jakejonesiv

Hi TrueMyth,

IIDB is like jumping in the deep end of the pool. If you want to learn something new, I would encourage you to stick around. The TF is as good a place to start as any, so I look forward to your additional contributions.

I am regularly corrected by people who know more than I do on any particular subject. Where else are you going to get that kind of feedback?

Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

One possible indication of an underlying text different from the standard TF is the absence in Pseudo-Hegesippus of any allusion to 'he was the Christ' or any variant thereof.

This is one of the phrases often regarded as an interpolation in the standard TF.

Andrew Criddle

the_cave

The TF in Pseudo-Hegesippus also appears with material taken from around the same location it appears in Antiquties (the story of Paulina, for example). This material appears near the same location in Pseudo-Hegesippus as his (?) version of the TF, and it seems to me like he was obviously collating it from Antiquities, filling in the other sources he had with a chunk from Antiquities XVIII. Besides a reference to the list of high priests in Antiquities XX, no other material from Antiquities appears in Pseudo-Hegesippus, and all of it appears around his mention of the TF. I think it's fair to say that all this goes to show that the TF appeared in Antiquities before it appeared in Pseudo-Hegesippus, and that there is no direct connection between Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius.

In this amateur's opinion, anyway.

jakejonesiv

The Pseudo-Hegesippus doesn't mention Pilate either :funny: and that is one of the things you want to retain!

But let me restate that P-H does not contain a version of the TF or even a paraphrase of it. It is a discussion about the TF so leaving the odd bit out is not necessarily significant.

As Ken pointed out in the link above, everything that we do find about the TF in the Pseudo-Hegesippus can be derived from the extant copies of Josephus' Antiquties and Eusebius' Church History. To postulate a separate and otherwise unknown textual tradition is unnecessary.

Jake Jones IV

the_cave

I think the point is, it doesn't need to derive from Eusebius (and in fact I would argue it does not--it probably derives entirely from Antiquities). If the TF is dependent on Eusebius, it would need to be interpolated into Antiquities first, and then into Pseudo-Hegesippus (not impossible, though a somewhat complicated hypothesis). At any rate, the version in Pseudo-Hegesippus is certainly at least a paraphrase--which didn't need to mention Pilate's role, since he is discussed at length in the lines just before the TF is mentioned! I have no opinion about the missing "He was the Christ".

Didymus

Surely P-H realized, as every knowledgeable reader of the TF realizes, that Josephus was a Jew and would not have called Jesus "the Christ." He naturally would have hesitated to perpetuate such an obvious error. The Pepsodent may have been out of the tube, but there was no point in smearing it around.

Was Eusebius really so arrogant as to think he could get away with promoting such an egregious interpolation? Knowing that the veracity of the phrase would have thrown the entire passage into question, why didn't he edit it? Surely the (naive scribe's?) interpolation could have been adjusted to make it clear that Josephus was not himself referring to Jesus as "the Christ." But no, Eusebius allowed the ambiguity to remain intact.

Too much communion wine, perhaps? Scribal fatigue? It's one of God's great mysteries. Or maybe we should apply the silly "Criterion of Embarrassment" to this case, i.e., Josephan authorship is utterly preposterous. Therefore, Josephus himself must have written the TF, including the reference to "the Christ," else Eusebius would not have have had the audacity to pass it along.

I seem to remember a quote from an ancient scribe insisting that Josephus' hand was guided by God himself - presumably without the knowledge of Josephus. Maybe that accounts for it!:grin:

Didymus

aa5874

There is something odd about the passages of the TF with reference to Jesus the Christ. It is strange that, outside of the Bible, the contemporary historians only knowledge of 'Jesus the Christ' was through the TF. I would expect other historians to have independent sources.

The Bible describes Jesus as being extremely popuplar and doing miracles of enormous proportions, it is incredible that only Josephus can recall those events.

lpetrich

And worse yet, say so little about them in comparison to what he says about other self-styled prophets like Theudas and "The Egyptian".

the_cave

Somewhat doubtful, since P-H states specifically that Josephus both truthfully recorded the TF, and yet was also a disbeliever. This doesn't prove andrewcriddle's theory that "He was the Christ" wasn't in the TF as P-H read it, but it does suggest the real possibility. Though as I have said, I personally don't have an opinion about it.

In which case, it was in the version that Eusebius knew.

I think you are missing andrewcriddle's point. To repeat myself, P-H does strongly suggest that the TF appeared in Antiquities before it appeared in Pseudo-Hegesippus. This in no way demonstrates that it is original to Josephus. It simply means what it means: it appeared in Antiquities (however that happened) before it appeared in P-H.

gurugeorge

Doesn't E himself (or is it P-H?) say somewhere that the fact Josephus put this in shows how amazing this whole Jesus Christ thing is, because it made a Jew put down as testimony something a Jew normally wouldn't?

If he made the interpolation, then this interpretation would make perfect sense, in his own terms.