Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 07-22-2002, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:
Layman, do you plan to make any further replies on this topic?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter,

I am sorry and apologize for the delay. And even more so for the failure to notify you of the delay. My new life as a father has affected my schedule and attention span.

But yes, I do plan on responding and offering my thoughts on the gamit of points you raise in your article. Hopefully I can do this by midweek.

I will email you a notice that I have posted so that you do not have to keep checking to see if I replied.

Layman

Toto · 07-22-2002, 07:32 PM

Hi Peter

My question as to whether Eusebius wrote both passages was more rhetorical than serious, and you did not need so many paragraphs to convince the world that there is nothing to it.

I was trying to figure out if the two theories could be reconciled at all. I suppose that Eusebius could have picked that paragraph out of Luke as representing his philosophy, and modeled the interpolation after it, if he were the interpolator. Or there could have been a third document as Goldberg hypothesizes, used by Luke and still around for Eusebius, but now lost.

I would need to study Goldberg more to be sure if I agree with him. I am very suspicious of people who try to add authenticity to their work by using computer searches.

But since Layman is returning to the thread that he started, I will step back. This is not a burning issue with me.

Peter Kirby · 07-22-2002, 07:56 PM

Toto writes: My question as to whether Eusebius wrote both passages was more rhetorical than serious, and you did not need so many paragraphs to convince the world that there is nothing to it.

LOL. Okay.

I have seen sillier stuff taken seriously, such as the idea that the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' were conjoined only in the fourth century.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-23-2002, 07:52 AM

After reading the Jewish definition of a messiah from response on a webpage from a rabbi, I wonder now if Josephus might have written that passage and not given any more thought or detail to it, simply because the traditional Jewish messianic belief is the messiah will just be human, not a god-man.
Josephus would have made the comment Jesus was believed to be the Christ, then went on, because as a Jew, to him that was no big deal.
The Jews say the belief that the messiah will be god in human form is not a Jewish belief, never has been.

Layman · 07-25-2002, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:
Layman writes:

I'm beginning to post my comments on Peter Kirby's article on the Testinomium Flavianum. I begin by discussing his comments on four of the "Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious." I skipped Arguments 1 and 4 because I agree with Kirby that they lend no support to the complete interpolation theory.

.....

OK, but don't forget the thirteenth argument, the suggestion made by Lowder that the burden of proof may be on the proponent of partial authenticity. Hopefully you will also talk about the arguments for partial authenticity.

I plan to "move down the list" so to speak. Right now I'm simply examining the relevant position and analyzing its probative value.

Quote:

Layman writes:

Nor am I sure how the shortness of the passage about Jesus is supposed to indicate that the TF is a complete forgery. It seems to me that a Christian who was creating out of wholeclothe a reference to what would be in his opinion the most important figure in Jewish history, he would make sure that it was at least as long as the Josephan passage re: John the Baptist.

This is an argument for authenticity that was present in a previous draft of the article but was removed (it was also in the context of refuting the argument from short length).

The difficulty with the argument is that it does not proceed on the same pattern as the argument from short length (which, besides, I do not support anyway). The argument from short length takes known instances of the length of description made by Josephus and argues inductively for a typical length of Josephus' descriptions, in which the reconstructed Testimonium is aberrational. (The counter to this is that the passage may be aberrational in length yet authentic.) Yet, unless we know exactly who the forger is and can compare the Testimonium with his known descriptions, the argument is not parallel, because there are no known samples from which to draw an inductive argument for the practice of the forger. If we think that the Testimonium must have been forged by Eusebius if it were inauthentic, even then it is entirely possible that the forger would be aberrational in his forgery as opposed to his regular writing. So there really is no basis for arguing that the forger would have written a longer description in the Testimonium.

I disagree that we must know the specific identity of the alleged interpolator before we can make any assessment of the alleged interpolation (and if the interpolator is Eusebius, as you seem to entertain, this response is even less persuasive). My argument is not a "mirror" of yours. Yours is apparently stylistic (claiming that it is Josephus' "style" to write longer descriptions of people). Mine is not.

I rely on the highly probable motivation of a Christian scribe to insert a description of Jesus at least somewhat commensurate with the importance he would place on Jesus' life in Jewish history. Indeed, I find the idea of the length or shortness of a passage being a "style" of a historical writer somewhat problematic. The determination of "style" and comparison does not depend on textual analysis or linguistic similarities. Rather it depends on something that is not nearly so readily apparent -- the importance of the person or event being described in the eyes of the author. And (text aside) we may be in a better position to know what a Christian's perspective of Jesus' importance would be than we would what Josephus' perspective of Jesus' importance would be. (And if the alleged interpolator was Eusebius, we can even more confidently assert that he would have viewed Jesus as the most important event in Jewish -- indeed human -- history, especially during the reign of Pilate).

In fact, we have a clear example of a complete interpolation by a Christian scribe carrying out this motivation: the Slavonic Josephus references added to Josephus' Jewish Wars. The main one is over 400+ words long and adds much more rhetoric about the importance of Jesus. Speaking of Jesus, "his nature and form were human, but his appearance was superhuman and his works divine," "in many respects he opposed the Law and he did not keep the Sabbath according to the custom of our forefathers," "a hundred and fifty assistants joined him, and a multitude of the populace," and that Pilate released Jesus "because he had healed his wife when she was dying." (Inserted after Jewish War 2.9.2, 169). And from the other complete interpolations in the Slavonic Josephus, [the temple curtain] had ... been suddenly rent when they delivered to death through bribery the doer of good," "they had put guards all around his grave--thirty Romans but a thousand Jews" (JW 5.5.4, 214), a reference to the writing placed on Jesus' cross identifying him as "Jesus, a king who did not reign..." (JW 5.5.2, 195).

This Christian interpolator wrote a rather long, rambling account of Jesus' ministry and added other statements about Jesus in three other places. Given the Christian perspective on Jesus' importance, this is unsurprising. There is a correlation between the scribe's perspective on Jesus' importance and the amount of information he had Josephus provide about him. Of course you are right that it is possible that we are dealing with an abberation, but it is less likely and less probable that a Christian scribe-- knowledgeable of Josephus' work -- would would devote to God incarnate a passage shorter than any other person (and in any event, I'm not sure we have demonstrated that is the case yet).

The Christian value placed on Jesus seems more likely to produce -- as it did with our one certain complete interpolation -- an account of Jesus at least as long, if not longer, than that found in the TF.

On the other hand, if the partial-interpolation reconstruction is valid, it's length is consistent with what may be Josephus' view of Jesus -- a rather neutral account about a religious leader who appeared, was unjustly killed, and left behind a movement known to Josephus' readers.

Quote:

The reply could also be made that the interpolator - and we know there was one - could have reworked the Testimonium to be of greater length but did not. So, it could be said that the shortness of the Testimonium is a mystery for both partial inauthenticity and full inauthenticity.

Anything can be said, but for your point to have any probative value you have to assume that a willingness to "correct" an inadequate account is the same as a willingness to "invent from wholeclothe" an account altogether. The basis for any such assumption seems weak.

Quote:

Layman writes: Whatever the case may be, I see nothing about the size of the TF that supports in any way the idea that it's a forgery.

That's fine, as this is not an argument that I care to defend.

Does this mean you believe that this particular argument has no probative value? Little probative value? Somewhere else on the spectrum?

Quote:

Layman writes: Additonally, the two passages in Chapter 18 that follow the two Pilate and Jesus passages in Antiquities are not to be found following the two Pilate passages in Jewish War. It seems that Josephus did not find them particularly relevant to Jewish War (or fitting with his apologetic purpose at that time), whereas he did find them relevant to a history of the Jewish people.

Perhaps we ought to say that it is possible that Josephus did not find them to be relevant to the Jewish War but did find them relevant to the Jewish Antiquities, as we would not want to prejudice ourselves in favor of authenticity for the Testimonium.

I am somewhat unclear on your response. You only quote my argument as to the two passages directly following the reference to Jesus. Was that the only portion you intended to respond to? Be that as it may, I do not see how my argument that Josephus likely found the two passages following the TF more relevant to a history of the Jewish people than to his history of the Jewish Wars is based on a prejudice in favor of the Testimonium.

But let us refresh the full original argument I was responding to. Mr. Doherty argued that failure of Jewish Wars to mention Jesus suggested that it's inclusion in Antiquities was a complete interpolation. I then offered a quotation of R.T. France pointing out the much broader scope of Antiquities, and specified examples of references in Antiquities that are not in Jewish War: John the Baptist, James, the famine under Claudius, and Herod Agrippa's death. In fact, Josephus takes only one page to cover the 10 years around Jesus' life in Wars, while taking six pages for the same period in Antiquities. Williamson, G. A. The World of Josephus, 120.

Given the broader scope of Antiquities and Josephus' exclusion from Wars of many of the references in Antiquities (and especially Chapter 18), I pointed out that "it is likely that Josephus simply did not believe that these persons and events were as relevant to the history of the Jewish War (or his apologetic purposes) as they were to the history of the Jewish people."

I am not assuming the TF was present in Antiquities, I'm pointing out that its absence from the JW is irrelevant to the argument about its authenticity. Or as Van Voorst puts it, "Neither does the Testimonium's absence in the parallell section in the Second Book of Josephus' Jewish War offer any evidence of its authenticity because the Antiquities goes beyond the Jewish Wars on many points." Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 88.

Quote:

Layman writes: I have just the opposite reaction as Mr. Kirby and Mr. Hoffman.

But, then, I did not state a reaction. I made no comment at all on the argument made by Hoffman. Again, it is merely one of the arguments that I mention in my catalogue.

Layman writes: The similarity of language is most understandable if the author had an equivalent view of Jesus and John.

Wouldn't that depend on what the similarities of language are? Myself, I have not discovered any similarity between the Testimonium and the Baptist passage other than that both Jesus and John attracted the following of many. So I would not use the assumed similarity as an argument for either authenticity or inauthenticity. In your opinion, what exactly are the similarities of language between the accounts of Jesus and John?

Just to refresh, Mr. Hoffman's argument you cited was that "the language used to describe John is very close to the language used to describe Jesus, leading some to theorize that the original version of the Antiquities carried no reference to Jesus at all."

And, please forgive my presumption. In other parts of your article you provide your assessment of the offered argument, often pointing out that it is unpersuasive. As a result, when you simply stated an argument and offered no criticism of it, I assumed you thought it had at least some merit. However, I now understand that because you do not see any similarities in language between the TF and John the Baptist passage, you must not think that Mr. Hoffman's point offers much weight to the complete interpolation argument. Is that correct?

As for what similarities I see, I was taking Mr. Hoffman's argument for granted and offering an explanation for any such similarities that did not provide support for the complete interpolation theory. I have not compared the passages in the original greek (and I was not clear if that was what Mr. Hoffman suggested). Nevertheless, the similarities I see have more to do with tone, especially the neutrality with which Josephus apparently treats Jesus and John (based on the reconstructed TF of course). We have a popular religious leader apparently unrelated to any nationalistic (or at least militaristic) tendencies. They are both put to death unjustly.

I have a busy weekend ahead, so my reply to the rest of your response will probably not arrive until next week. And I do plan to continue addressing the remainder of your points.

Thank you for your patience.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 07-25-2002, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:

OK, but don't forget the thirteenth argument, the suggestion made by Lowder that the burden of proof may be on the proponent of partial authenticity. Hopefully you will also talk about the arguments for partial authenticity.

Is this the Lowder statement you are referring to:

According to that objection, the fact that there has been any tampering
with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial
authenticity.

If so then I do not agree with it. If the fact that there has been "any tampering" with a text is sufficient to impose a "heavy burden" on partial authenticity, then many of our historical texts should be presumed interpolations.

Also, this "rule" does not take into account the nature and extent of the interpolations. If they are easily "severable" and the remaining text is coherent and appears original, I believe the burden of proof remains on the party arguing that the remaining text conforming with the author's style is also an interpolation.

And finally, I'm not sure what Lowder means by a "heavy burden" of proof. Reasonable doubt? I think that would be unreasonable. Preponderance of the evidence? Perhaps that would make more sense. It simply means "more probable than not" or "50.00001%" of the evidence. But that is not what I would call a "heavy burden."

Is this a common rule among textual critics? That whenever there is "any" alteration to the text that "all" of the text is presumed invalid and any party arguing that the remaining (consistently stylistic) text is valid bears a "heavy burden"?

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman · 07-26-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:

Layman writes:

First, I'm not sure that this reading of Eusebius gives us an assurance that there was an edition of Josephus that had the TF following the John the Baptist passage. There certainly is not any manuscript evidence that TF followed the John the Baptist passage.

The oldest manuscript with the Testimonium dates to the eleventh century. So this is not that great of a point. You should just stick with saying that Eusebius does not give assurance thta there was an edition of Josephus that had the TF following the John the Baptist passage.

I was under the impression that our one or our earliest manuscripts dated from the 10th or 11th. And that there were two: Codex Ambrosianus and Codex Palatinus, neither of which has the TF after the John the Baptist passage.

Do you know if the Syriac translation indicates the placement of the TF?

Quote:

With this, I would agree. Maybe Eusebius hadn't yet interpolated the passage into any manuscript. But other than that possibility, what do you think explains the statement of Eusebius? In Ecclesiastical History 1.11, Eusebius writes: "After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words..." Explain why Eusebius would have written that, assuming that the TF wasn't in a manuscript after the John the Baptist passage (and that the TF wasn't inserted by Eusebius).

I agree with you that Eusebius' statement suggests that the TF comes after John. I'm just not sure that his version of Antiquities read that way or whether he is simply "correcting" the sequence for his audience.

Quote:

Layman writes:

Second, even if there was such a manucsript, I don't see how it suggests that the TF is a forgery rather than an embellished account. Indeed, this seems to strengthen the argument of those who favor authenticity. They often point out that a Christian scribe would have been expected to link the account of John the Baptist with Jesus. Josephus seems completely ignorant of any connection. If Eusebius did have a version of the TF placed near the reference to John, it's just as likely an explanation that a scribe (or Eusebius) had moved the reference to a more suitable place in light of the strong Christian association of Jesus with John the Baptist.

Could you please explain how this reference from Eusebius seems to strengthen the argument of those who favor partial authenticity?

I only see an argument that the description of John the Baptist is not likely to have been forged, because John the Baptist is not linked with Jesus. With this I agree, and I do not dispute the authenticity of the Baptist passage.

Please explain why a scribe would have moved the passage from Ant. 18.3.3 to a place after John the Baptist while not making any connection to John in the Testimonium and while keeping the 'about this time' reference intact.

As it is, the evidence from this reference seems to suggest that the Testimonium Flavianum was something like a 'floating pericope' on the model of the woman taken in adultery.

You seem to suggest that any scribe that would have "moved" the TF to follow John must also have altered the TF to explicitly state that the ministries were related. While I think that a Christian scribe manufacturing the TF from scratch would have been very tempted to do that, I think it entirely possible that a scribe might have simply move the known TF to its proper place in the chronology (as he saw it).

By "link" I did not mean textual identification, but chronological sequence or simple placement in the text.

"A final curiousity encompasses not the Testimonium taken by itself but the relation of the Testimonium to the longer narrative about John the Baptist in Ant. 18.5.2 116-19, a text accepted as authentic by almost all scholars. The two passages are in no way related to each other in Josephus. The earlier, shorter passage about Jesus is placed in the context of Pontius Pilate's governorship of Judea; the later, longer, passage about John is placed in a context dealing with Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee-Perea. Separated by time, space, and placement in Book 18, Jesus and the Baptist (in that order!) have absolutely nothing to do with each other in the mind and narrative of Josephus. Such a presentation totally contradicts--indeed, it is the direct opposite of--the NT portrait of the Baptist, who is always treated briefly as the forerunner of the main character of Jesus. Viewed as a whole, the treatment of Jesus and John ini Book 18 of The Antiquities is simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period."

J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, at 66.

Quote:

Layman writes: However, the interpolation must have been made and popularized no later than the time of Eusebius, in the Fourth Century. How likely is it that Christians were translating Greek accounts of Josephus that lacked the TF if Eusebius had so clearly written about it a couple of hundred years earlier?

My magic eight ball says 'the chances are good'.

Seriously, even though I don't know much about the reception of the Testimonium after Jerome, I would like to point out that Eusebius is the only person extant in the fourth century to quote from the Testimonium Flavianum. After Eusebius, Jerome is the first one to quote the passage. While I am not using this as an argument for inauthenticity, it would suggest at least the plausibility that some manuscripts of the fifth or sixth centuries lacked the passage.

Actually, I believe that you may be wrong. I'm not all that knowledgeable about post-Eusebius Josephus references myself, however...

Jerome wrote in the late fourth century. But, Ambrose, writing around 30 years after Eusebius, quotes from the TF earlier in the fourth century.

"The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus: 'That there was at that time a wise man, if (says he) it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death, alive again according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and inumberable other miraculous events concerning him: from whom began the congregation of Christians....'"

Ambrose, or Hegesippus de Excid. Urb. Hierosolym, lib. ii. cap. 12

And I fail to see how Jerome (and Ambrose) quoting the TF in the fourth century suggests that Josephus manuscripts in the "fifth and sixth centuries" lacked the TF. Could you explain that?

In any event, there are at least three references to the TF by fifth and sixth century Christian writers.

Writing very early in the fifth century (around 410 CE), Isidorus Pelusiota wrote:

"There was one Josephus, a Jew of the greatest repuation and one that was zealous for the law.... Now since he made their interest give place to truth ... I think it necessary to set down his words. What then does he say? 'Now there was about that 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 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 among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had said these and a vast number of other wonderful things concerning him: and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not exitinct to this day.'"

Isidorus Pelusiota, the Scholar of Chrysostom, lib. iv. epist. 225.

Writing in the middle of the fifth century, Sozomen also refers to the TF:

"Now Josephus, the son of Mattias ... may well be a witness of credit as to the truth of Christ's history; for he scruples to call him a man, as being a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of the words of truth. He names him Christ openly, and is not ignorant that he was condemned tot he cross and appeared on the third day alive, and that ten thousand other wondeful things were foretold of him by the divine prophets. He testified also, that those wohm he drew over to him, being many of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews, continued to love him, and that the tribe named from him was not then extenct."

Sozomen, Church History, lib. i, cap. 1.

And we have another very early sixth century reference to the TF by Cassidorus.

"Now Jopsehus, the son of Matthias ... shall be a truth of Christ's history: for he dares not call him a man, as a doer of famous works, and a teacher of true doctirne; he names him Christ openly, and is not ignorant that he was condemned to the cross, and appeared on the third day alive, and that an infinite number of other wonderful things were foretold of him by the holy prophets. Moreover, he testifies also that there were then alive many whom he had chosen, both Greeks and Jews, and they continued to love him, and that the sect which was named from him was by no means extinct at that time."

Cassidorus, Hist. Tripartir. e. Sozomeno.

So we have at least 5 post-Eusebius references by early Christian writers from the fourth to the sixth centuries.

Quote:

Layman writes: Additionally, not having seen the table of contents, I would be curious to know how it was arranged. By Chapters? Books? Events? Did it break down into paragraphs? Is there somewhere online that I can review this table of contents?

No, it is not online. All that I know about it was given in the quote from Feldman. Feldman is a bona fide Josephan scholar, but it would not be a bad thing to have the actual Latin table of contents available for our own personal review. I suggest, if you are interested in pursuing this, that you contact Feldman to find out where this table of contents may have been published.

I hope to discover more about the Latin outline. As it is, however, it seems that we have no idea how it breaks down Antiquities, thus rendering any discussion about "omissions" highly speculative to say the least.

Quote:

Please realize that chapters and paragraphs are modern divisions of Josephus.

Well, I knew they were not original to Josephus, but I was not aware of when some form of separations were added to the text. The existence of some sort of "outline" suggested to me that there may have been such a breakdown.

Quote:

I look forward to your discussion of the rest of the article's contents.

Thank you for your patenice. Once again I apologize for the elay and appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me. I hope to post comments on additional points in the future.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby · 07-27-2002, 02:03 AM

Layman writes: Do you know if the Syriac translation indicates the placement of the TF?

No, I don't know. Do you have the Syriac rendition at all? I have had my eyes open for this for a while.

Layman writes: I was under the impression that our one or our earliest manuscripts dated from the 10th or 11th. And that there were two: Codex Ambrosianus and Codex Palatinus, neither of which has the TF after the John the Baptist passage.

Ambrosianus is in the 11th century and contains the TF in its current location. My impression is that Palatinus is from the 9th/10th century and that it is damaged/missing in the 18th book where the TF would be. It may be the whole 18th book is missing, which means that we wouldn't know whether or not the Baptist passage was followed by a TF.

Mark McFall writes (August 29, 2000): "As far as the testimony concerning Jesus. I break ranks with my apologist buddies, it is often asserted for evidence of the testimony that it is contained in ALL the Greek manuscripts. Do a quick websearch and you will find this assertion. The problem with this assertion is that they say it with out knowing how many ALL is. The fact is that there are ONLY THREE manuscripts that have this book, and the earliest of these manuscripts is called Ambrosianus and it is dated to the 11th century, followed by Vaticanus in the 14th century, and Marcianus in the 15th century (dating supply by Steve Mason in e-mail correspondence 8/6/00). Now even though those are of late date, they should not be discounted because the other books are dated roughly to the same time."

Anyway, so there might be four manuscripts without the TF after the Baptist that date to the ninth century and later. That still does not affect my point that the manuscript evidence is not late enough [not early enough] to act as a correction to the statement by Eusebius as to the position of the passage. Further, under the hypothesis that Eusebius wrote of the passage being in Josephus after JtB first and then later inserted the passage in the Pilate section later (perhaps realizing how poor a fit it would be after JtB, which is already a digression) -- well, under that hypothesis, the manuscripts don't indicate much because there have never been mss. with the passage after JtB under this hypothesis.

So there are two hypotheses that are suggested by the reference in Eusebius saying that the TF came after JtB: first, the hypothesis that the TF was a floating pericope like the adultura passage. Second, the hypothesis that the TF was inserted by Eusebius after he made his comment on its location. The first hypothesis is weakened - but only slightly weakened - by the three or four manuscripts from the ninth century or later. The second hypothesis is not weakened at all.

What we need is another good hypothesis, one that takes the fact of the reference from Eusebius seriously yet allows for authenticity.

Layman writes: I agree with you that Eusebius' statement suggests that the TF comes after John. I'm just not sure that his version of Antiquities read that way or whether he is simply "correcting" the sequence for his audience.

If Eusebius felt free to dissemble as to the location of the TF, can we be confident that Eusebius knew of a manuscript with the TF in the first place?

And why would Eusebius feel a need to 'correct' Josephus on this point? Did other church fathers feel a need to 'correct' Josephus on this point? Do modern Christians feel a need to 'correct' Josephus on this point? Aren't they all just happy that Josephus said something about Jesus in the first place?

Layman writes: You seem to suggest that any scribe that would have "moved" the TF to follow John must also have altered the TF to explicitly state that the ministries were related. While I think that a Christian scribe manufacturing the TF from scratch would have been very tempted to do that, I think it entirely possible that a scribe might have simply move the known TF to its proper place in the chronology (as he saw it).

But this wouldn't be chronologically correct anyway; Josephus is talking about the defeat of Herod Antipas in this portion of the Antiquities, and the prefecture of Pilate is long behind. If a chronological correction would have been made, it would have been to take a passage after John the Baptist and place it in the sectoin on Pilate.

Also, I do think that a scribe moving the passage to the location after the defeat of Antipas would have done something to indicate the relationship of Jesus to John the Baptist. The TF as it stands being placed after John would just look wrong; it would stick out like a sore thumb. It would be saying "about this time" when it is several years later in the narrative and when Josephus is no longer talking about Pilate. There would be nothing whatsoever to indicate that the passage 'belongs', while there was a slight link in the earlier location because the passages there concerned Pilate.

Layman quotes Meier: "Viewed as a whole, the treatment of Jesus and John ini Book 18 of The Antiquities is simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period."

I agree that the passage on John is authentic because a Christian scribe would not have written a passage on John without connecting John to Jesus. However, I think that a Christian could write a passage on Jesus without connecting Jesus to John.

I wrote: "Seriously, even though I don't know much about the reception of the Testimonium after Jerome, I would like to point out that Eusebius is the only person extant in the fourth century to quote from the Testimonium Flavianum. After Eusebius, Jerome is the first one to quote the passage."

I suppose that I made three errors here. First, although Jerome died in the fifth century (the date which I remembered), Jerome wrote the Lives in the last decade of the fourth century: "The work of Jerome was written at Bethlehem in 492. It contains 135 writers from Peter up to that date." (CCEL) Second, there is a fourth century reference from Ambrose that I haven't read before. It is not quite the same as the TF, perhaps mangled through memory, but it does show that a form of the TF was known to a church father between Eusebius and Jerome. Third, my statement should now be corrected to say, "I don't know much about the reception of the Testimonium after Eusebius," given the two previous errors.

Thank you for the references you provided; they are interesting.

Layman writes: And I fail to see how Jerome (and Ambrose) quoting the TF in the fourth century suggests that Josephus manuscripts in the "fifth and sixth centuries" lacked the TF. Could you explain that?

It helps when all the words of my statement are included and when the correct subject is understood. The correct subject would be, the absence of quotes from the TF between Eusebius and Jerome; however, this point is substantially weakened by the quote from Ambrose. The missing words are the plausibility that, i.e., the point that some fourth century writers did not quote from the TF suggests the plausibility that some copies of Josephus did not contain the TF. If I were to omit those words and say that this is an argument for the actuality that the TF was not present in Josephus in these centuries, that would be tantamount to an argument that the TF was forged, as it is hard to see why it would be absent from any manuscript of this period if it were authentic. However, I have never used alleged silence on the TF after Eusebius as a positive argument for authenticity; in fact, I've never mentioned it before at all (which explains the errors I made above). All that I have done is to suggest the plausibility that there were some manuscripts of the fourth to sixth centuries omitting the passage in response to your positive claim (as I interpret it) that there were no manuscripts of the fifth or sixth centuries that lacked the TF. I have not constructed an argument for its absence in these centuries (and certainly not its universal absence, as that would be plainly wrong); I have responded to an argument for its universal presence.

I believe that your references prove that some manuscripts of the fourth through sixth centuries contained the Testimonium Flavianum; indeed, that much is proven from Eusebius (even if Eusebius created the TF, he would have had the sense to modify some manuscripts of Josephus). I do not believe that your references show that all manuscripts of the fifth through sixth centuries contained the Testimonium Flavianum. Part of the reason for this is that some of these authors may have come across the quote only second hand from reading it in Eusebius. It would be nice to know which of these authors also quote Josephus on points that are not quoted in Eusebius.

On the other hand, I do allow the plausibility that the TF was present in all Greek manuscripts owned by Christians by the end of the fourth century. Perhaps the Latin epitome was based on a pre-Eusebius Latin translation - of course, like you, I would like to know more about this before basing too much on it. Anyway, there are three things that could account for the rapid dissemination of the interpolation. First, there were not many copies of Josephus around compared to, say, the New Testament, which would make it easier to modify a large percentage of them. Second, word of the wondrous testimony that Josephus gave to Christ would have spread freely, perhaps encouraged by Eusebius, even among those who had never read Eusebius. This ties in with the third point: Christian scribes would have gravitated towards the preferred edition of Josephus, which would be one that included the testimony. I do not imagine that many scribes who knew of the TF would have omitted it just because it was not present in an exemplar; a Christian scribe may have concluded that pagans or Jews removed it and that he would simply be restoring the text.

Layman writes: I hope to discover more about the Latin outline.

Please share any information you find.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Correction concerning the John the Baptist passage.]

[Some clarifications; some typos.]

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]</p>

Peter Kirby · 07-27-2002, 02:36 AM

"not late enough" = "not early enough"

Layman writes:

Is this the Lowder statement you are referring to:

"According to that objection, the fact that there has been any tampering
with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial
authenticity. "

If so then I do not agree with it. If the fact that there has been "any tampering" with a text is sufficient to impose a "heavy burden" on partial authenticity, then many of our historical texts should be presumed interpolations.

Also, this "rule" does not take into account the nature and extent of the interpolations. If they are easily "severable" and the remaining text is coherent and appears original, I believe the burden of proof remains on the party arguing that the remaining text conforming with the author's style is also an interpolation.

And finally, I'm not sure what Lowder means by a "heavy burden" of proof. Reasonable doubt? I think that would be unreasonable. Preponderance of the evidence? Perhaps that would make more sense. It simply means "more probable than not" or "50.00001%" of the evidence. But that is not what I would call a "heavy burden."

Is this a common rule among textual critics? That whenever there is "any" alteration to the text that "all" of the text is presumed invalid and any party arguing that the remaining (consistently stylistic) text is valid bears a "heavy burden"?

First off, I don't know exactly what Lowder meant by that statement, and I am not going to defend the idea in the wording that Lowder gives it. I will make my own statement below.

Second, you seem to be muddying the waters or throwing out a red herring or doing something else fishy when you add "conforming with the author's style" and "consistently stylistic." A demonstration that the remaining text is consistent with the original author's style could be part (or whole) of meeting a burden of proof in showing the remaining text to be genuine.

I have bought a couple books on textual criticism, but I haven't gotten around to reading them yet. So I will only speak for myself and not for a presumed consensus of scholarship.

In general, I believe that a burden of evidence falls on a person who would suggest a passage to be interpolated, once it is shown that the passage is contained in ancient manuscripts. Otherwise, there would be chaos. Most passages have nothing to commend their authenticity other than the fact that there are no variations in the manuscript evidence.

However, suppose that we know that either the whole or part of a passage is interpolated. Suddenly, the manuscript evidence is shown to have no weight for this passage. If the manuscript evidence did have weight for this passage, then the manuscript evidence would establish that the whole is authentic - even though we know that the whole or part is inauthentic. That is, trusting the manuscripts concerning this passage would lead to false conclusions.

Therefore, if we are going to believe that part of the passage is authentic, we are going to need something more than the manuscript evidence. (Stylistic evidence could help, for example.)

However, I would be more reserved than others. With the knowledge that the whole or part has been interpolated, I would not jump to the conclusion that the whole is interpolated. But I would suggest that the "burden of proof" situation would be altered. Normally, I think, one accepts authenticity until there is evidence otherwise. In the case of known interpolation in the passage, however, I think that authenticity cannot be assumed without evidence (other than the mss. and quotes). I would suggest, then, that a burden of evidence would fall on anyone who claims partial authenticity or claims total interpolation. The default would be skepticism.

Does that make sense? Would you agree? Note that this may be very different from the suggestion made by Lowder.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 07-27-2002, 03:08 AM

Layman writes: I rely on the highly probable motivation of a Christian scribe to insert a description of Jesus at least somewhat commensurate with the importance he would place on Jesus' life in Jewish history.

If the Testimonium Flavianum is an insertion, that is exactly what the Christian author did: the author says that Jesus was divine, the Christ, who was raised from the dead on the third day, about whom over ten thousand prophecies had been foretold.

I know, this is an infelicitous reading of your sentence: you mean commensurate in length. But my somewhat flippant response has a point. How much does it really matter that the description of Jesus given by the interpolator be long, so long as it is long enough to to mention the major points of Christian doctrine including divinity and resurrection? For example, there was a scribe who inserted the Johannine comma, ostensibly in order to promote the doctrine of the trinity. Why didn't the scribe wax poetic and go on about the trinity like a latter-day Athanasius? Who knows? Maybe the scribe was of poor literary ability, or maybe the scribe was paraphrasing a Christian creed. I have another suggestion below.

Layman writes: The Christian value placed on Jesus seems more likely to produce -- as it did with our one certain complete interpolation -- an account of Jesus at least as long, if not longer, than that found in the TF.

There may be a difference overlooked here: the importance of medium. I presume that the reviser of Josephus who produced the Slavonic recension was working with the codex. The codex makes it easy to add a few more pages at the end of a work. But Josephus was originally published in scrolls, and Josephus may have still been transmitted in scrolls in the fourth century. As I understand it, many scrolls were sold at a fixed length, roughly the size of a Matthew or a Luke. Whoever commissioned the copy of Josephus to be made most likely ordered the scrolls to be of sufficient length and not much longer to hold the books of the Antiquities as it stood. This means that the scribe could have inserted as much as perhaps 100 words into a scroll if he compensated for the greater length by writing smaller, using smaller margins, and so on. But interpolations such as are found in the Slavonic Josephus may not have been an option -- assuming, of course, that the scribe even had a desire to write a very long interpolation. He may have been pleased with the Testimonium as we have it.

Layman writes: Does this mean you believe that this particular argument has no probative value? Little probative value? Somewhere else on the spectrum?

I think it has approximately the same value as the argument that the scribe would have written a longer account, which is next to nothing. However, I will probably address the point in my next recension of the Josephus article, which is being forged out of discussions with you, IntenSity, Vorkosigan, and others.

Layman writes: I am somewhat unclear on your response. You only quote my argument as to the two passages directly following the reference to Jesus. Was that the only portion you intended to respond to? Be that as it may, I do not see how my argument that Josephus likely found the two passages following the TF more relevant to a history of the Jewish people than to his history of the Jewish Wars is based on a prejudice in favor of the Testimonium.

You may ignore that response. As best as I can reconstruct, I thought that "them" included the Testimonium.

Layman writes: I am not assuming the TF was present in Antiquities, I'm pointing out that its absence from the JW is irrelevant to the argument about its authenticity. Or as Van Voorst puts it, "Neither does the Testimonium's absence in the parallell section in the Second Book of Josephus' Jewish War offer any evidence of its authenticity because the Antiquities goes beyond the Jewish Wars on many points." Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 88.

OK. This argument is worth next to nothing too. I will be even less positive about it in my next recension.

Layman writes: And, please forgive my presumption. In other parts of your article you provide your assessment of the offered argument, often pointing out that it is unpersuasive. As a result, when you simply stated an argument and offered no criticism of it, I assumed you thought it had at least some merit.

This is one of the very reasonable assumptions that just happens to be false. No problem, no penance.

Layman writes: However, I now understand that because you do not see any similarities in language between the TF and John the Baptist passage, you must not think that Mr. Hoffman's point offers much weight to the complete interpolation argument. Is that correct?

The only similarity in language I noticed in a casual reading of the English is that both attracted "many." If you can find other similarities of language, I would like to see them. I will not put much weight on this argument until I know what it is based on.

Layman writes: As for what similarities I see, I was taking Mr. Hoffman's argument for granted and offering an explanation for any such similarities that did not provide support for the complete interpolation theory. I have not compared the passages in the original greek (and I was not clear if that was what Mr. Hoffman suggested). Nevertheless, the similarities I see have more to do with tone, especially the neutrality with which Josephus apparently treats Jesus and John (based on the reconstructed TF of course). We have a popular religious leader apparently unrelated to any nationalistic (or at least militaristic) tendencies. They are both put to death unjustly.

I can give no weight to an argument that marvels over the neutrality of a passage once the very positive parts are excised.

I look forward to future posts looking at the other arguments for inauthenticity, as well as the arguments for authenticity. I made some effort, though not a strict unbreakable rule, to place the weaker arguments earlier in the list.

best,
Peter Kirby

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

07-22-2002, 07:32 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Peter My question as to whether Eusebius wrote both passages was more rhetorical than serious, and you did not need so many paragraphs to convince the world that there is nothing to it. I was trying to figure out if the two theories could be reconciled at all. I suppose that Eusebius could have picked that paragraph out of Luke as representing his philosophy, and modeled the interpolation after it, if he were the interpolator. Or there could have been a third document as Goldberg hypothesizes, used by Luke and still around for Eusebius, but now lost. I would need to study Goldberg more to be sure if I agree with him. I am very suspicious of people who try to add authenticity to their work by using computer searches. But since Layman is returning to the thread that he started, I will step back. This is not a burning issue with me.

07-22-2002, 07:56 PM	#13
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Toto writes: My question as to whether Eusebius wrote both passages was more rhetorical than serious, and you did not need so many paragraphs to convince the world that there is nothing to it. LOL. Okay. I have seen sillier stuff taken seriously, such as the idea that the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' were conjoined only in the fourth century. best, Peter Kirby

07-23-2002, 07:52 AM	#14
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	After reading the Jewish definition of a messiah from response on a webpage from a rabbi, I wonder now if Josephus might have written that passage and not given any more thought or detail to it, simply because the traditional Jewish messianic belief is the messiah will just be human, not a god-man. Josephus would have made the comment Jesus was believed to be the Christ, then went on, because as a Jew, to him that was no big deal. The Jews say the belief that the messiah will be god in human form is not a Jewish belief, never has been.

07-27-2002, 02:03 AM	#18
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman writes: Do you know if the Syriac translation indicates the placement of the TF? No, I don't know. Do you have the Syriac rendition at all? I have had my eyes open for this for a while. Layman writes: I was under the impression that our one or our earliest manuscripts dated from the 10th or 11th. And that there were two: Codex Ambrosianus and Codex Palatinus, neither of which has the TF after the John the Baptist passage. Ambrosianus is in the 11th century and contains the TF in its current location. My impression is that Palatinus is from the 9th/10th century and that it is damaged/missing in the 18th book where the TF would be. It may be the whole 18th book is missing, which means that we wouldn't know whether or not the Baptist passage was followed by a TF. Mark McFall writes (August 29, 2000): "As far as the testimony concerning Jesus. I break ranks with my apologist buddies, it is often asserted for evidence of the testimony that it is contained in ALL the Greek manuscripts. Do a quick websearch and you will find this assertion. The problem with this assertion is that they say it with out knowing how many ALL is. The fact is that there are ONLY THREE manuscripts that have this book, and the earliest of these manuscripts is called Ambrosianus and it is dated to the 11th century, followed by Vaticanus in the 14th century, and Marcianus in the 15th century (dating supply by Steve Mason in e-mail correspondence 8/6/00). Now even though those are of late date, they should not be discounted because the other books are dated roughly to the same time." Anyway, so there might be four manuscripts without the TF after the Baptist that date to the ninth century and later. That still does not affect my point that the manuscript evidence is not late enough [not early enough] to act as a correction to the statement by Eusebius as to the position of the passage. Further, under the hypothesis that Eusebius wrote of the passage being in Josephus after JtB first and then later inserted the passage in the Pilate section later (perhaps realizing how poor a fit it would be after JtB, which is already a digression) -- well, under that hypothesis, the manuscripts don't indicate much because there have never been mss. with the passage after JtB under this hypothesis. So there are two hypotheses that are suggested by the reference in Eusebius saying that the TF came after JtB: first, the hypothesis that the TF was a floating pericope like the adultura passage. Second, the hypothesis that the TF was inserted by Eusebius after he made his comment on its location. The first hypothesis is weakened - but only slightly weakened - by the three or four manuscripts from the ninth century or later. The second hypothesis is not weakened at all. What we need is another good hypothesis, one that takes the fact of the reference from Eusebius seriously yet allows for authenticity. Layman writes: I agree with you that Eusebius' statement suggests that the TF comes after John. I'm just not sure that his version of Antiquities read that way or whether he is simply "correcting" the sequence for his audience. If Eusebius felt free to dissemble as to the location of the TF, can we be confident that Eusebius knew of a manuscript with the TF in the first place? And why would Eusebius feel a need to 'correct' Josephus on this point? Did other church fathers feel a need to 'correct' Josephus on this point? Do modern Christians feel a need to 'correct' Josephus on this point? Aren't they all just happy that Josephus said something about Jesus in the first place? Layman writes: You seem to suggest that any scribe that would have "moved" the TF to follow John must also have altered the TF to explicitly state that the ministries were related. While I think that a Christian scribe manufacturing the TF from scratch would have been very tempted to do that, I think it entirely possible that a scribe might have simply move the known TF to its proper place in the chronology (as he saw it). But this wouldn't be chronologically correct anyway; Josephus is talking about the defeat of Herod Antipas in this portion of the Antiquities, and the prefecture of Pilate is long behind. If a chronological correction would have been made, it would have been to take a passage after John the Baptist and place it in the sectoin on Pilate. Also, I do think that a scribe moving the passage to the location after the defeat of Antipas would have done something to indicate the relationship of Jesus to John the Baptist. The TF as it stands being placed after John would just look wrong; it would stick out like a sore thumb. It would be saying "about this time" when it is several years later in the narrative and when Josephus is no longer talking about Pilate. There would be nothing whatsoever to indicate that the passage 'belongs', while there was a slight link in the earlier location because the passages there concerned Pilate. Layman quotes Meier: "Viewed as a whole, the treatment of Jesus and John ini Book 18 of The Antiquities is simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period." I agree that the passage on John is authentic because a Christian scribe would not have written a passage on John without connecting John to Jesus. However, I think that a Christian could write a passage on Jesus without connecting Jesus to John. I wrote: "Seriously, even though I don't know much about the reception of the Testimonium after Jerome, I would like to point out that Eusebius is the only person extant in the fourth century to quote from the Testimonium Flavianum. After Eusebius, Jerome is the first one to quote the passage." I suppose that I made three errors here. First, although Jerome died in the fifth century (the date which I remembered), Jerome wrote the Lives in the last decade of the fourth century: "The work of Jerome was written at Bethlehem in 492. It contains 135 writers from Peter up to that date." (CCEL) Second, there is a fourth century reference from Ambrose that I haven't read before. It is not quite the same as the TF, perhaps mangled through memory, but it does show that a form of the TF was known to a church father between Eusebius and Jerome. Third, my statement should now be corrected to say, "I don't know much about the reception of the Testimonium after Eusebius," given the two previous errors. Thank you for the references you provided; they are interesting. Layman writes: And I fail to see how Jerome (and Ambrose) quoting the TF in the fourth century suggests that Josephus manuscripts in the "fifth and sixth centuries" lacked the TF. Could you explain that? It helps when all the words of my statement are included and when the correct subject is understood. The correct subject would be, the absence of quotes from the TF between Eusebius and Jerome; however, this point is substantially weakened by the quote from Ambrose. The missing words are the plausibility that, i.e., the point that some fourth century writers did not quote from the TF suggests the plausibility that some copies of Josephus did not contain the TF. If I were to omit those words and say that this is an argument for the actuality that the TF was not present in Josephus in these centuries, that would be tantamount to an argument that the TF was forged, as it is hard to see why it would be absent from any manuscript of this period if it were authentic. However, I have never used alleged silence on the TF after Eusebius as a positive argument for authenticity; in fact, I've never mentioned it before at all (which explains the errors I made above). All that I have done is to suggest the plausibility that there were some manuscripts of the fourth to sixth centuries omitting the passage in response to your positive claim (as I interpret it) that there were no manuscripts of the fifth or sixth centuries that lacked the TF. I have not constructed an argument for its absence in these centuries (and certainly not its universal absence, as that would be plainly wrong); I have responded to an argument for its universal presence. I believe that your references prove that some manuscripts of the fourth through sixth centuries contained the Testimonium Flavianum; indeed, that much is proven from Eusebius (even if Eusebius created the TF, he would have had the sense to modify some manuscripts of Josephus). I do not believe that your references show that all manuscripts of the fifth through sixth centuries contained the Testimonium Flavianum. Part of the reason for this is that some of these authors may have come across the quote only second hand from reading it in Eusebius. It would be nice to know which of these authors also quote Josephus on points that are not quoted in Eusebius. On the other hand, I do allow the plausibility that the TF was present in all Greek manuscripts owned by Christians by the end of the fourth century. Perhaps the Latin epitome was based on a pre-Eusebius Latin translation - of course, like you, I would like to know more about this before basing too much on it. Anyway, there are three things that could account for the rapid dissemination of the interpolation. First, there were not many copies of Josephus around compared to, say, the New Testament, which would make it easier to modify a large percentage of them. Second, word of the wondrous testimony that Josephus gave to Christ would have spread freely, perhaps encouraged by Eusebius, even among those who had never read Eusebius. This ties in with the third point: Christian scribes would have gravitated towards the preferred edition of Josephus, which would be one that included the testimony. I do not imagine that many scribes who knew of the TF would have omitted it just because it was not present in an exemplar; a Christian scribe may have concluded that pagans or Jews removed it and that he would simply be restoring the text. Layman writes: I hope to discover more about the Latin outline. Please share any information you find. best, Peter Kirby [Correction concerning the John the Baptist passage.] [Some clarifications; some typos.] [ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]</p>

07-27-2002, 02:36 AM	#19
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	"not late enough" = "not early enough" Layman writes: Is this the Lowder statement you are referring to: "According to that objection, the fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial authenticity. " If so then I do not agree with it. If the fact that there has been "any tampering" with a text is sufficient to impose a "heavy burden" on partial authenticity, then many of our historical texts should be presumed interpolations. Also, this "rule" does not take into account the nature and extent of the interpolations. If they are easily "severable" and the remaining text is coherent and appears original, I believe the burden of proof remains on the party arguing that the remaining text conforming with the author's style is also an interpolation. And finally, I'm not sure what Lowder means by a "heavy burden" of proof. Reasonable doubt? I think that would be unreasonable. Preponderance of the evidence? Perhaps that would make more sense. It simply means "more probable than not" or "50.00001%" of the evidence. But that is not what I would call a "heavy burden." Is this a common rule among textual critics? That whenever there is "any" alteration to the text that "all" of the text is presumed invalid and any party arguing that the remaining (consistently stylistic) text is valid bears a "heavy burden"? First off, I don't know exactly what Lowder meant by that statement, and I am not going to defend the idea in the wording that Lowder gives it. I will make my own statement below. Second, you seem to be muddying the waters or throwing out a red herring or doing something else fishy when you add "conforming with the author's style" and "consistently stylistic." A demonstration that the remaining text is consistent with the original author's style could be part (or whole) of meeting a burden of proof in showing the remaining text to be genuine. I have bought a couple books on textual criticism, but I haven't gotten around to reading them yet. So I will only speak for myself and not for a presumed consensus of scholarship. In general, I believe that a burden of evidence falls on a person who would suggest a passage to be interpolated, once it is shown that the passage is contained in ancient manuscripts. Otherwise, there would be chaos. Most passages have nothing to commend their authenticity other than the fact that there are no variations in the manuscript evidence. However, suppose that we know that either the whole or part of a passage is interpolated. Suddenly, the manuscript evidence is shown to have no weight for this passage. If the manuscript evidence did have weight for this passage, then the manuscript evidence would establish that the whole is authentic - even though we know that the whole or part is inauthentic. That is, trusting the manuscripts concerning this passage would lead to false conclusions. Therefore, if we are going to believe that part of the passage is authentic, we are going to need something more than the manuscript evidence. (Stylistic evidence could help, for example.) However, I would be more reserved than others. With the knowledge that the whole or part has been interpolated, I would not jump to the conclusion that the whole is interpolated. But I would suggest that the "burden of proof" situation would be altered. Normally, I think, one accepts authenticity until there is evidence otherwise. In the case of known interpolation in the passage, however, I think that authenticity cannot be assumed without evidence (other than the mss. and quotes). I would suggest, then, that a burden of evidence would fall on anyone who claims partial authenticity or claims total interpolation. The default would be skepticism. Does that make sense? Would you agree? Note that this may be very different from the suggestion made by Lowder. best, Peter Kirby

07-27-2002, 03:08 AM	#20
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman writes: I rely on the highly probable motivation of a Christian scribe to insert a description of Jesus at least somewhat commensurate with the importance he would place on Jesus' life in Jewish history. If the Testimonium Flavianum is an insertion, that is exactly what the Christian author did: the author says that Jesus was divine, the Christ, who was raised from the dead on the third day, about whom over ten thousand prophecies had been foretold. I know, this is an infelicitous reading of your sentence: you mean commensurate in length. But my somewhat flippant response has a point. How much does it really matter that the description of Jesus given by the interpolator be long, so long as it is long enough to to mention the major points of Christian doctrine including divinity and resurrection? For example, there was a scribe who inserted the Johannine comma, ostensibly in order to promote the doctrine of the trinity. Why didn't the scribe wax poetic and go on about the trinity like a latter-day Athanasius? Who knows? Maybe the scribe was of poor literary ability, or maybe the scribe was paraphrasing a Christian creed. I have another suggestion below. Layman writes: The Christian value placed on Jesus seems more likely to produce -- as it did with our one certain complete interpolation -- an account of Jesus at least as long, if not longer, than that found in the TF. There may be a difference overlooked here: the importance of medium. I presume that the reviser of Josephus who produced the Slavonic recension was working with the codex. The codex makes it easy to add a few more pages at the end of a work. But Josephus was originally published in scrolls, and Josephus may have still been transmitted in scrolls in the fourth century. As I understand it, many scrolls were sold at a fixed length, roughly the size of a Matthew or a Luke. Whoever commissioned the copy of Josephus to be made most likely ordered the scrolls to be of sufficient length and not much longer to hold the books of the Antiquities as it stood. This means that the scribe could have inserted as much as perhaps 100 words into a scroll if he compensated for the greater length by writing smaller, using smaller margins, and so on. But interpolations such as are found in the Slavonic Josephus may not have been an option -- assuming, of course, that the scribe even had a desire to write a very long interpolation. He may have been pleased with the Testimonium as we have it. Layman writes: Does this mean you believe that this particular argument has no probative value? Little probative value? Somewhere else on the spectrum? I think it has approximately the same value as the argument that the scribe would have written a longer account, which is next to nothing. However, I will probably address the point in my next recension of the Josephus article, which is being forged out of discussions with you, IntenSity, Vorkosigan, and others. Layman writes: I am somewhat unclear on your response. You only quote my argument as to the two passages directly following the reference to Jesus. Was that the only portion you intended to respond to? Be that as it may, I do not see how my argument that Josephus likely found the two passages following the TF more relevant to a history of the Jewish people than to his history of the Jewish Wars is based on a prejudice in favor of the Testimonium. You may ignore that response. As best as I can reconstruct, I thought that "them" included the Testimonium. Layman writes: I am not assuming the TF was present in Antiquities, I'm pointing out that its absence from the JW is irrelevant to the argument about its authenticity. Or as Van Voorst puts it, "Neither does the Testimonium's absence in the parallell section in the Second Book of Josephus' Jewish War offer any evidence of its authenticity because the Antiquities goes beyond the Jewish Wars on many points." Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 88. OK. This argument is worth next to nothing too. I will be even less positive about it in my next recension. Layman writes: And, please forgive my presumption. In other parts of your article you provide your assessment of the offered argument, often pointing out that it is unpersuasive. As a result, when you simply stated an argument and offered no criticism of it, I assumed you thought it had at least some merit. This is one of the very reasonable assumptions that just happens to be false. No problem, no penance. Layman writes: However, I now understand that because you do not see any similarities in language between the TF and John the Baptist passage, you must not think that Mr. Hoffman's point offers much weight to the complete interpolation argument. Is that correct? The only similarity in language I noticed in a casual reading of the English is that both attracted "many." If you can find other similarities of language, I would like to see them. I will not put much weight on this argument until I know what it is based on. Layman writes: As for what similarities I see, I was taking Mr. Hoffman's argument for granted and offering an explanation for any such similarities that did not provide support for the complete interpolation theory. I have not compared the passages in the original greek (and I was not clear if that was what Mr. Hoffman suggested). Nevertheless, the similarities I see have more to do with tone, especially the neutrality with which Josephus apparently treats Jesus and John (based on the reconstructed TF of course). We have a popular religious leader apparently unrelated to any nationalistic (or at least militaristic) tendencies. They are both put to death unjustly. I can give no weight to an argument that marvels over the neutrality of a passage once the very positive parts are excised. I look forward to future posts looking at the other arguments for inauthenticity, as well as the arguments for authenticity. I made some effort, though not a strict unbreakable rule, to place the weaker arguments earlier in the list. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.