing, double-Crossing Monssouri scum. I believe this with a perfect faith as Eusebius was one of the most important Church Fathers of all time for a faith based religion (redundant) whose primary Creedence is to promote faith in Jesus (with Clearwater). Just looking at Eusebius' writings in general is enough to convince this objective and honest writer that it's likely that Eusebius was willing to lie in order to promote faith in Jesus. For those of you though, who require something more than my say-so to convict Eusebius of sin (like evidence) I'm still in the process of laying out the evidence against Eusebius here:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

1) Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31. Eusebius appears to be saying it's okay to lie for the Faith.

2) Evangelical Demonstration 3.5, Ecclesiastical History 1.11, and Theophany
Eusebius' reference to the TF is clearly not original.

3) Eusebius starts to quote orthodox Matthew 28:19 (trinity) after Nicea. That's not nicea.

4) Letter To Marinus. Eusebius knows that the ending of "Mark" is Forged but doesn't see it as a problem.

5) Eusebius HE Book VIII, chapter 2. Eusebius tells us he will spare us the details of famous Christians losing the Faith.

6) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm. Eusebius reports that Philo met Peter in Rome and became acquainted with and wrote about Christian doctrine.

7) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm. Eusebius faithfully reports correspondence between Jesus and Abgarus.

8) Eusebius HE Book III, chapter 39. Eusebius takes Papias as referring to "Mark" when he should not.

9) Eusebius HE Book III, chapter 39. Eusebius probably had clear sources claiming "Luke" was an original disciple yet censors this in favor of a weaker source claiming "Luke" was an original follower of Paul.

10) Philip of Side clearly dates Papias to after the start of Hadrian's reign but Eusebius censors the mention of Hadrian when referring to Papias.

11) It looks like the Bishop of Rome, Marcellinus, converted to Paganism, yet all Eusebius says is that he was "overtaken" by the persecution.

There's much more ammunition here from Richard Carrier:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...canon.html#XVI

Quote:

The first Christian scholar to engage in researching and writing a complete history of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea, reveals the embarrassing complexity of the development of the Christian canon, despite his concerted attempt to cover this with a pro-orthodox account. Two things must be known: first, Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous (see n. 6), and either way not a very good historian; second, Eusebius rewrote his History of the Church at least five times (cf. M 202, n. 29), in order to accommodate changing events, including the ever-important Council of Nicea, where Arianism, the view that Christ was created by God and not entirely identical to God (the greatest advocate of this was Eusebius' contemporary Arius, after whom the doctrine was named, but the idea was not entirely original to him), was decisively declared heretical, and for the first time in history this decision had the full backing and enforcement of the Roman Empire. Eusebius was an Arian until that day, and, not desiring to lose his position in the church, he abandoned his Arianism. We may never know what effect this had on his final revision of his history--but any view he may have taken about the canon that was pro-Arian was certainly expunged. This may reveal once again how doctrine more than objective scholarship affected Christian choices concerning canonical texts.

Note that Eusebius is especially unre-lieable when he is quoting outsiders (non-Christians). With apologies to Pete, this does remind me of the Mafia. Fellow Christians are made (in Jesus) and therefore their writings are "untouchable". You have to leave them alone. Outsiders though, who are not made, are fair game, and their writings can be roughed up. Flipping the testimony of prominent opponents is a well known Polemical tool and not restricted to Christianity. The physical equivalent would be placing a Church on top of a synagogue or mosque. It may have been considered acceptable by Eusebius to give his own interpretation to what non-Christians wrote or even should have written while not acceptable to do the same to fellow Christians. We see that generally Eusebius' crimes regarding Christian writings are silence.

As final evidence that the TF is forged the following was recently found (by me) in Oded Golan's bathroom at the back of Secret Mark in a letter from Eusebius to Jesus:

Quote:

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and
did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream
from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not
pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten
thousands of the people got together, and made a clamour against him,
and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also
used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people
usually do. So he habited a great number of soldiers in their habit,
who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place
where they might surround them. So he bade the Jews himself go away;
but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers
that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them
much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally
punished those that were tumultuos, and those that were not, nor did
they spare them in the least; and since the people were unarmed, and
were caught by men prepared for what they were about, was a great
number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away
wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. And then around this time there was this guy named Jesus, yah,
that's right, Jesus Christ. And he did a bunch of wonderful stuff,
see, like a thousand, no ten thousand miracles, yah, right. And he
was the messiah as predicted by all those old guys in the
whatchamacallit. Yah, yah, he was the messiah, that's the ticket.
Jesus Christ, whom I have played poker with.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
disorder; and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of
Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked
attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of
the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina;
one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the
regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was
also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and
in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gray, yet
did she lead a life of great modesty. She was married to Saturninus,
one that was one that was every way answerable to her in an excellent
character. Decius Mundus fell in love with this woman, who was a man
very high in the equestrian order; and as she was of too great
dignity to be caught by presents, and had already rejected them,
though they had been sent in great abundance, he was still more
inflamed with love to her, insomuch that he promised to give her two
hundred thousand Attic drachmae for one night's lodging.

JW:
So. The main categories of relevant evidence regarding if the TF is "F'd", are:

1) The argument of silence.

2) The language of the TF.

3) Eusebius as candidate for forgery.

4) Opinion of authority (last and least)

oh, and of course the above letter. Vote now for your position on the TF so we can finally get this fehrschlugginer issue settled:

1) The TF is a complete forgery.

2) The TF is partially forged.

3) The TF is substantially original.

4) I agree with whatever Spin thinks.

5) I have no TFing idea.

6) Who cares about the TF, I think JW is one funny mo-tfo.

Everyone is welcome to vote except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

Polemics - Doing unto others as you think they would do unto you.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Doug Shaver · 03-08-2009, 08:46 AM

I believe "complete forgery" is most probably the case. At the same time, I think anyone who argues that there is no chance of there being an authentic core is letting ideology overrule the evidence.

As for who the forger was, Eusebius is clearly a suspect. Before we convict him, though, I think it would have to be proved that if anyone else had means, motive, and opportunity, we would know of their existence. It is not at all obvious, at least to me, that Eusebius is the only Christian of his time who could have done such a thing.

grog225 · 03-08-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I believe "complete forgery" is most probably the case. At the same time, I think anyone who argues that there is no chance of there being an authentic core is letting ideology overrule the evidence.

As for who the forger was, Eusebius is clearly a suspect. Before we convict him, though, I think it would have to be proved that if anyone else had means, motive, and opportunity, we would know of their existence. It is not at all obvious, at least to me, that Eusebius is the only Christian of his time who could have done such a thing.

I don't see anyone citing Zeitlin's observation that Eusebius's use of the word "tribe" in relation to Christians is unique and clear tip off that Eusebius is the source of the TF. Zeitlin compared other quotes from Eusebius where the original does not use the word "tribe" but E. adds it:

Pliny himself does not refer to the Christians as a race,
tribe, but calls them Christians,34 and likewise, Trajan, in
his reply to Pliny, does not use the word tribe but calls them
Christians...

...It is therefore certainly strange that the sources from
which Eusebius draws, and the letters themselves do not
use the word "race," "tribe" and that Eusebius, ostensibly
copying the words of Pliny and Trajan, adds to Christians
the word "race," "tribe."

Zeitlin concludes:

We may say with some assurance that the words "tribe
of Christians" which we find in the Christian passage of
Josephus, shows that this passage was written by Eusebius.
We have seen from the above quotations that he is the only
man who used the word tribe in connection with Christians.

The Christ Passage in Josephus
Author(s): Solomon Zeitlin
Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jan., 1928), pp. 231-255
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press

This is just an argument toward Eusebian authorship. I believe that the entire TF is forged, whether it can be established that it was Eusebius or not.

I find the current rage around the new improved TF to be completely unconvincing. Why should we accept a modified TF not found in any extant mss over the possibility that the whole is a forgery? The latter is the simpler theory and there even seems to be a likely culprit. No need to conjure a more satisfactory passage to flow out of the pen of poor, abused Josephus!

But, no, this is not proof. This is just the strongest argument.

Switch89 · 03-08-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I believe "complete forgery" is most probably the case. At the same time, I think anyone who argues that there is no chance of there being an authentic core is letting ideology overrule the evidence.

As for who the forger was, Eusebius is clearly a suspect. Before we convict him, though, I think it would have to be proved that if anyone else had means, motive, and opportunity, we would know of their existence. It is not at all obvious, at least to me, that Eusebius is the only Christian of his time who could have done such a thing.

I emailed Richard Carrier about this and asked if it was possible that Eusebius, instead of forging the TF, simply obtained it from someone else and used it uncritically. He said he had come to the same conclusion long ago. Basically, Eusebius is not dishonest, he just isn't very bright. Carrier thinks that perhaps E's library aid forged the passage.

aa5874 · 03-08-2009, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

I emailed Richard Carrier about this and asked if it was possible that Eusebius, instead of forging the TF, simply obtained it from someone else and used it uncritically. He said he had come to the same conclusion long ago. Basically, Eusebius is not dishonest, he just isn't very bright. Carrier thinks that perhaps E's library aid forged the passage.

What else did the library aid forge?

And what was the name of the library aid?

Perhaps Eusebius put the library aid on a special assignment or was told to go to on vacation.

All that is known is that the TF is a forgery since it contradicts and early writing of Josephus "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4.

Roger Pearse · 03-09-2009, 02:53 AM

I wonder if any of those people who voted for "forgery" -- which remember, is a whole step further on than "not authorial" -- can document the evidence that proves that the text is not merely interpolated, but forged? NB: quoting Ken Olson's inferences isn't evidence.

More seriously, let's not assert what no-one could possibly prove.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 03-09-2009, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I believe "complete forgery" is most probably the case. At the same time, I think anyone who argues that there is no chance of there being an authentic core is letting ideology overrule the evidence.

As for who the forger was, Eusebius is clearly a suspect. Before we convict him, though, I think it would have to be proved that if anyone else had means, motive, and opportunity, we would know of their existence. It is not at all obvious, at least to me, that Eusebius is the only Christian of his time who could have done such a thing.

I emailed Richard Carrier about this and asked if it was possible that Eusebius, instead of forging the TF, simply obtained it from someone else and used it uncritically. He said he had come to the same conclusion long ago. Basically, Eusebius is not dishonest, he just isn't very bright. Carrier thinks that perhaps E's library aid forged the passage.

My own speculation is that the copy in the Caesarea library had suffered damage. Various words were missing, perhaps from a margin, and a copyist "fixed" them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 03-09-2009, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I wonder if any of those people who voted for "forgery" -- which remember, is a whole step further on than "not authorial" -- can document the evidence that proves that the text is not merely interpolated, but forged?

Dear Roger,

I voted for "plain and simple forgery" on the following basis, supported by Momigliano as follows:

A forgery by an "historian" is a forgery. An interpolation by an "historian" is a forgery on a lesser scale but nevertheles is a forgery. Moreover a "partial interpolation" (whatever manner of beast this is) by an "historian" is also a forgery on a lesser scale but nevertheless is a forgery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Momigliano

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

--- ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS
--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987
--- Chapter 1:
--- Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
--- Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

We must show no piety or pity for historians who forge their sources. Eusebius is guilty of some degree of forgery. Whether full or partial, an interpolation by a historian knowingly into his soure is a forgery. It is really as simple as that. But to be fair on Eusebius, he was probably highly inspired by Constantine's Oration, and may indeed have been commanded by our emperor, at some shameful hour, to pervert Josephus. (The Greek academics were probably asking him for some evidence towards a belief in the historical jesus). Julian has a special and endearing term for Eusebius, preserved by Cyril.

Namely "the wretched Eusebius".

My own speculation is that Julian called Eusebius alot of other far worse names, which Cyril censored as being innapropriate for "christian minds".

Best wishes,

Pete

PS: Nice one Joe!

Roger Pearse · 03-09-2009, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I wonder if any of those people who voted for "forgery" -- which remember, is a whole step further on than "not authorial" -- can document the evidence that proves that the text is not merely interpolated, but forged?

A forgery by an "historian" is a forgery. An interpolation by an "historian" is a forgery on a lesser scale but nevertheles is a forgery.

Yes indeed, but these all beg the question.

Quote:

Eusebius is guilty of some degree of forgery.

No evidence for this claim, which you have wearied us with ad nauseam, exists.

gurugeorge · 03-09-2009, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

My own speculation is that the copy in the Caesarea library had suffered damage. Various words were missing, perhaps from a margin, and a copyist "fixed" them.

Yeah that's plausible.

And of course, it's only natural that he would have used his master's "tribe" trope too (see above, comment on Zeitlin).

okestick:

View Poll Results: What is your position on the originality of the TF?
The TF is a complete forgery	32	55.17%
The TF is partially forged	9	15.52%
The TF is substantially original	5	8.62%
I agree with whatever Spin thinks	4	6.90%
I have no TFing idea	5	8.62%
Who cares about the TF, I think JW is one funny mo-tfo	4	6.90%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2009, 08:46 AM	#2
Doug Shaver Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: San Bernardino, Calif. Posts: 5,435	I believe "complete forgery" is most probably the case. At the same time, I think anyone who argues that there is no chance of there being an authentic core is letting ideology overrule the evidence. As for who the forger was, Eusebius is clearly a suspect. Before we convict him, though, I think it would have to be proved that if anyone else had means, motive, and opportunity, we would know of their existence. It is not at all obvious, at least to me, that Eusebius is the only Christian of his time who could have done such a thing.

03-09-2009, 02:53 AM	#6
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I wonder if any of those people who voted for "forgery" -- which remember, is a whole step further on than "not authorial" -- can document the evidence that proves that the text is not merely interpolated, but forged? NB: quoting Ken Olson's inferences isn't evidence. More seriously, let's not assert what no-one could possibly prove. All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.