Layman

At the outset I wanted to know what, if any, probative value you assign to this argument? In a previous conversation you seemed noncommital regarding whether the Eusebius-as-complete-interpolator-theory was persuasive. However, if I understand this argument correctly, it is only offers support for a complete interpolation if we accept that the entire TF was manufactured by Eusebius. Is that correct?

Please correct me if you feel I am misrepresenting Olson's piece. As I understand it, his argument that Eusebius is the complete interpolator of the TF rests on two grounds: 1) the language of the TF is more Eusebian than Josephan, and 2) the TF fits in well with Eusebius' apologetic purposes.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Olson's theory is ambitious. He claims that he has not only concluded that the TF is a complete interpolation, but that he has identified the specific identity of the interpolator acting more than 1600 years ago. There is no external support for his theory. It rests solely on his assement of the use of language and purported "apologetic purposes." Because his theory is so ambitious, the burden of proof is on him to clearly establish the truthfulness of his theory.

For the reasons stated below, I believe Olson fails to carry this burden.

THE LANGAUGE

A. Methodology, Sources, and Detail

I have a couple of comments about Olson's methodology.

First, although he claims that "it is possible to say that every word in the Testimonium is also found elsewhere in Eusebius," he fails to examine the usage of the terms by Eusebius. Or at least, he fails to provide any discussion of the specific use of those terms. Just determining that a word was used does not guarantee that the word was used in the same way or is of a common style.

Second, has Olson ever tested his methodology on any other Josephan passages used by Eusebius? Or of any other author that Eusebius relies so heavily on (as discussed below)? If the methodology is likely to give false positive on other passages, it's value would be greatly challenged. Of course, the fact that it has never been tried on any other Eusebian references give me pause in accepting it as persuasive.

B. Eusebian Dependence on Josephus

The questionable nature of Olson's methodology flows quite nicely into my next point. Olson argues that "it is possible to say that every word in the Tesmtionium is also found elsewhere in Eusebius" and states that there are three "groups of words" found in the TF that are found in Eusebius but not in Josephus. He also notes that there are two "groups of words" found in Josephus that are not in Eusebius.

From the outset I want to point out what I think is a serious flaw in Olson's argument. One that minimizes the similarities between the TF and Eusebius style while maximizing the importance of the Josephan similarities. Olson dismisses the fact that the TF is similar in style to the rest of Josephus while relying heavily on the fact that there is a similarity between Eusebius and the TF. He seems to think that the Josephan style is irrelevant because the TF may also corrallate with the language found in Eusebius. There is a significant oversight in such an assumption. It overlooks the obvious fact that Josephus' writings had a profound impact on Eusebius.

Olson admits that every term (except Christian -- no surprise there) used in the reconstructed Testimonium (and often times used in Josephas' distinct style) is also found in Josephus but dismisses that fact. However, he seems impressed that those terms also appear elsewhere in Eusebius (although Olson fails to provide the references). Which "coincidence," therefore, is more impressive? The answer is obvious: the relationship between Josephus and the TF.

Eusebius had access to all of Josephus' writings and used them extensively as sources for his own writings. Obviously, however, Josephus never had the opportunity to review anything written by Eusebius. Accordingly, while it is impossible that Eusebius had any influence on Josephus' literary works, it is undisputed that Josephus' writings had a very real impact on Eusebius' writings.

And the impact was substantial. In fact, "Josephus is Eusebius' main source for the history of the first century A.D. Eusebius is also fond of showing how Josephus supports the history presupposed by the writings of the New Testament." Ed. Andrew Louth, Eusebius, The History of the Church, at 382. Esuebius himself acknowledged that Josephs' writings were important to his own. "Since we have referred to this writer, it may be proper also to notice Josephus himself, who has contributed so much to the history at hand...." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Trns. Isaac Boyle, at 96.

Additionally, the influence of his sources -- including Josephus -- on Eusebius was greater than might otherwise be supposed. Eusebius is known for his lack of creativity and a writing style borrowed from the "cut & paste" school of history. "More important though, is to notice what kind of material Eusebius inserts into his historical framework. Here he deserts classical precedent and remains essentially a chronicler (or an archivist). Whereas a classical historian told a story, and made up details such as a general's address to his troops on the basis of plausibility (and the historian's view of the character of the individuals involved and the policy they were pursuing), Eusebius hardly ever makes anything up. He quotes and summarizes.In Book 2 and Book 3 it is mainly Josephus, the Great Jewish historian, whose account (mainly from the Jewish War) Eusebius pillages for the first century;". Eusebius, The History of the Church, at xx.

Accordingly, the heavy reliance of Eusebius on Josephus just as easily explains the similarities in language between Eusebius and the TF. Considering that, let's move to some of the specifics of Olson's argument.

The Eusebius terms are:

a. PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS ("maker of miraculous works")

This is less probative than it appears. As many scholars have recognized, the language used in the TF for "miraculous works" is used elsewhere by Josephus -- most notably regarding the deeds of Elisha. The only difference is the term used for "maker" or "doer," which we have argued about before. It is my position that since Josephus is familiar of and uses derivatives of the Greek work which are related to "doer" or "maker," this is not an unusual use of the phrase that is otherwise Josephan in style.

b. EIS ETI TE NUN ("not extinct to this day")

I would have appreciated a pinpoint site on this.

c. TWN CRISTIANWN... TO FULON ("the tribe of Christians ")

I have a problem with this one. The problem with classifying this as distinctly Eusebian is that it ignores the fact that Eusebius spent his life writing about Christians and Josephus only would have mentioned them here. So it is no surprise, and without probative value, to note that this is the only time that Josephus uses the term "Christian" while Eusebius uses it elsewhere. The fact is that references to "the tribe of" are very common in Josephus. Mason's attempt to say that Josephus only uses this term for races is not really persuasive.

Josephus uses this term to describe a variety of different groupings -- more than enough to reject out of hand any rigid insistence that he would never have used such a term for Christians. As R.T. France notes, "Josephus uses the word both for the Jewish 'race' and for other national or communal groups." The Evidence for Jesus, at 30. Indeed, Josephus uses the term to describe the Jewish people, as well as each of the tribes of the Israel people. He uses it to describe various Gentile nationalities and ethnicities, as well as the female gender (13.16.6). Josephus even uses the term to describe a swam of locusts (2.14.4).

To say that it would be Josephan style to refer to gender and locusts as a "tribe" but not Christians is unpersuasive. "Tribe" is actually not that surprising a choice of words for Josephus to use, since at the time he wrote Christians were distinct from the Jews but alienated from the Gentiles.

The Josephan terms are:

a. hHDONHi DECOMENWN ("receive with pleasure")

One reason that this phrase is not used by Christians is because of a Christian tendency to associate the term "pleasure" with sinful nature. Christian writers apparently avoided using the term "pleasure" in a positive light.

b. PRWTWN ANDRWN ("principal men")

Since this phrase is so common in Josephus, the fact that it was not used by Eusebius elsewhere is very significant.

As discussed above, the presence of typically -- and uniquely -- Josephan language in the TF is much more explained by the partial interpolation theory than by the Eusebiun-as-forger theory.

C. Disproportionate Use of New Testament Language

Olson also does not address a key point that Meier makes in A Marginal Jew: the disproportionate use of New Testament terminology in the agreed upon partial interpolations and the rarity of such terms from the remaining portion of the TF. In other words, the portions of the TF that proponents of partial authenticity have identified as interpolations are much more likely to be similar to early Christian writings than those portions of the TF identified as authentic. This argument is twofold:

First, "apart from Christoanon, not one word of what I identify as the original text of the Testimonium fails to occur elsewhere in Josephus, usually with the same meaning and/or construction." Meier, AMJ, at 83. The absence of the term "Christian" from the rest of the Josephus' writings is to be expected because this is the only place where Josephus is even alleged to refer to this specific group. As a result, it is irrelevant to the analysis.

Second, every single word in the identified interpolations are found in the New Testament. That is not so in the remaining, larger portion of the TF.

As a result, "When we consider the number of words and constructions in the core of the Testimonium that are not found in the NT, the total agreement of the interpolations with the vocabulary of the NT is striking.... Still, the difference from the core text is clear: in the core, not only are the vocabulary and style overwhelmingly Josephan, but at least some of the vocabulary is absent from the NT and some of the content is at variance with what the NT says." J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, at 83. As Raymond Brown puts it, "The complete interpolation theory does not explain satisfactorily that there are two styles in the passage, with some lines demonstrably of Josephus and other lines demonstrably not." Raymond E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, at 375.

Olson's theory fails to account for (a) the high concentration of New Testament terminology in certain portions of the TF (interpolations according to the partial authenticity theory), (b) the large concentration of strongly Josephan language in the remaining portions of the TF (the authentic parts of the TF according to the partial authenticity theory), and (c) the fact that the highly concentrated New Testament language is severable from the passage, leaving a coherent text of largely Josephan style language. On the other hand, this result is exactly what the partial interpolation theory predicts.

D. Forgery Characteristic of Eusebius?

This heavily reliance of Eusebius on his sources leads is related to my next point. If Eusebius was so well-known for his extensive reliance on preexisting sources, was he also known for making up source when it was convenient for making his point? I am somewhat surprised that Olson nowhere addresses this issue in his post, because it seems that the answer is no. Eusebius -- although referring to many, many sources -- does not typically or even on occasion, completely manufacture references.

This is a different point, however, than claiming that Eusebius always chose good sources. He relied on some obviously questionable sources -- and indeed, his reliance on the full-TF itself is questionable for a historian. However, tending to be somewhat gullible about sources is a very different matter and provides no support for the proposition that Eusebius felt free to simply invent sources when it suited his purposes.

J.B. Lightfoot rejects the idea that Eusebius would feel free to invent his sources, and notes that he is sincere in his efforts:

J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp.308-348), Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines, ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Volume II (EABA-HERMOCRATES). This excerpt pp.324-5. Available at: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/lightfoot.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/lightfoot.htm</a>

Indeed, we know of many of the sources that Eusebius relies on (although sometimes in a somewhat different form) and he demonstrates a tendency to use real, verifiable sources. Two of the most pertinent examples are his reliance on the TF's references to John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus. Both of which undoubtedly existed in Eusebius' manuscripts.

Additionally, Josephus cites to all the writings of the New Testament, the Old Testament writings, earlier Christian writings, and even from other Jewish and Pagan writers and scholars. Nothing in his use of such sources supports the idea that Eusebius felt free to invent sources from nothing to support his arguments.

Given that Olson's argument is speculative and highly subjective, the fact that Eusebius is not known for manufacturing his sources from nothing, and indeed shows a strong tendency to rely on real sources, undercuts Olson's claim to have pinpointed the identity of the complete interpolator.

THE APOLOGETIC PURPOSE

I am still waiting to get my hands on the Proof of the Gospel, which is at the core of Olson's comparison. I plan to update this threat when I have evaluated his references and become familiar with that work. For know, I want to point out that Olson's theory rests on a very subjective assessment of Eusebius apologetic purposes. But it also rests on a very subjective assessment of Eusebius' apologetic priorities. Was this something that was so important to Eusbius' arguments in all three books that he had no choice but to invent a source to support it? I am doubtful such is the case. Authors make use of those sources that help their point. So, there will be more to come on this point.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

A fatal problem with Olson's theory is that there existed at least one or two Greek manuscripts of Antiquities which contained a version of the TF but which were independent of Eusebius' manuscript, thus eliminating the possibility that Eusebius invented the TF from nothing.

The surviving Greek manuscripts and all three of Eusebius' references to the TF declare that "he was the Christ." However, there is persuasive evidence of additional manuscripts of Josephus that were independent of those used by Eusebius, butt still referred to a form of the TF. The most telling feature of the other manuscript tradition is that it shrank back from actually declaring "he was the Christ," but rather merely stated that "he was called the Christ." An important distinction.

It is also possible that there was a Greek manuscript that completely failed to make any reference to Jesus as Christ or as believed to be/called the Christ. It is possible, however, that the evidence for this may just very well simply provide additional support for the existence of the independent manuscript tradition claiming that "he was called the Christ."

First, Ambrose -- despite using the TF as a polemic for the divinity of Christ -- never notes that Josephus called Jesus "the Christ." Writing around 30 years after Eusebius, quotes from the TF early in the fourth century:

Ambrose has cited from the TF every positive statement about Jesus to use in his argument that Jesus was divine. He notes that Jesus was wise, recites the "if it is lawful" reference, notes that he did "wonderful works," and records that he 'appeared to his disciples" and that he did many other miraculous things. Note also that Ambrose left out the more controversial part -- that the "leading men" had accused Jesus and the Roman authorities had put him to death. However, Ambrose completely fails to note that Josephus claimed that Jesus was the Christ. In fact, he seems to understand that Josephus was clearly an unbeliever. It is very unlikely that Ambrose overlooked such a strong attestation to Jesus -- if it existed in his manuscript. It is possible, however, that he would leave out a statement that "he was called the Christ" because it implied disbelief. So Ambrose citation of the TF strongly suggests that within 30 years of Eusebius' writings, there existed a Greek manuscript tradition that differed from the one used by Eusebius. Accordingly, it appears that Ambros' manuscript of the TF definitely laked the positive of Jesus being the Christa nd possibley lacked any refernce to Christ at all.

Second, Jerome -- writing at the end of the Fourth Century -- also cites to the TF and explicitly differs from Eusebius' version by noting that Josephus merely stated that Jesus was "called the Christ."

As Alice Whealey notes, "the fact that the passage is quoted by Jerome in a slightly variant form in this period, which reads, 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than the textus receptus' 'he was the Christ' is not proof of Jerome's own doubts about its authenticity, as is occasionally alleged. Rather, it is evidence that in addition to the textus receptus a variant version of the Testimonium in Greek was still in circulation in late antiquity." The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Antiquity to the Present, 2000 SBL Josephus Seminar.

Third, there is a Syriac version of the TF that is referenced in a 12th century work, compiled by the Patriarch of Antioch which lends even more support to Jerome's version of the TF. While tracking our current TF more or less, the Syriac version significantly departs from it by stating that "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." And as Whealey notes, "Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity. Both, however, had access to Greek works. The only plausible conclusion is that Jerome and some Syriac Christian (probably the seventh century James of Edessa) both had access to a Greek version of the Testimonium containing the passage 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than 'he was the Christ.'" Whealey, Id. at 10, n. 9.

Finally, the Arabic version popularized by James Charlesworth. Although I agree with you that this is not the "authentic core" itself, I do think it supports the existence of a manuscript tradition that was independent of the one used by Eusebius. To avoid this inference, we would have to assume that a Greek text descending from Eusebius' original made its way East, and that the Christians scribes then dropped the reference to Jewish involvement with Jesus' death, added that Jesus' resurrection was only "reported," and changed Eusebius' statement that Jesus "was the Christ" to say that he was only "perhaps" the Messiah. This Christian scribe would also have dropped the reference to Jesus doing any kind of miracles and to Jesus teaching anyone anything.

In summary, it appears that the evidence for a manuscript tradition containing the TF that is independent of the one used by Eusebius is very strong. Olson nowhere mentions this counter-evidence, despite its relevance to his argument. Because there are at least four TF references that indicate the existence of a TF independent of the one cited by Eusebius, Eusbeius could not have completely invented the TF from nothing. It existed before he wrote his works.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

I have to admit to some concern about the subjectivity of the argument being made. Certainly the respected Jewish scholar Geza Vermes does not find it strange that Josephus would refer to Jesus as depicted in the reconstructed TF. After affirming his belief in the partial-authenticity reconstruction, Vermes concludes that "Josephus succeeded in formulating a detached judgment of [Jesus]." The Changing Face of Jesus, at 277. Another scholar also respected for his knowledge on first century Judaism -- James Charlesworth -- likewise concludes that the reconstructed version is not atypical of what we would expect. "The Greek recension, minus the Christian interpolation, reveals how a first-century Jew probably categorized Jesus: He was a rebellious person and disturber of the elusive pease; but he was also a wise persona who performed 'surprising,' perhaps even wonderful works" Jesus Within Judaism, at 191-192.

Moreover, Doherty is misleading us here when he contends that Josephus treats no other Jewish popular leader in such a positive light. In the same Chapter, Josephus includes a rather positive statement about a popular Jewish leader who was killed by a Roman client-king: John the Baptist. Josephus' portrayal of JtB leans towards the positive: "who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God...." Antiquities 18.5.2. So despite the fact that JtB was put to death by Roman-appointed authority, Josephus speaks rather highly of him.

Also, Doherty is assuming that Josephus saw Jesus as just another trouble-making would-be Messiah. But whether we look in Josephus or the Gospels there is no hint that Jesus was any sort of revolutionary. This is highlighted by the fact that there is no record of any Roman action against his followers in Palestine after his crucifixion.

Finally, Doherty completely ignores the possibility that Josephus originally referred to Jesus in a negative way, which later Christian interpolators "cleaned up." While I still favor the neutral reconstruction myself, I find the negative reconstruction a very real possibility. And one which would completely nullify Doherty's argument (as well as some of your other arguments for complete interpolation).

F.F. Bruce was one of the leading proponents of the negative reconstruction. He believes that the original TF referred to Jesus as follows:

Bruce, The New Testament Documents, at 110. Thackeray and Eisler also think that this negative reconstruction is likely.

That this was really the prevailing Christian outlook is doubtful. The Gospels, written beginning in the late 60s/early 70s actually deemphasize the parousia. Besides, the truth is that whatever Doherty's reconstruction of early Christian belief may be, he is mistaken in assuming that Josephus would have viewed them in the same regard. We simply do not know much about how Josephus viewed Christians when he wrote Antiquities.

Additionally, saying things like Christians 'expected the overthrow of the empire" is very misleading. If Christians were publically advocating the overthrow of the Empire then certainly we would expected more Roman persecution of Christians on that basis. Or at least some extant writings about how Christians were threatening the government. There is not such evidence. Judging from our Roman writings about Christians, -- including Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius -- not even those Romans who despised Christians accused them of working to overthrow the government, or even expressing strong sentiments on the issue.

For example, Pliny's comments suggests that Christians were actually not suspected of anything so drastic as Doherty implies. "The sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food."

Thus, Doherty's characterization of Josephus' probable perspective about Christian expectations and attitudes is misplaced.

This overlooks the fact that Josephus portrayed Pilate in a bad light throughout the area containing the TF. Pilate provoked the Jewish people and raided the Temple for funds. Although the Jewish people began to take action against Pilate, Josephus portrays them in a favorable light and notes that Pilate backs down. Josephus also describes how Pilate killed Samaritans and was recalled to Rome to account for his actions.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Layman,
At the outset I wanted to know what, if any, probative value you assign to this argument? In a previous conversation you seemed noncommital regarding whether the Eusebius-as-complete-interpolator-theory was persuasive.
I'm sorry to contribute here and if my presence is inappropriate, just point me the right way. The question seems to be directed at Kirby.
The probative value we can assign to the argument is, it establishes both MOTIVE, MEANS and IDENTITY of the person who did the interpolation.
Only part of the TF can be directly attributed to Eusebius as per Oslon's argument.

However, if I understand this argument correctly, it is only offers support for a complete interpolation if we accept that the entire TF was manufactured by Eusebius. Is that correct?
The argument does NOT offer support or assert that the TF was interpolated wholecloth by Eusebius.

Olson's theory is ambitious.
Are you trying to say that he embarked on an insurmountable task? This is opinion and I fail to see why you make it part of your argument.

There is no external support for his theory. It rests solely on his assement of the use of language and purported "apologetic purposes." Because his theory is so ambitious, the burden of proof is on him to clearly establish the truthfulness of his theory.

For the reasons stated below, I believe Olson fails to carry this burden.
This is your argument:
1. There is no external support for his theory
2. It rests solely on his assement of the use of language and purported "apologetic purposes."
3. Because his theory is so ambitious, the burden of proof is on him to clearly establish the truthfulness of his theory.
4. Therefore he fails to carry this burden.

This is a weak argument because the premises are shaky. First of all, what do you mean by "external support"? An argument must be examined on its own merit and its unclear why he needs external support yet his method is very clear. Does external support mean scholars? or books?
Secondly, are you saying its invalid to use textual comparisons to determine the source of a passage? Are you saying philological arguments are invalid when arguing for interpolation?
You also need to define clearly what would constitute "carrying the burden".

First, although he claims that "it is possible to say that every word in the Testimonium is also found elsewhere in Eusebius," he fails to examine the usage of the terms by Eusebius. Or at least, he fails to provide any discussion of the specific use of those terms. Just determining that a word was used does not guarantee that the word was used in the same way or is of a common style.
He does NOT just determine that a word was used, he ALSO demonstrates that it was used in the same way and in a common style as in the interpolators other works.
examine this:
From the above, does he ONLY determine that a word was used? No, he goes further to even the authors style of writing.

Second, has Olson ever tested his methodology on any other Josephan passages used by Eusebius? Or of any other author that Eusebius relies so heavily on (as discussed below)? If the methodology is likely to give false positive on other passages, it's value would be greatly challenged. Of course, the fact that it has never been tried on any other Eusebian references give me pause in accepting it as persuasive.
Other Josephan passages used by Eusebius, other than Antiquities 20 and 18 have not been known to be suspected of having being interpolated so you would have to provide a compelling reason as to why similar philological studies should be performed on them. The TF was subjected to the test because it was considered suspect. Its like asking a doctor to try his medicene on people who appear perfectly normal. You suggest other suspect passages and I am confident Oslon will be willing to subject them to his "methodology".

...It overlooks the obvious fact that Josephus' writings had a profound impact on Eusebius.
He doesnt dismiss those facts, he notes them and then focuses on other facts that support his argument. That is only logical - its called RELEVANCE.
And whether or NOT Josephus' writings had a profound impact on Eusebius, is not critical to Oslon's argument, and doesn't alter the possibility of the Eusebian fabrication.

Olson admits that every term (except Christian -- no surprise there) used in the reconstructed Testimonium (and often times used in Josephas' distinct style) is also found in Josephus but dismisses that fact...
Please quote him dismissing this observation.

However, he seems impressed that those terms also appear elsewhere in Eusebius (although Olson fails to provide the references).
Like I pointed out earlier, he is trying to be relevant.

Accordingly, the heavy reliance of Eusebius on Josephus just as easily explains the similarities in language between Eusebius and the TF. Considering that, let's move to some of the specifics of Olson's argument.
I hope you understand that its naive, simplistic and disingenuous to accept that this is the only way of explaining the similarities.
And bear in mind that its the contrast/ inconsistency between what the TF said and Josephus' beliefs that brought the TF to sharp focus.

a. PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS ("maker of miraculous works")

This is less probative than it appears. As many scholars have recognized, the language used in the TF for "miraculous works" is used elsewhere by Josephus -- most notably regarding the deeds of Elisha. The only difference is the term used for "maker" or "doer," which we have argued about before. It is my position that since Josephus is familiar of and uses derivatives of the Greek work which are related to "doer" or "maker," this is not an unusual use of the phrase that is otherwise Josephan in style.
Oslon argues:
I agree with you here because Antiquities 9. chapter 8.6 says concerning Elisha:
Its therefore incorrect for Oslon to say "POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" (A.J. 12.87) rather than "making miracles.""

Concerning your argument(s) about "TWN CRISTIANWN... TO FULON ("the tribe of Christians ")".
You argue very well that "The problem with classifying this as distinctly Eusebian is that it ignores the fact that Eusebius spent his life writing about Christians and Josephus only would have mentioned them here"
However, you would do better to list other 1st century historians/ authors who refer to Jesus' followers as Christians.

About whether or not forgery was characteristic of Eusebius, are you arguing that if someone is a bank robber, they cannot therefore rob department stores?
If one makes up a story, why not also use others to make up other stories?
The main argument is that Eusebius had no rectitude, so its not entirely unthinkable that he could have tampered with Josephus' writings to support his beliefs.

Whether he did not interpolate other sources he used is besides the point. Maybe he lacked the means, or he didnt want to over-interpolate and draw attention.

When you are arguing about the other texts/ versions/ translations, its important to note their possible sources. Because the Syriac, Arabic translation etc, could have been translated from interpolated texts, or the copyists/ translators could also have altered them themselves guilelessly in the process of translation/ copying.

Concerning Doherty's argument, I would appreciate it if you provided a link to the page that contains it - as quoted by Kirby?

Layman

This is an open thread. But I am confused. Below you attack my counter-arguments, but it seems you agree with me. Olson argues taht Eusebius invented the TF in its entirety. You seek to disagree with that if I understand this statements of yours correctly: The argument does NOT offer support or assert that the TF was interpolated wholecloth by Eusebius.

If I meant to say it was insurmountable I would have said so. I did not say so.

Ummm, no. That is not my argument. That's a parody of my argument. I lay out my argument in much greater detail and made other important points.

There is no external support. There is no manuscript evidence, there are no writers from Eusebius's time accusing him of manufacturing the TF. There are not even any writings from early Christians innocently praising Eusebius for finding the TF where so many others had missed it.

Not in the abstract.

What do yo mean?

Okay. It means 64.31%.

Yes, he obviously does examine some of the terms. But not all of them. Sorry if that was not clear.

Like who? Like Pliny the Younger? Cornelius Tacitus? Suetonius? Or the author of Acts?

Umm, no. I did not talk about bank robbers at all.

No, it is the point. If Eusebius is known for being heavily dependent on his sources, and he is not known for inventing those sources, we should be suspicious of claims that he invented the TF.

And no one has proved that Eusebius had "no rectitude." But I have shown that he used real source again and again and again.

Yes of course anything is possible. The point is that Christians would be much less likely to make the TF lesscomplimentary of Jesus. And it's especially unlikely that so many sources would changed "he was the Christ" to "the so-called Christ." It actually strengthens the arguments that the evidence for "the so-called Christ" comes from such different sources.

It's in Kirby's article on the Testimonium. Go to his website and follow the links to Josephus' Antiquities.

So which is it? You say that Olson does not prove that Eusebius created the entire TF. Do you really think that? And if you do, aren't you agreeing with my conclusion -- even if you quibble with some of my arguments?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Do you know the meaning of the term "control group"? It is precisely because other passages are not suspected of being tampered with that makes such a test helpful. The problem is that half of Olson's argument is very subjective -- the so-called "apologetic purpose." I'm not sure that that part of the test is subject to verification of the methodology.

That would be more interesting if not for the fact that Olson is not asserting the mere "possibility" of Eusebiusn fabrication, but rather is asserting the probability or certaintiy of Eusebian fabrication.

Besides, you completely missed the point. The fact that Josephus has a significant impact on Eusebian's writings is a counter-argument explaining the textual similarities of the TF to Eusebius.

Why? Have you even read his article?

Are you also willing to say that its "simplistic and disingenuous to accept that" the complete fabrication of the TF by Eusebius "is the only way of explaining the similarities"? Because that is what Olson is asserting. The difference is that there is no dispute that Eusebius relies heavily on Josephus' writings, whereas Olson's theory is speculative, uncertain, and very controversial.

Ted Hoffman

Seems like I struck a wrong chord. I sense that you are hostile.
This discussion can be very fruitful and if I am not competent to participate, I can bow out. I cant allow myself to agitate you and elicit the type of responses like the ones you have provided above.
I think you have debated very well with Kirby so far, I wouldn't want to come in and quibble.

Layman

I was flippant, but I'm truly mystified.

You agree with me that Olson is wrong that Eusbeius is the one who completely interpolated the TF. Right? Or do you agree with Olson that Eusebius is the complete interpolator.

Ted Hoffman

I did not expect you to be flippant; not if the earnest single-mindedness and dedication with which you have been arguing with Kirby on the TF is anything to go by.
I was taken aback. But I am sure Kirby will debate with you without you getting flippant like you did. I will be following this discussion because I find it very interesting and educative.
Oslon, according to what I know, does NOT argue that Eusebius is solely responsible for all the interpolations evident in the TF.
I fully agreed with one of your counter-arguments against Oslon's. And went as far stating Oslon was wrong concerning one point.
I partly agreed with one of the points you raised concerning Oslon's approach.
I disagreed with the rest of your arguments.
I find Oslon's overall arguments adequately probative as far as Eusebius' role in the fabrication of the TF.

Layman

This is why I genuinely asked you if you had read the article:

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/"Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimoni um"" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/"Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimoni um"</a>


I thought Olson was quite clear that his argument was that Eusebius was the author of the entire TF. He specifically rejects the idea of partial-authenticity.

Olson:

And certainly Kirby used Olson to argue that the entire TF was interpolated.

This is what I wanted to avoid doing. Going back over Olson and Kirby's arguments just to show you that they were arguing for full-inauthenticity.

Ted Hoffman

Layman, I can see what you mean.
It appears that Oslon contradicts himself.
because he says later:
So we are both right because Oslon starts by Saying unequivocally that the entire text was fabricated by Eusebius, then later concedes some of the interpolations were NOT necessarily by Eusebius.
Are we clear on this now?

Oh, for the record, I had read the text (its really insulting that you would think I can jump into a discussion without checking what the discussion is about).
Thats why I asked for Earl Dohertys. And thats why I did not address arguments concerning what Earl said. Because I have not read it. And I dont want to assume that you are referring to a particular document.
If its too difficult for you just to provide a link, its okay.

Other than this self-contradiction and the point I agreed with you upon, I think his argument established a very strong possibility that Eusebius partially interpolated the passage.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>