Roger Pearse

Eusebius was a very common text; Josephus in its full form a rare one. In such circumstances scribes were likely to be more familiar with the former than the latter. If they read a passage in the latter which seemed to quote the former, and do it wrongly, they were likely to 'correct' the latter, unconsciously even. The same phenomenon is seen with copies of the gospels.

This does happen with the TF; the text of the TF in Jerome differs from that in Eusebius, but copies of the Greek translation of Jerome have harmonised the text back to the Eusebian form.

Syriac sources can be very early; the Eusebius translation into that language was probably made in E's lifetime. Michael the Syrian reflects the same text variant as Jerome does, suggesting a Greek variant. This is why I was interested what testimonia to the passage existed, especially in oriental languages.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

These are actual quotations of it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Thank you for the quote. There is certainly no reason why Tacitus could not have used Josephus, and it wouldn't make any real difference to my point to have 3 rather than 2 sources for 11-20.

However I would draw a distinction between the 2 sources that I list, where there is no possible disagreement of opinion, and this one, which relies on judgement (good or bad) on which people might legitimately have different opinions. In short I would distinguish between data and inference, so would prefer still to say '2'.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for this answer. My question is, Who can we first be "sure" read Josephus after Eusebius?

I am not sure if we can simply accept a writer of a forged document by an unknown author, discovered in medieval times, even if we are willing to insult a Church Father, Ambrose, and insist that he is responsible for the document.

S.C. Carlson noted in 2004:

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...-eusebius.html

Currently, I'm thinking that "He was the Christ" was post-Eusebian, and that Pseudo-Hegesippus is a witness to the Eusebian form of the Testimonium.

If we wish to accept Pseudo-Hegesippus as chronological evidence for a reading of Josephus,, we must ask who is the first to refer to Pseudo-Hegesippus' works. My question is, "How do we know that this is not a 9th or 10th Century forgery as opposed to a 4th Century forgery?"



Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

From Roger Pearse:

The author refers to the triumphant position of the Roman empire, which suggests that it must precede the imperial crisis brought on by the disastrous defeat and death of the emperor Valens in battle with the Goths at Adrianople in 378, and still more so the sack of Rome in 410.

Also, according to Marian Hiller, the oldest manuscript of pseudo-Hegesippus dates to century VI.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for this.

The Byzantine Empire considered itself the triumphant continuation of the Roman Empire, so a statement about the triumphant Roman Empire would only preclude the work being after 1452 when Constantinople fell.

Marian Hiller (http://www.socinian.org/files/TestimoniumFlavianum.pdf) asserts that it is from the Sixth Century but lists no source for this information.

The text of Pseudo-H contains the phrase "If the Jews do not believe us, they might believe one of their own."

As I recall, Eusebius makes the same point. In refuting Jews in Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius says "And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus" The emphasis on the Jewishness of Josephus in order to strengthen their arguments against the Jews cannot be a coincidence.

This would indicate that the author has read Eusebius and Hiller is mistaken that this is an independent text. Whether it is from a Sixth century manuscript or a much later one, as I suspect, should be investigated more carefullly

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

That is right. We are beyond my resources at the moment.

Sure it can. The overlap is purely thematic and wholly natural. Calling Josephus a Hebrew or a Jew is hardly surprising. Clement of Alexandria writes of Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews in Miscellanies 1.21 when introducing a chronological point of his. Tertullian lumps the Jew Josephus in with a list of other authors in Apologeticum 19. Neither of these used Eusebius.

Besides, as I mentioned before, we already know that pseudo-Hegesippus had access to Josephus apart from Eusebius.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

From Josephus and Pseudo-Hegesippus by Albert Bell pps 349-361 of Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) edited by Feldman and Hata

Earliest manuscripts of pseudo-Hegesippus Ambrosianus C 105 inf. and Cassellanus both from the early sixth century.

Earliest allusion to the work is a verbatim quotation by Eucherius c 430 CE in De Situ Hierosolimitanae urbis atque ipsius Iudaeae Epistula ad Faustum presbyterum.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the comments. I was in a hurry and did not make clear my proof that PH knows Eusebius. The proof is not based on both texts referring to the Jewishness of Josephus. As you correctly point out, other authors have done this. My proof is from the parallelism and progressive nature of the attack connected with the Testimonium. It is structural rather than thematic and that means it cannot be natural, but can only be explained from direct knowledge.

First, we should note the text before Eusebius cites the testimonium in theophania and demonstatio evangelica.

theophania Book V. 43…
For those, who gave credence to their other accounts, could not have with-holden their belief from these. How then, should those be (deemed) worthy of exemption from every suspicion of vice, who concealed nothing of the truth, as to the difficulties and calamities (so happening); and not also worthy of all credit, as to the other miraculous deeds which they attested respecting Him ? The testimony therefore, of these men respecting our Saviour, is sufficient. There is nevertheless, nothing to prohibit our availing ourselves, even the more abundantly, of the Hebrew witness Josephus; who, in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writing the things that belonged to the times of Pilate, commemorates our Saviour in these words:

Eusebius is saying that if skeptics (primarily Jewish ones) believe the bad things the apostles say, they must believe the good things about Jesus too. There is no reason for the Apostles to lie about the good things that Jesus did, and if they didn't lie about the bad things because of their respect for truth, the skeptical Jews have no reason not to believe. The evidence of the Apostles is sufficient for them to believe.


demonstratio evangelica3.5

But what? Would it not have been more impressive, instead of making up these inventions of His miraculous deeds, to have written that He experienced nothing of the lot of human beings or mortals, but that after having settled all things with power divine He returned to heaven with diviner glory? For, of course, those who believed their other accounts would have believed this.
And surely they who have set no false stamp on anything that is true in the incidents of shame and gloom, ought to be regarded as above suspicion in other accounts wherein they have attributed miracles to Him. Their evidence then may be considered sufficient about our (b) Saviour. And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus 76 as |143 well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words:

The content is different, but the structure of the argument is nearly identical

People should believe the apostles because they admitted to shameful incidents that happened to Jesus. This is sufficient for people to believe them when they tell of miracles by Jesus.

Now look at Eusebius' argument just following the presentation of the Testimonium in the Church History

1.11.9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.


Eusebius is again bringing up the issue of belief. This time he is saying that because a Jew himself, Josephus, has said good things about Jesus, it is shameful not to believe them. This is the reverse of his other arguments. Instead of saying that the Christians have said bad things about Jesus and that is suffiicent reason to believe them, he is arguing that a Jew has said good things about Jesus and that is sufficient reason to believe the good things about Jesus and hate those who attack Jesus. He specifies that it is those in his own time who forged the Acts of Pilate that are responsible for a skeptical attack against Jesus.

The movement of the argument in the three text can be summed up this way:

1 and 2. (demonstratio and theophania) Skeptical Jews do not believe apostles when they say good things about Jesus' miracles, Apostles say bad things about Jesus, not because they want to, but because they respect the truth. Therefore, this is a sufficient reason for the Jews/skeptics to believe the good and miraculous things about Jesus.
3. (historia)A Jew himself has said good things about Jesus. Therefore, this is sufficient to hate those (skeptics) who say bad things.

Now here is the Testimonium and following argument in Pseudo-Hegesippus Book 2.12:

About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. [p. 164] from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. But the damage of the temple did not move them, but because they were chastized by him in scandal and sacrilege, from this their wrath flared up that they should kill him, whom no ages had held. For while others had earned by praying to do what they did, he had it in his power that he could order all things what he wished to be done. John the Baptist a holy man, who never placed the truth of salvation in second place, had been killed before the death of Jesus.


The argument picks up just where Eusebius' third argument does. A Jew, Josephus, believes good things about Christ. This is sufficient evidence for all the Jews to believe.
Now there is an inversion and parallelism with the argument about the apostles' writings that Eusebius makes in demonstratio and theophania.
Instead of the apostles who wrote bad things about Jesus, not because they wanted to, but because of their loyalty to truth, we are told that Josephus wrote good things about Jesus, not because he wanted to, but because of his loyalty to the truth.

Here are the four arguments:

The movement of the argument in the four text can be summed up this way:

1 and 2. (demonstratio and theophania) Skeptical Jews do not believe apostles when they say good things about Jesus' miracles, Apostles say bad things about Jesus, not because they want to, but because they respect the truth. Therefore, this is a sufficient reason for them to believe the good and miraculous things about Jesus.
3. (historia)A Jew himself has said good things about Jesus. Therefore, this is sufficient to greatly hate those (skeptics) who say bad things.
4 ( PH) A great Jew whom the loves should love says good things about Jesus. This should be sufficient reason to believe in Jesus. Josephus says good things about Jesus, not because he wants to, being a skeptical Jew, but because he believes in truth.



Since we find both parallelism and inversion of Eusebius' very specific argument, the evidence is to me conclusive that the writer of PH was not only aware of Eusebius' Church History "Testimonium," but was also aware of one or both other Testimoniums of Eusebius.

Additionally, one should notice the immediate and brief mention of John the Baptist after the Church History Testimonium and PH Testimonium. This is another fabulous coincidence that needs to be explained away if we assume no direct knowledge between the two text.

The question now becomes why didn't the forger just quote Eusebius' Testimonium verbatim. The answer is simply that this would have exposed the forgery as coming in the Fourth Century, while the aim of creating the document is to establish an independent early source of Jewish history that does not rely on Eusebius and can rewrite Josephus from an entirely Christian point of view.

Please note: the issue of when this forgery took place is independent of the nature of the forgery. It is possible that it is a Fourth century deception, but I have to examine the evidence for that more carefully. Clearly, it is being written at a time when hatred of Judaism as a serious rival ideology is quite strong. I don't really think of the Fourth century as such a time, but I'll investigate further as I have the time.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for this. Albert Bell wrote his dissertation on Pseudo-H, so I guess when it come to him, he's the man.

Still, I'll check out these sources.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay