Asha'man

I’m not a historical scholar, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I have read Frank Zindler’s The Jesus the Jews Never Knew.

Zindler devotes two entire chapters to Josephus, citing numerous likely interpolations. I’m not going to list everything here, but there is quite a bit. I’d recommend that you pick up this book, it’s a good read if nothing else.

As to the source of the TF alteration, Zindler concludes that:

GakuseiDon

Does he give any examples of Eusebius altering texts?

Does anyone know any examples of where Eusebius supposedly lied about texts, besides the TF?

spin

While you are correct that a forger will attempt to use the language of the subject of the forgery, and so we often find phrases from the subject, it is where the forger can't keep it up that is interesting.

Layman doesn't see a problem with prwtwn andrwn, but it is not the expression in itself, but the expression in the context twn prwtwn andrwn par' hmin, "the principal men among us". This "among us", par' hmin, is rather rare in Josephus and doesn't occur with "principal men" except here. "Among us" is rather frequent in Eusebius in the context of "elder brethren among us", "divine martyrs among us", and various people "among us", so while "principal men" could be attributable to Josephus, "the principal men among us".

More interesting of Layman's comments is this piece of sophistry:

The expression "most notably" suggests that there are other examples, but there are in fact none. But wait, let's look at the one miserable example he has found:

Qaumasta gar kai paradoxa dia ths profhteias epedeixato erga

This is the Greek of what Layman refers to. Do you really see anything like paradoxwn ergwn? Yes, it's sort of there, and I really mean only "sort of". But wait, more interesting yet, Layman says, 'The only difference is the term used for "maker" or "doer."' Interestingly, this is an enormous difference. Josephus uses the noun poihths ten times in his works, nine times specifically to means "poet". The one time where it doesn't is the TF. And I bet you would never have guessed.

Not only does Eusebius use poihths as it is in the TF, Ken Olson points out that Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23)

This use of pohths is another sure fire indication that the TF was not written by Josephus, but lends support for Eusebius as author.

We actually have so little left of significance from the TF to attribute to our verbose Josephus.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Naturally, you can't have mention of Christians named after him without the reference to Christ.)

This is what's left after we remove what we have to and hope that none of this remainder was written by he who wrote the bulk:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;

In another thread I have indicated that the TF interrupts the narrative flow of regarding calamities which happened to the Jews.

Let's face it, despite Layman's apologetics, there is no way to meaningfully save the dregs of this passage for historical use.


spin

Johann_Kaspar

Yep the evidence is overwhelming... except for xian scholars, who will do anything to save something of the interpolation. Still I am curious to understand why the similar passage of the JW is so seldom discussed, if at all.

Another point I began to look at is "condemned to the cross". I could not find another example in Josephus. Should look at the Greek too... Obviously here xian interpolators will put the emphasy on the "cross" while Josephus could not care less. If this is a real point, it would be another argument bringing down the TF as a whole.

It is also - through Josephus works alone - very interesting to see who is crucified, for what kind of crime... (Prince of love, prince of peace, they say )

Layman

You do know that Louis Feldman is a Jewish scholar don't you? As is Geza Vermes, who also defends the partial authenticity theory. And Paul Winter.

Actually, I assume you did not know.

Layman

The reference to "principal men" is very common in Josephus, but has no counterpart in the Gospels or in any other early Christian literature. Nor in Eusebius' writings. A Christian would be much more likely to refer to "the Jews" or "the Sanhedrin", or even the "Sadducees" and/or "Pharisees." Accordingly, it is typically and uniquely Josephan.

As for the phrase "among us," it is often used by Josephus (Preface of Antiq. 1.3; Antiquities 10.2.2; 12.6.2; 14.10.1; 15.3.2; and 15.10.5). I'm not sure how you detrermined it to be rare in Josephus's writings.

What is interesting is that this "principal men" phrase is unusually concentrated in just this part of Antiquties.

Layman

There is also a similar usage for Moses.

Please note that my defense of the partial interpolation theory is in a different link. My response to Olson is much more limited.

Since I am short on time, here is my more full address to the phrase at issue:

The term for "doer" here has been claimed not to be Josephan. But Professor Meier is aware of this argument and offers an explanation:

Meier, op. cit., page 81. Furthermore, it is not all that unusual for ancient Greek authors to use occasionally a word in an unusual way.

Meier, op. cit., page 83 (emphasis added).

On balance therefore, there is nothing about this term that counts against authenticity.

One the other hand, Mason confirms that the term "startling/incredible deeds" (paradoxa) is Josephan: "Josephus often speaks of “marvels� and “incredible� things in the same breath, as the testimonium does. He even uses the phrase rendered “incredible deeds� in two other places, once of the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182; cf. 12.63)." Mason, op. cit., page 171. Yet this term is nowhere used in the New Testament to describe Jesus' miracles. Nor is it used in early Christian literature prior to its citation by Eusebius.

The reason Christians generally avoided this term is that it could just as easily be interpreted in a neutral or even negative way, such as "controversial deeds." Professor Van Voorst notes that the phrase "is ambiguous; it can also be translated 'startling/controversial deeds.'" Jesus Outside the New Testament, page 78. Professor Vermes notes that "paradoxa" is not an unambiguous reference to a Godly miracle. In fact, "students of Josephus seem to agree that the word best expressing his notion of 'miracle' is" a different Greek term that Vermes translates "sign." This is especially true when the issue concerns an extraordinary deed achieved by a man of God. Vermes, op. cit., page 7. Josephus does not use the unambiguous term, but uses "paradoxa." According to Vermes, "paradoxa" is simply too neutral standing alone to be a positive attestation. Though Josephus uses this term for Moses and Elisha, he goes out of his way to explain that the deeds described there were from God.

Vermes, op. cit., page 8. Such a neutral reference would be expected from Josephus, but not from any Christian interested in inserting the interpolation in the first place.

Dargo

Did Eusebius write anything about church history which doesn't agree with Protestant theology? How do Protestant apologists deal with that?

spin

Now, that's mind reading.

Out of the twenty books of AJ par' hmin about five times and 12.6.2 is not one of them. That's "rather rare", especially when few of them are parallel to the example in TF.


spin

spin

You'll need to be specific, given the obscurity of your previous example, ie that it looks nothing really like the model in TF, I need more help to find it.

This is understandable but apologetic. I specifically mentioned nouns: nine times out of ten they are used to mean "poet", the exception being TF. It seems that Meier avoids commenting on the nouns. That is also understandable, because he can say nothing useful about them. We have to deal with the words in question and not so much other forms, for one grammatical form can take on implications unavailable to other forms. Just think of the word "undertaker" in English with its funerial overtones not found in the verb at all. Or think of the word "gay" in relation to "gaiety". As we are dealing with the noun, Meier's comments here are not relevant.

This is extremely dismal apologetic. The "undisputed espistles of Paul" weigh in at less than 5% of AJ. Hapex legomena are more understandable with such a small corpus, but it is not when compared by the wealth of text from Josephus.

Meier's apologetic is transparent with inapprorpriate comparisons between Josephus and Paul and avoiding the fact that the noun poihths has a very specific meaning for Josephus and other writers of his era.

On the balance therefore, you should not depend on the apologetics of others.

thaumasta gar kai paradoxa dia tês prophêteias epedeixato erga
labein epinoian ergôn kainôn kai paradoxôn

The first was the one already cited and it is so unlike the form in the TF you would certainly conclude that there is no comparison. The second is a little closer, but again unlike the form used in TF, paradoxwn ergwn poihths.

Yet unlike Josephus all three words often appear in Eusebius specifically about Jesus. That's a good indication that the expression paradoxwn ergwn poihths is from Eusebius.

This doesn't make much sense as an interpretation in the context of the following statement regarding those who receive the truth with pleasure, twn hdonhi talhQh dexomenwn. This is a glowing statement as compared to the hypothesized lack of praise in the previous statement. You can scratch this one.

This should be for you an argument against Josephus using it so simply in TF and in favour of Eusebius, given the other words accompanying it with their special use in Eusebius.

Are you trying to tell me that Vermes is advocating that Josephus is writing a phrase in TF which means "a poet of deeds which are contrary to expectations"? Vermes's contribution points the finger at Eusebius whether he wanted it or not.


spin