Layman

No we are not. Let me explain.

All Olson is saying about the "He was the Christ" statement was that it's not uniquely Eusebian. He was not claiming it was written by someone else, just that such language -- standing alone -- did not necessarily point to Eusebius as the author. Olson is quite cleare at the beginning and end of his article that Eusebius is his only suspect for interpolating the entire TF.

I'll take your word for it, but I find it hard to believe we are reading the same article (in its entirety I hope) and you conclude Olson is only arguing for partial inauthenticity. Why Kirby rely on him to argue for full inauthenticity? And since I accept partial inauthenticity, why would I object to his article at all?

I'm not quoting Doherty directly, I'm responding to Kirby's use of Doherty's arguments. That's why I said you could find it at Kirby's website.

Ted Hoffman

All Olson is saying about the "He was the Christ" statement was that it's not uniquely Eusebian. He was not claiming it was written by someone else, just that such language -- standing alone -- did not necessarily point to Eusebius as the author. Olson is quite cleare at the beginning and end of his article that Eusebius is his only suspect for interpolating the entire TF
He is clear and unequivocal at the beginning that it was 100% (he uses the word "entire text") Eusebian.
But is he also clear and unequivocal about it when he says "it is not necessarily Eusebian"?

Layman

Olson is simply saying that that one phrase does not point only to Eusebius. That's why he uses the phrase "necessarily."

He's not saying Eusebius wrote the entire TF, except for that one little phrase.

And why do you ignore all of my questions?

Peter Kirby

I forwarded Layman's response to Ken Olson, and these are his thoughts. I may have my own comments to add later.

Thanks for this. As soon as I’m done with my current project, I’m intending to write a lengthy response to J. Carleton Paget’s criticism (“Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity, _JTS_, 52.2 (2001) 539-624) of my _CBQ_ article [“Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum”, 61.2 (1999) 305-322]. Paget covers much the same ground as [LAYMAN] does here, including a heavy dependence on Alice Whealey’s work on external witnesses [“Josephus on Jesus”, _TZ_ 51 (1995) 285-304, in addition to the article [LAYMAN] cites].

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.Ken Olson indicates several ways in which the Testimonium aligns with the style and argument of Eusebius of Caesarea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 am bitious, 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.

KO: Actually, the “Fabrication” piece was originally a supplement to my CBQ article, which was a response to Meier. His claim is that the TF must be partially authentic because the “core text” exhibits “Josephan” language (which for Meier apparently means vocabulary or usage found in Josephus, but not in the NT) and non-Christian content. I think Meier’s claim is demonstrably untrue, as the language and content are completely consistent with Eusebian authorship. The method used was adapted from Meier–he thinks that if he compares the vocabulary of the TF with that of the NT and of Josephus, and the TF has more words in common with Josephus, then the “style” is Josephan. My point was that Meier’s method, applied to Josephus versus Eusebius, does not show the language to be more Josephan than Eusebian. Since a number of scholars accepted Meier’s method when it favored Josephan authorship of the TF, I thought they would accept my demonstration that it doesn’t favor Josephan authorship when the language is compared to Eusebius. I’ve now learned different.

In retrospect, I think I was unwise to use Meier’s method. I didn’t have the TLG at the time, and couldn’t give word counts. On the basis of word use alone, the editor of my Greek dictionary could have written the TF. In the forthcoming paper, I intend once again to go through the language and content of the TF line by line and show how they align with Eusebius rhetoric in the DE. Now that I have the TLG and Aryeh Kofsky’s book on Eusebius’ apologetics in the Demonstratio, I think I can strengthen the case.

Further, I think it was unwise for me to separate language and content. Eusebius’ wording and his rhetorical purpose are not readily separable. Also, in my earlier work I suggested that in the HE Eusebius made a few alterations in the TF (i.e., to the version found in the Demonstratio) in order to make it more Josephan. I no longer think that. I don’t believe there’s anything in any of Eusebius versions of the TF that requires us to think that Eusebius made any effort to ape Josephus’ style. The entire passage is consistent with Eusebius’ own style.

LAYMAN: 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.

KO: So a usage frequent in Eusebius and unique to the TF in Josephus may be explained as Eusebius taking a shine to the usage and adopting it as his own and using it elsewhere. This is tantamount to saying that stylistic evidence doesn’t count.

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

I would have appreciated a pinpoint site on this.

KO: The TLG gives two: HE 2.1.7.5 and Generalis Elementaria Introductio 168.15. Actually, Eusebius more commonly uses EIS ETI KAI NUN.

LAYMAN: 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.

KO: Here is one of the places I regret separating language and content. Eusebius has a great interest in showing that Christians are a “nation” (whether FULON, EQNOJ, GENOJ, LAOJ) distinct from the Jews and Greeks. These are the three types of people into which he divides the human race on the basis of religion. He’s also fond of saying that Christians are named after Christ (HE 1.3.9-10; DE 1.5.20, 2.3.144, 4.16.57, 5.2.7, 6.18.53, 7.3.47, 9.15.8, 10.7.9); and sometimes both together (DE 4.16.57 GENOJ; 9.15.8 EQNH). And in DE 3.6, Eusebius says, “Then, moreover, let him who supports the contention opposed to mine, inform me if any enchanter [GOHTWN] that ever existed has ever taken it into his head to institute a new nation called after his own name? To go beyond the mere conception, and to succeed in effecting it, is surely beyond the power of humanity” (Ferrar trans., 1.151). In this case, saying that the final sentence of the TF serves Eusebius’ apologetic purpose is not terribly speculative. When the entire TF serves Eusebius’ line of argument in the DE, we have to accept that either he modeled his whole line of apologetics in the DE on the TF (which had previously been modified by an unknown Christian for unknown reasons) or he wrote the TF. The latter seems far more likely to me.

LAYMAN: 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.

KO: Ever since Thackeray, this has been seen as the best indicator of genuine Josephan style in the TF. I won’t lay out the entire case here, but I think I can show that the entire phrase “teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure” is far more likely Eusebian than Josephan. Combining receive + pleasure is unique to Josephus; however combining receive + truth is unique to Eusebius and is used in the sense of accepting the true faith. Where Josephus uses a genitive following the word teacher (DIDASKOLOJ), it is usually the content of the teaching, not the recipients that is in the genitive. In the single exception, Josephus places both the content and the recipients in the genitive [BJ 7.444; this observation comes from J. N. Birdsall, “The Continuing Enigma of Josephus ‘s Testimony about Jesus”, BJRL, 67 (1984-85) 609-22]. Teacher + (recipients of teaching in the genitive) is found several times in the DE (e.g., 3.4.29; 5 Proem. 25, where the content of Jesus’ teaching is described as true; 9.11.3 where the recipients of Jesus’ teaching are ANQRWPWN as in the TF). Also, Eusebius praises Christians who accepted martyrdom “with pleasure” (MEQ’ hHDONHJ; In Praise of Constantine 17.11), so I think it’s imaginable that he might have used “with pleasure” here in a positive sense even though he does not habitually combine it with “receive”.

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.

KO: As it turns out, PRWTWN ANDRWN is not uniquely Josephan (DE.1.10.1; Quaestiones Evangelicae ad Stephanum 22.904, 912), though Eusebius uses it to mean “earliest men” rather than “principal men” in these three cases. Eusebius does also use PRWTOJ in the sense of “leading” or “principal”; he calls Pericles the “PRWTWJ” of Athens (PE 10.14.13) . Therefore, I don’t think that Eusebius’ use of PRWTWN ANDRWN in the genitive plural and in the sense of “leading men” is an unlikely combination, though there does not appear to be an exact parallel.

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.

KO: This section seems bizarre to me. It’s also apparent that [LAYMAN] is not familiar with my CBQ article.

(A) I don’t really get this one. What Meier has shown is that in the material he does not include in his “Christian interpolations” there is vocabulary and usage not found in the NT. There is still a great deal of vocabulary and usage outside his “Christian interpolations” that is paralleled in the NT. Meier separates three sections that sound to him like Christian confessions, and then notes that they use language found in the NT. This is hardly a surprising coincidence. Also, [LAYMAN]’s claim is based on Meier’s analysis of the TF, which includes statement “he was the Christ” in the category of NT language found in Meier’s three separable “Christian interpolations”. [LAYMAN] argues later on that the words “he was (believed to be) the Christ” were in fact found in the an earlier form of the TF. This would seem to disqualify his use of Meier’s analysis. (B) [LAYMAN] has failed to note that on the page he quotes, Meier admits that the language of the “three Christian interpolations” is also “Josephan” by his method; “in some cases more Josephan than that of the NT... The major argument against their authenticity is from content.” See the bottom of note 42 page 83. This suggests that Meier’s method of linguistic comparison does not work (i.e., NT “style” can also be Josephan “style”). [LAYMAN] also adopts Meier’s conclusion that the style of the TF is “Josephan”; what Meier has shown is that the words in it may be found in Josephus. I’m not sure what [LAYMAN]’s definition of “Josephan style” is. It does not seem to exclude compatibility with Eusebius’ style, or in most cases NT style. Vocabulary common to Josephus and Eusebius does not really point to either writer’s “style”. (C) I deal with this argument in my CBQ article, pp 308-309.

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.

KO: I think Eusebius made up other sources, but I’m starting with the case against the TF. He at least misquoted sources tendentiously. With all due respect to J. B. Lightfoot, who was a great scholar, he’s been dead for well over a hundred years and his opinion hardly represents the current consensus on Eusebius. See more recent works by R. M. Grant or Aryeh Kofsky about Eusebius’ use of his sources (though neither of them goes as far as to say that Eusebius fabricated the TF). Also, the argument “where we can check Eusebius against his source, he had a source” is a tautology and not terribly useful.

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Under the second head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his materials or not ? .... Nor again can the special charges against his honour as a narrator be sustained. There is no ground whatever for the surmise that Eusebius forged or interpolated the passage from Josephus relating to our Lord quoted in H. E. i 11, though Heinichen (iii. p. 623 sq., Melet. ii.) is disposed to entertain the charge. Inasmuch as this passage is contained in all our extant MSS, and there is sufficient evidence that other interpolations (though not this) were introduced into the text of Josephus long before his time (see Orig. c. Cels. i. 47, Delarue's note), no suspicion can justly attach to Eusebius himself. Another interpolation in the Jewish historian, which he quotes elsewhere (ii. 23), was certainly known to Origen (l. c.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death (H. E. ii. 10) was already in some texts of Josephus (Ant. xix. 8, 2). The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge.

Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful not only to collect the best evidence accessible, but also to distinguish between different kinds of evidence. "Almost every page witnesses to the zeal with which he collected testimonies from writers who lived at the time of the events which he describes. For the sixth and seventh books he evidently rejoices to be able to use for the foundation of his narrative the contemporary letters of Dionysius; 'Dionysius, our great bishop of Alexandria,' he writes, 'will again help me by his own words in the composition of my seventh book of the history, since he relates in order the events of his own time in the letters which he has left' (vii. praef.) . . . In accordance with this instinctive desire for original testimony, Eusebius scrupulously distinguishes facts which rest on documentary from those which rest on oral evidence. Some things he relates on the authority of a 'general' (iii. 11, 36) or 'old report' (iii. 19, 20) or from tradition (i. 7, . 9, vi. 2, &c.). In the lists of successions he is careful to notice where written records failed him. 'I could not,' he says, ' by any means find the chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem preserved in writing; thus much only I received from written sources, that there were fifteen bishops in succession up to the date of the siege under Hadrian, &c.' (iv. 5)." [W.] "There is nothing like hearing the actual words" of the writer, he says again and again (i. 23, iii. 32, vii. 23; comp. iv. 23), when introducing a quotation.

The general sincerity and good faith of the historian seem therefore to be assured.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

KO: This is a generic objection that applies to all arguments from content. I wonder how [LAYMAN] would make the case for Christian interpolation in the TF without bringing in subjective judgments. And, not having read Eusebius’ Demonstratio, how can he know my theory is *very* subjective?

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:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his prejudicial intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer, but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he was an unbeliever and unwilling, this should be true, he has not denied it to be so."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

KO: This passage comes from an anonymous Latin text (CSEL 66, 2.12.) sometimes attributed to Ambrose, but usually called the De Excidio of Pseudo-Hegesippus by scholarly convention. Whealey makes a great deal of it because it lacks the sentence “he was the Christ” and “because it is the only version that cannot have been influenced by Eusebius” (TZ 297). Note the word only. She goes so far as to suggest that all of Pseudo-Hegesippus sources were in Latin, and that Eusebius’ works were not available in Latin when Ps-H wrote. Her contention is that if Ps-H knew of the sentence “he was the Christ” he would have quoted it. I have a number of criticisms of Whealey’s argument (upon which I think [LAYMAN] depends): 1) This is a paraphrase, not a quotation. Whealey’s argument as to what a paraphraser must have included is necessarily speculative. The paraphrase does not include, for instance, the name Jesus. Do we need to hypothesize that this was not in the text because it was not quoted? The passage is not even a close paraphrase (see below). 2) Whealey’s argument that Ps-H. did not know Eusebius (or any Greek sources) is in disagreement with other scholars who think he did (Sanford, Mras; I have not yet read A. Bell’s dissertation). Also, her theory would seem to require the availability of Latin versions of Josephus’ works for which we have no other evidence. Why did Rufinus c. 402 and Cassiodorus’ groupin the 6th c. need to translate Josephus into Latin if a translation were already available when Ps.-H wrote c. 370? And if we can hypothesize a lost Latin Josephus, why not a lost Latin Eusebius as well? 3) Is Whealey arguing that a Christian writer must have included “he was the Christ” but might understandably have omitted “he was believed to be the Christ”? This would be a very fine distinction on which to insist. Or is she arguing that there was no such sentence at all? She seems to be hedging her bets here. I will discuss her theory that the original reading was “he was believed to be the Christ” below. 4) [LAYMAN]’s rendering of the passage is incomplete and omits a good deal of material that might count against his thesis. Parts of the TF occur in De Excidio 2.12 a few sentences before the attribution to Josephus, “For many of the Jews and many of the Greeks believed in him and were attracted to him by his teaching of morals and performance of works beyond human culpability. Not even his death put an end to their faith and love, but rather it increased their devotion” (Whealey trans., TZ, 297). [LAYMAN] also omits the part of the passage immediately following the words “congregation of Christians” which Whealey renders “infiltrating every race of humans, nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world that is without his religion”. This certainly did not come from Josephus. It looks to me like Ps.-H may have gotten it from Eusebius. It’s not a direct quotation, but Eusebius uses this line of apologetic argument in the Demonstratio and the Theophania in the chapters near where he “cites”the TF. Also, immediately following the lines quoted by [LAYMAN], we find “In this the eternal power of Jesus Christ shown forth so that even the leaders of the synagogue who arrested him and delivered him up to death acknowledged him to be God” (Whealey trans.; H. Schreckenberg renders the last part “confessed his divinity”; the Latin is “deum fatebantur”). What is Ps.-H’s source for this? Given that Ps-H. paraphrases freely, could this not be inspired by the TF? Following the Greek word order as closely as possible, the TF has: “He was the Christ and he, on the declaration of the principal men among us, was condemned to the cross by Pilate”. It looks to me like Ps.-H has interpreted “He was the Christ” to be the content of the declaration of the principal men, and that the TF is the basis of Ps.H’s statement. Further, it looks as though Ps-H. is using the reading of the TF found in Eusebius' Demonstratio (and presumably was in the Greek Theophania) which has "our rulers" (TWN PAR' hHMIN ARXONTWN) instead of "our principal men". Ps.-H seems to have interpreted the "rulers" to be the "rulers of the synagogue" (cf. Lk. 8.41, ARXWN THS SUNAGWGHJ). In any event, I think that given the use Ps.-H makes of the TF–using some material twice, omitting other material, paraphrasing freely or adding material (sometimes it’s difficult to tell which), Whealey’s effort to reconstruct an original reading of the TF on the basis of Ps.-H.’s text is more than a bit optimistic. In short, I am not persuaded that Ps.-H knew anything other than the version of the TF that has come down to us in the Greek manuscripts of Josephus and Eusebius.

LAYMAN: 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."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josephus in the 18th book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the pharisees, on account of the greatness of his miracles.... Now he wrote concerning our Lord after this manner: "At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles -- he was believed to be the Christ. And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, yet notwithstanding those who had loved him at first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful things concerning him: and the sect of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

KO: Whealey notes that both Jerome’s Latin TF and Michael the Syrian’s TF have the equivalent of “he was thought/believed to be the Christ”. This is the strongest part of her case. However, she’s aware that Jerome is probably dependant on Eusebius’ HE here (TZ, 299-300), as he is for his information about Josephus elsewhere in the De Viris Illustribus, though Jerome seems to have direct knowledge of Josephus in other works. She also believes that Michael the Syrian does not know Josephus first hand, but is dependant on Jacob of Edessa, who is in turn dependant on Eusebius’ HE for his information about Josephus (TZ, 303). So Jerome and Michael are both dependant on Eusebius’ HE for their TF.

Whealey therefore hypothesizes that the TF in Eusebius’ HE originally read “who was believed to be the Christ”, but that this was later changed. Based on two witnesses, both of which are translations, she postulates an “original” HE that disagrees with all our texts of the TF found in the Antiquities, in the Greek HE (and the Latin and Syriac translations), and of the Demonstratio and the Syriac translation of the Theophania. This is possible, but she does not tell us who in the early church would have cared enough about whether Josephus said “was believed to be the Christ” or “was the Christ” to make all these changes, how this was accomplished, or why they didn’t alter other texts in the Ant. or HE (as well as Dem. And Theoph. ?) that qualify the assertion that Jesus is the Christ. Also, I suspect that the resemblance between Jerome’s and Michael’s versions of the TF may be more apparent English translation than in the original languages. I don’t know Syriac, so I’ll have to check with my advisor on that. Pines (Arabic Version of the TF, n. 109, p. 27) says Michael’s version could also be translated “Perhaps he was the Messiah”. This suggests to me there’s some latitude in how to translate the Syriac. Every translation is an interpretation. Michael’s rendering of the passage seems to take the statement “He was the Christ” and interpret it as being in opposition Josephus’ statement about the testimony of the principal men which follows it: “He was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation” (Pines trans., 26). It also appears that Jerome’s translation of the passage is not entirely felicitous. Note his insertion of the words “followers” (sectatores) and “envy” (invidia) that have no equivalent in the Greek text, though Jerome seems to think they were implied. While I admit that my case for Eusebian authorship of the TF requires some speculation, so does Whealey’s case for authenticity. I think my speculations are a bit more firmly based in the likely motivations of ancient Christian writers. And if she should turn out to be correct about an earlier form of the TF in the HE (which I think is unlikely) this still would not prove that Eusebius didn’t write it. Jerome and Michael are still dependant on Eusebius for their TF’s, whatever the original reading may have been.

LAYMAN: 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.

KO: [LAYMAN] is apparently not aware of my CBQ article. I wasn’t familiar with Whealey when I wrote it (about six years ago now) but it does deal with Pines (from whom Charlesworth takes his case) and Agapius. In particular, it should be noted that Pines believes Agapius’ source was dependent on some version of Eusebius’ HE for the TF, an opinion shared by Whealey (TZ, 302).

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Layman
All is a bit too strong a word, dont you think?

&lt;...rushing back...&gt;

He finds it arguing for full authenticity.

Because you do NOT agree with some of his arguments.

An author writes:
"Below I shall argue that this entire table is made of copper...
This table is NOT partially made of copper, but is fully made of copper...
The top is entirely made of copper...
The bottom is not necessarily made of copper...
Therefore this entire table is made of copper."

Would you conclude from the above argument that the author argues consistently that the table is made of copper? Or would you say the author allows that part of the table is NOT necessarily made of copper?

I know what Oslon asserts at the beginning and at the end of his article. I also know that in the course of his argument, he admits some parts are NOT necessarily Eusebian. He DOES NOT make any effort refute the probability that some of those parts are NOT necessarily Eusebian. He accepts the probability (or the arguments), therefore, he allows for interpolation by others other than Eusebius. Whether Oslon admits this or NOT, or whether he is even aware of the double-meaning one can get from his article is another matter. But that is what I get from his article.
Of course you don't agree. And perhaps Kirby does not agree either. But lets move on to other pertinet issues of this thread. It seems you prefer to embrace what the author asserts as opposed to what he actually does/ demonstrates in the course of his argument(s).
I dont have such a huge problem with that - I am more interested in the individual arguments he puts forth.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Layman

I am glad that Olson chose to respond to my post. I look forward to seeing a revised version of his article. I am disappointed, however, that he made no response to my questions about burden of proof and testing the methodology. From reading his article it does not appear that he has an appreciation for the ambitious nature of the project or the fact that he has an uphill battle to win.

It almost seems like Olson is arguing that Meier's methodology is too flawed to prove his point. Yet he admits to using Meier's methodology. Is this just to show how the methodology does not work? Or does he actually think it supports his argument?

In any event, I disagree that he's doing the same thing that Meier did. Here is the problem. Olson was not using the "same" method as Meier and is ignoring the context of the analysis. Meier was comparing Josephus to the New Testament. The assumption being -- reasonably -- that Christians seeking to interpolate "historical" statements about Jesus would tend to color the interpolation with language from the New Testament. Significantly, Josephus is "untainted" by the New Testament and the New Testament is "untainted" by Josephus (excluding the TF from consideration for the moment). Josephus was not influenced to any extent by the New Testament and the New Testament was not influence to any extent by Josephus (excluding the Luke/Josephus who-used-who-if-at-all controversy).

The same is not true for Josephus vs. Eusebius. As I pointed out and Olson ignored, Eusebius was substantially influenced by the writings of Josephus. "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." Accordingly, when Olson points out that the language of the TF can be found in Josephus and Eusebius I am not very impressed because Eusebius was influenced by Josephus. When Meier points out that parts of the TF show similarities to NT language and parts of it show more similarities to Josephus, that is impressive because neither sources had a substantial (or any) impact on the other.

Additionally, Olson has the burden of proof here. Olson seems to think that showing commonality of phraseology supports his conclusion that Eusebius is the interpolator. That is not the case. If Josephus uses the phrase "nation of" commonly throughout his writings and Eusebius uses the same phrase to describe Christians (who are the main focus of his writings) this is not persuasive evidence that Josephus could not have written the TF and that Eusebius must have written the TF.

Does this mean that Olson concedes that his linguistic/stylistic comparisons no longer support his theory? That the section entitled "Langauge" does not support his conslusion?

I did not say Eusebius was necessarily mimicking Josephus' style here. I was pointing out that it's not unexpected that Josephus would use this phrase and some of the language is very common for him. Moreover, I did not say it "doesn't count" I said it was less probative than it appears. And it is.

I'm still examining the alleged "apologetic" purposes of Eusebius, but this argument is unconvincing because it completely ignores the Josephan characteristics. Josephus makes widespread use of the phrase "nation of" and its consistent with his style for him to use that term for Christians. As for Eusebius pointing out that Christians are named after Christ, so what? Since Christians were better known to the Empire than Jesus was, it fits in well with Josephus' purposes to point out where these Christians -- who he would not associate with Jews or Gentiles -- came from. So where it fits in well with Josephus' style and purpose, the fact that Olson can come up with an argument that these phrases also fits in with Eusebius' purposes does not win the argument for him.

And since Eusebius only mentions the TF once in the Proof of the Gospel, it's not convincing to argue that the entire Proof is modeled on the TF. Indeed, from what I have read, Eusebius only makes a limited use of the TF in the Proof and does not connect it to all the arguments is convinced the TF was meant to support. I will get into this more when I have finished reviewing the Proof of the Gospel and the rest of Olson's article.

Well, just because something is "imaginable" doesn't make it likely. Especially when you have the burden of proof and the counter-argument is equally or more persuasive. Additionally, Olson is willing to stretch Eusebian usage and "make it fit" while never giving Josephus -- in who's manuscripts the TF appears -- the same benefit. What is remarkable about this" is that it is actually is rare in Josephus, except in Books 17-19, where it appears 8 times. The leading theory on the distinctive use of "received with pleasure" in those three books is that it was typical of the Assistant that Josephus relied on towards the end of Antiquities. Indeed, it appears that Josephus became more dependent on his assistants towards the end of his works, and their language comes out more as a result.

Here is how Louis Freedman makes the case:

"In particular, Thackeray, the prince of Josephan scholars, who went so far in his study of Josephus' language as to compose a lexicon to Josephus for his own use so as to see how precisely each word is used in Josephus and whether there is evidence of shifts of style in various parts of his works due to his "assistants" or to other reasons, noted that the phrase 'such people as accept the truth gladly' is characteristic of the scribe in this part of the Antiquities, since the phrase appears eight times in books 17-19 (supposedly the work of the Thucydidean assistant) and nowhere else in Josephus. Christian interpolation is unlikely, since the word in the New Testament and in early Christian writings had a pejorative connotation. George C. Richards, another careful student of Josephus' language, notes several other stylistic peculiarities indicating that the passage is authentic." Louis H. Feldman, "The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question," Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah Edwards, at 188

So Olson concedes that there is no parrallel in Eusbius, but common usage of the term in Josephus? Again Olson seems intent on giving Eusebius every benefit of the doubt, while never extending the same courtesy to Josephus.

Well, I knew Olson had an article out there, but I only relied on what Kirby referred to in his article.

I'll address the first point in a later post, but how on earth am I "disqualified" from using Meier's analysis simply because I believe that an independent manuscript tradition contained the phrase "he was believed to be the Christ"? It's entirely possible that the first interpolation was to add the phrase, "he was believed to be the Christ" and that was subsequently juiced up to be more direct, "he was the Christ." Nothing about this theory requires that the original TF included either phrase. In fact, I lean towards thinking that "he was believed to be the Christ" was not a part of the original, though I do not rule out the possibility.

No, what it suggests is that content and context must be considered with style. Obviously, Meier agrees.

There are some distinctly Josephan phrases in the core of the TF and there are some phrases that are common to Josephus and other writers, including Eusebius. To the extent there is vocabulary "common to Josephus and Euesebius" it certainly should not be used to claim that Eusebius invented it. At least, not standing alone.

First, while I would be interested in any future arguments that Olson might make about "other" inventions, he concedes by implication that he has no evidence or support for that conclusion at this time.

Second, I realize that Lightfoot is dead, but he was a respected Eusebian scholar. And while you point me to more recent scholars, you provide no argument/support/discussion that contradicts Lightfoot's statement. I actually am reading Grant and another book by David Wallace-Hadrill on Eusebius and neither of them accuse Eusebius of inventing sources. So we finish where we strarted -- although Eusebius purports to use many different sources, there is no evidence -- or even suspicion among modern scholars -- that he felt free to invent them.

And my argument is not just that "where we can check him he uses sources," but that we have checked him against many, many confirmed sources and not found a case of invention. Alternation or free quoting perhaps, but not outright invention.

How? Because I read Olson's argument -- which is inherently subjective -- and I read AH, EH, and the Theophany. I didn't say it was wrong or could not be persuasive, but that its an uphill battle to make the case.

Actually, I did not know she wrote about Ambrose/Psuedo-Hegesippus.

Using the term "Jesus" would have been redundant. But noting that a leading Jewish historian thought that Jesus "was the Christ" certainly would not have been redundant. In fact, it would have lent great support to his argument that Jesus was divine. Jews did not doubt that Christ was called Jesus, they did doubt that he "was the Christ."

But we have no clear PH dependence on Eusebius? Is that correct? Even if he was aware of Eusebius, that does not mean he would not rely on the Josephus manuscript he had before him.

I do not know what Whealey argues. The argument was mine. My argument is as follows.

First, the author would not have omitted the phrase "he was the Christ" when he is arguing for Jesus' divinity and pointing to what even the Jews agreed to. Accordingly, the phrase "he was the Christ" probably was not in the manuscripts that the author relied on.

Second, it is possible that the author did not believe that a Jew claiming that "he was believed to be the Christ" would support his argument. I do not think there is a "fine distinction" between Josephus asserting that Jesus "was the Christ" and him asserting that some people "believed he was the Christ." Of course that is a tremendous difference. Even Jewish opponents of Christianity would not disagree that many believed that Jesus was the Christ. They would vehemently deny that Jesus "was the Christ." Accordingly, it is possible -- although not certain -- that the author's text did include the phrase "he was believed to be the Christ" but he failed to mention it in the paraphrase.

Unfortunately, I will have to return to this to finish it up. Thanks for your patience.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Speaking only as to Jerome, Louis Freedman concludes that Jerome was quoting the TF from a Greek text of Josephus:

"An examination of the citation shows that though he is clearly quoting, Jerome says that Jesus credebatur esse Christus. Hence his text said not that Jesus was the Messiah, but that he was believed to be a Messiah. This would fit the statement, noted above of Origen, to whom Jerome was so indebted, that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Christ."

Louis H. Feldman, "The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question," Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah Edwards, at 184.

And,

"That fact that Jerome in his quotation of Antiquities 18.63 reads credebatur esse Christus would seem to indicate that Jerome's Greek text read "he was believed to be the Messiah" rather than "he was the Messiah," a reading similar to that in the Arabic version of Agapius and the Syriac version of Michael the Syrian."

Id. at 192.

Layman

In his conclusion, Olson states the following:

My question is this. If all of our Josephus texts and references that include the TF are a result of Christian readings of Eusebius' History of the Church, then why do none of them place the TF after the reference to John the Baptist?

In the History of the Church, Eusebius quotes Josephus' reference to John the Baptist, and then states, "After relating these things concerning John, Josephus in the same work, also makes mention of our Saviour in the following manner..." Eusebius then proceeds to provide us with the present version of the TF.

If Christians added the TF to their Josephus texts based on their reading of the History of the Church, then why did they all interpolate it in before the section discussing John the Baptist and not include any mention of Jesus in, near, or after the John the Baptist reference? If the only knowledge of the TF held by all Christians was Eusebius' mention of it in the History of the Church, then shouldn't there be some references or manuscripts which followed Eusebius in placing the TF in, near, or after the John the Baptist reference?

Of course, if there already existed pre-Eusebian texts of Josephus (as I believe the Ambrose, Jerome, and Syriac citations indicate) that had a version of the TF in them, then the placement of the TF in our references and texts is easily explained.